as we discussed methodism today in class, i couldn't help but think of my college roommate, who happens to be a united methodist. she has been visiting me this week for her spring break and i shared with her some of what we had been discussing in class. she pointed out that before and during her years at college, her congregation was going through a period of immense turmoil. as with many congregations, great turmoil usually impacts the church's budget. the intriguing part was that the very methodist congregation knew the value of giving and so the congregation continued to collect money in offerings. the difference came in with respect to where the collection went. since people were unwilling to support the pastors, they refused to give money that would support the pastors. instead, they designated their offerings to missions. While the church stopped paying its apportionments (the required amounts paid to the conference, or what we lutherans refer to as a synod), and almost went without water and electricity, it never stopped funding missions, and funding them strongly.
this is a lesson we could all learn. my home congregation is currently having money troubles because of its own turmoil, but imagine what a difference it would make if people still gave and recognized the importance of social justice and work in the world. my congregation hasn't ever been stellar at benevolence, but if the money that's recently been taken away from our congregational budget went directly to benevolence or mission, our identity as a congregation would become very different. it is a very different way of living out our vocation and mission as a church: giving money out into the world, even when we are unwilling to give it within the church. this is not only a part of supporting the missions of the church, but it is a way to honor giving as a spiritual practice for individuals and to recognize that it is of great importance to people on a personal level as well as being a way of sharing love in the world.
this could go for the elca as a whole as well. what if people who were upset with the elca churchwide decision to hold all ordained and rostered leaders to a high standard while allowing them to also live a life of love and commitment with a spouse or partner didn't just leave the church? since they are clearly still welcome and their opinions and views are clearly still welcomed in a church that tries valiantly to embrace contradictions, what if they didn't take away their synod benevolence and the money they generally set aside to global mission? what if they continued to support the church, but maybe designated their funds to missions areas? would the church have to find a new identity? would the church not only find a new way of understanding its center as christ, but also of understanding why we as individuals and congregations give?
not all of john wesley's ideas resonate both with me and with current methodists. for example, while wesley and i agree quite a bit regarding the eucharist, current methodists tend to favor a more occasional practice. also, wesley and i tend to hold very different views regarding tea and alcohol consumption. we all do, however, seem to agree with the emphasis he placed on working for good in the world. the love we receive from god cannot be contained simply within ourselves. the only way to fully experience the love god has for us is to respond to it in love towards others.
on a related note, i also learned that much of the success of the methodist movement can be credited to charles wesley, who was not only a prolific hymn writer (many of the hymns in our "lutheran" hymnal are, as my college roommate pointed out, written by charles wesley) but also was apparently much more sociable and friendly, especially in one-on-one interpersonal settings. being the guy that people "actually wanted to hang out with" seems to have gotten him and the methodist movement as a whole quite a bit further than simply being the preacher who considers the whole world to be his parish.
No comments:
Post a Comment