What’s God Got to Do With It? Thoughts on the Global Methodist Church’s Mission Statement
Photo by Josh Eckstein on Unsplash
On Tuesday of last week, Dr. David Watson published an article suggesting revisions to the Global Methodist Church’s mission statement. I agree with the basic thrust of the article, as well as his proposal of an alternative statement. My agreement has nothing to do with the fact that Dr. Watson and I have been friends for more than two decades. He simply makes sound arguments.
Within twenty-four hours or so, Rev. Paul Lawler published a rejoinder to Dr. Watson’s proposal. On the one hand, he agrees that the mission statement should say something about spreading scriptural holiness. On the other hand, Rev. Lawler dislikes the removal of the phrase, “making disciples of Jesus Christ.” He also dislikes the phrase, “across the globe.” Essentially, Rev. Lawler’s counterproposal includes three ingredients as follows: 1) making disciples of Jesus Christ; 2) spreading scriptural holiness; and 3) to all peoples.
Taken together, Dr. Watson’s and Rev. Lawler’s proposals improve the current mission statement. For starters, the current statement violates two well-established principles. First, mission statements should be kept short and memorable. When mission statements are too long, no one remembers them. And if no one remembers them, then they do no meaningful work in the life of institutions. They don’t provide a vision around which all members of an institution can rally together.
Second, the current statement runs afoul of the Hemingway rule. According to Ernest Hemingway, word economy makes writing more powerful and memorable. Thus, Hemingway himself eschewed the use of adverbs like “passionately,” “extravagantly,” and “boldly.” If the GMC retains the current statement, I predict that people will struggle to remember which verb each of the adverbs modifies. Are we to worship passionately? Or was it extravagantly? Or was it boldly? And what is the difference between worshiping passionately and worshiping extravagantly or boldly? If the current statement must be retained, ditch the adverbs. They divert attention from the action words at the heart of the current statement. (Confession: over the years, I’ve personally worked to eliminate adverbs from my own writing, and I am convinced that Hemingway was right—doing so gives your nouns and verbs more punch.)
Whatever we make of the value of adverbs, a deeper problem remains. To my mind, all three proposals suffer from the same flaw: God has no active agency. We make disciples. We worship and witness. We spread scriptural holiness throughout the world. Call me crazy, but I think a good mission statement should call attention to God’s primary agency in some way. As Wesley himself never tired of saying, we cannot love God until we know that God first loved us! All that we do is in response to all that God has done!
Dr. Watson is exactly right when he says that, for a mission statement to be Methodist, it should say something about holiness. Rev. Lawler is correct when he says that, for a mission statement to be Wesleyan, it should name all the peoples of the world. Why? Because no doctrine is more essential to the Wesleyan tradition than the doctrine of the unlimited atonement. Christ died for all. Rev. Lawler’s proposal helps to highlight this.
In addition to holiness and the unlimited atonement, the Wesleyan theological tradition also stresses that God is the primary agent in salvation, from repentance and initial faith all the way through to assurance, sanctification, and glorification. Yes, God invites us to respond to and participate in all that God is doing for the salvation of the world, but we can do nothing apart from God’s enabling action. Why? Because prior to the Spirit’s work, we are in bondage to sin. With the help of the Spirit, we are enabled to perceive the truth about God and ourselves, repent of our sins, confess Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and the like. The same holds for worship and evangelism and missions and everything else the faithful set about to do. Without the help of the Holy Spirit, we will lack the courage to make disciples or to spread holiness. Failing that, we will trust entirely in our own resources and resourcefulness.
To summarize, the current mission statement calls for us to make disciples, to worship, to love, and to witness, but it does not make clear that God is the primary agent in salvation, nor does it call attention to the fact that discipleship and witness should be aimed at the entire world. It also says nothing of holiness. Theologically speaking, the current statement has no Wesleyan content.
Dr. Watson’s proposal emphasizes holiness, and I agree. Holiness must be a part of any Wesleyan mission statement. Rev. Lawler’s proposal is right to highlight the unlimited scope of salvation, as well as our active participation in God’s saving work in the world. But none of the three signal God’s primary agency in all things pertaining to salvation (Dr. Watson’s article discusses it, but it doesn’t make the cut in his proposed statement).
So, stop cursing the darkness and light a candle already, right? Here goes! For a mission statement to be Wesleyan, it must highlight the following four things:
the primary agency of God in salvation;
the unlimited scope of Christ’s saving work;
holiness as the goal of the Christian life;
our active involvement in God’s saving work in the world.
Thus, I propose the following mission statement for the Global Methodist Church: “Led by the Holy Spirit, the Global Methodist Church exists to make disciples of Jesus Christ and spread scriptural holiness to all peoples.”
Whatever we do, just remember: keep it short, and no adverbs.
Jason E. Vickers is the William J. Abraham Chair in Theology and Wesleyan Studies at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.