untiedmethodist.com

United Methodism and church-sect tension

The church-sect distinction, first introduced by sociologist Max Weber a century ago, still remains a helpful concept today for understanding the shape that Christian movements take. Church and sect are ideal types, rather than pure empirical descriptions, and no denomination or Christian movement is purely one or another but some combination of the two. 

Yet, denominations and Christian movements will tend more toward one type or the other. The distinction between church and sect can help us understand some of the tension within a body like the United Methodism Church which has some members who subconsciously think of it as a church and others who want it to be a sect.

This church-sect tension is particularly stressful within United Methodism, I think. The Methodist movement was born as a sect within the Church of England but, after John Wesley's death, it quickly became a church. Charles Wesley was a churchperson (Samuel even more so) and a sectarian at the same time.

Here are a few differences between churches and sects as ideal types:

1. Weber's original core difference between a church and a sect is that you tend to be born into a church while you make a decision to join a sect. Many people think of themselves as birthright Catholics or Methodists, part of a church family. Even if you were not born into a particular church, you can choose to join a church family and be a valued and loved member of the family, but sects place greater emphasis on the decision to become a believer and to commit yourself to a movement. You can join a church, but you need to convert to become a member of a sect. (Remember these are ideal types for the purpose of comparison; not empirical descriptions.)

2. A church will tend to want to embrace all its sons and daughters, and thus will emphasize grace and acceptance. A sect, which is more concerned with purity and discipline, will stress law, right belief,  and right living.  A church is for the masses. A sect is for the elite and truly committed. (These and other distinctions are well summarized by Mirslav Volf in an article entitled "Soft Difference," although it should be noted that Volf does not fully agree with Weber's analysis.)

3. A church will tend to be more comfortable with the "world" and more willing to accommodate the "world."  Churches tend be be reformist. A sect will see the "world" as a temptation to be resisted. Sects will tend to be either isolationists --distancing themselves from the world-- or revolutionaries, insisting on radical change.

4. A church will emphasize the sacraments, education, and confirmation. A sect will tend to emphasize conversion, religious experience,  and commitment.

5. A church will tend to be middle-of-the-road, conventional, and bland. A sect will tend toward the right or the left and will be passionate,  exciting, and gripping.

6. A church will celebrate holidays and rites of passages. It will emphasize God's dependability. A sect will emphasize Jesus' radical call to discipleship and the need to renew our commitment again and again.

7. A church will tend to emphasize God the Creator or the full Trinity. A sect will usually  emphasize either the second or third person of the Trinity.

I believe United Methodism is a church and that we need to act like a church, rather than a sect. I also believe, however, that we need to nurture and support sects within our church. When people experience the need for a deeper level of commitment and a more passionate engagement with the divine, they should not have to leave United Methodism to find it. This is why movements like Walk to Emmaus, Volunteers in Mission, the Order of St. Luke, and the Methodist Federation for Social Action are so important. People who are looking for a deeper, more committed, more passionate experience should be able to find it within the United Methodist Church.

But those of us within United Methodism who are sectarians, or who lean this way, should not expect to turn the denomination into our sect. I spoke to a United Methodist pastor from the Midwest once who told me his 4,000-member church included both a chapter of Affirmation for gay and lesbian members and a Promise Keepers chapter. I asked him how they got along together. He told me that each of the groups was very important and meaningful for its members, but neither one seemed to worry much about the existence of the other. Isn't this the way it should be?

After Reading "Hard Ball on Holy Ground"

I was tempted to entitle this post "Is the IRD Part of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?" but decided that would be too sensationalistic.Zion's Herald magazine, Hard Ball on Holy Ground: The Religious Right v. the Mainline for the Church's Soul.

The IRD -- Institute for Religion and Democracy -- is a conservative church reform group founded in 1981 that believes the Episcopal, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches have forsaken the Gospel for "political agendas" such as "radical forms of feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, revolutionary socialism, sexual liberation and so forth." (Quoted from the IRD's mission statement found here.)

It has an office, headed by Mark Tooley, that focuses on the United Methodist Church called UM Action. The institute's critics argue that the IRD has its own political agenda: "increasing military spending, opposing environmental protection efforts, and eliminating social welfare programs." (Hard Ball, p. 9)

I wrote recently (see here) about my concern that the book Hard Ball on Holy Ground was being published at all. I worried that its very existence might further polarize the church. Having now read it, I need to say that the book, which consists of articles previously published in Zion's Herald, is mostly balanced and careful. In interviews printed in the book, the book's editor, Steve Swecker, who also edits Zion's Herald, certainly gave the staff of the IRD every chance to articulate their side of the story.

A couple of the articles are disappointing. They focus too much on guilt-by-association, and are written with a hysterical edge that weakens their credibility. (I don't think an article should discredit anyone by vague references to "ties with the ultra-conservative John Birch Society" (Hard Ball, p. 8) anymore than articles should hint at ties with the Communist Party. Innuendo is not helpful.)

Yet, despite some flaws, the book raises two questions that we need to ask about the IRD, questions which the IRD staff failed to answer adequately when they were given a chance to do so during interviews with Swecker.

The first question has to do with the significance of the IRD's funding sources. Hard Ball includes a list of IRD funders who have no particular connection with the United Methodist Church but who tend to fund ultra-conservative causes: The Scaife Family Foundations (Mellon Bank money), Fieldstone and Company (savings and loan money), the John M. Olin Foundation (Winchester rifle money), the Castle Rock Foundation (Coors beer money), and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (electronics money) . Furthermore, these contributions are not nominal by any means. Scaife has contributed $1.9 million; Bradley has given more than $1.5 million; Fieldstone contributes an average of $75,000 a year.

Why are these organizations funding the IRD to this extent? What is their goal in doing so? Why do they care so much about the United Methodist Church?

The second question has to do with the makeup of the IRD board. Swecker raised this question in an interview with the late Diane Knippers, who was the IRD's executive director until her premature death from cancer this past April. "You have on your board of advisors prominent Catholics and people from the Jewish community," he asked. "What is their interest as IRD members in directly going to Protestant mainline churches to hold them accountable -- but not to their own faith communities?" Swecker then makes the question even more pointed: "If the shoe were on the other foot, and you had an organization of self-appointed Protestants attacking Catholic or Jewish organizations, how do you think that would go down?" (Hard Ball, p. 89) Excellent question.

Swecker's answer to his own question is that the presence of famous conservative Catholics like Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus has given the IRD credibility in conservative circles and, thus, helped the IRD get the kind of funding it has gotten from conservative funders.

Let me be clear. It is a free country. If Adolph Coors wants to use his Castle Rock Foundation to fund a group that attacks moderate and liberal United Methodists, it is his money. If Father Neuhaus wants to sit on a board that attempts to put the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society out of business even though he himself is Catholic and not Methodist, that is his business. (Although I suspect he might scream bloody murder if a Protestant agency were formed that called itself RC Action to advocate disbanding the Catholic Conference of Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.)

It is a free country, and anybody who wants to give his or her money to the IRD ought to be able to do so, and the IRD ought to be able to have anyone it wants on its board. United Methodists, however, ought to recognize that something different from disagreements we have lived through in the past is going on here. This is something different from a family discussion, or even a family argument.

I am pleased that, unlike the earlier book United Methodism @ Risk: A Wake-Up Call published by the Information Project for United Methodists, the focus of Hard Ball is almost entirely on the IRD. I really believe the IRD is different. I believe the discussion with the Good News Movement and the Confessing Movement is a family argument. These latter movements consist of United Methodists who love their denomination as much as I do, but who have a different theological understanding and vision. I was afraid Hard Ball, like @ Risk, would try to tar all conservative United Methodist organizations with the same brush.

There is only one article in Hard Ball that focuses on Good News. It is anecdotal and not substantive, and Good News is given the opportunity to respond, and does so at length. Still, this chapter would have better been left out of the book. The IRD and Good News are different kinds of organizations. Good News and the Confessing Movement are efforts by United Methodists to influence their church. The IRD is an attempt to steer United Methodism, and other Protestant denominations, from the outside on behalf of a secular political agenda.

This is not illegal, but United Methodists ought to see it for what it is and not be influenced by it. Conservative United Methodist organizations, like Good News and the Confessing Movement, ought to distance themselves from the IRD. Publications ought not to quote the IRD without identifying the organization accurately. For the sake of clarity, whenever the press refers to the IRD or UM Action, it ought to mention that it is an organization attempting to influence the United Methodist Church's policies that is funded and run largely by non-United Methodists. We can disagree with each other but, when an outside force tries to use us or manipulate us, we ought to stand together.

Zion's Herald has served the United Methodist Church well by publishing most of these articles and by collecting them into a book, but Zion's Herald also needs to be careful. Too much sensationalism (See "Did the IRD Endanger Missionaries?" Addendum# 1 of The Radical Right Assault on Mainline Protestantism and the National Council of Churches of Christ at ZH World.) will not help. Solid reporting and thoughtful articulation of sound opinions will. I think few United Methodists want our denominational discussions to be manipulated by non-United Methodist organizations funded by outside foundations with self-interested agendas. If Zion's Herald just calmly keeps making this kind of information about the IRD clear, without exaggeration or hysterics, it will have served its church well.

Regional Politics Heat Up in the UMC

Several southern annual conferences are considering a resolution intended to increase the power of the Southeastern and South Central Jurisdictions on denominational boards and agencies, according to Jay Voorhees at The Methoblog.

The resolution requests a ruling of the United Methodist Judicial Council about the way the secretary of the General Conference interprets the very complicated formula in the Book of Discipline (Paragraphs 705 and 706) used to divvy up between jurisdictions the seats on general church boards and agencies, such as the Board of Church and Society, the Board of Global Ministries, and the Connectional Table. Voorhees discusses the issue here and here, but his most thorough discussion is on his Methodcast # 7, about 14 minutes into the podcast.

As I understand the issue, the current General Conference secretary has decided to follow the tradition of making sure that each jurisdiction has a representative on denominational boards and agencies, then she follows other aspects of the formula. Those advancing the resolution believe that language in the Discipline which charges the secretary to insure "to the extent possible that membership of each board reflects the proportionate membership of the jurisdictions based upon combined clergy and lay membership" (Paragraph 705.5 and elsewhere) should result in an end to the practice of allowing each jurisdiction to have at least one representative. The attitude behind the resolution is: if the proportional numbers do not entitle a jurisdiction to a seat, tough luck!

If the resolution passes in at least one annual conference, and the Judicial Council agrees with its interpretation of the language in the Discipline, it might mean that some jurisdictions will have no presence on some denominational boards and agencies.

Voorhees, a member of the Tennessee Annual Conference, opposes the resolution for a couple of reasons. He argues that the Judicial Council is being used too much. If the paragraphs in the Discipline are poorly written, he says, they ought to be fixed by legislation at the next General Conference rather than be taken to the Judicial Council. But he also argues that it is neither fair nor healthy to exclude any jurisdiction of the denomination from at least a minimal presence on general boards and agencies.

This argument, it seems to me, is right on target. The motivation behind this resolution and other such efforts to strengthen the power and control of the two southern jurisdictions on denominational agencies is due to the significant difference between the South and the rest of U.S. United Methodism on the issue of sexual orientation. The more power the Southeastern and South Central Jurisdictions have, the less likely the church will change its policy of excluding gay and lesbian people from ordained ministry and from church celebrations of their committed relationships.

Southern strategists learned the power of changing formulas at the 2000 General Conference. They brought a resolution to the 2000 General Conference to change the formula used to determined how many delegates each annual conference gets to send to General Conference. The formula is based on both the number of clergy and the number of laity in each annual conference. The pre-2000 formula said each conference got one clergy and one lay delegate for every 140 clergy members of the annual conference plus one clergy and one lay delegate for every 44,000 lay members. The 2000 General Conference changed the numbers to one clergy and lay delegate for every 375 clergy plus one clergy and lay delegate for every 26,000 lay members. This change significantly increased delegates from the two southern jurisdictions and from the Central Conferences, and decreased the number from the Northeastern, North Central, and Western Jurisdictions. (See a pre-2000 UMNS story about this here.)

This is the reason why, although the church as a whole had become more open and understanding of gay and lesbian Christians between 2000 and 2004, General Conference became less so. Southerners had maneuvered the formula so as to strengthen their own power as well as to increase the number of delegates from Central Conferences.

Since a number of the denominational agencies, such as the Board of Church and Society, the Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, and the Commission on the Status and Role of Women, have been supportive of a more inclusive church, the South is now hard at work to capture control of the general church agencies in order to halt their support for change.

Some United Methodists no doubt remember the impact the Board of Church and Society had on integrating the Methodist Church in spite of the resistance of the southern jurisdictions. W. Astor Kirk, who describes his role in desegregating the Methodist Church in his book Desegregation of the Methodist Church Polity: Reform Movements That Ended Racial Segregation, was an staff member of the Board of Church and Society during the time he worked for an end to the Central Jurisdiction and other racist structures within the church. (See "Methodists and Segregation.")

The argument used by delegates from the Southeastern and South Central Jurisdictions at the 2000 General Conference was the principle of "one person-one vote." I covered the legislative section where this formula was discussed for the Daily Christian Advocate and had the opportunity to hear the debate. Some southern delegates articulated a great sense of injustice and victimization because they had more members in the churches of their conferences but not necessarily as many more delegates. "This is a matter of justice," they said again and again.

Actually, the principle of "one person-one vote" has never been absolute, at least not in U.S. democracy. Every state gets two senators no matter what its population. Iowa has as many senators as New York. The democratic commitment to "one person-one vote" is tempered by the need to insure the presence of every state at the table.

Also, the basis for determining representation at annual conference is hardly "one person-one vote," and it is annual conference delegates after all who elect the delegates to General Conference. The principle used to determine representation at annual conferences could be more accurately described as "every charge-at least one vote, and maybe more." So the sudden promotion of the principle of "one person-one vote" is suspect. Other considerations, such as the inclusion of all the jurisdictions, also represent democratic values.

I have an evangelical friend who is upset about how political General Conferences have become. He objects to the demonstrations and vigils held by those of us advocating for change. He says it makes the church look as though we are battling for power rather than mutually submitting ourselves to Christ. But the little vigils and demonstrations we hold at General Conference are prayer meetings compared to the politics of those who have learned how to adjust formulas and manipulate the rules for the sake of their agendas. Our vigils are direct and transparent. We are openly and honestly trying to touch delegates' hearts and to persuade their minds.

On the other hand, while back rooms may not be smoky anymore, there are still back rooms.

Laying Down our Methodist Swords -- A "thank you" to Kathryn Johnson

I have just ordered a copy of the Zion Herald magazine's new book Hardball on Holy Ground: The Religious Right v. the Mainline for the Church's Soul, edited by Stephen Swecker. Swecker is a smart and balanced guy, a thoughtful and skilled editor, so I will read the book.

Still, the appearance of another book on this topic makes me nervous. Like United Methodism @ Risk: A Wake Up Call written by Leon Howell, I worry its very existence will foment more heat than light. While the so-called "renewal" groups in the mainline churches need to be held accountable, as do we all, fighting fire with fire makes it likely we will burn down the whole village.

Publicity materials for Hardball include a quote by Bob Edgar, head of the National Council of Churches: "Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and others will be dismayed to learn that the churches they love are targets of a campaign of destabilization. We ignore this reality at our peril." I suppose Edgar might be accurate about some of the players in the mainline church renewal movements: those professional fundraisers who raise money by playing on the anxiety of ordinary people confused by changes they don't understand. The fundraising letters, written I assume by some firm specializing in doing this, pander shamelessly to people's fears.

But I also know other members of the renewal movements whom I believe --even when we disagree on basic concerns and perspectives-- to be fully sincere, honorable, and in love with the United Methodist Church. They, like those of us working for a more inclusive church, are not conducting "a campaign of destabilization," but are trying to build a denomination consistent with their understanding of the Gospel.

In a review of United Methodism @ Risk, Swecker and Andrew Weaver likewise go too far in labeling the motives of people with whom we disagree: "... the political right seeks to gain top leadership positions in the church by spreading misleading information and incendiary allegations against organizations and individuals. These groups employ the propaganda method of 'wedge issues' like abortion and homosexuality to cause confusion, dissension and division. Mr. Howell persuasively demonstrates that the IRD [Institute for Religion and Democracy] and other self-proclaimed 'renewal groups' are uninterested in genuine dialogue, desiring only to impose their belief systems on the target churches."

I am afraid that this kind of polarizing weakens us. It gives us permission to be a tad baser and more extreme than we might otherwise be. They are so bad, we think, that we can --nay, must-- nail them back. We become more and more like what we suppose our enemy to be.

This is why I am mightily impressed by the address Kathryn Johnson, executive director of the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), delivered at the organization's Voices of Faith conference held last April in Los Angeles. I have thought about her speech often since I heard her deliver it. What she had to say was a powerful reminder of our self-definition as followers of Jesus Christ. Many of us in her audience last April have been so frustrated that, I suspect, we may have begun to forget who we are.

Entitled Lest We Lose Sight of the Vision: Laying Down Our Swords Within the United Methodist Church, Johnson's speech draws heavily on the work of Roger Conner of Search for Common Ground, an organization that mediates between warring parties on a global basis. Johnson lays out four guidelines suggested by Conner about how to creatively engage those with whom we strongly disagree:

1. Be passionate. It is okay to be passionate about what we believe to be true, just, and beautiful.

2. Be honest about who we are. It is important that we state clearly and directly the positions we believe in and the positions we believe to be wrong. We don't need to fudge or apologize.

3. Be respectful. Here there are two sub-points: a) Call people by the name they want to be called. If my name is "pro-choice," don't call me "pro-abortion," Johnson says. If there are those who choose to call themselves a "renewal group," call them by their name and expect them to live up to it. b) Do not speculate on other's motives. If someone says they want the church to be more Christlike, do not assume they really are just interested in power. Accusing others of base motives is terribly divisive and often wrong.

4. Be truthful. Here there are four sub-points: a) No guilt by association. I find us doing this more and more. So-and-so, who was on the board of this-or-that group, was also a member of this-or-that awful organization, so the group we don't like must have the same horrible agenda. Johnson asks us to stop doing this. b) No caricature, exaggeration, or "straw-man" debate techniques. c) Hold people who disagree with us up to the standard of their highest values. d) Hold ourselves to the standards of our highest values. This is exactly what Johnson is doing in her speech; she is holding us to the standard we say we believe in.

Johnson adds one more guideline of her own. She says: "I believe that we also need to recognize the truth in one another. ... I believe, and I am aware that all present may not share this belief, that each of us, conservative or progressive, Good Newser or MFSAer, that each of us holds some truth."

This is a gutsy speech. A lot of us who were in the room to hear it were tired and frustrated. We have worked too long and too hard for too little progress. Johnson would have probably gotten a more enthusiastic response if she had chosen to go on the attack. But I am convinced Johnson's speech is the word we need to hear at this point in the struggle. Not that we will stop working for the change that needs to come, and will come. But, in the process, it is critical that we remain graceful rather than accusatory, transparent rather than manipulative, assertive rather than reactive, direct rather than hostile.

Kathryn Johnson, thank you.

The Best UMC Idea I Have Heard Lately

A group of United Methodist Church leaders want to discover what United Methodists are passionate about. What is our "main thing"?

A bishops' task force on unity and the new Connectional Table, a body established by the 2004 General Conference to coordinate the work of the general agencies, have begun an effort to discern "the main thing that we [United Methodists] are all so passionate about" so that "if we can move on the main thing, some unity will occur as we become more intentional in working together," according to Bishop John Hopkins, chair of the table. (Quoted in an UMNS story here.)

To do this, they are using a process called "Appreciative Inquiry" that is increasingly popular with major nonprofits, the military, and corporations as they plan their futures. Wonderful idea. It deserves our support and applause. It is the only thing I have heard about lately that has the possibility of moving us past the several stand-offs we seem to be in -- what Lyle Schaller calls "a score of lines in the sand" that have been drawn in "our complicated intradenominational quarrel." (See his book "The Ice Cube is Melting: What Really Is At Risk in United Methodism?")

In the essay "Five Theories of Change Embedded in Appreciative Inquiry," Gervase R. Bushe describes Appreciative Inquiry as a way of helping to shape an organization's future by researching people's peak experiences and high points as a part of the movement or group. "The key data collection innovation of appreciative inquiry," Bushe writes, "is the collection of people's stories of something at its best. If we are interested in team development, we collect stories of people's best team experiences. If we are interested in the development of an organization we ask about their peak experience in that organization. If enhanced leadership is our goal, we collect stories of leadership at its best. These stories are collectively discussed in order to create new, generative ideas or images that aid in developmental change of the collectivity discussing them."

The U.S. Navy has used Appreciative Inquiry. They interviewed Navy officers (find interview questions here) in order, as interview guidelines put it, "to discover what is happening when we are operating at our best. In particular, our goal is to locate, illuminate, and understand the distinctive values, practices, and skills which are in operation when the Navy is operating at its best." Interview questions included ones like this: "As you look back over your entire career in the Navy, think of a moment when you felt particularly successful, a time you had an influence on the outcome of something that was important, a time when you were effective in making a difference that mattered. It could have been a creative idea you imagined or an action you initiated. Perhaps it was something that made a difference to one individual. Or perhaps it was something that impacted your unit's mission. What's important is that this is a moment in which you felt most alive, most involved, effective, impactful, in which you felt you made a difference. Tell the story of what happened." The whole list of questions the Navy used is worth browsing.

What might we learn if we asked every United Methodist pastor and lay leader these kinds of questions? I suspect we would learn what it is, really, that makes us Methodists and it would not be about keeping categories of people out of ordained ministry or fighting for power in our annual conferences. I wish the bishops' task force on unity and the Connectional Table well. I think they are on the right track. I am eager to find out what they learn.

Methodists and Segregation -- two new books

Two new books about exactly the same topic fell into my hands without any effort on my part, so I thought I ought to pay attention. One of the books was given to me by its author who is a member of my congregation. The other was given to me because it was nominated for an award and a member of the organization making the award thought it would interest me.

Both books are about the the long and difficult battle to do away with the Central Jurisdiction in order to integrate the Methodist Church, at least at the regional and national levels. The Central Jurisdiction had been established in 1939 when northern and southern Methodism --split in 1844 over slavery-- were reunited. It was an organizational and structural device designed to keep the Methodist Church segregated, so that no white pastor would be under the authority of an African-American bishop and so that no white church would be assigned an African-American pastor. Once established, the Central Jurisdiction was almost impossible to do away with, even when the larger society was rapidly moving beyond Jim Crow.

Each book is, in its own way, a fascinating read. Peter C. Murray, author of Methodists and the Crucible of Race 1930-1975, is a professor at Methodist College in Fayetteville, NC. He writes as an objective historian, although his commitment to an integrated society and church is obvious. His interest in this topic comes, at least in part, from growing up in a Methodist parsonage in a town where the Methodist churches were segregated.

"Two blocks from my father's church was another Methodist church," he writes. "It belonged to the same denomination, but it was in a different annual conference and had a different bishop. ... In spite of being in the same denomination, the two churches had no direct contact with one other. It was as though they were worshipping different gods." (p. ix)

W. Astor "Bill" Kirk, author of Desegregation of the Methodist Church Polity: Reform Movements That Ended Racial Segregation, writes as an activist and passionate participant in the struggle to end segregation within his beloved denomination. Bill served as secretary and then chair of the Central Jurisdiction's Committee of Five, the group that finally persuaded the denomination to reform its segregationist structure. His book is particularly powerful when he gives us a glimpse of the fierce resistance to integration within the denomination and the feelings of African-Americans like himself who experienced the sting of the church's rejection. One of the interesting byproducts of reading Bill Kirk's book is observing whom he and other African-Americans trusted, even when they disagreed, and how others totally lost the trust of African-American leaders.

The books complement each other and are best read one after another. Both of these books introduce us to a generation of largely unsung Methodist heroes --African-American and white-- who devoted themselves to the vision of an integrated church and who paid a price for their commitment and leadership.

Of course, soberingly, the books also introduce us to a generation of Methodists who fought as hard as they could, sometime manipulatively, to keep Methodism segregated. These books make me wonder what historians will say about us 30 and 50 years from now.

A few lessons we might learn:

1. Change takes a long time within our denomination, and it takes persistence and diligence to make it happen. I wonder if many of us today are as loyal and committed to our denominational tradition as Bill Kirk and his contemporaries were? I wonder if we love our church as much? I wonder if we are as willing to pray, to organize, to negotiate, to present resolutions that get defeated, then wait four years to present other resolutions, and to argue cases before the Judicial Council? The process of desegregating the Methodist Church took 30 years, and would have taken longer had not Evangelical United Brethren Church leaders made ending the Central Jurisdiction a condition of the Methodist-EUB merger. African-American Methodists must have loved the Methodist Church profoundly to sacrifice this greatly and to suffer such rebuke in order to help heal us from the awful disease of racism.

2. We are not necessarily always a prophetic church. On the issue of integration, our denomination lagged pretty far behind the larger society. The primary reason for this was a commitment on the part of General Conference to voluntarism. The Methodist Church did not want to force anybody to integrate who did not want to. (Bill Kirk's oft stated observation was that segregation into the Central Jurisdiction was not voluntary, so the principle of voluntarism obviously cut just one way.) Peter Murray argues, interestingly enough, that southern Methodists, albeit slower to change than the north, were in some cases more prophetic and courageous than the northerners, even though southern successes were less recognized and celebrated. (p. 234) Murray also wonders whether the Methodism's sluggishness cost us the baby boomers. This generation (my generation) began leaving the denomination during the 1960s, he says. Previously Methodist student and youth groups were thriving. He wonders whether the church's slowness to integrate may have been one of the reasons baby boomers lost interest in the denomination in the 60s. (p. 238)

3. It seems to me from reading these books that the Methodist bishops took a more active leadership role in moving the church toward integration than they seem to take on any issue today. They did not just teach or opine, they made executive decisions. For example, at a critical point of the negotiations to end the Central Jurisdiction, they took the initiative to develop a plan for transition, including developing a formula to facilitate the merger of Central Jurisdiction conferences into the Southwest Jurisdiction. (Murray, p. 174-5) At one point the bishops called for a delay in Judicial Council deliberations. (Kirk, p. 158) These kinds of actions seem much more assertive than the bishops' actions lately. And it was interesting to read about the role of the Judicial Council in this process. For those who wonder about the role the Judicial Council plays these days, it will interesting for you to read Bill Kirk's description of his efforts to plead for movement toward integration before the council in 1965. (See Chapter 10)

4. It is easy to forget that issues are personal, not just a matter of politics or theological interpretation. In Pittsburgh in 1939 when General Conference approved the merger between the northern and southern churches, segregating African-American Methodists into the Central Jurisdiction as a compromise in order to achieve reunification, the delegates rose and cheerfully sang "We're Marching to Zion." Apparently they did not notice or else did not care that African-American delegates remain seated in their chairs, many of them weeping openly. (Murray, p. 41) And, then, there is a profound moment in Bill Kirk's account during which he describes the anger he felt when a denominational committee rudely challenged efforts to move the cause forward. "It has been forty years since I received that note ..." he writes. "But I still have vivid recollections of my emotional reaction ... Suddenly I became angry -- very, very angry!" (p. 115) We discuss issues regarding the humanity of God's children --brothers and sisters-- as though it were an impersonal discussion, but real flesh-and-blood human beings are wounded by our thoughts and actions.

Peter Murray has written an excellent history. His book is the best way to get an overview of this troubled era of Methodist history. Bill Kirk profoundly enriches the history by sharing his personal experience of being a pioneer for justice in the church, and giving us a first-hand look at the day-by-day strategy of the change agents. I consider it an act of providence that both books fell into my lap at the same time. They are well worth our study and deliberation. After all, as the old saw goes, those of us who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Is the UMC really global?

Several weeks ago I was sitting in my living room with an amiable British guest, a Methodist pastor visiting from England. His mood changed, however, when I happened to mention the decision of the Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire to become part of the United Methodist Church (UMC). The Protestant Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire (the Ivory Coast) had historically been affiliated with British Methodism. As a result of the efforts of British Methodism to move beyond colonialist models of Christianity, the Cote d'Ivoire Methodist Church became locally governed and autonomous in 1963. Several years ago leaders of the Cote d'Ivoire denomination approached the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) of the United Methodist Church to explore the possibility of affiliating with the UMC. During General Conference in Pittsburgh last May, the million members of the Cote d'Ivoire church officially became United Methodists and the UMC grew, in one day, from a 10 million-member denomination to an 11 million-member church. See "Cote d'Ivoire denomination joins United Methodist Church." My British friend was incensed about this and felt that the General Board of Global Ministry was undermining decades of efforts by British Methodists to reverse the negative effects of colonialism and their work to promote independence and self-determination within the African churches. "This is nothing more than 'rice Christianity'," my friend thundered. The terms "rice Christians" and "rice Christianity" refer to the horrendous practice of forcing people to convert to Christianity in India during the famine of 1837 when Christian missionaries gave starving people rice to eat only if they agreed to be baptized. My British friend was suggesting that the decision of the autonomous Methodists of Cote d'Ivorie to become an Annual Conference of the UMC, and part of the West Africa Central Conference, was motivated by financial benefits that might accrue to them as a result of this affiliation. This conversation is one reason I recently stopped by my local Cokesbury store to pick up a copy of Bruce Robbin's book A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of the United Methodist Church in a Global Setting published last year by Abingdon Press. Robbins, former head of the UMC Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, has written an amazingly frank book about a topic that is one of the most difficult to talk about within the United Methodist Church: the relationship between U.S. United Methodists and United Methodists in other parts of the world who are organized into Central Conferences. (Central Conferences -- there are currently seven -- are organizational units located only outside the United States. The relationship between General Conference, Central Conferences, and Annual Conferences is (how to put this?) peculiar; find information about "Conferences" and links to information about United Methodist organizational structures here). A World Parish? is a short book -- 120 pages -- but it contains the only history of how Central Conferences came to exist I have ever come across. It also raises hard questions about our relationship with Methodists outside the United States, whether they are part of Central Conferences, autonomous Methodist churches, concordant churches, "Act of Covenanting" churches, churches formerly affiliated with British Methodism, or other member churches of the World Methodist Council. In the book's final chapter, Robbins proposes a new organizational structure for worldwide United Methodism that would balance the tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence. All throughout the book, he discusses "the elephant in the room" (as he calls it) of the financial disparity between rich U.S. United Methodists and impoverished (beyond our imaginations) Methodists in other parts of the world, and the way this disparity so often distorts the relationship between United Methodists in the U.S. and in the Central Conferences. Here are a few of the important points Robbins makes: 1. We are not really a global church in any serious sense of the word. The Catholic Church is a global church, but United Methodism is what Robbins calls (based on a model developed by Janice Love) an "extended-national confessional" church. He defines this as "a particular doctrinal tradition embodied in members primarily in one country with additional churches in other nations or regions." (pp. 28-30) 2. The Central Conference structure, established in 1928, sought equality and empowered the younger churches in a way that was remarkable for its day, according to Robbins. But it has since remained impervious to modification or reform in spite of several major attempts to do so. There are some problems with the structure that we have failed to adequately discuss or address. Many of these have to do with the "elephant in the room" of the financial implications of the relationship. 3. Some Methodist churches, such as the churches of Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and others, have become either autonomous churches or affiliated autonomous churches. (Definitions of different relationships that autonomous churches might have and the implications for representation at General Conference can be found here.) These churches were promised that their relationship to the United Methodist Church would remain as strong as if they were still Central Conferences, including in the area of financial support. This has not happened, largely, I believe, for political reasons. Because the representation of Central Conferences at General Conference is much greater (in 2004, 184 of the 994 voting delegates or 18.5 percent were from Central Conferences) and because Central Conferences are represented on the governing bodies of UMC boards and agencies as well as on the Council of Bishops, Central Conferences have received significantly greater support from the UMC than other daughter/son churches. Frankly, this seems to me to be an unavoidable consequences of the greater degree of political power Central Conferences have within the denominational system compared to autonomous churches. 4. One example of the "elephant in the room" that Robbins puts on the table is the financial and other benefits to individuals that result from being part of Central Conference structures. Robbins is very frank in his discussion of the fact that the bishops of Central Conference churches are advocating that they be paid the same salary as U.S. bishops. This would seem fair; however, such salaries (paid entirely by U.S. funds since Central Conferences contribute no apportionments to the UMC) would make Central Conference bishops amazingly rich in their home economies. Even the opportunities for bishops and other Central Conference leaders to have expenses paid to travel to the United States to attend meetings and, thereby, to establish relationships with U.S. Methodists are very desirable benefits to people living in countries where people have exceeding low income and very few opportunities. As Robbins hints, it must be very difficult for Central Conference leaders not to be influenced by personal benefits when they make decisions that impact their people back home. He says that Central Conference leaders who have resisted changes in the status quo have been criticized back home. People back home have asked: "Concerning those who support the status quo, are they not the same people who have the opportunity to go to the United States and to take advantage of the opportunities created by the 'world church'?" U.S. United Methodists participating in discussions about possible changes in the status quo do not know what to do, Robbins says. "They (U.S. Methodist leaders) saw the impediments and the concern expressed by other parts of the world Church ... Yet they felt it most important to listen to the voices of the leadership who sat around the table with them. Otherwise, they would be exercising a paternalism far more concrete than the structural paternalism inherent in the present church structure. It was a conundrum that would pass from one General Conference to another up to the present day." (pp. 54-55) 5. One concrete and contemporary example of this unfortunate tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence is the Philippines. United Methodists in the Philippines are increasingly leaning toward a preference to become an autonomous Methodist church rather than remaining a Central Conference. (See a UMNS news story here and a GBGM analysis of Methodism in the Philippines here.) The Central Conference includes 19 Annual Conferences and, by current church rules, all 19 would have to vote to become autonomous. If even one conference fails to do so, the status quo remains in effect. (pp. 93-95) 6. One of the strangest quirks of the current arrangement is that Central Conference delegates to General Conference vote on the contents of two Books of Discipline. They vote on the version of the Book of Discipline that applies to the United States church, and then vote on a different version of the Book of Discipline that applies to their particular Central Conference back home. As a group that collectively controls 18.5 percent of the vote (this percentage is expected to increase in 2008), Central Conference delegates have a major influence on policies and practices that they themselves do not necessarily have to follow themselves. Another consequence of this strange rule is that U.S. United Methodists are the only group who do not get to vote on their own version of the Book of Disciple. (pp. 19-20) Robbins' ultimate hope is that the UMC will move toward a new structure that will both maintain the connection with Central Conferences and repair the connection with autonomous daughter/son Methodist churches. The new structure would not be based on competition for scarce resources but a renewed commitment to mission and ministry. Everyone would contribute their apportionments based on their ability to do so. (There is something unhealthy about a portion of the church not having the opportunity to put their apportionments in the plate, no matter how numerically small their contriutions might turn out to be.) The new structure would respect the need for both self-determination and interdependence. Robbin's basic proposal consists of a General Conference and Regional Conferences. General Conference would include members from all the annual conferences throughout the world. The work of General Conference would be to develop and maintain a common constitution, including the basic theological tenets and Methodist emphases shared by everyone, and to coordinate worldwide mission and ministry. Then, there would also be Regional Conferences, similar to Central Conferences today, except there would also be a Regional Conference, or perhaps more than one, within the United States. Each of the current U.S. Jurisdictional Conferences might become Regional Conferences, or there could be one U.S. Regional Conference (or any other combination). Each Regional Conference would have its own Book of Discipline (as the Central Conferences outside the United States do today) as long as the content was consistent with the Constitution agreed upon by General Conference. For those of us who have dear friends within the Central Conferences, all this (especially financial matters) can make for awkward conversation. This very fact suggests there are aspects of the current structures that are not as healthy as they ought to be. Robbins deserves our gratitude for raising the issues so directly, openly, and frankly. Now all of us who love the United Methodist Church must prayerfully contemplate what it would mean to commit ourselves to be a truly global church.

Is the UMC really global?

Several weeks ago I was sitting in my living room with an amiable British guest, a Methodist pastor visiting from England. His mood changed, however, when I happened to mention the decision of the Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire to become part of the United Methodist Church (UMC).

The Protestant Methodist Church of Cote d'Ivoire (the Ivory Coast) had historically been affiliated with British Methodism. As a result of the efforts of British Methodism to move beyond colonialist models of Christianity, the Cote d'Ivoire Methodist Church became locally governed and autonomous in 1963.

Several years ago leaders of the Cote d'Ivoire denomination approached the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) of the United Methodist Church to explore the possibility of affiliating with the UMC. During General Conference in Pittsburgh last May, the million members of the Cote d'Ivoire church officially became United Methodists and the UMC grew, in one day, from a 10 million-member denomination to an 11 million-member church. See "Cote d'Ivoire denomination joins United Methodist Church."

My British friend was incensed about this and felt that the General Board of Global Ministry was undermining decades of efforts by British Methodists to reverse the negative effects of colonialism and their work to promote independence and self-determination within the African churches.

"This is nothing more than 'rice Christianity'," my friend thundered. The terms "rice Christians" and "rice Christianity" refer to the horrendous practice of forcing people to convert to Christianity in India during the famine of 1837 when Christian missionaries gave starving people rice to eat only if they agreed to be baptized. My British friend was suggesting that the decision of the autonomous Methodists of Cote d'Ivorie to become an Annual Conference of the UMC, and part of the West Africa Central Conference, was motivated by financial benefits that might accrue to them as a result of this affiliation.

This conversation is one reason I recently stopped by my local Cokesbury store to pick up a copy of Bruce Robbin's book A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of the United Methodist Church in a Global Setting published last year by Abingdon Press. Robbins, former head of the UMC Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, has written an amazingly frank book about a topic that is one of the most difficult to talk about within the United Methodist Church: the relationship between U.S. United Methodists and United Methodists in other parts of the world who are organized into Central Conferences. (Central Conferences -- there are currently seven -- are organizational units located only outside the United States.)

The relationship between General Conference, Central Conferences, and Annual Conferences is --how to put this?-- peculiar.(Find information about "Conferences" and links to information about United Methodist organizational structures here).

A World Parish? is a short book -- 120 pages -- but it contains the only history of how Central Conferences came to exist I have ever come across. It also raises hard questions about our relationship with Methodists outside the United States, whether they are part of Central Conferences, autonomous Methodist churches, concordant churches, "Act of Covenanting" churches, churches formerly affiliated with British Methodism, or other member churches of the World Methodist Council.

In the book's final chapter, Robbins proposes a new organizational structure for worldwide United Methodism that would balance the tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence.

All throughout the book, he discusses "the elephant in the room" (as he calls it) of the financial disparity between rich U.S. United Methodists and impoverished (beyond our imaginations) Methodists in other parts of the world, and the way this disparity so often distorts the relationship between United Methodists in the U.S. and in the Central Conferences.

Here are a few of the important points Robbins makes:

1. We are not really a global church in any serious sense of the word. The Catholic Church is a global church, but United Methodism is what Robbins calls (based on a model developed by Janice Love) an "extended-national confessional" church. He defines this as "a particular doctrinal tradition embodied in members primarily in one country with additional churches in other nations or regions." (pp. 28-30)

2. The Central Conference structure, established in 1928, sought equality and empowered the younger churches in a way that was remarkable for its day, according to Robbins. But it has since remained impervious to modification or reform in spite of several major attempts to do so. There are some problems with the structure that we have failed to adequately discuss or address. Many of these have to do with the "elephant in the room" of the financial implications of the relationship.

3. Some Methodist churches, such as the churches of Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and others, have become either autonomous churches or affiliated autonomous churches. (Definitions of different relationships that autonomous churches might have and the implications for representation at General Conference can be found here.) These churches were promised that their relationship to the United Methodist Church would remain as strong as if they were still Central Conferences, including in the area of financial support. This has not happened, largely, I believe, for political reasons. Because the representation of Central Conferences at General Conference is much greater (in 2004, 184 of the 994 voting delegates or 18.5 percent were from Central Conferences) and because Central Conferences are represented on the governing bodies of UMC boards and agencies as well as on the Council of Bishops, Central Conferences have received significantly greater support from the UMC than other daughter/son churches. Frankly, this seems to me to be an unavoidable consequences of the greater degree of political power Central Conferences have within the denominational system compared to autonomous churches.

4. One example of the "elephant in the room" that Robbins puts on the table is the financial and other benefits to individuals that result from being part of Central Conference structures. Robbins is very frank in his discussion of the fact that the bishops of Central Conference churches are advocating that they be paid the same salary as U.S. bishops. This would seem fair; however, such salaries (paid entirely by U.S. funds since Central Conferences contribute no apportionments to the UMC) would make Central Conference bishops amazingly rich in their home economies. Even the opportunities for bishops and other Central Conference leaders to have expenses paid to travel to the United States to attend meetings and, thereby, to establish relationships with U.S. Methodists are very desirable benefits to people living in countries where people have exceeding low income and very few opportunities. As Robbins hints, it must be very difficult for Central Conference leaders not to be influenced by personal benefits when they make decisions that impact their people back home.

Robbins says that Central Conference leaders who have resisted changes in the status quo have been criticized back home. People back home have asked: "Concerning those who support the status quo, are they not the same people who have the opportunity to go to the United States and to take advantage of the opportunities created by the 'world church'?"

U.S. United Methodists participating in discussions about possible changes in the status quo do not know what to do, he says. "They (U.S. Methodist leaders) saw the impediments and the concern expressed by other parts of the world Church ... Yet they felt it most important to listen to the voices of the leadership who sat around the table with them. Otherwise, they would be exercising a paternalism far more concrete than the structural paternalism inherent in the present church structure. It was a conundrum that would pass from one General Conference to another up to the present day." (pp. 54-55) 5.

One concrete and contemporary example of this unfortunate tension between the desire for both autonomy and interdependence is the Philippines. United Methodists in the Philippines are increasingly leaning toward a preference to become an autonomous Methodist church rather than remaining a Central Conference. (See a UMNS news story here and a GBGM analysis of Methodism in the Philippines here.) The Central Conference includes 19 Annual Conferences and, by current church rules, all 19 would have to vote to become autonomous. If even one conference fails to do so, the status quo remains in effect. (pp. 93-95)

6. One of the strangest quirks of the current arrangement is that Central Conference delegates to General Conference vote on the contents of two Books of Discipline. They vote on the version of the Book of Discipline that applies to the United States church, and then vote on a different version of the Book of Discipline that applies to their particular Central Conference back home. As a group that collectively controls 18.5 percent of the vote (this percentage is expected to increase in 2008), Central Conference delegates have a major influence on policies and practices that they themselves do not necessarily have to follow themselves. Another consequence of this strange rule is that U.S. United Methodists are the only group who do not get to vote on their own version of the Book of Disciple. (pp. 19-20)

Robbins' ultimate hope is that the UMC will move toward a new structure that will both maintain the connection with Central Conferences and repair the connection with autonomous daughter/son Methodist churches. The new structure would not be based on competition for scarce resources but a renewed commitment to mission and ministry. Everyone would contribute their apportionments based on their ability to do so. (There is something unhealthy about a portion of the church not having the opportunity to put their apportionments in the plate, no matter how numerically small their contriutions might turn out to be.) The new structure would respect the need for both self-determination and interdependence.

Robbin's basic proposal consists of a General Conference and Regional Conferences. General Conference would include members from all the annual conferences throughout the world. The work of General Conference would be to develop and maintain a common constitution, including the basic theological tenets and Methodist emphases shared by everyone, and to coordinate worldwide mission and ministry. Then, there would also be Regional Conferences, similar to Central Conferences today, except there would also be a Regional Conference, or perhaps more than one, within the United States. Each of the current U.S. Jurisdictional Conferences might become Regional Conferences, or there could be one U.S. Regional Conference (or any other combination). Each Regional Conference would have its own Book of Discipline (as the Central Conferences outside the United States do today) as long as the content was consistent with the Constitution agreed upon by General Conference.

For those of us who have dear friends within the Central Conferences, all this (especially financial matters) can make for awkward conversation. This very fact suggests there are aspects of the current structures that are not as healthy as they ought to be. Robbins deserves our gratitude for raising the issues so directly, openly, and frankly. Now all of us who love the United Methodist Church must prayerfully contemplate what it would mean to commit ourselves to be a truly global church.