QUARTERLY REVIEW E D I T O R I A L B O A R D

T E D A. C A M P B E L L R U S S E L L E. R I C H E Y
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. Candler School of Theology, Atlanta, G A
Evanston, IL
L I N D A E. T H O M A S
M I N E R V A G. C A R C A N O Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago,
Metropolitan District, Portland, O R Chicago, IL

PATRICIA FARRIS TRACI G WEST

First United Methodist Church. Santa Monica. CA The Theological School, D r e w University,
Madison. N]
G R A N T HAGIYA
Los Angeles District Office, Los Angeles, CA D A V I D K. Y E M B A
Faculty of Theology, Africa University,
JEROME KING DEL PINO, CHAIR
Mutare, Z i m b a b w e
General Board of Higher Education and Ministry,
T h e United Methodist Church, Nashville, T N

MARY A N N M O M A N
General Board of Higher Education a n d Ministry,
The United Methodist Church, Nashville, T N

T H O M A S W. O G L E T R E E
T h e Divinity School. Yale University,
N e w Haven, CT

HARRIETT JANE O L S O N
T h e United Methodist Publishing H o u s e .
Nashville. T N
 A Publication of
the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
and The United Methodist Publishing House
Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w (ISSN 0270-9287) provides c o n t i n u i n g education resources for scholars, Christian
educators, and lay a n d professional ministers in The United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h and other churches.
Q R i n t e n d s to b e a forum in which theological issues of significance to Christian ministry can b e
raised a n d debated.

Editorial Offices: 1001 19th Avenue, South, P.O. Box 340007, Nashville, T N 37203-0007. Manuscripts
should b e in English a n d typed double-spaced, including notes.

Q R is published four times a year, in March, June, September, a n d December, by t h e General Board
of Higher Education a n d Ministry of T h e United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h a n d The United Methodist
Publishing H o u s e . Periodicals postage paid at Nashville, Tennessee.

Subscription rate: $24 for o n e year; $44 for two years; and $60 for three years. Students: $16 for o n e year;
$30 for two years. For all subscription orders, single-copy orders, and change-of-address information,
contact Cokesbury toll-free (800) 672-1789, M - F 7:00 A.M.-6:30 P.M. CST and Saturday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M.
CST Inquiries may also b e sent in writing to the Cokesbury Subscription Services, P.O. Box 801,
Nashville, T N 37202-0801.

Postmaster: Address changes should b e sent to T h e United M e t h o d i s t Publishing H o u s e , P.O. Box 801,
Nashville. T N 37202-0801.

Q R is printed o n acid-free paper.

Lections are taken from Revised Common Lectionary (Nashville; A b i n g d o n , 1992).

Scripture quotations, unless o t h e r w i s e noted, are from t h e New Revised Standard Version Common Bible,
copyright © 1989 by t h e Division of Christian Education of t h e National Council of C h u r c h e s of
Christ in t h e USA, a n d are used by permission.

Quarterly Review
Winter 2004

Editor: H e n d r i k R. Pieterse
Email: h p i e t c r s e ^ g b h e m . o r g
Website: http://www.quarterlyreview.org
Copyright © 2004 by t h e General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
a n d T h e United M e t h o d i s t Publishing H o u s e
Volume 24, N u m b e r 4 Winter 2004

Editorial

A Call to Order, O n c e M o r e 335

ISSUE THEME:

T h e O r d e r s of M i n i s t r y : P r o b l e m s a n d P r o s p e c t s

W h a t is a n Order? Reflections o n t h e Vocation of Elders a n d D e a c o n s

Mark W. Stamm 337

T h e O r d e r of Elders: D o o m e d t o Failure o r H o p e for t h e Future?

Grant Hagiya 350

T h e Oral Roberts O p t i o n : T h e Case for O r d a i n e d Local Elders

(and Local Deacons?) in T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h
Ted A. Campbell 358

C o n n e c t e d a n d Sent Out: Implications of N e w Biblical Research

for t h e United M e t h o d i s t D i a c o n a t e
Benjamin L, Hartley 367

U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t O r d a i n e d Ministry in Ecumenical Perspective

Jeffrey Gros 381

Outside the Theme

T h e Grace of Letting G o : Theological Reflections o n Forgiveness

from a Space In-Between
Michael Nausner 399

T h e C h u r c h in Review

T h e Place of t h e G e n e r a l A g e n c i e s in T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h

Russell E. Richey 411

Norman E. Dewire 411
A Word on The Word

Lectionary Study
Osvaldo D. Vena 419

I s s u e s In: O n l i n e Resources in Theology a n d Religion

Bryan Stone 432

Book Review

The Children of Israel: Reading the Bible for the Sake of our Children, by D a n n a
N o l a n Fewell (Nashville: A b i n g d o n , 2003)
Reviewer: Patricia Barrett 439

I n d e x for V o l u m e 24 Inside back cover

 Editorial

A Call to Order, Once More...

HENDRIK R. PIETERSE

T h e 2004 General Conference voted to refer to t h e General Board of

Higher Education a n d Ministry a petition calling for t h e establishment
of "a four-year study c o m m i s s i o n to theologically discuss a n d clearly define
t h e o r d e r i n g of our shared life together in The United M e t h o d i s t Church"
1
a n d to r e p o r t its findings to t h e 2008 G e n e r a l Conference. For a n y o n e
familiar w i t h t h e protracted a n d often convoluted history of q u a d r e n n i a l
"ministry studies" in The United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h (beginning already in
T h e M e t h o d i s t Church, in 1944), t h e reasons given for t h e n e w s t u d y are
sure t o evoke a sense of dejd vu: lingering "questions, concerns, a n d uncer-
tainty" regarding t h e theological and practical m e a n i n g of t h e orders of
ministry (created in 1996) and "continued ambiguity in t h e d e n o m i n a t i o n ' s
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of lay, licensed, and o r d a i n e d ministry." It is instructive that
t h e salient issues t h a t triggered this latest s t u d y o n ministry are also t h e
"crucial areas of concern" that Richard Heitzenrater identified as domi-
nating t h e d e n o m i n a t i o n ' s ministry studies from 1944-1988: t h e appro-
priate n u m b e r of orders; t h e nature and p u r p o s e of ordination; t h e doctrine
2
of t h e church; and t h e m e a n i n g of key theological t e r m s in t h e d e b a t e .
T h e s t u b b o r n persistence of t h e s e "questions, c o n c e r n s , a n d ambi-
guity" u n d o u b t e d l y will exacerbate t h e s e n s e of "ministry study" fatigue
r e g n a n t in s o m e quarters in t h e church, while d e e p e n i n g t h e cynicism of
o t h e r s at w h a t appears to t h e m a prolonged exercise in futility. Yet b o t h t h e
gospel and t h e times call for a r e s p o n s e that is theologically and missionally
appropriate. In t h e final analysis, fatigue a n d cynicism are t h e fruit of a
subtle yet pernicious expectation that t h e s e theological e n g a g e m e n t s w i t h
t h e church's ministry deliver a final a n s w e r - t f e solution t h a t would once-
and-for-all p u t an e n d to "continued ambiguity" a n d lingering "uncertainty."
This expectation displays a hubris that betrays t h e utterly c o n t i n g e n t a n d
historically and linguistically b o u n d e d n a t u r e of t h e church's existence,
A n d such hubristic betrayal fundamentally distorts t h e church's obligation
continually to rethink t h e nature and m e a n i n g of its witness for a n e w
context, including t h e historical a n d institutional s h a p e s t h a t faithful
witness should take. Thus, far from p r o m p t i n g fatigue a n d cynicism, this
latest s t u d y o n ministry is n o t h i n g less t h a n a s u m m o n s t o d o w h a t t h e
church always must do: precisely amid t h e u n c e r t a i n t y a n d ambiguity, t h e
messiness, of its life in t h e world—indeed, for the sake of it-to fashion, in
creative continuity with t h e past, a form of ministerial leadership t h a t has
t h e boldness a n d courage to lead t h e church in discerning t h e forever-
unpredictable w i n d s of t h e Spirit (cf. J o h n 3:8) for this day a n d this time.
T h e essays in this v o l u m e take u p this challenge. N o t surprisingly—
indeed, appropriately—Heitzenrater's "crucial areas of c o n c e r n " r e s o n a t e
t h r o u g h o u t t h e essays. So Mark S t a m m provides a p r o f o u n d theological
m e d i t a t i o n o n t h e very m e a n i n g of a n "order" in U n i t e d M e t h o d i s m , while
G r a n t Hagiya reflects o n t h e challenges a n d possibilities of instantiating
such an o r d e r e d existence a m o n g U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t elders. Ben Hartley's
exposition of J o h n Collins's provocative biblical research o n t h e diakon-
w o r d s o p e n s u p startling possibilities for refiguring t h e w o r k of t h e U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t diaconate. Ted C a m p b e l l a d d r e s s e s t h e t h o r n y issue of ordina-
tion a n d sacramental a u t h o r i t y in a way t h a t h o n o r s b o t h t h e i n t e n t i o n s of
t h e tradition a n d t h e d e m a n d s of t h e present. Finally, Jeffrey G r o s situates
t h e discussion in an ecumenical context, t h u s helping U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s
see the larger c o n t e x t t h a t b o t h o u r c o n t r i b u t i o n s a n d o u r failures will
impact.

Hendrik R, Pieterse is the editor of Q u a r t e r l y Review.

Endnotes
1. The call for this ministry study was presented as a substitute for Petition
41007, "Order of Associate Members and Local Pastors." The full text is avail-
able on the General Conference website at http://www.gc2004.org.
2. See Richard P. Heitzenrater, "A Critical Analysis of t h e Ministry Studies
s i n c e 1944." Occasional Papers 76 ( N a s h v i l l e : G e n e r a l B o a r d of H i g h e r
Education and Ministry, 1988), 10-12.
 The Orders of Ministry: Problems and Prospects

What is an Order? Reflections on the

Vocation of Elders and Deacons

M A R K W. STAMM

T h e practice of holy orders should be r o o t e d in t h e discussion of

baptism, spiritual gifts, a n d t h e w o r s h i p of t h e church. We find s u c h a
discussion in 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 12-14, According to St. Paul, "[I]n t h e o n e
Spirit w e w e r e all baptized into o n e b o d y . , . a n d we w e r e all m a d e to drink
of o n e Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). All m e m b e r s are called t o serve o n e a n o t h e r
w i t h i n t h e Body a n d to serve t h e c o m m o n mission of proclaiming t h e
gospel t h r o u g h w o r d a n d loving action (1 Cor. 14:20-25). A l t h o u g h
m e m b e r s hold this c o m m o n mission, t h e y are given different ministries.
"God has arranged t h e m e m b e r s in t h e body, each o n e of t h e m as h e
chose" (1 Cor. 12:18). S o m e are apostles a n d s o m e are p r o p h e t s . S o m e are
teachers o r healers o r leaders. S o m e work miracles a n d s o m e are given the
ability to speak in strange tongues. S o m e interpret t h o s e t o n g u e s (1 Cor.
12:27-30). All of t h e gifts s h o u l d b e cherished yet u s e d in a disciplined
m a n n e r , in love a n d humility, w i t h o u t pride a n d envy. G o d gives t h e s e gifts
a n d ministries for t h e c o m m o n good, to b e employed "decently a n d in
order," in t h e way of love (1 Cor. 13:1-14:1, 33, 40).
This principle of distinct vocations is also illustrated in t h e sixth chapter
of Acts. The very success of t h e church's mission had caused a p r o b l e m -
caring for t h e widows was overwhelming t h e Twelve. They were neglecting
t h e proclamation of t h e Word a n d instead were s p e n d i n g their time
"waitfing] o n tables" (Acts 6:2). Their d i l e m m a h e l p e d t h e m see t h e n e e d for
a n e w ministry—the deacon—and t h u s t h e apostles chose seven persons,
setting t h e m aside t h r o u g h prayer and t h e laying o n of h a n d s . H e r e w e see
t h e fledgling church doing its p r o p e r w o r k - t h e y discerned a n e e d a n d
called specific p e r s o n s to m e e t it. By d o i n g so, o t h e r servants—the a p o s t l e s -
were set free to d o their particular work. Such o r d e r i n g of ministry is d o n e
prayerfully, according to t h e church's best wisdom. It r e s p o n d s to t h e move-
m e n t of G o d ' s Spirit b u t d o e s n o t try to limit G o d . T h u s we hear a b o u t
Stephen, o n e of t h e Seven, a wonder-worker "full of grace a n d power" (Acts
6:8). H e waited o n tables a n d m u c h m o r e besides, proclaiming t h e Word as
forcefully as St. Peter h a d d o n e . In t h e process h e b e c a m e t h e church's first
martyr (Acts 7). As with t h e Seven, t h e faithful church regulates and shapes
its ministry t h r o u g h ordination, while watching for t h e extraordinary move-
m e n t of t h e Holy Spirit. In each case, t h e church attempts to p u t fire to
constructive use, b u t it m u s t never forget t h a t it is, in fact, working w i t h fire.
W h a t t h e n , is a n "order"? According to this biblical model, orders
consist of b a p t i z e d Christians in w h o m t h e c h u r c h h a s discerned gifts a n d
graces for particular forms of ministry. They are set aside for such ministry
a n d a d m i t t e d to t h e o r d e r t h r o u g h t h e laying o n of h a n d s a n d t h r o u g h
prayer. Within T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church, w e recognize t w o orders, t h e
1
O r d e r of Elders a n d t h e O r d e r of D e a c o n s . A l t h o u g h w e d o n o t regard
o r d i n a t i o n as a sacrament, it is n o t an e m p t y sign. We pray for t h e
o u t p o u r i n g of t h e H o l y Spirit for t h e office a n d work of o u r elders a n d
2
d e a c o n s , a n d we believe G o d a n s w e r s t h a t prayer. T h r o u g h this ritual act,
w e believe G o d e m p o w e r s t h e o r d a i n e d minister t o d o w h a t h e or s h e has
b e e n called to do. T h e laying o n of h a n d s also functions missionally, as a
dismissal rite from t h e relative safety of t h e o r d a i n i n g assembly into t h e
w o r k of ministry. T h r o u g h t h e laying o n of h a n d s t h e c h u r c h says to its
ministers: "Get movingf G o d o t h e task G o d h a s given you." U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t s s e n d their d e a c o n s t o a ministry of Word a n d Service a n d their
3
elders for a ministry of Service, Word, Sacrament, a n d O r d e r .
Both orders exist for t h e sake of t h e b o d y of Christ a n d t h e y are
a c c o u n t a b l e to G o d a n d t o t h e church. At t h e s a m e time, m e m b e r s of t h e
o r d e r s m u s t hold o n e a n o t h e r a c c o u n t a b l e for t h e particular ministerial
tasks that t h e y have b e e n given. They should insist t h a t their colleagues b e
g o o d stewards of t h o s e gifts, a n d t h e y s h o u l d h e l p t h e m d o so. They s h o u l d
insist, p e r h a p s even fiercely, t h a t t h e c h u r c h a n d its congregations give
t h e m o p p o r t u n i t y to exercise their ministries.
In t h e r e m a i n d e r of this article, I will r e s p o n d to t h e question, "What is
an order?" in t h e following t h r e e ways: (1) T h e w o r k of t h e o r d e r s is r o o t e d
in baptism. (2) The o r d e r s are given distinct tasks. (3) O r d e r s serve t h e
Spirit a n d its mission, a n d t h e y d o n o t limit either o n e .

The Work of the Orders Is Rooted in Baptism

The U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t ordinal begins w i t h a vivid r e m i n d e r of baptism. T h e
b i s h o p proclaims t h e following:

Ministry is the work of God,

done by the people of God.
Through baptism
all Christians are made part of the priesthood of all believers,
the church, Christ's body, made visible in the world,
We all share in Christ's ministry of love and service
for the redemption of the human family and the whole of creation.
Therefore, in celebration of our common ministry,
I call upon all God's people gathered here:

As t h e b i s h o p scoops and p o u r s water from t h e font, h e or she says,

Remember your baptism and be thankful.

T h e congregation r e s p o n d s ,

We remember our baptism

4
and affirm our common ministry.

The ritual t h e n proceeds to t h e ordinations. Such r e m e m b r a n c e of

baptism is n o mere consolatory b o n e for t h e laity b u t is a fundamentally
i m p o r t a n t theological affirmation. All Christian ministry flows from t h e font,
w i t h baptism as t h e p r i m a r y marker of Christian identity. This theology is
consistently asserted within o u r United Methodist rites: besides ordination,
b a p t i s m is recalled at Confirmation, at Christian marriage, a n d even at t h e
5
Service of D e a t h and Resurrection.
Beginning t h e o r d i n a t i o n service w i t h a r e m e m b r a n c e of b a p t i s m
reflects a significant e c u m e n i c a l c o n s e n s u s . T h e World Council of
C h u r c h e s ' d o c u m e n t Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry expresses a similar
t h e o l o g y w h e n it p r e c e d e s its discussion of o r d a i n e d ministry w i t h t h e
assertion, "All m e m b e r s are called to discover, w i t h t h e h e l p of t h e c o m m u -
nity, t h e gifts t h e y have received and to u s e t h e m for t h e building u p of t h e
 6
Church." In like m a n n e r , w h e n t h e Evangelical L u t h e r a n C h u r c h of
A m e r i c a a n d t h e Episcopal C h u r c h celebrated their i n t e r c o m m u n i o n
a g r e e m e n t o n J a n u a r y 6 , 2 0 0 1 , t h e y b e g a n their liturgy w i t h a reaffirmation
7
of t h e baptismal c o v e n a n t . It is interesting that, in c o m i n g t o their agree-
ment, t h e t w o c o m m u n i o n s w o r k e d t h r o u g h significant differences in ordi-
nation practice. T h e font was a key s o u r c e of reconciliation.
This ecumenical liturgical c o n s e n s u s is n o t a n e w idea b u t is rooted in
ancient models, like t h e well-known second-century text, The First Apology of
Justin Martyr. O n e sees t h e r e a variety of roles within t h e liturgical assembly.
A "reader" proclaimed t h e Scriptures a n d t h e "president" instructed t h e
assembly in their meaning. T h e w h o l e assembly s t o o d u p a n d offered
prayers. T h e president received offerings of bread a n d w i n e from t h e p e o p l e
a n d t h e n m a d e a thanksgiving over t h e m . M e m b e r s w h o w e r e able m a d e
offerings for t h e poor. All p r e s e n t received C o m m u n i o n , a n d t h e n d e a c o n s
8
took t h e e l e m e n t s t o t h o s e w h o were a b s e n t from t h e service. Each p e r s o n
h a d his or h e r o w n ministry to fulfill, a n d each ministry was essential. Such
texts r e m i n d us t h a t w h e n we discuss ordination practices, t h e n e e d s of t h e
9
eucharistic assembly m u s t b e t h e p r i m a r y consideration.
A hierarchical m o d e l of ministry s t a n d s in contrast to t h e t y p e of
assembly w i t n e s s e d in First Apology, I saw this hierarchical m o d e l illustrated
in a pre-Vatican II chapel t h a t had formerly served a Catholic m i n o r semi-
10
n a r y . Moving u p t h e c e n t e r aisle toward t h e altar, o n e p a s s e d first t h e
symbol for acolyte, t h e n t h e symbol for lector, t h e n , in succession, t h e
symbols for sub-deacon, deacon, priest, a n d b i s h o p . H e r e was illustrated a
hierarchical ladder t h a t o n e might ascend t o t h e very t o p of ecclesiastical
rank. Lest w e believe t h a t o u r Catholic b r e t h r e n w e r e t h e only o n e s w h o
held such a c o n c e p t of t h e hierarchy, we M e t h o d i s t s h a d c o n s t r u c t e d a
similar ladder. O n e b e c a m e a m e m b e r of t h e church t h r o u g h baptism,
albeit as a relatively powerless p r e p a r a t o r y m e m b e r . C o n f i r m a t i o n b r o u g h t
o n e to full m e m b e r s h i p a n d admission to C o m m u n i o n . W h e n o r d a i n e d a
deacon, o n e was given p r o b a t i o n a r y m e m b e r s h i p in t h e a n n u a l conference
a n d s o m e limited a u t h o r i t y t o p r e s i d e a t t h e s a c r a m e n t s . Elders gained full
Conference m e m b e r s h i p a n d full s a c r a m e n t a l rights. O n e might ascend t h e
ladder even further, p e r h a p s b e c o m i n g a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t or a bishop.
D e n o m i n a t i o n a l executives a n d s e m i n a r y professors w e r e believed t o
reside o n o n e of t h e higher r u n g s of t h e ladder.
This m o d e l of accumulating rank r e m a i n s w i t h us t o s o m e extent, b u t
t h e m o r e circular baptismal m o d e l challenges it. Instead of a ladder
mentality, this alternative m o d e l places b a p t i s m at t h e center of c h u r c h life,
w i t h t h e various gifts a n d vocations radiating from t h a t center. According
to this model, m o s t clergy are bi-vocational. For instance, m y vocations are
h u s b a n d and father along w i t h elder a n d scholar. In theory, n e i t h e r voca-
tion o u t r a n k s t h e other. Such a vocational u n d e r s t a n d i n g leads m a n y clergy
t o insist t h a t t h e c h u r c h allow t h e m to balance c o m m i t m e n t to itinerant
ministry w i t h c o m m i t m e n t to marriage a n d family. In t h e hierarchical
m o d e l , family c o n c e r n s were often s u b o r d i n a t e d to t h e n e e d s of t h e
appointive system; b u t it m a k e s less s e n s e u n d e r t h e baptismal m o d e l .
T h e baptismal m o d e l of o r d i n a t i o n is manifested in t h e altered arrange-
m e n t s of o u r w o r s h i p spaces. T h e character of t h e assembly h a s c h a n g e d in
t h o s e congregations t h a t have m o v e d t h e altar-table from t h e b a c k wall of
t h e s a n c t u a r y a n d closer t o t h e people. In t h e ritual for Holy C o m m u n i o n
found in t h e 1964 Book of Worship, t h e rubric called for t h e minister t o face
t h e Lord's Table d u r i n g t h e Preface a n d t h e Prayer of Consecration. D u r i n g
11
t h a t prayer t h e p e o p l e w o u l d "kneel or bow," p r o b a b l y looking d o w n a n d
averting their eyes. Thus, t h e elder knelt b e t w e e n t h e Table a n d t h e people,
usually w i t h his b a c k t o t h e people, in t h e role of a priest interceding
before G o d o n their behalf. W h e n t h e work of consecration was finished,
h e would r e t u r n from his visit to t h e holy place a n d serve C o m m u n i o n t o
t h e p e o p l e . O n e finds a world of difference in t h e rubric of t h e c u r r e n t rite,
w h i c h calls t h e pastor to s t a n d b e h i n d t h e Lord's Table a n d face t h e p e o p l e
while s h e takes t h e b r e a d a n d cup, leads t h e G r e a t Thanksgiving, a n d
12 13
breaks the bread. U n d e r this form, e l d e r s a n d their congregations
g a t h e r a r o u n d t h e Table, a family enjoying fellowship at its p r i m a r y meal.
Moving the altar-table away from the wall has d o n e m o r e t h a n reduce the
spatial and relational distance b e t w e e n pastor and congregation. It has also
m a d e r o o m for others to stand there. Thus, deacons can take their place
beside the elders and t h e laity prepared to take C o m m u n i o n to t h e unwill-
ingly absent are not far away. Of course, the ordination of deacons is nothing
n e w for United Methodists; b u t their ministry was obscured in t h e previous
paradigm, W h e n American Methodists began ordaining ministers, t h e y
a s s u m e d t h e pattern that t h e Church of England had inherited from t h e
Catholic Church. All of our elders had previously b e e n ordained as deacons.
Those ordained u n d e r this pattern were not asked to r e n o u n c e their deacon's
orders w h e n they were ordained elders. In this sense, t h e ministry of t h e
deacon continued in t h e church b u t it was n o t emphasized. Indeed, in t h e
years between m y two ordinations, t h e church called o n m e primarily to d o
t h e work of a n elder—I was appointed to preach, to preside at the sacraments,
a n d to order t h e life of local churches. M y experience was typical. I was not
expected t o develop a n identity as a deacon. U n d e r t h e current paradigm, w e
make r o o m for the ministry of the deacon. The deacon takes his or her place
beside t h e elder, looking across t h e altar-table at t h e congregation, and
beyond, to t h e doors of t h e church. In this baptismal model, w e n o w have two
distinct ordained orders, and the church gains m u c h in that recovery. In t h e
next section, I outline s o m e implications of maintaining t h e distinction.

The Orders Are Given Distinct Tasks

T h e orders are given distinct tasks, along w i t h t h e freedom to focus o n
t h e m . T h e church is called to s u p p o r t their w o r k w i t h its permission, its
blessing, a n d its e n c o u r a g e m e n t .

T h e B e n e f i t s of F o c u s a n d E m p h a s i s
Church members, ordained and lay, should resist the temptation to d o t h e
tasks that have n o t b e e n assigned to them. U n d e r normal circumstances,
therefore, t h e elder should not be asked to m o w t h e church's lawn, or, for that
matter, to r u n its pledge campaign. She should, however, make her o w n
pledge and b e willing to share a b o u t t h e reflection process related to it. The
church should not only permit her to teach a b o u t stewardship but also expect
h e r to d o so. The church encourages her vocation by guaranteeing freedom of
the pulpit, while, at the same time, expecting her to work within the broad
outlines of t h e biblical narrative. That we d o not allow local churches to fire
elders allows t h e m to d o the work that G o d has called t h e m to do.
Indeed, t h e c h u r c h should affirm a n d magnify t h e teaching office of
t h e elder. T h e hierarchical u n d e r s t a n d i n g of ministry described earlier
e n c o u r a g e d elders to lose focus a n d t o a s s u m e m o r e a n d m o r e tasks t h a t
w e r e n o t particularly theirs. M a n y of t h e m s p e n t considerable time visiting
sick a n d shut-in m e m b e r s a n d d o i n g various t y p e s of social service work.
Such work r e m a i n s a n a p p r o p r i a t e function of their general calling t o
Christian discipleship; b u t m e m b e r s of t h e O r d e r of Elders should ask
themselves h o w s u c h w o r k can b e c o m e a peculiar expression of their voca-
tion as elders. At t h e least, t h e y s h o u l d d o m o r e m e n t o r i n g of lay visitors,
a n d t h e church s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e t h e m to d o so.
 Elders should also focus o n their work of presiding at t h e sacraments.
The a d o p t i o n of 77315 Holy Mystery; A United Methodist Understanding of Holy
Communion by t h e 2004 General Conference again has called t h e church t o
14
consider practicing t h e ancient n o r m of t h e weekly Lord's D a y Eucharist.
Essentially, t h e resolution reiterates J o h n Wesley's instruction to t h e fledg-
ling A m e r i c a n church; " I . . . advise t h e elders to administer t h e S u p p e r of
15
t h e Lord o n every Lord's Day." Having received this charge b o t h from our
founder a n d from o u r General Conference, United M e t h o d i s t elders should
be engaging their congregations in discussions a b o u t i t Laity should
encourage t h e m to lead s u c h conversations. Making a successful j o u r n e y
to weekly C o m m u n i o n will require m u c h teaching, along with a critical
refining of liturgical practices. T h e church m a y n e e d to confront t h e fact
that its oft-stated n e e d to complete individual Sunday services in o n e h o u r
is a false barrier. If we gave ourselves permission to w o r s h i p for a n hour-
and-fifteen m i n u t e s or so, would we still complain t h a t t h e Lord's Supper
cuts into t h e time allotted for t h e s e r m o n ? Elders n e e d to ask t h e s e ques-
tions of their congregations a n d t h e O r d e r of Elders could profitably s p e n d
time conferencing a b o u t t h e m .
H o w should d e a c o n s s h a p e their work? According t o t h e ordinal, t h e
c h u r c h calls its d e a c o n s to t h e following work:

to relate the life of the community to its service in the world . . .

to interpret to the church the world's hurts and hopes,
to serve all people, particularly the poor, the sick, and the oppressed,
and to lead Christ's people in ministries of compassion and justice,
liberation and reconciliation,
16
even in the face of hardship and personal sacrifice.

Of course, such a c o m m i t m e n t may take various forms; b u t traditionally

it has b e e n expressed in t h e work of intercessory prayer. Just as t h e elder
diligently studies t h e Scriptures for h e r w o r k of preaching, so t h e d e a c o n
studies t h e mission field in light of t h e Word, t h a t h e m a y m o r e effectively
lead t h e prayers of t h e people. For t h e well-being of t h e church a n d t h e
world, t h e church n e e d s t h e d e a c o n s to s p e n d considerable time d o i n g so.
I a m often dismayed by a lack of intercessory fervor a n d imagination that I
witness in t h e worship of t h e congregations. While t h e Scriptures teach us
to offer "supplications, prayers, intercessions, a n d thanksgivings . . . for
everyone" (1 Tim. 2:1) a n d t o pray "your k i n g d o m c o m e [y]our will b e
d o n e , o n e a r t h as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10), m a n y times prayer leaders
hardly d o m o r e t h a n ask G o d to comfort t h e h u r t i n g m e m b e r s of a local
congregation. D o w e r e m e m b e r t h e victims of injustice a n d abuse, t h e
homeless a n d t h e h u n g r y ? D o w e r e m e m b e r t h e o t h e r congregations a n d
churches in o u r community, nation, a n d world? D o w e r e m e m b e r teachers
a n d farmers a n d truck drivers, o u r friends, a n d o u r enemies? M a n y times
w e do not. Perhaps o u r elders, focusing o n their m a n y o t h e r tasks, d o n o t
have a d e q u a t e time t o think a b o u t intercessory prayer. W h a t if we assigned
this task to its traditional stewards, t h e deacons, w h o guide t h e outreach of
t h e church and s p e n d m u c h of their time a m o n g t h e needy? T h e O r d e r of
D e a c o n s would d o well to s p e n d time in holy conference, discerning h o w
t h e y might better lead their congregations in prayer.

Distinct Tasks a n d M u t u a l Ministry at t h e Lord's Table

W h e n t h e elder speaks t h e G r e a t Thanksgiving o n behalf of t h e w h o l e
congregation, h e or s h e e m b o d i e s his or h e r responsibility t o gather t h e
17
congregation a r o u n d t h e Table. Periodically, however, s t u d e n t s will ask
m e which p a r t s of t h e G r e a t Thanksgiving m a y b e s p o k e n by t h e d e a c o n
a n d which m u s t b e s p o k e n by t h e elder. While t h e Book of Worship clearly
18
calls for "the pastor" to s p e a k t h e prayer, t h u s reserving t h e whole prayer
to t h e elder's role, m o r e t h a n a few s t u d e n t s have b e e n told t h a t t h e elder
m u s t speak only t h e w o r d s of institution a n d t h e epiclesis. Perhaps t h o s e
w h o make s u c h claims believe t h e s e to b e t h e magic w o r d s t h a t m a k e t h e
Eucharist really h a p p e n . Such q u e s t i o n s reinforce a minimalist theology of
consecration left over from t h e eucharistic controversies of t h e sixteenth
century. M a r t i n L u t h e r was trying to strip t h e c a n o n of t h e Mass to its
essentials—which h e believed to b e Christ's p r o m i s e proclaimed in t h e
w o r d s of institution (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Matt. 26:26-29; M a r k 14:22-25; Luke
22:14-22)-so t h a t t h e c h u r c h m i g h t break away from a superstitious, quasi-
19
magical, u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e Eucharist as a sacrificial offering for s i n s .
T h e longer narratives found in o u r c u r r e n t G r e a t Thanksgivings are n o t like
t h o s e lengthy offertory petitions t h a t L u t h e r rejected; rather, t h e y are an
a t t e m p t to proclaim m o r e of t h e biblical narrative—an a g e n d a that Luther,
given his high regard for t h e Bible, m o s t likely w o u l d have approved.
W h a t is going o n in s u c h q u e s t i o n s a b o u t roles at t h e G r e a t
Thanksgiving? Regardless of w h y t h e y are asked, n o t i o n s a b o u t m i n i m u m
s t a n d a r d s m a k e p o o r guides for liturgical practices. In this particular ques-
tion a b o u t t h e roles of d e a c o n s a n d elders, w e s e e m to b e dealing w i t h a
misplaced u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e p r i e s t h o o d of all believers. S o m e t i m e s , as
in t h e o d d tradition of Laity Sunday, we t r y to affirm this p r i e s t h o o d by
asking laity to serve in a pastoral role, even t h o u g h t h e y have n o t b e e n
called to it. In like m a n n e r , s o m e d e a c o n s l a m e n t t h e fact t h a t t h e y are n o t
given t h e responsibility of presiding at t h e altar-table. I see several factors
at w o r k here. We have failed to define an a d e q u a t e role for d e a c o n s . Thus,
w o n d e r i n g w h a t to d o w i t h t h e m liturgically, we give t h e m p a r t of t h e
elder's role. In a sense, t h o s e w h o take this solution unwittingly revert to
t h e old hierarchical model, suggesting t h a t t h e really i m p o r t a n t w o r k is that
d o n e by t h e elders. In like m a n n e r , we have n o t magnified t h e role of t h e
laity, especially their role of working w i t h t h e d e a c o n s to e x t e n d t h e Lord's
Table by taking C o m m u n i o n to shut-in m e m b e r s , as well as their w o r k of
s e r v i n g t h e C o m m u n i o n e l e m e n t s w i t h i n t h e congregation. Q u i t e properly,
t h e elder should receive C o m m u n i o n from a d e a c o n or a m e m b e r of t h e
laity. In a n assembly in w h i c h baptismal equality is magnified, o n e s h o u l d
always b e given t h e e l e m e n t s by a n o t h e r sister or brother.
At t h e e n d of t h e day, dividing t h e G r e a t Thanksgiving increases o u r
confusion a b o u t t h e ministry of d e a c o n s a n d t h e laity. We r e m a i n overly
focused o n t h e q u e s t i o n s of hierarchical privilege—the o n g o i n g d e b a t e
a b o u t "who gets to d o w h a t " - a n d t h u s we fail t o see t h a t t h e Eucharist is
a n offering of t h e entire c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h each o r d e r m a k e s its o w n
u n i q u e c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d offering. Nevertheless, t h e q u e s t i o n persists,
especially in our church. In s o m e ways, o u r n e e d to wrestle w i t h it is rooted
in t h e very b e g i n n i n g of t h e M e t h o d i s t Episcopal C h u r c h , a potentially
creative d i l e m m a t h a t I will discuss in t h e final section.

Orders Serve the Spirit and Its Mission, but They Do

Not Limit Either One
Consideration of ordained ministry in T h e United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h m u s t
account for J o h n Wesley's 1784 ordinations for America. We find t h e r e an
intriguing mix of traditional and pragmatic arguments. H e acknowledged
E n ^ a n d ' s heritage of apostolic succession t h r o u g h t h e historic episcopate,
b u t t h e n set it aside in favor of a Presbyterian view of succession. Yet, in t h e
1784 ordinations, h e practiced a polity that was neither Episcopal n o r
Presbyterian. Indeed, Presbyterian ordination assumes t h e c o n s e n t of t h e
presbytery; a n d Wesley acted by himself. We are m o r e h o n e s t w h e n we admit
that Wesley justified t h e ordinations o n missional grounds. Explains Wesley:

(In England) there are Bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America there
are none, neither any parish ministers. So that for some hundred miles
together there is none either to baptize or to administer the Lord's Supper.
Here therefore my scruples are at an end: and I conceive myself at full liberty,
as I violate no order and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending
20
laborers into the h a r v e s t

Faced w i t h a n e e d a n d a gospel m a n d a t e t h a t called h i m to r e s p o n d ,

Wesley did so using his best insight. Such a habit of m i n d was p r e s e n t in
t h e Wesleyan m o v e m e n t prior t o 1784, a n d it r e m a i n s p a r t of o u r t h i n k i n g
today. It is m o r e traditional t h a n s o m e realize.
Indeed, a n emerging c o n s e n s u s within t h e liturgical studies discipline
asserts that there was n o o n e p a t t e r n of liturgy a n d ministry in the early
church; thus, t h e r e exists n o pristine p a t t e r n t o which all faithful Christians
should return. Early sources s h o w a mixture of patterns, n o t unlike o u r
21
present situation. For instance, The Didache, a late first- or early second-
c e n t u r y d o c u m e n t , witnesses to a tension b e t w e e n itinerant p r o p h e t s a n d
22
t h e bishops a n d d e a c o n s of t h e settled c o m m u n i t y . In his letter to t h e
Smyrneans, written early in t h e s e c o n d century, Ignatius of Antioch
c o n d e m n e d t h o s e w h o were celebrating "love feasts" w i t h o u t t h e presence of
23
t h e bishop or o n e of his authorized m i n i s t e r s The fact that h e addressed
t h e situation so forcefully suggests t h e existence of significant disagreement.
We may a s s u m e t h a t s o m e liturgical assemblies did n o t follow t h e Ignatian
threefold ordering of ministry of bishops, presbyters, a n d deacons. Perhaps
24
t h e y followed a m o r e charismatic p a t t e r n . T h e threefold pattern represents
a venerable tradition—even t h e d o m i n a n t one—but we are n o t historically
justified in calling it "the tradition," as if n o o t h e r possibilities exist.
W h a t d o e s all of this have to d o w i t h J o h n Wesley a n d m o d e r n
Methodists? First, w e s h o u l d realize t h a t t h e r e is n o one p a t t e r n of faithful
ministry t h a t m u s t b e restored by t h e m o d e r n churches, a n d w e should
resist any p r e s s u r e toward s u c h a solution. Second, it is i m p o r t a n t for
M e t h o d i s t s to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e creative t e n s i o n b e t w e e n formal,
catholic structures of ministry a n d charismatic flexibility existed within John
Wesley, H e e x p r e s s e d it in his discussion of t h e 1784 o r d i n a t i o n s and his
logic persists with us. This creative t e n s i o n e n c o u r a g e s us to m a i n t a i n
c o n t i n u i t y w i t h traditional catholic practices while allowing us t o r e m a i n
flexible in t h e organization of o u r work. At t h e least, this t e n s i o n allows us
to offer a revised historical u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e episcopal office.
According t o A m e r i c a n M e t h o d i s t history, t h e episcopacy is a n apostolic
m i n i s t r y n o t b e c a u s e of its historic c o n t i n u i t y w i t h t h e TWelve b u t b e c a u s e
of its c o m m i t m e n t to t h e apostolic work of itineration. Francis A s b u r y
redefined t h e m e a n i n g of t h e cathedra—the b i s h o p ' s chair t h a t traditionally
symbolizes t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e episcopal office. Asbury's saddle was his
cathedra. H i s witness c a n h e l p t h e ecumenical c h u r c h r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e
5
w o r d apostle is r o o t e d in t h e w o r d send? Thus, t h e apostles w e r e "the s e n t
ones," a n d apostolic succession involves c o n t i n u i n g in t h a t dynamic.
T h e M e t h o d i s t narrative encourages us to hold together t h e charismatic
a n d t h e catholic for t h e sake of t h e wider ecumenical church; yet doing so
can b e m e s s y Witness o u r c o n t i n u i n g use of local pastors a n d t h e n e w e r
category of t h e "commissioned minister"—each arguably a n extension of t h e
missional logic manifested in 1784. M e t h o d i s t s c o n t i n u e t o o r d a i n d e a c o n s
and elders, and we acknowledge a d e e p catholic tradition by ordaining only
after exercising a lengthy d i s c e r n m e n t process. In t h e m i d s t of o u r ordina-
tion practices, however, we insist that encouraging t h e mission of t h e
church is o u r m o s t i m p o r t a n t tradition. Thus, w e license or commission
n o n o r d a i n e d p e r s o n s to administer sacramental functions in m a n y of our
congregations. Are w e contradicting ourselves by d o i n g so? N o t necessarily.
In its o w n way, o u r system is biblical and traditional. We could, I s u p p o s e ,
stop appointing licensed o r c o m m i s s i o n e d ministers t o serve as pastors; b u t
t h a t would m e a n closing m a n y of o u r churches, including m a n y in which
English is n o t t h e p r i m a r y language. O n t h e o t h e r hand, w e could simply
ordain all of t h e clergy t h a t w e appoint, giving t h e m b u t a cursory examina-
tion prior to ordination. S o m e congregational polities follow such a pattern.
N e i t h e r option—wholesale closing of churches or ordaining hastily-
adequately reflects t h e Wesleyan vision. Until w e can develop a better
system, w e should boldly s u p p o r t t h e forms we have developed. That m e a n s
we should openly acknowledge that our local pastors and o u r commis-
sioned ministers are n o t yet ordained.
D o we n o t already acknowledge this fact? Yes a n d no. F r o m time to
time m y as-yet-nonordained s t u d e n t ministers will ask m e a b o u t wearing
stoles a n d clergy collars. May t h e y d o so? S o m e will appeal to t h e obvious
fact that stoles a n d collars are w o r n b y m a n y of t h e n o n o r d a i n e d p e r s o n s
t h e y see ministering in United M e t h o d i s t congregations. I tell t h e m that
t h e y should wear n e i t h e r until t h e y are ordained, because I refuse to apolo-
gize for o u r ecclesiology. By t h e very clothes we wear, w e should insist t h a t
s o m e M e t h o d i s t congregations have laity serving in roles normally reserved
for elders a n d deacons, a n d we should p r e s e n t t h a t fact as evidence of o u r
missional c o m m i t m e n t . O u r lay pastors and c o m m i s s i o n e d ministers should
b e passionately c o m m i t t e d t o fulfilling their calling w i t h i n t h e p a r a m e t e r s
set by t h e church. T h e rest of t h e church, including t h e d e a c o n s and t h e
elders, should s u p p o r t t h e m and hold t h e m accountable. Each fulfills his or
h e r baptismal role within t h e b o d y of Christ. If, in g o o d conscience, w e
c a n n o t ask t h e m to serve in this way, t h e n w e should cease t h e practice alto-
gether. By ceasing s u c h practices, however, w e would forsake a central
d y n a m i c of o u r M e t h o d i s t identity.

Mark W. Stamm is Assistant Professor of Christian Worship at Perkins School of

Theology, Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, Texas.

Endnotes
1. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2000 (Nashville: The
United Methodist Publishing House, 2000), fK 319-27.
2. The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville: T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t
Publishing House, 1992), 677 See also Services for the Ordering of Ministry in The
United Methodist Church (Prepared by the General Board of Discipleship and
the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry in collaboration with the
Council of Bishops, 2004), 23,26.
3. Book of Discipline, f If 323, 320.
4. Services for the Ordering of Ministry, 18-19. Cf. Book of Worship, 686.
5. Book of Worship, 92,117,141,150.
6. Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. Faith and O r d e r Paper N o . I l l (Geneva:
World Council of Churches, 1982), 2-3,20.
7. "Guidelines and Worship Resources for the Celebration of Full Communion:
The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." See
www.elca.org/ea/Relationships/episcopalian/guidelines.html. 20 Aug. 2004.
8. "The First Apology of Justin Martyr," in Liturgies of the Western Church,
selected and introduced by Bard T h o m p s o n (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960), 9.
9. See, for example, Edward Schillebeeckx, Ministry: Leadership in the Community
of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 66-74.
10. Minor seminaries are, essentially, high schools for prospective priests.
11. The Book of Worship for Church and Home (Nashville: T h e M e t h o d i s t
Publishing House, 1964), 19-20.
12. Book of Worship, 36.
13. While commissioned ministers and local pastors are allowed to preside at
the Table in the congregations to which they are appointed, in an ideal sense,
presiding at the Table is the particular responsibility of elders.
14. This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion
(Nashville: The G e n e r a l Board of D i s c i p l e s h i p of T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t
Church, 2004), 19-20.
15. "September 10, 1784," The Letters of John Wesley, ed. by John Telford (London:
Epworth, 1931), 7: 238-39.
16. Services for the Ordering of Ministry, 22-23,
17. See my discussion of this topic in my book Sacraments and Discipleship:
Understanding Baptism and the Lord's Supper in a United Methodist Context
(Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 2001), 92-104.
18. Book of Worship, 36-38.
19. "A Prelude of Martin Luther on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church," in
Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, ed. by Timothy F. Lull (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1989), 290.
20. "September 10, 1784," in Telford, ed., Letters of John Wesley, 7;238-39.
21. Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and
Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002), 1-4, 8. Gary Macy, Treasures from the Storeroom: Medieval Religion and the
Eucharist (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999), xiv, 30,123.
22. "The Teaching of t h e Twelve, C o m m o n l y Called t h e Didache," in Early
Christian Fathers, ed. by Cyril C. Richardson (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 176-78.
23. Ignatius of Antioch, "To the Smyrneans," in Richardson, ed., Early Christian
Fathers, 115.
24. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, 200. See also
C h r i s t i n e Trevett, " P r o p h e c y a n d Anti-Episcopal Activity: A Third Error
Combatted by Ignatius?" Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983): 1-18.
25. "Apostle," in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed.
by Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975), 1:126-27.
 The Order of Elders:
Doomed to Failure or Hope for the Future?

GRANT H A G IYA

I n 1996, T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h c h a n g e d t h e foundation of its

o r d a i n e d ministry in fairly dramatic fashion. O n e small addition t h a t is
often overlooked was t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of "orders" for elders a n d d e a c o n s .
For d e a c o n s , this was a natural step toward t h e d e p t h of their o w n fellow-
ship a n d s u p p o r t of o n e another. However, for elders, t h e o r d e r has proved
quixotic a n d s o m e w h a t elusive. In this article. I explore t h e d y n a m i c s of
t h e p r o b l e m s a n d h o p e s for t h e O r d e r of Elders.
There have b e e n m a n y quadrennial studies o n United Methodist
ministry. While General Conference has n o t always received t h e m well, these
studies have a d d e d to o u r background reflections o n t h e denomination's
ministry. T h e Council of Bishops* advocacy in 1996 for t h e establishment of
t h e orders was fueled in part by t h e n e e d to create a setting in which clergy
could participate regularly in accountability a n d p e e r support. O n e of t h e
aims for t h e O r d e r was to continue t h e M e t h o d i s t tradition of t h e "class
meeting." T h e fact that t h e Council of Bishops divided its m e m b e r s h i p into
accountability a n d s u p p o r t g r o u p s provided clergy w i t h a a model.
We are at a stage in o u r denominational history w h e n elders are strug-
gling. Despite n u m e r o u s scholarly studies o n t h e ordained ministry, we lack
a central and agreed-upon theological focus of t h e ministry of elders. In
s o m e a n n u a l conferences, clergy morale is at an all-time low. Clergy cynicism
a n d disrespect are up, while s u p p o r t a n d accountability are down. There is a
general lack of cohesion and unity a m o n g elders. For example, until quite
recently, w h e n a fellow clergy m e m b e r died, nearly all t h e clergy m e m b e r s of
t h e annual conference would attend t h e funeral. Even if you did not k n o w
t h e person, y o u showed u p o u t of loyalty to your peers. Now, only t h o s e w h o
k n e w t h e p e r s o n are likely to s h o w u p to pay last respects. True, t h e n u m b e r
of clergy has increased significantly in recent decades. Yet, m u t u a l s u p p o r t
has b e e n dwindling rapidly and might just b e at an all-time low.
C o m p a r e this situation w i t h t h e O r d e r of D e a c o n s . D e a c o n s are a
small-enough g r o u p to gather regularly. Their relationship w i t h o n e a n o t h e r
was forged already while t h e y were diaconal ministers. They have a specific
mission a n d p u r p o s e . A l t h o u g h recently divided o n t h e n e e d for limited
sacramental authority, d e a c o n s have a specialized niche in T h e U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t Church. A n d a r o b u s t theology of t h e d e a c o n is emerging. In
short, d e a c o n s s e e m t o have m u c h of w h a t elders currently lack.
There is n o d o u b t t h a t t h e i n t e n t of forming t h e O r d e r of Elders was to
address s o m e of t h e s a m e c o n c e r n s t h a t d e a c o n s have addressed. W h e t h e r
t h e o r d e r s w e r e d o o m e d from t h e start or rather from t h e p o i n t at w h i c h
t h e y were "legalized" by G e n e r a l Conference r e m a i n s a n o p e n question. A
case certainly can b e m a d e t h a t legalizing t h e o r d e r s m a d e their ultimate
success problematic.
It is a structural d i l e m m a in T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h t h a t t h e
m o m e n t s o m e t h i n g is "legislated" clergy automatically react to it w i t h
suspicion and cynicism. T h e creation of t h e O r d e r of Elders did n o t escape
this dilemma. In t h e Western Jurisdiction, clergy t e n d to reject a n y t h i n g
t h e y perceive as forced u p o n t h e m , especially if it c o m e s from t h e "top."
T h u s t h e d i l e m m a confronting t h e O r d e r of Elders: O n t h e o n e h a n d , it
h o l d s t h e p r o m i s e of h e l p i n g t o ease elders' cynicism a n d suspicion toward
perceived top-down actions, while, o n t h e o t h e r hand, it risks o u t r i g h t
rejection precisely by b e i n g declared mandatory. This d i l e m m a might very
well explain the mixed results t h e O r d e r has h a d across t h e d e n o m i n a t i o n .
While duly called a n d organized according to t h e Discipline, t h e success of
t h e O r d e r has varied greatly from conference to conference.
O n e p r o b l e m is t h e sheer n u m b e r of elders. In t h e U n i t e d States, there
are approximately 33,000 elders a n d 1,190 deacons. M y a n n u a l conference
has 1,000 elders a n d 60 deacons. It is relatively easy t o establish affinity
a n d fellowship with sixty colleagues, m a n y of w h o m m e t often in retreats
as diaconal ministers. However, h o w d o e s o n e go o n retreat w i t h a thou-
s a n d colleagues? Elders d o gather o n c e a year in clergy session for a half
day, b u t this time is largely s p e n t o n business m a t t e r s a n d reports.
O n e answer to this p r o b l e m is to utilize t h e genius of o u r connectional
system. W h y n o t divide t h e elders i n t o clusters along district a n d
geographic lines, as is h a p p e n i n g in m a n y places a r o u n d t h e country, a n d
m a k i n g t h e gathering voluntary? In m y experience, clergy w h o are spiritu-
ally healthy and well-balanced are already in v e r y strong covenantal or
lectionary study groups; caring for their spiritual health has dictated s u c h
affiliations. T h e s e clergy often d o n o t feel t h e n e e d for a n additional
covenant g r o u p (the O r d e r of Elders). M y greatest w o r r y is for clergy w h o
w a n t to "go it alone" o r w h o have a major dysfunction of s o m e kind in their
lives. T h e y desperately n e e d t h e benefits of a c o v e n a n t g r o u p ; b u t t h e y are
t h e least likely to seek o u t s u c h a g r o u p . In theory, t h e orders are i n t e n d e d
to s u p p o r t a n d undergird s u c h clergy; b u t w e have yet to activate this
m e c h a n i s m across t h e c o n n e c t i o n .
A further p r o b l e m is geographical location. In s o m e areas, m a n y clergy
live great distances from o n e another, m a k i n g m e e t i n g o n a regular basis
impossible. Often in isolated locations, t h e s e clergy m u s t m a k e d o w i t h
practicing their ministry craft w i t h o u t t h e regular s u p p o r t of fellow U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t colleagues.
Finally, t h e r e is a t r e n d a m o n g local c h u r c h e s to b e c o m e self-enclosed
entities, t h u s exacerbating clergy isolation. Often, t h e church's structure is
set u p in a way t h a t rewards t h o s e clergy w h o succeed at going it alone. We
United M e t h o d i s t s p r i d e ourselves o n o u r c o n n e c t i o n a l ties; yet at t h e
basic level of t h e denomination—the local church—we frequently reinforce
individualistic a n d isolationist behavior. T h e t r e n d in m a n y local c h u r c h e s
is to b e a self-contained c o m m u n i t y , c o m p l e t e w i t h programs, services,
fellowship, a n d recreation. In s o m e u r b a n settings, congregations have
b e c o m e fortresses, walled off from their s u r r o u n d i n g s w i t h sophisticated
surveillance systems, alarms, a n d o t h e r defense m e c h a n i s m s . O n c e t h e
local church b e c o m e s isolated, it is easy for clergy to follow suit. Why go to
a United M e t h o d i s t clergy g a t h e r i n g w h e n y o u have a m p l e ecumenical or
interfaith gatherings in t h e local c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h y o u serve?
T h e p r o b l e m s I have identified a d d to t h e c u r r e n t d i l e m m a c o n c e r n i n g
elders. However, precisely at a time s u c h as this, t h e O r d e r of Elders
provides h o p e for t h e future of t h e ministry of t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t elder.
A m i d s t t h e g r o w i n g cynicism, p o o r morale, b u r n o u t , a n d d e p r e s s i o n
afflicting so m a n y of o u r clergy, has t h e r e ever b e e n a m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e
time for t h e c o m m u n i t y of accountability a n d s u p p o r t t h a t t h e O r d e r of
Elders m a k e s possible? Time a n d time again in m y professional life, I have
found s t r e n g t h a n d motivation in m e e t i n g w i t h m y clergy colleagues. We
fool ourselves w h e n w e t h i n k that w e can a t t e m p t t h e j o u r n e y of ministry
alone. T h e n a t u r e of o u r Christian ministry is at its core c o m m u n a l a n d
collaborative. Was this n o t Jesus' strategy also w h e n h e s e n t o u t t h e disci-
ples two by two? Facing ministry leadership a l o n e m e a n s t h a t o u r p r o b -
lems get magnified a n d o u r workload i n s u r m o u n t a b l e , leading t o low
morale. However, w h e n I a m s u p p o r t e d and held a c c o u n t a b l e w i t h t r u s t e d
colleagues w h o are traveling t h e s a m e journey, t h e b u r d e n s s e e m lighter
a n d t h e pathways clearer. All this to say, elders n e e d o n e a n o t h e r in t h e
j o u r n e y of ministry. We n e e d t h e covenantal relationship t h a t e n a b l e s us to
d r a w s t r e n g t h from o n e another, to d e e p e n o u r collective spirit, a n d to
hold us accountable for o u r t h o u g h t s a n d actions.
D u r i n g t h e past four years as district s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , I have b e e n
intentional a b o u t placing all t h e clergy o n m y district into s o m e form of
c o v e n a n t group, S o m e of t h e s e g r o u p s have evolved into different ministry
directions. O n e of t h e strongest g r o u p s o n t h e district started w i t h t h e
p u r p o s e of being a Wesleyan "select society." J o h n Wesley envisioned
"select societies" to consist of his core leaders, t h o s e w h o w e r e spiritually
m a t u r e a n d sophisticated in t h e ways of t h e m o v e m e n t . D . Michael
H e n d e r s o n writes,

He (Wesley) needed a "home base," an intimate fellowship of likeminded

companions to share his failures & defeats, progress & victories, frustrations &
hopes. He needed a forum of friends in which to work out the implications of
his own personal quest for holiness, a strategy group who could sharpen the
focus of his own thinking In the select society he found that ultimate exec-
utive committee, a company of peers who were totally committed to each
1
other, sharing a common goal, and were willing to "speak the truth in love."

With this in mind, I pulled together s o m e of t h e strongest clergy o n t h e

district a n d balanced t h e g r o u p in t e r m s of ethnicity a n d gender. Initially, I
had h o p e d that each participant would start his or h e r o w n covenant group,
so that every minister o n t h e district could b e in s o m e form of accountability
group. This original g r o u p would m o d e l t h e covenant for everyone else.
While this goal has n o t b e e n fully realized, this g r o u p remains o n e of t h e
m o s t valued communities in m y ministry Like Wesley, I n e e d a g r o u p where
I can share deeply, exchange ideas, and reflect o n t h e local church, t h e
district, a n d t h e annual conference. The sharing is d e e p and intimate; b u t
there is always a time of m u t u a l accountability w h e n w e report o n o u r
e n g a g e m e n t in "acts of piety" a n d "acts of mercy."
All elders, w h e t h e r t h e y are bishops, district s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , o r local
church pastors, n e e d this f u n d a m e n t a l s u p p o r t a n d accountability in their
ministry. A s leaders of a n a n n u a l conference, a district, o r local church, w e
n e e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o stay spiritually g r o u n d e d , t o b e challenged t o act
prophetically in o u r daily lives, a n d to reflect o n o u r o w n leadership in o u r
respective areas of ministry. This s e e m s to m e o n e of t h e f u n d a m e n t a l
p u r p o s e s of t h e Order: to organize us into c o v e n a n t g r o u p s a n d k e e p this
Wesleyan spirit alive.
Further, it is i m p o r t a n t that-the O r d e r of Elders b e c o m e a key locus for
s u p p o r t , morale building, counseling, a n d guidance. In t h e California-
Pacific A n n u a l Conference, w h e r e I serve, t h e chair of t h e O r d e r of Elders
has p r o p o s e d t o t h e b o a r d of o r d a i n e d ministry t h a t t h e o r d e r s a s s u m e t h e
p r i m a r y responsibility for providing clergy w i t h counseling a n d guidance,
morale a n d s u p p o r t , a n d c o n t i n u i n g education. M y e x p e r i e n c e as a chair of
t h e b o a r d of o r d a i n e d ministry has c o n v i n c e d m e t h a t we have n o t d o n e a
t h o r o u g h j o b in t h e s e areas. To b e sure, s u b c o m m i t t e e s w e r e assigned
t h e s e responsibilities; b u t t h e s e tasks always e n d e d u p b e i n g s e c o n d a r y t o
o t h e r obligations. T h e p r i m a r y tasks, as t h e b o a r d of o r d a i n e d ministry saw
t h e m , always focused o n issues of candidacy, m e n t o r i n g , o r d i n a t i o n inter-
views, a n d conference relations. Oftentimes, o u r plates w e r e so full w i t h
t h e s e p r i m a r y functions t h a t t h e s e o t h e r areas w e r e given s h o r t shrift.
Therefore, it m a k e s s e n s e for t h e O r d e r of Elders to a s s u m e p r i m a r y
responsibility for t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d areas, collaborating closely w i t h t h e
board of o r d a i n e d ministry.
T h e O r d e r of Elders in my a n n u a l conference has b e e n drawing o n t h e
gifts and assets of retired clergy by assigning t h e m as m e n t o r s to active
colleagues, especially y o u n g e r elders. This cadre of s e a s o n e d , e x p e r i e n c e d
clergy (known in t h e conference as "Wise Guides") is available to o t h e r
elders for counseling, m e n t o r i n g , a n d s u p p o r t . T h e y have b e e n a t r e m e n -
d o u s r e s o u r c e for t h e conference. M y only c o n c e r n is t h a t w e have n o t
utilized t h e m e n o u g h . Yet (and s y m p t o m a t i c of t h e p r o b l e m s I described
earlier), t h e majority of elders d o n o t feel t h e y n e e d this m e n t o r i n g a n d
s u p p o r t , viewing s u c h a n e e d as a sign of w e a k n e s s or, p e r h a p s , even
failure. S o m e h o w w e m u s t find t h e e t h o s t h a t readily accepts m e n t o r i n g at
all levels of o u r ministry profession.
Finally, t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t task for t h e O r d e r of Elders, a n d t h a t
which h o l d s t h e m o s t h o p e for t h e future of t h e Order, is to m o d e l a n d
teach elders w h a t it m e a n s t o b e l o n g to a n "order." It s e e m s to m e t h a t o u r
colleagues in early A m e r i c a n M e t h o d i s m h a d a n instinctive sense of w h a t
it m e a n s to "be" an order, As young, single, a n d marginalized males, their
first dedication was to Jesus Christ. R u n n i n g a close s e c o n d was t h e
fraternal order of o t h e r clergy m e m b e r s , w h o gathered in quarterly a n d
a n n u a l conference. Their s e n s e of c o m m i t m e n t a n d c o n n e c t i o n t o o n e
a n o t h e r far surpassed a n y t h i n g w e e x p e r i e n c e in U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t clergy
circles today. It was this m u t u a l c o m m i t m e n t t h a t e n a b l e d m a n y of t h e m t o
walk days o n e n d to get to a n n u a l conference in o r d e r to b e in fellowship
w i t h their peers. As, w i t h time, elders b e c a m e m o r e e d u c a t e d a n d m o r e
settled, their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of c o n n e c t i o n w i t h o n e a n o t h e r b e g a n t o
b r e a k down, and, consequently, their c o m m i t m e n t t o o t h e r historic
M e t h o d i s t values, s u c h as itinerancy. Today, w h e n U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t elders
m e e t in a n o n c h u r c h context, t h e y e x p e r i e n c e a s e n s e of friendship a n d
affinity b u t n o t t h e d e e p b o n d t h a t c o m e s w i t h b e l o n g i n g t o a n order.
H e r e , t h e R o m a n Catholic C h u r c h c a n t e a c h us m u c h a b o u t t h e
m e a n i n g of "order." W h e n s o m e o n e e n t e r s into a specific R o m a n Catholic
order, h e o r she e n t e r s into a sacred b o n d of fellowship w i t h fellow
m e m b e r s of t h e order, a c o n n e c t i o n t h a t e x t e n d s t h r o u g h o u t life.
Belonging t o an o r d e r is n o t just a m a t t e r of friendly affinity; rather, it is a n
abiding b o n d of mutuality. W h e n I was d o i n g m y doctoral studies at t h e
G r a d u a t e Theological U n i o n in t h e early 1980s, m o s t of m y ethics profes-
sors were from t h e Jesuit School of Theology. Each afternoon, t h e y w o u l d
g a t h e r t o share in t h e Eucharist, to pray, a n d to s u p p o r t o n e another. I
could only imagine w h a t c o m m u n i n g w i t h intellects like William Spohn,
Michael Buckley, a n d T h o m a s S h u b e c k m u s t have b e e n like. I could envi-
sion t h e richness of their discussions a n d reflections. At t h e time, I w a s in
m y first full-time a p p o i n t m e n t , a n d I r e m e m b e r b e i n g v e r y envious of this
gathering, for two reasons. First, I longed for t h e c h a n c e to interact w i t h
s u c h l e a r n e d theologians. Second, a n d p e r h a p s m o r e i m p o r t a n t , I w a n t e d
to have an o p p o r t u n i t y to m e e t w i t h m y U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t colleagues in a
similar g r o u p . I have yet to have s u c h a n opportunity, after all t h e s e years
as a U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t elder. I a m probably romanticizing t h e s e Jesuit gath-
erings. M o r e t h a n likely, t h e s e professors saw t h e s e m e e t i n g s as a natural
p a r t of their daily routine. T h e p o i n t is, t h o u g h , U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t elders d o
n o t have this daily opportunity, as a regular part—indeed, a n expectation—
of their o n g o i n g ministry.

I expect t h e O r d e r of Elders to enable us to truly b e a n order. Its w o r k

is to pave t h e way for an ontological awakening of sorts. W h e n t h e b i s h o p
lays h a n d s o n t h e c a n d i d a t e in t h e service of o r d i n a t i o n as elder in full
connection, t h e c a n d i d a t e e n t e r s into a f u n d a m e n t a l c o m m i t m e n t t o "live
w i t h all o t h e r o r d a i n e d ministers in m u t u a l t r u s t a n d c o n c e r n a n d seek
2
w i t h t h e m t h e sanctification of t h e fellowship." We often forget t h e s e lines.
In t h e m i d s t of o u r b u s y pastorates, as so often we w o r k in isolation from
o u r colleagues, w e long for this bond—this connection—with o n e another.
Yet, b e c a u s e t h e e t h o s of b e i n g a n o r d e r is n o t systematically operative in
o u r lives, w e are d e n i e d this benefit. This is n o t t o say t h a t elders d o n o t
u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e a n i n g of s u c h a n e t h o s . After all, t h e Book of Discipline
states p r e t t y clearly t h e p u r p o s e of a n order, namely, to

(1) provide for regular gatherings of ordained deacons and ordained elders for
continuing formation in relationship to Jesus Christ through such experiences
as Bible study, study of issues facing the church and society, and theological
exploration in vocational identity and leadership; (2) assist in plans for indi-
vidual study and retreat experiences; (3) develop a bond of unity and common
commitment to the mission and ministry of The United Methodist Church and
the annual conference; (4) enable the creation of relationships that allow
mutual support and trust; and (5) hold accountable all members of the Order
3
in the fulfilling of these purposes.

This paragraph describes exactly m y o w n yearnings as I observed t h e

daily gatherings of m y Jesuit colleagues. If only w e could live out t h e s e
p u r p o s e s o n a weekly, even a daily, basis! So q u e s t i o n s like t h e s e c o n t i n u e
to t o r m e n t me: w h y don't w e elders practice "these p u r p o s e s " in our daily
lives? Would n o t m u c h of o u r cynicism, negative morale, b u r n o u t , a n d
depression b e mitigated by regular d o s e s of s u p p o r t a n d accountability? It is
m y h o p e t h a t all elders would p o n d e r t h e s e i m p o r t a n t questions.
N o o n e w o u l d disagree t h a t t h e s e are lofty a n d p r i z e d p u r p o s e s . N o t
m a n y of us could m a k e t h e case t h a t w e d o n o t n e e d t h e s e e l e m e n t s regu-
larly in o u r lives. T h e d i l e m m a lies in t h e execution of t h e s e p u r p o s e s . As
m e n t i o n e d earlier, in s o m e instances, legislating even a g o o d idea proves t o
b e t h e kiss of death. H o w can w e m a k e this Disciplinary r e q u i r e m e n t a
cultural necessity in o u r lives as elders?
Nationally, a n n u a l conferences in w h i c h bishops, cabinets, and chairs
of t h e o r d e r s are providing s t r o n g leadership in n u r t u r i n g t h e orders, t h e r e
are strong a n d creative p r o g r a m s for elders a n d d e a c o n s . Leadership s e e m s
to b e o n e of t h e keys to success. However, t h e r e is yet t o b e a national
m o d e l w h o s e success is so m a r k e d t h a t o t h e r s w o u l d w a n t t o e m u l a t e it.
However, if, as I have argued, t h e O r d e r of Elders is crucial t o t h e spiritual
a n d professional well-being of elders, w h y wait for b i s h o p s o r chairs of t h e
O r d e r to take t h e lead? P r o m o t i n g t h e e t h o s of t h e O r d e r rests w i t h all of
us. We s h o u l d n o t wait to b e led by o t h e r s b u t realize it is truly u p t o each
elder to m a k e t h e c o m m i t m e n t to t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e Order, as outlined in
t h e Book of Discipline. Thus, each elder m u s t take t h e responsibility t o b e in
a c o v e n a n t g r o u p w i t h o t h e r elders. Each m u s t develop t h e b o n d s of unity
t h a t will e n a b l e h i m o r h e r to carry o u t t h e mission a n d ministry of T h e
U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church. Each m u s t cultivate relationships of t r u s t a n d
c o m m i t m e n t with p e e r s o n a regular basis.
W e s t a n d at t h e crossroads in regard t o t h e O r d e r of Elders, as
expressed in t h e title of this article. It is u p t o us to decide w h e t h e r t h e
O r d e r of Elders is " d o o m e d to failure from t h e start" o r w h e t h e r it c a n
b e c o m e t h e "true h o p e for t h e future." W h a t is i m p o r t a n t t o realize is t h a t
w e elders will ultimately d e t e r m i n e t h e destiny of t h e O r d e r a n d so deter-
m i n e o u r destiny as elders. W h a t shall w e choose: cynicism or h o p e ?

Grant Hagiya is Superintendent of the Los Angeles District of the California-

Pacific Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church,

Endnotes
1. D. Michael H e n d e r s o n , John Wesley's Class Meeting; A Model for Making
Disciples (Nappanee, IN: Evangel Publishing House, 1997), 124.
2. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church-2000 (Nashville: The
United Methodist Publishing House, 2000), 1f324.1.
3. Ibid., K312.1.
 The Oral Roberts Option: The Case for
Ordained Local Elders (and Local Deacons?)
in The United Methodist Church

T E D A. CAMPBELL

Oral Roberts and the Ministry of Local Elders

I was s u r p r i s e d at a set of entries in t h e journals of t h e O k l a h o m a A n n u a l

Conference of T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h . T h e journals (from 1968
1
t h r o u g h 1987) c a r r y t h e n a m e of "Granville Oral Roberts." This is i n d e e d
t h e Dr. Oral Roberts w h o s e a p p o i n t m e n t was listed as "President. Oral
Roberts University, Tulsa." It did n o t s u r p r i s e m e t h a t Dr. Roberts's n a m e
a p p e a r e d in t h e Journal; w h a t s u r p r i s e d m e was t h a t as far back as 1987 h e
was listed in t h e category of a "local elder."
This was surprising, because t h e terminology of "local elders" a n d "local
deacons," p a r t of t h e historic framework of polity in A m e r i c a n M e t h o d i s t
churches, h a d n o t b e e n used in T h e United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h for s o m e
time. (The t e r m local elder h a d b e e n in use in b o t h T h e M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h
a n d t h e Evangelical U n i t e d Brethren C h u r c h u p to 1968.) T h e conference
had n o t created a fictitious category, for Dr. Roberts was listed in a special
category of "Local Elders (before 1968)"; t h a t is, t h o s e w h o h a d b e e n
ordained as local elders before 1968 a n d w h o s e status was c o n t i n u e d even
after t h e t e r m fell into disuse. It was p e r h a p s a n awkward situation; b u t it
was n o t m a d e u p for Dr. Roberts. T h e r e were o t h e r "Local Elders (before
1968)," a n d t h e list in t h e O k l a h o m a A n n u a l Conference Journal c o n t i n u e d
even after Dr. Roberts's n a m e disappeared from t h e journal after 1987.
I p r o p o s e t h a t w e take Dr. R o b e r t s a n d his ministry of local elder as a
paradigm of t h e t r u e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t tradition a n d a p a t t e r n for resolving
s o m e of t h e t h o r n y p r o b l e m s into which T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h
s e e m s t o have b e c o m e entangled in o u r a t t e m p t s to r e n e w t h e orders of
d e a c o n a n d elder a n d t o h o n o r t h e l o n g s t a n d i n g a n d valiant w o r k of o u r
lay or l o c a l . . . pastors(?). Well, identifying t h e t e r m t h a t follows "lay" o r
"local" is p a r t of t h e p r o b l e m we have here.
The Heritage of Local Elders and Local Deacons
W h o w e r e "local d e a c o n s " a n d "local elders"? T h e key to u n d e r s t a n d i n g this
is o n e of t h e m o s t critical distinctions in early A m e r i c a n M e t h o d i s t polity,
namely, t h e distinction b e t w e e n "traveling" (or "itinerant") a n d "local"
2
clergy. T h e traveling clergy (elders a n d deacons) w e r e t h o s e w h o fully
participated in t h e itinerant system b y w h i c h clergy m o v e d from place to
place every w e e k (and s o m e t i m e s several places w i t h i n t h e s p a n of a week).
T h e traveling clergy w e r e devoted to full-time Christian service. T h e y
formed a kind of distinctive M e t h o d i s t order; a n d traveling elders a l o n e
voted in a n n u a l conference sessions (until 1830, w h e n t h e M e t h o d i s t
Protestant C h u r c h i n t r o d u c e d lay delegates to a n n u a l conferences). By
contrast, t h e local clergy w e r e restricted t o their local areas, a n d did n o t
have voice o r vote in a n n u a l conferences. M o s t local clergy held secular
occupations. A traveling elder w h o ceased t o itinerate was "located," t o o k
t h e status of a local elder, a n d s u r r e n d e r e d his rights t o voice a n d vote in
t h e conference. Local d e a c o n s a n d traveling d e a c o n s , in this early configu-
ration, w e r e transitional offices leading to t h e offices of local elder a n d trav-
eling elder, respectively. I w a n t to highlight two critical matters; (1) O n l y
t h o s e w h o w e r e o r d a i n e d as elders (local or traveling) w e r e a u t h o r i z e d to
preside at t h e s a c r a m e n t of Holy C o m m u n i o n . (2) Local elders w e r e able to
provide t h e s a c r a m e n t to h u n d r e d s of congregations w h e r e traveling elders
could n o t b e p r e s e n t o n a regular basis.

It is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e that t h e office of local elder—an ordained

minister a u t h o r i z e d to preside at t h e s a c r a m e n t of Holy C o m m u n i o n -
appears in M e t h o d i s t Disciplines t h r o u g h t h e 1950s; a n d a l t h o u g h t h e t e r m
was discontinued at a certain point, t h e provision for local preachers (also a
distinct office) to b e o r d a i n e d a n d t h u s effectively to b e c o m e "local elders"
r e m a i n e d in t h e Discipline of the Methodist Church t h r o u g h t h e final edition
in 1964. The s a m e office (and title, "local elder") appears in t h e last Discipline
(1967) of t h e Evangelical United Brethren Church. It r e m a i n s in effect in all
of o u r p a r t n e r churches in t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n Pan-Methodist U n i o n a n d
Cooperation: the Christian M e t h o d i s t Episcopal Church, t h e African
M e t h o d i s t Episcopal Church, a n d t h e African M e t h o d i s t Episcopal Z i o n
Church. T h e office of local elder remains in effect in m a n y of o u r interna-
tional affiliated a u t o n o m o u s churches, such as t h e Iglesia Metodista de Mexico
(where local elders are presbiteros locales), I believe I a m correct in stating that
of all t h e s e p a r t n e r c h u r c h e s in t h e M e t h o d i s t a n d Wesleyan traditions, only
The United Methodist Church has taken the unprecedented step of discontinuing
the office of local elder and then proceeding to authorize nonordained persons to
preside at the sacrament of Holy Communion. In d o i n g so, we are clearly at
o d d s w i t h o u r o w n long tradition.

Ecumenical Considerations
T h e c u r r e n t situation finds us at o d d s w i t h o u r l o n g s t a n d i n g e c u m e n i c a l
c o m m i t m e n t s as well. J o h n Wesley was forced to deal w i t h t h e issue of
sacramental a u t h o r i z a t i o n in r e s p o n s e to t h e crisis t h a t was provoked in
A m e r i c a n M e t h o d i s t societies at t h e time of t h e A m e r i c a n Revolution.
Wesley was u n d o u b t e d l y aware of t h e fact t h a t t h e o r d i n a t i o n s a n d conse-
cration t h a t h e p e r f o r m e d in S e p t e m b e r 1784 violated t h e c a n o n s of t h e
C h u r c h of England. However, in justifying t h e s e actions in t h e letter t h a t
a c c o m p a n i e d S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Coke, Wesley appealed to his knowledge of
Christian polity in t h e a n c i e n t church, a n d t h r o u g h this to his s e n s e of "the
3
whole c h u r c h in t h e p u r e s t ages."
T h e ordinal t h a t Wesley p r e p a r e d a n d s e n t w i t h his consecrated super-
i n t e n d e n t h o n o r e d t h e historic o r d e r s of t h e d i a c o n a t e (this was of c o u r s e
t h e transitional d i a c o n a t e as Wesley k n e w it) a n d t h e presbyterate a n d
s h o w s w h a t h e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a polity t h a t s h o u l d characterize t h e
universal church. In this polity, o n l y o r d a i n e d elders were a u t h o r i z e d to
preside at t h e s a c r a m e n t of H o l y C o m m u n i o n . True, J o h n Wesley substi-
t u t e d t h e t e r m elder for t h e t e r m priest; b u t elder is a literal translation of
presbyteros, t h e root w o r d for priest. True, Wesley referred to Coke as a
" s u p e r i n t e n d e n t " a n d expressed h o r r o r w h e n C o k e t o o k t h e title of bishop.
But I s u s p e c t Wesley's h o r r o r was feigned at this point. As former G r e e k
M o d e r a t o r of Lincoln College, h e k n e w v e r y well t h a t superintendens, in
Latin, is a n exact r e n d e r i n g of t h e G r e e k t e r m for bishop, episkopos. Both
m e a n "overseer." H i s a r g u m e n t t h a t "bishops" h a d legal status in England is
very weak. His " s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s " w e r e n o t t o b e o r d a i n e d b u t "conse-
crated" (as b i s h o p s w e r e according to late medieval Catholic p r e c e d e n t a n d
according t o t h e Book of Common Prayer); a n d t h e y h a d t h e s a m e authoriza-
tion to ordain d e a c o n s a n d elders (priests) as b i s h o p s had. Thus, in
designing t h e polity t h a t was to characterize early A m e r i c a n M e t h o d i s m ,
J o h n Wesley b e q u e a t h e d to o u r c h u r c h a form of polity t h a t h e believed to
b e consistent w i t h historic Christian practice, w i t h w h a t w e might call
"ecumenical precedent." As C o k e a n d A s b u r y explained t h e M e t h o d i s t
polity in their published n o t e s a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e earliest Disciplines, t h e y
t o o appealed to t h e p r e c e d e n t s of t h e ancient church. As w e have s e e n
above, even in developing t h e distinction b e t w e e n "local" a n d "traveling"
elders, historic M e t h o d i s t polity c o n t i n u e d to h o n o r t h e diaconate a n d t h e
presbyterate and h o n o r e d t h e s e n s e t h a t o n l y o r d a i n e d elders should b e
a u t h o r i z e d to preside at H o l y C o m m u n i o n .
C o n t e m p o r a r y ecumenical c o n s e n s u s d o c u m e n t s also m a k e problem-
atic t h e c u r r e n t practice of T h e United M e t h o d i s t Church, The Faith a n d
O r d e r s t u d y Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, which was "received" formally
by T h e United M e t h o d i s t Church, upholds t h e historic threefold orders of
deacons, "presbyters," and bishops, a n d m a k e s it clear t h a t b i s h o p s a n d pres-
4
byters should hold t h e distinctive function of presiding at t h e Eucharist.
Similarly, t h e declaration of t h e Consultation o n C h u r c h U n i o n (COCU),
"The C O C U Consensus," b a s e d in part o n Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,
a n d formally approved by T h e United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h a n d all of its pan-
M e t h o d i s t p a r t n e r churches, recognizes t h e threefold ordering of deacons,
presbyters, a n d bishops, as well as t h e role of bishops a n d presbyters in
presiding at t h e Eucharist. The status of t h e C O C U C o n s e n s u s is question-
able now, since it was n o t approved by t h e Presbyterian C h u r c h in t h e USA.
However, it has r e m a i n e d in effect as The United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h has
b e c o m e part of t h e C h u r c h e s Uniting In Christ (the successor organization
to C O C U ) . In b o t h t h e reception of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry a n d t h e
approval of "The C O C U Consensus," The United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h has
signaled its formal c o n s e n t t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of o r d a i n e d ministry t h a t is
consistent with o u r historic polity and practice b u t is inconsistent w i t h o u r
c u r r e n t practice of a u t h o r i z i n g n o n o r d a i n e d p e r s o n s to preside at H o l y
C o m m u n i o n . Oral Roberts is looking better a n d better to me.

A Renewed Office of Local Elder

W h a t to do? H e r e is t h e p o i n t at w h i c h a theologian is m u c h b e t t e r at
general principles t h a n at specific proposals for altering t h e U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t Discipline. We are at a fortunate m o m e n t , however, for t h e 2004
G e n e r a l Conference a u t h o r i z e d a t h o r o u g h s t u d y of o r d a i n e d ministry in
t h e n e x t q u a d r e n n i u m , a n d I h o p e t h a t t h e s t u d y process will b e able to
develop m o r e specific proposals. I trust t h e general principle is clear:
however w e decide t o alter t h e Discipline, w e m u s t r e t u r n t o t h e fold of o u r
o w n history, o u r p a r t n e r churches, a n d o u r e c u m e n i c a l c o m m i t m e n t s by
a u t h o r i z i n g only elders (and bishops) t o p r e s i d e at H o l y C o m m u n i o n . T h e
reinstitution of t h e c a t e g o r y of local elder m i g h t b e a n a p p r o p r i a t e way t o
p r o c e e d . H e r e are s o m e specific suggestions a b o u t t h e renewal of t h e
office of local elder. (Some t h o u g h t s o n a r e n e w e d office of local d e a c o n
follow later in t h e article.)
• C r e a t e o r r e i n s t i t u t e a n office of "local e l d e r " for p e r s o n s w h o a r e
o r d a i n e d a n d a u t h o r i z e d t o p r e s i d e a t t h e s a c r a m e n t of H o l y
C o m m u n i o n . T h e older provision for a local pastor t o b e c o m e a n elder
remains in o u r Discipline; b u t it leads to o r d i n a t i o n as a n elder in full
c o n n e c t i o n . Even if this provision is retained, I suggest t h a t we utilize
t h e category of local elder t o o r d a i n m a n y of t h o s e w h o are currently
serving as "licensed local pastors." Their a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o administer
H o l y C o m m u n i o n w o u l d t h e n b e linked to their o r d i n a t i o n as elders.
Further, k e e p a c a t e g o r y of n o n o r d a i n e d local p a s t o r s (historically,
"local preachers") a n d develop specific r e q u i r e m e n t s for t h e s t a t u s of
o r d i n a t i o n as a local elder; for example, c o m p l e t i o n of t h e first t h r e e
years of t h e C o u r s e of Study a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n of gifts a n d graces in
t h e w o r k of a lay preacher.
• Separate ordination as a n elder from m e m b e r s h i p in t h e a n n u a l
c o n f e r e n c e . This would b e n e c e s s a r y if w e retain o u r c u r r e n t s t a n d a r d s
for full clergy m e m b e r s h i p in t h e a n n u a l conference; a n d I believe we
should retain t h o s e s t a n d a r d s for elders a n d d e a c o n s "in full c o n n e c -
tion," or even set t h e b a r higher. In this respect, I agree w i t h R o b e r t
5
Neville's suggestion to this effect. I a m aware t h a t local pastors have
argued for voting rights in a n n u a l conferences in r e c e n t years, a n d this
proposal will contradict t h o s e aspirations. I w o u l d argue, however, t h a t
presiding at H o l y C o m m u n i o n as a n o r d a i n e d elder is far m o r e impor-
t a n t t h a n voting in an a n n u a l conference. Moreover, I w o u l d b e willing
to suggest that, if s o m e t h i n g like this p r o p o s a l is accepted, p e r s o n s like
me, w h o serve in " a p p o i n t m e n t s b e y o n d t h e local church," should b e
accorded t h e s t a t u s of local elders a n d s u r r e n d e r their right to vote at
a n n u a l conference. T h a t is, local elders s h o u l d have voice b u t n o vote
at a n n u a l conference.
• Limit sacramental a u t h o r i z a t i o n (and possibly a u t h o r i z a t i o n to
p e r f o r m w e d d i n g s a n d funerals) t o t h e local c o n g r e g a t i o n t o w h i c h
a local e l d e r is a p p o i n t e d . W h e n I served as a "student lay pastor," I
 was n o t a u t h o r i z e d to preside at t h e s a c r a m e n t s b u t was a u t h o r i z e d t o
p e r f o r m w e d d i n g s a n d funerals w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of m y congregations.
I appreciated t h e limitation, b e c a u s e it gave m e an easy a n s w e r t o folks
w h o c a m e to t h e p a r s o n a g e to ask if I w a n t e d to m a k e a little m o n e y
performing a wedding. In any case, it s e e m s t o m e t h a t this is t h e
e s s e n c e of w h a t it would m e a n to serve as a "local" elder.
• Be s u r e t h a t a n y p o l i t y d e v e l o p e d i n t h i s r e s p e c t is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r
e c u m e n i c a l c o m m i t m e n t s a n d t h e p o l i t y of o u r p a r t n e r c h u r c h e s .
This should actually be t h e first point here, and it ought to b e taken for
granted; b u t United Methodists have a certain t e n d e n c y to get b e h i n d t h e
walls of a convention center and invent strange United Methodist stuff
with little relevance to our partners or our ecumenical commitments.

The Possibility of a Renewed Office of Local Deacon or

Local Diaconal Minister
O n e of t h e g o o d things we U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s have d o n e was t o r e n e w t h e
office of t h e p e r m a n e n t deacon. S o m e objected t h a t t o lose t h e transitional
d i a c o n a t e altogether was an u n e c u m e n i c a l move, b u t I don't believe so. Ask
any elderly Catholic priest w h a t t h e transitional d i a c o n a t e m e a n t p r i o r to
Vatican II a n d he will tell you, p r o b a b l y w i t h a laugh, t h a t h e was o r d a i n e d
as s u b d e a c o n on a Friday, o r d a i n e d as d e a c o n o n Saturday, a n d t h e n
o r d a i n e d as priest o n Sunday. T h e laugh is appropriate. Perhaps
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Asbury's rapid progress t h r o u g h t h e d i a c o n a t e a n d t h e
presbyterate were n o t so u n u s u a l after all! Since Vatican II, Catholics,
Anglicans, Methodists, a n d o t h e r s have worked to r e n e w t h e integrity of
t h e o r d e r of d e a c o n in t h e church. I believe o u r efforts in this regard,
including t h e d i s c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e transitional diaconate, are a h e a d of
t h e e c u m e n i c a l curve. It is clear from m y c o m m e n t s above t h a t I a m less
t h a n enthusiastic a b o u t e x t e n d i n g sacramental a u t h o r i t y to t h e O r d e r of
D e a c o n s . M y p r i m a r y r e a s o n is t h a t this w o u l d w e a k e n t h e integrity a n d
distinct ministry of d e a c o n s in t h e church.
W h e n I b e g a n t h i n k i n g a b o u t t h e s e issues, I was p r e p a r e d to say t h a t it
w o u l d n o t b e relevant to c o n s i d e r a r e n e w e d office of local deacon, since
local d e a c o n s were historically simply a transitional o r d e r in p r e p a r a t i o n
for t h e office of local elder. But I h a d a conversion a b o u t this at
Disneyland. Actually, I was at t h e biennial m e e t i n g of t h e Association of
Theological Schools (ATS), w h i c h m e t at a hotel in G a r d e n Grove,
California, w i t h i n sight of Disneyland. T h e ATS is n o t a likely locus for
inspiration, b u t t h e talk given by t h e association's p r e s i d e n t o n n e w chal-
lenges in theological e d u c a t i o n stimulated m y thinking. H e p o i n t e d to t h e
h u g e n u m b e r of p e r s o n s w h o are currently serving in full-time or part-time
ministries in local churches—many of t h e m d r a w n from t h e ranks of their
o w n congregations—as y o u t h leaders, business managers, p r o g r a m direc-
tors, a n d in a variety of o t h e r positions. Very few of t h e s e locally cultivated
leaders, Dr. Ayleshire p o i n t e d out, have a n y theological e d u c a t i o n w h a t s o -
ever. I felt m y h e a r t strangely w a r m e d . T h e s e folks, I realized, are serving
(diakonein) in their local congregations as "local deacons," even t h o u g h
currently w e have only t h e category of "certification" for s u c h leaders.
The p r o b l e m is t h a t U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t d e a c o n s d o n o t itinerate (not
e v e n in t h e very limited s e n s e in w h i c h elders itinerate now). So it might
n o t m a k e s e n s e t o have a distinction b e t w e e n "local d e a c o n s " a n d "deacons
in full connection." Nevertheless, I think t h a t w e d o have a very significant
g r o u p of m e n a n d w o m e n serving in local c h u r c h e s w h o n e e d theological
formation a n d w h o s e ministries n e e d better recognition t h a n t h e n o t i o n of
"certification" c a n afford. I would b e h a p p y w i t h a newly revised version of
"local diaconal ministers" (nonordained) in place of w h a t I a m calling "local
d e a c o n s " here. For m e , t h e m a i n c o n c e r n is n o t t h e particular title w e
c h o o s e or even t h e issue of ordination. (Ironically, t h e Evangelical L u t h e r a n
C h u r c h in A m e r i c a b e g a n using t h e t e r m diaconal ministers at a b o u t t h e
t i m e T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h d r o p p e d t h e t e r m in favor of ordained
deacons.) H e r e are s o m e t h o u g h t s o n a r e n e w e d office of "local deacon" or
"local diaconal minister."
• D e v e l o p a n e w office of local d e a c o n or local diaconal minister (this
would n o t b e a r e n e w e d office, as in t h e case of t h e local elder) t h a t
e m b r a c e s all t h e categories currently served by o u r "certification"
processes a n d t h a t allows for s o m e o t h e r local ministries n o t presently
covered in t h e various certification areas.
• A s k t h e G e n e r a l B o a r d of H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n a n d M i n i s t r y a n d t h e
United Methodist theological seminaries to collaborate in setting
c r i t e r i a for a n d d e v e l o p i n g a c u r r i c u l u m for local d e a c o n s o r local
diaconal ministers, b a s e d o n t h e c u r r e n t certification curricula b u t also
c o n s i d e r i n g t h e Basic G r a d u a t e Theological Studies (BGTS) c u r r i c u l u m
and t h e C o u r s e of Study as possible m o d e l s for formation for local
deacons.
• F i n d w a y s t o e n c o u r a g e local C h r i s t i a n l e a d e r s t o s e e k t r a i n i n g a n d
o r d i n a t i o n as local d e a c o n s or local diaconal ministers. At present,
apart from the certification process, t h e training of local church leaders
is unregulated a n d generally n o t encouraged. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of an
office of local d e a c o n or local diaconal minister would give us a way to
encourage t h o s e w h o are already serving in m a n y areas to seek m o r e
formal training.
• C o n s i d e r g i v i n g local d e a c o n s o r local d i a c o n a l m i n i s t e r s v o i c e b u t
n o t v o t e a t a n n u a l c o n f e r e n c e , to parallel m y suggestion for local
elders.

Conclusion
D o these proposals m e a n that I, as president of a theological seminary, a m
effectively "cutting off t h e b r a n c h o n which we stand" in suggesting t h a t w e
ordain s o m e elders w h o are not trained in seminaries? T h e "seminarially
correct" position, of course, is that our Lord Jesus Christ i n t e n d e d only
t h o s e p e r s o n s w h o hold a Master of Divinity degree from an ATS-accredited
theological school to b e ordained in t h e o n e , holy, catholic, a n d apostolic
church! This is, however, s o m e w h a t difficult to justify o n t h e g r o u n d s of
Scripture a n d tradition. Actually, seminaries are deeply involved in t h e
training of d e a c o n s a n d candidates for certification (as well as in t h e C o u r s e
of Study). So, with respect to seminaries, w h a t I have p r o p o s e d is n o t so
very radical. I am confident that if theological seminaries are doing a g o o d
j o b of preparing p e r s o n s for Christian leadership, t h e n w e will n o t fail to
attract candidates. Moreover, I believe that if we can work with t h e churches
to develop n e w m e a n s of formation, e.g., for p e r s o n s p r e p a r i n g for w h a t I
have called t h e "local deacon," o u r theological institutions will prosper.
T h e proposal I have offered here suggests t h a t we r e n e w t h e office of
local elder and possibly t h e office of local deacon. The use of t h e office of
"local elder" would resolve t h e difficulties involved in o u r c u r r e n t practice of
authorizing n o n o r d a i n e d p e r s o n s to preside at Eucharist. Also, it would
b r i n g consistency to o u r definition of t h e elder as a u t h o r i z e d to preside at
Holy C o m m u n i o n (in addition to his or her ministries of preaching t h e
Word and ordering t h e church). The use of an office of "local deacon" might
s t r e n g t h e n o u r sense of t h e integrity of t h e O r d e r of D e a c o n s as constituted
by forms of service in t h e church and in society. I would b e c o n c e r n e d that
a category of n o n o r d a i n e d local diaconal ministers could confuse t h e s e n s e
of t h e integrity of this order that we have worked to define. Nevertheless,
I believe that, in general, t h e s e proposals are consistent w i t h o u r United
M e t h o d i s t heritage, w i t h t h e practice of o u r pan-Methodist p a r t n e r
churches, a n d w i t h o u r b r o a d e r ecumenical c o m m i t m e n t s .
I was delighted to read in t h e Discipline of t h e Christian M e t h o d i s t
Episcopal C h u r c h that a local elder is ordained as an elder "in t h e C h u r c h
of Christ." I couldn't p u t it better myself. We are Christians first and United
Methodists second. O u r ecumenical c o m m i t m e n t s should have p r e c e d e n c e
over intradenominational issues. This m e a n s t h a t a United M e t h o d i s t
d e a c o n is first a n d foremost a d e a c o n in t h e o n e , holy, catholic, and apos-
tolic church. A United M e t h o d i s t elder, w h e t h e r "local" or "in full connec-
tion," should b e considered first a n d foremost as a priest in t h e one, holy,
catholic, a n d apostolic church. I suggest that we h o n o r Dr. Roberts as o n e of
t h e last United M e t h o d i s t "local elders" as w e search for r e n e w e d a n d clari-
fied u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of t h e orders of ministry.

Ted A. Campbell is President of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in

Evanston, Illinois.

Endnotes
1.1 must note that the Oklahoma Annual Conference seems to have found Dr.
Roberts's n a m e to be an exceedingly great mystery from year to year; some
Journals list him as "Granville Oral Roberts," others as "Oral Granville Roberts,"
and yet others simply as "Oral Roberts."
2.1 shall use the anachronistic term clergy here for fear of using the term actu-
ally employed in early American Methodist polity, namely, ministers.
3. This expression is from John Wesley, "On Laying the Foundation of the N e w
Chapel," in Albert C. Outler, ed., The Works of John Wesley. Bicentennial Edition
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), 2 : 3 .
4. See the section on "Ministry" in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Geneva,
Switzerland: World Council of Churches, 1982), 29-50.
5. See Robert Cummings Neville, A Theological Analysis of the Order of Deacons
in The United Methodist Church (Nashville: General Board of Higher Education
and Ministry, The United Methodist Church, 2002).
 Connected and Sent Out:
Implications of New Biblical Research for
the United Methodist Diaconate

BENJAMIN L. HARTLEY

S o m e articles take seven years to write, In t h e Fall of 1997, m y s e c o n d

s e m e s t e r of seminary, I was privileged to participate in a doctoral
s e m i n a r entitled "Diakonia in M o d e r n C h u r c h History" w i t h Professor
C a r t e r Lindberg at Boston University School of Theology. I was just begin-
n i n g to discern a call t o t h e n e w U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t d i a c o n a t e a n d was
a n x i o u s to gain clarity o n w h a t a p p e a r e d to b e a potentially creative
restoration of d e a c o n s ' historic place in t h e c h u r c h at t h e 1996 G e n e r a l
Conference. O n e of t h e first b o o k s we discussed was J o h n N . Collins's
1
Diakonia: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources, Collins provided a radical
critique of w h a t has b e e n t h e traditional m e a n i n g of diakonia as "loving a n d
caring service." This critique was simultaneously unsettling a n d intriguing.
Collins's b o o k s t o o d in o d d juxtaposition for m e to o t h e r scholarship w e
e x a m i n e d in t h e r e m a i n d e r of t h e course.
T h e class w e n t o n to explore t h e L u t h e r a n d e a c o n e s s m o v e m e n t of t h e
m i d - n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s in Episcopalian,
Methodist, O r t h o d o x , and R o m a n Catholic circles. T h e M e t h o d i s t Episcopal
d e a c o n e s s m o v e m e n t was N o r t h America's largest d e a c o n e s s c o m m u n i t y at
t h e e n d of t h e n i n e t e e n t h a n d t h e beginning of t h e t w e n t i e t h centuries. We
e n d e d t h e course w i t h a look at t h e t h e n recently c o n c l u d e d 1995 gathering
of t h e A n g l i c a n - L u t h e r a n International C o m m i s s i o n , held in Hanover,
Germany, in which Lindberg h a d b e e n a L u t h e r a n participant.
The Hanover Report, The Diaconate as Ecumenical Opportunity, praised
Collins's "historical-philological corrective to earlier u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of the
diafeon-words" b u t was cautious in considering t h e implications of his
2
research. M y own t h o u g h t s a b o u t this n e w research o n t h e m e a n i n g of
diakonia remained similarly inconclusive as I waited for biblical scholars to
3
engage Collins's research and possibly reveal its flaws. Over t h e past seven
years, scholars in Scandinavia, t h e United Kingdom, Germany, France, and
N o r t h America have d o n e so; a n d few have c o u n t e r e d his findings. T h e m o s t
ringing e n d o r s e m e n t of his research c a m e in 2000, w h e n a respected Greek-
4
English lexicon largely adopted Collins's views published earlier in Diakonia.
In his Serve the Community of the Church biblical scholar A n d r e w D .
5
Clarke has recently provided o n e of t h e few criticisms of Collins's w o r k .
Clarke argues t h a t Paul's u s e of diakon-terms a n d of doulos in his m e t a p h o r
of slavery (1 Cor. 9:19 a n d 2 Cor. 4:5) illustrates t h a t Paul h a d a servile
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of his o w n ministry. Such a reading, however, can b e
c o n t e s t e d b y biblical scholarship d o n e by D a l e B. M a r t i n a n d M u r r a y J.
Harris, w h o have b o t h m a i n t a i n e d t h a t Paul's u s e of t h e slavery m e t a p h o r
was a way of affirming his "authority derived from s t a t u s by association"
6
w i t h Christ. Collins's m a i n p o i n t of c o n t e n t i o n w i t h Clarke is Clarke's
portrayal of diakon-terms in Paul as having "slavish connotations." Collins
argues t h a t Clarke inappropriately transfers t h e m e a n i n g of t h e diakon-
7
terms in t h e G o s p e l s to t h e entirely different c o n t e x t of Pauline literature.
T h e p u r p o s e of this article is to explore t h e implications of Collins's
research for t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t O r d e r of D e a c o n s . Before p r o c e e d i n g t o
t h a t discussion, however, let m e say a few w o r d s a b o u t its relevance for
United M e t h o d i s t t h i n k i n g regarding t h e b r o a d e r issue of t h e n a t u r e of
ministry itself. A single biblical passage serves to illustrate t h e potentially
far-reaching implications of Collins's research for U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s '
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of ministry. The u s e of t h e diakon-terms in Mark 10:45 was
t h e exegetical p r o b l e m t h a t initially l a u n c h e d Collins's linguistic research:
"For t h e S o n of M a n c a m e n o t to b e served b u t to serve, a n d t o give his life
a r a n s o m for many." Based o n his research, Collins conveys t h e underlying
m e a n i n g to b e closer t o t h e following: "The Son of M a n c a m e to carry o u t
his mission a n d give his life as a r a n s o m for many." T h e contrast is clear:
T h e diakon-tetm d o e s n o t d e n o t e acts of loving, caring service b u t rather
p o i n t s to Jesus' relationship to t h e Father, in o r d e r t o stress to his bickering
disciples t h a t t h e y are b e i n g called to live u n d e r a wholly different set of
values in t h e k i n g d o m of G o d . "The service of Jesus consists in giving his
8
life as a r a n s o m . It is n o t service of a n y o t h e r kind." O u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
t h e diakon-tetms a n d t h e biblical passages t h a t c o n t a i n t h e m m u s t b e m o r e
kerygmatic t h a n caritative. Jesus is n o t calling his disciples t o a d o p t a n atti-
t u d e of lowly service u n d e r a worldly p a r a d i g m of social relations b u t is
p o i n t i n g to a completely different set of K i n g d o m values t h a t drastically
reconfigure traditional n o t i o n s of status.
 In his 1990 text, Collins exhaustively d e m o n s t r a t e s that every instance
of t h e verb form of diakonia stresses t h e relationship of t h e minister to t h e
church c o m m u n i t y that has given him or h e r authority and n o t t h e particular
nature of t h e activity. Although such a discussion is b e y o n d t h e scope of this
article, Collins's research has radical implications for general Protestant asser-
tions a b o u t t h e "ministry of all Christians," particularly in relation to t h e
9
n a t u r e of t h e episcopacy and an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of ordination,
It should be n o t e d at t h e outset that, as a linguistic study, Collins's work
d o e s n o t claim that t h e m e a n i n g of t h e diakon-woids in t h e N e w Testament
should exclusively define t h e m e a n i n g of ministry or t h e diaconate today.
T h e Holy Spirit c o n t i n u e s to guide t h e church in n e w directions for
ministry. Since Scripture is o u r p r i m a r y source for theological reflection,
however, it is essential that t h e m e a n i n g of t h e diakon-words in Scripture b e
accurately u n d e r s t o o d if we are going to be faithful to t h e biblical m e a n i n g
of ministry in our c o n t e m p o r a r y reflections o n t h e n a t u r e of ministry,
This article will illustrate t h e fresh possibilities t h a t Collins's research
affords a United M e t h o d i s t theology of t h e diaconate. In s o m e respects, t h e
focus u p o n t h e diaconate is an act of "putting t h e cart before t h e horse,"
since a theology of t h e diaconate should follow from a n d b e incorporated
into a reappraisal of United M e t h o d i s t ecclesiology in light of Collins's
research o n t h e diakon-terms. Accordingly, I have n o t illuminated in this
p a p e r t h e various aspects of United M e t h o d i s t polity that would have to
change in order to a c c o m m o d a t e these ideas. I d o h o p e , however, t h a t such
a discussion will b e generated from t h e t h o u g h t s p u t forward here.
Collins's research into t h e a n c i e n t church's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e
diakon-words has t h r e e principal c o m p o n e n t s t h a t are i m p o r t a n t for United
M e t h o d i s t s to consider in o u r c o n t e m p o r a r y reflections o n t h e diaconate.

Deacons' Work Is Not Identified with Social

Welfare Work
T h e first i m p o r t a n t insight w i t h regard to t h e diakon-words is best framed
in t h e negative, as a critique of c u r r e n t belief a n d practice. It m a y also b e
t h e m o s t disturbing to c u r r e n t U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t d e a c o n s and, as such,
m u s t b e a d d r e s s e d in a forthright m a n n e r . Collins a n d a growing
c o n s e n s u s of o t h e r scholars c o n t e n d t h a t t h e diakon-word g r o u p never
conveyed t h e idea of loving a n d caring service. This now-accepted m e a n i n g
of diakonia was m a d e p o p u l a r in t h e n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y d e a c o n e s s move-
m e n t in G e r m a n y a n d received a c a d e m i c s u p p o r t from G e r m a n t h e o l o g i a n
10
Wilhelm Brandt in t h e 1930s. T h e r u d i m e n t s of Brandt's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
diakonia c a n b e traced b a c k easily to t h e Reformation period.
It is i m p o r t a n t to stress t h a t Collins's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e diakon-
words by n o m e a n s suggests a n a b a n d o n i n g by anyone—deacons in partic-
u l a r - o f ministries for t h e poor. Jesus' love for t h e "least of t h e s e " a n d t h e
w o r k w i t h t h e p o o r o n t h e p a r t of d e a c o n s , elders, local pastors, and layper-
s o n s m u s t c o n t i n u e if t h e c h u r c h is t o b e faithful to t h e gospel message.
Rather, it is t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of one-to-one c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n a
deacon's identity a n d social welfare ministries t h a t m u s t change. We m u s t
b e h o n e s t in a d m i t t i n g t h a t w o r k a m o n g t h e p o o r was n o t constitutive of
diaconal or presbyteral identity in t h e biblical period, e v e n t h o u g h it has
b e c o m e a cherished p a r t of c o n t e m p o r a r y d e a c o n s ' heritage.
The implications of this aspect of Collins's research for United Methodist
deacons are significant. T h e Book of Discipline asserts that "[f]rom the earliest
days of t h e church, deacons were called and set apart for t h e ministry of
love, justice, and service; of connecting t h e church with t h e m o s t needy,
11
neglected, and marginalized a m o n g t h e children of God." This assertion of
the biblical basis for deacons' ministry is called into question by Collins's
research. Additionally, critics of deacons' ministries have n o t e d that, if
deacons' identity is constituted wholly by their work a m o n g t h e poor, t h e n
there is n o t h i n g u n i q u e a b o u t their ministry. After all, all Christians are called
to care for their neighbors, with special attention given to t h e "least of these."
While contemporary deacons may, in many circumstances, b e persons w h o
seek to focus a congregation's attention o n t h e poor, t h e foundation for a
12
theology of t h e diaconate is better constructed o n other g r o u n d s .
The 2000 Book of Discipline's ubiquitous use of "servant leadership" termi-
nology (f 131-136), first employed in 1996, also m u s t b e revisited, since t h e
n e w biblical research calls into question t h e m e a n i n g of diakonia as "servant
leadership." In employing this terminology, United Methodists were, in m a n y
ways, following t h e example of the World Council of Churches in its use of
t h e term diakonia in a theology of service t h r o u g h o u t its publications.
Instead of "servant leader" terminology, o u r d e n o m i n a t i o n might
c h o o s e to r e t u r n to t h e language of "representative ministry," utilized in t h e
Book of Discipline from 1976 to 1992. This description of ordained ministry
has b e e n s h o w n to b e useful in e c u m e n i c a l dialogues w h e r e a t h e o l o g y of
13
o r d a i n e d ministry has b e e n d i s c u s s e d . Such a m o v e w o u l d b e consistent
w i t h Collins's research o n diakonia, w h i c h similarly affirms an emissarial, or
representative, relationship b e t w e e n t h e minister (deacon or presbyter) a n d
the community or bishop.

Deacons Are Given a "Connectional Mandate"

If t h e foundation for a t h e o l o g y of t h e d i a c o n a t e is b e s t built o n s o m e t h i n g
o t h e r t h a n t h e deacon's role in social welfare activities, w h a t t h e n o u g h t
this f o u n d a t i o n be? Collins's research suggests t h a t in t h e early c h u r c h
d e a c o n s w e r e defined first a n d foremost by a close relationship w i t h their
b i s h o p and, by extension, w i t h t h e c o r p o r a t e b o d y of believers, rather t h a n
by any particular function t h e y m a y have performed. Such a relationship
necessarily flows from t h e ecclesial n a t u r e of ministry itself. D e a c o n s ' func-
tions in t h e early church w e r e w i d e ranging a n d included distributing
C o m m u n i o n to m e m b e r s n o t p r e s e n t for t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s c o r p o r a t e
worship, care for t h e poor, financial administration, a n d p r e a c h i n g t h e
Word. Of t h e s e m a n y functions, only t h e distribution of t h e Eucharist a n d
p r e a c h i n g constituted t h e "field of m e a n i n g " of t h e didkon-words in t h e
14
ancient c h u r c h . This d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t c o n t e m p o r a r y d e a c o n s s h o u l d
have s u c h limited responsibilities b u t rather t h a t biblical reflection u p o n
t h e diakon-words m u s t b e g i n w i t h t h e relationality of t h e t e r m s . The
i n t e n s e relational a n d i n t e r d e p e n d e n t n a t u r e of all t h e church's ministers
(presbyters, bishops, a n d deacons) recalls t h e u n a m b i g u o u s s e n s e of Jesus'
m a n d a t e or mission from t h e Father in Mark 10:45, discussed above.
Diakonia, o r ministry, by definition, was i m p o s e d o n a p e r s o n .

Thus, Methodist u n d e r s t a n d i n g s and practice of t h e itinerancy are

faithful responses to a key element of t h e N e w Testament conception of
ministry, Add to this t h e "brotherly love" of t h e clergy connection expressed
in Charles Wesley's h y m n "And Are We Yet Alive," a n d t h e richness of t h e
N e w Testament m o d e l s of ministry find faithful expression in M e t h o d i s m
indeed. The challenge for t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y United M e t h o d i s t diaconate in
this regard is to e m b o d y ways that deacons are also u n d e r a kind of "connec-
tional mandate." That is, United Methodist d e a c o n s m u s t b e c o n n e c t e d
vitally to t h e worshiping congregation and also b e clear a b o u t t h e bishop's
m a n d a t e t h e y have b e e n given by virtue of their ordination. There c a n b e n o
such thing as a "free agent" deacon.
United Methodists o u g h t to consider h o w d e a c o n s might live o u t their
m a n d a t e of accountability w i t h t h e b i s h o p or, m o r e practically, w i t h district
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s w h o have also b e e n given t h e ministry of episkope, o r "over-
sight." This n e e d n o t necessarily b e t h e s a m e kind of itinerancy as t h a t of
elders; b u t t h e "spirit of t h e itinerancy" should find s o m e practical expres-
sion in o u r polity for deacons. S o m e d e a c o n s already e m b o d y such a spirit
as they have b e g u n n e w ministries with a m a n d a t e from t h e bishop. M u c h
education n e e d s to take place a m o n g bishops a n d district superintendents—
as well as a m o n g laity, elders, a n d even d e a c o n s themselves—to explicate t h e
n a t u r e of t h e diaconate, so that d e a c o n s can b e a p p o i n t e d to places that
help define their u n i q u e ministry a n d m a k e their connectional m a n d a t e
clear. This educational task is m a d e m o r e complex by t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s exis-
t e n c e of t w o different forms of t h e d i a c o n a t e in U n i t e d M e t h o d i s m , t h e lay
office of d e a c o n e s s a n d t h e ordained office of deacon.
D e a c o n s m u s t also c o n t i n u e to struggle to find a place for themselves
in t h e liturgy. T h e Discipline's explanation of d e a c o n s ' calling to "interrelate
w o r s h i p a n d service" is a fruitful line of theological reflection. M u c h w o r k
15
in this regard has already b e e n d o n e by Daniel Benedict a n d o t h e r s .
United M e t h o d i s t s m i g h t also c o n s i d e r a n additional vital u s e for d e a c o n s
in t h e "liturgy" of t h e local c h u r c h t h a t occurs o u t s i d e of S u n d a y m o r n i n g
worship. T h e M e t h o d i s t "class leader" is a c h u r c h office w i t h i n o u r
16
M e t h o d i s t heritage t h a t could b e reclaimed by c o n t e m p o r a r y d e a c o n s .
T h r o u g h o u t o u r history t h e r e have b e e n various a t t e m p t s to u s e this vital
office in ministries t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e m a n y of t h e historic roles t a k e n by
deacons. These include visiting t h e sick, p r o m o t i n g serious discipleship
a m o n g t h e faithful, a n d collecting offerings from class m e m b e r s to b e u s e d
for t h e c o m m o n good. Like class leaders, U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t d e a c o n s in t h e
future m a y increasingly serve as n o n - s t i p e n d i a r y o r d a i n e d p e r s o n s in t h e
17
church, m u c h like their c o u n t e r p a r t s in o t h e r d e n o m i n a t i o n s .
M a n y d e a c o n s , n o d o u b t , are already serving as small-group ministry
coordinators or Bible s t u d y leaders in their churches, given that so m a n y of
t h e m have considerable training in Christian education. D e a c o n s as leaders
of small-group Bible studies, m u c h like M e t h o d i s t class leaders of t h e past,
could work in close c o n n e c t i o n w i t h pastors to assist t h e congregation in
receiving t h e proclaimed Word of G o d . Such a role for d e a c o n s has also
b e e n p r o p o s e d by Reformed theologian T, F. Torrance a n d was cited b y
18
Collins as a helpful practical r e s p o n s e to his research findings. As d e a c o n s
are ordained to Word a n d Service, t h e y could play an i m p o r t a n t part in revi-
talizing t h e historic role of class leaders in t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y church.
 Relating t h e M e t h o d i s t office of class leader a n d t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y
diaconate has implications for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e desired n u m b e r of d e a c o n s
for The United M e t h o d i s t Church. In t h e past, there was typically m o r e t h a n
o n e class leader in a particular M e t h o d i s t society. O n e of t h e first early
examples in a church d o c u m e n t describing t h e activities of deacons, t h e
Didascalia Apostolorum, shows that t h e r e were at least t w o d e a c o n s working
to k e e p order in a small b u t crowded worship setting. In T h e United
M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h in t h e United States, at p r e s e n t t h e r e are fewer t h a n
1,200 deacons, c o m p a r e d t o approximately 33,000 elders.
T h e r e are m a n y reasons for this relatively low n u m b e r of d e a c o n s , b u t
a p r i m e r e a s o n is m o s t certainly t h e r a t h e r high r e q u i r e m e n t s for formal,
seminary-level education. There s e e m s to b e an u n f o r t u n a t e belief in t h e
m i n d s of m a n y United M e t h o d i s t s (also expressed in t h e Discipline) t h a t t o
b e o r d a i n e d as a deacon, t h e c a n d i d a t e m u s t have a level of e d u c a t i o n
virtually equivalent to that of an elder. T h e m a n d a t e for m i n i s t r y e m b o d i e d
in o r d i n a t i o n is given n o t b e c a u s e of a p e r s o n ' s educational level b u t rather
b e c a u s e t h e church believes G o d has given h e r or h i m gifts for fruitful
ministry. United M e t h o d i s t d e a c o n s have far m o r e formal theological
19
e d u c a t i o n t h a n d e a c o n s in o t h e r d e n o m i n a t i o n s in N o r t h A m e r i c a . It is
w o r t h considering w h e t h e r , in t h e tradition of m a n y M e t h o d i s t d e a c o n e s s
training institutions in t h e late n i n e t e e n t h a n d early t w e n t i e t h centuries,
instituting d e a c o n s ' training schools at t h e a n n u a l conference level m i g h t
n o t b e a b e t t e r way to p r e p a r e d e a c o n s for ministry. This is t h e c o n t e m p o -
rary training m o d e l for Episcopalian and R o m a n Catholic o r d a i n e d
d e a c o n s . C o m p e t e n c e for ministering t h e Word of G o d n e e d n o t require
seminary-level education.
T h e n e e d for s u c h training schools has b e e n suggested at o t h e r times
in o u r church's history, including in t h e pages of a p r e d e c e s s o r of this very
j o u r n a l in 1886. Holiness theologian a n d M e t h o d i s t Episcopal clergyman
D a n i e l Steele argued t h a t o u r d e n o m i n a t i o n ' s s e m i n a r i e s w e r e valuable for
t h e excellent theological e d u c a t i o n t h e y provided b u t t h a t t h e r e w e r e
m a n y p e o p l e n e e d i n g to b e e q u i p p e d for ministry for w h o m seminary-level
20
e d u c a t i o n was n o t t h e right p r e p a r a t i o n . M a n y of t h e s e p e o p l e p o s s e s s e d
gifts for ministry b u t w e r e poor; a n d b e c a u s e t h e y could n o t afford o r did
n o t w a n t a classical theological education, t h e y w e r e n o t b e i n g u s e d effec-
tively by t h e M e t h o d i s t Episcopal d e n o m i n a t i o n . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g c u r r e n t
sources of funding t h a t might partially address t h e financial barriers to
seminary, additional constraints s u c h as time, location, or academic ability
similarly might limit p e r s o n s today w h o could o t h e r w i s e b e very gifted
m e m b e r s of t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t diaconate.
In carrying o u t their role in m a i n t a i n i n g t h e cohesiveness of t h e
church c o m m u n i t y , d e a c o n s s h o u l d b e utilized as agents from t h e local
church c o m m u n i t y in distributing t h e Lord's S u p p e r t o p e o p l e w h o , d u e t o
illness o r o t h e r reasons, are u n a b l e t o b e p r e s e n t at t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s
weekly w o r s h i p service. This would b e a powerful r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e
extension of t h e church's ministry, w h i c h h a s d e e p r o o t s in t h e tradition of
t h e diaconate. Recent proposals at G e n e r a l Conference to give d e a c o n s t h e
ability t o p r e s i d e at t h e celebration of t h e Lord's S u p p e r in particular locali-
ties would have t h e effect of severing a relationship b e t w e e n a gathered
c o m m u n i t y a n d a n a b s e n t m e m b e r o r members—a relationship t h e d e a c o n
is called to k e e p vibrant. W h a t b e t t e r way to a d d r e s s t h e n e e d s that precipi-
tated t h e s e G e n e r a l Conference proposals t h a n to bring t h e previously
consecrated C o m m u n i o n e l e m e n t s from a local c h u r c h w o r s h i p service to
p e r s o n s u n a b l e t o a t t e n d as an expression of their inclusion? Such arrange-
m e n t s will take p l a n n i n g a n d coordination, b u t t h e barriers to s u c h action
in m o s t circumstances d o n o t s e e m i n s u r m o u n t a b l e .
At t h e a n n u a l conference level, t h e fellowship of t h e O r d e r of D e a c o n s
currently in place may serve as a m o d e l for a cohesive c o m m u n i t y that, in
turn, c a n b e expressed in local c h u r c h contexts. T h e e x p e r i e n c e of c h a p t e r s
of t h e O r d e r of D e a c o n s in a n n u a l conferences suggests t h a t d e a c o n s (in
p a r t d u e t o their smaller n u m b e r s ) have h a d a m u c h easier time developing
a s e n s e of c o m m u n i t y a m o n g s t t h e m s e l v e s t h a n have their colleagues in
t h e O r d e r of Elders. T h e O r d e r s of D e a c o n s c a n also b e t h e context for
s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e relationship b e t w e e n d e a c o n s a n d t h e bishops a n d
district s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s w h o serve in t h e a n n u a l conference's ministry of
oversight. A n n u a l conference chapters of t h e O r d e r s of D e a c o n s have
h e l p e d their m e m b e r s to reflect theologically o n t h e n a t u r e of their
ministry, w h i c h has, in turn, illuminated for o t h e r United M e t h o d i s t s t h e
deacon's historic place in t h e church.
W h a t has b e e n m o s t surprising is t h a t m o s t d e a c o n s in T h e United
M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h have n o t followed their c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e Episcopal or
R o m a n Catholic traditions in a d o p t i n g t h e title Deacon, c h o o s i n g instead
t h e general title for o r d a i n e d p e r s o n s , Reverend. This has unfortunately
blurred their distinct identity for m a n y p e r s o n s in local churches. A l t h o u g h
m i n o r in s o m e respects, t h e choice t o n a m e o n e ' s o w n place in t h e c h u r c h
should b e symbolically very i m p o r t a n t for d e a c o n s a n d t h e c h u r c h at large.
Referring to d e a c o n s as "Reverend" has served to confuse rather t h a n to
clarify t h e deacon's role in t h e church, even t h o u g h its u s e has m o s t likely
e m e r g e d o u t of a desire rightfully to assert d e a c o n s ' i m p o r t a n t place as
o r d a i n e d leaders in t h e church.

Deacons Are "Go-between" Missionaries

C o n s i d e r e d along w i t h t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e integral i m p o r t a n c e of t h e
d e a c o n ' s "connectional m a n d a t e . " u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e d e a c o n as "go-
b e t w e e n " has t h e m o s t potential to revitalize a vision for t h e d i a c o n a t e in
T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h t h a t is t r u e t o t h e biblical m e a n i n g of
diakonia. Of t h o s e scholars a n d c h u r c h leaders w h o have b e e n aware of
Collins's contributions, t h e image t h e y have m o s t frequently utilized to
d e s c r i b e t h e role of t h e d e a c o n has b e e n t h a t of a "go-between." A reinter-
21
p r e t a t i o n of Acts 6 best exemplifies this i d e a .
M o r e t h a n any o t h e r passage in Scripture, Acts 6 h a s long b e e n
believed to r e p r e s e n t t h e Christian m o v e m e n t ' s selection of its first
d e a c o n s . While m o s t scholars agree t h a t this w a s p r o b a b l y n o t t h e case—
t h e office of d e a c o n m o s t clearly developed only years l a t e r - t h e passage
has b e e n influential from v e r y early times in relation to t h e diaconate.
W h e n o n e applies t h e n e w research o n t h e diakon-words to this passage, it
greatly alters and e x p a n d s t h e older (and erroneous) u n d e r s t a n d i n g , in
w h i c h t h e "seven" w e r e s e e n as "table waiters" in charge of providing for
t h e material n e e d s of Greek-speaking widows.
A s in earlier chapters, in Acts 6 Luke utilizes t h e diafeon-words to
describe t h e sacred m a n d a t e given by G o d to Paul a n d o t h e r ministers, or
diakonoi, t o preach t h e gospel. T h e fact that, in t h e next chapter, Stephen,
o n e of t h e seven, d o e s precisely this is just o n e of t h e m a n y indications
t h a t t h e work t h e seven were assigned to d o w a s t o b e ministers of t h e
Word to linguistically different a n d socially marginalized G r e e k widows.
T h e o t h e r disciples c o n t i n u e d t o preach in Aramaic in t h e local temple,
w h e r e t h e s e G r e e k w i d o w s could n o t enter. In a wonderful e x a m p l e of t h e
early church's responsiveness to t h e leading of G o d ' s Spirit, a n e w cadre of
Greek-speaking ministers was formed to m e e t t h e spiritual n e e d s of a
previously neglected p a r t of t h e community. T h e n e w ministers served as
vital go-betweens, or emissaries, for different g r o u p s w i t h i n t h e church.
 Later in Luke's a c c o u n t of t h e spread of t h e gospel, t h e idea of go-
b e t w e e n o r emissary is even m o r e clearly e x p r e s s e d in t h e delegation s e n t
from t h e church in A n t i o c h to t h e church in Jerusalem to provide assis-
t a n c e n e e d e d b e c a u s e of t h e t h r e a t e n i n g famine in Jerusalem. T h e N R S V
fails to convey t h e p o w e r of t h e diakon-word u s e d here by translating it as
"relief to t h e believers." W h e n t h e diakon-woxd is u s e d in its full meaning,
t h e passage can b e read to say, "Without exception t h e c o m m u n i t y of disci-
ples d e t e r m i n e d to s e n d representatives on a mission t o t h e b r o t h e r s a n d
22
sisters living in J u d e a . " G r e a t i m p o r t a n c e was placed o n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e
fellowship in t h e c h u r c h across geographical distance, a n d t h e delegation
of "go-betweens" served t h a t role.
Read in light of t h e n e w insights o n t h e diakon-words, t h e s e passages
yield many fresh possibilities for United M e t h o d i s t deacons. N o r w e g i a n
theologian Kjell N o r d s t o k k e has written m o s t powerfully o n t h e transforma-
tive potential that a reinterpretation of these biblical words could have for
c o n t e m p o r a r y deacons. T h e ministry of deacons, Nordstokke contends,
"should n o t primarily b e interpreted as self-humiliation a n d servility, b u t as
conscious mission w i t h divine authority a n d w i t h t h e m a n d a t e to b e a go-
23
b e t w e e n in contexts of conflict a n d suffering." Just as Jesus described his
o w n mission in Mark 10:45 n o t as lowly service b u t as deriving from a
wholly (and holy!) o t h e r Source, so also are d e a c o n s given a m a n d a t e from
G o d u n d e r t h e values of G o d ' s kingdom. There is n o n e e d to appeal to a
weaker "theology of service." Love and humility are a part of t h e deacon's
ministry—as t h e y are constitutive of all Christian discipleship shaped by t h e
Cross. However, these traits are n o t best u n d e r s t o o d as constitutive of
deacon's ministry per se. A corrective to t h e abuses of ecclesiastical hubris of
C h r i s t e n d o m is not found in a ministry that follows secular trends w h e r e
"the world provides t h e agenda"; rather, as Jesus taught, it is found by oper-
24
ating u n d e r a radically different set of values in t h e K i n g d o m .
W h a t would h a p p e n in United M e t h o d i s m if even just o n e h u n d r e d
d e a c o n s in t h e United States followed t h e example of t h e disciples in Acts 6
a n d worked as go-betweens to build bridges of interpersonal relationships
b e t w e e n immigrant a n d n o n i m m i g r a n t c o m m u n i t i e s , or Native and Anglo-
A m e r i c a n c o m m u n i t i e s , for t h e sake of t h e gospel? O n a m o r e global scale,
h o w can United M e t h o d i s t s better follow t h e example of Acts 11:29 in
s e n d i n g delegations of missionaries b e t w e e n t h e global N o r t h and global
S o u t h t o better b e p a r t n e r s in mission a r o u n d t h e world? T h e changing real-
ities of global Christianity and t h e d e m o g r a p h i c changes in N o r t h America
25
require a similarly bold stance as that taken by t h e disciples in Acts 6 .
The closing words from a recent s e r m o n by t h e Episcopal b i s h o p of
Bethlehem o n t h e occasion of a deacon's ordination s e e m fitting for this
challenge to rethink o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of d e a c o n s in United M e t h o d i s m .
A s w e t o o t u r n our attention to Bethlehem in this season, m a y w e d e a c o n s
in particular seek to reinterpret o u r ministry, o u r diakonia, in a fresh, bold
way t h a t is w o r t h y of t h e connectional m a n d a t e we have b e e n given.

Jesus' faithfulness, Jesus' bold compassion, Jesus' plain speaking of the truth,
got him killed. It is the faithful, compassionate, truthful one whom God raised
from the dead, illuminating forever the question of whether faithfulness,
compassion, and truthfulness are worth it. Results we may not see in propor-
tion to our dreams and ambitions, and maybe we will see them, but either way,
we are part of something that moves from resurrection to resurrection, part of
a process that is infinitely bigger than ourselves. By the grace of God you are
what you are, and that grace must not be received in vain, Be bold, be powerful,
26
be confident: dare to be deacons.

Benjamin L. Hartley is a Th.D. student at Boston University School of Theology

and an ordained deacon in the West Michigan Annual Conference,

Endnotes
1. John N . Collins, Diakonia: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources (New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
2. The Diaconate as Ecumenical Opportunity: The Hanover Report of the Anglican-
Lutheran International Commission (London: Anglican C o m m u n i o n
Publications, 1996), 20. Online at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/docu-
ments/lutheran/hanover.html.
3. My cautious approach to Collins's work is evident in b o t h the b o o k I co-
authored with Paul Van Buren, The Deacon: Ministry through Words of Faith and
Acts of Love (Nashville: General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, 1999)
a n d in my article " D e a c o n s as Emissary-Servants: A Liturgical Theology,"
Quarterly Review 19/4 (Winter 1999): 372-86. This article is available on my
website (http://www.deaconpages.org), along with other diaconate articles, a
bibliography, and ecumenical links to websites o n the diaconate.
4. For a review of much of the scholarly and ecclesial reaction to his work, see
John Collins's most recent book, Deacons and the Church: Making Connections
between Old and New (Leominster, UK: Gracewing; Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse,
2002). See also Frederick W, Danker, Walter Bauer, William Arndt, A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed.
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000). For a brief, otherwise unpublished,
essay by Collins o n this lexicon's use of his research, see my website. The first
German publication seriously to incorporate Collins's work was Hans-Jurgen
B e n e d i c t , " B e r u h t d e r A n s p r u c h d e r e v a n g e l i s c h e n D i a k o n i e auf e i n e r
M i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d e r a n t i k e n Q u e l l e n ? J o h n N . Collins U n t e r s u c h u n g
'Diakonia"' Pastoraltheologie 8 9 / 9 (September 2000): 349-64. The most recent
treatment of Collins's work is another G e r m a n publication: Volker Herrmann,
Rainer Merz, Heinz Schmidt, Hrsg., Diakonische Konturen: Theologie im Kontext
sozialer Arbeit, vol. 18 in a series by the Diakoniewissenschaftlichen Instituts of
the University of Heidelberg (Heidelberg, Germany: Universitatsverlag, 2003).
The president of the Evangelical Church in Germany's diaconal work, Jurgen
G o h d e , has also delivered an a d d r e s s n o t i n g t h e implications of Collins's
research for the traditional G e r m a n understanding of diaconal work. See his
" D i e A u f g a b e d e r D i a k o n i e i m z u k u n f t i g e n E u r o p a , " f o u n d o n l i n e at
http://www.diakonie.de/downloads/Gohde-Promotion2003.pdf. The Church
of England's report For Such a Time as This: A Renewed Diaconate in the Church of
England (London: Church House Publishing, 2001) utilizes Collins's contribu-
tions considerably in its reflections u p o n the diaconate.

5. Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI, and
Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2000), 233-45.
6. Dale B. M a r t i n , Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline
Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 134; Murray J. Harris,
Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ (Leicester,
UKiApollos, 1999), 138.
7. John N. Collins, personal correspondence, July 29, 2004. For further detail
o n t h e n a t u r e of P a u l ' s u s e of diakon-terms, see Collins's Diakonia:
Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources.
8. J o h n N . Collins, Deacons and the Church, 30. H e r e Collins p r o v i d e s a
lengthier interpretation of this and other scriptural passages.
9. Ibid., 194. J o h n N . Collins, " D e a c o n s a m o n g t h e Baptized," Diakoneo
(Pentecost 2002); online at h t t p : / / w w w . d e a c o n p a g e s . o r g . See also J o h n N .
Collins, Are All Christians Ministers? (Collegeville, M R : Liturgical Press, 1992).
10. W i l h e l m B r a n d t , Dienst und Dienen im Neuen Testament ( G u t e r s l o h :
Bertelsmann, 1931). Brandt's research was adopted in an article by H.W. Beyer
on t h e diafeon-words in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), vol. 2.
11. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2000 (Nashville: The
United Methodist Publishing House, 2000), Tf319.
12. In The Deacon, I utilized this language of focus to describe the differences
between the ministries of deacons and elders, relying o n an essay by Robert
Hannaford, "Towards a Theology of the Diaconate," in Christine Hall, ed., The
Deacon's Ministry (Leominster, UK: Gracewing, 1992).
13. For a United Methodist review of this material, see Gerald F. Moede, "The
P e r m a n e n t D i a c o n a t e Revisited," Occasional Papers 79 (Nashville: U n i t e d
Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry, 1989).
14. Collins, Diakonia, 244.
15. The ordained diaconate and its predecessor, t h e lay office of diaconal
minister, has been seeking for some time to build a more ecclesial identity for
the diaconate, with a place in the local church's liturgy. See Rosemary Skinner
Keller, Gerald F, Moede, and Mary Elizabeth Moore, Called to Serve: The United
Methodist Diaconate (Nashville: United M e t h o d i s t G e n e r a l Board of Higher
E d u c a t i o n and Ministry, 1987), 73. See also D a n i e l Benedict, "Elders and
Deacons: Renewed Orders and Partnerships in Leading Worship," Quarterly
Review 19/4 (Winter 1999-2000): 387-403; Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, "The
Liturgical M i n i s t r i e s of t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t D e a c o n : C o n t i n u i t y a n d
Change," Methodist History 3 9 / 2 (January 2000): 82-98,
16. For an excellent c o n t e m p o r a r y t r e a t m e n t of class m e e t i n g s and class
leaders and how they fit in Wesley's connection, see D. Michael Henderson,
John Wesley's Class Meeting: A Model for Making Disciples (Nappanee, Indiana:
Evangel, 1997).
17. In 1999-2000, I surveyed 516 deacons in five denominations in the United
States. Over 90 percent of United Methodist deacons stated that they were paid
for the work they do as a deacon, compared to 35 percent of Roman Catholic
deacons and 15 percent of Episcopalian deacons. Approximately 70 percent of
Lutheran deaconesses and diaconal ministers were paid for their work. The
results are available on my website as well as in a monograph series published
by the North American Association for the Diaconate (Episcopal). Benjamin L.
Hartley, An Empirical Look at the Ecumenical Diaconate in the United States,
M o n o g r a p h Series N o . 16 ( P r o v i d e n c e , R h o d e Island: N o r t h A m e r i c a n
Association for the Diaconate, 2003).
18. T. F. Torrance, "The Eldership in t h e Reformed Church," Scottish Journal of
Theology 37/4(1984): 512.
19. United Methodist deacons are twice as likely to have graduate degrees than
t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in t h e Episcopal or R o m a n Catholic c h u r c h e s a n d 20
percent more likely than diaconal ministers and deaconesses in the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of America. See Hartley, An Empirical Look at the Ecumenical
Diaconate, 7.
20. Daniel Steele, "Non-classical M e t h o d i s t Theological Schools," Methodist
Review (May 1886): 455-58.
21. The Epistle of Clement to James in the Pseudo-Clementine's document is
an example from early church literature that portrays the idea of deacon as "go-
between" directly. See James Barnett, The Diaconate: A Full and Equal Order, rev.
ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 57.
22. Collins, Deacons and the Church, 67.
2 3 . Kjell N o r d s t o k k e , " T h e D i a c o n a t e : M i n i s t r y of P r o p h e c y a n d
Transformation," in G u n n e l BorgegArd, Olav Fanuelsen, and Christine Hall,
eds., The Ministry of the Deacon 2: Ecclesiological Explorations (Uppsala, Sweden:
Nordic Ecumenical Council, 2000), 118.
24. See D e p a r t m e n t o n S t u d i e s in E v a n g e l i s m of t h e World C o u n c i l of
C h u r c h e s , The Church for Others and The Church for the World: A Quest for
Structures for Missionary Congregations (Geneva: World Council of Churches,
1967), 20. The phrase the world provides the agenda was first used in this publica-
tion.
25. See Andrew Walls, The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 2002), 80. Some deacons in N o r t h America have also raised t h e
potential of t h e diaconate as "the ecumenical office" as they strive to fulfill
their calling to b e "go-betweens" in a church that remains divided. Richard
Pemble, "Is Diaconate 'the' Ecumenical Office?" Deacon Digest (September/
October 1998): 8.
26. Paul Marshall, "Servant or Servile? A Sermon on the Diaconate," Diakoneo
2 5 / 4 (Pentecost, 2003): 7.
 United Methodist Ordained Ministry
In Ecumenical Perspective

JEFFREY GROS

W h e n t h e Catholic diocese of M e m p h i s began to train p e r m a n e n t

deacons in 1976, it was a first venture of moving toward an ordained
ministry for married and single persons for centuries in this venerable church.
Likewise, it was a beachhead for the ministries in t h e world called out a m o n g
t h e whole people of G o d since t h e initiation of t h e reforms of Vatican IL
O t h e r Western churches have a longer history of diaconal reflection, training,
and ordination, on whose experience Catholics were able to draw.
A n Episcopal priest w h o h a d directed a p e r p e t u a l d e a c o n p r o g r a m a n d
a U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s e m i n a r y d e a n w h o s e wife was a diaconal minister
w e r e included a m o n g t h e m e m b e r s of o u r diocesan d e a c o n board. A s we
b e g a n to train ministers of service a n d worship, it w a s crucial t h a t (1) o u r
p r o g r a m take a c c o u n t of t h e faith of t h e c h u r c h t h r o u g h t h e ages o n this
restored ordained ministry; (2) o u r p r o g r a m b e driven by t h e justice a n d
service n e e d s of o u r local c o m m u n i t y , w h i c h this ministry is m e a n t to
symbolize (Catholics would say "sacramentalize"); (3) this ministry
e m p o w e r t h e ministry of all t h e b a p t i z e d for t h e gospel m e s s a g e of justice,
compassion, and engagement; a n d (4) o u r Catholic c o m m u n i t y learn from
a n d serve all of t h e Christian c o m m u n i t i e s in M e m p h i s .
We were very grateful to t h e United M e t h o d i s t c h u r c h e s in M e m p h i s , as
are Catholics a r o u n d t h e globe, as we p a r t n e r together o n t h e long road t o
full visible unity a n d t h e p r e s e n t possibilities for ministry a n d mission. We
are divided at t h e Lord's Table because we are n o t fully in c o m m u n i o n in
ordained ministry. This d o e s n o t h i n d e r multiple c o m m o n mission efforts,
especially in the service/diaconal d i m e n s i o n of o u r churches' calling.
However, a n ordained ministry that is n o t reconciled is a scandal in our
witness t h a t contradicts t h e will of Christ in the gospel.
United M e t h o d i s m emerged from a decision by John Wesley, which, for
t h e sake of mission, divided M e t h o d i s m from Anglicanism—the latter inher-
iting t h e divisions in sixteenth-century Western Christianity and t h e schism
between East and West of 1054. For t h e sake of mission, t h e church's sacra-
mental integrity, and biblical fidelity, major steps have b e e n taken in t h e past
century toward healing these w o u n d s in Christ's body.
In this essay, I reflect o n t h e renewal of U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t o r d a i n e d
ministry in light of this mission to restore Christian u n i t y o n behalf of
G o d ' s mission, t h r o u g h t h e c h u r c h in t h e world. "Ecumenical renewal is
i n d e e d a pivotal aspect of c o m p r e h e n s i v e ecclesial renewal, b u t there is
1
m u c h m o r e to ecclesial renewal t h a n resolving t h e p r o b l e m of disunity."
All Christians face t h e q u e s t i o n of reconciling o u r differences in a
penitential spirit before t h e G o d w h o calls us to u n i t y in his Son, as t h e
World M e t h o d i s t C o u n c i l - A n g l i c a n dialogue a d m o n i s h e s us:

None of our churches, viewed from the human perspective, can claim to have
been fully obedient to the call of Christ: no ministry has perfectly pointed the
church to the faithfulness of Christ; yet both our churches recognize the pres-
ence of the crucified and risen One in our midst, and the guiding and healing
2
hand of the Holy Spirit.

Ecumenical Developments
E m e r g e n c e of M e t h o d i s t M i n i s t r y , i n E c u m e n i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e
J o h n Wesley m a d e t h e decision to provide s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s for t h e colonial
churches because of his reading of t h e N e w Testament that presbyter a n d
bishop were n o t clearly distinguishable offices—an interpretation that is
ecumenically c o m m o n today. However, because of that separation, his minis-
ters and their successors today have to b e ordained w h e n t h e y b e c o m e
ministers in Orthodox, Anglican, or R o m a n Catholic churches.
These churches recognize t h e ministry of t h e ordained presbyter, bishop,
a n d deacon as symbolizing c o m m u n i o n in time a n d space w i t h t h e apostles
(1) by t h e sign of laying o n of h a n d s a n d prayers by t h o s e authorized by t h e
church to ordain (retained by Methodists); and (2) by bishops w h o t h e m -
selves were ordained by bishops recognized by t h e church as standing in
succession to t h e apostles (not retained in t h e theology of Methodism).
The t h e o l o g y of t h e p r i e s t h o o d of t h e w h o l e p e o p l e of God—the
ministry of all t h e baptized—does n o t divide o u r churches. We hold
ourselves a c c o u n t a b l e t o this c o m m o n faith in different ways in t h e disci-
plines of o u r separate churches.
 All of o u r churches recognize t h a t t h e ministry is exercised in
personal, c o m m u n a l , a n d collegial ways. M e t h o d i s t s u s e t h e language of
connection a n d Catholics t h e language of hierarchical communion to s p e a k of
3
this collegiality w i t h i n c o m m u n i o n (koinonia). In spite of differences of
language a n d structure, t h e biblical roots a n d missional t h r u s t of this
ministerial i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e in Christ c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as a c o m m o n
heritage. While M e t h o d i s t s d o n o t s p e a k of o r d i n a t i o n o r t h e o r d a i n e d
ministry as a "sacrament," t h o s e c h u r c h e s w h o d o u s e t h a t language can
recognize in United M e t h o d i s t d e b a t e s t h e faith t h a t t h e s e designations
4
affirm. Certainly M e t h o d i s t s u n d e r s t a n d o r d i n a t i o n as a "means of grace."
Within this c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e c h u r c h a n d its calling, t h e
differences b e c o m e i m p o r t a n t if we are t o arrive at t h a t full, visible u n i t y of
t h e c h u r c h to which Catholics, M e t h o d i s t s , a n d t h e m e m b e r c h u r c h e s of
t h e World Council of C h u r c h e s are c o m m i t t e d . A m o n g m a n y Catholics,
a n d I s u s p e c t a m o n g M e t h o d i s t s as well, t h e goal of visible u n i t y is n o t
s e e n by all as a central call of t h e gospel; t h e c o m m o n faith t h a t w e s h a r e
in ministry is n o t widely k n o w n ; a n d t h e o u t s t a n d i n g p r o b l e m s a n d t h e
urgency of solving t h e m are n o t appreciated.
Early M e t h o d i s t ministry in t h e colonies a n d e m e r g i n g states of t h e
U n i o n was itinerate, evangelistic, a n d informed by sufficient e d u c a t i o n to
bring an u n c h u r c h e d frontier into w h a t w o u l d by t h e early t w e n t i e t h
c e n t u r y b e c o m e t h e largest Protestant church in t h e i nation. O r d i n a t i o n s
a n d succession in ministry w e r e presbyterial rather t h a n episcopal.
O n American soil, Wesley's s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s t o o k o n t h e title of bishop,
t h o u g h with a clear c o m m i t m e n t to avoid b e c o m i n g t h e residential "lord"
5
bishops of t h e C h u r c h of England or of t h e C o n t i n e n t a l Empire. In fact,
t h e M e t h o d i s t bishops b e c a m e itinerating general s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , empow-
ering t h e untiring circuit riders w h o carried t h e task of spreading biblical
holiness across t h e land.
These bishops r e s o n a t e w i t h t h e history of religious c o m m u n i t i e s :
m o n a s t e r i e s bringing literacy, civilization, a n d law t o b a r b a r i a n Europe;
Celtic monk-bishops bringing t h e gospel to t h e G e r m a n i c p e o p l e s of t h e
C o n t i n e n t ; and p i o n e e r i n g foundations in outlying Scandinavia, Scotland,
6
a n d t h e Slavic h i n t e r l a n d s . In time, t h e s e bishops b e c a m e settled servants
of t h e great A m e r i c a n organization t h a t is T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church,
s o m e t i m e s carrying great influence for t h e church's mission in this n e w
democratic context.
 It is n o s u r p r i s e to t h e church historian to find t h a t t h e only c h u r c h to
have an office building a m o n g t h e m o n u m e n t s of p o w e r in t h e A m e r i c a n
capitol belongs to this great d e n o m i n a t i o n . W h e n O r t h o d o x , Catholic,
Protestant, a n d Episcopal leaders g a t h e r t o g e t h e r to face t h e m e m b e r s of
t h e C o n g r e s s a n d t h e Senate in c o m m o n witness for t h e gospel, it is n o
surprise t h a t t h e y are g u e s t s of T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h as t h e y
p r e p a r e t o speak t h e t r u t h in t h e halls of power. T h e Episcopal Cathedral
m a y carry t h e n i c k n a m e "national" a n d h o s t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t a n d
ecumenical liturgies of t h e nation's capitol, b u t it is still t h e M e t h o d i s t s
w h o host international a n d national ministers of social witness.
With a residential, presidential episcopate, a presbyterate with a m o d e s t
range of itinerancy, and an established mission a n d ministry, reflection o n t h e
7
nature of t h e church a n d its connectional system, t h e ordering of ministry,
8
and the theology of ordination has b e c o m e a n ever-more urgent priority.
While M e t h o d i s t s d o n o t perceive their c h u r c h or their ordained
ministry to b e a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e bishops, presbyters, a n d d e a c o n s of
t h e universal church, this is n o t t h e evaluation of t h e majority of Christians
in t h e e c u m e n i c a l m o v e m e n t . Catholic, O r t h o d o x , a n d Anglican c h u r c h e s
are n o t likely, w i t h their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e faith of t h e c h u r c h t h r o u g h
t h e ages, to a d o p t t h e M e t h o d i s t t h e o l o g y of ordination, a n y m o r e t h a n
M e t h o d i s t s are likely t o join any o n e of t h e s e traditions in o r d e r to b r i n g
healing to Christ's body. If division exists a n d theologies of unity differ, is it
n o t a c o m m o n challenge, a p r o b l e m t o b e resolved together? Unity in
o r d a i n e d ministry, a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y at t h e Lord's Table, will b e achieved
t h r o u g h e c u m e n i c a l dialogue, u n d e r t h e i m p e t u s of t h e H o l y Spirit, in
service t o t h a t u n i t y for w h i c h Christ prayed.
The s t u d y of o r d a i n e d ministry t h a t t h e 2004 G e n e r a l Conference
referred to t h e G e n e r a l Board of H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n a n d Ministry m a y prove
t o b e as ecumenically productive a n d illuminating as t h e text of This Holy
9
Mystery, a p p r o v e d at t h e s a m e G e n e r a l Conference.

Reformation Perspectives in Ecumenical Conversation

T h e c o m m u n i o n of o r d a i n e d ministry as n e c e s s a r y for t h e full c o m m u n i o n
of t h e c h u r c h was p r e s u m e d at t h e t i m e of t h e Reformation, t h o u g h t h e r e
was n o uniform, focused t h e o l o g y of ministry, episcopacy, a n d presbyterial
order. T h e d i a c o n a t e r e m a i n e d a transitional order, m u c h as it was in
United M e t h o d i s m before 1996.
 T h e question of w h e t h e r t h e fullness of ordained ministry resided in
t h e presbyter or in t h e bishops was an o p e n q u e s t i o n in t h e sixteenth
century. The Lutheran confessions gave a normative character t o t h e
10
bishops, as long as t h e political prince-bishop was rejected. W h e n bishops
w e r e n o t available for ordinations in Germany, o n t h e basis of a theological
position rooted in St. J e r o m e (340-420), M e l a n c h t o n (1497-1560) recog-
nized t h e authority of presbyters to ordain in t h e a b s e n c e of bishops in t h e
apostolic succession. C o n t i n u i t y with t h e pre-Reformation episcopate was
retained in Sweden.
O t h e r C o n t i n e n t a l reformers followed t h e L u t h e r a n theological option.
S o m e of t h e radical reformers did away w i t h o r d i n a t i o n as a constitutive
e l e m e n t in t h e church a n d d e v e l o p e d a functional view of ministry. This
11
latter view is clearly rejected by U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s .
Theologically, t h e focus o n t h e bishops' role as bearers of t h e symbol of
continuity in space a n d time a n d as t h o s e ordaining deacons, elders, a n d
other bishops in apostolic succession was clarified by t h e Catholic Council
of Trent (1545-1563), w i t h o u t formally rejecting t h e J e r o m e option. Until
t h e s e c o n d Vatican Council (1962-1965), t h e o p t i o n of a presbyter-centered
or bishop-centered d o c t r i n e of ministry was a n o p e n question a m o n g
Catholic scholars, t h o u g h clearly t h e d o m i n a n t position was t h a t bishops
claiming ordination in succession to t h e apostles was t h e faith of t h e church
t h r o u g h t h e ages. Ministers from Reformation c h u r c h e s w e r e incorporated
into t h e Catholic p r i e s t h o o d t h r o u g h ordination, as t h e y c o n t i n u e to be.
O n t h e o t h e r hand, Vatican II affirmed t h e "fullness of t h e p r i e s t h o o d "
t o reside in t h e bishop, w i t h o u t c o n d e m n i n g t h o s e theologians w h o h a d
held a presbyter-centered t h e o l o g y of ministry a n d w i t h o u t explicating a
12
t h e o l o g y of w h a t this "fullness" consists of. This formulation m a k e s t h e
e c u m e n i c a l dialogue m o r e complex a n d s e e m s t o close off s o m e solutions
for t h e recognition a n d reconciliation of ministries. However, it has o p e n e d
u p n e w possibilities for Catholics in decentralization, participation, a n d
inculturation.
After t h e first Vatican Council (1870), there was such a strong n e e d for
t h e Bishop of Rome a m o n g t h e bishops of t h e church a n d for papal central-
ization against the onslaught of t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t a n d N a z i a n d Marxist
nationalisms that m a n y t h o u g h t t h e roles of t h e diocesan/local church and
t h e collegial and c o m m u n a l dimensions of leadership were lost. Vatican II
restored t h e theology of local, diocesan, inculturated churches; collegial struc-
tures of governance; and t h e participation of all t h e baptized in leadership.
In typical M e t h o d i s t fashion, Catholic, evangelical, a n d Reformation
heritages provide resources for t h e mission of its o r d a i n e d ministries a n d
vitality for renewal, while n o t always b e i n g t r a n s p a r e n t t o a c o h e r e n t t h e o -
logical vision to its ecumenical p a r t n e r s . U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t resources are
multivalent, b u t t h e y have provided s o m e clear theological positions o n
13
ministry.
T h e Elizabethan s e t t l e m e n t of 1559 provided decisions a b o u t o r d a i n e d
ministry t h a t bridged t h e Catholic threefold o r d e r a n d t h e sense of conti-
nuity of t h e faith of t h e c h u r c h t h r o u g h t h e ages w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g s
e m e r g i n g from t h e Continental, especially t h e G e n e v a n , Reformation. Like
Vatican II, t h e Elizabethan divines did n o t resolve t h e theology of ministry,
w h i c h was clarified for t h e time by t h e work of Richard H o o k e r (1554-
1600). J o h n Wesley s t a n d s in this tradition as it developed t h r o u g h E d w a r d
Stillingfleet (1635-1699), w i t h an evangelistic s e n s e of liberty that led h i m
to move away from t h e Anglican establishment.
Is a missionary ecclesiology e n o u g h to sustain a Methodist doctrine of
ordained ministry? C a n t h e ecumenical c o m m u n i t y move toward d e e p e r
unity w i t h o u t addressing t h e divisive sacramental issues that are at t h e heart
of t h e doctrine of ordained ministry, eucharistic sharing, and authority and
oversight? I think not.
Indeed, o n e of t h e d e e p e s t e c u m e n i c a l p r o b l e m s is t h e religious illit-
eracy w e e x p e r i e n c e in all of o u r churches. Even s o m e of o u r e l d e r s /
priests d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e t e r m s of t h e s e debates, t h e theological posi-
tions of o n e a n o t h e r ' s churches, a n d t h e theological progress that has b e e n
m a d e toward healing t h e m .
From t h e Catholic point of view, t h e Anglican-Catholic International
Commission has reached t h e most advanced agreement o n ordained ministry
with any Reformation church, while not yet being able to resolve the
14
intractable question of t h e ordination of w o m e n . World Methodist Council
15
dialogues with Catholics have used this theological agreement as a resource.
The key theological conclusions of this Anglican-Catholic dialogue
include o u r c o m m o n faith in ordained ministry; imposition of h a n d s w i t h
t h e invocation of t h e Holy Spirit by bishops; and recognition that authorized
bishops are signs ("sacramental," Catholics would say) of ecclesial continuity
and collegiality as a shared tradition. T h e intention of b o t h churches is to
ordain presbyters as ministers of Word a n d Sacrament, as priests w h o offer
t h e Lord's Supper as a c o m m e m o r a t i o n of t h e once-and-for-all sacrifice of
Christ, n o t repeated b u t m a d e present again in t h e c o m m u n i t y w i t h all of its
graces for us. This c o m m o n faith does n o t attempt to establish s o m e sort of
scientific, tactile continuity in episcopal ordinations.
N o r d o e s t h e A n g l i c a n - C a t h o l i c a g r e e m e n t prejudice dialogues of
b o t h of t h e s e churches w i t h o t h e r s w h o s e t h e o l o g y of ministerial conti-
n u i t y develops from different principles. Anglican c h u r c h e s have g o n e into
full c o m m u n i o n w i t h L u t h e r a n c h u r c h e s a n d o t h e r s (for example, in India)
w h o are willing to share t h e sign a n d s y m b o l of episcopal c o m m u n i o n b u t
o n different theological g r o u n d s .
Dialogues w i t h L u t h e r a n s a n d Catholics provide t h e richest resources
for resolving issues b e t w e e n Reformation churches, w h i c h d o n o t claim
episcopacy in t h e way Anglicans d o b u t have a n e c u m e n i c a l o p e n n e s s t o a
r e a s s e s s m e n t of a c o m m o n theology of ministry a n d t o taking s t e p s toward
16
m u t u a l recognition a n d reconciliation. T h e theological a n d ritual
a p p r o a c h e s in this dialogue have already h e l p e d Anglicans a n d L u t h e r a n s
t o m o v e forward toward full c o m m u n i o n , including in o r d a i n e d ministry.
T h e s e resources m a y b e valuable w h e n United M e t h o d i s t s take u p t h e s e
topics w i t h t h e O r t h o d o x a n d Catholic churches.

United Methodist C o n t r i b u t i o n s at P r e s e n t
In t h e next section, I will review s o m e of t h e dialogues in w h i c h M e t h o d i s t s
have m a d e significant contributions. There I would like to articulate t w o
i m p o r t a n t ways in which United M e t h o d i s t ecclesiology, w i t h its catholic,
evangelical, social spirituality a n d Reformation elements, provide an espe-
cially i m p o r t a n t bridge to pan-Methodist unity initiatives a n d A n g l i c a n -
M e t h o d i s t reconciliation.
Since t h e 1960s, nine Protestant and Anglican churches in t h e United
States have b e e n o n a j o u r n e y of reconciliation t h r o u g h t h e Consultation o n
C h u r c h U n i o n (COCU), which b e c a m e t h e Churches Uniting in Christ
17
(CUIC) in 2 0 0 2 . C U I C d o e s not yet represent t h e full c o m m u n i o n to which
its m e m b e r churches aspire. However, it represents t h e m o s t ambitious
multilateral journey n o w afoot in the United States. T h e churches together
have articulated nine points that are t h e basis for their hoped-for unity.
T h e t w o issues for c o m m o n work that are before t h e s e n i n e c h u r c h e s
right n o w are t h e struggle against racism a n d t h e recognition a n d reconcili-
ation of ministries. I will take u p b o t h of t h e s e points, illustrating h o w
United M e t h o d i s m provides an i m p o r t a n t bridge, even while being chal-
lenged in its o w n t h e o l o g y of o r d a i n e d ministry. I will treat only t h e
18
ministry d i m e n s i o n of t h e m o n u m e n t a l task of o v e r c o m i n g racism.

Racism and Methodist Ministry

The rich history of M e t h o d i s t u n i t y was celebrated m o s t recently (in 1968-
1970) w i t h t h e dissolution of t h e Central C o n f e r e n c e for African-American
M e t h o d i s t s a n d u n i o n b e t w e e n t h e M e t h o d i s t a n d Evangelical U n i t e d
Brethren churches. It is a source in t h e Spirit for drawing s u s t e n a n c e in t h e
long j o u r n e y toward C U I C . T h e initiative in r e p e n t a n c e a n d reconciliation
w i t h t h e historic African-American M e t h o d i s t churches—Christian
M e t h o d i s t (CME), African M e t h o d i s t Episcopal (AME), a n d African
M e t h o d i s t Episcopal Z i o n (AMEZ)—points a way t o t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of
19
t h e s e four c h u r c h e s t o g e t h e r a m o n g C U I C .
T h e U.S. c h u r c h e s t h a t are h o n e s t a b o u t their history have had to c o m e
to t e r m s w i t h t h e racism t h a t is o u r national legacy a n d o u r c o n t i n u i n g
tragedy. F r o m t h e very beginning, t h e African-American c h u r c h e s h a v e
b e e n full participants in t h e Faith a n d O r d e r m o v e m e n t a n d in t h e World
20
Council of C h u r c h e s a n d U.S. N a t i o n a l Council of C h u r c h e s . T h e partici-
p a t i o n of t h e t h r e e M e t h o d i s t c h u r c h e s C U I C h a s b e e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y to
apply t h e t h e o l o g y of creation a n d r e d e m p t i o n t o each e l e m e n t of t h e
theology of t h e church, including its o r d a i n e d ministry.
Theology of o r d a i n e d ministry d o e s n o t separate t h e four M e t h o d i s t
churches. T h e r e are n o sacramental barriers to full c o m m u n i o n . However,
t h e history of t h e s e four c h u r c h e s creates a challenge in t h e exercise of
o r d a i n e d ministry n o w a n d in a u n i t e d church. Work o n p a n - M e t h o d i s t
21
collaboration h a s already faced s o m e challenges.
The racial inequalities a m o n g t h e nine C O C U m e m b e r churches was
addressed in t h e unsuccessful proposals of t h e 1970s by "compensatory
treatment"—strategies that insured t h a t these African-American churches and
racial minorities within t h e other (at that time) seven churches would not b e
excluded from leadership. In a t i m e of fear a n d anti-institutional attitudes,
this and o t h e r structural strategies did n o t lend themselves t o reception by
t h e churches. Any proposal that d o e s n o t call for s o m e sort of deeper conver-
sion in Christ is hardly w o r t h y of t h e n a m e ecumenical renewal.
T h e African-American churches, o n e would suspect, are c o n c e r n e d
w h e t h e r t h e process of m u t u a l recognition, reconciliation, a n d interchange-
ability of ministries will p e r p e t u a t e ecclesiastical apartheid, brain drain,
a n d inequitable resources for professional ministry.
W h a t strategies can M e t h o d i s t s devise and test o u t a n d t h e n offer to
t h e o t h e r five C U I C churches that will e n s u r e t h a t all candidates for ordina-
tion have t h e experience a n d are o p e n to t h e call to serve in a n y congrega-
tion w h e r e ministry is n e e d e d , regardless of its e t h n i c make-up, e c o n o m i c
status, or regional location?
The appointment/itinerancy system of these four churches is exactly
designed to provide for a mission strategy that matches ministers across racial
(and gender) lines, and, if worked out collegiaUy, across jurisdictional a n d
denominational lines. There will b e n o credibility to mutually recognized,
reconciled, and interchangeable ministries unless there is a core of elders and
bishops, and congregations and conferences that they have served, that have
had t h e experience of this c o m m u n a l and collegial itinerancy.
T h e Anglicans b r i n g t h e gift of a sign of apostolic c o n t i n u i t y in t i m e
a n d space, t h e Presbyterians of an o r d a i n e d o r d e r of "lay" oversight (in
their ruling elders), a n d t h e U n i t e d C h u r c h of Christ a n d T h e U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h of years lived trying to m a k e t h e Spirit's gift of unity
work. Is it n o t a p p r o p r i a t e for M e t h o d i s t s to reflect o n h o w to p i o n e e r
e c u m e n i c a l interracial ministry, interchangeability, a n d itinerancy?
T h e s e c o n d issue t h a t o n e m i g h t expect African-American M e t h o d i s t s
to raise is t h e p r o s p e c t of a "brain drain" of t h e best a n d brightest of their
elders, a n d possibly even of bishops, to serve in t h e o t h e r c h u r c h e s w i t h
w h i c h t h e y h o p e to be reconciled.
D u r i n g t h e 1970s, I t a u g h t at M e m p h i s Theological S e m i n a r y (Cum-
berland Presbyterian). As o n e might expect, t h e majority of s t u d e n t s was
United Methodist, a n d t h e n u m b e r of African-American s t u d e n t s was
higher t h a n in any o t h e r s e m i n a r y in t h e city. It was n o t u n c o m m o n to find
m y A M E or A M E Z s t u d e n t s , four or five years after graduation, serving a
U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t congregation. The "Vaticans" for t h e C M E a n d C h u r c h
of G o d in Christ are in M e m p h i s ; so s t u d e n t s from t h e s e c h u r c h e s t e n d e d
to "itinerate" better t h a n their c o u n t e r p a r t s . It was also n o t u n c o m m o n to
find C u m b e r l a n d Presbyterian s t u d e n t s e n d i n g u p in Presbyterian C h u r c h
(USA) congregations as t h e y "moved u p " t h e ecclesiastical ladder.
H o w is this issue to b e addressed? N o n e of t h e C U I C leadership, or any
of its congregations, i n t e n d s full c o m m u n i o n to m e a n a d i m i n i s h m e n t of
t h e t h r e e African-American M e t h o d i s t churches, their leadership pool, a n d
their ministerial competency. Yet, M e t h o d i s t s also k n o w t h a t conflicts
b e t w e e n congregations a n d ministers a n d b e t w e e n personalities in leader-
ship, a n d even a lack of cultural fit, r e c o m m e n d t h a t cabinets and district
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s m a k e adjustments for t h e sake of t h e congregation, t h e
minister, a n d t h e collegial well-being of t h e conferences.
Are t h e r e ways in w h i c h ministers from o t h e r C U I C c h u r c h e s c a n b e
m a d e available, b o t h spiritually a n d in t e r m s of skills, for w o r k in t h e t h r e e
M e t h o d i s t churches? Is t h e r e a way t h a t benefits a n d p r o s p e c t s can b e
equalized a m o n g t h e n i n e c h u r c h e s so as to m a k e "migration" to m o r e
affluent, m o r e educated, a n d m o r e participatory c h u r c h e s less of a factor?
This is a very hard question, t h e stuff of w h i c h serious ecumenical
renewal is m a d e . T h e answer can c o m e only t h r o u g h direct, h o n e s t dialogue
a m o n g t h e leaders of t h e s e nine churches. Certainly, t h e four M e t h o d i s t
churches have a u n i q u e c o n t r i b u t i o n to m a k e t o this conversation.
T h e third issue is ministerial formation a n d t h e e c o n o m i c a n d acad-
emic s u p p o r t for it. Like t h e historically Black colleges, t h e r e would b e a
real threat of b o t h a b r a i n drain a n d a d i m i n u t i o n of institutional resources
if all of t h e slots, scholarships, a n d o t h e r institutional s u p p o r t s of t h e
Princetons, t h e Generals, a n d t h e D u k e s , as well as d e n o m i n a t i o n a l
resources set aside for ministerial formation, w e r e m a d e equally available
t o all applicants for o r d i n a t i o n from all of t h e n i n e m e m b e r churches, O n
t h e o t h e r h a n d , d o e s n o t full c o m m u n i o n in "sacred things" also have impli-
cations for t h e resources t h a t s u p p o r t t h e s e ministries?
At s o m e point, if full c o m m u n i o n is t o have a n y m e a n i n g in t h e pulpits,
congregational lives, a n d structures of t h e churches, t h e n all o r d i n a n d s in
t h e n i n e c h u r c h e s will n e e d to b e a c c o u n t a b l e to t h e discipline, worship,
a n d theology of all t h e p a r t n e r churches. T h e s e e l e m e n t s of renewal call for
n o t only conversion of spirit b u t also concrete educational a n d polity
changes a n d policies for formation.
For example, w h e n a m e m b e r church is discerning h o w to accredit a
seminary of a p a r t n e r church, w h a t account is being taken of C U I C commit-
m e n t s a n d of t h e curriculum that will serve b o t h t h e identity of t h e partic-
ular heritage and its ecumenical c o m m i t m e n t s ? H o w will boards, scholarship
committees, and conference and d e n o m i n a t i o n a l boards of ordained
ministry b e restructured to serve a n d s u p p o r t t h e vision of a united church?
In a u n i t e d church, w e dare n o t lose t h e gifts we b r i n g t o u n i o n o r t h e
rich heritage w i t h w h i c h w e have b e e n e n d o w e d by t h e H o l y Spirit d u r i n g
t h e years of o u r separation. Therefore, special care will n e e d to b e given in
t h e formation of t h o s e serving in t h e ministry of Word, Sacrament, a n d
Order. All ministers will n e e d to k n o w t h e history of t h e church, t h e
history of t h e churches, a n d strategies for e n h a n c i n g t h e identities of all
t h e p a r t n e r s in t h e u n i o n .
In this particular case, h o w will Black s e m i n a r i e s b e s u p p o r t e d a n d
s t r e n g t h e n e d and m e m b e r s of t h e t h r e e African-American c h u r c h e s b e
e n c o u r a g e d to take a d v a n t a g e of e c u m e n i c a l p l a c e m e n t s in e c u m e n i c a l
p a r t n e r s ' seminaries w i t h o u t losing t h e gifts t h e y b r i n g or t h e resources
t h e y n e e d t o minister w i t h i n their o w n heritage?
We c a n b e grateful t h a t CUIC's Ministry Task Force s c h e d u l e d a
m e e t i n g specifically w i t h African-American M e t h o d i s t c h u r c h e s as it
c o n t i n u e s to draft a p r o p o s a l for discussion in 2007 a n d b e y o n d . We m a y
n o t see reconciliation, recognition, a n d interchangeability of ministries in
o u r lifetimes; b u t a d e e p e n e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h o w to heal t h e w o u n d s of
racism in t h e ordained ministries of P r o t e s t a n t c h u r c h e s in t h e U n i t e d
States can b e a gift to all of us following Christ's call to reconciliation.
There are two further a n d u n s p o k e n issues: t h e "democratization" of
t h e church a n d h u m a n sexuality. The M e t h o d i s t system has checks a n d
balances t h a t resonate w i t h forms of A m e r i c a n secular polity. Nevertheless,
this polity has given t h e c h u r c h forms of episcope t h a t e n a b l e m o r e freedom
for mission t h a n even in Episcopal a n d Catholic churches.
T h e role of t h e b i s h o p a n d t h e presiding elder in African-American
M e t h o d i s m has b e e n a n i n s t r u m e n t of liberation in a racist society, Of
course, t h e r e are instances of c o r r u p t i o n in t h e s e systems, as t h e r e are in
t h e m o r e democratic churches. However, I s u s p e c t t h e r e w o u l d b e resis-
t a n c e t o a n y u n i o n t h a t would diminish t h e role of African-American
M e t h o d i s t bishops in their leadership of t h e church. Should t h e r e b e a
special consultation a n d s t u d y of episcope, w i t h special a t t e n t i o n to t h e
n e e d s a n d gifts of African-American culture for leadership?
Finally, let m e draw a t t e n t i o n to t h e differences a b o u t h u m a n sexuality
a m o n g C U I C m e m b e r churches. J o h n T h o m a s , G e n e r a l Minister of t h e
United C h u r c h of Christ, o p i n e s t h a t differences o n h o m o s e x u a l i t y are n o t
c h u r c h dividing. T h e U n i t e d C h u r c h of Christ is t h e only m e m b e r c h u r c h
t h a t ordains h o m o s e x u a l ministers in c o m m i t t e d relationships, t h o u g h a
n u m b e r of o t h e r c h u r c h e s have polities t h a t allow s u c h o r d i n a t i o n s b y
"local option." Even t h o u g h d e n o m i n a t i o n a l polity prohibits Presbyterians,
United Methodists, a n d Episcopalians from approving s u c h ordinations, it
is clear t h a t t h e y are h a p p e n i n g w i t h o u t s a n c t i o n a n d t h a t t h e d e b a t e is
enjoined. In fact, s o m e in t h e C U I C l e a d e r s h i p are pressing o n ecumenical
p a r t n e r s positions t h a t contradict t h e policy of their o w n churches.
If it is perceived that it will b e necessary to change t h e polity of o n e ' s
o w n church o n this m a t t e r as a price of e n t r y into CUIC, t h e n t h e African-
American churches may be reluctant to d o so a n d equally reluctant to make
an issue of it. That is, t h e issues of stable family a n d male integration into
society are s o pressing for t h e African-American c h u r c h e s t h a t any legitima-
tion of alternatives would b e s e e n as u n d e r c u t t i n g this urgent ministry.
In m y experience in staffing t h e application of t h e Universal Fellowship
of t h e Metropolitan C o m m u n i t y C h u r c h e s for m e m b e r s h i p in t h e National
Council of Churches, it was very difficult t o get African-American c h u r c h e s
to engage t h e discussion of homosexuality in t h e church. O n e African-
A m e r i c a n church voted to n o t allow a n y of its m e m b e r s even to participate
22
in t h e d i a l o g u e . While, like Catholics a n d O r t h o d o x , few African-American
churches would e x c o m m u n i c a t e m e m b e r s for s o m e t h i n g so personal as
their sexual behavior, t h e public affirmation of w h a t is perceived to b e an
alternate life-style is often difficult t o discuss.
Certainly, United M e t h o d i s t a n d Anglican experience w i t h their African
churches a n d o t h e r international p a r t n e r s should m a k e it clear that we are
early o n in t h e discussion of this issue. In m y j u d g m e n t , in discussing today
w h a t science has t a u g h t us a b o u t homosexuality, we are roughly w h e r e t h e
churches w e r e in t h e 1920s in discussing evolution. In t h e long run, h o m o -
sexuality may n o t b e a church-dividing issue; b u t if any of o u r p a r t n e r s in
dialogue perceive it to b e so, t h e n it n e e d s to b e taken m o s t seriously.
T h e o t h e r bridge t h a t United M e t h o d i s t s offer in this conversation is
w i t h its m o t h e r church, t h e Anglican C o m m u n i o n . M o r e will b e n o t e d
a b o u t t h e results of t h a t dialogue below, as it is a resource in CUIC.

United Methodist Contributions to the Dialogue

It is n o t n e c e s s a r y to d o c u m e n t , for a n y A m e r i c a n ecumenist, t h e gift of
The United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h a n d its dialogues to t h e global a n d U.S.
23
ecumenical m o v e m e n t . However, like R o m a n Catholics, I occasionally
c o m e u p o n M e t h o d i s t s u n i n f o r m e d by t h e h u n d r e d years of dialogue a n d
t h e forty years of M e t h o d i s t - C a t h o l i c dialogue. S o m e t i m e s this i g n o r a n c e
24
leads to u n f o u n d e d j u d g m e n t s b e i n g m a d e .
 In t h e s e dialogues, United M e t h o d i s m is r e n e w i n g its faith, polity, and
mission to c o n t i n u e t h e process of m u t u a l recognition a n d reconciliation
of ministries and e m p o w e r i n g t h e ministry of t h e w h o l e p e o p l e of G o d for
service to t h e world. I will only briefly d o c u m e n t t h e s e c o n t r i b u t i o n s here.

Baptism, Eucharist, a n d Ministry

T h e historic 1982 World Council of C h u r c h e s ' text o n t h e s a c r a m e n t s a n d
ministry a n d t h e r e s p o n s e s of t h e c h u r c h e s d e m o n s t r a t e o u r progress
t o g e t h e r a n d our future challenges m o r e t h a n a n y o t h e r e c u m e n i c a l devel-
25
o p m e n t of t h e past c e n t u r y . It is only a convergence text. It d o e s n o t
claim full c o n s e n s u s or resolve differences o n ministry a m o n g t h e
churches. In fact, t h e ministry section is t h e least satisfactory of t h e t h r e e
texts, possibly because it is t h e m o s t ambitious. However, it is a n i m p o r t a n t
m a r k e r o n t h e long pilgrimage toward reconciliation.
O n t h e whole, t h e United M e t h o d i s t r e s p o n s e is positive, as is t h e
British M e t h o d i s t response, showing a w i d e range of c o n s e n s u s o n t h e
biblical doctrine of ministry; t h e p r i e s t h o o d of t h e w h o l e p e o p l e of G o d ;
and t h e c o m m u n a l , collegial, and personal character of episcope, However,
G e r m a n United M e t h o d i s m is pessimistic a b o u t t h e d o c u m e n t ' s conclu-
sions o n ministry a n d its methodology, even a b o u t t h e ecumenical partners.
This raises t h e question w h e t h e r t h e Wesleyan Quadrilateral is acceptable
26
a m o n g G e r m a n M e t h o d i s t s . T h e A m e r i c a n United M e t h o d i s t s s e e m m o r e
positive o n t h e prospects for recognition, reconciliation, a n d a c o m m o n
theology of apostolicity, ordination, t h e e m e r g e n c e of t h e threefold ministry,
a n d t h e urgency of this reconciliation for c o m m o n mission in t h e world.
Likewise, all Methodists agree o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e ordination of
w o m e n as central to their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e hierarchy of t r u t h s relative to
t h e church's ministry. Traditionally, Methodists have n o t i m b u e d t h e teaching
office with infallibility; but t h e irreformability of this d e v e l o p m e n t within
2 7
M e t h o d i s m is clearly affirmed and m a d e a criterion for church u n i o n

Anglican Dialogue
As n o t e d above, as heirs of t h e Anglican Reformation, U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s
also bridge b e t w e e n Anglican ecclesiology a n d t h a t of t h e o t h e r Protestant
m e m b e r s of CUIC. T h e bilateral dialogues b e t w e e n t h e World M e t h o d i s t
Council a n d t h e Anglican C o m m u n i o n provide a platform for U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t s and Episcopalians in m o v i n g toward union.
This dialogue affirms a c o m m o n faith in t h e doctrinal heritage of t h e
church; u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of apostolicity; t h e ministry of all t h e baptized; t h e
c o m m u n a l , collegial, a n d p e r s o n a l n a t u r e of oversight; a n d t h e urgency of a
c o m m o n o r d a i n e d ministry t o serve a c o m m o n mission in t h e world. Thus,
t h e dialogue is able to p r o p o s e a theological basis a n d s t e p s toward recog-
nition a n d reconciliation of o r d a i n e d ministries.

This growing convergence means, amongst other things, that old contrasts
between episcopal churches, themselves with different understanding of epis-
copacy, and churches with non-episcopal polities, might be viewed in a
broader perspective, namely, the perspective of common loyalty to the apos-
tolic faith, and obedience to and trust in the faithfulness of God who does not
leave the world without witnesses. (#63)
We see the historic episcopate as one sign of the continuity, unity and
catholicity of the church. We look forward to entering into fuller communion
with one another in faith, mission and sacramental life and to the historic epis-
copate becoming again, for all of us, one element in the way by which the
ordained ministry is transmitted with due order . . . not to call into question the
ordination or apostolicity of any of those who have been ordained as Methodists
28
or Anglican ministers according to the due order of their churches. (#70)

The theological complexity a n d length of this agreed text m a k e it a n

unlikely resource for A m e r i c a n e c u m e n i c a l w o r k a n d t h o s e assemblies
w i t h responsibility for m a k i n g t h e s e theological decisions o n behalf of t h e
churches. However, its reception—or nonreception—will require Anglican
a n d M e t h o d i s t scholars to provide b o t h analysis a n d p o p u l a r interpreta-
tions s o t h a t t h e t r u t h s of t h e s e formulations c a n b e tested against t h e
faith of t h e w h o l e p e o p l e of G o d a n d t h e biblical m a n d a t e for t h e u n i t y of
t h e church. Setbacks in s o m e situations (like England) should n o t b e t a k e n
as definitive until scholars from a r o u n d t h e c o m m u n i o n s have tested t h e
c o n s e n s u s . If this a g r e e m e n t is n o t a d e q u a t e t o t r a n s c e n d t h e sinful divi-
sions a m o n g Christians, m u s t it n o t b e d e m o n s t r a t e d w h y this is t h e case?

Lutheran Dialogue
United Methodists in E u r o p e are in full c o m m u n i o n w i t h t h e Lutheran
churches of G e r m a n y a n d Scandinavia. O r d a i n e d ministry w a s n o t a church-
dividing issue. Full c o m m u n i o n agreements a m o n g Anglicans and Lutherans
have b e e n resources for t h e World M e t h o d i s t Council dialogue n o t e d above
 29
in resolving questions of t h e historic episcopate a n d apostolicity.
For t h e sake of c o m p l e t e n e s s , it is n e c e s s a r y to n o t e t h a t t h e r e is a
U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t - L u t h e r a n a g r e e m e n t in this c o u n t r y o n episcopacy a n d
0
episcopi? With a d e q u a t e a g r e e m e n t o n q u e s t i o n s of t h e Eucharist, a full
c o m m u n i o n a g r e e m e n t similar to t h a t in E u r o p e m a y b e c o m e possible in
t h e United States. T h e World M e t h o d i s t Council a n d t h e L u t h e r a n World
31
Federation have also p r o d u c e d a c o m m o n s t a t e m e n t .

R o m a n Catholic Dialogue
Unlike L u t h e r a n - C a t h o l i c and A n g l i c a n - C a t h o l i c dialogues, t h e World
M e t h o d i s t Council dialogue has n o t p r o p o s e d to t h e c h u r c h e s solutions
t h a t w o u l d reconcile M e t h o d i s t a n d Catholic o r d a i n e d ministries. However,
t h e extensive work o n tradition, apostolicity, t h e church, a n d a u t h o r i t y lays
t h e g r o u n d w o r k that p r o m i s e s to create a basis for s u c h dialogue in t h e
32
future. United States dialogue a g r e e m e n t s o n t h e Eucharist a n d t h e
p r e s e n t dialogue o n t h e G l o b a l / U n i v e r s a l a n d Local N a t u r e of t h e C h u r c h
begin to b r i n g church-dividing issues to t h e fore. N e i t h e r are t h e s e
dialogues sufficiently k n o w n a m o n g o u r p e o p l e n o r are t h e t e r m s of
33
d e b a t e clear to all of o u r ministers a n d p r i e s t s . In spite of o u r rich agree-
m e n t in spirituality, mission, a n d theology, w e m a y have a long road to go.

Conclusion
T h e w o r k of T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h o n its u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d prac-
tice of ministry is an i m p o r t a n t f o u n d a t i o n for its e n t r y into dialogue w i t h
c h u r c h e s from which it is divided. T h e rich history of e c u m e n i c a l engage-
m e n t is an invaluable resource for its o w n renewal a n d c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e
unity, mission, and w i t n e s s of o t h e r churches.
All of o u r churches are in transition and most experience tension. As we
move toward reconciliation, we n e e d o n e a n o t h e r a n d o u r ministry to o n e
another. All Christians can b e grateful for t h e role of Methodists a n d their
theologians in t h e church and in t h e ecumenical movement.

Jeffrey Gros is Associate Director for the Secretariat of Ecumenical and

Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in
Washington, D . G
Endnotes
1. William Abraham, "Ecumenism and t h e Rocky Road to Renewal," in The
Ecumenical Future, ed. by C. B r a a t e n a n d R. J e n s o n ( G r a n d R a p i d s , MI:
Eerdmans, 2004), 187.
2. "Sharing t h e Apostolic C o m m u n i o n , " in Growth in Agreement II, ed. by
William Rusch, Harding Meyer, and Jeffrey Gros (Geneva: World Council of
Churches, 2000), 74; hereafter, GAII.
n
3. Bruce Robbins and David Carter, "Connexionalism and Koinonia, One in
Christ 3 4 / 4 (1998): 320-36.
4. For a United Methodist use of "sacramental" language for ordained ministry,
see Russell E. Richey and Thomas E. Frank, Episcopacy in the Methodist Tradition
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 16, 74.125,127
5. James E. Kirby, The Episcopacy in American Methodism (Nashville; Abingdon,
2000). See also Richey and Frank, Episcopacy in the Methodist Tradition. Pope
John Paul has invited a similar "thought experiment" in his 1995 encyclical
a s k i n g e c u m e n i c a l h e l p in r e f o r m i n g his e p i s c o p a c y t o b e t t e r s e r v e t h e
ecumenical movement.
6. See Richey and Frank, Episcopacy in the Methodist Tradition, 91.
7. Connectionalism: Ecclesiology Mission and Identity, ed. by Russell E. Richey,
Dennis M. Campbell, and William B. Lawrence (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997).
8. See William Lawrence, "Has Our Theology of Ordained Ministry Changed?"
in Questions for the Twenty-First-Century Church, ed. by Russell E. Richey, William
B. Lawrence, and Dennis M. Campbell (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 151-67.
9. For the full text, see http://www.gbod.org/worship/hcfinal-w.pdf.
10. "Augsburg Confession," in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. by R o b e r t Kolb a n d T i m o t h y J. W e n g e r t
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). Cf. the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue "The Church
as Koinonia of Salvation: Its S t r u c t u r e s a n d Ministries," in The Church as
Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries, ed. by Randall Lee and Jeffrey
Gros (Washington/Chicago: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops/Augsburg-
Fortress, 2004). Found online at http://www.usccb.org/seia/koinonia.htm.
11. "United Methodist Church," in Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses
to Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, ed. by Max Thurian (Geneva: World Council
of Churches, 1986), 5:196.
12. "The D e c r e e o n t h e C h u r c h , n o s . 20, 21, Vatican II," found o n l i n e at
h t t p : / / w w w . v a t i c a n . v a / a r c h i v e / h i s t c o u n c i l s / i i Vatican c o u n c i l / d o c u -
m e n t s / v a t - i i const 19641121 l u m c n - g e n t i u m en.html. See also Susan K.
Wood, Sacramental Orders (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000).
13. Lawrence, "Has Our Theology of Ordained Ministry Changed?" 156ff.
14. Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical
Conversations on a World Level, ed. by Lukas Vischer and Harding Meyer (New
York: Paulist Press, 1984), 61-130; hereafter, GA I. See also Christopher Hill and
Edward Yarnold, S.J., Anglicans and Roman Catholics: The Search for Unity, The
ARCIC Documents and their Reception (London: SPCK/CTS), 1994.
15. See "Toward a Statement O n the Church," in GA II, 583-96, found online at
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/m-rc/doc/e m-rc nairobi.html.
16. GA I, 248-75; GA II, 443-84. See http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-
r c / d o c / e 1-rc ministry.html and http://www.usccb.org/seia/koinonia.htm.
17. "Consultation on C h u r c h Union," in Growing Consensus, ed, by Joseph
Burgess and Jeffrey Gros (New York: Paulist Press, 1995), 9-96; hereafter, G C 7.
See also "Churches Uniting in Christ," in Growing Consensus II, ed. by Jeffrey
Gros and Lydia Veliko (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
2004), found online at http://www.eden.edu/cuic/cuic.htm.
18. Other steps that might be taken by Methodists are suggested by Richey and
Frank, Episcopacy in the Methodist Tradition, 140.
19. See http://www.gccuic-umc.org/web/actsofrepentance.htm.
20. See Jeffrey Gros, "Eradicating Racism: A Central Agenda for the Faith and
O r d e r M o v e m e n t , " The Ecumenical Review 4 7 / 1 (January 1995); D a v i d T.
Shannon and Gayraud Wilmore, ed., Black Witness to the Apostolic Faith (Grand
Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1988); T h o m a s F. Best, ed., "An African A m e r i c a n
Perspective on the Unity of the Church: Harlem Consultation," Midstream 2 8 / 4
(October, 1989), passim.
21. Bruce W. Robbins, A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of The United
Methodist Church in a Global Setting (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 34, 89.
22. Jeffrey Gros, "The Church, the Churches and the Metropolitan Church," The
Ecumenical Review 3 6 / 1 (January 1984): 71-81.
23. Geoffrey Wainwright, Methodists in Dialogue (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995).
24. Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy: Signs of New Life in Christianity
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco), 2003.
25. In GA I, 465-503; online at http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/bem 1 .html.
Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the "Baptism, Eucharist and
Ministry" Text, ed. by Max Thurian, 6 vols. (Geneva, Switzerland: World Council
of Churches, 1986-88). See also Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry: Report 1982-
1990 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Council of Churches, 1990).
26. "Evangelical-Methodist Church: Central Conference[s] in the G e r m a n
Democratic Republic; the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin," in
Thurian, Churches Respond to BEM, 4:168,172,174,181,182.
27. "United Methodist Church," in ibid., 5:195,197.
28. "Sharing in the Apostolic Communion," in GA II, 55-76.
29. Ibid., 172-73.
30. "Episcopacy: A L u t h e r a n - U n i t e d Methodist C o m m o n Statement to t h e
Church," in GC 1,118-28.
31. "The Church: Community of Grace," in GA IL 200-18.
32. "The Apostolic Tradition," in GA II, 597-618; "Toward a Statement on the
Church," in GA II, 533-96.
3 3 . "The W o r d of Life," GA II, 618-46; " S p e a k i n g t h e T r u t h in Love,"
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/m-rc/doc/e m-rc brighton.html.
 Outside the Theme

1
The Grace of Letting Go:
Theological Reflections on Forgiveness
from a Space In-Between

MICHAEL NAUSNER

What I dream of, what I try to think as the "purity" of a forgiveness worthy of its
name, would be a forgiveness without power: unconditional but without sovereignty?
Jacques Derrida

Everyday Forgiveness

F orgiveness is like t h e oxygen we breathe. It literally makes possible

c o m m u n a l life in general and c o m m u n i c a t i o n in particular. To b e inca-
pable of forgiveness is to walk slowly toward suffocation. H u m a n beings
d e p e n d o n forgiveness, as individuals and as communities. As a c o n s e q u e n c e
of t h e c o m m a n d m e n t of love, it is at t h e core of o u r Christian vocation.
To consider t h e m a n y contexts to which t h e c o n c e p t of forgiveness
applies is astonishing. Would everyday life w i t h family, friends, a n d
colleagues b e possible if forgiveness were n o t h a p p e n i n g again a n d again,
removing obstacles to c o m m u n a l living? Given h o w m a n y times a day we
casually utter phrases like "Excuse me," "I a m sorry," a n d "Please forgive me,"
t h e necessity of forgiveness for life within c o m m u n i t i e s s e e m s to b e deeply
e n g r a i n e d in us. Moreover, over t h e past several decades, an awareness has
b e e n growing that forgiveness might b e applicable also to t h e relation
between communities, b e t w e e n nations, a n d even b e t w e e n cultures. In his
b o o k When the Powers Fall, Walter Wink observes that s u d d e n l y m a n y people
3
in t h e public arena s e e m to b e apologizing. While writing this article, t h e
m e d i a were reporting in s o m e detail t h e shocking abuses in Iraqi prisons by
A m e r i c a n soldiers and the attempts of President Bush a n d Defense
Secretary D o n a l d Rumsfeld to apologize for t h e s e abuses. W h e t h e r o r n o t
these apologies h a d anything to d o w i t h asking forgiveness is debatable.
These attempts at least a p p e a r to p o i n t to an awareness at t h e highest levels
of power that h u m a n coexistence d e p e n d s o n forgiveness. But as is t h e case
w i t h so m a n y almost o m n i p r e s e n t phrases a n d concepts, w e risk losing
sight of t h e real challenge t h e y hold.

Forgiveness Impossible?
In p o n d e r i n g w h e r e I have m o s t recently w i t n e s s e d a n e v e n t of forgiveness,
I realize t h a t I have to think for a long time. Phrases related to forgiveness
are all a r o u n d m e . But w h e n last have I witnessed forgiveness as transforma-
tion of c o m m u n a l life? While at t h e core of Christian vocation, forgiveness
often is a n i n s u r m o u n t a b l e challenge for everyday living. M a y b e this is
because, as t h e French philosopher Jacques D e r r i d a p u t s it, forgiveness is
t r u e forgiveness only if it involves t h e unforgivable: "Forgiveness m u s t
4
a n n o u n c e itself as impossibility itself." This rather categorical philosophical
s t a t e m e n t will resonate w i t h a n y o n e w h o has tried seriously to apply the
issue of forgiveness to situations of unfathomable violence a n d destruction.
Torture, war crimes, a n d genocide certainly b e l o n g to this category. H o w
c a n such severe assaults o n h u m a n life ever b e forgiven? W h o can forgive
s u c h brutal tearing apart of c o m m u n a l b o n d s ? It s e e m s to m e that recog-
nizing t h e impossibility of forgiveness in t h e s e situations is to take t h e m
w i t h u t m o s t seriousness a n d to protect forgiveness from b e c o m i n g a c h e a p
way of downplaying injustice and violence.
This s e r i o u s n e s s a b o u t t h e impossibility of forgiveness c o m e s to t h e
fore in o n e of Charles Wesley's h y m n s , w h e n h e writes,

Forgive my foes? It cannot be: My foes with cordial love embrace?

Fast bound in sin and misery, unsaved, unchanged by hallowing grace,
5
Throughout my fallen soul I feel with man this is impossible.

While Wesley's reflections h e r e s e e m t o refer to psychological block-

ages in t h e relation b e t w e e n individuals, D e r r i d a ' s r e m a r k s c a m e after a
visit to S o u t h Africa. H e r e t h e "impossibility" s e e m s t o refer to t h e process
of c o m m u n a l forgiveness b e t w e e n p e r p e t r a t o r s a n d victims of t h e apartheid
regime. But individual a n d c o m m u n a l forgiveness are interrelated a n d
c a n n o t b e neatly separated. Guilt c a n n o t b e confined to t h e inner life of
t h e individual, b e c a u s e h e or she is always p a r t of a w i d e r c o m m u n i t y .
W h e t h e r it is a b o u t forgiveness b e t w e e n individuals o r b e t w e e n nations,
t h e Christian c o m m u n i t y has a vocation to h e l p p e o p l e u n d e r s t a n d a n d
i m p l e m e n t t h e process of forgiveness in different s p h e r e s of life. Christian
faith as a fruit of divine forgiveness is well p o s i t i o n e d for s u c h a task.
In w h a t follows, I engage seriously t h e "impossibility" of forgiveness
6
a n d t h e difficulties t h a t m a r its d e s c r i p t i o n , arguing t h a t forgiveness is
impossible in t h e s e n s e t h a t it never can b e given according to strict regula-
tions of exchange. Like love, forgiveness is a gracious flow t h a t surprises us,
rather t h a n a d u t y t h a t could b e d e m a n d e d . It b e c o m e s possible if all
a t t e m p t s to control it are let go^ To p u t it paradoxically, forgiveness c a n
occur only if we allow ourselves to feel t h e full weight of its impossibility.
Walter Wink p u t s it this way: "We are enabled t o forgive, finally, b e c a u s e we
7
cannot forgive, and t h r o w ourselves o n G o d ' s mercy."
I w a n t to concentrate o n t h r e e aspects of forgiveness t h a t h o n o r its
"impossibility" b u t also r e n d e r it paradoxical. T h e first aspect h a s t o d o w i t h
t h e position of t h e o n e granting forgiveness, i.e., t h e where of forgiveness. I
argue that t h e impossibility of forgiveness a n d its control have t o d o with
each person's participation in multiple c o m m u n i t i e s a n d traditions. T h o s e
w h o forgive and t h o s e w h o receive forgiveness are in a s e n s e always caught
in-between, since n o o n e ever occupies a stable foundation from w h i c h t o
settle things o n c e a n d for all. The s e c o n d aspect is forgiveness as a letting go
rather t h a n as & gift, i.e., t h e how of forgiveness. Given o u r multilayered
participation in different c o m m u n i t i e s a n d traditions, w e can never define
t h e precise character of t h e forgiveness n e e d e d . T h e o n e w h o forgives is n o t
really giving s o m e t h i n g she or h e subsequently d o e s n o t o w n anymore. A n
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of forgiveness as letting go is therefore m o r e a d e q u a t e .
Finally, I highlight t h e grace character of forgiveness, i.e., t h e what of forgive-
ness. W h e n e v e r forgiveness b e c o m e s a reality, it is n o t t h e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e
o n e w h o forgives b u t ultimately an occurrence of divine grace. Forgiveness
happens b o t h to t h e o n e w h o forgives a n d to t h e o n e w h o receives forgive-
ness. From a h u m a n perspective, t h e grace of forgiveness is "impossible."

The Where of Forgiveness: Forgiveness from In-between

Influenced by liberation theologians, feminists, and m o s t recently by post-
colonial theorists, I have b e c o m e acutely aware of t h e fact that t h e position
from which we think and act a n d project o u r lives is an i m p o r t a n t aspect of
o u r theological analysis. It inevitably colors o u r theology, w h e t h e r we are
pastors, scholars, or live o u t our Christian vocation in o t h e r ways. A n aware-
ness of o u r place is essential for any viable theologizing. From "where" are
w e developing o u r theology? W h e r e are we as we grant or receive forgive-
ness? Postcolonial t h e o r y has brought to o u r attention with n e w urgency and
sharpness of analysis that in our multicultural and globalized world o u r posi-
tions are multilayered a n d ambiguous, I b o r r o w t h e n o t i o n of interstitial
subjectivity from postcolonial theorists to make t h e point that there never can
b e a solid and u n a m b i g u o u s foundation from which to grant forgiveness.
O u r identities emerge continuously "in between" different influences—in t h e
"insterstices," so to speak. We are caught in b e t w e e n a n d therefore we neces-
sarily have t o forgive from a place in-between, n o t owning a solid position.
At n o p o i n t in time d o w e possess a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a n d exact u n d e r -
s t a n d i n g of either t h e make-up of o u r identities or t h e multitude of events
a n d activities in w h i c h w e participate. We c o n t i n u o u s l y are s h a p e d "in-
b e t w e e n " different social, cultural, a n d religious force-fields, particularly in
o u r increasingly multicultural world. Therefore, postcolonial theorist H o m i
K. Bhabha rightly criticizes t h e o r i e s of selfhood that are c o n s t r u e d t o o
narrowly. H e sees it as "politically c r u c i a l . . . to think b e y o n d narratives of
originary a n d initial subjectivities." It is t h e "In-between* spaces [that]
provide t h e terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood." H u m a n beings,
8
thus, n e e d to b e u n d e r s t o o d as "interstitial subjectivities." This m e a n s t h a t
w e as subjects-in-between have n o s h a r p b o u n d a r i e s from within w h i c h we
could l a u n c h o u r activities or d e t e r m i n e t h e f o u n d a t i o n for forgiveness.
O n e of t h e theological c o n s e q u e n c e s of this t h e o r y of t h e interstitial
subject is t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n of guilt exceeds t h e p r o b l e m of individual
culpability. I share t h e conviction of t h o s e scholars w h o d o n o t believe in
t h e possibility of a clear-cut d e t e r m i n a t i o n of guilt once-and-for-all.
Miroslav Volf is aware of this complication w h e n h e writes t h a t "the closer
9
we g e t . . . t h e m o r e t h e line b e t w e e n t h e guilty a n d t h e i n n o c e n t blurs."
Marjorie Suchocki p u t s it in m o r e theological language: "To break t h e
world cleanly into victims a n d violators ignores t h e d e p t h s of each p e r s o n ' s
participation in cultural sin Forgiveness d o e s n o t divide t h e world into
10
t h e guilty a n d t h e i n n o c e n t . "
Suchocki's r e n d e r i n g of original sin as "participation in cultural sin"
r e s o n a t e s w i t h a postcolonial reading of subjectivity, according to w h i c h
subjects are n e i t h e r squarely situated w i t h i n only o n e cultural g r o u p n o r
isolated individuals w i t h clear b o u n d a r i e s . To morally assess a subject,
therefore, o n e n e e d s to take into a c c o u n t t h a t it is multiply situated, i.e.,
participating in different cultural g r o u p s simultaneously. We participate in
a complex matrix of c o n t e m p o r a r y a n d historical relations. As D e r r i d a p u t s
it, "We are all heir, at least, to p e r s o n s o r events marked, in an essential,
11
interior, ineffaceable fashion, by crimes against humanity." Thus, t h e
cultural space in w h i c h forgiveness is to take place is n o t s t r u c t u r e d in a
b i n a r y m a n n e r , w h e r e insiders a n d outsiders or offenders a n d victims are
easily identified. Since h u m a n selves are multiply situated, forgiveness is
b e t t e r u n d e r s t o o d as a c o n t i n u o u s o p e n n e s s to c o m m u n i c a t i v e flow t h a n
as a clearly definable gift we are able t o grant.

The How of Forgiveness: Forgiveness as Letting Go

Strictly speaking, t h e n , forgiveness is n o t a m a t t e r of giving. Thus, I suggest
a reimagining of t h e character of forgiveness, so t h a t it is u n d e r s t o o d less
as a gift giving a n d m o r e as a letting go of t h e stifling effects of e x p e r i e n c e d
injustice a n d r e s e n t m e n t . T h e m e t a p h o r i c a l e m p h a s i s h e r e is n o t o n t h e
closing d o w n of an a c c o u n t b u t o n t h e r e o p e n i n g of a c o m m u n i c a t i v e
12
flow. Clogs in t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e c h a n n e l s are "let go" a n d constructive
relations t o t h e o p p o n e n t b e c o m e possible again.
J o h n Milbank points o u t that the Greek (and Latin) notion of forgiveness
did n o t view it as gift "Only in a later era at o n c e Christian and feudal d o t h e
13
vernacular tongues suggest that forgiveness is a positive offering." While
s o m e European languages, such as G e r m a n , English, French, Spanish, a n d
Italian, etymologically relate forgiveness to a gift giving, others, such as t h e
Scandinavian languages, retain t h e Greek character of forgiveness as tetting-go
(aphiemi); for example, Swedish: forldtelse. In addition, forgiveness as letting go
resonates with t h e general use of the term aphiemi in t h e Gospels. In m o s t
cases (e.g., Matt. 3:15,5:24,5:40, 8:22; Mark 10:28; Luke 13:8; J o h n 12:7), it has
to d o with a very practical letting-go, a letting-be or leaving of material things
or circumstances. Only once does Jesus directly relate aphiemi to t h e t e r m gift
(down): "So w h e n you are offering your gift at t h e altar, if you r e m e m b e r that
your brother or sister has something against you, leave (aphiemi) your gift
(doron) there before t h e altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or
sister, and t h e n c o m e and offer your gift" (Matt. 5:23-24). Here, being recon-
ciled starts with asking forgiveness. Gift giving (sacrifice) is separated from the
act of forgiveness.
 This passage is significant, since it highlights t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n
h u m a n a n d divine forgiveness, o n t h e o n e h a n d (forgiveness is always
divine grace), a n d t h e i m p o r t a n t role of h u m a n initiative, o n t h e other. In
order to b e able to "take in" divine forgiveness (symbolized here by t h e act
of sacrifice), w e n e e d to give o u r n e i g h b o r s t h e c h a n c e to let go of their
g r u d g e s against us. T h e r e q u e s t for forgiveness in t h e Lord's Prayer follows
t h e s a m e logic. "And forgive us o u r debts, as w e also have forgiven o u r
debtors" (Matt. 6:12). Again, h u m a n forgiveness is a p r e c o n d i t i o n for t h e
ability to take in divine forgiveness. This i n s t a n c e differs from t h e p r e v i o u s
passage in t h a t here it is a b o u t our letting g o of g r u d g e s against our neigh-
bors, w h i c h o p e n s t h e way toward a c c e p t a n c e of divine forgiveness.
These t w o passages are an i m p o r t a n t corrective to t h e c u s t o m a r y logic
t h a t Christians forgive because G o d has forgiven t h e m . T h e s e passages
suggest t h a t t h e r e is n o t h i n g a u t o m a t i c a b o u t t h e logic of forgiveness.
Divine forgiveness d o e s n o t release us from t h e daily struggle for m u t u a l
forgiveness. In a sense, forgiveness is inaccessible to t h e unforgiving heart.
A n o t h e r way of expressing t h e p a r a d o x t h a t divine forgiveness is b o t h
p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y is to say t h a t divine forgiveness expresses itself in
h u m a n forgiveness, a n d vice versa. If we let go of t h e sins t h a t o t h e r s have
c o m m i t t e d against us, G o d confirms this forgiveness a n d lets go as well
(John 20:23). Milbank, inspired by Soren Kierkegaard, describes t h e
p a r a d o x in w h i c h t h e h u m a n forgiver finds himself: "His forgiving of t h e
o t h e r . . . shows t h a t h e is divinely forgiven, or rather his forgiving of t h e
14
o t h e r is t h e very instance of himself b e i n g divinely forgiven."

Power and Justice

Before I p r o c e e d to t h e what of forgiveness, I w a n t briefly to p o n d e r
t w o major complications t h a t b e l o n g t o any situation in w h i c h forgiveness
is n e e d e d . It s o u n d s so easy to talk a b o u t letting go. But o n c e we take a
closer look w e realize that, as Walter Wink p u t s it, "forgiveness . . . is a m o n g
15
t h e m o s t u n e x p e c t e d a n d impossible acts a h u m a n b e i n g can perform."
T h e t w o complications I have in m i n d are t h e issues of p o w e r a n d justice.
Forgiveness is complicated b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t h a p p e n in a power vacuum;
i.e., it rarely takes place b e t w e e n individuals or g r o u p s t h a t are equal.
Moreover, forgiveness is complicated b e c a u s e it always occurs in a certain
tension w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n of justice.
The p e r s o n or p a r t y u n d e r s t o o d to b e forgiving is in a position of power
over t h e p e r s o n or p a r t y w h o is to receive forgiveness. In o t h e r words, t h e
o n e w h o forgives assumes t h e a u t h o r i t y / p o w e r over t h e o n e to b e forgiven.
For example, in discourse o n t h e global economy, o n e often hears t h e call
for t h e forgiveness of d e b t s of nations in t h e South. Appropriating t h e t e r m
forgiveness in this context is misleading. While t h e rich nations a s s u m e t h e
a u t h o r i t y to grant forgiveness to t h e p o o r nations, t h e r e s e e m s t o b e at least
as m u c h justification for calling o n t h e p o o r nations to forgive t h e rich! T h e
m e c h a n i s m s of global e c o n o m y and t h e e x p a n s i o n of multinational corpora-
tions are n o solid foundation o n which to g r o u n d u n a m b i g u o u s criteria for
forgiveness. W h e n forgiveness is confined t o an ethically questionable
e c o n o m i c system, its character is distorted, because forgiveness g r a n t e d
from a position of power risks eclipsing issues of justice. Individuals a n d
institutions n e e d to c o m m u n i c a t e continuously w i t h o n e a n o t h e r to deter-
m i n e w h a t n e e d s to b e forgiven a n d h o w justice can b e served, in order to
assure t h a t forgiveness d o e s n o t simply b e c o m e an additional strategy to
enforce unjust power systems.

But w h a t if t h e powerful ask for forgiveness? Something like this seems

to have h a p p e n e d w h e n President Bush apologized to t h e Iraqi victims of t h e
prison abuses. However, far from being a genuine request for forgiveness,
Bush's statement was an attempt to justify t h e actions of t h e powerful. In a
visit to t h e king of Jordan, t h e President stated. "I told t h e m I was sorry for
t h e humiliation suffered by t h e Iraqi prisoners a n d t h e humiliation suffered
by their families. I told t h e m that I was equally s o r r y . . . that people that
would see those pictures didn't u n d e r s t a n d t h e t r u e n a t u r e and h e a r t of
16
America." It seems to m e that Bush's first "I was sorry" is canceled o u t by
t h e emphasis on t h e "true n a t u r e of America." The implicit message appears
to b e this: The abused prisoners ought to forgive, since Americans actually are
good. The issue of forgiveness is misused in order n o t t o c o m p r o m i s e t h e
rule of power. Asking forgiveness in a g e n u i n e way is contingent o n recog-
nizing the full scope of t h e atrocities committed. President Bush failed to do
that from his position of power.
Let m e m e n t i o n o n e m o r e example of t h e relationship b e t w e e n power
a n d forgiveness. In t h e s a m e w e e k t h a t President Bush issued his apology
to t h e Iraqi prisoners, J o s e p h Sebarenzi visited m y university. T h e occasion
1
was t h e t e n t h anniversary of t h e g e n o c i d e in R w a n d a in 1994. ? Sebarenzi
is a Tutsi. H e had lost his p a r e n t s a n d seven siblings d u r i n g t h e genocide.
Afterwards, h e r e t u r n e d from exile a n d b e c a m e s p o k e s m a n of t h e
Parliament in 1997, a position of considerable power. In spite of his unfath-
o m a b l e p e r s o n a l losses, h e p r o m o t e d a process of restorative justice
instead of retributive j u s t i c e - a process that, for him, includes "apology,
forgiveness, a n d compensation." Sebarenzi observes, "I a m a victim of
genocide, b u t w e c a n n o t j u d g e o n e million people—no jail is big e n o u g h .
18
Retributive justice will just lead to a n o t h e r cycle of killing." From a posi-
tion of p o w e r S e b a r e n z i tried t o advocate a m e s s a g e of forgiveness. But,
after receiving d e a t h threats, h e h a d t o flee his c o u n t r y again in 2000. Was
h e d o o m e d t o fail b e c a u s e h e p r o m o t e d a m e s s a g e of forgiveness from a
position of power? Is t h e project of collective forgiveness b o u n d t o suffer
shipwreck b e c a u s e t h e calls for retributive justice are t o o powerful?
In searching for a viable u n d e r s t a n d i n g of forgiveness, we m u s t k e e p in
m i n d t h e issue of power. A t t e n t i o n t o imbalances in p o w e r evokes atten-
tion to t h e q u e s t i o n of justice—which, as t h e e x a m p l e of Sebarenzi shows,
should n o t b e s e p a r a t e d from o r replaced by forgiveness. Sebarenzi fits
Derrida's description of "a victim of t h e worst," w h o can d e m a n d "that
19
justice b e d o n e . . . a n d yet in his h e a r t forgives."
Feminist theologians have c o n t r i b u t e d extensively to t h e discussion
a b o u t forgiveness a n d justice. Pamela Sue A n d e r s o n cautions against t h e
"pernicious notion" of forgiveness according to w h i c h "forgiveness of
massive wrongdoing" is expected from w o m e n a n d marginalized others. By
neglecting t h e q u e s t i o n of justice, such a n o t i o n of "forgiveness" reinforces
20
"the lack or loss of self-respect suffered by o p p r e s s e d p e r s o n s . " In their
autobiographical b o o k Proverbs of Ashes, Rita N a k a s h i m a Brock and Rebecca
A n n Parker exemplify h o w destructive it can b e t o conflate forgiveness with
acceptance of violence a n d injustice. Parker carefully suggests a way forward
for violated people: "By letting go w e have o p e n e d ourselves to s o m e t h i n g
better. Grace c o m e s to us." But she also w a r n s against a theology of t h e
21
cross according to which "violence is justified as sacred."
22
Forgiveness c a n never b e d e m a n d e d . But forgiveness of massive
wrongdoing—even w i t h o u t t h e w r o n g d o e r ' s agreement—can b e an expres-
sion of self-respect, since it m e a n s letting go of stifling r e s e n t m e n t . Such a
23
letting-go w i t h o u t t h e w r o n g d o e r ' s a g r e e m e n t , i.e., w i t h o u t m u t u a l i t y , is
n o t to b e s e e n as a substitute for justice. Forgiveness t h a t m a k e s justice
u n n e c e s s a r y is n o t forgiveness b u t s u b m i s s i o n to unjust conditions.
24
Rather, forgiveness is a parallel process to j u s t i c e . At times, by facili-
tating c o m m u n i c a t i o n , forgiveness m a y even b e t h e first s t e p toward
justice. While I agree w i t h Miroslav Volf t h a t "the v e r y idea of forgiveness
implies t h e affirmation of justice," I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e simple formula
"no justice, n o forgiveness" is helpful. If justice has to b e achieved before
e x p e r i e n c e s of injustice can b e let go, t h e n w e are in a vicious circle.
Elsewhere, Volf recognizes t h a t "strict restorative justice c a n n e v e r b e satis-
25
fied." T h e unatainability of perfect justice certainly d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t
justice s h o u l d n o t b e sought. S o m e t h i n g analogous is valid for forgiveness,
w h i c h in t h e h u m a n realm is never complete. Forgiveness parallels justice
also in t h e sense t h a t it never is accomplished once-and-for-all. This, I think,
is implied in Jesus' answer to Peter's q u e s t i o n a b o u t h o w often o n e s h o u l d
forgive. "Seventy-seven times," t h e Lord replied (Matt. 18:22). I take seventy-
seven (in o t h e r translations, seven times seventy) to m e a n abundantly, continu-
ously. Forgiveness is n o t settled by m e a s u r i n g a n d c o u n t i n g or b y a
balancing out. Being a m a t t e r of t h e h e a r t (Matt. 18:35), forgiveness c a n b e
s e e n as a preparation for restitution, justice, and, finally, for reconciliation.

The What of Forgiveness: Forgiveness as Grace

T h e t e r m forgivingness captures t h e character of forgiveness as a p r e p a r a t i o n
26
for t h e process of reconciliation. It is a "compassionate r e a d i n e s s t o
27
forgive" a n d acknowledges from t h e o u t s e t t h e n e e d of o p e n c o m m u n i c a -
tion c h a n n e l s for relational life to prosper. Forgivingness also indirectly
28
acknowledges one's o w n complicity in unjust r e l a t i o n s . It acknowledges
t h a t we share a world t h a t is plagued by violence a n d injustice. Sandra
O l e w i n e s e e m s to m e a n s o m e t h i n g v e r y similar t o t h e n o t i o n of forgiving-
29
n e s s w h e n she advocates for living in a "state of forgiveness," even amidst
t h e violence of t h e Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While forgivingness is at
least partly a matter of t h e will, t h e reality of forgiveness never is.
H e r e I r e t u r n to t h e issue of t h e impossibility of forgiveness. T h e
impossibility of forgiveness is intimately c o n n e c t e d w i t h its grace character.
Jacques D e r r i d a asks this rhetorical question: "Must w e n o t accept that, in
h e a r t or in reason, above all w h e n it is a q u e s t i o n of 'forgiveness,' s o m e -
t h i n g arrives which exceeds all institution, all power, all juridico-political
30
a u t h o r i t y ? " This "something" I interpret as divine grace, which, lest it b e
d e g r a d e d t o c h e a p grace, is never w i t h i n t h e reach of h u m a n possibilities.
W h e n forgiveness occurs, it is a sign of G o d ' s graceful p r e s e n c e a m o n g
h u m a n beings. T h e best w e can d o is to practice forgivingness, w h i c h
m e a n s allowing forgiveness to occur a n d letting go of clogs in o u r c o m m u -
nication channels. Thus, forgiveness is a m a t t e r n e i t h e r of t h e will n o r of
reason. It arrives surprisingly a n d uncontrollably as a m o v e m e n t of t h e
heart. Charles Wesley captures this m o v e m e n t beautifully in verse t w o of
t h e h y m n w e q u o t e d earlier. H e r e , h e portrays forgiveness as conditional
o n t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e Spirit of Christ in o u r hearts:

Great Searcher of the mazy heart, a thought from thee I would not hide,
I cannot draw th'envenomed dart, or quench this hell of wrath and pride,
31
Jesus, till I thy Spirit receive, Thou know'st, I never can forgive.

As a m a t t e r of grace, forgiveness c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d as a gift gener-

ously b e s t o w e d o n another, since forgiveness is grace to t h e o n e w h o
forgives as well as to t h e o n e w h o receives forgiveness. This is w h y forgive-
n e s s d o e s n o t o c c u r at t h e m o m e n t w h e n s o m e o n e grants forgiveness or
asks for forgiveness. It b e c o m e s real w h e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n flows again,
w h e n t h e clogged space "in b e t w e e n " t h e hostile parties o p e n s u p again.
A n d this is exactly w h a t c a n n o t b e p r o d u c e d .
Forgiveness is a b o u t g e n u i n e c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d relation. Such
c o m m u n i c a t i o n n e e d s an o p e n space, free of domination. T h e church is
called t o provide such a space a n d to administer it. It is a difficult vocation
for b o t h t h e church as a whole a n d for individual Christians, because, as w e
have seen, we continuously find ourselves implicated in relations of domi-
nation. We are caught "in between," which is probably why, as Wink notes,
"the churches of t h e world have never yet decided that d o m i n a t i o n is
32
wrong." Such a decision, however, is m a d e implicitly w h e n e v e r the church
takes its vocation seriously to b e c o m e an in-between space w h e r e broken-
d o w n c o m m u n i c a t i o n can b e taken u p again a n d w h e r e forgivingness is
practiced as a preparation for t h e grace of forgiveness to b e c o m e a reality.

Michael Nausner is a native of Austria and an elder in The United Methodist

Church. In fall 2005, he will become Assistant Professor of Theology at the United
Methodist Theological Seminary in Reutlingen, Germany.

Endnotes
1.1 am grateful for the constructive c o m m e n t s on this article by Harald Bohlin,
Olivia Franz-Klauser, Catherine Keller, and Mayra Rivera Rivera.
2. Jacques Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness: Thinking in Action
(London, N e w York: Routledge, 2001), 59.
3. Walter Wink, When the Powers Fall: Reconciliation in the Healing of the Nations
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), v.
4. Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, 33.
5. See http://www.ccel.Org/w/wesley/hyrnn/iwg08/jwg0830.htrnl.
6. John Milbank has elaborated on this impossibility, listing five aporias: (1) The
subject of forgiveness can never b e absolutely defined. (2) Time separates the
instances of assault and forgiveness. (3) What is forgotten cannot be forgiven.
(4) The question of the motive is always unsolved. (5) H u m a n forgiveness is
never really final. See J o h n Milbank, Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon
(London: Routledge, 2003), 50-60.
7. Wink, When the Powers Fall, 23.
8. H o m i K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London, N e w York: Routledge,
1994), 1,17.
9. Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity,
Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 81.
10. Marjorie Suchocki, The Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology
(New York: Continuum, 1994), 147.
11. Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, 29.
12. The definition of the International Forgiveness Institute at the University
of Wisconsin is helpful in terms of its emphasis o n the paradoxical nature of
forgiveness and on its "self-healing" aspect. But it still focuses too m u c h o n the
notion of the gift and on the binary between the o n e w h o forgives and the one
w h o receives forgiveness. See the institute's website: http://www.forgiveness-
institute.org/IFI/Whatis/definition.htm.
13. Milbank, Being Reconciled, 44.
14. Ibid., 57.
15. Wink, When the Powers Fall, 14.
16. George W. Bush on 6 May, 2004. Q u o t e d from http://www.wnyc.org,
17. Susan Sontag compares the reluctance of t h e Administration to call the
treatment of prisoners "torture" with the reluctance to call t h e killings of Tutsis
in Rwanda "genocide." See Susan Sontag, "Regarding the Torture of Others,"
New York Times Magazine (23 May 2004): 25.
18. See http://www.sit.edu/news/archive/sebarenzi.html.
19. Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, 54.
20. Pamela Sue Anderson, "A Feminist Ethics of Forgiveness," in Alistair I.
McFadyen and Marcel Sarot, Forgiveness and Truth: Explorations in Contemporary
Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 145.
21. Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca A n n Parker, Proverbs of Ashes: Violence,
Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us (Boston: Beacon Press,
2001), 43, 44.
22. For a discussion of the abuse of power by demanding forgiveness, see Carl
Reinhold Brakenhielm, Forgiveness (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 4//.
23. As Walter Wink points out regarding t h e issue of mutuality, "Forgiveness
can be unilateral; reconciliation is always mutual. . . . Forgiveness is t h u s a
component of reconciliation, but only a first step. We may forgive our enemies
in our hearts, but reconciliation requires that we pick up the p h o n e or meet
face to face and try to work things out" (When the Powers Fall, 14).
24. In his conversation with liberation theology, Daniel M. Bell constructs a
polarity between forgiveness and justice that I find problematic. "Forgiveness,"
Bell writes, "is a theologically m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e characterization of G o d ' s
activity to overcome sin in the world than the liberationists' vision of j u s t i c e . . . .
Forgiveness interrupts the cycle of violence and counter-violence that plagues
justice." See Daniel M. Bell, Jr., Liberation Theology after the End of History: The
Refusal to Cease Suffering (London, N e w York: Routledge, 2001), 148,50.
25. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 122.
26. Andrew Sung Park has used t h e term forgivingness from the Korean perspec-
tive of han. H e juxtaposes the forgivenness of offenders with the forgivingness
of victims and claims that the church has given too m u c h attention to t h e
former. Andrew Sung Park, The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han
and the Christian Doctrine of Sin (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 90-91.
27. Nigel Biggar referring to Basil Redlich, in McFadyen and Sarot, Forgiveness
and Truth, 201.
28. Suchocki, The Fall to Violence, 154-55.
29. Sandra K. Olewine, "Reflections from a War Z o n e : Jesus' Radical Call to
Forgiveness," Quarterly Review 2 4 / 1 (Spring 2004): 36.
30. Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, 54.
31. See http://www.ccel.Org/w/wesley/hymn/jwg08/jwg0830.html.
32. Wink, When the Powers Fall, 11.
 The Church in Review
Do General Agencies Still Have a Place in the Church?
RUSSELL E. RICHEY
T he question of t h e utility and
future of our general agencies,
timely in light of General Conf-
erence's elimination of the General
Council o n Ministries (GCOM), is
1
o n e over which I continue to mull.
M y short answer is this:
• Agencies constitute o n e expres-
sion of o u r connectionalism;
• Connectionalism, o n e of t h e
defining "marks of Methodism,"
m u s t b e sustained;
• However, forms of c o n n e c t i o n -
alism have varied a n d evolved
over time, agencies b e i n g just
o n e expression thereof;
• A future w i t h o u t agencies or w i t h
significantly r e c o n s t i t u t e d agen-
cies would n o t necessarily
violate o u r c o n n e c t i o n a l spirit.
We have witnessed, I from afar,
t h e third, strange dalliance of
G C O M w i t h General Conference.
C o m m i s s i o n e d by t h r e e previous
G e n e r a l Conferences t o s t u d y itself
a n d o u r connectionalism, G C O M
t h r e e times r e t u r n e d after four
years of hard work w i t h a n e w
continued on page 412
NORMAN E. DEWIRE
T h e gospel of Jesus Christ is
believed or n o t believed by
w h a t h a p p e n s in t h e congregations.
It is by w h a t t h e congregation d o e s
that t h e gospel hits t h e roadf In
The U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church, t h e
congregation is t h e place w h e r e
individuals h e a r t h e Word, are disci-
pled, a n d from w h e r e t h e y live o u t
their witness t o Jesus Christ.
In m y view, t h e districts, a n n u a l
conferences, jurisdictions, a n d
general agencies exist in order t o
facilitate this proclamation by w o r d
and d e e d in t h e congregations. This
is w h y t h e G e n e r a l Conference
affirms, time a n d again, t h a t t h e
accountability of general agencies
n e e d s to b e m e a s u r e d by their effec-
tiveness in working w i t h congrega-
tions. Working w i t h congregations
also includes representing congrega-
tions in ways t h a t a single congrega-
tion c a n n o t d o alone. T h e general
agencies have an i m p o r t a n t place in
T h e United M e t h o d i s t Church!
T h e first c o n g r e g a t i o n w h e r e I
was a m e m b e r was a c o m m u n i t y
continued on page 416
continued from page 411
c o n n e c t i o n a l vision, a s c h e m e t h a t looked v e r y m u c h like G C O M ' s struc-
t u r e stretched over t h e w h o l e church. T h r e e times G C O M p r e s e n t e d
G e n e r a l Conference w i t h a c o n n e c t i o n a l vision t h a t m a d e over central
structures into a giant G C O M a n d m a d e G C O M t h e p r i m a r y expression of
United M e t h o d i s t connectionalism.
1 believe that t h e architects of each of t h e s e elegant s c h e m e s
p r o c e e d e d w i t h well-intentioned b u t slightly m i s g u i d e d readings of o u r
connectionalism a n d t h e place of t h e agencies in it. C o n n e c t i o n a l i s m char-
acterizes c h u r c h e s o t h e r t h a n Methodist, b u t t h e Wesleyan tradition
accords connectionalism a distinctive, implicitly theological, purposive,
a n d missional m e a n i n g . Reformed (Presbyterian) a n d Catholic (Roman
Catholic, O r t h o d o x , Anglican) c h u r c h e s function w i t h polities g r o u n d e d
respectively in Scripture or tradition. Calvin read church o r d e r directly o u t
of t h e Bible. Catholic c h u r c h e s a d d t h e further w a r r a n t of tradition. Both
o u r Reformed a n d o u r Catholic friends value their church order for w h a t it
is. N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g o u r fixation o n o u r o w n structures a n d o u r Discipline,
United M e t h o d i s t s o p e r a t e w i t h a "doctrine" of connectionalism t h a t
belongs to life a n d work rather t h a n to faith a n d order. We value o u r
connectionalism for w h a t it d o e s a n d n o t s o m u c h for w h a t it is. We have
built c o n n e c t i o n a l structures, agencies included, to d o o u r c o m m o n work
a n d to m a k e missional decisions. For us, Scripture a n d tradition w a r r a n t
o u r mission. O u r c o n n e c t i o n a l i s m serves t h a t mission.
G C O M ' s several proposals m i g h t b e s e e n as connectionalism m o r e in
t h e Reformed o r Catholic mode—efforts t o reenvision s t r u c t u r e so as to
express a n d achieve c o n n e c t i o n a l u n i t y w i t h i n global U n i t e d M e t h o d i s m .
T h e 2004 G e n e r a l Conference acted instead for a connectionalism t h a t
could work. It did so by rejecting G C O M ' s proposal, "Living into t h e
Future," eliminating G C O M itself, a n d assigning t h e coordinating task to a
d o w n s i z e d "Connectional Table." C o n n e c t i o n a l i s m ' s work, n o t its "being"
or "nature," w o n out.
I d o n o t i n t e n d t o m i n i m i z e t h e creativity in t h e G C O M proposals or
t o diminish t h e theological d i m e n s i o n s of connectionalism. Q u i t e t h e
reverse. Elsewhere, I have tried to read connectionalism theologically a n d
2
tease characteristic Wesleyan e m p h a s e s o u t of o u r practices of c o n n e c t i o n .
In addition, I argue t h a t o n e can find in c o n n e c t i o n a l i s m a n d in related
"marks of M e t h o d i s m " w h a t t h e c h u r c h t h r o u g h t h e ages has u n d e r s t o o d
to b e t h e f u n d a m e n t a l characteristics or "notes" of t h e c h u r c h - i t s o n e n e s s ,
holiness, catholicity, a n d apostolicity. O u r connectionalism expresses t h e
u n i t y a n d catholicity t h a t G C O M sought—less t h r o u g h its style a n d form
a n d m o r e t h r o u g h its p u r p o s i v e character. A n d social a n d p e r s o n a l holi-
ness, truly apostolic m a n d a t e s , b e l o n g a m o n g connectionalism's p u r p o s e s .
T h r o u g h the years, M e t h o d i s t s evolved various structures a n d practices
by a n d t h r o u g h w h i c h t o achieve corporate p u r p o s e s a n d mission.
O p p o r t u n i t i e s and challenges occasioned adaptation, change, a n d innova-
tion. Looking at structures a n d practices as t h e y evolved over time, o n e can
discern successive stages or p h a s e s of M e t h o d i s t connectionalism. O n e of
t h e s e stages might b e t e r m e d "corporate." This c o r p o r a t e phase, b o r r o w i n g
from b u s i n e s s a n d g o v e r n m e n t a l p a t t e r n s elaborated d u r i n g a n d after t h e
Civil War, gave us t h e organizational structure of b o a r d s a n d agencies.
Because this structure has b e e n w i t h us for so long (essentially since t h e
1880s), we have a hard time imagining M e t h o d i s m - i n d e e d , imagining
W e s t e r n religion—without it. By n o t i n g t h a t M e t h o d i s t s created this struc-
ture to m e e t t h e missional n e e d s of t h e late n i n e t e e n t h a n d early t w e n t i e t h
centuries, precisely to organize t h e church m o r e efficiently for foreign a n d
d o m e s t i c missions, we can appreciate it as an expression of c o n n e c t i o n -
alism b u t also u n d e r s t a n d that M e t h o d i s t s u n d e r t o o k c o n n e c t i o n a l
e n d e a v o r in different fashion earlier a n d m i g h t well d o so in different
fashion hereafter.
The earliest "communities of s p e e c h " - t h e p a t t e r n of itinerant conver-
sionistic preaching u n d e r appointment—yielded t h e basic, quite minimal,
a n n u a l conference structure. A second such community, "organized
revivalism," beginning in t h e mid-1790s, p r o d u c e d multiday revivalistic,
quarterly meetings and a n n u a l conferences, invented G e n e r a l Conference,
and discovered camp meetings. In a third phase, a r o u n d 1820, M e t h o d i s m
b o r r o w e d t h e voluntary society structure from o t h e r Protestants a n d created
Bible, mission, tract, a n d S u n d a y school societies, a from-the-bottom-up,
loosely knit set of associations, each governed by its single p u r p o s e . T h e n
t h e church created Christian Advocates and founded colleges, looking to
editors and faculties to c o n n e c t t h e church t h r o u g h t h e w r i t t e n word. By t h e
latter part of t h e century, to bring order to this remarkable array of
missional impulses, M e t h o d i s m (the M e t h o d i s t Episcopal C h u r c h first, other
constitutive d e n o m i n a t i o n s of T h e United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h s o o n there-
after) gave General Conference authority over connectional enterprises a n d
literally reincorporated t h e church. In t h e twentieth century, three o t h e r
forms of accountability a n d purposiveness emerged. (1) Professionalization or
professionalism. This form creates like-kind groupings a n d utilizes a n n u a l
conference c o m m i t t e e s to provide practices a n d structures comparable to
professional organizations in o t h e r fields. (2) Councils. T h e councils—Judicial
Council, t h e Council of Bishops, G C O M , G e n e r a l Council of Finance a n d
Administration—function w i t h explicit Disciplinary warrant. (3) Caucuses:
Grass roots in origin, caucuses, t h o u g h often s e e n as fragmenting, also
c o n n e c t M e t h o d i s t subsets by p u r p o s e , ethnicity, language, conviction,
concern, a n d agenda.
A variety of different forces, including critiques by s o m e of t h e
caucuses, have m a d e t h e q u e s t i o n of this little essay p e r t i n e n t . O t h e r
agency-undercutting factors include t h e c o n t i n u e d erosion of t h e church's
n u m b e r s ; r e d u c e d finances; w i d e s p r e a d distrust of centralized power;
h e r m e n e u t i c s of suspicion; politics of accountability; p r e s s u r e s for repre-
sentative, including global, m e m b e r s h i p ; p a s s i o n s for evangelism, espe-
cially o n a local level; a n d m o r e congregationally driven p r o g r a m m i n g .
As we w o n d e r a b o u t t h e future of agencies, t h e possible role of congre-
gations deserves particular note. S o m e really large c h u r c h e s within U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s m possess staff, m o n e t a r y resources, facilities, m e d i a capacity,
a n d digital prowess exceeding all b u t t h e very largest agencies a n d p r o b -
ably m o s t a n n u a l conferences as well. Have w e r e a c h e d a p o i n t w h e r e
specific congregations w i t h a v e r y c o n n e c t i o n a l spirit m i g h t b e d e p u t i z e d
to orchestrate U n i t e d M e t h o d i s m ' s c o r p o r a t e endeavors? (Some of t h e
work d o n e at a c o n n e c t i o n a l level clearly s h o u l d b e left alone.) At a time
w h e n higher e d u c a t i o n t o u c h e d only t h e few, agencies effectively b r o u g h t
t o g e t h e r t h e talent n e e d e d for a cause a n d w e r e given t h e resources
t h r o u g h general c h u r c h a p p o r t i o n m e n t s t o d o t h e church's work. Now,
individual congregations (at least, in t h e U.S.) b o a s t extraordinary exper-
tise, energy, resources, a n d staffing. T h e y u n d e r t a k e global mission. They
p r o d u c e quality m e d i a p r o g r a m m i n g . T h e y work w i t h complex educational
programs, s o m e t i m e s using their o w n or tailored resources. They c o n d u c t
myriad local o u t r e a c h efforts. Might s u c h cathedrals w o r k m o r e o n c o n n e c -
tional behalf? If t h e y are n o t to s u p p l a n t o u r general agencies, at t h e v e r y
least m i g h t t h e y collaborate w i t h t h e agencies?
Yet a n o t h e r very distinct possibility is t h a t t h e agencies will reinvent
themselves in a m o l d different from t h a t conceived by G C O M a n d m o r e
service-responsive in t h e fashion of t h e G e n e r a l Board of Discipleship.
W h a t is t h e future of o u r connectionalism? Its form should, I think,
follow function; facilitate o u r mission; i n c o r p o r a t e w h a t w o r k s o u t of
p r e s e n t structures; a n d sustain o u r c o m m o n endeavor.

Russell E. Richey is Dean and Professor of Church History at Candler School of

Theology, Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia,

Endnotes
1. Perspectives in this review derive from previous and forthcoming work on
c o n n e c t i o n a l i s m , i n c l u d i n g The Methodist Conference in America (1996);
Connectionalism: Ecclesiology, Mission and Identity (1997); Questions for the 21st
Century Church (1999); and Marks of Methodism (forthcoming), all Abingdon
publications.
2. Richey, Connectionalism, 1-20,
continued from page 411
church, n o t related t o a n y d e n o m i n a t i o n . It p r i d e d itself o n being i n d e p e n -
dent. T h e c o n g r e g a t i o n financially assisted a handful of mission projects,
t h u s linking us t o a c o m m u n i t y a bit w i d e r t h a n o u r own. As t h e years
passed, t h e focus was just o n t h e congregation. All c o n n e c t i o n s to larger
c o m m u n i t y ceased. T h e c h u r c h t u m b l e d in o n itself, seeing n o t h i n g m o r e
t h a n t h e b o u n d a r i e s of its o w n c o m m u n i t y .
W h e n I b e c a m e a m e m b e r of T h e M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h (before t h e merger
b e t w e e n t h e M e t h o d i s t a n d Evangelical United Brethren churches in 1968),
I joined a d e n o m i n a t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n t h a t e n r i c h e d m y experience of t h e
Christian faith t h r o u g h k n o w i n g t h a t we were actually c o n n e c t e d w i t h
global humanity. I could participate, t h r o u g h m y time a n d treasure, in t h e
church in o t h e r c o m m u n i t i e s . I could b e resourced in m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
h o w t h e gospel of Jesus Christ relates to h u m a n issues.
The c o n g r e g a t i o n is w h e r e t h e gospel m a k e s t h e difference in lives of
people. This is w h y I always draw t h e organizational chart of T h e U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h w i t h t h e congregations at t h e t o p of t h e page! Every
organizational level b e y o n d t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n serves to resource t h e
congregation or to r e p r e s e n t it in geographic, political, or e c o n o m i c circles
b e y o n d t h e congregation's n e i g h b o r h o o d . G e n e r a l agencies are n e e d e d
a n d i m p o r t a n t to h e l p congregations r e m e m b e r t h e w i d e r world a n d t o
participate in Christ's mission.
D u r i n g t h e merger in 1968, t h e Structure Study C o m m i s s i o n was
established t o review t h e w o r k of t h e general agencies. T h e C o m m i s s i o n
s p e n t almost one-half of t h e 1968-72 q u a d r e n n i u m discussing t h e princi-
ples of organization, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e y w o u l d a d o p t t h e "systems
a p p r o a c h " to t h e organization of T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h . T h e
C o m m i s s i o n explored five organizational theories: (1) traditional theory;
(2) strong-leader theory; (3) human-relations theory; (4) classic-bureaucratic
theory; a n d (5) s y s t e m s theory. Systems t h e o r y holds organizational
g r o w t h a n d goal achievement, along w i t h t h e g r o w t h of p e r s o n s a n d their
achievements, b o t h as b e i n g of equal i m p o r t a n c e a n d as b e i n g based o n
interrelationship a n d i n t e r d e p e n d e n c y of t h e organization a n d t h e p e o p l e .
T h e Structure Study C o m m i s s i o n described T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t
C h u r c h as a social system. "It consists of individuals a n d g r o u p s w h o are
engaged in a s t r u c t u r e d form of relationship a n d interaction, a n d w h o are
g u i d e d by a particular faith c o m m i t m e n t a n d a given set of values a n d
 1
n o r m s , " T h e C o m m i s s i o n described t h r e e s u b s y s t e m s w i t h i n T h e U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h a n d noted:

Denominational purposes are formulated and adopted by the General

Conference. But the General Conference, as a policy body, can only state the
purposes of the denomination in broad terms . . . and authorizes (general agen-
2
cies) and prescribes a pattern by which resources are to be allocated.

The only structural change brought to the 1972 General Conference by the
Commission was to establish the General Council on Ministries (GCOM) and
a council o n ministries at each level of the church's organization.
It is t h e role of t h e general agencies, then, to take policies a n d to design
a n d / o r i m p l e m e n t p r o g r a m s that fulfill t h e intent of The U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t
Church. T h e general agencies have d o n e well in developing p r o g r a m s over
t h e s e thirty-six years. G e n e r a l agencies are still n e e d e d !
I was G e n e r a l Secretary of G C O M from 1975 to 1986 a n d realized t h a t
t h e task of coordination could b e d o n e only t h r o u g h building relationships
of t r u s t a n d t h r o u g h sustained c o m m u n i c a t i o n a m o n g t h e general agen-
cies. While o u r staff t e a m did this well, t h e r e was, a n d still is, a problem,
namely, c o o r d i n a t i o n a m o n g agencies that were, a n d still are, n o t equal.
T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h has t w o c o n g l o m e r a t e b o a r d s t h a t are
focused o n well-defined portfolios; a series of smaller p r o g r a m / a d v o c a c y
agencies; a n d s o m e service agencies. T h e t w o c o n g l o m e r a t e b o a r d s have
t h e i r o w n internal c o o r d i n a t i o n t o d o . It m a k e s almost u n m a n a g e a b l e a
conversation a m o n g general agencies w h e n their s c o p e of w o r k is n o t
equal a n d so vastly different.
To address this p r o b l e m , I suggest, in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e n e w
C o n n e c t i o n a l Table structure, t h e creation of six-to-eight general p r o g r a m
boards, each with a focus similar to t h a t of t h e G e n e r a l Board of H i g h e r
E d u c a t i o n a n d Ministry o r t h e G e n e r a l Board of C h u r c h a n d Society.
W h e n it created t h e C o n n e c t i o n a l Table, t h e 2004 G e n e r a l Conference
carefully preserved a n i m p o r t a n t principle of polity in T h e U n i t e d
M e t h o d i s t Church, namely, t h e principle of checks a n d balances. In t h e
congregation, as well as in o u r c o n n e c t i o n a l life, we n e e d to separate plan-
ning from deciding a n d i m p l e m e n t i n g from evaluating a n d b e clear w h e n
w e are in which m o d e . There n e e d s to b e s e p a r a t i o n of p r o g r a m a n d
finance, yet it s h o u l d b e d o n e in c o n c e r t w i t h e a c h other. I w a s v e r y
o p p o s e d t o t h e n o t i o n of bringing t o g e t h e r G C O M a n d t h e G e n e r a l
C o u n c i l o n Finance a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (GCFA), as p r o p o s e d by G C O M in
"Living into t h e Future." O n e of t h e large issues for t h e Structure Study
C o m m i s s i o n was t h e a w k w a r d n e s s in t h e former d e n o m i n a t i o n s t h a t t h e
treasurer was deciding issues of program. I salute t h e w i s d o m of t h e 2004
G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e delegates in creating t h e n e w agency structure for
k e e p i n g t h e C o n n e c t i o n a l Table a n d G C F A separate.
G e n e r a l agencies c o n t i n u e t o have an i m p o r t a n t role to play in t h e
d e n o m i n a t i o n . T h e y provide p r o g r a m materials for t h e congregation as t h e
gospel is proclaimed in c o m m u n i t i e s . They witness t o t h e gospel of Jesus
Christ in geographic, e c o n o m i c , a n d political circles t h a t n e e d c o n n e c t i o n a l
power. A n d t h e y teach t h e congregations a b o u t t h e relationship b e t w e e n
faith a n d works.

Norman E. Dewire is President of Methodist Theological School in Ohio in

Delaware, Ohio.

Endnotes
1. "Part II: C o n c e p t u a l F r a m e w o r k of t h e R e p o r t , " ( S t r u c t u r e S t u d y
Commission, The United Methodist Church, 1972), 2.
2. Ibid., 4.
 A Word on The Word
Lectionary Study

OSVALDO D. V E N A

A s we p r e p a r e to celebrate Lent, w e p a u s e to reflect o n h o w w e a r y t h e

road to Calvary was for Jesus. N o t o n l y did h e have t o deal w i t h his
o w n self-doubt, similar to t h a t of m a n y great p r o p h e t s of t h e past, like
Jeremiah, for example; h e also h a d to c o m e to t e r m s w i t h t h e fact t h a t
p e o p l e w e r e not r e a d y for t h e kind of g o o d n e w s h e h a d to offer. F r o m a
h u m a n p o i n t of view, his ministry was marked by failure a n d defeat. Proof
of this is t h e kind of d e a t h h e suffered. His n a m e , d e a r to his closest
friends, family, a n d followers, was despised by a n d u n k n o w n t o m o s t
people, so m u c h so t h a t t h e r e are virtually n o records of his life in extra-
biblical materials. His was a life s p e n t in t h e provincialism of an o b s c u r e
region of Palestine. A n d yet his followers k n e w s o m e t h i n g t h e rest of t h e
world did n o t know. They h a d e x p e r i e n c e d s o m e t h i n g t h a t h a d c h a n g e d
their lives, giving t h e m h o p e a n d courage to live. They k e p t his m e m o r y
alive, a n d t h e y r e m e m b e r e d his w o r d s a n d his message of liberation. They
recorded t h e conversations h e h a d w i t h so m a n y people, in w h i c h h e
o p e n e d to t h e m a n e w world of m e a n i n g a n d possibilities—a world w h e r e
G o d alone was t h e s u p r e m e ruler of people's lives.

February 13,2005: First Sunday in Lent

M a t t . 4:1-11; Gen, 2:15-17, 3:1-7; Ps. 32: Rom. 5:12-19
T h e t e m p t a t i o n a c c o u n t in Matt. 4:1-11 is s o similar t o t h e o n e i n Luke
4:1-13 t h a t for a long time n o w scholars have suggested t h a t t h e evangelists
share a c o m m o n w r i t t e n source, hypothetically k n o w n as "Q" (from t h e
G e r m a n Quelle, m e a n i n g "source"). M a t t h e w ' s o r d e r of t h e t e m p t a t i o n s
differs from Luke's, b u t it is believed to best reflect t h e Q d o c u m e n t for a
couple of reasons. (1) It is m o r e logical, leading to a climactic offer of all t h e
k i n g d o m s of t h e world. In Luke, this t e m p t a t i o n is t h e s e c o n d of t h e t h r e e
t e m p t a t i o n s . (2) T h e first a n d s e c o n d t e m p t a t i o n s are s t r u c t u r e d in a
similar way: "If you are t h e Son of G o d . . . "
 M a t t h e w follows Mark's narrative order in which Jesus, after his baptism,
is led by t h e Spirit into t h e desert. Unlike Mark, w h o d o e s n o t state that t h e
p u r p o s e was to b e t e m p t e d by Satan, M a t t h e w makes it very clear. N o t even
Luke, w h o used t h e s a m e source, is that specific a b o u t t h e p u r p o s e of Jesus
going to t h e wilderness. H e says that Jesus "was led by t h e Spirit in t h e
wilderness, w h e r e for forty days h e was t e m p t e d by t h e devil" (4:1-2). The
assumption is that while h e was there, t h e devil c a m e t o t e m p t him. But for
M a t t h e w it is i m p o r t a n t to highlight t h e fact that Jesus is c o m i n g to the
1
wilderness with t h e p u r p o s e of challenging t h e devil o n his o w n g r o u n d .
T h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e passage is a dialogue b e t w e e n Jesus and Satan.
Jesus' t h r e e answers to Satan are direct q u o t e s from t h e LXX, as u s e d b y Q,
which obviously m a d e s o m e alterations to t h e text of t h e G r e e k Bible. For
example, t h e q u o t a t i o n from Deut. 6:13 changes from "shall fear" to "will
worship," b e c a u s e t h a t is w h a t t h e context d e m a n d s (v. 9, "if you will fall
d o w n a n d w o r s h i p me"). W h e n Jesus speaks, his w o r d s carry canonical
authority. W h e n t h e devil speaks, his w o r d s are n o t so authoritative since
h e is q u o t i n g from Psalm 91, part of t h e Writings, w h i c h acquired canonical
a u t h o r i t y m u c h later t h a n t h e Torah, p e r h a p s even after M a t t h e w was
written.
Two of t h e t e m p t a t i o n s deal w i t h t h e devil q u e s t i o n i n g Jesus' u n i q u e
relationship to G o d : "If you are t h e Son of G o d . . . " T h e third o n e d o e s n o t
question this relationship b u t suggests that even if Jesus is t h e Son of G o d ,
h e could certainly change allegiances by worshiping Satan instead. In b o t h
M a t t h e w a n d Luke, t h e progression starts w i t h t h e t e m p t a t i o n to satisfy
physical needs, which, for Jesus, would have m e a n t s t o p p i n g t h e spiritual
search h e h a d e m b a r k e d on. T h e devil is asking h i m to sacrifice c o m m u n i o n
w i t h G o d for a taste of b r e a d (see G e n . 2:15-17; 3:1-7); and, w h a t is worse, to
use his p o w e r in a selfish, self-serving way. But it also recalls t h e m a n n a inci-
d e n t in Exodus 16. If G o d fed Israel miraculously, h o w m u c h m o r e would
G o d feed G o d ' s only Son! Further, this t e m p t a t i o n q u e s t i o n s t h e voice
h e a r d at Jesus' baptism, for it is asking Jesus to seek a n external conf irma-
t i o n - a "sign"-of G o d ' s affirmation in 3:17 (cf. Matt. 12:38-40; 16:1-4).
The second t e m p t a t i o n has to d o with putting G o d to t h e test to see if
G o d will deliver Jesus from h a r m and, presumably, vindicate h i m in front of a
gathered multitude (at t h e Temple). This t e m p t a t i o n was also present at
G e t h s e m a n e , w h e n o n e of t h o s e w h o were with Jesus d r e w a sword a n d
tried to defend him. O n that occasion Jesus affirmed t h a t even t h o u g h t h e
possibility of divine deliverance was real (which m a d e Jesus' arrest an act of
t r u e self-giving), h e refused to m a k e use of this right (Matt. 26:53). Jesus
answers t h e devil with D e u t 6:16, a passage that recalls an instance w h e n t h e
people of Israel, tired and thirsty from t h e journey, q u e s t i o n e d G o d ' s caring
presence a m o n g t h e m (Exod. 17:1-7). T h e incident brought a b o u t t h e miracu-
lous provision of water from t h e rock b u t also m a d e t h e incident a type of
h o w h u m a n s test G o d w h e n in difficulties. Jesus would n o t follow t h e devil's
2
advice and would not test t h e g o o d will of G o d by d e m a n d i n g proofs.
The third t e m p t a t i o n has to d o w i t h gaining political a n d e c o n o m i c
p o w e r in exchange for idolatrous behavior, that is, w i t h denying t h e t r u e
G o d . Jesus appeals to Deut. 6:13, w h e r e Israel is a d m o n i s h e d to recognize
t h e u n i q u e n e s s of their covenant G o d in t h e midst of t h e g o d s of all t h e
o t h e r nations. Unlike Israel, which s u c c u m b e d t o t h e idolatry of worshiping
power, Jesus will n o t give in to t h e allure of political a n d economical power.
O n a m o u n t a i n (w. 8-10), Jesus rejects t h e devil's offer of world domination,
O n t o p of a n o t h e r m o u n t a i n (Matt. 28:16-20) a n d because h e chose to follow
3
G o d ' s way, Jesus is granted all authority in heaven a n d o n e a r t h .
T h e similarities b e t w e e n Jesus' a n d Israel's testing in t h e w i l d e r n e s s
are t o o m a n y to b e disregarded: Jesus is led by t h e Spirit into t h e wilder-
ness; Israel is led into t h e wilderness by G o d t h r o u g h Moses. Jesus is to b e
t e m p t e d by t h e devil; Israel is to b e tested, tried by G o d . Jesus fasts d u r i n g
forty days a n d forty nights; Israel j o u r n e y s d u r i n g forty years; Jesus is
t e m p t e d by hunger; so is Israel.
But t h e r e are similarities also b e t w e e n Jesus a n d Moses. M o s e s was o n
top of M o u n t Sinai d u r i n g forty days a n d forty nights, after w h i c h h e deliv-
ered t h e Law to t h e p e o p l e (Exod. 34:28; D e u t . 9:9, 25). Similarly, Jesus
stays forty days a n d forty nights in t h e wilderness a n d t h e n delivers t h e
S e r m o n o n t h e M o u n t , a kind of n e w law (see Matt. 5-7). T h e M a t t h e a n
c o m m u n i t y sees t h e parallels b e t w e e n Israel b e i n g tested in t h e d e s e r t and
Jesus b e i n g tested in t h e wilderness. For t h e m , Jesus, as Israel's Messiah, is
going t o b e everything Israel was not. Conversely, t h e y feel e m p o w e r e d to
o b e y G o d as Jesus did a n d to b e c o m e t h e n e w p e o p l e of G o d o n earth.
If t h e M a t t h e a n c o m m u n i t y regarded Jesus as a n e w Moses, Paul
regarded h i m as a n e w A d a m , w h o s e act of o b e d i e n c e b r o u g h t a b o u t life
eternal rather t h a n d e a t h (Rom. 5:12-19). H e r e w e have t w o clear examples
of t h e early church r e a d i n g t h e H e b r e w Bible t h r o u g h t h e lenses of t h e
e x p e r i e n c e of t h e Risen Christ. Thus. Jesus' ministry was s e e n by s o m e as
t h e giving of a n e w law for t h e n e w p e o p l e of G o d - a n d even as a m o d e l t o
b e imitated. O t h e r s saw in Jesus t h e a g e n t of a n e w creation, t h e a r c h e t y p e
of t h e t r u e h u m a n being.

February 20, 2005: Second Sunday in Lent

J o h n 3:1-17; Gen. 12:1-4% Ps. 121; Rom. 4:1-5,13-17
T h e i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t t o o u r passage is 2:23-25. N i c o d e m u s is o n e of t h o s e
w h o "believed in his n a m e because t h e y saw t h e signs that h e was doing"
(2:23). T h e Jews ("Judeans" is p e r h a p s a better translation of Ioudaioi) in 2:18,
t h e "many" in 2:23, a n d N i c o d e m u s in 3:2 a s s u m e that miracles can legiti-
4
m a t e Jesus' authority. But Jesus did n o t e n t r u s t himself to t h e m , for h e
k n e w their motivations. This is t h e b a c k d r o p against which t h e following
dialogue should b e u n d e r s t o o d .
The s t r u c t u r e of t h e dialogue is simple: N i c o d e m u s m a k e s an affirma-
tion a n d asks t w o q u e s t i o n s (w. 2 , 4 , 9) a n d in e a c h case Jesus answers
w i t h a categorical, authoritative answer: "Very truly, I tell you" (w. 3 , 5 , 1 1 ) .
Later, in v. 13, t h e dialogue t u r n s into a monologue—probably by t h e evan-
gelist, w h o n o w addresses t h e theological implications of t h e dialogue.
Even before N i c o d e m u s makes his first c o m m e n t , three important state-
m e n t s h a p p e n (v. 2)—one by the narrator a n d two by N i c o d e m u s himself—
t h a t n e e d to b e considered: t h e reference to "night," t h e title Rabbi, and t h e
personal p r o n o u n "we." T h e fact that t h e passage states that t h e e n c o u n t e r
h a p p e n e d at nighttime has b e e n interpreted in m a n y ways. (1) Like Joseph of
Arimathea, N i c o d e m u s was a secret disciple of Jesus a n d so c a m e to h i m at
night (cf. 19:38-40). (2) It is a symbolic reference to unbelief or to the w r o n g
kind of belief, e m b o d i e d here in N i c o d e m u s (see 3:19-21). (3) T h e night was
t h e time for studying t h e Torah a n d for theological dialogue. N i c o d e m u s
acknowledges Jesus as Rabbi a n d c o m e s to h i m at night for a theological
discussion. Given t h e negative c o n n o t a t i o n s of darkness in this Gospel
(contemporary interpreters living in racially prejudiced societies should be
aware of t h e dangers of neglecting to unpack this J o h a n n i n e theme!), it is
probable that "night" here refers to unbelief or spiritual misunderstanding.
In John, the tide Rabbi appears o n t h e lips of t h e disciples only (1:38,49;
4:31; 9:2; 11:8). This could m e a n t w o things: either N i c o d e m u s was o n t h e way
to becoming a disciple (cf. 19:38-40; 7:50-52, w h e r e h e timidly tries to make a
case for Jesus' right to a legal hearing) or h e is using t h e tide with s o m e irony,
since it would be highly improbable that a m e m b e r of t h e Jerusalem elite
would address a Galilean peasant, who, in 7:15, is said to be uneducated, as
5
Rabbi. In favor of the first option, the three times that N i c o d e m u s appears in
J o h n (3:1-12; 7:50-52; 19:38-40) seem to point to a progressive coming to terms
with discipleship—from believing in Jesus because of t h e signs (which, as w e
suggested above, was a misunderstanding) to fully h o n o r i n g him in death,
paying Jesus the tribute a disciple would pay a beloved teacher.
T h e "we" of v. 2 m a y refer to t h o s e w h o , in 2:23, believed in Jesus
b e c a u s e of t h e signs or to t h e Pharisees, w h o m N i c o d e m u s represents. They
are depicted in t h e Gospel as t h e a r c h e n e m i e s of Jesus; so N i c o d e m u s is
probably using a polite exaggeration, since it is very unlikely t h a t t h e
6
Pharisees would have sent h i m .
In his first affirmation, N i c o d e m u s acknowledges t h a t Jesus h a s c o m e
from G o d a n d that G o d is p r e s e n t in h i m b e c a u s e of t h e signs t h a t h e does.
H e t h i n k s t h a t t h e miraculous is proof of G o d ' s presence. But Jesus is n o t
flattered b y this. H e k n o w s w h a t motivates N i c o d e m u s , even if w e as
readers still w o n d e r a b o u t it, Jesus replies t h a t merely seeing his signs is
n o t e n o u g h . The k i n g d o m of G o d is n o t s o m e t h i n g t h a t c a n b e d e t e c t e d
with t h e physical eyes, but, rather, is a reality t h a t can be perceived only
t h r o u g h t h e eyes of t h e Spirit—after o n e has b e e n b o r n "anew" or "from
above." T h e G r e e k w o r d anothen can m e a n b o t h things, b u t t h e p u n is
possible o n l y in t h e G r e e k language, w h i c h places t h e responsibility for
this w o r d i n g entirely o n t h e Evangelist's shoulders. H e r e it possibly m e a n s
"from above," i.e., from G o d (see 1:13), since this idea is t a k e n u p again in
3:31, w h e r e t h e Evangelist talks a b o u t Jesus as t h e o n e w h o c o m e s from
above—a persistent t h e m e t h r o u g h o u t t h e Gospel.
Why did N i c o d e m u s misunderstand Jesus' words? Two principal reasons
have b e e n suggested. (1) It is part of the Evangelist's argument. T h e reply is
aimed not only at N i c o d e m u s b u t also at t h e c o m m u n i t y h e represents. (2) To
be "born again," as N i c o d e m u s understood it, would have m e a n t altering
one's ascribed h o n o r status in a very radical way; and N i c o d e m u s was n o t
7
ready to trade his honorable position in society for an uncertain n e w status.
Jesus' second answer clarifies t h e previous o n e by way of t w o synony-
m o u s parallelisms: "no o n e c a n see t h e k i n g d o m of G o d " / / " n o o n e can
e n t e r t h e k i n g d o m of God"; "without b e i n g b o r n from a b o v e " / / " w i t h o u t
b e i n g b o r n of water a n d Spirit" (w. 3,5). In t h e G r e e k text, t h e parallelisms
are striking. "Seeing" a n d "entering" t h e K i n g d o m refer to t h e s a m e reality
as d o e s being "born from above" a n d "born of w a t e r a n d Spirit."
 Seeing a n d e n t e r i n g t h e K i n g d o m are i m p o r t a n t ideas. It s e e m s as if,
for John, t h e r e is n o earthly d i m e n s i o n of t h e k i n g d o m of G o d in t h e
future, as is t h e case in t h e Synoptic G o s p e l s a n d in traditional apocalyptic
literature. Rather, in John, it is t h e person w h o is e n l i g h t e n e d by an experi-
e n c e w i t h G o d ' s only Son, Jesus, t h e Light of t h e World a n d t h e Bread of
Life, a n d w h o c a n t h e n contemplate-"see"—the K i n g d o m a n d participate
fully in it ("enter" it). Experiencing t h e K i n g d o m is a p r e s e n t possibility, b u t
only for t h o s e w h o have b e e n spiritually a w a k e n e d to it (cf. Rom. 4:13-17).
Being b o r n from w a t e r a n d Spirit can b e translated as "water w h i c h is
Spirit," since "water" a n d "Spirit" are j o i n e d by "and" (kai) a n d g o v e r n e d by
t h e s a m e p r e p o s i t i o n "from" (ek); t h u s , it p r o b a b l y refers t o o n e thing, n o t
8
t w o . In t h e F o u r t h Gospel, w a t e r is u s e d to p o i n t t o t h e lower, physical
world (1:33; 3:23; 2:6-7; 4:6-7; 5:7) b u t also t o t h e spiritual world (4:14; 7:37-
39). U s e d in contrast w i t h physical birth, water refers to spiritual birth. It
c a n also refer to b a p t i s m a n d t h e n e w life in t h e Spirit t h a t was linked w i t h
9
this s a c r a m e n t . At any rate, Jesus is p o i n t i n g at a spiritual d i m e n s i o n of life
t h a t has b e e n completely missed by t h e l e a r n e d Pharisee. T h o s e w h o inter-
p r e t this G o s p e l as a c o d e d d o c u m e n t for a n d from a c o m m u n i t y under-
going h a r a s s m e n t from t h e religious leaders of t h e p e o p l e of J u d e a see in
this passage a criticism of t h e leaders of t h e s y n a g o g u e . T h e apologetic
implications are clear: t h e J o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y , r e p r e s e n t e d by Jesus, is
in t h e know; t h e Pharisees, r e p r e s e n t e d by N i c o d e m u s , are not.
N i c o d e m u s ' s s e c o n d q u e s t i o n reveals t h a t h e realizes t h a t Jesus m e a n t
10
"from above" a n d n o t "again." Still, h e d o e s n o t k n o w h o w this is possible,
since h e asks, "How c a n t h e s e t h i n g s be?" Jesus' reply s h o w s t h e irony of
t h e situation: a t e a c h e r of Israel d o e s n o t k n o w w h a t a p e a s a n t from
Galilee doesl Consequently, in v. 11, Jesus delves completely into
c o m m u n a l language, using t h e plural "we" a n d "you." It s o u n d s very m u c h
like 1 J o h n 1:1-4. T h e c o m m u n i t y speaks t h r o u g h Jesus. T h e y know, yet
N i c o d e m u s d o e s not. T h e c o m m u n i t y has given t e s t i m o n y (about Jesus,
t h e Logos of God), b u t N i c o d e m u s ' s c o m m u n i t y has n o t received this testi-
mony. A n d t h e n Jesus says s o m e t h i n g t h a t has b e e n puzzling scholars for a
l o n g time. H e contrasts "earthly" t h i n g s w i t h "heavenly" t h i n g s (v. 12). T h e
p r o b l e m is t h a t w . 3-8 can hardly qualify as "earthly." Perhaps it refers to
t h e examples given by Jesus, w h i c h are t a k e n from earthly realities (birth,
water, wind). O r p e r h a p s it is b e c a u s e t h e s e things take place o n earth,
11
while Jesus is b e g i n n i n g to anticipate going t o h e a v e n a n d b e i n g lifted u p .
 Jewish a n d Christian mysticism and apocalypticism s h a r e d this idea of
an e x p e r i e n c e of b e i n g t r a n s p o r t e d to h e a v e n w h e r e t h e p e r s o n c o n t e m -
plates either G o d ' s glory or t h e future of history a n d r e t u r n s to e a r t h to
c o m m u n i c a t e and reveal this vision to others. Verse 13 s e e m s to b e a veiled
criticism of such experiences [cf. 2 Cor. 12:1-10). W h a t t h e s e p e o p l e claimed
was a direct revelation from t h e Spirit, i n d e p e n d e n t from a n o n g o i n g
12
c o n n e c t i o n with J e s u s . Therefore, t h e crux of t h e a r g u m e n t s e e m s to b e
this: The k i n g d o m of G o d is a spiritual reality t h a t c a n b e s e e n only w h e n
t h e p e r s o n has believed t h a t Jesus is t h e a g e n t of G o d ' s n e w creation. It
c a n n o t b e detected by t h e n a k e d eye or by invoking a special e x p e r i e n c e of
heavenly bliss. N o n e of this qualifies a p e r s o n for seeing or e n t e r i n g into
t h e K i n g d o m or having eternal life. O n l y t h e e n c o u n t e r in history w i t h t h e
incarnated Logos m a k e s t h a t possible.

February 27, 2005: Third Sunday in Lent

J o h n 4:5-42; Exod. 17:1-7; Ps. 95; Rom. 5:1-11
T h e r e are two main characters in this dialogue. Jesus a n d t h e Samaritan
w o m a n . Each o n e of t h e m is e m b e d d e d in t w o different e t h n i c a n d reli-
gious groups—the disciples a n d t h e Samaritan villagers—which provide t h e
b a c k d r o p for their conversation.
Let us start with Jesus. As a Jewish male, h e is in a position of advantage
over t h e w o m a n . But, as a thirsty and tired sojourner, h e is obviously at a
disadvantage: he does not have a bucket to draw water. A thirsty Messiah and
a resourceful w o m a n will find out that they need each other—a wonderful
m e t a p h o r for h o w G o d and h u m a n i t y are intimately interconnected.
This is a story of overcoming exclusiveness a n d of building c o m m u n i t y
t h r o u g h inclusiveness. O n e m o v e m e n t is negative, t h e o t h e r positive. First,
after t h e w o m a n ' s initial surprise, Jesus invites t h e dialogue by b e c o m i n g
vulnerable ("Give m e a drink" [v. 7]) and by allowing t h e w o m a n to exercise
s o m e p o w e r over h i m (she is t h e o n e w i t h t h e bucket!) S o m e have p o i n t e d
o u t t h e paradox of t h e scene: H e r e is t h e giver of living water, thirsty
himself. Second, Jesus o v e r c o m e s t h e disciples' initial surprise a n d preju-
dice toward the w o m a n a n d t e a c h e s t h e m a lesson in discipleship. Third,
Jesus overcomes his o w n Jewish cultic tradition by affirming t h a t G o d is
best w o r s h i p e d in "spirit" (v. 23). H e d o e s away w i t h t h e Temple institution
b o t h in Israel and in Samaria and p o i n t s to a different eschatological reality,
in w h i c h h e believes h e is n o w living ("and is n o w here" [v. 23]).
 The second m o v e m e n t is positive a n d is o n e of building community.
Jesus d o e s this first by crossing g e n d e r b o u n d a r i e s a n d by engaging t h e
w o m a n as a valid conversation p a r t n e r to w h o m h e makes t h e first self-reve-
lation of t h e entire Gospel; "I a m he" (v. 26). Thus, Jesus breaks o p e n t h e
b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n male and female a n d includes w o m e n in t h e circle of
disciples, for this resourceful and clever w o m a n goes back to t h e village and
witnesses to t h e t o w n s p e o p l e concerning Jesus. Consequently, they are able
to make a christological confession (v. 42). But Jesus also builds c o m m u n i t y
by crossing racial b o u n d a r i e s and breaking d o w n the distinction b e t w e e n
"chosen people" and "rejected people." Jesus extends t h e mission of the
Jewish Messiah to t h e Samaritan people, w h o were hated by t h e Jews
because of t h e Samaritans' history of racial mixture and religious syncretism.
Enter t h e Samaritan w o m a n . She is in clear disadvantage because of
g e n d e r and race. But she has t h e advantage of being a local (Samaria is h e r
h o m e , after all) a n d of having access to t h e water of t h e well, which Jesus
lacks. Unlike N i c o d e m u s in ch. 3, w h o s e e m s to r u n o u t of questions as t h e
dialogue progresses, this w o m a n engages Jesus in a profound theological
conversation. In t h e text, s h e is t h e s p o k e s p e r s o n for t h e Samaritans (notice
t h e use of plural personal p r o n o u n s in w . 12,20-22). She m a k e s progressive
affirmations of faith t h a t prepare t h e way to h e r being sent as a disciple.
W h e n carefully read, this story provides t h e warrant for t h e presence of
w o m e n a m o n g Jesus' g r o u p of disciples. Two clues from t h e J o h a n n i n e
context will s h o w this. First, in 1:40, A n d r e w tells his b r o t h e r Simon t h a t h e
has found t h e Messiah a n d t h e n brings him to Jesus. In 4:39, t h e w o m a n ' s
testimony brings a b o u t t h e conversion of t h e Samaritans. Second, in 1:46-49
N a t h a n a e l b e c o m e s a disciple after Jesus tells N a t h a n a e l his w h e r e a b o u t s
u n d e r t h e fig tree. In 4:29, t h e w o m a n b e c o m e s a witness to Jesus b e c a u s e
of what Jesus told her. There is n o d o u b t that this w o m a n is a witness to
Christ—a disciple—just as m u c h as t h e male disciples (1:35-51).
A third disadvantage t h e w o m a n faces (besides t h o s e of g e n d e r a n d
race) is her private life: she has h a d five h u s b a n d s . But this is n o t necessarily
proof of a licentious life. She could have b e e n t r a p p e d in t h e custom of levi-
rate marriage (see Tamar in G e n e s i s 38) a n d t h e last male in t h e family line
13
h a d refused to m a r r y h e r . The text portrays h e r n o t as a t r a m p but as a n
example of growing faith. T h e five h u s b a n d s can also b e a reference to
people from five foreign nations w h o w e r e b r o u g h t as colonists by t h e
Assyrians w h e n t h e y c o n q u e r e d t h e region in 721 B.c.E. (see 2 Kings 17:24).
This created a situation of intermarriage, aggravated by H e r o d t h e Great's
decision to c o n t i n u e t h e p a t t e r n of colonization by settling t h o u s a n d s of
14
foreigners in Samaria. If this is t h e case, t h e n Jesus is c o m m e n t i n g n o t o n
t h e Samaritan w o m a n ' s private life b u t rather o n h e r mixed race a n d culture
d u e to imperialism.
T h e disciples are t h e g r o u p to w h i c h Jesus relates ethnically a n d reli-
giously. They are Jews (v. 9). They a p p e a r at t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e narrative
(v. 8) a n d again after Jesus has finished his conversation w i t h t h e w o m a n
(v. 27). They provide a syntactical "bookend" for Jesus' conversation w i t h
t h e w o m a n , for t h e text lets us k n o w t h a t it is w h e n t h e disciples are g o n e
t h a t Jesus actually talks to t h e w o m a n . Verses 7-30 c a n b e s t r u c t u r e d in t h e
following way:
A. A w o m a n c a m e to d r a w water (v. 7)
B. The disciples h a d g o n e away into t h e city (v. 8)
C. Dialogue b e t w e e n Jesus and t h e w o m a n (w. 9-26)
B'. The disciples c a m e back from t h e city (v. 27)
A . T h e w o m a n left t h e water jar and w e n t back into t h e city (v. 28)
J o h n 4 r e p r e s e n t s t h e founding narrative for t h e p r e s e n c e of a consid-
erable n u m b e r of Samaritans in t h e J o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y . Thus, t h e story
p r o m o t e s diversity a m o n g t h e early Christian c o m m u n i t i e s as well as legit-
imizes t h e discipleship of w o m e n . Against this b a c k d r o p , t h e disciples in
t h e narrative stand for t h o s e p e o p l e inside t h e c o m m u n i t y w h o w e r e n o t
really enthusiastic a b o u t t h e p r o s p e c t s of including non-Jews as fellow
believers. T h e male disciples are s u m m o n e d t o participate in t h e mission,
b u t t h e y have to acknowledge t h a t "others" have labored first. This is a
veiled reference to t h e m i s s i o n a r y w o r k of t h e w o m a n .
T h e Samaritan villagers acknowledge Jesus as t h e "Savior of t h e world,"
n o t just t h e Jewish Messiah or t h e traditional Samaritan Ta'heb ("the o n e
w h o returns"). This speaks of a n e w c o n s c i o u s n e s s arising in t h e J o h a n n i n e
c o m m u n i t y that struggles to o v e r c o m e cultural a n d national differences.
Whatever t h e w o m a n told t h e m , she did it in a way t h a t allowed h e r
conversation with Jesus to filter t h r o u g h h e r o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w h o
Jesus was. Even if, as Jesus said, salvation is from t h e Jews, it w o u l d n o t b e
limited to Israel alone b u t w o u l d spill into t h e w h o l e world. Initially (unlike
t h e Jewish disciples in 20:18-29), t h e y believe b e c a u s e of t h e w o m a n ' s testi-
m o n y b u t t h e n are able to ascertain for themselves w h o Jesus really is. Like
t h e w o m a n ' s , their faith progresses.
 W h a t h a p p e n e d at t h e well t h a t e m p o w e r e d t h e w o m a n t o b e c o m e a
witness of t h e gospel? Jesus treated h e r as a valid conversation partner,
engaging h e r in serious theological conversation. T h e fact t h a t h e disagreed
w i t h s o m e of t h e w o m a n ' s affirmations is t h e b e s t proof t h a t h e was
treating h e r w i t h respect. In his b o o k A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, Jacob
N e u s n e r explains t h a t for a rabbi to a r g u e a n d dialogue w i t h o t h e r s was a
sign of respect: "It is m y form of respect, t h e only c o m p l i m e n t I crave from
others, t h e only serious tribute I pay t o t h e p e o p l e I take seriously—and
15
therefore I respect a n d e v e n love."
The q u e s t i o n still r e m a i n s as to h o w Jesus was c h a n g e d by t h e experi-
ence. If w e c a n n o t a n s w e r t h e question, t h e n we have to c o n c l u d e t h a t this
dialogue was staged, fabricated. Thus, I think t h a t b e c a u s e of this experi-
e n c e Jesus b e g a n to realize t h e universal s c o p e of his mission. His ministry
would n o t b e b o u n d by social, ethnic, o r religious conventions. It was a n
exercise in inclusiveness, s o m e t h i n g similar to w h a t h e e x p e r i e n c e d w i t h
t h e Syrophoenician w o m a n in M a r k 7:24-30. So, Jesus left u s with a crucial
lesson: c o m m u n i t y c a n b e built only w h e n w e are n o t afraid of overcoming
old prejudices a n d are willing to break social c o n v e n t i o n s t h a t d e h u m a n i z e
us. The living water t h a t Jesus p r o m i s e d t h e w o m a n , symbolized in t h e
water t h a t M o s e s c a u s e d t o c o m e o u t of t h e rock (Exodus 17), is G o d ' s
purifying water, t h e Holy Spirit (7:37-39), w h i c h c a n purify o u r h e a r t s of old
hatreds a n d hostilities and form us into a diverse p e o p l e of G o d o n earth.

March 6, 2005: Fourth Sunday in Lent

J o h n 9:1-41; 1 Sam. 16:1-13; Ps. 23; Eph. 5:8-14
C h a p t e r 9 functions as a c o m m e n t a r y o n Jesus' claim in 8:12, "I a m t h e
light of t h e world." Verse 5 ("As long as I a m in t h e world, I a m t h e light of
t h e world") ties c h a p t e r s 8 a n d 9 together. C h a p t e r 9 c a n b e divided into
t h r e e sections: i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e healing ( w . 1-5), description of t h e
healing (w. 6-7), a n d reaction to t h e healing (w. 8-41). As in J o h n 4, a
n u m b e r of characters p o p u l a t e t h e scene: t h e blind m a n , Jesus, t h e disci-
ples, t h e Pharisees, a n d t h e blind m a n ' s parents. Religious instruction is
again conveyed t h r o u g h dialogue, a literary device p r e s e n t in rabbinic a n d
Hellenistic d o c u m e n t s as well as in t h e Jesus tradition.
H o w o n e p u n c t u a t e s v. 3 makes a difference in t h e way o n e interprets
this incident. T h e NRSV, by a d d i n g "he was b o r n blind" (a phrase n o t in t h e
G r e e k text), suggests t h a t t h e man's blindness is a n "excuse" for G o d to
s h o w G o d ' s power (see also 11:4). A m o r e accurate translation of v. 3 reads
as follows: "Neither this m a n n o r his p a r e n t s sinned. But in order t h a t G o d ' s
works might be revealed in h i m it is necessary for us to work t h e works of
t h e o n e w h o sent m e " This translation establishes n o c o n n e c t i o n
b e t w e e n sickness a n d sin (but see 5:14). Therefore, Jesus has to d o t h e work
of G o d and heal t h e man. In either case, Jesus s e e m s t o b e rejecting s o m e of
t h e Old Testament teaching a b o u t sickness as a c o n s e q u e n c e of inherited
sin. In t h e Jewish tradition, t h e r e were t w o causes for sickness: t h e sins of
t h e parents, which p r o d u c e d t h e suffering of t h e children (Exod. 20:5), a n d
prenatal sin c o m m i t t e d by t h e fetus. The latter was a n older tradition, stem-
m i n g from t h e rabbinic period. But t h e r e were in Israel also differences of
o p i n i o n o n this matter, as suggested by Ezekiel 18 a n d Jeremiah 31:29-31. In
our passage, Jesus s e e m s to side with t h o s e p r o p h e t i c traditions t h a t
affirmed t h a t people were individually responsible for their sins.
In reading t h e G o s p e l of John, ancient a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y readers are
used to expect m o r e t h a n t h e obvious, so w h e n it c o m e s to u n d e r s t a n d i n g
w h a t t h e blind m a n s t a n d s for t h e r e are a variety of possible interpretations:
1. Since t h e p u r p o s e of signs in J o h n is to teach a b o u t Christology, t h e
giving of sight to a blind m a n teaches people that Jesus is t h e light of t h e
world, similar to t h e way t h e multiplication of loaves in ch. 6 shows t h a t
16
Jesus is t h e bread of life. T h e only way people c a n a p p r o a c h t h e light of
G o d s h o w n in t h e p e r s o n of Jesus is by acknowledging their o w n blindness.
A p p r o a c h i n g Jesus p r e t e n d i n g to k n o w (Nicodemus) or see (Pharisees)
a m o u n t s t o remaining in spiritual darkness. This chapter in particular a n d
t h e G o s p e l in general exemplify t h e m o v e m e n t from unbelief to belief. With
his declaration in v. 38, "Lord, I believe," t h e m a n d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e kind of
faith t h a t is required for salvation. T h e s a m e kind of confession is s h o w n by
M a r t h a in 11:27.
2. T h e m a n is a foil for t h e b l i n d n e s s of t h e Pharisees, a p o i g n a n t
e x a m p l e of t h e irony of t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l a n d t h e h u m o r of t h e region: a
blind m a n w h o sees w h a t t h e religious authorities d o n o t (w, 39-41). T h e
c h a p t e r starts with a m a n b o r n blind a n d a s s u m e d t o b e a sinner (v, 2) a n d
e n d s w i t h s o m e of t h e Pharisees being declared sinners b e c a u s e t h e y
p r e t e n d t o "see," w h i c h shows their unbelief (w. 39-41). In t h e c o u r s e of t h e
chapter, "blindness" m o v e s from a physical to a spiritual level T h e blind
m a n n o t only sees in a physical way b u t also believes a n d receives spiritual
light (see Eph. 5:8-14). Sinfulness is related to physical defect, d i s o b e d i e n c e
t o t h e Torah, a n d t h e inability to acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Again, w e see
t h e a m a z i n g piling u p of symbolisms in John's rhetoric.
3. S e n d i n g t h e m a n to b e w a s h e d in t h e p o o l of Siloam recalls t h e inci-
d e n t in 2 Kings 5:10-14, w h e r e N a a m a n t h e leper is s e n t by Elisha to b a t h e
in t h e river Jordan. It also e m p h a s i z e s t h e healing p o w e r of water, since t h e
m a n is healed o n l y after h e w a s h e s himself in t h e pool—an act of trusting
o b e d i e n c e . That is w h y in t h e early church this story was read d u r i n g t h e
baptism of n e w converts. S o m e scholars even believe t h a t w . 38-39 w e r e
a d d e d later for precisely t h a t p u r p o s e . In fact, this s t o r y a p p e a r s in early
17
c a t a c o m b art m o s t frequently as a n illustration of Christian b a p t i s m . In
t h e G o s p e l itself t h e r e are proofs t h a t t h e Evangelist had in m i n d a
baptismal motif. T h e n a m e of t h e p o o l m e a n s "sent"; a n d in J o h n Jesus is
t h e o n e w h o was s e n t from G o d . Also, t h e w a t e r of t h e p o o l was t h e s o u r c e
of t h e w a t e r used in t h e celebration of t h e Feast of Tabernacles, and t h e
reader has l e a r n e d from 7:37-38 t h a t Jesus, d u r i n g t h e last day of t h e
festival, declares himself to b e t h e s o u r c e of living water, t h u s symbolically
replacing t h e water of t h e festival w i t h his o w n p e r s o n .
4, O n e of t h e m o s t p o p u l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of this c h a p t e r is t h a t t h e
m a n reflects t h e situation of t h e J o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y w h e n it was force-
fully separated from t h e synagogue. This is b a s e d o n 9:22, 34 b u t also o n
12:42-43 a n d 16:2, This is probably true, b u t t h e separation d o e s n o t have
to b e u n d e r s t o o d as forceful expulsion b u t p e r h a p s as v o l u n t a r y separa-
tion. This takes t h e responsibility for t h e rift off t h e Jewish p e o p l e a n d p u t s
it o n t h e c o m m u n i t y (also Jewish), w h i c h found it impossible to remain in
c o m m u n i o n w i t h their b r o t h e r s a n d sisters at t h e s y n a g o g u e because of
their developing Christology—an e x a m p l e of w h i c h c a n b e s e e n in t h e
m a n ' s progressive u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w h o Jesus was (see 9:11, 17, 33, 38).

Conclusion
As we slowly m a k e o u r way into Lent, trying to disregard t h e idolatrous
commercialization of t h e s e a s o n in o u r society, let us r e m e m b e r that Jesus
took time to s p e a k to p e o p l e a b o u t w h a t was really i m p o r t a n t for t h e m . In
t h e face of a n i m p e n d i n g death, h e still focused o n people's needs. H i s was
a life selflessly invested in o t h e r s . In a n age of technological advances,
emails a n d w e b pages, w h e r e t h e line b e t w e e n w h a t is real a n d w h a t is n o t
has b e e n dangerously blurred, let us take time to dialogue w i t h o u r fellow
h u m a n beings just as Jesus did. Let us take a real interest in their lives. Let
us m a k e t i m e to talk—as Jesus did in his long road to G o o d Friday—about
w h a t really matters, c o m p u t e r s and PowerPoint p r e s e n t a t i o n s n o t w i t h -
standing.

Osvaldo D. Vena is Associate Professor of New Testament at Garrett-Evangelical

Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois.

Endnotes
1. Francis W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper &
Row. 1981). 105.
2. Ibid, 111.
3. Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), 37.
4. Charles H. Talbert, Reading John; A Literary and Theological Commentary on the
Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 98.
5. Bruce J, Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the
Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 81.
6. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: The
Seabury Press, 1980), 2:366.
7. Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary, 82.
8. Talbert, Reading John, 99.
9. Schnackenburg, Gospel According to St. John, 370.
10. William Barclay makes a huge compromise by translating it "be born again
from above." Sec The New Testament: A Translation by William Barclay (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1999), 257.
11. Raymond E. Brown. S.S.. The Gospel According to John, The Anchor Bible
(New York: Doubleday, 1966), 29:132,
12. Talbert, Reading John, 101.
13. Gail R. O'Day, "The Gospel of John," in The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1995), 9: 567.
14. Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 2nd. ed. (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2003), 49.
15. Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus: An Intermillennial, Interfaith Exchange
(New York: Doubleday, 1993), 3.
16. Talbert, Reading John, 162.
17. Brown, Gospel According to John, 380.
 A Word on The Word
Issues In: Online Resources in Theology and Religion

BRYAN STONE

A recent survey c o n d u c t e d by t h e Pew I n t e r n e t Project found t h a t s o m e

25 p e r c e n t of I n t e r n e t users (around 2 8 million people) have looked
for religious or spiritual information online. T h a t is m o r e t h a n t h e n u m b e r
of t h o s e w h o have used online banking, o n l i n e stock trading, online
1
auctions, online dating services, or o n l i n e gambling. Religion is a m o n g t h e
busiest lanes in t h e information superhighway. Of course, t h e image of t h e
World Wide Web as a superhighway can b e misleading. In reality, t h e Web
resembles s o m e t h i n g m o r e like a c r o w d e d b a z a a r in w h i c h a n y o n e c a n set
u p their o w n stall, h o p i n g t h a t o t h e r s will pass by a n d take notice.
Religious a n d theological websites are a b o u t as diverse as t h e p h e n o m -
e n o n of religion itself. S o m e offer information a b o u t a religious group,
ministry, or position in a relatively passive way, while o t h e r s are aggressive
in their defense of positions, attacks o n o t h e r positions, o r efforts to m a k e
converts. S o m e websites offer w h a t is b o t h i n t e n d e d t o b e a n d taken as a
form of spiritual c o m m u n i t y . S o m e are intensely practical—they are places
w h e r e w o r k gets d o n e , ideas are exchanged, a n d resources are shared. T h e
sheer q u a n t i t y of religious websites can, of course, p o s e p r o b l e m s for
pastors, c h u r c h leaders, laypersons, or t h e o l o g y s t u d e n t s , w h o m u s t m a k e
decisions a b o u t w h a t is useful a n d t r u s t w o r t h y from w i t h i n this virtual
chaos. With a little technological know-how, a n y o n e today c a n p u t u p a
website p o s t i n g - f o r example, a lengthy treatise o n infant b a p t i s m - a n d as
a theology professor, I will find it q u o t e d in o n e of m y s t u d e n t s ' papers,
alongside Augustine, Luther, Wesley, o r Calvin. This fact raises i m p o r t a n t
q u e s t i o n s a b o u t identity a n d authority, b e c a u s e a n y sect can n o w p r e s e n t
itself o n t h e W e b as historic Christianity a n d a n y individual can easily
p r e s e n t him- or herself as a reliable s p o k e s p e r s o n for a g r o u p or d e n o m i n a -
tion. While s o m e s p e a k of t h e I n t e r n e t revolution as t h e democratization of
information, it m a y b e t h a t o u r situation is m o r e like information anarchy.
Still, while this reality calls for caution a n d discrimination, t h e wealth of
resources available o n t h e I n t e r n e t for religious, liturgical, historical, a n d
theological research is far t o o valuable a n d accessible to b e t r e a t e d lightly
or dismissed easily.

Religion Gateways
O n e of t h e best ways t o find useful religious a n d theological material o n
t h e I n t e r n e t is to b e g i n w i t h a r e p u t a b l e guide, index, or gateway. These
guides usually have links to a variety of sites, categorized u n d e r s u b h e a d -
ings s u c h as religious topics; online journals, magazines, a n d newsletters;
texts, archives, and collections; societies, institutions, religious bodies, a n d
traditions; syllabi, bibliographies, a n d courses; a n d theologians o r great
thinkers. S o m e of t h e b e s t a m o n g t h e s e guides m a k e an a t t e m p t to b e
selective rather t h a n comprehensive:
• T h e W a b a s h C e n t e r G u i d e t o I n t e r n e t R e s o u r c e s for T e a c h i n g a n d
L e a r n i n g in Theology a n d Religion
(http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/lnternet/front.htm)
• V i r t u a l R e l i g i o n I n d e x (Rutgers University)
(http://religion.rutgers.edu/vri)
• R e l i g i o n - o n l i n e . o r g (http://www.religion-online.org)
• C o m p u t e r - A s s i s t e d T h e o l o g y (Michael Fraser)
http://users.ox.ac.uk/"'ctitext2/theology
• T h e o l o g y Links (http://www.fambof.nl/links/theology)
• F i n d i n g G o d i n C y b e r s p a c e (http://sim74.kenrickparish.com)
• Fides Quaerens Internetum
fhttp://people.bu.edu/bpstone/theology/theology.html)
Theological libraries frequently function as s o m e of t h e best gateways.
Over t h e past two decades, s e m i n a r y a n d divinity school libraries have b e e n
b u s y trying to keep p a c e with t h e Web developments, a n d this has m e a n t
n e w strategies a r o u n d w h a t it m e a n s to collect a n d preserve information
(and, indeed, w h a t c o u n t s as information); b u t especially a r o u n d w h a t it
m e a n s to provide access to information. T h e m a m m o t h task of scanning
and digitizing i m p o r t a n t theological and reference works, journals, heavily
used materials, and historical collections, so that t h e y can b e accessed
online is a project only in its infancy. T h e legal, technical, a n d e c o n o m i c
issues s u r r o u n d i n g all of this are e n o u g h to drive a librarian batty, b u t t h e
move toward digitization of important, historical, or frequently used mate-
rials is inevitable.
 It w o u l d b e impossible in this s h o r t article t o list t h e m a n y resources
available to t h e cyber public from theological school libraries a n d their
websites; b u t generally o n e can find invaluable I n t e r n e t research tools,
archives, indexes, m a n u s c r i p t s , special collections, databases, bibliogra-
phies, a n d access to holdings online. T h e A m e r i c a n Theological Library
Association (ATLA) p r o d u c e s o n e of t h e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e religion data-
bases in t h e world, covering antiquities/archaeology, Bible, c h u r c h history,
e c u m e n i s m , ethics, missions, pastoral ministry, philosophy, religions/reli-
gious studies, a n d theology. ATLA also m a i n t a i n s an o n l i n e collection of
major religion a n d t h e o l o g y journals, t h e ATLA Serials project (ATLAS).
T h e best theological libraries subscribe to t h e s e a n d o t h e r searchable data-
b a s e s a n d offer access t o t h e m online. W i t h o u t any a t t e m p t at being
exhaustive, a few helpful theological library websites are:
• B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l of T h e o l o g y L i b r a r y
http://www.bu.edu/sth/sthlibrary
• D r e w University Library
http://www.depts.drew.edu/lib
• D u k e Divinity School Library
http://www.lib.duke.edu/divinity
• P i t t s T h e o l o g i c a l L i b r a r y (Candler School of Theology)
http://www.pitts.emory.edu
• Vanderbilt University Divinity School Library
http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/lib
• Yale U n i v e r s i t y D i v i n i t y S c h o o l L i b r a r y
http://www.library.vale.edu/div/divhome.htm
Of course, journals a n d magazines are t r e m e n d o u s resources for t h e o -
logical study, a n d a considerable n u m b e r of religious a n d theological period-
icals have g o n e to online formats (some exclusively so). Again, while it is
impossible to list t h e m a n y journals here, m o s t of t h e gateways referenced
earlier feature directories of these journals a n d magazines. T h e Wabash
Center's site (www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/Internet/e-j-idx.htm) provides
o n e of t h e better "directories of directories" for electronic journals.
A m o n g t h e m o s t u n i q u e and powerful of t h e I n t e r n e t ' s p r o p e r t i e s is its
interactivity; a n d this h a s c h a n g e d t h e face of h o w m u c h of theology gets
d o n e today. A growing n u m b e r of theological websites h o s t bulletin b o a r d s
a n d discussion forums, s u c h as " O p e n Source Theology" (www.open-
sourcetheology.net) o r "Faith M a p s " (www.faithmaps.org). But t h e busiest
such i n s t r u m e n t o n t h e I n t e r n e t for this type of activity is u n d o u b t e d l y t h e
"list-serv," w h i c h refers b o t h to a mailing list for g r o u p discussion a n d
conferencing and to t h e discussion g r o u p itself. O n e m u s t subscribe t o a
list-serv in order to p o s t a n d receive t h e email exchanges a m o n g its
m e m b e r s , a n d usually a m o d e r a t o r a t t e m p t s to e n s u r e basic courtesies in
c o m m u n i c a t i o n . List-servs have b e c o m e s o m e of t h e busiest hives for t h e
exchange of information a n d ideas, q u e s t i o n s , answers, a n d a r g u m e n t s ; and
t h e y are available o n almost a n y topic u n d e r t h e s u n (see, for example, t h e
lists at discussionlists.com or groups.vahoo.com). As o n e might guess, o n e
of t h e disadvantages of list-servs is that, at times, o n e m u s t w a d e t h r o u g h
v o l u m e s of u n i m p o r t a n t or even irritating emails to find s o m e t h i n g w o r t h -
while. Keeping track of t h e various "threads" in a discussion can also prove
bewildering at times.
Because t h e increasing s p e e d of I n t e r n e t access allows users to share
a n d access material t h r o u g h a variety of media—text, images, s o u n d , v i d e o -
theological and religious c o u r s e w o r k is gradually b e c o m i n g m o r e widely
available o n t h e Web, c o m p l e t e w i t h "live chats" a n d s t r e a m i n g video. Even
w h e r e o n l i n e courses are n o t available, however, I n t e r n e t users s c o u t i n g for
religious resources will find a n u m b e r of helpful syllabi a n d bibliographies
by c o n d u c t i n g simple searches t h r o u g h t h e s t a n d a r d e n g i n e s s u c h as
www.googIe.com or www.altavista.com.
D e s p i t e t h e t r e m e n d o u s possibilities for interactive teaching, learning,
exchange, a n d discussion o n t h e Internet, t h e ability of t h e I n t e r n e t simply
to serve as a s t o r e h o u s e of knowledge r e m a i n s o n e of its m o s t i m p o r t a n t
qualities. A n s w e r s to basic theological q u e s t i o n s , d a t a o n religious g r o u p s
a n d their beliefs a n d practices, a n d historic religious d o c u m e n t s a n d texts
are all easily accessible. Take, for example, t h e following widely u s e d collec-
tions:
• C h r i s t i a n Classics E t h e r e a l L i b r a r y (http://www.ccel.org) Probably one
of the most comprehensive online collections of Christian literature, ranging
from the early Church Fathers to devotional classics to major Christian theolo-
gians and thinkers
• Creeds, Confessions, a n d Catechisms
( h t t p : / / w w w . g t y . o r g / ~ p h i l / c r e e d s . h t m ) A set of links to a wide range of
creedal statements from a variety of Christian traditions
• D o c u m e n t s of t h e P r o t e s t a n t R e f o r m a t i o n
( h t t p : / / w w w . m u n . c a / r e l s / h r o l l m a n n / r e f o r m / reform.html) Hans
 Rollman's collection of links to the documents of the various reformations of
the sixteenth century
• N e w A d v e n t (http://www.newadvent.org) An extensive theological
resource and host to the 1917 Catholic E n c y c l o p e d i a - a n older but easily
searchable source of theological terms, historical entries, and answers to theo-
logical questions
Wesleyan theological resources m a y also b e found o n t h e Web, w i t h
t h e following as a set of useful starting points:
• J o h n W e s l e y R e s o u r c e s (General Board of Global Ministries)
(http://www.gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Wesley)
• M e t h o d i s t A r c h i v e s a n d R e s e a r c h C e n t r e (John Rylands University
Library of Manchester)
(http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/datal/dg/ text/method.html)
• T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t A r c h i v e s C e n t e r (Drew University Library)
(http://www.depts.drew.edu/lib/uma.html)
• T h e W e s l e y C e n t e r O n l i n e (http://wesley.nnu.edu) Provides a number of
digitized works of John and Charles Wesley (for example, the 1872 Jackson
edition of Wesley's works and his notes on the Bible), John Fletcher, and
important works from the nineteenth-century Holiness Movement
• A s b u r y Theological S e m i n a r y Publications (http://www.asburysemi-
n a r y . e d u / n e w s / p u b l i c a t i o n s / w e s l e y . s h t m l ) Comprehensive Wesleyan
bibliography by Kenneth J. Collins

Liturgical Resources
Religious aids to w o r s h i p a b o u n d o n t h e Internet. S o m e sites offer Web-
surfers their o w n private w o r s h i p experiences, c o m p l e t e w i t h music,
Scripture readings, m e d i t a t i o n s , s e r m o n s in s t r e a m i n g audio, discussion
boards, prayer requests, and, of course, a c h a n c e t o give a n offering. O n e
site even walks individuals t h r o u g h their o w n private C o m m u n i o n service
(a theological contradiction, of course), including instructions for w h e n t o
get u p a n d get a glass of grape juice. T h o u s a n d s of p e r s o n s have experi-
m e n t e d w i t h t h e "Church of Fools" (www.shipoffools.com). s p o n s o r e d by
T h e M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h of G r e a t Britain. T h e virtual c h u r c h brings t o g e t h e r
individuals from a r o u n d t h e world e a c h w e e k into a virtual 3 D space,
w h e r e visitors are allowed t o pick their o w n a n i m a t e d character, w h o c a n
stroll a r o u n d t h e sanctuary, visit t h e crypt, sit in a pew, kneel, genuflect,
talk to o t h e r people, a n d take p a r t in a s h o r t service. (The church w a r d e n
c a n "smite" u n r u l y p e r s o n s w h o violate church d e c o r u m , t h e r e b y removing
t h e m from virtual existence.)
But b e y o n d t h e interesting a n d controversial a t t e m p t s at providing
"Web worship," online resources for w o r s h i p are plentiful a n d include
scores of sources for religious music (including "midi" samplings a n d full
downloads), prayers, readings, a n d orders of worship. A n u m b e r of useful
Lectionary resources are available to assist pastors, preachers, a n d w o r s h i p
leaders. Vanderbilt Divinity School Library provides all t h r e e cycles of read-
ings for t h e Revised C o m m o n Lectionary (RCL) from t h e N R S V in an easily
accessible format (http://divinity.lib.vanderbilt.edu/lectionary). O t h e r
Lectionary resources w o r t h consulting are
• C o m m e n t s ( h t t p : / / m o n t r e a l . a n g l i c a n . o r g / c o m m e n t s ) Useful set of
commentaries, introductions, and technical information on each of the RCL
readings hosted by the Anglican Diocese of Montreal
• T h e T e x t T h i s W e e k (http://www.textweek.com) A remarkable set of links
and resources for studying and reflecting upon the readings for each week,
with links to lectionaries used by a number of major Christian communions,
This site is especially helpful in stimulating thought about the various
Scripture readings by suggesting themes within them and then providing links
to images (frescoes, icons, statues, pictures, and paintings) and movies in
which these themes surface.
• T h e Lectionary (http://satucket.com/lectionary)
• T h e L e c t i o n a r y P a g e (http://www.io.com/~kellvwp)
In addition to Lectionary resources, websites like t h e Mission of St.
Clare provide an online version of t h e Daily Office (http://www,missionst-
clare.com), w i t h prayers, readings, psalms, a n d music for each day, while a
n u m b e r of websites, s u c h as "James Kiefer's Christian Biographies"
(http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/TEK), provide brief biographies of saints
a n d c h u r c h leaders linked to t h e day of t h e year o n w h i c h t h e y are r e m e m -
bered. O t h e r w o r s h i p a n d liturgical aids c a n b e found t h r o u g h gateways
t h a t offer h u n d r e d s of invaluable links to libraries a n d reference material,
liturgical centers a n d organizations, publications, texts, prayers, rites, a n d
music.
• L i t u r g y L i n k s (Notre D a m e C e n t e r for Pastoral Liturgy)
(http://www.nd.edu/links)
• Lift U p Y o u r H e a r t s (Evangelical L u t h e r a n C h u r c h in Canada)
(http://www.worship.ca)
• L i t u r g i c a l S t u d i e s a n d L i t u r g i c a l M u s i c (College of St. B e n e d i c t / S t .
John's University)
(http://www.csbsiu.edu/library/internet/theoltgy.html)
• A n A n g l i c a n Liturgical L i b r a r y (http://www.oremus.org/liturgy)
An extensive collection of prayers and texts used throughout the worldwide
Anglican communion, including numerous resources for working with the
Book of C o m m o n Prayer. See also "Liturgical Resources" at
http://www.anglicansonline.org/resources/liturgical.html
• T h e C a t h o l i c L i t u r g i c a l L i b r a r y (http://www.catholicliturgy.com)
• M o n a s t i c T o p i c s : L i t u r g y (The O r d e r of St. Benedict)
(http://www.osb.org/liturgy)
C o m p r e h e n s i v e bibliographies for w o r s h i p a n d p r e a c h i n g are located
o n t h e website of t h e Vanderbilt Divinity School Library. For t h e liturgies
bibliography see http://divinity.lib.vanderbilt.edu/bibs/liturgics.htm: for
t h e homiletics bibliography, visit http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/
homiletics.htm. While websites d e v o t e d to offering c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r s h i p
resources are far m o r e n u m e r o u s t h a n traditional liturgical resources, t h e y
also t e n d t o b e m o r e commercial a n d so less immediately helpful unless
o n e is looking to b u y material. O n e of t h e b e s t starting p o i n t s for c o n t e m -
p o r a r y w o r s h i p resources is "WorshipMusic.com" (http://www.praise.net):
and, of course, n o o n e s h o u l d overlook t h e various websites h o s t e d by his
o r her o w n d e n o m i n a t i o n o r tradition.

Bryan Stone is E. Stanley Jones Professor of Evangelism at the School of Theology,

Boston University, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Endnotes
1. E l e n a L a r s e n , p r i n c i p a l a u t h o r , " C y b e r F a i t h : H o w A m e r i c a n s P u r s u e
Religion Online," Pew Internet and American Life Project (2001); available at
h t t p : / / w w w . p e w i n t e r n e t . O r g / P P F / r / 5 3 / r e p o r t display.asp.
The Children of Israel: Reading the Bible for the Sake of
Our Children, by D a n n a N o l a n Fewell (Abingdon, 2003)
'he slogans a n d statistics s t a n d in s h a r p contradiction. B u m p e r stickers
JL a n d glib phrases a b o u n d : "Children First"; "No Child Left Behind"; "For
t h e Sake of t h e Children," Yet, t h e statistics are sobering. In t h e o p e n i n g
chapter, Fewell notes t h a t

in the past decade armed conflicts have killed two million children, disabled four
to five million, and left twelve million homeless One hundred and fifty million
children in developing countries are suffering from malnutrition In the United
States . . . homicide has become the third leading cause of mortality for children
between the ages of five and fourteen (19-21).

The Children of Israel challenges us to read "the Bible for t h e sake of our
children." T h e cover, a chilling Gustave D o r e engraving of t h e Flood, depicts
t h e struggle of parents attempting to protect their children from t h e rising
waters that will inevitably overcome them. In this context, Fewell asks: "In a
world w h e r e so many children are sick, hungry, dying, a b a n d o n e d , displaced
a n d violated, in a world w h e r e politics take p r e c e d e n c e over matters of life
and death, w h a t difference d o e s reading the Bible make?" (22)
T h e b o o k is divided i n t o t w o parts, w i t h each chapter p r e c e d e d by a
brief dialogue b e t w e e n an adult and a child. Each piece is a gem, snatching
m y attention, as if I were t h e r e w h e n Jesus t u r n e d a Samaritan into a hero.
Fewell invites readers to move into t h e biblical text, challenging t h e m to
s t a n d within familiar narratives b u t using an unfamiliar template. First, she
d e m a n d s that we w i d e n o u r perspective of t h e text to include t h e edges a n d
t h e shadows, asking, "Where are t h e children? W h a t is h a p p e n i n g to them?"
This draws our eyes from t h e familiar h e r o to t h o s e w h o , albeit often invis-
ible, yet inhabit t h e text. In the s h a d o w of A b r a h a m ' s radical o b e d i e n c e
s t a n d s t h e child Isaac, seeing a father ready to b u r n h i m alive. Moses,
plucked from t h e Nile, diverts attention from t h e o t h e r babies w h o drown.
D e a d first-born s o n s are o n t h e edges of t h e Exodus. Children of Sodom,
 T H E C H I L D R E N O F I S R A E L R E A D I N G T H E BIBLE F O R T H E SAKE O F O U R C H I L D R E N

G o m o r r a h , a n d countless o t h e r cities are t h e silent cost of cleansing and

overcoming. Children of "pagan" w o m e n b e c o m e h o m e l e s s as Israel purified
itself from t h e h e a t h e n . A nameless d a u g h t e r pays t h e price of a father's
bargain w i t h G o d for victory.
Having e q u i p p e d us for a fresh, yet passive, perspective, Fewell n o w
calls us to b e c o m e active by "interrupting t h e text." She illustrates this w i t h
an engaging church nativity play episode, in which a y o u n g boy, in t h e role
of t h e innkeeper, d e p a r t s from t h e narrative tradition. U p o n h e a r i n g
Joseph's plea for a place in t h e i n n for t h e p r e g n a n t Mary, t h e b o y b l u r t s
out, "You can have m y room!" We are invited to imitate h i m as we shift
from observation to e n g a g e m e n t . For t h o s e of us w h o seek solace a n d
security in Scripture, this c a n b e disturbing. Yet t h e rewards are rich, as t h e
s m o o t h surface of conventional i n t e r p r e t a t i o n gives way to t h e complex,
textured grittiness of real-life faith journey.
While Part O n e p r e p a r e s t h e r e a d e r w i t h a t e m p l a t e a n d tools for
engaging Scripture, Part Two p r e p a r e s us for r e a d i n g Scripture with chil-
dren—or, m o r e accurately, to hear Scripture through children. Fewell states,
"If t h e church's habit of reading scripture is to steer clear of texts t h a t
p r e s e n t moral a n d theological difficulty, t h e n its children are left w i t h
n o t h i n g textual a n d tangible to h e l p t h e m articulate their experiences,
c o n c e r n s , a n d fears, o r t o h e l p t h e m grapple w i t h their o w n d e v e l o p m e n t
as moral beings" (107). She r e m i n d s us of t h e few stories in which a child is
t h e m a i n protagonist, n o t i n g that o r p h a n h o o d a n d violence are recurring
t h e m e s . As in fairy tales, their lives are interrupted, challenged. They are
p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o m a k e s o m e t h i n g h a p p e n in order to
m a k e c h a n g e s n o t only for t h e m s e l v e s b u t also for t h e larger c o m m u n i t y .
Each of t h e t h r e e rich chapters of Part Two focuses o n o n e such s t o r y
(Daniel, Esther, H a n n a h ) . T h e c h a p t e r o n E s t h e r is p r e s e n t e d as a play
within a play—a g r o u p of y o u n g girls (both Christian a n d Jewish) p r e p a r i n g
a Purim p l a y Their o w n e x p e r i e n c e s are interwoven w i t h their e n c o u n t e r
w i t h Esther's life, a n d t h e Scripture narrative e x p l o d e s w i t h implications.
The Children of Israel is a g o o d read, accessible a n d challenging. But b e
warned: b o t h y o u r seeing a n d y o u r h e a r i n g are subject to change.

Reviewed by Patricia Barrett. Barrett is an Assistant General Secretary in the

Division of Ordained Ministry, General Board of Higher Education and Ministry.
Index to Volume 24, 2004
Editorial
Rethinking War a n d Peace, 5-6
L e a r n i n g for a C h a n g e , 115-116
P r e a c h i n g for a N e w Time, 225-26
A Call to Order, O n c e M o r e , . . , 335-36
Issue T h e m e
T h e War o n Terror a n d t h e "Wrongful U s e of t h e N a m e of t h e Lord Your God," T y r o n I n b o d y , 7-20
United M e t h o d i s t Witness in Times of War: Five Characteristics, E l l e n O t t M a r s h a l l , 21-34
Reflections from a War Z o n e : Jesus' Radical Call to Forgiveness, S a n d r a K. O l e w i n e , 35-46
T h e Military Chaplain in Time of War: C o n t o u r s a n d C o n t e n t of Ministry. R o b e r t J. P h i l l i p s . 47-58
"I Recognize Religion": Terrorism a n d Pastoral Theology, G . C l a r k e C h a p m a n , Jr.. 59-66
H o w C a n C o n t i n u i n g Theological E d u c a t i o n Serve t h e C h u r c h ? . D , B r u c e R o b e r t s . 117-30
Rejoicing in t h e Truth, C h a r l e s M . W o o d , 131-41
N u r t u r i n g a L e a r n e d Clergy: A Survey of t h e United M e t h o d i s t Clergy P r o b a t i o n a r y Process, Lovett I I .
W e e m s , Jr., 142-52
For Excellent P u r p o s e s : A s p e c t s of Lay Theological E d u c a t i o n in T h e United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h . S u s a n
W i U h a u c k , 153-67
F r o m t h e 3Rs t o t h e 3Ws: C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n in a Digital Age, T h o m a s R. H a w k i n s . 168-80
C h a l l e n g i n g United M e t h o d i s t Preachers, T y r o n e D . G o r d o n , A d a m H a m i l t o n . 227-35
Preaching Paul. L. S u s a n B o n d , 236-48
Preaching Theology, J o h n S. M c C I u r e , 249-61
P r e a c h i n g a m i d s t Different Cultures, A i d a I r i z a r r y - F e r n a n d e z , 262-71
Preaching That C o n n e c t s for t h e Twenty-First-Century Hearer: A n African Perspective. E b e n K.
N h i w a t i w a . 272-88
W h a t is a n O r d e r ? Reflections o n t h e Vocation of Elders a n d D e a c o n s , M a r k W. S t a m m . 337-49
T h e O r d e r of Elders: D o o m e d to Failure o r H o p e for t h e Future?, G r a n t H a g i y a , 350-57
T h e Oral Roberts O p t i o n : T h e C a s e for O r d a i n e d Local Elders (and Ix>cai Deacons?) in T h e United
M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , T e d A . C a m p b e l l . 358-66
C o n n e c t e d a n d Sent Out: Implications of N e w Biblical Research for t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t D i a c o n a t e ,
B e n j a m i n L. H a r t l e y , 367-80
U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t O r d a i n e d Ministry in E c u m e n i c a l Perspective, Jeffrey G r o s . 381-98
Outside the Theme
Beyond B u r n o u t : N e w C r e a t i o n a n d t h e E c o n o m i c s of G r a c e in Global Capitalism. J o e r g R i e g c r , 67-79
T h e G l o b a l N a t u r e of T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h : W h a t F u t u r e for t h e Branch O u t s i d e t h e United
States?, P a t r i c k P h . Streiff, 181-93
"I Permit N o t a W o m a n to Teach": W o m e n ' s Roles as a Test C a s e for Biblical Authority, R a l p h K.
H a w k i n s , 289-99; R e s p o n s e to Ralph K. H a w k i n s . T e x S a m p l e , 300 02; Rejoinder, R a l p h K. H a w k i n s .
303-05
T h e G r a c e of Letting G o : Theological Reflections o n Forgiveness from a Space In-Between. M i c h a e l
N a u s n e r , 399-410
T h e C h u r c h in Review
T h e F u t u r e of C o n n e c t i o n a l i s m , T h o m a s E. F r a n k ; M a r k W. W e t h i n g t o n . 80 86
G e n e r a l Conference, G r a n t H a g i y a , R o b e r t C. S c h n a s e , 194-200
T h e M e a n i n g of United M e t h o d i s t Relatedness, W i l l i a m B. L a w r e n c e ; T e d B r o w n . 306-12
G e n e r a l Agencies in T h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , R u s s e l l E . R i c h e y ; N o r m a n E . D e w i r e , 411-18
A Word on the Word
Lectionary Study: Y o u t h a H a r d m a n - C r o m w e l l (Spring), 87-96; J u d i t h A. S t e v e n s (Summer), 201-10;
J a m e s W. M o o r e (Fall), 313-19; O s v a l d o D . V e n a (Winter), 419-31
Issues In: Congregational Studies, E d w i n D a v i d A p o n t e , 97-103; Interreligious Dialogue. M . T h o m a s
T h a n g a r a j , 211-18; C o n t i n u i n g Theological Education for Clergywomen, B e t h L u t o n C o o k , 320-24; O n l i n e
Resources in Theology a n d Religion, B r y a n S t o n e , 432-38
Book Reviews
Peter Storey, With God in the Crucible: Preaching Costly Discipleship (Abingdon, 2002), D a v i d P e t e r
W h i t e l a w ; Rosetta E. Ross, Witnessing and Testifying: Black Women, Religion, and Civil Rights (Fortress.
2003), L o v e H e n r y W h e l c h e l . Jr.; Richard Lucien, O.M.I.. Living the Hospitality of God (Paulist, 2000),
H e n d r i k R. P i e t e r s e ; Kerry Walters, Jacob s Hip: Finding God In an Anxious Age (Orbis, 2003). H e n d r i k
R. P i e t e r s e ; Joerg Rieger a n d J o h n J, Vincent, eds„ Methodist and Radical: Rejuvenating a Tradition
(Kingswood, 2003), N a o m i A n n a n d a l e ; J a m e s M, G u s t a f s o n , An Examined faith: The Grace of Self-Doubt
(Fortress, 2004), M a r k E m e r y R e y n o l d s ; D a n n a N o l a n Fewell, The Children of Israel: Reading the Ilibte for
the Sake of our Children (Abingdon, 2003). P a t r i c i a B a r r e t t
 THIS ISSUE:
Issue Theme:
The Orders of Ministry: Problems and Prospects
What Is a n O r d e r ? Reflections o n t h e Vocation of Elders a n d D e a c o n s
Mark W. Stamtn
The O r d e r of Elders: D o o m e d to Failure or H o p e for t h e Future?
Grant Hagiya
The Oral R o b e r t s O p t i o n : The C a s e for O r d a i n e d Local Elders
(and Local Deacons?) in The United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h
Ted A. Campbell
C o n n e c t e d a n d S e n t Out: Implications of N e w Biblical Research
for the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t D i a c o n a t e
Benjamin L. Hartley
United M e t h o d i s t O r d a i n e d Ministry in Ecumenical Perspective
Jeffrey Gros

Outside the Theme

The G r a c e of Letting G o : Theological Reflections o n Forgiveness
from a Space In-Between
Michael Nausner

The Church in Review

The Place of t h e G e n e r a l Agencies in The United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h
Russell E. Richey
Norman E. Dewire

A Word on the Word

Lectionary Study
Osraldo D. Vena
Issues In: O n l i n e Resources in Theology a n d Religion
Bryan Stone

Book Review
77JC Children of Israel: Reading the Bible for the Sake of Our Children, by D a n n a
N o l a n Fewell (Abingdon. 2003)

Reviewer: Patricia Barrett

Index to Volume 24
" N E X T I S S U E : 1

THE I S R A E L I - P A L E S T I N I A N SITUATION: T H E O L O G I C A L I N T E R P R E T A T I O N S ^