Rev. Dr. C. Anthony Hunt
This article was published in the "United Methodist Connection" in September 2014.
Growing
up in the Methodist Church, it often puzzled me as to why and how there came to
be so many Methodist Churches located in such close proximity to one another. St. Paul Methodist Church – the church in
which I was baptized as an infant – was a small church, all of whose members
were black. Although I was regularly
taken to church by my parents and grandparents, the problem of race in the
church really didn’t dawn on me until 1969 when I was seven years old.
That
was the year that St. Paul received its first white minister. That was also the year that there began to be
discussions and outward overtures from the white Methodist church around the
corner (Oxon Hill) about shared ministries and possible merger. Up to that point, the two churches seemed to
exist in two separate worlds. Although they
were less than a mile apart, in the same denomination, and supposedly worshipping
and serving the same God, the churches were in fact essentially invisible to
each other.
It
was at the point when serious talks of merger and shared ministry began that
the realities of racial division in the church came to the surface for the members
of both St. Paul and Oxon Hill churches.
Up until 1968, St. Paul, one of the oldest Methodist churches in
Maryland, had been a part of the Washington Conference and the Central
Jurisdiction - all-black sub-structures that had been created within the larger
denomination, with the uniting of Methodist factions in 1939, while Oxon Hill
had been an established and well-regarded member of the Baltimore Conference
and the broader Methodist Church.
The
creation of the United Methodist Church in 1968, with the merger of the
Evangelical United Brethren Churches in Christ and the Methodist Church, and
the subsequent elimination of the Central Jurisdiction - and effectively the
Washington Conference - offered what seemed to be new hope that local
congregations like St. Paul and Oxon Hill, which had up to that point remained
segregated, could heal their racial wounds and work towards reconciliation and
eventual union.
Despite
the hope engendered by these circumstances, the talk of congregational merger
brought the often unspoken wounds of race division painfully to the fore. Who would be the pastor of the newly merged racially
integrated congregation? Would she or he
be black or white? How would the
committees of the new church be established?
How would power and leadership be shared? How would finances be handled? In what style would the new congregation
worship? The talks of merger eventually
ceased, and today these two congregations continue to co-exist less than a mile
apart from one another.
The
experiences of St. Paul and Oxon Hill United Methodist Churches are not unique
within the historical context of Methodism.
In October, we will celebrate the 150th
anniversary of emancipation in Maryland and the creation of the Washington
Conference. Bishop James Thomas
intimates in the title of his book on the story of the Central Jurisdiction
that its existence was Methodism’s “racial dilemma.” At the meeting at which the Washington
Conference was established as a part of the Central Jurisdiction, it has been
said that Bishop Edgar Love asked, “What have we wrought?” For black Methodists,
the results of the “Uniting Conference of 1939” in Kansas City and the
establishment of the Central Jurisdiction (and subsequently the Washington Conference)
effectively meant the establishment of a “denomination within a denomination –
a church within a church.”
Dr.
William B. McLain, in his 1999 article entitled, “When a Dream is Deferred,”
intimates that the creation of the Central Jurisdiction was yet another effort
of the Methodist Church to rid itself of the race problem by sweeping it under
the church’s “rug”, as was evident with the 1939 Plan of Union and the
compromises among the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church
South and the Methodist Protestant Church. One of the selling points of the establishment
of an all-black jurisdiction and conferences was that black Methodists would be
allowed to elect their own bishops and build their own institutions.
In
1968, at the dawn of the formation of the United Methodist Church and the
elimination of the former Central Jurisdiction, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
eloquently and prophetically cautioned that with the elimination of the Central
Jurisdiction, there existed the possibility of black Methodists "being
integrated out of power." Some
forty-six years later we are left to ponder the profundity and accuracy of
King's observation. McClain asserted
that notwithstanding the 1968 merger, the legacy of segregation has continued
to plague the United Methodist Church.
What
have we wrought? Indeed, the effects of church
segregation of the past persist in United Methodism today. In fact, the vast majority of United
Methodist congregations – across racial, ethnic and geographic lines - remain
essentially segregated. The legacy of racial
segregation is most evident in the decline of many black United Methodist
congregations. Over the past fifty years
- this decline is apparent in consistently decreasing membership, worship
attendance, stewardship, and diminished vitality in worship and witness in many
churches.
And
yet today, a biblical-theological prospect, as rooted in a question raised by
the prophet Ezekiel in the 6th century B.C.E., is before us. "Who will stand in the breach? I looked for anyone among them who would
repair the wall and stand in the breach…but I found no one.” (Ez. 22:30) As one who is counted among those who are products
of the Washington Conference, and as a committed United Methodist, I stand with
many others on the legacy of our segregated past with a hope rooted in the
promises of God. As we who are of many hues
continue to work together towards truly becoming the “United” Methodist Church,
this is a hope that with God’s help, our future will outshine our tragic past.
No comments:
Post a Comment