CHAPTER TWO

WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS:

MOVEMENT AND INSTITUTION
IN THE CURRENT UNITED METHODIST CONTEXT

John Wesley’s great work of organizing the church for mission can be best

understood as his response to God’s actions in the world rather than some grand plan the

he dreamed up. Wesley did plan and propose and systematize and manage, but his

essential work was to respond to what God was doing. He put himself in a place to be

used of God. Even the gathering of the first class meeting was less his own doing than his

pastoral response to those whom God was leading into small groups. Yet we in the United

Methodist church today often seem to put our faith in plans and initiatives rather than in

following the leading of Providence.

While there can be no argument that plans and initiatives are important for any

organization, openness to changing context(s) and openness to changes within the

organization are also very important. The church, in addition, must be responsive to

Providence. Failure to respond to change will create difficulty for any organization.

Failure to respond to Providence is the undoing of the church. If a church fails to go

through the doors that God opens for it, it has failed at the heart of its mission.

Change, A Theology of Providence and the United Methodist Church

Both British and American Methodism arose in revolutionary times. The world

again faces such times. Thus United Methodists are uniquely positioned to welcome and

be at home with the incessant pace of technological, social, theological and doctrinal

transition. The success of any institution is often highly influenced not just by the

institution itself, but by what is going on around it. When things are settled, there is little

52
reason for change and the institution need not change. When things are fluid, a movement

spirit will need to permeate the institution for it to have continued success. Institutions

that become captive to ways of living that no longer exist can expect to cease to exist

themselves. Institutions that change can thrive. The question to which this text turns is

whether Methodism still has within itself the strength to bend and flex; whether it is still

open to God’s future or whether it has become tethered to a past social order and thus an

antiquated way of being the church.

Methodism began as a movement within the Church of England. Early American

Methodism was a group of proto-movements that Francis Asbury gathered into an

unsettled institution in 1784. The United Methodist Church today is full of proto-

movements, movements, counter movements, institutions and almost-institutions and is

awash in movements from outside the denomination that have, in many ways, highly

influenced the denomination itself. Further, leaders of the denomination have begun to

call for a greater spirit of movement rather than of institution within the church,1 often

leaving this spirit undefined. All of this has led to what seems to be a loss of central

focus. Whether or not it can be regained remains to be answered.

Some movements of the larger culture are having profound affects upon the

church and being, in turn, affected themselves by the church to a greater or lesser extent.

These include the women’s rights movement, the civil rights movement, the growth of

technology (especially as it has impacted worship), the scientific world-view, “affluenza,”

and what James and Molly Scott identify as “anomie and antinomianism2.” All of these

are reshaping the general culture to some extent and reshaping and the church in specific

53
ways. They show that movements do not have to be located within institutions to

influence them.

Movements within the general church culture are also influencing and being

influenced by Methodism. These include the mega-church movement, the Religious

Right, ecumenical and interfaith movements, the church growth movement, the seeker

movement, praise and worship music and the move toward greater professionalism in the

clergy. All of these can be related to movements in the larger culture, but are also

movements within the church culture. Movements which an institution has little or no

control over can highly impact that institution.

Movements within the institution also help define life for the church. Some of

these flow from the formal leadership of the denomination, such as the call for a “higher”

sacramental understanding as evidenced in weekly communion. The Episcopal Initiative

on Children in Poverty is another example. Other movements are formally adopted into

the church, such as the Walk to Emmaus movement3 and the Aldersgate Renewal

Ministries4. Still others are caucuses within the church, such as the Black Methodists for

Church Renewal and Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic

Americans. Still others are somewhat independent arms of the church: United Methodist

Women, United Methodist Men and the Clerical orders.

The Affirmation Caucus and Reconciling Congregations Program represent what

might be termed the “full-inclusion” or progressive movement, though the movement is

clearly larger than the formal membership of either of these groups. And this has spawned

(or perhaps was spawned by) a “non-inclusion” movement, which could be linked to the

54
Good News and the Confessing Movements. The non-inclusion movement, like the full-

inclusion movement, is larger than the formal organizations which carry its banner.

Further, the goals of both Good News and the Confessing Movement clearly go beyond a

simple non-inclusion platform, calling for wholesale reform and renewal. Thus rather

than refer to this set of movements as the non-inclusion movement, I will label it the

reform movement.

While neither the Affirming, Reconciling Congregations, Confessing nor Good

News Movements are formally located within the United Methodist Church, all are

tightly knit to the church and find support at the highest levels within it. Thus the agendas

that these movements represent are influential upon the life of the church in a myriad of

ways, not least to nurturing the complex webs of support and influence that exist within,

but not fully across, the connexion. They are wrestling for control and trying to refocus

the vision of the church, though in dissimilar fashions.

It is normal for the church (or any institution of any size) to have within itself

such movements, proto-movements and semi-institutions. This has so been so common

historically within the church that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that God has so

designed the institution of the church as to be powered in part by the movements within

her. However institution and movements rarely seem to be working to further common

goals under the Lordship of Christ, though this seems to be at least part of what leaders

within the church from Bishop Huie to the late William H. Hinson seem to mean when

they call the church toward a movement spirit. What actually seems to happen at the

movement level, rather than working together for common goals, is for movements to

55
find themselves so deeply at odds with each other and/or their parent institution that

rather than moving forward the Kingdom, they at least seem to retard it. Unfortunately,

this seems to be the reality of the clash between full inclusion and reform folks within

United Methodism today. It may be that God is moving providentially to reform the

institution by either opening it towards greater inclusion or more narrowly defining its

mission or perhaps God is moving to split the church. Or it may bethat God’s work

through the institution and movements is being thwarted by human sinfulness in the

movements or the institution or, most likely, both. Whether God is moving through or

being thwarted by movements and institutions is unclear. What is clear is that “movement

spirit” as currently exists in the UMC is mostly related to tensions, as yet unresolved,

within the institution, about the vision of the institution as a whole.

Movements within institutions will typically push for slightly different things

within the overall rubric of the institution, but the reform and the progressive movements

are so directly at odds that it would seem impossible for the desires of both groups to be

realized within the same institution. One or the other movement seems likely to prevail

while the other will fail. Since the movements are so deeply imbedded into the life of the

church, there will be significant fallout over any clear motion in either direction by the

institution. The only other option was discussed as early as 1980, when Frederick P.

Brooks jr. delivered an address at the Good News Convocation suggesting the “loving

division” of the UMC into “two independent bodies, each unified by its theological

integrity.”5 The Good News Movement took substantial steps in this direction in 1984

with the creation of its own Mission Society for United Methodists as a supplemental

mission agency within the UMC6 and again in 1989 with the launching of the Renew

56
Network for Christian Women as a voice for renewal and accountability.7 It seems

unlikely that when the institutional leadership of the denomination calls for a greater

spirit of movement, for “discovering new forms of connection,”8 to quote Bishop Huie,

that they are pushing for this type of movement. What then is meant by “discovering new

forms of connection?” Can it regain focus without tearing itself apart?

It seems that what the denomination is hoping for and what denominational

leadership is calling for, is the old spirit of the Methodist movement. A spirit of forward

momentum, of vitality, dramatically captured in the old hymn “Shoutin’ Methodist:”

They are despised by Satan’s train, because they shout and preach so plain;
I’m bound to march in endless bliss, and die a shoutin’ Methodist.

The devil, Calvin and Voltaire, may hate the Methodist in vain;
Their doctrine shall be downward hurl’d: The Methodist will take the world.9

This hymn was very popular in the days of the “Unsettled Institution,” This

particular version is dated from 1805.10 How is the church to reach back to that point?

How is the church to regain such powerful vitality? In one sense, of course, it need not

reach back, it need only look across the oceans to Korea and Africa to see the song

coming true: the Methodist taking the world in strong movement fashion. However in the

USA, things seem to be different. Many agree that we have lost something essential; we

have lost that sense of vitality that infuses the “Shoutin’ Methodist” hymn with an almost

shameful boastfulness11 that seems so very out-of-step with our current reality. It is this

sense of vitality, which implies the ability to bend and flex, that is identified with

“movement” as opposed to “institution.” What will it take for the church to recover this

sense of vitality, to as Bishop Huie says and persons across the spectrum echo; “return to

57
where Methodism began?”12 There seem to be three functional modes for a recovery of

the movement spirit present in Methodist culture today. These are the aforementioned

progressive and reform movements as well as what this D.Min. project will call the

“unsettled institution movement,” which is made up of those who call for a return to

movement vitality within the confines of the institution through the practice of what Scott

and Scott term “incremental change.”13

In some ways, the progressive movement has been incredibly successful in

transforming the church into a more open and diverse body, especially in the leadership

of the denomination. In this, the church has had significant interplay with the Civil Rights

and Women’s Rights movements. A partial list of how progressivism has altered the face

of the church includes:

1976: General Conference seats women as clergy delegates for the first time.14
1980: Marjorie Matthews becomes the first woman to be elected bishop of the
UMC; she is the first woman in any major Protestant denomination to
hold such an Office.15
1984: Judith Craig and Leontine Kelly become the second and third women to be
elected bishops of the UMC; Kelly is the first African American woman
bishop.
Elias Galvan is the first Hispanic American and Roy Sano the first Asian
American to be elected bishop.16
1990: Fifty women serve as District Superintendents across the connexion.
The South Carolina Conference makes the first cross-racial pastoral
appointments. 17
1992: Hae Jong Kim is the first Korean-American elected bishop.18

Clearly progressivism has had a striking impact on the church. However,

progressivism’s call for full inclusion for gays and lesbians has fallen upon dramatically

deaf ears and has become a point of great contention within the denomination. In fact, not

only have those working for full inclusion over the years been rebuffed, they seem to

58
have lost substantial ground on this particular issue. For example, in 1976, General

Conference revised the language in the Discipline about “same-sex marriage” from “not

recommended” to “not recognized.”19 In 1996 the General Conference added to the

Social Principles the statement that “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall

not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”20 In 2000,

the General Conference moved that statement to the “chargeable offenses” section of the

Discipline.21 And in 2004 the General Conference General Conference amended the

Discipline to specify a list of chargeable offenses related to homosexuality that could

result in a church trial while also approving a resolution that no annual conference

funding may be provided “to any gay caucus or group” or used “to promote the

acceptance of homosexuality.”22 It seems to be the case that progressivism as a

theological driving force has defined itself around the issue of full inclusion and been

unable to make progress in this particular area, and its many successes in other areas have

been lost or hidden by this failure.

Progressivism seeks to reinvigorate the church by reorienting the churches’ sense

of self and of social justice to a more inclusive place. The reform movement also seeks to

reinvigorate by reorienting the church but in a totally different manner. Reformers

typically call for a return to the classic doctrines and understandings of the church as

existed when the movement started.

The two leading reform movements are the Good News Movement and the

Confessing Movement. The language that they use to describe their missions is similar.

The Confessing Movement’s website has this statement of purpose: “In love for the

59
church, we… present the Confessional Statement for the renewal and reform of The

United Methodist Church… This statement confronts and repudiates teachings and

practices in The United Methodist Church that currently challenge the truth of Jesus

Christ…”23

The Good News Movement is a more developed movement. It is almost 25 years

older than the Confessing Movement24 and has a more developed substructure, as

mentioned earlier in this chapter. Further, it has clearly absorbed some of the tenets of the

progressive movement, listing among its goals to be a “worshipping, caring and inclusive

community.”25 However, at its heart, the Good News movement remains, like the

Confessing Movement, a call for reform. The Good News Movement defines its purpose

as being: “…a voice for repentance, an agent for reform, and a catalyst for renewal within

the United Methodist Church. By God’s grace, we will proclaim and demonstrate the

power and effectiveness of historic Christianity as emphasized in Wesleyan doctrine and

practice.”26

In a sense, both progressive and reform movements share a common goal: to

move the denomination in a particular direction somewhat different from the current

motion of the institutional church. This is, of course, the norm for all movements. The

only real point of any movement is to change something or at least to nudge something in

a particular direction. Thus “unsettled institutionalism,” a third mode of seeking to affect

change in contrast to the reform and progressive movements, is really quite different from

those two movements. Rather than calling for specifics changes or change in a particular

direction, it largely calls for a spirit of movement (rather than an actual movement) that

60
does not change the course of the denomination but instead puts wind under the

institution’s sails. It advocates for a large number of movements within the denomination,

but these under the control of the institution. Bishop Huie’s address to the Council of

Bishops in May of 2007, as reported by Linda Green, is an excellent example of unsettled

institutionalism and deserves to be looked at quite closely. It includes the following: “The

president of the bishops of The United Methodist Church is calling on the denomination

to reclaim its heritage as a Christian movement….”27

Here one can see an appeal to the whole connexion in terms that appeal primarily

to those who see in the past the greatest works of Methodism. In this, Bishop Huie is

celebrating the historic vitality that Methodism enjoyed early in its history. The central

premise of the unsettled institution movement is that it is possible to reclaim that vitality.

This is the essence of what many United Methodists seem to mean when they say “we

need to be a movement, not an institution.” It is interesting to hear this type language

from the leader of the Council of Bishops, the de jure head of the institution. Huie goes

on to say: “There is a movement of God’s spirit that is transforming the world and we are

witnesses to it, and you and I are blessed by it in this community of faith called The

United Methodist Church,” 28

Here is recognition that, in fact, “Shoutin’ Methodism” is changing the world,

fulfilling the hymn’s boastful promise. However it is interesting that Huie does not seem

to define United Methodism as central to the movement but as almost outside of it.

Rather than being a part of “movement of God’s spirit,” we are “witnesses to it” and are

“blessed by it”. Is the UMC genuinely outside the global Methodist movement? Globally,

61
Methodism is booming: will we in the USA define ourselves as spectators or as

participants? The Council of Bishops met in Mozambique in November of 2006 at least

in part as recognition of the great movement of God in Africa through Methodism.29 The

truth they witnessed is that the Methodist movement is booming. Are we (here in the

USA) so blinded by nationalism and racism that we cannot celebrate that we are doing

well if it is across the ocean?

The article, here quoting Huie continues: “Huie's vision of the church in the 21st

century is one "that is guided more by movement than by institution…”30 What does this

mean in practical terms? It seems unlikely to be a call for theological and ecclesiological

disorganization. It seems unlikely to be a surrendering of leadership to the progressive or

reform movements. Huie and the leadership of the church are faced with a more complex

task than Wesley or Asbury. These pioneers had to build institutions from movements.

The current bishops have to find ways to release the spirit of the movements without

inundating the institution with chaos. The next quote from the article deals with this

difficulty: “Noting that movements are not easy but are "downright chaotic and messy,"

she (Huie) said they often begin with a few people on the margins of culture rather than

from the centers of power and authority. The message of a movement is to change the

way that things are in the dominant culture,…”31

This points to the great dilemma of the unsettled institution. How does an

institution, a “center of power,” unsettle itself without destroying itself? Wesley’s answer

to this dilemma, “Make, save and especially give all you can, (thus unsettling

yourself.)”32 is immediately applicable to individuals, but difficult to apply in an

62
institutional context, though this D.Min. Project will make the suggestion that this can be

done by truly, fully and wholly opening the doors of the church to all people, including

poor undocumented immigrants. Answers that so far have emerged from either the

progressive or reform movements would, if carried out unilaterally, unsettle the life of the

institution for good or for ill in a way that might be providential, but would seem to be far

greater a disturbance than those hoping for unsettled institution seem to desire: an

unsettled institution is quite different from a shattered institution. Unsettled

institutionalists want the pot to boil, not boil over. The next quote makes this point: “Huie

said the platforms that helped launch the church’s movement in the 19th and 20th

centuries should be used as the foundations for today’s new initiatives.”33

Thus Huie is not looking for movements that will disturb the institution, but ones

that are within the traditions of the institutional church. An unsettled institution is still an

institution and needs continuity, stability and clear lines of leadership. Huie goes on to

make this quite clear, saying: “I’m ready for The United Methodist Church to step

forward into God’s reign on earth as it is in heaven. I believe this Council of Bishops is

ready to lead that movement.”34

Having earlier noted (in the same speech) that movements themselves come from

the margins, Huie here calls for the Council of Bishops to lead “that movement.” The

Bishopric is the center of the institution by its very nature. How can a bishop lead from

the margins when they are of the center? This particular task of leadership is quite tricky.

Bishop Huie closed her speech reiterating the need for bishops to provide such

leadership: “… bishops should be leaders in the journey. "The task of this council is to

63
lead that movement of God. It is our task to lead the church to make disciples of Jesus

Christ for the transformation of the world.”35

Here again, the central difficulty for those advocating for an unsettled institution

comes into the picture: How do those at the center of power unleash movements from the

margins? Can they, as the leaders of institutions, be at the same time marginal?

Unquestionably, it is the task of bishops to lead the institutional church of God, but is it

possible for bishops to lead the (or a) movement? It seems unlikely because movement

leadership is organic: anybody can lead a movement who has the skills. Bishops,

however, have very specialized skill sets that have little or nothing to do with movements

and everything to do with institutions. Any particular bishop might be a great

“movement” type leader, but bishops as a group are set aside for service for, by and of the

institution. Bishops are therefore unlikely to be good movement leaders. Does this mean

that the institution can never be “unsettled” again? No, but it does mean that becoming a

movement will take serious sacrifice and travel into uncharted waters. It should be

remembered that sailors, who prefer safe harbors close to home, are probably quite

unlikely to elect a captain who will lead the ship into dangerous waters.

How then can this be done? From whence shall vitality come? How can

Methodism return to bending and flexing? How will it travel into new seas? How will

God pour out blessings upon the people called Methodist? The progressive movement

seems to have run its course and while in some ways has become a part of the institution,

especially as related to equality for women and minorities, in other ways it seems to have

failed miserably, focusing a great deal of its energies on what seems to be a losing and

64
energy draining cause: full inclusion. Will it be able to reinvigorate the church? It seems

unlikely, perhaps mostly because progressivism has become less of a movement and

more of a faction within the institution.

The reform movement speaks of “getting back to our Wesleyan roots”36

“regardless of how many people, pastors and congregations we still have.”37 However, it

is gaining strength in the denomination, particularly at the General Conference level,

every Quadrennium and thus has no pressing need to reinvigorate the church as it is. For

the reform movement, ironically, the status quo, especially the lack of vitality in more

progressive parts of the church – is actually helpful. As the progressive part of the pie

shrinks, the reforming portion looks ever bigger. Further, and perhaps more problematic

over the long run, the reform movement has established a pattern of draining vitality from

the institution towards itself. This pattern seems unlikely to reverse in the future, at least

in part because the reform movement has garnered strength by operating in opposition to

the larger work of the institution. Both the Good News and Confessing Movements seem

to have defined themselves over and against institutional Methodism. In this, they have

taken exactly the opposite path that John Wesley took. Wesley did something new in a

new age, but his voice consistently and clearly called for unity. This is not the call of the

reform movement. Even the 2005 Unity Statement from the Confessing Movement reads

in part:

The Holy Spirit is at work in our church offering a crucial moment of course
correction and the possibility of a deep and lasting reformation. 38

This is not the language of unity. Could the reform movement strengthen an entire,

unbroken, United Methodist Church? That page has yet to be written. Will it do so as the

65
institution is now constituted? It seems unlikely for the same reason that it seems unlikely

of progressivism; the reform movement has also settled into a role as a faction of the

institution.

Is the United Methodist Church then without hope? In no way. This D.Min.

project is written to shine the light of hope upon an admittedly gloomy situation: an

institution full of factions but not movements of the Spirit, and suggest both a general and

a specific way of recovering the vitality of Methodism while retaining institutional

strength.

In general terms, this text proposes that the Church can be reinvigorated not by

any single specific movement, but by a convergence of several movements, perhaps a

multitude of movements, that enhance the work of God within the connexion, exciting

the passions of persons both within and beyond the church. This is, of course, something

close to the unsettled institution approach. A few examples of such movements would

include the Nothing But Nets campaign, the Incubator movement, Disciple Bible Study,

and the Episcopal Initiative on Children and Poverty, all of which raised the vitality of the

church to some extent by contributing to the good of not just church but society as well.

No one movement will be able to do all that needs to be done, but if God provides both

the opportunities and the needed leadership, there seems to be no logical reason that the

church could not recover its vitality. However, it is of prime importance that the church is

vigilant in pursuing what God has for her rather than allowing the distractions of this

world to choke out what God has planted within the church.

66
 The suggestion is that, to achieve an unsettled institution, to recover the vitality of

the early movement of Methodism, the church adopt and create movements that continue

to move the Gospel forward in a manner both consistent with the churches’ traditions and

in ways that are open to the future. Thus the church can weed out unproductive

movements not by fiat but by replacing them with productive ones, movements that bear

fruit for the Kingdom.

The diagram on the left below is a visualization the current relationships between

the institution of the church (large arrows) and movements in the church (small arrows).

The diagram on the right represents a preferred future. It is, of course, quite unrealistic:

movements and institutions have never been and will never be in perfect sync because

God moves different people in different ways to do different work. There will always be

arrows pointing in unexpected directions. An effective institution, however, knows which

movements to absorb and promote and how to do so in a way consistent with the overall

mission and vision of the institution.

Figure 1: church relationships

Were the church to achieve something like the right arrow, the church would

recover vitality in two ways: first by an increase in energy for positive works and

secondly by a decrease in energy used for infighting. This can be accomplished by the

leadership of the church filling the church with mutually agreeable forward motion so

67
that energies that would otherwise be wasted will be used for the good, thus returning

Methodism to a high level of vitality not for any reason related to institutional

maintenance, but simply because the church is accomplishing a high level of good.

How might this happen? How might the church achieve a greater unity of

institutional and movement goals? How might the church be a providential movement?

By building unity, momentum and excitement around widely shared goals and thus

starving energy from the widely divergent goals that sap vitality from the institution by

their counter-productivity. In addition to the programs and movements listed earlier

(beginning with the Nothing but Nets campaign) the leadership of the denomination

should seek to promote movements that are "downright chaotic and messy," …(from) the

margins of culture39 as Bishop Huie has acknowledged, but which are also consistent with

the larger mission of the church, and that are appealing to church and society.

One such movement that has found something of a place within Methodism and

could lead to a reinvigoration of the church is multi-culturalism. This is a movement that

the institutional church can foster and through it recover vitality. The church has made a

strong doctrinal commitment to multi-culturalism, even baptizing new members into “the

church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations and races.”40 But this

doctrinal commitment needs to be followed up with practical application in the local

churches. The realization of this possibility is the story of Chapel Hill UMC and the

central focus of this text. The realization of this possibility could also be the story of

Hispanic ministry across the connection, and thus will be examined in some detail.

68
 Multi-culturalism in the church could be said to have started with Jesus, the

Galilean. Galilee was a borderland between Judea and the Greek states. Thus its people,

Jesus and the Apostles included, were stigmatized as inferior to both Greeks and Judean

Jews. Galileans were a “mestizaje”41 – a people created from the mixture of two other

peoples, and Jesus was, culturally and linguistically, a mestizo.42 The Galilean distinctive

is evident in that Peter was “betrayed by his accent.” (Matthew 27:33) Not only was Jesus

of mixed origin, but he also lived out a radical inclusivity: teaching in the synagogues

with the Pharisees but also eating with sinners, thus showing his concern for all cultural

groups. Jesus lived and endorsed a multi-cultural lifestyle.

The church that God created at Pentecost of “Parthian and Mede” would also

become a mestizaje – a blend of Jew and Greek but forged into a whole new people, a

people deeply enriched by its diversity. The church that desires to live out the New

Testament ideal needs to include both “Greek” and “Hebrew.”

John Wesley’s field preaching, indeed the entire Methodist movement, at least in

its earlier stages, was of and for the economically marginalized, as was the early

American Methodist movement. Wesley was able to relate to “high” and “low” society in

class-conscious England. While early American Methodism had some wonderful

successes in cross-cultural work, it also had dramatic failures. Today as well, the church

has a mixed record as it relates to multi-culturalism. While in the gathered church,

significant leadership positions have been given to women and minorities, the local

church remains mono-cultural. The church is failing to minister to Jews and Greeks at the

same table.

69
 Why has the local church failed to reflect the whole church? Why have members

and leaders of local churches have failed to enact Jesus’ inclusiveness? Charles Foster

writes; “Points of cultural conflict (are rarely theological.) They originate instead in the

realm of personal interactions.”43 The problem is not disagreement; it is instead a failure

to get along. How can this be changed? Foster later writes: “(P)astors and lay leaders,

mostly by trial and error, have discovered that they must attend to the infrastructure of

their congregations – those images, relational ties and patterns of conversation that

cross the boundaries of race and culture.”44

Attending to the infrastructure of the church is hard work, adding cultural bridges

to that infrastructure makes the work enormously more difficult. This is particularly true

because pastors in the UM tradition are used to inheriting infrastructure and these new

bridges have to be built, not just maintained. Making sure that there are enough PB&J

sandwiches and milk is one level of difficulty, adding tamales, burritos and horchata to

the mix raises the bar.

Recognizing that multicultural ministry is hard work, why should it be pursued?

Recognizing further that Hispanic Ministry is not just multicultural but also multilingual

and even multinational, why should United Methodism (or any denomination) pursue it?

This question is inseparable from the larger questions of how a church understands its

vision. Essentially, churches should pursue Hispanic ministry for the same basic reasons

they pursue any other ministry. However, in addition to the myriad of reasons related to

social justice and evangelism, at least three institutionally related reasons present

70
themselves; age related and generational issues, fruitfulness, and having a local church

that reflects its parish.

In a church struggling with issues related to an aging population, churches that

develop Hispanic ministries can balance out (and even reverse) age imbalances. And at

the same time, many Hispanics in the United States are separated from their parents and

elders in other countries. These two situations can remedy one another in the local

church. Of course, this will change a church. A related reality is that this generation of

Hispanics is going to set patterns that will endure for many years, especially in areas

where Hispanics are just becoming settled. A church (or business or school) that

evidences openness to the first generation may or may not have an advantage with the

next, but an organization that shuns the first generation will have sown tares.

The extreme emphasis on work in the immigrant Hispanic culture in the USA is

reminiscent of other immigrant groups who came here to work and work hard. This hard

working attitude is often carried into the churches, producing much fruit. Hispanic

churches will typically worship, study, pray and serve others far more hours per week

than non-Hispanic congregations. Thus they become vital centers of piety and good

works. In a church where vitality is an issue, devoted new laity and clergy should be seen

as a Godsend. As Hispanic leadership emerges, if it is allowed to emerge, in local

churches, these churches should sense within themselves a fresh spirit.

Additionally, established local churches that become involved with Hispanic

ministry begin to practice serious inclusion: racial, economic, linguistic and national

inclusion. This practice leads them into being not only parish but New Testament

71
churches. When said churches are brave enough to choose leaders for themselves that are

cross cultural, they have crossed the Rubicon into reliance on God, rather than culture,

for guidance in the way the church should be, mirroring the selection of Greeks to serve

tables – a position of both intimacy and leadership, in Acts 6:5. When churches surrender

themselves to reliance on providence rather than cultural norms, genuinely good and

powerful things begin to happen. Movements begin to happen.

Multi-culturalism is never a one-way street. For cultural groups to come together

there must be mutual dependence between groups and individuals. Mutual dependence

simply means that both groups make meaningful contributions to the whole. Both Jew

and Greek worked together in Acts 6. This is an apt model. Everyone carries what weight

they can carry in whatever way they can carry it. Everyone is allowed to contribute what

God would have them give. All traditions are honored and people on both sides of the

table learn from each other. This is the physical enactment of ubuntu, where tables are

filled with PB&J as well as tamales.

An important element of this in the church is the acceptance of the spiritual

disciplines of others, including worship practices, holidays and biblical interpretation,

without compromising ones’ own. Practically speaking, this is extremely difficult to do. It

means trying new things without losing the old. It is the bending and flexing that the

institutional church (local and gathered) has seemingly forgotten how to do. Finding

common theological ground with those from outside one’s cultural group is often easier

than finding common practical ground. Christians can find ways to agree (or disagree)

about ideas, but what you do with traditions and practices are where the rubber hits the

72
road. An example from the narrative section of this text was a Saturday night prayer vigil

held the first Saturday night of every month from about dark to midnight by the Hispanic

congregation at Chapel Hill. This was no problem with this traditional Hispanic service in

and of itself, but on the two or three occasions when the sanctuary was left a bit untidy,

there was a problem. People expect a public space, especially a church, to be left clean.

The Anglo congregation had to be forgiving and the Hispanic congregation had to be

more diligent. Both took care of their responsibilities and no real problems grew out of

the arrangement.

Mutual dependence of different groups is one level of multi-culturalism, one

experience of ubuntu. A more personal experience of ubuntu is found in the establishment

and deepening of interdependent relationships between persons of differing cultural

groups. It is at this level that real personal understanding, hence real transformation, is

more likely to occur. People, not groups, are best able to experience the joy of multi-

cultural exchange. Thus the movement to a more multi-cultural church can really only

occur at the local church level, though it at times seems to need institutional guidance. It

is primarily at the personal level that persons can come to understand what Paul wrote to

the Galatians about becoming one in Christ:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no
longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:27-28)

Ubuntu, Multi-Culturalism, Movement and Institution

Desmond Tutu, whose experiences of multi-cultural exchange span and in many

ways define his life, has developed the traditional African understanding of Ubuntu45

73
(introduced on page 2) into a theological system that embraces both African and

European religious and cultural contexts. The center of his Ubuntu theology is “the

achievement of absolute dependence on God and neighbor in such a way that human

identity is discovered… through a person’s relationships with God and others.”46 Ubuntu

theology asserts “persons are ends in themselves… through the discovery of who they are

in others.”47 Further, “our own humanness depends on seeing (our humanness) in

others.”48 Thus interdependence is at the heart of what it means to be both human and

particularly Christian and “is the inalienable characteristic of the Body of Christ.”49 That

the natural manifestation of multi-culturalism is the knowledge of one’s self is a powerful

reality. Powerful enough to build up true interdependent communities, recognize persons

as distinctive in their identities, combine the best of first and third’s world thought and

theology into a new and distinctive mestizo, and strong enough to overthrow the

apartheid in South Africa and potentially strong enough to end the segregationof the

American church.50 Sadly, it is lacking from most local churches. Perhaps even sadder,

often the gathered church experiences multi-culturalism as something that must be

endured rather than as a gift from God.

Is it possible for an institution to foster ubuntu, both the fruit and process of

multiculturalism? It was possible in South Africa, and it is possible, by the grace of God,

in the United Methodist Church. But “possible” does not mean easy. Ubuntu only really

happens at an individual level when people of various backgrounds are brought together

as equals. It requires leadership that builds bridges and calls for unity while keeping the

institution (local and otherwise) centered on mission. And it requires providence. If God

74
is not in it, it cannot and will not happen. Without God’s movement, the institutional

concerns that can choke out grace will surely choke out Ubuntu.

Ubuntu helps persons to distinguish who they are as individuals from who they

are as members of a particular cultural group. It does this by adding additional facets of

understanding to a person’s life, facets that emerge from conversation between persons

unlike each other in some way. Generally, this process of interaction is very normal, it is

how most learning occurs. What makes ubuntu special is that it is interaction between

individuals who are part of groups that have, for some reason, limited interaction.

Whatever the cause of this limitation, (geography, language, fear, etc.) once it is bridged,

new learning can occur. Further, once bridges are built that can sustain the weight of real

conversation, which is not an easy task that requires courage, persons who are in groups

that are not only limited in their interaction but in fact at some level of opposition to one

another can begin to learn from one another. This results not just in the incremental type

of growth that we see in children and other students, but in the transformation of persons

on both sides of whatever divides exist. This transformation comes from persons realizing

that they are more than their identity as the member of a particular group, that they share

a common humanity with their “opposite.” This is usually an empowering experience

because it does not take away from one’s sense of self, unless one has defined themselves

as a non-other, but instead enriches the sense of self, creating a new dimension in one’s

soul. It is, at the same time, both clarifying and bewildering.

Ubuntu between ethnic groups in the USA, can be an extremely difficult process.

Its extreme difficulty can be traced back to slavery. While mass enslavement is not a

continuing evil, the reality that whites are more powerful than non-whites is, though most

75
whites choose not know this. Whites often maintain this ignorance by not interacting with

non-whites on anything resembling an equitable level. The price for this ignorance is the

inability to achieve true ubuntu, which can be defined as something very near true

humanity.51 In mixed-cultural, evenly empowered, groups, individuals can come to

understand who they themselves are through others. And while this happens on an

individual level, but has implications for movements and institutions.

What is truly powerful about Ubuntu, and what makes it of particular interest in a

discussion of movements and institutions, is that when Ubuntu occurs within an

institution, the institution itself is transformed. This transformation can come from and

occur on the margins52 or come from the center of power because it comes essentially

from the transformation of individuals. It is a movement within people’s hearts, a

movement of the Holy Spirit, not under the control of the institution. It is “messy and

chaotic” because individual Ubuntu/transformation grows into group Ubuntu, where an

entire group, at least as large as local church, is able to look at itself with deeper and

enriched eyes to understand what it truly is and is not. At that point, the group will, by

necessity, change. It will become a new group or a new dimension within an institution. It

will become a Mestizaje: a people made up of the blending of two other groups and made

into a new thing. Very messy, very chaotic and very powerful. For example, the youth

(Anglo and Hispanic) at Chapel Hill began to refer to themselves as “Mexi-teans,”

(Mexican-Tennesseans) fully aware that this class of people existed, as far as they were

aware, only at that church.53 In this, the whole group accepted a radically different self-

conception than would have even been possible at the same church ten years before. This

76
mestizaje is the power of God at work to bring about reconciliation. It has the power to

recreate the entire nations (ie. South Africa) if it is allowed and encouraged. It has the

power to change a local church. It has the power to change a denomination. The

institutional church cannot create such a movement within itself, that is the work of God,

but it can facilitate this work by intentionally striving towards it by genuinely welcoming

the stranger.

Having discussed Providence’s use of movements and institutions generally, and

ubuntu and multiculturalism in specific as ways that institutions can be revitalized, this

D.Min. project now turns to the story of the work of God at Chapel Hill UMC in

Riddleton TN, a small institution in a small community that allowed itself to be moved by

the Spirit of God in a way that has resulted in a powerful upsurge in the work of God, a

powerful upsurge in ubuntu, in that place.

77
 1
NOTES

Bishop Janet Huie, "God's World is Waiting," United Methodist Reporter, November 16 2007,
2.

2
Dr. James B. Scott and Dr. Molly Davis Scott, Restoring Methodism (Dallas: Provident
Publishing, 2006), 18.

3
Matthews, Timetables, 257.

4
Ibid., 235.

5
Ibid., 239.

6
Ibid., 243.

7
Ibid., 249.

8
Bishop Huie, “God’s World is Waiting,” 2.

9
Norwood, The Story of American Methodism, 232.

10
Ibid., 232.

11
Ibid., 232.

12
Bishop Huie, “God’s World is Waiting,” 2.

13
Scott and Scott, Restoring Methodism, 31.

14
Matthews, Timetables, 235.

15
Ibid., 239.

16
Ibid., 243.

17
Ibid., 251.

18
Ibid., 253.

19
Ibid., 235.

20
Ibid., 257.

21
Ibid., 263.
 22
Ibid., 269.

23
Confessing Movement, "Confession," Confessingumc.org/v2/resources/confession/ (accessed
November 19, 2007).

24
Matthews, Timetables, 227 and 257.

25
Good News Magazine, "Who We Are," goodnewsmag.org/hoffice/Index_Hoffice.htm.
(accessed November 19, 2007).

26
Ibid.

27
Linda Green, "Bishops' President Calls for New Church Movement," United Methodist
Reporter, May 2 2007, 1.

28
Green, "Bishops' President Calls for New Church Movement," 1.

29
Robin Russell, "Mozambican President Welcomes Bishops, Receives Resolution," United
Methodist Reproter, November 1 2006.

30
Green, "Bishops' President Calls for New Church Movement," 1.

31
Ibid., 2.

32
Wesley, Sermon 126.

33
Green, "Bishops' President Calls for New Church Movement," 2.

34
Ibid., 2.

35
Ibid., 2.

36
Scott and Scott, Restoring Methodism, 31.

37
Ibid., 33.

38
Confessing Movement, 2005, "Unity Statement,"
confessingumc.org/v2/2005UnityStatement.htm. (accessed November 20, 2007).

39
Green, "Bishops' President Calls for New Church Movement," 2.

40
The United Methodist Publishing House, The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville TN: The
United Methodist Publishing House, 1989), 34.

41
Virgilio Elizondo, The Future is Mestizo (Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, 2000),
17.
 42
Ibid., 79.

43
Charles E. Foster, Embracing Diversity (No City Given: Alban Institute, 1997), 21.

44
Foster, Embracing Diversity, 100.

45
Michael Battle, Reconciliation, The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu (Cleveland: Pilgrim
Press, 1997), 39.

46
Ibid., 49.

47
Ibid., 43.

48
Ibid., 45.

49
Ibid., 33.

50
Ibid., 40.

51
Paula Harris, Doug Schaupp, Being White (Downers Grove, Il: IVP, 2004), 118-119.

52
Green, "Bishops' President Calls for New Church Movement," 2.

53
Personal Memory.