Download 2016 General Conference - National Federation of Asian American

Asian-American Response - 2016 General Conference
Jacob Dharmaraj, Ph.D
President
I love General Conference! It is indeed a joyous place to be. One can witness firsthand the worldwide United
Methodist Church doing business.
General Conference is the United Methodist’s quadrennial kumbaya. It is the denomination’s legislative amphitheater,
its missional marketplace, its doctrinal battleground, its connectional system’s fiscal auditorium, and its fistedhandbudgetary arena.
General Conference is the public dome where the miraculous and the monstrous are equally part of daily
deliberations. It is a place where the boundaries between reality and dreams are blurred; lofty vision and imagined
future are carved out through the prism of memory, nostalgia, and high ambition for the denomination’s worldwide
church.
I enjoy being at the margin and sidelines of the General Conference from where one can see the fringe events that
take place which are equally important for the life of the denomination. After all, what is visible and broadcast is
important for the record, but what is ignored and marginalized are more important for the conscience of the church.
The periphery of the General Conference has a status of its own that often draws a rally, a drama, a scene of media
sensation, punctuated by the reportorial “the-whole-world-is-watching-us,” than revelatory.
There is also an aura that surrounds the General Conference, viewed as a latter day United Methodist Byzantium
where a galaxy of sensitive, sophisticated human beings from all across United Methodism altruistically join forces to
achieve spiritually elevating, ecclesially nourishing, missionally wholesome, and globally transformative programs.
Consequently, the General Conference tends to become gouty and pompous.
Now that GC16 has poured its last cup of tea, strapped its tarp and traveling gear to the trailer, and dispatched its last
emissary to form a study commission on human sexuality, I miss the high drama, its suspense and its myrmidon for
another four years, (may be two years!)
Global north meeting global south
What fascinated me more than anything else at GC16 was the large presence and active participation of the
multiethnic delegates from the worldwide church. To many Christians in the global north, Christians in the global
south belong only to the domain of missions and not in the region of partnership or mutuality. Only recently it is best
understood as an independent church and not as an appendage of Western missionary expansion, and they have an
identity and selfhood of their own. Yes, indeed, the age of diversity is upon us.
We, as a denomination, are increasingly a community of communities and should treat that as strength. Despite their
full participation in the conference’s deliberations, more often than not, the comments and observations of the
delegates from overseas were punctuated by questions about parliamentary procedures and an unfamiliar legislative
process. I wonder if there was any count on how many times the delegates had mentioned that they were confused,
lost and totally out of tune with the procedure, the process and the progression of the debate and voting policy of the
General Conference.
While the proponents of Rule 44 tried to pitch their tents during the storm of parliamentary procedures and when the
extensive debate over the Council of Bishops recommendation to cradle the petitions on human sexuality for another
two years was dragged on, more and more delegates expressed their confusion and dismay over the process deeply
rooted and firmly grounded in Robert’s Rules of Order, a North American parliamentary process. The cavernous
cultural gap and the resonant parliamentary procedure that disjointed the overseas delegates with the U.S. delegates
became more evident while hot-button issues were discussed. While the metaphor of doing business under the
palaver tree, an African consensus-building process, was floated around, this remained only as a beautiful metaphor.
Tell us in plain words
While I followed the skilled leadership style of the presiders from the podium and the nuanced arguments of the
delegates from the floor, for some strange reason, one sentence from classic literature kept ringing in my ears. It was
from James Joyce’s Ulysses in which Molly asks Bloomabout metempsychosis, a word in a book she had been
reading. The response Bloom gave Molly was, “It’s Greek: from the Greek . . . That means the transmigration of
souls.”
“O rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words.” So goes Molly’s plea to her lover to explain metempsychosis.
In my opinion, GC16 was a weirdly pressurized and verbally jeopardized space due to high-stake petitions that were
on the table, such as, Rule 44 and human sexuality. Most importantly, they were crisscrossed with potential divisions
and schisms within the denomination. Dropping one’s guard during those tense moments would find oneself holding
forth like a lost and somnolent passenger in an airport terminal in a foreign land.
The vital question that most of us ask after a major event is, “What would history say of this event?” That goes for
GC16 as well. There are narratives we tell our families, the accounts we share with our friends, and most importantly,
the versions we describe to our parishioners and ourselves in order to keep on living, serving and ministering.
Through the act of narration, we empower others to see what we see. Galileo became famous not just because he
saw how the stars move but because he insisted fellow humans see for themselves how the biosphere works. We
need to share what we see and shape our society accordingly for the best.
The narratives GC16 presents is this: Number matters. Persuasion reigns supreme. Status quo prevails. Table
difficult issues. If you can’t win, try to cover the opponent with a slow-creeping fog, and mute the voices to ashes with
whatever you have in your verbal arsenal.
Rage correlation only with issue boxes
General Conference 2016, I submit, suffered from a rage deficit. It refused to take seriously the persecuted sisters
and brothers in Christ in other parts of the world, including the Palestinian Christians. Not just brotherhood but
siblinghood matters in mission.
It failed to unleash its righteous anger and holy discontent about the refugees and immigrant crises around the world
and by relegating the immigration rally as a freak show? A collective shriek would certainly have gained the attention
of those in power around the world.
GC is not all about petitions and politics, but time and memory and love that stand at the heart of GC’s work. A
positive, transformative vision statement is not meant just to inspire, it should create the cognitive space for
assumptions to be challenged and new ideas to surface. It would help Christ’s holy church if everyone to get out of
their “issue” boxes.
We, in the church, need to be aware that we are standing on the shoulders of all those who came before us; ever
vigilant to examine our role and close the gap between the problems we know and the solutions we propose. So long
as the siren call of denial is met with the drone of policy-making and petition submitting, the worldwide body of Christ
is both being misled and misread.
By the time the study committee on human sexuality prepares its final report in two years, the worldwide church will
have gathered in different parts of the world to revisit the 500th anniversary of Protestant Reformation, and studied its
impact on human history. The findings and recommendations of the study commission will certainly have an impact
on our denomination. I sincerely hope and pray that it will enable our beloved denomination to continue to produce
spiritual leaders of texture and thoughtful forerunners of caring quality to steer the church through stormy seas. Will
our church be comprised of a people divided by our politics, our religious views, and our backgrounds, or will we be a
people of diversity and common commitment, with some common boundaries?
I hope and believe we can be the latter.
Asian-American United Methodist Response to
Proposed Document on Ecclesiology
BY JACOB S. DHARMARAJ, Ph.D
President, NFAAUM
Half a century ago, Flannery O’Connor outlined the struggle to “make belief believable” as a battle for the attention of
the indifferent reader. She insisted that the religious aspect in her work of fiction is “a dimension added,” not one
taken away. Then she went on to explain how she did it: “To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind
you draw large and startling figures.”
In an almost similar vein, The United Methodist Church is updating its worn-out doctrinal cursives and outmoded
linguistic scripts to compile a new and relevant theological understanding of the church and its missional imperatives.
The recently proposed document by the UM Committee on Faith and Order, “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a
Vision of the Church,” is to serve as a theological mirror as well as a window that swings open to the worldwide body
of Christ in our time. More importantly, it is to enable the United Methodist constituents to see outside themselves,
and know what it is to be a worldwide connectional church. After conferring with several Asian-American United
Methodist laity and clergy, I submit the following comments for further consideration and action:
Settled church versus a pilgrim church
The well-researched and elegantly written proposal, unfortunately, is heavily dependent upon World Council of
Churches’ documents with an overemphasis on Eucharist, grace, and community, with ancillary references to
baptism, evangelism, mission and ministry.
The “paschal mystery” behind the Eucharist (crucifixion, death and resurrection and parousia), mission, and ministry
with the people of other faiths, and Christianity on the move in a global society are not spelled out although they are a
vital part of the church’s belief and foundation. While the document meanders through pages and pages of past Eurocentric Methodist history, a contemporary interpretation of that history for our changed landscape would have made
the proposal more effective and appealing. If we derive our church and mission theology from mere human history,
we will be standing on shaky ground. Theology defines and varies according to its context; ecclesiology defends and
points the way to transformative action.
This document is based on the theological understanding of church, mission, and ministry of a “settled Christianity” of
the global north. It does not appear to have a broader understanding of the church in the global south with its
diasporic and pilgrim nature. The worldwide church, particularly those in the global south and east, is a church on the
move due to its minority status, extreme poverty and intense persecution. It witnesses, grows, and multiplies even in
the midst of limited material resources.
This proposal elevates the variety of spiritual gifts that the Apostle Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 12, but fails to
comprehend the diversity within the body of Christ that the Book of Revelation beautifully portrays as the ultimate
triumph of the church.
“After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples,
and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their
hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the
Lamb!”—Rev. 7:9–10
Church in the world
We certainly wish that this document that emphasizes proclamation as the responsibility of the community had
explained more about the content of the declaration and its targeted recipients. Sometimes, we find it hard to
distinguish between the references made to the community that makes up the church—the body of Christ—and the
larger community that makes up the society. Community is defined in this proposal in broad terms as the grace of
God enveloping all. Yet, no distinction has been made between the body of Christ and the larger kingdom of God, in
which the body of Christ is firmly situated. A biblical and theological definition of the role of the body of Christ in the
larger society would certainly enrich the document. Many of the theological words used have multiple meanings and
vary in context. Consequently, the role of the church in the larger society is simply assumed, as the document
appears to have in mind only the United Methodist constituents in the global north.
This document talks a lot about the first and third person of the Trinity but seldom about the second upon whose
paschal mystery Christianity hinges and is differentiated from other living faiths. The importance of the Eucharist is
preeminent throughout, but an equal emphasis on the doctrine of baptism or even a mention as a requirement for the
United Methodist church’s membership would have been extremely helpful. A mere reference to them as sacraments
would throw many of our constituents off balance in this post-denomination era.
A clear and concise mission theology motivates and assists the Christian community in reconciling all forms of
alienation, while being faithful to its apostolic traditions. The UMC’s mission calls for its constituents to “make
disciples for the transformation of the world.” For those of us from the global south, this document appears to
frequently conflate grace and redemption, and offers a single blurry lens rather than sharpened distinct views. There
seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that all religions are salvific.
Consequently, there is no reference in the document as to how to witness to Christ in our multi-faith world. If the
church proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord to the world around us, it would include both those within and without the fold.
Our denomination wants to gain one million people within this quadrennium. If so, which pond should the church fish
from? We need to think about where the disciples come from, especially from outside the fold, not how sheep are
stolen from inside the fold. If the church has to actively get involved in outreach mission, just as the document affirms,
the church’s missional mandate needs to be spelled out in a coherent way in the changed landscape.
Missional shifts
Major shifts have taken place in the church’s mission from the past to the present including ones from eccleocentric
to theocentric, from theocentric to Non-Governmental Organizations-centric, from NGO-centric to anthropocentric,
and from anthropocentric to geocentric mission.
Today, mission has migrated from denominational to community-oriented, and individual-initiated. Making a
difference is the goal. Hence, the definition of the church’s mission among our constituents has become broader,
larger, and comprehensive. We need to make an intentional shift in our understanding of church and mission from
Wesley’s time, which was primarily mono-chromatic and mono-cultural, to the worldwide, polyphonic, pluralistic
present context, in which Christianity has hybridized and well-situated as a non-Western religious community.
In addition, massive exogamy and the defections of our baptized and confirmed prevent us from being too optimistic
about how many of our children will identify as Christians in coming years. Already hundreds of thousands of our
children have left the church in the global north. In that context how do we define the nature and role of the church
and its mission? How can we keep the light on for them? That light cannot be left on unless the uniqueness and
universality of Jesus is clearly defined in the context of our pluralized, post-Christian, post-modern world.
A definition of the church that we call ecclesiology is not a mere doctrinaire tract or propaganda or a broadside. It is a
spiritual stroll through sinners’ confusion about faith, tradition and reason, with an invitation to follow Jesus. Sin has
to be defined both in individual and structural context. For the wages of sin include the loss of community, trust,
equality, and social justice.
A giant “reset” is looming for the church mission because we live in a space between the way things were and the
way things might be. Solutions are fleeting as new challenges pop up. We need to strike a balance between what is
stagnant and what is new; what is local and what is worldwide. We must see more deeply and spiritually, and grasp
intuitively and in a Christ-like manner. We don’t want to get locked into just North America’s mission. We need to
clarify why the church exists and does what it does worldwide, which missional values are fundamental, what specific
message to convey in today’s pluralistic world, and how its message and ministries of mercy differ from other
humanitarian and social agencies. Our biblical ecclesiology must place mission at the center of the church’s essence,
identity, and activities.
What is needed today, I submit, is a hybrid ecclesiology. To construct a truly worldwide ecclesiology, we must realize
that both Western and non-Western Christianity must come to the table. We must accept the responsibility of planting
seeds of diversity and equity, of empathy and unity while we share our fragility. This work is an attempt to understand
a behemoth by describing it from multiple angles.
Advocacy as a Christian Witness in Diasporic Mission
In one of Norman Rockwell’s drawings, an overwhelmed mother holds her little boy face down in her lap. At her feet
lies a hammer, along with evidence of a destructive spree: a broken mirror, a shattered vase, and an eviscerated
clock under her chair. Not being sure of how to discipline her child, the mother grips a hairbrush in one hand, and a
book on child psychology in the other: To spank or not to spank? She doesn’t know the answer.
Many in the church in global north are confused and lost over the missional issues of immigrant concerns and global
diaspora, particularly about millions who are forced to flee from their native lands because of political instability,
religious, racial, ethnic persecutions. What is our missional response to them? At times the multiplicity of responses
given by experts threatens to devolve into cacophony.
Embodying the Gospel
Most of us are well aware that the church cannot carry on a monologue detached from the marginalized world with
mere relief offerings but must stand in solidarity with them to address this huge human crisis. Pope John Paul aptly
said, “Solidarity means taking responsibility for those in trouble.” Being in solidarity with the weak and vulnerable is
more than extending compassionate services. Human charity is a hard emotion to sustain; over the long run, it cloys.
True solidarity breaks down the illusion of disconnectedness and works for kinship, which is a cherished conviction. In
the final analysis, being in solidarity with the broken and bruised, and gaining their trust and confidence will offer
better opportunities to share the love of Jesus Christ.
We need to be aware that there is a major difference between global diasporic mission and mission with the
immigrants who have moved into our neighborhoods. Diasporic mission is primarily a global phenomenon set in
motion by voluntary or involuntary conditions. Research professor Enoch Wan avows it as glo-cal in nature. It is
border-less, pluralistic, transnational, multi-directional rather than homogenous. It is comprised primarily of people
who were involuntarily or coerced to move.
In diasporic mission, the focus is on holistic mission and contextualization that integrate evangelism and social
concern. We cannot just proclaim the Gospel among refugees without also addressing their physical needs and
becoming their advocate. The workers work best when they learn the languages, understand cultural nuances and
are mindful of the practices of the faiths of others who are rootless refugees, while keeping one’s core faith identity.
Mere proclamation with an intention to start church during human vulnerability will spawn only “exploitativeChristians.” Mission is contextual as well as comprehensive, and should never employ humanitarian aid for religious
proselytization.
Diaspora missiology does not replace “traditional missiology,” which is primarily evangelistic; rather, it supplements
traditional methods with those that are geared to the new demographic realities of the 21st century. It is not a case of
“either/or” in a mutually exclusive way as some tend to assume. In diasporic mission, participants are invited to
stretch their imagination and look beyond the narrow perspectives of the present and to set themselves in the context
of world realities on the one hand, and on the other hand, the analytics of root causes, power relations, and
knowledges provided by the victims.
Mission with the “sinned-against” people
Historically, mission movements in the global north have rarely engaged questions of immigration and global diaspora
as missional issues. If we hack through the opaque theological thicket and saunter through mission archives, we still
find ourselves in the same old starting place. At times, we are narrowly guided by favorite scripture passages and
past traditional practices in order to discover missional comfort and seek ecclesial refuge. During the Christendom
period everything seemed to be fixed and stable, but now the topography of the mission site is changed.
The demise of colonization, end of Christendom and waning of denominational ecumenism on the one hand, and the
emergence of globalization and instant communication on the other have transformed missional participation from the
predictable to the adaptive, from the mono-directional and anticipated to multi-directional and flexible ways of
engagement.
In diasporic mission, witness to the Gospel comes mainly through advocacy work on behalf of the “sinned-against”
and giving witness to the structures of power that create this sub-human condition. The agency of the diasporic
communities is a key. In other words, we need to take the marginalized and repressed voices from the periphery and
help amplify and facilitate these voices to be heard. This would mark a significant change in the way we do mission in
a traditional sense. We cannot merely dispense throat lozenges that makes people feel better when the patients
know what they need is a serious medical treatment.
When I say our witness should be characterized by love and advocacy, I am not downplaying the reality of sin nor the
need for transformation. However, it may be that hurting, disillusioned people need to find kindness through our
caring action. During biblical times, when our Hebrew ancestors migrated from impoverished agrarian region to the
advanced, urbanized Egypt, they had the invaluable advantage of having Joseph, who happened to be a blood
relative, in the country’s top public office. Joseph’s advocacy and timely interference made this vulnerable diasporic
community’s transition relatively easier. When problems arose for that community a few centuries later, it was Moses
who stepped into the role of advocate.
Biblical history also documents people from all walks of life who witnessed against the structures of power on behalf
of the poor, oppressed and voiceless. We can cite only a few towering figures such as Daniel, Nehemiah, Esther,
Paul, and Apollos who did the ministry of advocacy on a larger scale and cross-cultural context. There are a number
of so-called “minor” role players. Suffice it to say that a vital key to the health and viability of diasporic communities
lay in the availability and the power of advocacy to represent their needs.
What is clear is that advocacy is a key ingredient in diaspora issues both past and present, and is increasingly being
recognized in governmental structures as an important dynamic in the process of diaspora engagement. Wherever
diasporas have appeared, their ability to cope and thrive has been in large part due to the willingness of those who
carry influence and inspiration to serve as advocates and campaigners for vulnerable and scattered peoples. Wangari
Muta Maathai, a Nobel Laureate, aptly said, “Until you dig a hole, you plant a tree, you water it and make it survive,
you haven’t done a thing. You are just talking.”
Grace Upon Grace: A World Transformed by Grace
Our world today is relentlessly threatened by ruthless tyranny, soulless greed, exploitative human
trafficking, wide economic disparity, and environmental degradation. In the religious front, old
models of ecclesial life and traditional forms of spiritual practices have been reduced to and
deemed as antiquated and inadequate observances. Systemic barriers relating to race, class,
gender, and other discriminations have created impoverished communities worldwide.
By 2050, global population will balloon to 9 billion. In coming decades, mass consumption,
economic transition and limited natural resources will intensify competition for basic human
necessities such as water, housing and food. It will create tension in multiple levels. It will also defy
nature’s sustainability, accelerate global warming, and further endanger the fragile ecosystem.
The United States is rapidly changing. The nation will morph into a majority-minority country in a
couple of generations. Our potential church membership base will change. Further, the traditional
map of the aged church has become archaic and obsolete; the functional compass of our historic
mission is warped and broken. The spiritual navigation system of our congregational gathering and
worship has radically been altered. The religious topography has become pluralistic and newfangled.
Contrary to the conventional notion that modernization and globalization would usher in the
decline and demise of religious beliefs and practices, we watch and observe endemic resurgence of
radical forms of religions in world affairs.
As a faith community, we have a great stake in preserving God’s creation for future generations,
preventing any form of global disaster, and work for shalom.
Grace for grappling with the issues of our times:
We need to move beyond being mere wearers of faith badges. We must be ready to reach beyond
denominational boundaries and religious fault-lines to connect with those around us – partners and
allies -who are engaged in the transformation of the world. We need to be in “the womb of
mutuality and we need to be swimming in the same water as everybody else” engaged in bringing
about transformation.
Since the task before us is immense and monumental, our ecclesiology must have room to
accommodate “secular prophets” such as environmentalists and human rights organizers who are
already active in the kingdom of God.
Therefore, we need to work for the transformation of structures of injustices by critically analyzing
social realities through lenses of race, class, gender, and ethnicity, and identifying the
interconnected web of oppressive forces, and finally, honoring the agency of the marginalized, and
working with the beleaguered in seeking a just solution. This progression involves building alliances
and coalitions with secular and other faith-based agencies, collaborating on strategies for
transformation, and walking in solidarity with those at the margins.
We also need to remind ourselves that change is inevitable and transformation is a choice. The path
to transformation runs straight through action. This is the right time to put our knowledge into
practice. Action is a kind of everyday miracle. Knowledge certainly helps, but transformation
occurs only when we enact our ideas and implement our visions. We must bear in mind, If we want
to save the drowners, we need to be swimmers.
Witnessing to Christ in times such as this:
The United Methodist Church has been called to witness to the Gospel and invite persons to
experience the fullness of life Jesus Christ offers. As a first order of business, the church’s mission
and ministry today is to be relevant and become effective.
I submit the following recommendations for consideration as we strive to be authentic witnesses to
the Gospel:
While we, as a denomination, are determined to stay the course, we also need to create a metamission-theology which takes the mosaic landscape of changing migration patterns which impacts
the global nature of the church, plurality of cultures, and resurgence of world religions into serious
consideration. This theology also ought to interact between the global and local, intercultural and
transcultural, monolingual and polyphonic, mission and evangelism, proclamation and social justice,
and Christianity and other living faiths.
Since the connectivity and engagement of a vast majority of members of the UMC are un-tethered,
we are to create a UM Christology that clearly defines and distinguishes our belief in Christ from
other competing allegiances. A theology or a set of guidelines that blithely confess “all religions are
the same” would undercut the very foundation of the church and the new and abundant life
offered in Jesus Christ.
Creating and fostering synchronous collaboration between the diasporic community that is readily
available in the pews and pulpits of our denomination and the denomination’s leadership at various
levels, and crossing borders to employ these rich but much neglected U.M. diasporic communities
would yield positive and lasting results. It would richly enhance our interactions with people of
other religious faiths and in witnessing to the neo-immigrants who move into our neighborhoods as
well.
Receiving the gifts from the margins of the growing church at the global south helps us, as we strive
to “update” and “recalibrate” our missional engagements, I strongly believe that mutuality in
mission as a designed mission theology will fill in the gap, serve as a catalyst, and enable us to
confront the current storm; for mutuality doesn’t just react to crises, but proactively prevents
them.
In the final analysis, we should never hesitate to migrate from the spirit of scarcity to the spirit of
abundance, from the spirit of defeat to the spirit of opportunity, from the spirit of abandonment to
the spirit of empowerment, and from the spirit of helplessness to the spirit of confidence and come
up with contextual theological paradigms for mission today. I am convinced that the iterative
theology of mission in the 21st century is the theology of mutuality.
We are not alone in this journey. The God of the Bible is with us. This is not the first time we have
gone this way before. Just as T.S.Eliot has said in his poem, The Rock, “And the Church must be
forever building, and always decaying, and always being restored.” We are reminded to break the
shackles of the past and emphasize newness, openness, innovation in order to be transformed and
be transforming. God’s abundant grace and assured presence is with us: “For I am about to create
new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65: 17). In times such as this, may we unapologetically
“account for the hope that is in us,” the grace we received in Christ (I Peter 3: 15).