From the start of North American colonies of European powers, empire has characterized the American experience. The role of empire in shaping the United States extends far beyond its origins as an imperial hinterland itself or its turn-of-the-20th-century heyday of possessing its own colonies. Empire as concentrated, top-down power that seeks to control others for the sake of its own agendas is a constant within US history. Empire goes beyond particular political parties, presidential administrations, or theological groupings. The impulses and perspectives of Empire have characterized and continue to characterize American politics, economics, culture, and religion in a thorough-going way. US imperialism has functioned and continues to function both within and beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States as a nation-state. Empire is a basic strategy by which those with power in the United States have sought to unite larger groups for the sake of asserting power over others, even as those within these in-groups often act against their own interests by participating in such imperial projects. Thus, empire is a technique of exploitation of those within and beyond the empire, especially those on the margins.
Scholars in postcolonial and decolonial theologies as well as recent developments in political theology have insisted that empire shapes religious traditions and imaginaries. In the case of the United States, the entanglement between imperialism and US Christianity runs deep in the powers and principalities of this world. The impact of empire on US Christianity has been most evident among those closest to its levers of power—historically speaking, straight, white, male citizens of the dominant class. Though the impact of imperialism is not limited to this group, the work of resisting imperial Christianity requires attention to communities that stand on the underside of US imperialism.
As significant expressions of US Christianity, Methodist and Wesleyan traditions in the United States have been and are shaped by the imperial practices and mindsets of their US members, even when they aspire to be “global” denominations. US empire has shaped other expressions of Methodism as well, even those that are not historically connected to the United States. Methodism’s relationship with empire is at times ambiguous, and there are ambiguities and ambivalences in how Empire has played out historically. Those on the margins of empire have appropriated the openings created by empire for their own purposes. Nevertheless, the exploitation and injustice that are inherent to empire go against basic tenets of Christianity, especially in its Wesleyan expressions.
Writing from within Methodist traditions, the authors in this volume provide testimonies of a “theological surplus,” as Joerg Rieger has termed it, in the tradition: while imperial forces seek to control everything, God’s work exceeds the grasp of empire. This volume will include historical and theological reflections that elevate these experiences and that showcase Methodism as a denominational tradition that has historically resisted US imperialism even as it often times succumbs to it.
This volume therefore suggests that resistance to empire is a biblical imperative. The Bible makes it clear that God’s power does not stem from domination over but from identification with God’s interactions with God’s creation. These interactions are marked by love, justice, service, and freedom. This biblical depiction of God inspires us to our own work of resisting empire and crafting alternatives to it, especially within the church. These alternatives to empire are indeed the first fruits of God’s new creation. By so doing, we join in partnership with God and others in the work of doing God’s will on earth as in heaven, and we open ourselves to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, who helps us grow in our love for others.
Given the impact of Empire on the American church and on Methodism as a historically and predominantly American denominational tradition, and given the Christian imperative to resist any system that identifies a Lord other than Christ, we intend to develop a book project that will serve as a resource for the work of resisting Empire. We intend that this resource will be primarily geared toward a popular audience, rather than a scholarly one. The goal is to bring along people for whom a critique of Empire does not come naturally but who recognize on some level the problems of imperial Christianity and who are open to trying as Christians to live in a new way.
We envision a collection of writings that draw upon a variety of disciplines: biblical studies, theology, history, missiology, etc., that will help readers better understand how the forces of empire have impacted Methodism (in its various expressions) and its practices and how the church can move towards a non-imperial manner of being and acting. To do so, we anticipate that authors will explore different forms of empire—not just political and military might, but also economics, culture, media, and other forms of “soft” empire. Moreover, we recognize that imperial power is not static but grows, fluctuates, and declines over time. We also anticipate that authors will explore the ways in which empire interacts with other categories of analysis such as race, class, nation and nationalism, geography (rural/urban, for instance), sexuality, the environment, and the body. Again, the goal of this analysis is not primarily to advance conversations in the academy but to use the resources of the academy to help educate and equip the church broadly. Finally, recognizing that the ills of empire cannot be fully cured solely by those at the centers of the imperial system, we hope for contributions from Methodists around the world.
Themes
We invite contributions for essays or resources that relate to the following themes:
1. Historical essays tying Methodist missionary activity and the expansion of United States foreign interests. Case studies could include US missionaries in Puerto Rico, Western Africa, the Philippines, the impact of US expansions on the church in the United States, and international structures of Methodism, etc.
2. Theological and ethical reflections on Wesleyan theology, Empire studies, and political theology.
3. Liturgical, worship, and ministry resources (sermons, liturgies, litanies, biblical studies, Sunday school lessons, etc.) for church communities to engage in anti-imperial reflections.
4. Practical resources on activism, advocacy, and mission focused on Methodist communities and contexts.
Timeline
Essay proposals are due August 31, 2021. Proposals should include 300–400-word description of the project and ought to be submitted as an email attachment to the editors, David Scott (dscott(at)umcmission.org) and Filipe Maia (fmaia(at)bu.edu). Accepted proposals will be communicated to authors by September 30, 2021.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Monday, June 28, 2021
Recommended Viewing: Foundation for Evangelism webinars
The Foundation for Evangelism has hosted a series of hour-long webinars over the past year featuring conversations between Rev. Dr. Heather Lear of the Foundation and various United Methodist scholars of evangelism. Videos from these webinars are available online and are commended as a resource for those studying or teaching evangelism. The five webinars from the past year are as follows:
Angel Santiago-Vendrell on “Why Jesus”
Henry “Hal” Knight III on “Evangelism and Discipleship Systems”
David Whitworth on “Contextual Awareness”
Friday, June 25, 2021
Recommended Viewing: Christmas Covenant Webinars
Over the course of this spring, the Christmas Covenant has sponsored a series of webinars in the Philippines and Africa to inform about and promote the Christmas Covenant legislation. Videos from those webinars are available on the Christmas Covenant YouTube channel.
The webinar for the Philippines features Bishops Francisco and Juan, presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol, and a time of questions and answers. Portions of that presentation are in Tagalog, though the majority of the presentation is in English.
There are three webinars for Africa--one each in English, Portuguese, and French.
The English webinar features Bishops Wandabula, Muyombo, Nhanala, and Nhiwatiwa; presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant; and a time of questions and answers.
The Portuguese webinar features Bishops Nhanala of Mozambique and Domingos of Angola, presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant, and a time of questions and answers. Some of the presentations are in English, with translation into Portuguese.
The French webinar has not yet been posted to the Christmas Covenant YouTube channel, though readers are encouraged to check back to see if the video is published in the future.
The webinar for the Philippines features Bishops Francisco and Juan, presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant and the Protocol, and a time of questions and answers. Portions of that presentation are in Tagalog, though the majority of the presentation is in English.
There are three webinars for Africa--one each in English, Portuguese, and French.
The English webinar features Bishops Wandabula, Muyombo, Nhanala, and Nhiwatiwa; presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant; and a time of questions and answers.
The Portuguese webinar features Bishops Nhanala of Mozambique and Domingos of Angola, presentations by team members about the Christmas Covenant, and a time of questions and answers. Some of the presentations are in English, with translation into Portuguese.
The French webinar has not yet been posted to the Christmas Covenant YouTube channel, though readers are encouraged to check back to see if the video is published in the future.
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
John Wesley and Understanding Racial Inequality
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.
I was reminded of a John Wesley quote the other day while reading a FiveThirtyEight piece on (mis)perceptions of the racial wealth gap.
For those who don't know, the wealth gap between White and non-white Americans is striking: one federal government survey found that "the typical White family has eight times the wealth of the typical Black family and five times the wealth of the typical Hispanic family." Yet, as the FiveThirtyEight article points out, Americans consistently and dramatically underestimate that racial wealth gap.
The article, entitled "Why Many Americans Can't See the Wealth Gap Between White and Black America" and written by Neil Lewis Jr., argues that one of the major reasons why Americans do not have an accurate sense of the racial wealth gap is because of de facto residential and social segregation. Lewis argues:
"The nature of segregation in the U.S. means that we only end up seeing and learning about what our own groups experience, making it hard to understand the lives of people outside of our own group. This explains, in part, why Americans have such a hard time understanding just how unequal our nation is, and moreover, the racialized nature of that inequality."
It struck me that Lewis' assessment of the situation mirrors perfectly John Wesley's assessment of the failure of the rich to understand the plight of the poor in 18th century England. In his sermon, "On Visiting the Sick," Wesley wrote:
"One great reason why the rich, in general, have so little sympathy for the poor, is, because they so seldom visit them. Hence it is, that, according to the common observation, one part of the world does not know what the other suffers. Many of them do not know, because they do not care to know: they keep out of the way of knowing it; and then plead their voluntary ignorances an excuse for their hardness of heart."
One could easily substitute "Whites" for "the rich" and "Blacks" for "the poor," and this quote could describe the problems with making progress on racial justice in the 2020s United States just as well as it did class injustice in Wesley's England. It captures the separation of social networks and the ways in which the privileged are quite comfortable in maintaining that separation, lest their privilege be threatened in some way.
The importance of connection to understanding of racial injustice and motivation to address it is also a major conclusion in Michael Emerson and Christian Smith's landmark study Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Emerson and Smith argue that one significant reason why white evangelicals fail to understand the systemic nature of racial disadvantage in the United States is because they are not sufficiently connected to networks of people of color from whom white evangelicals could learn about the experiences of their lives.
Emerson and Smith are not optimistic about the power of religion to address this form of racial misunderstanding driven by social distance. Indeed, they write that "religion, as structured in America, is unable to make a great impact on the racialized society. In fact, far from knocking down racial barriers, religion generally serves to maintain these historical divides, and helps to develop new ones." (p. 18) By "structured," Emerson and Smith are referring to the racialized nature of most congregations and denominations in the United States.
Emerson and Smith do not examine in depth the role of Christian mission in addressing this problem. But Wesley was convinced that the practice of mission could help build understanding and empathy across differences. That was the point of his sermon. And many missiologists have emphasized that point since Wesley: mission can be a force for building understanding across racial boundaries, understanding that can then be used to work for greater racial justice.
Nevertheless, for mission to be successful in this regard, that increase in understanding must be an explicit goal, and those engaging in mission must have the right spiritual attitude. Wesley preached, "Whenever, therefore, you are about to enter upon the work, seek his help by earnest prayer. Cry to him for the whole spirit of humility, lest if pride steal into your heart, if you ascribe anything to yourself, while you strive to save others you destroy your own soul."
If White people practice mission as charity to Black people in a way that reinforces their own sense of racial pride, not only will it fail to produce greater understanding, it will destroy their own souls! Humility and openness, then, are requisite to this process of learning about and from other perspectives.
There is much in American society that conspires to prevent this type of cross-racial learning, and missiology as a practice and a discipline has not been without blame in this regard, as David Evans and Otto Harris have demonstrated on this blog.
Yet for those who believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of equality for all persons, there are additional resources and practices in the faith to be used to advance that understanding of the gospel. Building cross-racial compassion through webs of relationships is one such important resource.
I was reminded of a John Wesley quote the other day while reading a FiveThirtyEight piece on (mis)perceptions of the racial wealth gap.
For those who don't know, the wealth gap between White and non-white Americans is striking: one federal government survey found that "the typical White family has eight times the wealth of the typical Black family and five times the wealth of the typical Hispanic family." Yet, as the FiveThirtyEight article points out, Americans consistently and dramatically underestimate that racial wealth gap.
The article, entitled "Why Many Americans Can't See the Wealth Gap Between White and Black America" and written by Neil Lewis Jr., argues that one of the major reasons why Americans do not have an accurate sense of the racial wealth gap is because of de facto residential and social segregation. Lewis argues:
"The nature of segregation in the U.S. means that we only end up seeing and learning about what our own groups experience, making it hard to understand the lives of people outside of our own group. This explains, in part, why Americans have such a hard time understanding just how unequal our nation is, and moreover, the racialized nature of that inequality."
It struck me that Lewis' assessment of the situation mirrors perfectly John Wesley's assessment of the failure of the rich to understand the plight of the poor in 18th century England. In his sermon, "On Visiting the Sick," Wesley wrote:
"One great reason why the rich, in general, have so little sympathy for the poor, is, because they so seldom visit them. Hence it is, that, according to the common observation, one part of the world does not know what the other suffers. Many of them do not know, because they do not care to know: they keep out of the way of knowing it; and then plead their voluntary ignorances an excuse for their hardness of heart."
One could easily substitute "Whites" for "the rich" and "Blacks" for "the poor," and this quote could describe the problems with making progress on racial justice in the 2020s United States just as well as it did class injustice in Wesley's England. It captures the separation of social networks and the ways in which the privileged are quite comfortable in maintaining that separation, lest their privilege be threatened in some way.
The importance of connection to understanding of racial injustice and motivation to address it is also a major conclusion in Michael Emerson and Christian Smith's landmark study Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Emerson and Smith argue that one significant reason why white evangelicals fail to understand the systemic nature of racial disadvantage in the United States is because they are not sufficiently connected to networks of people of color from whom white evangelicals could learn about the experiences of their lives.
Emerson and Smith are not optimistic about the power of religion to address this form of racial misunderstanding driven by social distance. Indeed, they write that "religion, as structured in America, is unable to make a great impact on the racialized society. In fact, far from knocking down racial barriers, religion generally serves to maintain these historical divides, and helps to develop new ones." (p. 18) By "structured," Emerson and Smith are referring to the racialized nature of most congregations and denominations in the United States.
Emerson and Smith do not examine in depth the role of Christian mission in addressing this problem. But Wesley was convinced that the practice of mission could help build understanding and empathy across differences. That was the point of his sermon. And many missiologists have emphasized that point since Wesley: mission can be a force for building understanding across racial boundaries, understanding that can then be used to work for greater racial justice.
Nevertheless, for mission to be successful in this regard, that increase in understanding must be an explicit goal, and those engaging in mission must have the right spiritual attitude. Wesley preached, "Whenever, therefore, you are about to enter upon the work, seek his help by earnest prayer. Cry to him for the whole spirit of humility, lest if pride steal into your heart, if you ascribe anything to yourself, while you strive to save others you destroy your own soul."
If White people practice mission as charity to Black people in a way that reinforces their own sense of racial pride, not only will it fail to produce greater understanding, it will destroy their own souls! Humility and openness, then, are requisite to this process of learning about and from other perspectives.
There is much in American society that conspires to prevent this type of cross-racial learning, and missiology as a practice and a discipline has not been without blame in this regard, as David Evans and Otto Harris have demonstrated on this blog.
Yet for those who believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of equality for all persons, there are additional resources and practices in the faith to be used to advance that understanding of the gospel. Building cross-racial compassion through webs of relationships is one such important resource.
Monday, June 21, 2021
The Practice of Mission in Global Methodism
Following a long tradition of edited volumes about Methodist world mission, The Practice of Mission in Global Methodism: Emerging Trends from Everywhere to Everywhere, co-edited by David W. Scott (UM & Global blogmaster) and Darryl W. Stephens (occasional contributor to UM & Global), has just been published as part of the Routledge Methodist Studies Series.
This book brings together Methodist scholars and reflective practitioners from around the world to consider how emerging practices of mission and evangelism shape contemporary theologies of mission. Engaging contemporary issues including migration, nationalism, climate change, postcolonial contexts, and the growth of the Methodist church in the Global South, this book examines multiple forms of mission, including evangelism, education, health, and ministries of compassion. A global group of contributors (including strong African voices) discusses mission as no longer primarily a Western activity but an enterprise of the entire church throughout the world.
The book contains 19 chapters covering four sections: cultivating global relationships, practicing contextual engagement, educating for missional formation, and discerning the future of mission together. This edited collection builds on papers presented at the Methodist Mission Bicentennial conference held in Atlanta in April 2019 while expanding upon those reflections.
This volume will be of interest to researchers studying missiology, evangelism, global Christianity, and Methodism and to students of Methodism and mission. While this book is quite expensive in hardback form, a paperback version will appear in the fall of next year, and a less expensive e-book version is also available.
This book brings together Methodist scholars and reflective practitioners from around the world to consider how emerging practices of mission and evangelism shape contemporary theologies of mission. Engaging contemporary issues including migration, nationalism, climate change, postcolonial contexts, and the growth of the Methodist church in the Global South, this book examines multiple forms of mission, including evangelism, education, health, and ministries of compassion. A global group of contributors (including strong African voices) discusses mission as no longer primarily a Western activity but an enterprise of the entire church throughout the world.
The book contains 19 chapters covering four sections: cultivating global relationships, practicing contextual engagement, educating for missional formation, and discerning the future of mission together. This edited collection builds on papers presented at the Methodist Mission Bicentennial conference held in Atlanta in April 2019 while expanding upon those reflections.
This volume will be of interest to researchers studying missiology, evangelism, global Christianity, and Methodism and to students of Methodism and mission. While this book is quite expensive in hardback form, a paperback version will appear in the fall of next year, and a less expensive e-book version is also available.
Friday, June 18, 2021
Lectura recomendada: Néstor Miguez y el ecumenismo argentino
La Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina ha compartido algunas reflexiones sobre la práctica del ecumenismo. Estas reflexiones vienen de la obra de Néstor MÃguez como presidente de la Federación Argentina de Iglesias Evangélicas (FAIE). Estos pensamientos comparten otra perspectiva de la conexión entre la misión y el ecumenismo desde una perspec Metodista
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Why I Will Not Save The United Methodist Church
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 are a lot of people out there with a plan to save The United Methodist Church. These plans vary, both in the way they identify what the UMC must be saved from and how to do that saving. They range from implementing new managerial techniques and institutional strategies, to adopting certain social and theological positions, to reconfiguring the structure of the denomination, to saving the best parts of United Methodism by establishing them in a new denomination. Though they don't agree on how, there are a lot of people out there that think they are going to save The United Methodist Church.
Not me.
It's not that I might not like to save The United Methodist Church. As someone who was brought up in a United Methodist congregation, nurturing spiritually and intellectually through a series of United Methodist churches and Methodist-founded colleges, and is currently employed by a United Methodist agency, there are many reasons why I might like to save The United Methodist Church.
And it's not that I don't have any ideas about how The United Methodist Church might be a better version of itself. Anyone who has read this blog long enough knows that I have views on the UMC and some things I think would improve it.
It's more that I have a healthy sense of limitations, both my own and human limitations generally.
First, I take issue with the idea that The United Methodist Church can be saved by any one individual. That notion fits well with the "Great Man" theory of history and with American cultural sensibilities around heroic individualism, but it doesn't fit well with careful study of how social and religious movements actually come to pass.
Renewal movements are just that--movements, which extend far beyond the work or actions of any one person. Certainly, central figures play important roles in movement. Far be it from any religious descendant of John Wesley to say that central figures do not matter to movements. But Wesley did not build the Methodism movement alone. Not only were there many others who worked with him (shout out to Charles!), but he also drew upon ideas that came from outside himself, even if he combined them in sometimes novel ways.
So, if The United Methodist Church is to be saved, it will not be because of the work of some heroic individual, but rather because God has brought about through many contributions the necessary conditions for the denomination's salvation.
Second, while I have some ideas for reform of the church, I am keenly aware of the challenges facing the denomination and my inadequacy to single-handedly solve those problems. Within the United States alone, the denomination is facing a long-term general decline in religiosity, decreasing relevance of denominations, increasing distrust of and antipathy towards institutions, and increasing social and religious polarization. Globally, add to that the challenges of intercultural communication, economic inequality, shifting centers of Christian vitality, and other mega-trends.
While I can list off these challenges, I do not know how the UMC should best steer itself through these stormy waters so as to ensure the continued spiritual growth of its members and organizational well-being for the denomination as a whole. I don't even know how to solve one of these challenges, let alone all of them together.
Third, even if I did have the solutions to these problems, I recognize the limitations of my medium. I write a blog. I have no ability to command the actions of others or the use of resources. The best I can muster is to write something that I hope will be persuasive to the several hundred or couple thousand people that might read it. What they do with whatever ideas they gleam from my writings is outside my direct control. And those people are getting other ideas from other blogs, conversations, podcasts, sermons, etc., most of which probably differ substantially from my ideas.
I have no corner on the market for offering ideas for church renewal. Instead, it's a saturated market, and it is hard for anyone to break through beyond a core audience, let alone to motivate their audience to participate in a movement.
Fourth and finally, I probably come from the wrong social location for someone who will save The United Methodist Church. Historically, saviors come from the margins. They have some connections to the system they reform so as to provide them with enough familiarity with the system and education to think critically about that system, but they're not sitting at the seats of power.
I'm not a bishop or the leader of a large congregation, but I do work for an agency, which gives me some standing in the current system. I am an American, straight, white, well-educated male. I have a lot of privilege. If you were going to look for someone who could save or revitalize The United Methodist Church or the Methodist movement more broadly, that person would probably differ from me in some important part of their identity or background.
So there you go: I'm not going to save The United Methodist Church.
But here's what I am going to do: I'm going to try my best to work faithfully on the task before me with the best knowledge and wisdom I have.
My doing that won't save the denomination. But perhaps my work can make a small contribution toward setting the conditions necessary for Methodism to flourish, in the United States and around the world. Someone else will lead that flourishing, but that's okay with me. I don't need to save the UMC; I just need to be faithful to the work God has given me.
There are a lot of people out there with a plan to save The United Methodist Church. These plans vary, both in the way they identify what the UMC must be saved from and how to do that saving. They range from implementing new managerial techniques and institutional strategies, to adopting certain social and theological positions, to reconfiguring the structure of the denomination, to saving the best parts of United Methodism by establishing them in a new denomination. Though they don't agree on how, there are a lot of people out there that think they are going to save The United Methodist Church.
Not me.
It's not that I might not like to save The United Methodist Church. As someone who was brought up in a United Methodist congregation, nurturing spiritually and intellectually through a series of United Methodist churches and Methodist-founded colleges, and is currently employed by a United Methodist agency, there are many reasons why I might like to save The United Methodist Church.
And it's not that I don't have any ideas about how The United Methodist Church might be a better version of itself. Anyone who has read this blog long enough knows that I have views on the UMC and some things I think would improve it.
It's more that I have a healthy sense of limitations, both my own and human limitations generally.
First, I take issue with the idea that The United Methodist Church can be saved by any one individual. That notion fits well with the "Great Man" theory of history and with American cultural sensibilities around heroic individualism, but it doesn't fit well with careful study of how social and religious movements actually come to pass.
Renewal movements are just that--movements, which extend far beyond the work or actions of any one person. Certainly, central figures play important roles in movement. Far be it from any religious descendant of John Wesley to say that central figures do not matter to movements. But Wesley did not build the Methodism movement alone. Not only were there many others who worked with him (shout out to Charles!), but he also drew upon ideas that came from outside himself, even if he combined them in sometimes novel ways.
So, if The United Methodist Church is to be saved, it will not be because of the work of some heroic individual, but rather because God has brought about through many contributions the necessary conditions for the denomination's salvation.
Second, while I have some ideas for reform of the church, I am keenly aware of the challenges facing the denomination and my inadequacy to single-handedly solve those problems. Within the United States alone, the denomination is facing a long-term general decline in religiosity, decreasing relevance of denominations, increasing distrust of and antipathy towards institutions, and increasing social and religious polarization. Globally, add to that the challenges of intercultural communication, economic inequality, shifting centers of Christian vitality, and other mega-trends.
While I can list off these challenges, I do not know how the UMC should best steer itself through these stormy waters so as to ensure the continued spiritual growth of its members and organizational well-being for the denomination as a whole. I don't even know how to solve one of these challenges, let alone all of them together.
Third, even if I did have the solutions to these problems, I recognize the limitations of my medium. I write a blog. I have no ability to command the actions of others or the use of resources. The best I can muster is to write something that I hope will be persuasive to the several hundred or couple thousand people that might read it. What they do with whatever ideas they gleam from my writings is outside my direct control. And those people are getting other ideas from other blogs, conversations, podcasts, sermons, etc., most of which probably differ substantially from my ideas.
I have no corner on the market for offering ideas for church renewal. Instead, it's a saturated market, and it is hard for anyone to break through beyond a core audience, let alone to motivate their audience to participate in a movement.
Fourth and finally, I probably come from the wrong social location for someone who will save The United Methodist Church. Historically, saviors come from the margins. They have some connections to the system they reform so as to provide them with enough familiarity with the system and education to think critically about that system, but they're not sitting at the seats of power.
I'm not a bishop or the leader of a large congregation, but I do work for an agency, which gives me some standing in the current system. I am an American, straight, white, well-educated male. I have a lot of privilege. If you were going to look for someone who could save or revitalize The United Methodist Church or the Methodist movement more broadly, that person would probably differ from me in some important part of their identity or background.
So there you go: I'm not going to save The United Methodist Church.
But here's what I am going to do: I'm going to try my best to work faithfully on the task before me with the best knowledge and wisdom I have.
My doing that won't save the denomination. But perhaps my work can make a small contribution toward setting the conditions necessary for Methodism to flourish, in the United States and around the world. Someone else will lead that flourishing, but that's okay with me. I don't need to save the UMC; I just need to be faithful to the work God has given me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)