Replies

The following was a pre-conference write-up by Dr Riley Case of the Confessing Movement, a solid, biblical group working for historic Christianity in the UMC. They did not like the idea of "transformation of the world" without something highlighting "for the salvation of souls."

It matters that Wesley (and many Methodists still) was post-millennial. He really did see a "transformation of the world" until it is the kingdom of God on earth.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that post-millennialism works well with post-Christian Arminianism's ignoring of the depravity of man in favor of an overly fawning God. It will always become a political kingdom that gets built.

Conversion and The Mission of the Church
A General Conference petition to expand the mission of the church would add the words “for the transformation of the world…” so that the mission statement would read: The purpose of the annual conference is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
The petition comes from the Council of Bishops with the rationale that it reflects more adequately our understanding of the mission of the church. The bishops also link this expanded definition with mission initiatives adopted by the Connectional Table. The initiatives are leadership development, congregational development, ministry with the poor, and global health.
One certainly cannot speak against the idea of transforming the world but one might raise the question as to how the world is to be transformed. One hundred years ago the church spoke about the “conversion” of the world and “the salvation of the human race.” A few years later the language shifted so that instead of seeking the conversion of the world we were working for the bringing of God’s kingdom on the earth. This reflected a theological shift away from evangelism toward social justice.
Either way our sights were high. A couple of world wars and the rise (and fall) of communism tempered our vision. Never mind. We’re back again with a big vision, a vision of transformation. But the question still remains: Are we about social betterment or conversion?
The Africans might come to our rescue. There is evidently a petition coming from one of the African conferences (this material is not in the Advanced Christian Advocate) to insert a phrase something like “for the conversion of eternal souls” to the transformation phrase. The Africans have the most to gain by an emphasis on leadership development, work with the poor, and dealing with global health. But they are also very much aware that these emphases must not be considered separately from the salvation of souls.
It will be interesting to see how General Conference deals with these proposals.

Interesting.

> ~~Conversion and The Mission of the Church~~Manifesto

There, I fixed it.

To my dismay I could see very little in this of Christ, or of the legitimate business of His followers. Many lofty ideals, few if any supportable by scripture.

I would love to see if Thomas Oden has a comment on this.

Thanks.

Knowing that a lot of "change" is instituted in order for us to look the other way regarding the sins of homosexuality, I'm certainly suspicious of the need for a rewrite.

At the same time, I don't really see anything wrong with the words, per se; only perhaps with how those words might be twisted.

Here's the new text:

The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

Here's the previous text:

The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

A solid postmillenial approach to life is Scriptural, IMO. We are called to work towards transforming the earth back into the garden of God as much as possible by steadily "making disciples of Jesus Christ." Logically, the more disciples of Christ, the more the garden blooms and God's sustenance is revealed throughout all creation. Men's sanctification cannot but help to have a positive effect on the world around them, by definition.

Perhaps phrases like "winning souls" was discarded because only God can and does "win souls" as we've learned from another garden analogy...

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." -- 1 Corinthians 3:5-7

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that post-millennialism works well with post-Christian Arminianism's ignoring of the depravity of man in favor of an overly fawning God. It will always become a political kingdom that gets built.

Yes, that's true. But what's wrong with a "political kingdom" built soundly and purposefully on the principles of "God's kingdom?"

That's the trick. That's what's difficult. But IMO that remains a worthy goal, even if ultimately impossible to completely attain.

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power" -- Colossians 2:9-10

Calvin preached a separation of church and state. But in that preaching he was careful to stress that the state was not to impinge on the church. Instead the state was called on to protect the church while acknowledging that the principles of the church are right and true and should guide every citizen and every leader, according to Scripture...

"Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD." -- Psalm 150:6

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." -- Romans 13:1

One way or another, by His will, for His glory.