I found the article below, from Jim Winkler (General Secretary, General Board of Church & Society), both challenging and thought provoking.
I have just completed a book review on an exceptional book for the journal Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae. The book in question is called Seasons in theology: Inroads of postmodernism, reference and representation. Cornel W du Toit 2007 (246 pages. Pretoria, Research Institute for Theology and Religion. University of South Africa. ISBN: 978-1-86888-488-9. Price R120-00; US$29-00; £17-00; €23-00).
In this book du Toit presents an exceptional argument for the need to constantly reform BOTH the form and content of religion, in order to meet the needs of people's faith (note the three points here, the form of religion (what we do), the content of religion (what we profess as truth and how that forms us and society), and the content of our faith (what we believe in our innermost being - which is often affirmed and built of by the form and content of religion, and at times is at odds with one or both of those elements).
Well, John's comment, this book, and the article below have sent me on a journey of introspection and reconsideration of my own Church - the Methodist church of Southern Africa. Heck, I cannot tell you how much I love this denomination! Even more so since I now operate predominantly outside of it. I have come to appreciate with such intensity the theoretical balance between personal piety (i.e., holiness and devotion to Christ), and social holiness (i.e., the outworking of our faith in Jesus and how that impacts society and its structures - in essence the mission dei). Personal forgiveness, that deals with personal sin, must confront and change social and structural sin. For example if I confess that I suffer from greed, and I find forgiveness and healing from that sin, I need to confront the structural sin of capital gain and individual enrichment that is a result of the greed of many, and also feeds into the capacity for people to live openly with the sin of greed without being challenged about it.
There is a cyclic brilliance in this - God deals with me, I in turn am used by God to deal with my wider sphere of influence, which in turn affects me, my ideas, my behaviour, and my choices.
Well, here's the article in question. I hope it lights up a few neural pathways for you!
By Wesley's own standard, the Methodist movement must be considered a failure. At least that is the conclusion of author Ted Jennings in his book, Good News to the Poor: John Wesley’s Evangelical Economics.
"The aim of the Methodist movement as conceived by Wesley was not to generate a prosperous and successful denomination, or even several of them," Jennings writes, "but 'to spread scriptural holiness throughout the land' … The success or failure of this project depended not on increase in numbers and influence, but on an increase in faithfulness."
The aim of the Methodist movement as conceived by Wesley was not to generate a prosperous and successful denomination, or even several of them.
Despite all that could and should be credited to Methodism, Jennings says the movement has become a mirror and an instrument of the reign of Mammon. He contends that Methodism, despite the intentions of its founder, has "basked in the upward socioeconomic mobility of its members, making the middle class the object of its solicitous regard, the norm of the efficacy and relevance of its programs."
Jennings contends that Methodism has made itself hostage to the "dream of denominational success and influence, perverting stewardship into a temple tax and appropriating the management and organizational models of institutional maintenance and growth."
Our present condition
Not only, as Mr. Wesley would say, do those terrible words speak to our present condition, but Jennings insists concern for the oppressed has not been silenced, but rather, "it has been marginalized, placed not at the center but at the periphery of institutional life and commitment."
United Methodist Bishop Ken Carder presents a similar assessment in Rethinking Wesley's Theology for Contemporary Methodism. He writes that a middle-class ethos permeates The United Methodist Church. The denomination's organizational structures, management procedures, programming activities, curriculum resources, facilities, remuneration of clergy, appointment and budgetary processes, and agencies and gatherings are shaped by middle-class values and methodologies, according to Carder.
"The poor are absent from most local churches and denominational structures; and whenever they are visible, the poor tend to be treated as objects of charity more than as special friends of Jesus Christ and persons with whom God closely identifies," Carder asserts.
I myself am a descendant of the European tribes, now called nations, that have established political, military and economic dominance over the world. I confess to my sin of privilege and my reluctance to forego the perks that my race and class afford me.
The poor tend to be treated as objects of charity more than as special friends of Jesus Christ.
Nonetheless, we do not separate ourselves from the world if we are faithful followers of Jesus Christ. We live in love with the world because the most famous passage of the New Testament declares: "God so loved the world that God sent God’s only Son into the world."
God’s grace calls forth human response and obedience. We seek God's grace and human activity working together. God’s grace calls us to good works.
Our Doctrinal Heritage
In "Our Doctrinal Heritage," the United Methodist Book of Discipline states that God's grace is manifest in all creation, even though suffering, violence and evil are present everywhere.
As United Methodists, we insist that personal salvation always involves Christian mission and service to the world. By joining heart and hand, we assert, as "Our Doctrinal Heritage" states, that personal religion, evangelical witness, and Christian social action are "reciprocal and mutually reinforcing."
Personal religion, evangelical witness, and Christian social action are 'reciprocal and mutually reinforcing.'
More than 80 years ago, those who went before us raised funds to erect a magnificent Methodist Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. That structure, now known as The United Methodist Building, faces the U.S. Capitol and is next door to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1963 our denomination built the Church Center for the United Nations directly across the street from the U.N. headquarters in New York City.
In a sense, our denomination said, "Here are our Social Principles, go to work on Capitol Hill and at the United Nations to seek their implementation." I can declare without hesitation that my predecessors and I as the heads of the various social concerns agencies through the decades have worked diligently to continue that mandated role.
We have faithfully sought the implementation of the Social Principles - which are celebrating their 100th anniversary this year - and other statements on Christian social concerns adopted by our top policy-making body. We have followed that mandate even in the face of criticism by some outspoken persons who are uncomfortable or disagree with those Social Principles and statements.
Accountable and representative
Wherever I go, I remind people that the process to reach decisions in our denomination is accountable and representative. Every local church is represented in the process. The United Methodist Board of Church & Society's directors, for instance, consist of bishops, clergy and laity elected through that process.
Besides being representative and accountable, another part of our mandate is to help people join justice and mercy in their own lives, their congregations and their communities.
The great El Salvadoran Archbishop, Oscar Romero, assassinated in 1980 for his courageous opposition to the military dictatorship in his country, once said:
A church that doesn't provoke any crises, a gospel that doesn't unsettle, a word of God that doesn’t get under anyone's skin, what gospel is that? Very nice, pious considerations that don’t bother anyone; that’s the way too many would like preaching to be. Those people who avoid every thorny matter so as not to be harassed, so as not to have conflicts and difficulties, do not light up the world they live in.
We laity need to honor and insist upon the principle of a free pulpit for our clergy.
Too often, we put niceness above all else in the church. We laity need to honor and insist upon the principle of a free pulpit for our clergy. The Sunday sermon must be a place where our pastors give us both the pastoral and prophetic word.
Many of our preachers are downright scared to preach the word because of the reaction they fear from angry laity, who think they own God’s pulpit. We need to affirm the freedom for our pastors to share the Word of God with us.
The charge I sometimes hear is that the United Methodist Board of Church & Society and prophetic preachers don’t represent majority opinion, and that people are leaving for churches that do. I believe the Holy Spirit works even at General Conference, our top policy-making body, because delegates seek ultimately to answer the question, "What should the Church of Jesus Christ say?", rather than "What do I insist the church say?" Mr. Wesley certainly understood the difference - and which would ultimately "increase faithfulness" among Methodists.
With love, and a desire to see the Church be most effective to transform Christ's world and achieve God's plan - Dion
Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 8:30PM 
