Last October, Dr. Gerald H. Anderson spoke to UM clergy in Dallas, Texas, and outlined the need for a second mission agency in the UM Church. News of his address became known at a time when the Evangelical Missions Council was finalizing plans for a second agency. At the same time, partly because of the pending election of Ms. Peggy Billings as the new head of the World Division of the General Board of Global Ministries, a number of pastors were concluding that a new agency was needed. The convergence of these events led to the formation of The Mission Society for United Methodists, incorporated in Georgia on January 6, 1984. Dr. Anderson is a board member of the new society.
The United Methodist Church has had a notable role in the development of a global church. In recent years, however, certain trends in the policies and practices of our General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM)—especially the World Division—have been puzzling and distressing. For several years I refrained from speaking publicly about these troubling developments. Out of a sense of loyalty to the board and personal friendship with a number of World Division staff persons, I maintained a painful public silence.
Privately I expressed my concerns to colleagues both within the board and in professional contacts, and prayerfully waited, hoping for change. It did not happen. Private dialogue was unproductive. Therefore, after the failure and futility of nearly a decade of private protest, I decided to "go public" in a Dallas specch as an act of conscience.
What follows is the substance of my remarks in Dallas, and some of the reactions I have received in response to my analysis and proposal.
+++++++++++++
It seems clear that, over the last decade, the World Division of the General Board of Global Ministries has been unable—some would say unwilling—to serve the whole denomination as an agency for expressing our global witness and service. Unfortunately, there is increasingly widespread sentiment in the church that the World Division is theologically imprecise, not truly holistic in mission, and unresponsive to the pluralism in the denomination.
Specifically: What theology of mission is operative in the program and policies of the World Division? Presumably, as a responsible agency of the church, the World Division works out of a theological consensus about the central issues assigned to it by the church. But what is that theology?
The Discipline (para. 1556) states that, "The World Division exists to confess Jesus Christ as divine Lord and Savior to all people in every place, testifying to his redemptive and liberating power… and calling all people to Christian obedience and discipleship." As the World Division develops its priorities and programs, how does it understand and apply that statement of purpose?
What is the theology of religions that shapes the witness of the World
Division in fulfilling its mandate of "calling all people to Christian
obedience and discipleship"? Does the World Division affirm, for
instance, that outside Christ there is no salvation? What does the World
Division understand to be the role and relationship of evangelism to
dialogue with people of other faiths?
A designated contribution
Some time ago I wrote to the Board of Global Ministries and asked what
would happen if someone sent the board a contribution designated for
evangelism of the Jewish people. I was advised that the board is not
involved in the evangelization of Jews. The reply said, "We would
suggest that the contributor redesignate his support in whatever manner
he may choose, or request a return of his funds."
This board representative also pointed out that, "The United Methodist Church is involved in building bridges and sharing in dialogue [with Jews] through the office on Christian-Jewish relations of the National Council of Churches. We believe that a program of dialogue should stand side by side with our mandate to evangelize all people, and that dialogue is a form of witness to our commitment."
If, as this board representative suggests, "dialogue should stand
side by side with our mandate to evangelize all people," then where
is the comparable program of evangelism that stands "side by side"
with our program of dialogue with Jews? It is this sort of ambiguity
that has caused confusion in our church, a loss of confidence in our
mission agency, and a credibility gap between the GBGM and our membership.
Imbalance
Secondly, our Board of Global Ministries speaks of being committed
to a holistic concept of mission through word and deed, for individual
salvation and social change. Clearly these emphases belong together
in the mission of Jesus Christ. There is a widespread perception in
the church however, that an imbalance exists in the programs
and policies of the GBGM.
For example, consider the annual report for 1982 by the President and General Secretary of the GBGM. In this report it is very difficult to find any clear indication that the evangelistic mandate of calling people to personal, saving faith in Jesus Christ is an urgent part of the program and priorities of the board.
The report says that "we are called to understand ourselves as sharing in the cosmic events of this era," that "mission has moved from the perspective of territorial conquest to one in which the arena is one of spirit and mind," that "mission is a slow, tedious struggle with principalities and powers in the force of evil," that "we must implement the Gospel without fear," and that mission is "being on the frontiers of race, of economic structure, of political reality or of cultural difference." What the report does not mention is that faith is also a frontier where we are called to witness.
Nothing in this annual report suggests that it is a matter of any special
concern to our GBGM that 120 million people in this country and 68 percent
of the world's population do not have saving faith in Christ.
Not listening
Thirdly, there is a sense of frustration in the church. This frustration
has grown out of a perception that the World Division is unresponsive
to the pluralism in the church. United Methodists are saying to the
World Division, "You are not listening to us; you are not hearing
us, or—if you are hearing us—you are not taking us seriously."
For nearly a decade, United Methodists have been sending a message to the World Division, saying: 1) The executive staff of the World Division is not fairly, representative of the theological pluralism in the church; 2) The programmatic emphases of the World Division are not truly holistic; and 3) While we rejoice in the 500 members of our church who are in regular missionary service overseas as well as those overseas nationals who are enabled to be in mission through the World Division, this number is not adequate in light of the global needs of Gospel witness from a church of more than nine million members.
The result of this frustration is that a good deal of money and personnel from our church is going to other mission agencies outside the United Methodist Church. According to the financial report for 1982 (New World Outlook, April 1983, p. 51), General Fund expenditures for overseas mission decreased by more than $300,000 compared to the previous year.
In view of these concerns, what is to be done? I would like to make a proposal. It seems to me that our church has outgrown our present structure for world mission. Or to put it another way, our present structure for world mission has not kept up with the church. Therefore, we should consider the creation of an additional world mission agency for the United Methodist Church.
I propose that this new agency be created by and accountable to the General Conference as a voluntary, international, missionary society. It would be voluntary in that it would be dependent on voluntary support from churches and individuals. The model I have in mind is that of the Church Missionary Society of the Anglican Church, and perhaps some of the Roman Catholic missionary societies, such as the Society of the Divine Word. As an additional channel for global mission and service in the Wesleyan tradition, its purpose would be to witness to the whole Gospel for the whole person in the whole world.
Such an agency would be international in that several of its directors would be from Methodist churches overseas.
The agency would be missionary in that one of its primary functions would be to enable persons to serve in mission across frontiers of culture, nation, race, language, faith, and ideology.
I suppose this proposal will be viewed by some as threatening to the World Division, but it should not be. That is not my intention or desire. My concern is to recognize the pluralism, the vitality, and the resources in our church that are not being adequately challenged, served, and utilized by our present structure for world mission. In the long run this additional channel for mission and service would, in my judgment, not only generate more total resources for the task of world mission, but could also serve as a focus for renewal in the church.
The issue will be whether the United Methodist Church today is secure
enough in its sense of being and purpose to allow for some untidiness
in its organizational structure—for the sake of mission—"so
that the world may believe."
Reactions
In the weeks following my address, which was widely reported in the
religious press, I received many personal letters and telephone calls
from bishops, pastors, church agency executives, professors, former
missionaries, and others. In the replies I received from persons outside
the executive staff of the board, there was nearly unanimous affirmation
and agreement with my analysis of the problems regarding the Board of
Global Ministries. One former missionary observed, however, "The
situation is far worse than you have described it!"
One of the first letters I received was from a bishop who said, "Thank you for your courage, your insight, and your prophetic spirit. Your words are bringing great encouragement to large numbers of people in this region."
Another bishop sent a letter saying, "I share a good deal of the concern which you express in your paper. I am not prepared to support the idea of a separate missionary sending agency at this time, although if the World Division does not respond more vigorously to the needs of the church than it has, it may happen by default,"
Several persons noted the obstacles in our church polity and tradition that a second mission agency would encounter. Another former missionary, now a professor in this country, wrote a letter with three short points: "First," he said, "I agree with you 100 percent. Second, there is not a ghost of a chance that General Conference will approve another mission agency; the Board of Global Ministries will fight it to the bitter end. Third, I think this should not deter us. I believe there is enough grass-roots support in the church to make such a volunteer missions organization possible and desirable."
A well-known United Methodist theologian and author wrote to me saying, "My guess is that if a parallel voluntary agency would be established and permitted to engage in the responsibilities now assigned exclusively to the Board of Global Ministries, by 1990 it could be receiving $25 to $35 million in voluntary contributions from United Methodist sources…. Thank you for liberating many voices that until now have been silent."
A widely-respected Latin American Methodist Leader, who is a long-time personal friend, sent a lengthy critique of my proposal. He said that the Methodist churches in Latin America have had a very positive relationship with the Board of Global Ministries; that another agency would create new problems for related churches overseas; and that any credibility gap should be the agenda for discussion.
Finally, many people have asked what the response has been from the General Board of Global Ministries. It has been mixed.
At the time of her election in October as the new head of the World Division, Ms. Peggy Billings said, "I would not welcome such a development…. I think such an alternate agency would be extremely divisive of the resources, the mind and heart of the church" (UM Reporter, Oct. 14, 1983). A week later she invited me to address the meeting of the World Division in March. I have accepted the invitation.
Following my address in Dallas there was nearly unanimous sentiment
that the General Conference this May would not approve or recognize
a second mission agency. It is clear that the GBGM has enough political
influence in the General Conference to thwart any such action at this
time. Therefore, after very prayerful consideration, a group of interested
pastors, professors, and lay persons from many areas of the country
covenanted to proceed with the formation of a voluntary mission agency.
Lighting the fuse
Recently, church historian Martin Marty spoke of the massive potential
for spiritual vitality that exists in American Methodism. He suggested
that this would be a good year—as American Methodism celebrates
its 200th anniversary—for John Wesley's "time bomb to go off."
If it does, says Marty, "there can be some hope of renewal." If a time bomb has a fuse, possibly the creation of The Mission Society
for United Methodists at the beginning of this anniversary year will
be the lighting of the fuse.
This article was published in Good News magazine (March/April 1984).