UMCOR (The United Methodist Committee on Relief), Has the Following Mission

When I joined John Lane for coffee the day after he returned from Africa University, I witnessed an animated—dare I say inspired—man who was eagerly articulating his recent experience. Perhaps I was swept up in his enthusiasm, but I thought I even heard him speak of “our church” as he spoke positively of the Methodist work that has gone on in Africa over the years. Knowing that John grew up Methodist, and knowing that aspects of his Methodist history were often less than positive, I was pleased that he was finding an aspect of the church’s work that he believed was making a positive difference on the planet. Further, it seemed that the AU experience was inviting John into a process of discernment on many levels.

Then, somewhere the ugly realities of missionary proselytizing and the residue of colonialism were uncovered in John’s reading. Is this what being a missionary in the Methodist tradition is all about? Do they really do that—still? John called me with those questions two weeks later. I happened to be speaking at a Methodist college in Kentucky that day, and within fifteen minutes after John posed his questions, I was sitting beside two members of the GBGM (General Board of Global Ministries.) I asked them the questions John asked me, and they (one male in his thirties and one female in her sixties) quickly and emphatically said, “No! We don’t do that any longer. Haven’t for a long time!” Pleased with that response, I nevertheless looked up several Methodist agencies in an attempt to better understand their position on such issues. Several readers of the Ab/Lane correspondence have asked me to respond to some technical questions. It’s not riveting stuff, but here goes…

UMCOR (the United Methodist Committee on Relief), has the following mission: Responding to natural or man-made disasters, UMCOR's mission is to alleviate human suffering with open hearts to all religions and open doors to all people. UMCOR is a humanitarian, non-proselytizing agency of the United Methodist Church.

So far, so good. Now, how about missionaries from GBGM? Well, here’s where it gets more complicated. The UMC has four priorities across all of the church:  Engaging in Ministry with the Poor  Stamping Out the Killer Diseases of Poverty by Improving Health Globally  Creating New Places for New People and Renewing Existing Congregations  Developing Principled Christian Leaders for the Church and the World.

Clearly, the first two won’t happen if the last two aren’t in place. There is an effort to begin 400 new congregations outside the US. Still, there is strong emphasis on making sure cultural identities are retained in the midst of changing religious identities. For instance, GBGM states that the church in China is “developing a truly Chinese identity.” In the midst of all of this, there is a deliberate effort to, “make disciples of Jesus Christ.” Sometimes I think that because of the radical right, fundamentalist culture that dominates the religious scene here in what at least one historian (Glenn Feldman) calls the “ultraconservative belt,” we have a difficult time with the word “making.” Around here, making disciples can be an act of abuse. That’s not what is intended. Inviting people into a community of faith can be a genuine act of hospitality, and can be done with love and respect. It would be disingenuous of Christians to offer assistance with medical issues, hunger and poverty situations, and education (acts of love) and then withhold offering genuine welcome into the community which provided the spiritual and material resources that enabled those needs to be addressed.

Now, there’s another group called The Mission Society. My take on that group is that they were begun in reaction to the perceived failure of the GBGM to be proactive enough in what many would call proselytizing. They do very good humanitarian work; they are just more intentional with conversion to belief in Christ. They state that “The Mission Society exists to  mobilize and deploy the body of Christ globally  to join Jesus in His mission,  especially among the least reached peoples They spell that out with corresponding biblical texts and theological interpretation. You may see that at: http://www.themissionsociety.org/go/missionstatement

My view, stated simplistically, is that GBGM emphasizes the religion of Jesus (compassion, service, etc.,) while MS is interested in the religion about Jesus (Son of God, Savior). This would imply that salvation means different things for each of these groups. Of course, I might be wrong…

OK, that’s some info. What interests me much more is this conversation about love. I do not mean to be a clichéd Christian here, but I think it can be worthwhile to consider substituting “love“ for “Christ” when doing some practical theology. For me, the work of the church is largely about figuring out how to love (be Christ) in the world. It is a difficult, nuanced, misunderstood, abused, and formidable task. Still, reframing and reimaging love (Christ) while rejecting the religious abuse (that’s about power, not love) is important work. It is too important to walk away from it because some folk –previously and presently- abuse(d) it. Please keep the love-talk going…

Rev. Ron, Chaplain Wofford College