For the Transformation of the World
We United Methodists have concluded our quadrennial General Conference. As expected, the church spent days upon days arguing about a long list of divisive social issues - each settled by a divided vote of 992 delegates representing over 12 million worldwide members. We can calculate the labor-hours wasted at General Conference on this exercise, but this waste pales in comparison the damage that has been inflicted on the church over the past four decades of our existence.
Still, this may not be the worst thing to come out of General Conference. The worst thing may be six words that nearly everyone agreed on. Currently, the "mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ." (Book of Discipline, ¶ 120). General Conference voted 776-102 to add these words to the mission statement: "for the transformation of the world" (Petition 80271).
I dissent.
The mission now contains a task and purpose. In its form, it would make a perfectly good mission statement in a military order. We routinely give commanders both a task and a purpose. For example, "secure Objective A to prevent the escape of enemy forces" is different from "secure Objective A to facilitate the forward movement of 3d Brigade, 52d Division." The task is just a means to an end. When the plan to accomplish the task does not go as expected (and it never does), the commander keeps the ultimate purpose in mind as he/she makes adjustments to the plan.
We have declared that making disciples is a means to an end. The end (or goal) is the transformation of the world. There are really only two ways to read this statement that fit its grammar. Either the act of making disciples itself somehow transforms the world, or the disciples that we make then go on to transform the world themselves. I suspect those who adopted the statement intend the latter. Even if one posits "with God's help" at the end of the new mission statement, however, it still does not correspond to the faith that I find anywhere in the New Testament. Whether disciples are transforming the world by their own good works or by the power of God working through them, we do not make disciples primarily so that they can transform the world.
I agree with the idea that the transformation of the world is at the heart of the gospel. I might summarize the gospel story as "He makes all things new." Transformation is what we in the military call "the end state." When the mission is complete, what is the state of being that exists? In the Christian scriptures, the end state is the the just and peaceful reign of God in the age to come. It is the New Heavens and New Earth, the universal and cosmic transformation of all existence at Christ's appearing. In the coming age, not only is human sinfulness (in all its dimensions) overcome, but even death itself is vanquished forever. And I do not dispute that Christians receive an incomplete and imperfect foretaste of that age now by the power of the Holy Spirit. In some ways, our life together anticipates the life of the age to come. (In other ways, we are mired in intractable sin in our life together.)
The new mission statement, however, conforms very well to the optimism of late 19th century Christian liberalism that stripped Christianity from its eschatological ("Christ is coming again") and anthropological ("sin is universal and pervasive") framework. Despite its male-oriented language, William Merrill's 1911 hymn Rise Up O Men of God captures the spirit of that age very well.
Rise up, O men of God!
Have done with lesser things.
Give heart and mind and soul and strength
to serve the King of kings.Rise up, O men of God!
The kingdom tarries long.
Bring in the day of brotherhood
and end the night of wrong.Rise up, O men of God!
The church for you doth wait,
her strength unequal to her task;
rise up, and make her great!Lift high the cross of Christ!
Tread where his feet have trod.
As brothers of the Son of Man,
rise up, O men of God!
Merrill's hymn and its sentiments are lovely. I've sung this hymn all my life and on a purely emotional basis, it is one of my favorites. It's theological foundations, however, are distorted. In Merrill's theology, the kingdom that "tarries long" ultimately comes through human acts; the church can and will "bring in the day of brotherhood and end the night of wrong." Those states-of-being are indeed aspects of the kingdom, but we won't bring them into existence, at least not in any lasting and universal sense. God will bring the kingdom, apart from and often despite our best efforts and best intentions.
I find no gradualism in the New Testament, no idea that we - or God working through us - will over time make the world better and better until at last it becomes fully what God created it to be. None of the New Testament authors describe the mission of the church in terms of transforming the world. Christ's appearing at the end of the age - and the transformation it brings - is the logical completion of Christ's resurrection, not the completion of the church's mission.
It's not that 19th century Christian liberals didn't believe in Christ's resurrection; they did. But they certainly did not believe in an eschatological transformation at the end of the age. Christ's victory in their thought had two components: personally, a believer (or perhaps everyone) would "go to heaven" when he or she dies. Socially, Christ's victory comes through dedicated believers living faithfully in the world. For 1900 years, however, the church had taught that Christ's victory is one: my personal resurrection to eternal life is inseparably bound up with his transformation of all creation at his appearing.
I understand that Tom Wright has tried to make a similar point in his new book Surprised by Hope which has been excerpted by Christianity Today in "Heaven is Not our Home." Wright is correct in his major premise, but I suspect that he is much more optimistic than I am about unqualifiedly positive nature of the church's impact on the world. He says, "The mission of the church is nothing more or less than the outworking, in the power of the Spirit, of Jesus' bodily resurrection. It is the anticipation of the time when God will fill the earth with his glory, transform the old heavens and earth into the new, and raise his children from the dead to populate and rule over the redeemed world he has made." Wright suggests that Christians proleptically stake a claim on "this world in advance as the place of God's kingdom, of Jesus' lordship, and of the Spirit's power" and "go straight from worshiping in the sanctuary to debating in the council chamber." While I agree that the church anticipates the kingdom to come, I also know that the institutional church is still deeply entangled in sin and believers are too easily deluded into mistaking their own thoughts and feelings for the voice of God or the work of the spirit. I am apparently much more simul justus et peccator than Wright, and apparently less charismatically inclined. Even Wright, however, does not claim that Christian disciples finally and completely transform the world. The best we can do is "anticipate" the transformation that is yet to come.
The 19th century liberal vision was based on an often-unspoken triumphalist theology. With its new utopian social vision - instead of the dead orthodoxy of 1900 years of church history - the church would grow in size and influence until all humankind adopted its vision of the kingdom. All social relationships would be eventually be perfected as God's kingdom values took hold. Of course we United Methodists can't really agree about what this transformation looks like. Winning a vote at General Conference is not the same as winning hearts and minds. The larger the group, the harder it is to come to a real consensus. Our 12 million people don't agree on the most loving course of action in the political world, and we are less than 0.2% of the world's population. But, beware of big organizations with utopian aspirations! They'll give you what's good for you whether you like it or not.
So, I'll always place an asterisk by the new mission statement and mentally translate it it my head:
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ, who himself will transform the world and those who belong to him at his glorious appearing.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ, so they will be delivered from the wrath to come and be forever with the Lord.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ who by the power of Holy Spirit receive an incomplete and imperfect foretaste in this age of the age to come.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ, who anticipate the life of the age to come in their life together.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ who, like salt and light, have a positive effect on their immediate surroundings.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ who will do their best to love their neighbors as Jesus loved them.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ because he alone is the full and final self-revelation of God the Father and the church is the witness to his story.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ - because the one with all authority in heaven and earth said so.
- To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the glory of God alone.
May 17th, 2008 at 0747
Mitch,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments on many matters.
Am I reading this post right if I conclude that your concern is that by adding "for the transformation of the world" we are opening the door for allowing that end to become more important than discipleship?
To use your military example. If it becomes clear we can transform the world without taking the hill of discipleship, then the new mission statement says that is okay. As long as we transform the world, discipleship is a means we can let go of.
Is that your concern?
I only ask because I think that is an excellent point, but I don't want to put words in your keyboard.
May 17th, 2008 at 0904
Personally, I'd like to see the UMC regain some of the old Wesleyan optimism of grace. Yes, it can lead to triumphalism. But, it was the point of view that undergirded Revivalism, the early missionary movement, the anti-slavery movement, etc.
But, I also see a problem here, though I'm coming at this from a very different perspective. A pastor who preaches politics from the pulpit will more easily see her/him self as "making disciples for the transformation of the world" w/o giving consideration to whether or not her/his church is providing an sufficient opportunities for Christian discipleship. Preaching politics will more easily seem to fit the bill.
May 17th, 2008 at 0919
@John Meunier: Thanks for your considerate and thoughtful question.
I'm not sure that I would put it exactly as you put it, but I think the new mission statement can lead to trouble on a number of fronts. I already see a trend for those who are passionate about particular social issues to identify more closely with non-Christians who share their political views than with Christians who disagree with them. My concerns are larger than this, however. In our pride we tend to confuse our preferences for today and tomorrow with God's ultimate purposes. We overestimate our ability to know with certainty the path from where we are to the place God wants us to be and we underestimate the impact that our own self-interest and human limitations have on our decisions. The bigger and more grandiose our dreams, the more likely we are to cause significant harm. I'm pretty skeptical when someone claims they can take me to the promised land.
I frankly believe that the world will remain a complex mix of good and bad until Christ's appearing. I am perplexed at how that will physically occur, but I expect a cosmic event in which death is destroyed and creation is clothed with God's righteousness. That's my reading of the New Testament, anyway. Given that, my expectations for this world are more modest than the entire "transformation of the world." We can do our best to love others as Christ loved us, and that will make something of a temporary, positive impact on the immediate world in which we live.
That doesn't mean that I am resigned to give evil a free hand. It's clear to 99.99% of Christians that the fight against slavery accomplished something good. But today, there are Christians convinced that transforming the world means giving homosexual conduct equal standing with marital relations, and those who are convinced of exactly opposite. We could probably identify a hundred important transformation issues on which there is significant disagreement among Christians. So let everyone pursue justice as they understand it, but it's hard to make something we don't agree on the mission of the church.
May 17th, 2008 at 0933
@Craig L. Adams: I'm all for the optimism of grace. We are leaping, however, from the desire "to be perfected in love" to "spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land" to a rather unconditional and absolute "transformation of the world." That last leap, as they say, is a bridge too far.
May 17th, 2008 at 1247
As a delegate to General Conference I have to agree with you. I tried an amendment to include not only our work in the church militant, but also the church truimphant. "The addition for the salvation of souls and the transformation of the world." Saving souls got a little over 250 votes. My guess is that the eternal part of our discipleship really isn't a priority in our denomination any more. This is really a victory for the church "machine" that now can justify their work in world.
Good Post Thanks.
May 17th, 2008 at 1816
Thanks Mitch for a thoughtful reflection. And I basically agree. I wrote about this before going to GC, which you can read at: http://nitrorev.blogspot.com/2008/04/um-mission-confusion.html
My big concern was that the new statement now gives us basically the choice of making disciple or transforming the world.
Stephen
May 17th, 2008 at 2109
Having spent my entire life in the UMC (so far) it does seem that "making this world a better place" is the constant mantra of the denomination.
I just finished reading an article in the Interpreter magazine about the tremendous growth of the UMC in Africa.
"The growth of the church around the continent can be attributed to various factors, but the entry point for many people is ministries that offer hope and transform their lives by first addressing their health and social needs."
The article goes on to list a lot of good things that United Methodists are doing in Africa and how people are drawn to our church.
Never once, however, does it mention that people are transformed by the power of the Risen Christ! Maybe it's just assumed. However, it would be nice to actually read that it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is making the difference.
If it's not the Gospel that makes the difference, then we are just doing good work "to transform the world" which any organization can do. I fear the UMC has lost sight of the splendor and majesty of the Gospel. We seem to diminish the power of God!
The article can be found here: http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior.asp?ptid=43&mid=12722
May 20th, 2008 at 1210
As I've written, one of the primary problems with post-modern/Emergent/"Red Letter"* Christianity is that it takes the emphasis off of Grace and places it on Works (http://rocksalive777.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-am-yours-save-me.html).
I do have an appreciation for the new Mission Statement - modernist Christianity** neglects helping the poor. The scandals of many televangelists and the association of Christianity with the American political right have been problematic. That being said, many members of the Emergent movement have tried to hard to associate the Faith with the American political left and very nearly neglect the death of Christ, choosing to emphasize his social teachings.
My main concern with this new Mission Statement is similar to yours in that it seems to treat the creation of disciples purely as a means to an end. But while I think the creation of discipleship is an ends in and of itself, it is also a means to several ends, which are neglected in the Statement. The betterment of the world is certainly one. Salvation for all people is certainly another. And as you indicate, "for the glory of God alone" might be the most important. A better mission statement for the UMC would be significantly longer; I imagine an entire book could be written on the subject, and even that would fall short.
Shalom.
*Or rather, what Jim Wallis defines as "Red Letter"
**This, I define as the popular Christianity of the 70s through the 90s, that is what gave rise to the Moral Majority and televangelists.