An American Woman Missionary in Korea: Mary Scranton

Women in Wesleyan and Methodist movements during the 19-20th century seemed to actively participate in many areas. They especially took part in the feminist movement for the women, who were oppressed and marginalized, and for their civil/ecclesiastic rights. 

Warner highlights mission works of Methodist women. According to him, “[some women missionaries] made significant contribution to the education and medical care of indigenous women.” When I was reading this part, this stream in America reminded of the early history of Korean church. 

There was a woman missionary in Korea whose works were very similar with those in America at that time. Her name is Mary Fletcher Scranton, and she came to Korea in 1885 as the first Methodist woman missionary.  Her major works in Korea were also education and medical care for Korean women. At that period in Korea, there was no hospital for women to be cared, so she founded the first women-only hospital in 1886. Moreover, she also established the first women-only educational institution in 1886 named Ewha Hakdang. This now became as one of the top 10 best universities and the best women’s university in Korea: Ewha Womans University. She was the first person who started feminist movement in Korea and tried to safeguard women’s rights. 

Therefore, I thought that Mary Scranton’s works might have been affected by the movement in America, or she, as a missionary, might have brought the movement to Korea.

Warner Article - People's History

First, an anecdote that some may find interesting:

Reading Warner's article on American Methodist women reminded me of a book my sister sent me about the history of some of our family ancestors, which contains several references to Methodism in the 1700s and 1800s. One excerpt is from my great-great-great-great-great-grandmother Mary Grimes Montgomery, who writes of a conversion experience in a Methodist class meeting in Ohio in 1803 with a pastor and two other women. Her testimony is quite similar to others we have read in class, with references to camp-meetings, seeking "a greater work of grace" night and day, and that she eventually "experienced the blessing of perfect love." Her obituary is also full of references to how she raised her children as "professors of Christian faith" and that she was a "strong advocate of the religion of Jesus Christ." Many of her grandchildren and children were Methodist preachers so her advocacy clearly held an important place in that family. 

In relation to Warner's article, this made me think of the incredibly important place that women have held in Methodist history. We have read from several sources that women outnumbered men in congregations and that women held vital roles in the religious life of a family, etc. Many of the women who did the important work towards women's ordination and inclusion are listed in the article, but so many more exist who did work that is unremembered now, acting for all intents and purposes as ministers and as pastors but without any of the recognition or place in our history books. It's understandable that we must focus on these larger-than-life figures when we study history- by necessity of the fact that we have such few written records for anyone other than those key figures. I'm interested, however, by the concept of a people's history, or history from below, which focuses on common people rather than leaders, and what this might look like in a Methodist context.

Here's a link to the above-mentioned book on Google books: 

https://books.google.com/books?id=8Gs6AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

Woman's Church

In Laceye Warner's article, she states that in the face of strong opposition to the ordination of women in the Methodist Church, Frances Willard suggests that women should ordain themselves if the opposition persisted (thus proposing the creation of a "woman's church").  However, Warner notes that this proposition never materialized. In facing opposition for their own ordination and racial discrimination, Richard Allen effectively created the African-American Methodist Church. In light of this, why did Willard's proposal fail to materialize among women? Why was Allen successful in creating a separate church and Willard wasn't? Did Willard lack the strategic planning to implement such an undertaking, or where there other underlying factors that prevented women supporting Willard's proposal?

Church Architecture

I find church architecture to be fascinating, especially as a form of theological expression. The layout, ornamentation, and general architectural style of a church all say something about the church's theology. I'm glad the textbook addressed the rise of neo-Gothic architecture for the Methodist church (158-161). West End UMC, where I attend, was built during that revival and it helps to explain why the church looks the way it does. It grandeur has been a point of pride for the congregation from the 1930s on. In our recent capital campaign, the beauty of the sanctuary was linked with creating spiritual experiences with people (much like Conover articulated, 161).

Prior to the neo-Gothic movement, what architectural style did Methodists typically follow? What were their thoughts on ornamentation (stained glass windows, etc.)? Did Wesley have anything to say about church buildings, or would that have been too much of try to start a new denomination?

What People Think We Do/What We Really Do

As one might also accuse Methodists of today, it seems that there is a large gap between what the church officially says that it does and what it actually does (we should make one of those memes as a diagram). As described in the Women in Seminary and in the Pulpit excerpt, women were getting seminary degrees, preaching, founding and leading churches (Richey, 118). Meanwhile, they were sending petitions to bishops asking to be officially recognized for the things they were already doing, which were denied. Methodists took on the loving mission work of stripping indigenous people of their heritage and land- officially- but also aided Union troops in massacring them (Richey, 121). Upon finally reaching a place where some Methodist denominations were ordaining black clergy, the same ones were also recognizing petitions to segregate local churches (Richey, 121-122). I’m wondering if this incoherency comes from mere ridiculousness (i.e. racism, sexism) entirely, or if is due in part to the sheer number of denominations that existed- AME, AMEZ, UBC, EA, MPC, MECS- am I missing any? When we look back at a “Methodist” history, what do we actually claim as Methodist? Who decides?

Just the Middle Class?

In Richey's American Methodism: A Compact History, he describes the founding of the Oxford League as "a youth organization 'modeled' on Wesley's Holy Club."  As one would imagine, part of this club included studying the Bible an building moral character.  The most interesting piece of the goals for the Oxford League I found says "to train middle-class teenagers in the works of 'mercy and help.'"  Now if the UMC looked back to the MEC's youth organizations like the Oxford League and Epworth League, would they look anything like our UMYF programs?

What jumps out at me is the intent to focus on the middle-class teens.  I also do not know the overall demographics of Methodist teens in the nineteenth or twenty-first centuries, so maybe having a focused mission on the middle-class was or could be a good call.  So my question is, why did John Vincent and other leaders of these youth organizations focus only on the middle class?

And finally, if the UMC employed youth organizations also modeled on Wesley's Holy Club and/or the Oxford/Epworth Leagues, how would it affect Church membership, participation, and missions after these teens enter college and eventually the workforce?  Would this help bridge the gap the UMC is facing today in the loss of many young adults in the Church?  How did the MEC's youth organizations affect the life of the Church as their teens became young adults?

Methodist Eccumenical Communion

One of the things I had hoped to take away from this class was a better understanding of how the parallel "Methodist" movements came about. Yet American Methodism seems to gloss over some of the splits and reconciliations that happen throughout the time period we were assigned this week. In particular, I'm curious as to what specifically caused the Church of the Nazarene to form, and what brought the United Brethren into talks with the Methodist Episcopal Church?