Message to
United Methodist Bishops

The following message was delivered by the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon to the United Methodist Council of Bishops in Lake Junaluska, N.C., on November 2, 2009.

I give thanks to God for the witness of the whole United Methodist Church, for the way that God has worked through this church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  And I say this not simply as an outsider, but as one whose first church school experience, from third through seventh grades, was in the Methodist Church in Wellman, Iowa, and whose professional experience has included service on the GCCUIC.   My congregational membership and ordained ministerial standing are now with the Disciples of Christ; but much of my formation has been Methodist.  And so, with your permission, I will speak of “us” rather than “you.” 

We have a glorious ecumenical heritage.  The best brief statement that I know of on the basis for ecumenism is found in paragraph 68 of the Book of Discipline:  “Christian unity is not an option; it is a gift to be received and expressed.”  This, I take it, is foundational to everything else we will say this afternoon. 

My own remarks, which I will keep brief enough to allow for plenty of discussion, fall under the heading of “celebration and challenge.”   I would like us to reflect on six ecumenical initiatives in which the UMC is currently involved, celebrating their potential while also acknowledging the challenge they represent.  This church has, at times, given grace-filled leadership to the whole ecumenical movement; but there is also in this church (in us) an abiding temptation to self-sufficiency that goes with institutional strength – and this, of course, is deadly to the ecumenical spirit.   

1.     I will speak first about our recently-inaugurated full communion relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  As I wrote in a letter to Bishop Rader and Bishop Palmer following the ELCA’s decision in August, this relationship “is the obvious manifestation of much good will, dialogue and prayer.”  It is also an “important milestone on the journey to the visible unity of Christ’s church.” 

Full communion relationships are popular today – have replaced the effort to achieve “organic,’ structural unity – because they preserve the diversity of confessional heritage.   Those of you from an EUB heritage can probably attest to the danger of losing something of value through the organic model.  The problem with full communion relationships, however, is that they can easily avoid the demands of repentance and transformation – or be ignored altogether.  In the absence of structures of mutual accountability, commitments, no matter how solemnly made, can be treated lightly – leading to what Albert Outler once called “ecumenism within the status quo.”  Or as an ecumenical officer from another church once said to me, “Our full communion relationships are a way to help us feel good about our continued division.  They may be a form of communion, but they certainly aren’t ‘full.’” 

As the body charged with “leadership in the quest for Christian unity,” you, the bishops of church, will, I trust, want to ensure that this relationship with the ELCA is one of genuine substance – and that means being aggressive about the “reception” of this agreement in your settings.  Let me suggest some broad criteria.  Any “communion” relationship, if it is to deserve such a label, must be tangible enough and substantive enough to make a witness to the world.  It must be intense enough that those in it recognize their responsibility for, and accountability to, one another.  It must be costly enough that churches are changed as a result of being in it.  And it must be intentional enough that the body of Christ is renewed through the sharing of gifts.  You have had the celebration; the real challenge lies ahead. 

I hope I am being clear.  Models of organic union raise their own problems, but the full communion alternative (where churches agree to share the eucharist, recognize members and ministries, and pursue common mission – without changing identity or decision-making structures) runs the risk of not demanding real transformation.  This may, of course, raise questions about Churches Uniting in Christ, since COCU began as a proposal for organic, structural union and gradually morphed into something resembling full communion – only to fall apart once the churches became responsible for changing the way they related to each other. 

2.     The second initiative I want to mention – and celebrate! – is the establishment of a Committee on Faith and Order in the UMC and its decision to focus first on ecclesiology.  In an era when traditional understandings of church are being widely reassessed, it is vital for the church itself to undertake such a study. The danger, of course, is that we will concentrate primarily on what it means to be the United Methodist Church rather than on what it means to be part of the one body of Christ. 

The Book of Discipline is very clear that the church is, most essentially, the one “community of believers…which the Spirit has brought into existence for the healing of the nations” (par. 65).  Its unity is not our achievement, but a gift (remember the earlier quotation) made known to us in Christ Jesus.  This idea is reinforced by numerous ecumenical studies; but, as you know, it is undercut by the cultural context in this country.  As one friend puts it, American churches suffer from a “we the people” ecclesiology which thinks of the church as a voluntary association of like-minded folks.  And if this is the case, then whenever we disagree, we can take our marbles and leave. 

Theological reflection that locates itself within the ecumenical church can help us counter this cultural ecclesiology.  Texts from the Faith and Order commissions of the World and National councils insist that the church does not just exist to meet our needs, to be a source of community and occasional inspiration.  It is a place where we are formed in a way of living that is likely not that of the world around us.  The church should challenge our easy presuppositions and call us to intimate life with persons we, humanly speaking, may not like or be like.  So, yes, celebrate the Committee on Faith and Order, but hear the challenge always to think ecclesiologically outside the orbit of this denomination.   

I will add that the most important ecumenical text on ecclesiology, entitled “The Nature of Mission of the Church,” written by the WCC’s Faith and Order Commission, is on the initial reading listed of your committee.  But there will be a real temptation, I am sure, to focus on our branch of the Christian tree, and that gets everything out of proper perspective.  As I have said to the GCCUIC, Methodist is a wonderful adjective, but an idolatrous noun.  We are not Methodists; we are Methodist Christians – fundamentally defined by our relationship to the one Lord. 

3.     Going where angels fear to tread, I want to speak briefly about the global character of the UMC.  I celebrate the fact that the UMC is no longer easily or solely identified with the United States, whose consumerist and often-militarist ideology is so foreign to the gospel we proclaim.  I celebrate the emphasis being put on the intimate relationship between the local congregation and the universal body of believers to whom we are related by blood – not ours but Christ’s.  But the challenge, as you well know, is to refrain from focusing so exclusively on the global character of this community that we minimize or overlook our connectedness to the far-wider community of Christ’s followers who do not call themselves United Methodists.  Church signs in Liberia or the Philippines do not need to say “United Methodist” in order for us to be in those places – not if we have our ecclesiology straight. 

I suppose I have been particularly sensitive to this ever since my early days of seminary teaching when I invited the local United Methodist bishop, a former missionary, to speak to one of my classes on the global mission of the church, and he referred only to United Methodists in other places!  And I will admit to being deeply worried when the African Methodist Episcopal Church, to take an example from another part of the Methodist Christian family, began establishing AME congregations in India – thereby siphoning off members from locally-united churches like the Church of South India.  If there is a united church in another country, shouldn’t Methodists in that country be part of it?  Otherwise, aren’t we simply perpetuating division, while also running the risk of perpetuating patterns of dependence on western-based churches?  These are real challenges amidst the celebration.   

This is difficult territory, so let me be as clear as possible.  There is no doubt that the church in North America is greatly enriched by living relationships with Christians in other countries and cultures.  It is cause for celebration.  The witness made in this morning’s worship, coming from the Philippines, was surely inspiring for all of us from the U.S. – or elsewhere.  But I am also sure that such witness could be made by sisters and brothers from Jerusalem or Armenia, places where United Methodists are not plentiful.  So treasure these relationships, but also encourage ecumenical growth with Christians of other traditions in the global fellowship of Jesus Christ. 

The other three initiatives I will touch on more briefly in order to maximize our time for discussion. 

4.     One of the church’s four foci, as you know far better than I, is “developing principled Christian leaders.”  I obviously celebrate this emphasis on leadership formation, lay and ordained, and challenge you to ensure that such formation takes full account of our ecumenical heritage.  Surely one mark of “principled leadership” is openness to ways of being Christian unlike those familiar to us.   

During my years on the GCCUIC, the commission sponsored a gathering of representatives from UMC seminaries in order to discuss the teaching of ecumenism.  We learned a number of interesting things, including a) that the search for the visible unity of the church is often seen in seminary circles as less important than witness or service or social transformation, b) that Christian ecumenism often regarded as passé, with interfaith relations the sexier alternative, and c) that ecumenism must be both incorporated into required courses and taught as a distinct subject.  All of this may be worth revisiting as you face the challenge of forming a new generation of ecumenically-aware leaders.   

While speaking of theological education, I will add that recent decisions to withdraw Methodist accreditation from a number of seminaries associated with other Christian traditions is regarded as profoundly unecumenical by colleagues in those churches.  You may defend this practice; but I also should report how it is received.

5.     I greatly celebrate your decision to build on your excellent statement from the 1980s on peacemaking and the threat of nuclear weapons, In Defense of Creation.  Once again, I urge you to do so taking full account of literature on this subject from other churches and ecumenical bodies.  The NCC’s Governing Board, for example, has just approved a substantive resolution calling for renewed attention to the elimination of nuclear weapons.  I hope you will take what is said there into consideration as you proceed with this process.  Through the NCC, the churches are doing a great deal of work on ecojustice, especially climate change.  I hope your involvement in it is underscored.   

The basic point, however, is more profound: namely, that the ecumenical movement is, itself, a movement for peace. The church, after all, shouldn’t just proclaim peace; we must model peacemaking in the way we deal with one another in the body of Christ.  Living ecumenically is a profound witness for peace. 

6.     Finally, a word about councils of churches, the subject of the book you read in preparation for this gathering.  The United Methodist Church has always made a major commitment to conciliar ecumenism – which I celebrate more than I can tell you!  I suspect, however, that Methodist Christians, like other Christians, generally think of councils as organizations alongside the churches, rather than as churches in life together.  During my twenty-two months as General Secretary, I have repeatedly insisted that the NCC is not an organization our churches have joined; it is, most fundamentally, a covenant we have made with thirty-four other communions to make visible our given unity in Christ and to engage in mission together, to the glory of God – words taken directly from the NCC Constitution.  At the upcoming General Assembly of the National Council of Churches and Church World Service, I will report that the organizational health of the Council is pretty good.  (Feel free to ask me about that, if you wish.)  But the more important assessment, you see, is whether the churches are growing in love and knowledge of one another – whether, to paraphrase the Apostle, they are welcoming one another, just as Christ has welcomed us.  One way we are trying to emphasize the true nature of the Council is through a series of church to church visits. The official visit to the UMC will come on December 2, and I know that some of you will be, or have been, asked to take part.  It is an important opportunity to remind ourselves that the NCC is not “them” (that office in New York) but “us.” 

Thank you, friends, for the invitation to share these reflections with you.  May they contribute to the goal of “the whole church making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”

Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches