Spring 1991 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

VOL. 11, N O .
4 1 SPRING 1991
A Journal of Scholarly Reflection for Ministry
QUARTERLY REVIEW
Breaking the Power of Cancelled Sin:

Possibilities and Limits in a Wesleyan Social Theology
Theodore R. Weber
Diaconal Ministry: Vision and Reality

Charles R. Foster
Clergy Authority: To What Shall We Compare It?

Gary S. Peluso
Readings from 1 John: Living in the Living Seasons

Paul F. Aspan
Plus Special Feature:

Globalization in Theological Education
Q U A R T E R L Y REVIEW
A Journal of Scholarly Reflection for Ministry
A publication of The United Methodist I*ubtishing House

Robert K. Feaster, President and Publisher
and the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry
Roger W. Ircson, General Secretary
Editor, Sharon J. Hels
Editorial Director, J. Richard Peck
Composition Editor, Sheila W. McGce
Editorial Board
Uoyd R. Bailey Mary Ellen Kilsby
The Divinity School First Congregational Church
Duke Univeristy Long Beach, California
Wilfred Bailey Robert C. Neville
Casa View United Methodist Church Boston University School of Theology
Dallas, Texas Judith E.Smith
George W. B a shore General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
Bishop, Pittsburgh Area The United Methodist Church
The United Methodist Church Marjorte Hewitt Suchocki
Wesley Theological Seminary
Pamela Couture John L. Topolewski
Candler School of Theology District Superintendent
Emory University Wyoming Conference
Fred B. Craddock Donald II. Treeae
Candler School of Theology General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
Emory University The United Methodist Church
F. Thomas Trotter
BrltaGill-Aufitern Alaska Pacific University
Andover Newton Theological School
Janice Riggte Iluie
Manchaca United Methodist Church
Manchaca, Texas
Quarterly R e v i e w (ISSN 0270-9287) provides continuing education resources for lay and
professional ministers in The United Methodist Church and other churches. QR Intends to be a
forum In which Issues of significance to Christian ministry can be raised and debated. Publication
of an article in QR does not Imply endorsement of its views by the editors.
Articles for consideration are welcome from lay and professional ministers, United Methodists,
and others, and should be mailed to the Editor, QR, Box 871, Nashville, TN 37202. Manuscripts
should be f n English and typed double-spaced, including notes. Writers are strongly encouraged
to enclose a copy of the manuscript on 6.25" 256K diskette, MS/DOS format, ASCII document file.
(To follow ASCII format, single-space text, double-space between paragraphs, and remove special
text styles.)
QR fa published four times a year, In March, June, September, and December, by the United
Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry and The United Methodist Publishing House.
Editorial Offices are at 1001 19th Avenue, South, Box 871, Nashville, TN 37202. Second-class
postage paid at Nashville, Tennessee.
QR Is available at a basic subscription price of $16 for one year, $26 for two years, and $33 for
three years. Subscriptions may be obtained by sending a money order or check to the Business
Manager, QR, Box 801, Nashville, TN 37202.
Postmaster Address changes should be sent to The United Methodist Publishing House, Box
801, Nashville, TN 37202.
Subscribers wishing to notify publisher of their change of address should write to the Business
Manager, QR, Box 801, Nashville, TN 37202. An index is printed in the winter Issue of each year
(number 5 for 1081 only; number 4 thereafter). QR Is printed on acid-free paper.
Lections are taken from Common Lectionary. The Lections Proposed by the Comultatlon on Common Texts
(New York: Church Hymnal Corporation, 1983).
Scripture quotation* unlets otherwise noted are from the Revised Standard Version Common Bible, copyrighted
0 1 9 7 3 by the Divialon of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U S . A., and
are uaed by permission.
Quarterly Review: A Journal of Scholarly Reflection for Ministry
Spring 1991
Copyright 1991 by The Un ited Methodist Publishing House
and the United Methodist General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
VOL.11, NO. 1 SPRING 1991
Contents
Introduction
Sharon J . Hels 2
Breaking t h e Power of Cancelled Sin:
Possibilities and Limits in a Wesleyan Social Theology
Theodore R, Weber 4
Diaconal Ministry: Vision and Reality
Charles R. Foster 22
Two Responses to "Diaconal Ministry:
Vision and Reality"
Linda Vogel 37
Jose L. Palos 40
Clergy Authority: To What Shall We Compare It?
Gary S. Peluso 43
Globalization, E c u m e n i s m , and Interreligious Dialogue
in Theological Education: Introduction
Robert E. Reber 56
Findings and Observations from the 1987-88
Survey of U n i t e d Methodist Seminaries
Russell E. Richey 58
N a m i n g t h e Issues in Ecumenical Perspectives
and Interreligious Dialogue
Michael Kinnamon 69
Ecumenical and Interreligious Agenda
of t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church
Roy I. Sano 82
Readings from I John: Living in t h e Living Seasons
PaulRAspan 98
QR 11/1/(1991)2-3
Introduction
T H E FAILED EFFORTS to avert war through negotiation

called up a m e m o r y of Neibuhr's observations on t h e
Versailles Conference in 1919 (in Leaves from the Notebook of
a Tamed Cynic), which included a c o m m e n t on how to deal with
one's enemies:
What a picture that is of Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau
settling t h e fate of the world in Paris! Wilson Is evidently losing his
battle. H e would have done better to stay at h o m e and throw bolts
from Olympus. If y o u have honest and important differences of
opinion with others, it is better to write letters than to put your feet
under t h e s a m e table with t h e m . Compromises are always more
inevitable in personal c o n t a c t than in long distance negotiation.
We pray for peace on earth, but will it ever be achieved? If

w e wish to defend our positions w e cannot avoid contact al
together. But w e m u s t choose our opportunities wisely, and
before doing so, we should consider our own position.
Theodore Weber takes up t h e dreams of Christians for a
transformed society and anchors t h e m securely in t h e Wes-
leyan vision of t h e justified and sanctified individual. His essay
looks at t h e quest for power and t h e struggle for rights; t h e
limits of privilege and t h e necessity of conflict.
T h e s e are strange t i m e s for people in mainline denomina
tions, says Charles Foster. Few of us would dispute h i m on that.
In this age of exclusivity and rampant self-interest we m u s t
fight for a theological vision of servanthood, and for t h e institu
tional survival of diaconal ministry. Foster's article is intended
to stir emotions. His global, inclusive view of ministry is set as
a challenge before us. Two respondents, Linda Vogel and Jose
Palos, have offered their v i e w s - a n d QR welcomes further
responses from our readers.
Gary Peluso's essay on authority roles for clergy grows out
of his research for t h e Northern Illinois Annual Conference
Board of Ordained Ministry. His work for QR builds on some of
these t h e m e s and suggests that we look at t h e theological
implications of t h e s e social systems of family, business and
government. His insights would be a good way to begin a small
2
INTRODUCTION
group discussion on this topic.
In this issue, w e begin a special series on t h e relationship of
t h e United Methodist Church to globalization, ecumenism, and
interreligious dialogue. T h e s e articles focus on theological
education-specifically, what is taking place in our thirteen
U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s e m i n a r i e s (Claremont, W e s l e y , D u k e ,
Candler, Iliff, St. Paul, Boston, Perkins, Drew, United, Garrett-
Evangelical, Methesco, Gammon). T h e t h r e e papers in t h i s first
installment are introduced by Dr. Robert Reber, professor of
Christian Education at Auburn Theological Seminary. Russell
Richey, author of t h e first essay in this series, has sent this vivid
testimony to t h e power of t h e s e issues in congregations today:
T h e problems of e c u m e n i s m and unity in their several dimensions
are by ino m e a n s simply national or denominational affairs. They
concern t h e local church and do so dramatically.
My ow: 1 experience confirms this. In our Sunday school class during
Christmas, a couple confessed how difficult the season has become
n o w th at their daughter has married a Muslim. Customs, seasonal
obscrvinces and family beliefs are up for grabs and must be
negotiated itcm-by-item, bringing pain rather t h a n joy to family
gather ngs. They ask for the prayers and support of t h e class. T h e
work a rca chairperson of church and society worries whether all t h e
church 's efforts in urban ministries should go through an inter
denominational agency. "Should w e not do s o m e things unilateral
ly?" is the sincere question. Church school classes order a wide
variety of materials, including s o m e from t h e Bristol Bible Cur-
riculur i, despite t h e oversight of the work area on education. In local
congregation as well as connection, ecumenical problems are vital,
day-to-day, and urgent.
Paul Aspan closes this issue with a lectionary study on 1

John. In this little book we find a treasure of spirituality for
those in ministry. It is t h e perfect conclusion to a discussion of
conflict and dialogue: t h e unity of koinonia, experienced as
participation in t h e Reality of t h e gospel. In t h e course of
writing this study, Aspan found a story in t h e N e w York Times
about t h e Saving Stations program begun in Washington as part
of the church's effort to conduct a "war on drugs." It became
the centerpiece of h i s article-exhibit A in t h e case for renewed
social c o m m i t m e n t based on t h e deepest understanding of our
faith. May your Easter be filled with new beginnings.
3
QR 1 1 / 1 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 4 - 2 1
Breaking the Power

of C a n c e l l e d Sin:
Possibilities and Limits
in a Wesleyan
Social Theology
T h e o d o r e R. W e b e r
He breaks the power of cancelled sin,

He breaks the prisoner free;
His blood can make the foulest clean;
His blood availed for me.
T O DEVELOP A WESLEYAN social theology w e must do

w h a t Wesley himself never did: w e m u s t extend t h e ordo
salutisihe order of salvation-from t h e realm of individual
salvation to that of societal transformation. That would allow
us to speak of justification and sanctification with reference to
groups and institutions, and to deal with t h e problem of sin in
relation to social pathology and social transformation without
relying on--and being misinformed by-liberal or Marxist un
derstandings of h u m a n nature and history. To adapt t h e lan
guage of Charles Wesley's great h y m n , w e would determine
what it m e a n s to "break t h e power of cancelled sin" in t h e hope
for a transformed society.
Theodore R. Weber is Professor of Social Ethics in the Candler School of

Theology of Emory University, and a former president of t h e Society of
Christian Ethics in t h e U n i t e d States and Canada.
4
BREAKING THE POWER OF CANCELLED SIN
Social Hopes and the Persistence of Sin
Among t h e questions asked of candidates for full connection

in Methodist conferences, two are notorious: "Are y o u going on
to perfection?" and "Do you expect to be made perfect in love in
this life?" The right answer ("Yes!") to t h e s e questions implies
belief in t h e eventual termination of sin in t h e sanctified
Christian, rather than its persistence as contradiction to t h e
life of faith and love. Persons brought up in a doctrinaire,
scholastic Wesleyan or holiness tradition answer t h e s e ques
tions freely and affirmatively, while persons exposed to Refor
mation or neo-Reformation theology hesitate mentally if not
vocally. It is more than merely paradoxical to answer t h e ques
tions affirmatively, and at t h e same time make t h e Lutheran
m e n t a l r e s e r v a t i o n t h a t w e are iustus et peccator simul
(righteous person and sinner simultaneously)!
If c a n d i d a t e s s t u m b l e over t h e q u e s t i o n of individual
sanctification in this life t h e reservation m u s t be even greater
concerning our hopes and expectations of societal transforma
tion. The more or less orthodox theologies, and almost all
Christian theologies prior to t h e Enlightenment, entertained
1
no prospect for a redeemed society. T h e earthly city and t h e
heavenly city were qualitatively different. H u m a n political ef
forts could not transform one into t h e other. Social institutions
therefore held t h e world together, maintaining order, defend
ing t h e innocent, punishing t h e wicked, until G o d - i n God's
own time and by m e a n s of God's c h o o s i n g - w o u l d put an end to
earthly institutions and bring in t h e new order of divine gra-
ciousness.
But the E n l i g h t e n m e n t and t h e ideas it spawned sought to
end such pessimism in both individual and societal dimensions.
It s a w a f u t u r e of u n l i m i t e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n h i t h e r t o
unimagined prospects of perpetual peace and undiluted justice.
T h e liberal theological tradition, deriving from t h e Enlighten
ment, dismissed t h e notion of original sin, which explained and
justified the restraining character of social institutions. With
this dismissal it opened the way to t h e infinitely progressive
reformation of both persons and structures. T h e Marxist tradi-
5
QUARTERLY REVIEW, SPRING 1991
tion in social analysis rejected t h e notion of sin as well, locating

t h e problematic character of h u m a n existence not in individual
persons, but in social structures. With t h e s e two intellectual
changes in place, it was possible to believe that social evil was
on the road to historical elimination through gradual evolution
ary or disjunctive revolutionary social change.
Let u s return to our two pointed questions. If one can accept
E n l i g h t e n m e n t critiques of and alternatives to t h e more or
thodox forms of Christian t h e o l o g y - t h e innate and essentially
unspoiled goodness of h u m a n nature, t h e progressive advance
m e n t of history, t h e redeeming effects of scientific discovery,
technological invention, and profound social transformation-
one can remove t h e reservation and even wonder why it was
there in t h e first place. Moreover, one can hold up t h e same
hopes for a r e d e e m e d society that one has for redeemed in
dividuals. Under those conditions, there is no fundamental
obstacle to perfecting institutions according to t h e law and love
of God, and Christians should strive earnestly so to do!
There always h a s b e e n wide diversity among Methodist
theologians and communions on t h e s e issues. Nevertheless, it
is clear that many persons in this broad, professedly Wesleyan,
tradition, have b e e n influenced strongly if not persuaded fully
by these modern attitudes, particularly because downplaying
the problem of sin allowed a greater openness to social trans
formation. One can s e e evidence of t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t liberal
t r a d i t i o n in t h e social p r o n o u n c e m e n t s of T h e U n i t e d
Methodist Church and some of its predecessor denominations,
with their reliance on optimistic a s s u m p t i o n s concerning
h u m a n nature and history, and their anticipations of general
and complete disarmament and world peace through world law
2
and world g o v e r n m e n t . One can see evidence of t h e Marxist
tradition (to be sure qualified to various degrees by Christian
commitments) in some of t h e representations of liberation
theology, with their expectations of justice and peace through
revolutionary struggle.
T h e s e theological positions and church pronouncements
m a y b e admirable and commendable in important respects, but
do they give expression to a Wesleyan social theology? Not if
6
they reject t h e notion of original sin out of hand, with no serious

effort to account for t h e h u m a n and social reality to which it
3
p o i n t s . T h e alternative is to reformulate t h e meaning of
original sin and move from a chronological and biological un
4
derstanding to a mythological and existential o n e . Doubtless
that move would bring objections from Wesley himself and
from present-day Wesleyan scholastics. B u t even if t h e refor
mulation is not, strictly speaking, Wesley's view of original sin,
t h e "bent to sinning" and its persistent and pervasive effects in
h u m a n relationships is minimally necessary to a contemporary
Wesleyan social theology.
Nor can t h e theological positions and church pronounce
m e n t s be considered Wesleyan if t h e y deny that t h e primary
locus of sin is t n e individual will in rebellion against God, and
instead locate sin in t h e contradictions and systemic violence
of social structures. There is no suggestion in Wesley that the
sins which come to social expression are anything other than
the projections of individual sins. We may deal with this prob
l e m in at least three ways. First, we may charge Wesley with
not having a sophisticated understanding of corporate evil, its
origins, manifestations, and d y n a m i c s - w h i c h is true, although
h e knew more than h e often is allowed. Second, we may find
h i s understanding incomplete, c o n t e n d i n g - r i g h t l y - t h a t w e
can neither comprehend nor address effectively t h e disorders
of t h e h u m a n condition without profound structural analysis.
Third, we may re-equip Wesley with a relational understanding
of selfhood that overcomes t h e sharp distinctions between
0
individuality and sociality. All of t h e s e approaches might
qualify as necessary extensions of Wesley's t h o u g h t for t h e sake
of developing a contemporary Wesleyan social theology. But
none would be Wesleyan if it simply exchanged a sociological
explanation of h u m a n disorder and injustice for Wesley's own
conviction that t h e problems of society are rooted in t h e in
dividual will in rebellion against God. And none would be
adequate unless it could account for t h e persistence of disorder
in social structures that appeared to be sound ideologically.
We can extend and reformulate Wesley's thought in develop
ing a Wesleyan social theology, but w e cannot abandon Wesley's
7
convictions concerning t h e persistence of sin by reason of

"original sin." We m u s t also recognize that new social construc
tions will be j u s t as susceptible to t h e "bent to sinning" as were
t h e old. Therefore w e can rule out t h e possibility that society,
its institutions and structures, will or m i g h t "go on to perfec
tion" on the terms offered by the Enlightenment.
But can a social theology be Wesleyan if it holds out no hope
for breaking t h e power of cancelled sin in groups and institu
tions as well as in t h e lives of new-born individuals? That is t h e
question w e m u s t address in t h e remainder of this paper.
Justification:
Cancelling the Merit of Social Identity
Justification, according to J o h n Wesley, is t h e cancelling of

the debt of sin, both original sin and actual sins of commission
or omission. It is divine forgiveness of guilt, t h e wiping clean of
t h e slate. It allows o n e - b y g r a c e - t o turn towards God in a n e w
birth and begin the process (sanctification) of ending t h e
presence and power of sin in one's life through t h e growing
presence and predominance of t h e love of Christ.
This notion is difficult enough already, with its argument for
our culpability for original sin, and its a t o n e m e n t language
(cancelling debt) suggesting accountancy, law and contract. It
becomes even more problematical w h e n we attempt to move it
from individual to group experience. Even if t h e notion of
"amassing a debt of sin" is an appropriate characterization of
t h e distressed individual before God, can it be extended to
groups, and if so, on what terms? To make this move requires,
at minimum, the concepts of collective personality and collec
tive guilt. One cannot find t h e s e concepts in Wesley with
sufficient solidarity to authenticate the transfer as "Wesleyan"
on that basis.
It is true that Wesley had a strong s e n s e of t h e organic
character of particular communities. England for h i m was not
a contractual gathering of individuals. It was a unity of crown,
church and people. P e r s o n s had rights and obligations by
reason of their belonging to this people. There were "rights of
8
Englishmen" and socially hereditary rights that w e r e not

abstract h u m a n rights. But every such reference was to t h e
historical and social reality of membership, to a relationship
which protected and enriched individual reality and did not
deny it. There is nothing in Wesley of t h e notion t h a t t h e
individual is a societal epiphenomenon, a cog in t h e machine,
a drop in t h e ocean of liquid society. Nor, conversely, is there
anything to suggest belief in t h e concept of society as a person,
with unified organs of reason and will, i.e., t h e presuppositions
of personal responsibility.
Neither does one find in Wesley a concept of collective guilt
of t h e kind necessary to make t h e transfer. H e knows that the
people collectively are guilty, and h e tells t h e m so, but t h e y are
guilty of a collection of various types of sins; t h e y are not guilty
of acting wrongly with one mind and will as a solidary people.
6
H e preaches about "National Sins and Miseries," but t h e sins
are not those of t h e nation acting as such. T h e y are sins of the
rulers, sins of t h e gluttonous, sins of t h e extremists for liberty.
And w h e n h e attempts to explain w h y t h e little ones suffer, he
concludes that t h e y are innocent victims of t h e sins of others.
H e does not argue that they accumulate guilt by reason of their
membership in t h e corporation.
If we were to discover that Wesley held such solidary notions,
w e should have to depart from h i m at those points. T h e notion
of group personality led historically (although not in every
instance) to t h e fascist state and t h e total subordination of t h e
individual. T h e concept of collective guilt, however useful in
raising a s e n s e of responsibility, led also to t h e persecution of
J e w s across t h e centuries as "Christ-killers," to blaming young
Germans for Hitler's atrocities, to loading onto t h e consciences
of Italian and Polish immigrants to t h e United States t h e white
guilt for four centuries of black slavery and segregation, to
stereotyping all Arabs and Iranians as potential terrorists, to
the targetting of innocent tourists as agents of t h e "Great
r
Satan."
In short, t h e road to a societal concept of "cancelling the debt
of sin" has a dead end. We cannot develop an understanding of
justification for a Wesleyan social theology by going that route.
9
Is there another possibility, one perhaps that is n o t literally

"Wesleyan," but tenable n o n e t h e l e s s in t h e framework and
spirit of a Wesleyan theology? Let u s begin with redemption
rather than with sin, and ask w h e t h e r there are biblical repre
sentations of divine redemption that portray t h e work primari
ly in corporate terms. Clearly that is t h e case w i t h t h e N e w
Testament passages which refer to breaking down t h e dividing
wall b e t w e e n J e w and Gentile (principally Greek), thereby
making peace through t h e creation of one n e w person in Christ
J e s u s (Eph, 2:11-22). T h e e n m i t y in this relationship obviously
is corporate. It is not a matter of transient squabbles b e t w e e n
individual J ews and Greeks, but of enduring opposition, resent
m e n t , even hatred b e t w e e n peoples. "Jew" and "Greek" are
corporate designations. To be born into one of t h e s e peoples is
to take on t h e mantle of animosity toward t h e other.
But w h y is there enmity, and w h y does it endure? Presumab
ly because each people s e e s its corporate identity as final and
exclusive, assigns merit to membership, and u s e s that self-
awarded merit as justification for feelings of superiority and for
promoting its n e e d s and interests to the detriment of t h e other.
A portion of h u m a n i t y confers on itself t h e meanings and
prerogatives of t h e whole. Its m e m b e r s routinely are socialized
into those values and learn to make t h e same distinctions. They
face the m e m b e r s of other groups with an exclusive sense of
worth and with symbols and power that confirm t h e distinc
tions and justifies t h e advantages. The group identities build
dividing walls. T h e y generate corporate animosity.
Quite obviously, t h e work of redemption m u s t address t h e
corporate distinctions in order to get at t h e sins and sinfulness
of individuals. To be a m e m b e r of t h e group is to be justified in
relation to other groups and their m e m b e r s for that reason
alone. The false grounding of merit is at t h e heart of corporate
disorder, w h e t h e r within groups or b e t w e e n t h e m . Therefore
t h e "cancelling" (if t h e t e r m rightly can be used) which takes
place in justification is t h e cancelling first of all of corporate
merit, and only derivatively of corporate sin. In fact, the merit
is the sin. In its pretensions it is idolatry; in its relationships it
is injustice. T h e r e d e e m i n g work of God in J e s u s Christ denies
10
t h e merit of corporate identity as justification. Conversely, it

confers justification on t h e group m e m b e r s by reason of their
election to common humanity sola. T h e y m u s t share this com
m o n humanity with all others in t h e grace of acceptance. It is
t h e w h o l e n e s s w h i c h no group or organization of groups
creates, but is given only through t h e renewing and reconciling
work of God in Christ.
In principle, t h e point is not new. T h e Reformers were aware
that it was necessary to attack t h e problem of merit in order to
open the way to t h e gracious overcoming of sin. T h e differences
in this case are primarily two. First, t h e focus is on t h e cor
porate rather than the individual consciousness. Second, t h e
hindrance to divine grace is not t h e striving of individuals to be
meritorious before God, but t h e pride and power of corporate
identity that have little to do with individual striving.
Interlude: Some Qualifications
Having redefined justification in corporate terms as the

cancelling of corporate merit and t h e conferring of a fully
h u m a n status before God, w e m u s t note some qualifications of
the concept before proceeding to investigate t h e m e a n i n g of
breaking t h e power of cancelled merit.
1. Justification does not necessarily require or entail the
discarding of corporate differences. It is not offensive to God
that there are J e w s and Greeks, males and females, or different
races. However, it is offensive that there are masters and slaves,
or master races and slave races. All corporate distinctions m u s t
be judged according to their pretensions to self-justifying
merit, but only those which inherently contradict t h e common
humanity disclosed and established in J e s u s Christ m u s t be
discarded.
2. Consequently, there can be no principled objection to the
struggle of particular groups to secure their rights and interests
as groups, and to u s e power in t h e struggle. It remains possible
to speak ofjustification-or t h e lack of it--in ethical terms: that
is, to validate an action that usually is wrong but in a particular
case may be right if good reasons can be given to establish its
11
Tightness. Groups may offer good reasons for t h e causes t h e y

p u r s u e - e v e n on their own b e h a l f - a n d for t h e m e a n s with
which t h e y pursue t h e m . Justification in theological terms, t h e
gift of membership in t h e fullness of humanity, affirms this
process. B u t it requires that t h e reasons be certified as "good"
by those w h o are n o t m e m b e r s of t h e group as well as by those
who are, and that t h e rights and interests of opponents be
respected as well. If t h e struggling group acts as its own judge,
and always finds itself to be right, it implies that it h a s
renounced justification, theologically understood, and
returned to a status of self-justifying merit,
3. Justification denies t h e validity of concepts of corporate
sin and guilt that are used as instruments of social domination.
Historically, peoples suffering under dreadful tyranny have
b e e n told by Christian theologians that harsh rulers w e r e given
to t h e m as p u n i s h m e n t for their sins. Therefore t h e y should
not rebel against t h e s e tyrants. Rather, t h e y should pray for
forgiveness for their own sins, which are t h e principal grounds
for their suffering. T h e existence and persistence of slavery
also have b e e n explained as p u n i s h m e n t for sin (although not
necessarily for t h e sins of particular slaves). Justification has
the dual effect of cancelling t h e merit of those who u s e such
arguments to serve their own purposes and t h e s e n s e of guilt
of those who are wrongly bound. In t h e light of divine justifica
tion, no peoples or groups n e e d accept dehumanizing condi
tions as their rightful punishment, nor has anyone t h e right to
impose or maintain such conditions for those (or indeed any)
reasons.
4. Justification is t h e act of God in Christ at t h e heart of t h e
kosmos. It is a cosmic event. It is not simply a m o m e n t in t h e
redemptive history of particular individuals, preparatory to
new birth and sanctification. It is t h e presupposition of all
action, now and in t h e future. What it m e a n s is that all social
action takes place in a context in which no contesting group has
unspoiled and unlimited claims to merit, and n o n e stands
outside of the common humanity created by God in J e s u s
Christ. N o tribalism, no polarizing class struggle, no
manichaean division of t h e world into forces of good and evil
12
carries morally legitimating authority superior to t h e reconcil

ing work, accomplished y e t in process, that destroys t h e divid
ing walls and creates one person in Christ. All particularities,
all corporate identities, however noble or however oppressed,
lose their self-authenticating justifications. "There is none that
is righteous, no, not one." (Rom. 3:10). Yet in that status which
none of t h e m has generated through action, history, or biology,
all are righteous.
5. It follows that t h e justifying work of God cannot be equated
with any political m o v e m e n t or event. A revolution in a given
society denies merit to t h e overlords and their supporting
structures of ideology and power, but it does not create or
confer its own justification. T h e bearers of t h e revolution are
themselves particular forces in the totality of humanity. To
equate revolution and revolutionaries with divine justification
is to restore t h e merit of particularity and to stand apart from
t h e already completed reconciling work. T h e tendency of some
recent social theologies--"messianic," "political," "liberation"--to
make this equation constitutes an inauthentic and heretical
thrust in what otherwise might be an authentic and theologi
cally supportable w i t n e s s to t h e presence of God in t h e struggle
for a just society.
Sanctification: Breaking the Power

of Cancelled Merit
With t h e s e qualifications n o t e d concerning t h e revised
meaning ofjustification in a Wesleyan social theology, what can
we say about sanctification? On t h e one hand, t h e process of
sanctification involves breaking t h e power of sin, or in t h i s case,
t h e power of merit (of which sin is t h e result). This is t h e
"critical" principle of sanctification. On t h e other hand, it invol
ves "going on to perfection," or t h e maturing realization of the
love of Christ in t h e believer (or t h e "constructive" principle of
sanctifiction). What do t h e s e dimensions of t h e process mean
in terms of a social theology?
"Breaking the power" must occur on at least four interrelated
levels: T h e first level is that of t h e corporate identity itself, as
primary definer of selfhood, relationship, loyalty and value.
13
Corporate identity n e e d not be destroyed, as w e have noted, as

long as it is maintained in t h e context of a common humanity
under God. T h e second is t h e ideological structure that under-
girds t h e corporate identity with appropriate m y t h s and sym
bols, with songs, flags, scriptures, uniforms and heroes. T h e
third is t h e power structure that t h e group u s e s to defend itself
and advance its interests. T h e fourth is t h e s y s t e m by which
benefits, charges, and obligations are alloted and distributed.
Theologically, t h e breaking of power begins in t h e m o m e n t
of faithful awareness, w h e n t h e claims of corporate identity are
s e e n in juxtaposition with t h e claims of J e s u s Christ. In Wes
leyan terms, it is t h e operative m o m e n t of prevenient grace,
t h e irresistible awakening to a condition of spiritual blindness
and bondage to sin, and to t h e offering of new life as a gift of
God. At t h a t point t h e corporate identity loses its power to
define ultimately and to command authoritatively. T h e use of
power d e s c e n d s into t h e realm of m e r e enforcement. Un
qualified loyalty is recognized as idolatry, and t h e distributions
of benefits, charges and obligations as injustice. T h e w h o l e n e s s
of the group is exposed as m e r e parochialism at best, tribalism
at worst, and its holiness as self-congratulation.
Christians always live at this fundamental point of t h e break
ing of t h e power of merit and sin. That does not m e a n they
necessarily have missions of iconoclasm or political struggle,
although such may be entailed in radical discipleship. It does
mean, however, that t h e y live with t h e knowledge of justifica
tion, of the cancelling of claims to merit of their empirical
communities, of t h e h u m a n status before God that overrides
all particularities and m a k e s all of humanity one people before
God. It m e a n s that t h e y know this work is for t h e whole
creation, not only for t h e m s e l v e s as believers, that it is com
pleted y e t not complete, that it is t h e presupposition and
condition of all political action as well as individual action.
Knowing t h e s e things, and holding to t h e m in life as in faith,
t h e y enter inevitably into conflict with t h e power of par
ticularities in their idolatrous claims and unjust constructions.
They t h e m s e l v e s become focal points of t h e breaking of t h e
14
power of merit and sin and t h e opening of societies to the

transforming power of grace and truth.
In t h e past year t h e people and Government of t h e United
States of America have b e e n involved in controversy over
w h e t h e r to adopt a new a m e n d m e n t to t h e U.S. Constitution
prohibiting and punishing t h e desecration of t h e national flag.
Such an a m e n d m e n t would override constitutional protection
for flag desecration activities under t h e First A m e n d m e n t as
exercizes of free speech. But the proposed a m e n d m e n t - a s well
as t h e rhetoric used to promote i t - c o n f e r s a sacral character on
a merely h u m a n symbol and assigns it a value higher than the
freedoms w h i c h it symbolizes. Implicitly if not explicitly, it
regards the U n i t e d States as t h e supreme source of merit,
which it confers on its own people among t h e other peoples of
t h e world. In religious terms that is idolatry, and idolatry is t h e
first of the offenses which the Ten Commandments prohibit.
It is important that t h e citizens of t h e U n i t e d States honor and
respect their flag; it is crucial that t h e y not make it t h e object
of idolatrous devotion. United Methodist Bishop Leontine
Kelly stated t h e issues correctly in her sermon (June 5 , 1 9 9 0 )
to t h e Louisiana Annual Conference w h e n s h e said, "I salute
t h e flag, I do not worship it!" Refusal to worship t h e national
symbols and the nation itself, however worthy t h e y may be, is
an act of breaking t h e power of their overreaching merit, and
returning t h e m to their proper order of temporality.
This negative work of "breaking t h e power," and therefore
living by faith in relationships defined by t h e new humanity in
Christ and not by empirical communities of membership, may
simply be a function of Christian identity. Or it may be a
definite strategy worked out for Christian vocation in society.
But in either case, t h e results of this social critique are not
secure. Those w h o challenge established power particular cor
porate identities usually attempt to erect new organizations of
social power and to shape new identities that t e n d - p e r h a p s
contrary to i n t e n t i o n - t o inflict suffering by reason of their own
pretensions to merit. "Christian" motives offer no protection
8
from this d a n g e r . Because righteousness is not an achieve
m e n t or possession, w e can take no pride in it ourselves. Rather,
15
it is a gracious gift and we depend on God for it in every

m o m e n t , not t h e least because w e are so easily t e m p t e d to
a s s e r t t h e Tightness of our particular p e r s p e c t i v e s a n d
prejudices as t h e righteousness of God.
The critical principle of sanctification-breaking t h e power
of cancelled m e r i t - n e v e r ceases from operation, and m o s t espe
cially not in t h e lives of those who recognize t h e persisting
power of t h e old e v e n in t h e onward course of t h e new.
Sanctification: The Constructive Principle
Nor does the constructive principle of sanctification ever

cease from operation. T h e new humanity emerges with t h e
shattering of self-awarded merit and t h e breaking down of
dividing walls. It is a process of growth and maturation, not an
instantaneous achievement. In this process the moral center is
t h e new, inclusive corporate identity, not t h e old, exclusive one.
In the s e n s e of Eph. 2:11-22, for example, J e w and Gentile
become new persons in the o n e n e s s of J e s u s Christ. Exactly
h o w t h e process w o r k s politically and socially cannot be
described except in relation to concrete situations. But in
general it involves at least t h e following elements: expanding
the membership of t h e community to include those previously
excluded; acknowledging new lines of community relationship
and pursuing t h e courses of common interest; bringing t h e
m e m b e r s to full a n d collegial participation in t h e power,
benefits and responsibilities of t h e community; requiring t h e
power of t h e c o m m u n i t y to work for its weakest members;
healing old wounds; enhancing and insuring the freedom to be
vulnerable and other freedoms also, within a context of sup
porting order.
That is t h e agenda, in abstract terms, of t h e constructive
principle of sanctification. It becomes possible, with grace and
striving, once t h e merit of corporate identity has b e e n can
celled. But are t h e possibilities open or limited? In fact t h e y are
both, because various sorts of limiting factors are built into t h e
process, y e t any particular set of historical limits may be set
16
aside or transcended. What we m u s t confess, however, is that

there is no entire sanctification for societies and groups in
historical existence, whatever may be t h e prospect for in
dividuals. T h e historical process does not take away t h e "bent
to sinning." It is present in all societies, in whatever stage and
degree of transformation, because it is present in t h e in
dividuals who make up t h e society, and because not all in
dividuals would be "entirely sanctified," e v e n if some were. The
"bent to sinning" is an empirical reality, not a throwback to
pre-liberal and pre-Marxist theologies. Nor is it present simply
in individual forms. Corporate identities persist even after
their merit has b e e n cancelled, and their (rightful) stewardship
of group interests carries t h e tendency towards group egoism.
T h e "bent to sinning" can (and m u s t ) be r e s t r a i n e d and
redirected by balances of power, controlled by t h e organic and
rational processes of constitutionalism, and made subject to
individual rights as to majorities. Still, its presence and thrust
m u s t always be presupposed.
For that reason, t h e process of social transformation m u s t be
s e e n in eschatological terms as a perduring contest b e t w e e n the
old and t h e new. It is not simply, as Wesley thought, the
expelling or terminating of the old by t h e new. T h e work of
reconstructing from t h e new moral center is never only a
matter of opening, expanding, including, liberating-although
it is all of those things. It is a matter also of reformulating t h e
requirements of social order in institutional terms. Political
categories such as law, representation, and authority are indis
pensable to this work of ordering. Political theologies and
liberation theologies that ignore t h e s e necessities imperil their
causes.
Is there no real liberation, then, no hope for deliverance from
the injustices, oppressions, and disorders of this life and time?
Is it meaningless--at least in societal t e r m s - t o sing, "He sets
the prisoner free"? Certainly it is possible to put an end to
particular forms of bondage; to liberate individuals, groups,
even whole peoples from t h e domination of unjust and oppres
sive rule, w h e t h e r it be that of their own princes, or foreigners,
or international systems. One can make a Wesleyan case for the
17
process of liberation on t h e basis of Wesley's response to

slavery, however it may be qualified by h i s attitudes toward t h e
9
American War for I n d e p e n d e n c e . B u t one cannot make a
Wesleyan case for equating liberation ("setting free") with sal
vation.
Nor is it a Wesleyan position to advocate t h e exercise of
freedom in society apart from t h e ordering of power with its
inevitable accompaniment of force. Theologically and morally,
t h e Wesleys never intended "set free" to m e a n that a person was
released to a formless field of untrammelled liberty. Rather,
t h e liberated person was turned from one set of relationships
to another. T h e relationships of freedom involved t h e life of
love and obedience to t h e law, and t h e course of sanctification
was understood as developing perfection in love and in t h e
fulfillment of t h e law. T h e "setting free" aspect of salvation was
accompanied by t h e s e relationships and would be completed
through t h e m .
In political and social terms, J o h n Wesley insisted over and
over that t h e liberty required for political practice could be
possessed and exercized only in t h e context of a stable political
10
o r d e r . "Sanctification" in our t i m e s would t h e n become t h e
process of strengthening the institutions of society in their
ability to secure liberty. There would be no "setting free" from
the use of force as t h e ultimate sanction of institutional power,
but there could and should be growth in both the responsibility
of governors and t h e consent to wise and just governing that
would make reliance on force m u c h less necessary or useful,
11
and the securing of liberty m u c h more l i k e l y .
Conclusion
Formulating a contemporary Wesleyan social theology in

volves applying t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e order of salvation to social
experience and reality. We have proposed that this can be done
by understanding justification in social terms to be t h e cancell
ing of t h e self-endowed merit with which groups tend to set
themselves apart from and above other groups. Sanctification
t h e n becomes a process of breaking t h e power of this cancelled
18
merit (read sin)--the critical a s p e c t - a n d opening t h e groups to

t h e possibilities of genuinely h u m a n fellowship transcending
and overcoming the previous a n i m o s i t i e s - t h e constructive
aspect. T h e s e n e w relationships can grow in t h e social strength,
which supports freedom and justice in increasing measure. In
so doing t h e y will extend and enhance consent as a primal
e l e m e n t in social power. However, this growth cannot eliminate
t h e role of force in social power, nor can it protect against group
egoism and tribalism. Those ultimate prospects are beyond this
life and time.
Those who hope for a more conclusive resolution of t h e
p r o b l e m s of h u m a n k i n d in h u m a n h i s t o r y - f o r "entire
sanctification" in social t e r m s - w i l l find this social rendering of
the ordo salutis an inadequate basis for that hope, and so it is.
If w e seek support for t h e more conclusive resolution from
Wesley himself, or from t h e combined e l e m e n t s of t h e so-called
"quadrilateral" (Scripture, tradition, reason, experience), we
shall not find it. On t h e other hand, w e should recognize that
the motive power in Wesleyan social action is not t h e hope that
we can make an end of all t h e s e massive problems. It is, first,
t h e conviction that God has acted in Christ for t h e salvation-
t h e wholemaking of t h e world, and that God has called us to act
out of the rich experience of t h e love of Christ, which impels
us to seek t h e good of t h e neighbor even w h e n there is little or
no prospect of good results.
A Wesleyan social theology m u s t work with t h e s e resources
and within t h e s e limits. T h e limits are not as confining as they
may seem. T h e y express t h e faith that t h e horizons of our fields
of action are wider than time, that God has more to offer than
the temporal horizons can contain, and that t h e s e convictions
both empower us for t h e task and protect us from despair and
foolish judgments. Any lesser faith has m u c h more to explain.
Notes
1. Millcnarian sects and m o v e m e n t s of the Middle Ages and t h e Reformation

Era often projected and at times attempted to produce a new society o n earth,
but these new societies were understood to be radically discontinuous with the
old society, not transformations of it. N o t infrequently their redemptive
19
methods included t h e slaughter of priests, Jews, landlords, magistrates, prin

c e s - a n y o n e believed to b e responsible for t h e corruption and perpetuation of
t h e existing order. Moreover, their n e w societies were believed t o be anticipa
tions of t h e c o m i n g Kingdom of God, not its full realization on earth. S e c
N o r m a n Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millenium ( N e w York: Harper & Row, 1961).
T h e Calvinist project of converting society into a Holy Commonwealth under
t h e Kingship of Christ presupposed both original sin and t h e distinction
between elect and non-elect, and therefore was not fully transformationist.
2. For evidences of this theological orientation, s e c "The Social Principles
of t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church," "The Bishops' Call for Peace and t h e
Self-Development of Nations" (1972), t h e Episcopal Address to t h e 1984
General Conference of t h e United Methodist Church, and In Defense of
Creation; the Nuclear Crisis and a Just Peace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1986).
3. In t h e sermon o n "Original Sin" (Sermon XLIV), Wesley declares that
belief in original sin differentiates Christianity from Heathenism, and that all
who deny original sin "are but H e a t h e n s still." The Works of John Wesley, 3rd
ed., vol. VI (Grand Rapids: Baker B o o k House, 1979), p. 63. S e c also "The
Doctrine of Original Sin, according to Scripture, Reason, and Experience,"
Works, DC, 191-464.
4. "Chronological" and "biological" m e a n that A d a m and Eve as progenitors
of t h e human race committed t h e first sin, and that t h e results of that sinning
were communicated genetically to later generations. Wesley accepted t h e
chronological interpretation, but understood t h e communication of original
sin to be federative rather t h a n biological. Sec Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and
Sanctification (London: T h e Epworth Press, n.d.). "Mythological" means that
the story of A d a m and E v e is a literary device for presenting a profound truth,
but not a literal account of t h e matter. "Existential" in this case m e a n s that t h e
story is a representation of human existence as such, and not only of the first
parents. For t h e m o s t influential treatment of original sin as mythical and
existential, sec Reinhold Nicbuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man. vol. I ( N e w
York: Charles Scribncr's Sons, 1941), csp. Chapters VII-IX.
5. A m o n g t h e m o s t important theologically oriented treatments of the self
as social and relational are H. Richard Niebuhr, The Responsible Self ( N e w
York: Harper & Row, 1963); Reinhold Nicbuhr, The Self and the Dramas of
History (New York: Charles Scribncr's Sons, 1955); and Luigi Sturzo, The Inner
Laws of Society ( N e w York: P,J, Kenedy, 1944),
6. "National Sins and Miseries" (Sermon CXXX), Works, VII, 400-408.
7.1 have discussed t h e uses and limitations of t h e concept of collective guilt
in "Guilt: Yours, Ours and Theirs," Worldview, 18 (February 1975), 15-22.
8. T h e Rev. Morris Ccrullo, according to The Atlanta Constitution of July 2,
1990, will use t h e "Heritage USA" t h e m e park of former tclevangclist J i m
Bakkcr to "train and equip an army to take over t h e world." I am not convinced
that I would want to live in a world governed by Mr. Ccrullo and his army of
Christians.
9. In "Thoughts o n Slavery" (Works, XI, 59-79) Wesley argued that slaves
had a natural right to freedom, but h e did not propose parliamentary abolition
of t h e institution. Later, however, h e supported William Wilbcrforce in his
abolitionist efforts. For his views on t h e colonial war for independence, see "A
20
Calm Address to Our American Colonies," Works, XI, 80-90, and "A Calm
Address to the Inhabitants of England/' Works, XI, 129-140.
10. For J o h n Wesley's views on political liberty, sec "Thoughts on Liberty,"
Works, XI, 34-46, and "Some Observations on Liberty," Works, XI, 90-118.
11. For a discussion of t h e relationship of force to consent as ingredients of
power, see Theodore R. Weber, "Christian Realism, Power, and Peace," in
Theodore H. Runyon, ed., Theology, Politics, and Peace (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1989), 55-76.
21
QR 1 1 / 1 (1991) 22-36
D i a c o n a l Ministry:
Vision and Reality
C h a r l e s R. F o s t e r
T H E S E ARE STRANGE TIMES for what t h e sociologists

of religion have called t h e mainline of North American
Christianity. W e experience that strangeness in small w a y s -
t h e biblical literalist in a Sunday school class who claims to
believe in reincarnation; t h e clerk in a Christian book store w h o
is not certain w h e t h e r t h e Bible has y e t b e e n translated into
Greek; t h e frustration of pastors and diaconal ministers with
twenty-five and more years of experience who no longer enjoy
what t h e y are doing; t h e discovery that people in Bible belt
churches often do not "know" their Bibles any more than people
from churches in t h e w e s t and northeast.
The strangeness of t h e s e t i m e s has b e e n described in several
recent studies of Christianity in North American society. One
author concludes that we are living "between the times," having
emerged from a past w h e n mainline Protestants dominated t h e
political as well as religious landscape of North American life,
and looking now to an era of waning influence. Another author
describes our recent past as conflict over our very identity and
mission as a church. That struggle has led our own Bishop
1
Wilke to ask if U n i t e d Methodists are y e t alive?
Other studies explore what Martin Marty has called t h e
2
malaise that saps t h e vitality of mainline d e n o m i n a t i o n s . All
point to t h e obvious decline in church membership. B u t there
Charles R. Foster is Professor of Christian Education at Candler School of

Theology, Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322.
22
DIACONAL MINISTRY
is more: t h e lack of internal resiliency in t h e church due to t h e

graying of its membership; squabbles over theology, liturgy and
mission; and t h e lack of will or c o m m i t m e n t to develop creative
s t r a t e g i e s to r e s p o n d to radically c h a n g i n g national
demographics and economics.
I h a v e p a i n t e d t h i s g l o o m y p i c t u r e i n broad s t r o k e s
deliberately. T h e changing status and role of t h e church in
North American life has b e e n t h e background of t h e m o v e m e n t
to establish a permanent diaconate. What does it m e a n for us
to have established a permanent diaconate at t h e point of our
institutional decline? Is it an attempt to salvage an experience
w e are losing? Or is it a signpost to a creative and faithful
future?
Issue I: Institutional Dilemmas
T h e formation of t h e diaconate permanent deacon in t h e

United Methodist Church occurs at a time in North American
history w h e n its i n s t i t u t i o n s - g o v e r n m e n t , education, in
dustry, labor, medical, and c h u r c h - a r e increasingly unable to
m e e t t h e expectations people have for t h e m . The word often
used by commentators and social scientists to describe this
situation is "dysfunctional." The pattern is complex but it
i n c l u d e s p r o b l e m s s u c h as e x p a n d i n g b u r e a u c r a c i e s and
diminishing productivity, increasing expenses and decreasing
returns, governance by rules and regulation rather than prin
ciples and o v e r a r c h i n g policies, h e i g h t e n e d d e m a n d s o n
workers (both paid and volunteer) and decreasing loyalty, in
tensified planning and less organizational clarity. As an institu
tion, t h e church is obviously prey to institutional dysfunction.
Our concern h e r e is w h e t h e r t h e diaconate serves as a symptom
or a solution to that problem in t h e church. Let m e be specific.
In his introduction to Called to Serve, T o m Trotter has made
a helpful distinction. Building on an insight from t h e work of
Margaret Miles, Trotter identifies "ordered ministries" with the
3
task of institutionalizing t h e ministries of t h e c h u r c h . Or
d e r e d m i n i s t r i e s identify corporate directions, e s t a b l i s h
precision in procedures, and conformity in perspective. T h e y
23
emphasize t h e n e e d for authority and control for t h e sake of

t h e survival and continuity of t h e community. During times of
trouble, this s e n s e of order is essential. My former colleague,
Everett Tilson of t h e faculty at T h e Methodist Theological
School in Ohio, has compared t h i s to t h e biblical a s s e s s m e n t s
of Israel's kings. Those who maintained order to sustain t h e
faithful obedience of Israel to God during t i m e s of national
crisis received t h e accolades of prophets and deuteronomistic
4
historians. Those w h o could not received negative j u d g m e n t s .
In contrast representative ministries embody t h e gospel to
make it visible. T h e emphasis is upon relationship rather than
structure. T h e y witness to t h e gospel. T h e y reveal t h e power
of the gracious activity of God. This approach underscores t h e
distinctive thrust of t h e d i a c o n a t e - t o be engaged in ministries
of service or to embody servanthood.
In the best of t i m e s ordered and representative ministries
function interdependently. In t i m e s of trouble t h e y are usually
thrown into disequilibrium. This is not a new insight. We read
about it in t h e challenges of t h e prophets to t h e priestly accom
modations to t h e kings of Israel and Judah w h e n confronted by
invading forces. We recall t h e most dramatic account of this
tension during Holy Week in t h e stand off between J e s u s and
t h e h i g h priests. It certainly existed in t h e challenges to
churchly traditions by such representative figures as St. Fran
cis, Martin Luther, J o h n Wesley and more recently by Martin
Luther King, Rosemary Ruether, and Bishop Desmond Tutu.
The danger in ordered ministry is always t h e tendency to
identify more w i t h t h e continuity and stability of t h e institu
tional status quo than with t h e call of God toward new edges of
ministry. In our own denomination we see it w h e n t h e consult
ative process for making appointments is reduced to an an
0
n o u n c e m e n t of t h e reasons for a given pastoral d e c i s i o n . We
s e e it in t h e contrast between t h e increased requirements for
aspiring clergy and diaconal ministers and t h e lack of attention
to the nurture of t h e laity (a practice that has contributed, I
believe, to a rising clericalism in t h e church despite our policy
statements regarding t h e general ministry of all Christians).
We see it in t h e subtle pressure on cabinet m e m b e r s to appoint
24
DIACONAL MINISTRY
clergy to larger and more prestigious congregations based on

tenure and institutional loyalty rather than competency, gifts
and graces, and signs of effective ministry. W e see it in t h e
growing disparity in salaries and benefits b e t w e e n staff m e m
bers of affluent churches and those in churches with affluent
and poor members. We also s e e it in those congregations who
seek to avoid conference supervision by replacing ordained staff
m e m b e r s w i t h lay or consecrated persons t h e y have c h o s e n and
can supervise. We s e e it in t h e alienation of some local con
gregations from t h e program ministry agencies of t h e annual
conference and general church. Although there is a counter-
move toward institutional chaos, m u c h institutional energy
today is expended in efforts to reinforce and undergird t h e
power and authority of those who already possess it.
For those working toward a clearer understanding of t h e
m e a n i n g and role of diaconal ministers t h e r e i s profound
danger, It would be easy for us to play power politics in an effort
to thwart unwarranted u s e s of ecclesial power by others. At t h e
same time it would also be easy for us to ignore t h e power of
politics in negotiating t h e issues and concerns of a servanthood
ministry. T h e concerns for institutional order could easily con
trol t h e church's agenda in t h e discussions over t h e character
and responsibilities of diaconal ministry. But in our efforts to
resist this we may set diaconal ministry inappropriately over
against the n e e d for order and continuity in t h e life of t h e
church.
A key expression of U n i t e d Methodist connectionalism today
is t h e organic interdependence of local church, district and
annual conferences and t h e national divisions of ordained and
diaconal ministry brought about by their shared supervision of
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m i n i s t r y - b o t h ordained and c o n s e c r a t e d .
Preparing persons for representative ministry is more time
consuming and costly (both in terms of m o n e y and hours), t h e
procedures more complex and demanding, t h e rites of passage
more numerous, and t h e rules more clearly defined than at any
point of our denominational history. T h e s e processes have cut
through t h e often chaotic program ministries of our institu
tional life.
25
That i s - u n t i l t h e church attempts to reach out to n e w

communities. I have recently b e e n a part of an attempt to bring
into t h e U n i t e d Methodist fold several independent Hispanic
congregations that requested membership. This is not a simple
task in itself, but this time t h e problems were unrelated to
theology or faith. T h e primary stumbling block was t h e annual
conference's concern to maintain t h e established order of t h e
church in designating, nurturing, sanctioning, and celebrating
t h e leadership of congregations. Given this, conference leaders
ran into two problems. Only one of the Hispanic pastors had a
college education. And because leadership in Hispanic cultures
depends more upon t h e collaborative will of t h e people than
upon legislative process, leaders are not designated-especially
by outside bodies. T h e negotiations were frustrated by a series
of miscommunications because conference officials did not talk
to the persons who actually made t h e decisions for those con
gregations. T h e y talked to t h e representative t h e y had desig
nated. I recite this experience not to criticize t h e s e conference
officials. Their intentions have b e e n more than honorable and
their efforts often heroic. T h e point is that annual conference
bureaucratic structures across t h e country have had similar
difficulties w h e n responding to n e w opportunities for ministry
presented to t h e m . In this instance conference officialswho
wanted to welcome t h e s e n e w congregatioons into t h e U M
family-were hampered by cultural and social differences in t h e
rules guiding candidacy for ministry, education for ministry,
appointment to ministry, and supervision of ministers prior to
ordination or consecration.
Diaconal ministers bear t h e brunt of cultural and economic
differences, for t h e structues of diaconal ministry are not in
t u n e with n e w communities. T h e majority of diaconal ministers
are either directors of Christian education or directors of
church music, roles that have b e e n shaped by t h e practices of
predominantly European American church patterns and cul
6
tural l i f e . But the role of the director of Christian education
has not adapted well to non-European American congregations
7
(and neither has t h e role of t h e director of church m u s i c . T h e
result is an overwhelming lack of interest among racial/ethnic
26
DIACONAL MINISTRY
congregations in t h e s e ministry roles. T h e seriousness of this

issue may be put into perspective by t h e fact that by t h e mid
twenty-first century more than fifty percent of t h e population
of t h e nation will trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa, Latin
America or to cultures on this continent prior to t h e European
invasion and s e t t l e m e n t s . E v e n today more than fifty percent
8
of California school children are n o n - w h i t e . T h e future of our
institutions is with those who can develop truly multicultural
institutions and leadership patterns.
Despite this cultural bias, diaconal ministry distinctively
9
embodies t h e character of representative m i n i s t r y . It declares
itself a servanthood ministry. Yet t h e quest for order, which is
so crucial to t h e institutional maintenance of t h e diaconate,
may subvert its distinctive contribution to t h e mission of t h e
church of J e s u s Christ. T h e potential for destructive conflict
lurks at every corner and every crossroad. It is found i n diaconal
ministers w h o s e quest for justice in their places of employment
barely disguises their desire for status and position. It is found
in t h e need to establish academic standards and procedures for
diaconal ministrya concern for o r d e r - w h i l e at t h e same t i m e
advocating an educational process that creates a self-conscious
n e s s of servanthood. T h e academic community is not necessari
ly a protagonist at this point. Seminaries for example, offer
courses and experiences that contribute to servanthood under
standings of ministry, but they also screen students to ensure
that t h e y m e e t academic and church requirements for gradua
tion, ordination, and consecration. This enhances t h e hierar
c h i c a l c h a r a c t e r of t h e a c a d e m y a n d t h e c o m p e t i t i v e
environment of t h e classroom.
There is also danger in t h e mentoring process. In t h e days of
t h e circuit rider, an apprentice preacher or candidate for min
istry rode w i t h t h e pastor w h o assisted h i m in expanding and
extending his ministry. Today, however, t h e task of mentoring
is something t h e mentor adds on to her or his responsibilities.
It reflects t h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e psychologist and client
or that of tutor and s t u d e n t m u c h more t h a n t h e relationship
of J e s u s and disciple. Ideally, in a mentoring process t h e dis
ciple learns by entering into and living out of t h e ministry of
27
t h e mentor. If w e are not careful this can easily be diminished

to a set of hoops to j u m p through rather than a consistent way
of using life-experience as a basis for engaging in ministry.
To summarize: T h e first issue I raise h a s to do with t h e effect
that t h e institutionalization of t h e diaconate has on its meaning
and mission. Will its concern for embodying Christ's mission of
servanthood be compromised by t h e corresponding efforts of
t h e church to impose order on t h e chaos of contemporary life?
Will it be a source for salvific transformation? T h e answer I
think, is still not clear, but there is currently, great pressure to
restrict t h e role and function of t h e diaconate so that it serves
t h e church as an institution.
Issue II. The Local Church
For our denomination t h e meaning of t h e practice of minis

try shifted direction w h e n t h e 1968 and 1972 General Con
ferences established a Council on Ministries. Another
significant change took place in 1976, w h e n General Con
ference approved t h e diaconate as a permanent order of repre
sentative ministry. W h e t h e r or not t h e y were intended to be
interrelated, t h o s e two decisions function interdependently at
some crucial points.
The story is too long to rehearse here, but essentially t h e
1968 and 1972 decisions shifted t h e impetus for congregational
mission from t h e national church and annual conference to t h e
congregation. Without rroyor responsibilities for local church
life and mission, t h e numbers and responsibilities of national
and conference staffs were reduced in number, and their atten
tion was redirected to establishing and supporting program
ministries for t h e national church and for t h e annual con
ference respectively. T h e s e programs became optional sources
of enrichment for local church m e m b e r s and ministries.
In t h e m e a n t i m e congregations faced a major crisis. T h e
network of leader development for congregations had been
curtailed or abolished in most annual conferences. Pastors who
had never b e e n trained to help congregations plan their own
ministries or train congregational officers now shouldered
28
DIACONAL MINISTRY
t h e s e responsibilities. As congregations exercised their newly

mandated opportunities, t h e y began to identify missional
priorities that were unknown to conference or national agen
cies. So local church Christian educators, many of w h o m had
some background in planning and development, were quickly
"promoted" to be program directors in larger churches and
given oversight of t h e Council on Ministries. Four major con
sequences of this situation affects contemporary discussions on
t h e shape and purpose of diaconal ministry.
1. Congregations with abundant financial resources have
increasingly hired staff to compensate for t h e loss of general
church programs, staff assistance, and leadership training.
Many of these churches feel connected to t h e United Methodist
Church primarily through t h e appointment of their pastors
and diaconal m i n i s t e r s . T h e s e c h u r c h e s h a v e also hired
diaconal ministers to give leadership in program ministries.
The Division of Diaconal Ministry is exploring additional re
quests from local churches for an increasing variety of certifica
tion programs to grant recognition to many new leadership
roles. Youth ministry is the latest to be added to t h e list. But
the growth of t h e diaconate has also increased t h e instances of
unethical and unjust u s e of many of t h e s e staff persons, who
m u s t tolerate inequitable salaries and benefits, a lack of proce
dures for the redress of grievances, and a lack of attention to
appropriate training and support.
2. Smaller churches with limited personnel and financial
resources have b e e n left in the lurch. T h e y m u s t depend upon
pastors who for t h e most part have not b e e n trained to provide
the leadership required by t h e Council on Ministries program
structure. Smaller lchurches also depend upon a decreasing
pool of volunteers who have not b e e n trained to develop the
vision or skill to facilitate congregational mission. I believe we
m u s t be cautious in celebrating t h e creativity t h e Council on
Ministries approach has evoked in many of our congregations.
There is an increasing number of dysfunctional congregations
victimized by t h e loss of programs and training designed by the
general church for local churches.
29
3. In m o s t annual conferences, racial/ethnic congregations

have b e e n left destitute because t h e old networks that nur
tured their common life have essentially disappeared. Most
resources and programs have b e e n prepared for a predominant
ly European American constituency (if U n i t e d Methodist) or
t h e y have different, if not lower academic and leadership stand
ards (when purchased from t h e local Christian book store).
What is t h e effect on our view of diaconal ministry? Most
diaconal ministers give order and direction to t h e overflow of
material blessings to be found in our more affluent congrega
tions. Most do not s e e t h e m s e l v e s as s e r v a n t s - e x c e p t perhaps
at the point of salary. Although there are outstanding diaconal
ministers serving in situations of severe h u m a n need, and some
have a clear s e n s e of t h e function of servanthood in affluent
contexts, w e have generally not found a way to mobilize t h e
diaconate in ways that truly embody its mandate to servan
thood.
4. A fourth consequence of t h e decision to move to local
initiative for congregational mission may be found in t h e pat
tern of leadership that now dominates t h e church's approach
to congregational planning. Perhaps w e should not be surprised
that pastors or diaconal ministers have increasingly found
t h e m s e l v e s to be t h e managers of congregational programs and
events. T h e Council on Ministries was designed to be an agent
of congregational mission. That has happened in some places
in rich and exciting ways. It h a s happened occasionally in most
o t h e r places. B u t m i s s i o n h a s not b e c o m e t h e dominant
metaphor guiding congregational planning. T h e word "pro
gram" has. We unfortunately reinforced that emphasis by ini
tially calling t h e director of planning at t h e local church and
conference level "the program director." Although t h e title has
b e e n changed in s o m e places, t h e metaphor stays with us, just
as a Sunday school session is still called a "lesson" more than
fifty years after t h e church attempted to drop its usage.
N o t e t h e difference. Mission involves sending people out on
some special errand or service. A program is a list of i t e m s to
be performed. It has to do with entertainment. A program can
also be s e e n as a plan to be completed. My hunch is that this
30
DIACONAL MINISTRY
latter view is what church leaders had in mind w h e n t h e y began

to use the title "program director." B u t let u s be clear about t h e
implications here: if mission is treated as entertainment in t h e
planning process, t h e n it becomes something to be consumed
rather than to be enacted. And that is exactly what happens
w h e n various mission projects, as well as Christian education,
l i t u r g i c a l e v e n t s , e v a n g e l i s m or s t e w a r d s h i p b e c o m e
"programs." Mission becomes optional, simply a matter of per
sonal choice.
Even if w e decide that a program is simply a plan to be
completed, we have a conflict with Christian mission. The
leadership of a program is managerial rather than missional.
With t h e radical shift in who volunteers for responsibilities in
church life and how t h e y engage those responsibilities, a fas
cinating change is taking place. Clergy and diaconal ministers
function increasingly as "congregational goTers." They make
sure that t h e details for a program are in place. T h e y expend
m u c h time and energy on t h e endless demands of small details.
T h e y burn out quickly. S o m e leave their calling. Others direct
their attention away from local church ministries and immerse
themselves in conference activities, D.Min. studies, or personal
hobbies and give only maintenance leadership to t h e congrega
tion. Ministry such as preaching, teaching, witnessing, and
engaging in acts of service, those tasks that actually develop
discipleship, are diminished in congregational life.
At no point have I heard t h e church relegate t h e servant
hood of the diakonia to bureaucratic pencil-pushing. And y e t I
have talked to many clergy and diaconal ministers w h o s e work
consists of distributing resources, shuffling priorities, juggling
schedules, placating and directing people, attending meetings,
and responding to unexpected requests and problems. Sig
nificant ministry occurs as an episodic event rather than as an
integral part of a continuing, developing, and integrating jour
ney of faith for either individuals and congregations. In times
of institutional crisis, both programs and managers are expend
able. What would happen to diaconal m i n i s t e r s - a n d therefore,
diaconal ministry--if depression decimated church budgets and
curtailed the n e e d for program managers?
31
Issue HI: Diaconal Ministry and

the Theology of Servanthood
The Discipline m a k e s it quite clear that t h e function of t h e
diaconate is diakonia or service, to "make more effective t h e
self understanding of t h e w h o l e People of God as servants in
Christ's name." It involves participating in t h e leadership of
worship, working in a "serving profession in t h e Church," and
serving t h e n e e d s those w h o are poor, sick, or oppressed. In t h e
U n i t e d Methodist Church, diaconal leadership symbolizes and
embodies t h e unity of t h e congregation's worship with its life
10
in the w o r l d .
My concern is that this ministry is in real danger of being
domesticated. That danger is expressed in several forms. Per
haps t h e m o s t serious is that diaconal ministers do not think
theologically about their ministries. There are many options
here; Called To Serve points to t h e contemporary discussions
on partnership as a creative n e w way to understand servan
11
thood m i n i s t r i e s . B u t I have encountered too few diaconal
ministers w h o are aware that such a discussion includes their
own observations. Who is giving direction to t h e ongoing grass
roots exploration of diakonia*-to partnership both in t h e local
churchand among those who have b e e n set aside as diaconal
ministers?
A number of years ago, Everett Tilson observed that the
recovery of t h e notion of servanthood in ministry often cul
minated in s o m e reform effort. The work of St. Francis and
J o h n Wesley c o m e s to mind. T h e political agenda of reform is
not the foremost concern of such m o v e m e n t s : it only occurs as
a consequence of t h e servanthood activities of persons and
communities.
Diaconal leaders do understand that t h e potential for reform
in the church and society is rooted in t h e ministry of servan
thood. But t h e question is one of focus. As a Christian educator
I am aware of t h e educational crisis now facing t h e church. T h e
church's education, for example, is not developing t h e kind of
biblical and theological literacy and competency central to vital
and sustaining acts of worship and mission. It is not nurturing
32
DIACONAL MINISTRY
w i t h i n c o n g r e g a t i o n s a s u f f i c i e n t l y d e e p m e m o r y of i t s
heritage, saints, symbols, or rituals. It h a s essentially abdicated
responsibility for helping to shape the values and perspectives
of the larger c o m m u n i t y - w h a t I and others call t h e church's
mission to educate t h e public. It is not intentionally training
leaders among its y o u t h and y o u n g adults for t h e future of t h e
church's mission. Ironically, to t h e extent that diaconal church
educators are consumed by t h e managerial tasks of planning
educational activities, recruiting and training teachers and
leadingyouth retreats without reflecting on t h e s e larger issues,
their efforts may only prolong t h e crisis.
The diaconate is called to be concerned with t h e relevance of
t h e church's ministry to t h e world. B u t w h e n diaconal mini
sters direct their attention to congregational life rather than to
t h e way congregational life embodies t h e servanthood of J e s u s
Christ in t h e world, t h e n t h e diaconate can only further con
tribute to t h e domestication of t h e church's mission. It is far
too easy to reinforce t h e privatization of t h e church described
2
by Robert Bellah and h i s colleagues in Habits of the Heart} If
t h e diaconate is to be faithful to its calling, it m u s t be engaged
in careful, sustained, and systematic theological reflection on
t h e nature of t h e church and its mission. As t h e embodiment
of servanthood in t h e church, diaconal ministers add a redemp
tive and constructive voice to those discussions. This theologi
cal effort should be supported in this effort by "diaconal" role
models through identifying, honoring, celebrating and emulat
ing t h e history of t h e church. It is hard to be s o m e t h i n g w h e n
no saints are known to set examples for one's aspiring.
This leads m e to a final theological concern. It is very impor
tant for those concerned with diaconal ministries to think
theologically about how to u s e and engage power. We are all
familiar with hierarchical patterns in t h e exercise of power.
T h e y are second nature for us. But t h e power of servanthood
often confuses us, especially in bureaucratic church meetings.
The point is made Call to Serve in a discussion of t h e diaconate
in t h e Middle Ages: "the usefulness and vitality of t h e diaconal
ministry were so closely tied to t h e idea of service that the
13
function was lost as t h e spirit of service was lost." Is there
33
power in t h e diaconal spirit of service? Or does t h e spirit of

service m e a n that "questions of pensions, power, and authority"
must necessarily be kept subordinate?
One clue to diaconal theologizing about power may be found
in t h e w o r k of V i c t o r T u r n e r , t h e i n f l u e n t i a l C a t h o l i c
anthropologist. Building on t h e research of Arnold Van Gen-
nep, Turner explores t h e function of those who live in what h e
calls t h e marginal, inferior, and liminal places in t h e institu
14
tions of s o c i e t y . W h e n one enters into t h e service of another
one takes on inferior or marginal or liminal status. T h e child,
t h e stranger, t h e person who is different, t h e servant all relate
to social organizations on t h e margins, in places of inferiority
or as residents of two worlds or communities. T h e y do not
possess traditional institutional forms of power. B u t they do
have power. N o t e t h e m o u n t i n g frustration and anger on an
airplane w h e n an infant discomfited by air pressure refuses to
be comforted and cries loudly. Or observe t h e intense attention
and energy of a congregation during t h e baptism of an infant.
Such is t h e irritating and energizing power of a Mother Theresa
or of an outstanding child musician.
The diaconal minister is not powerless. But what kind of
power adheres to t h e office? What kind of power is embodied
in service? How does that power function creatively in hierar
chical institutions-especially in t i m e s of stress? How does that
power engage t h e unfaithful u s e of executive power w h e n it
occurs in t h e congregation, t h e denomination, or t h e larger
community? What is t h e relation of that power to t h e gospel
itself? to t h e potential for transformation? to t h e possibility of
liberation? to t h e significance of Christ like presence?
A Post Script
In The Creation of Settings, The Future of Society, Seymour

Sarasen describes ow t h e vision that nurtures a sense of pos
sibility and energy in n e w organizations or m o v e m e n t s is usual
1 5
ly c o m p r o m i s e d w h e n p e o p l e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e v a l u e s .
Finances, leadership, and organizational relationships begin to
dominate t h e t i m e and energy of group members. We s e e this
34
DIACONAL MINISTRY
process at work in regard to t h e diaconate in t h e U n i t e d

Methodist Church, which has increasingly concerned itself
with t h e development of standards for ministry, t h e equitable
distribution of Ministerial Education Funds b e t w e e n ordained
and diaconal ministries, t h e clarification of t h e theological and
political relationships among t h e diaconal minister, t h e or
dained deacon and elder, and t h e general ministry of all Chris
tians, and t h e improvement of t h e economic support s y s t e m for
diaconal ministers. In the negotiations, the danger of domes
ticating t h e vision of a representative ministry is everpresent.
Only if church discussions on t h e diaconate retain their
theological focus can this danger be avoided, or at least mini
mized. That same tradition provides t h e data to assess to what
extent new decisions are faithful to historic church commit
m e n t s to ministries of love, justice and service.
The responsibility for keeping t h e vision that first led to the
establishment of a diaconal ministry belongs to t h e whole
church, from congregation to theological school. T h e diaconal
minister however, carries a special responsibility in keeping a
vision of love, justice, and service ministries before t h e church.
In t h e diaconal embodiment of servanthood in t h e routines of
daily work, t h e church may discern t h e relevance of diakonia
to mission. In their efforts to help t h e church understand the
theological traditions that inform and shape their ministries,
diaconal ministers encourage t h e church to be faithful to its
responsibilities to all of God's creation. In their attempts to
respond to n e w circumstances and situations of h u m a n need,
they keep t h e vision of diakonia before t h e church.
To preserve t h e vitality and relevance of diaconal ministry,
in other words, w e m u s t pay constant attention to t h e pos
sibilities in its original vision. The reality of diaconal ministry
may witness to t h e power of love, justice, and service, even as
it contributes to t h e renewal of that vision.
NOTES
1. Cf. William R. Hutchison, Between the Times: The Travail of the Protes
tant Establishment in America, 1900-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989); Wade Clark Roof and William McKinncy, American Mainline
35
Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future ( N e w Brunswick: Rutgers University

Press, 1987); Robert W u t h n o w , The Struggle for America's Soul Evangelicals,
Liberals,and Secularism (Grand Rapids: William B. Ecrdman's Publishing Co.,
1989); Richard B. Wilke, And Are We Yet Alive? (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1986).
2. Martin Marty, The Public Church: Mainline, Evangelical, Catholic ( N e w
York: T h e Crossroad Publishing Co., 1981, p.ix.
3 . T h o m a s F. Trotter, "Foreword," Rosemary Skinner Keller, Gerald F.
Moede, Mary Elizabeth Moore, Called to Serve: The United Methodist
Diaconate (Nashville: U n i t e d Methodist General Board of Higher Education
and Ministry, 1987), pp. vi-vii.
4. Everett Tilson, formerly professor of Old Testament at T h e Methodist
Theological School in Ohio m a d e t h e s e c o m m e n t s during conversations
centered on t h e preparation of the script for Looking at Leadership Through
the Eyes of Biblical Faith, co-authored with Robert L. Browning and Charles
R. Foster (Nashville: Disciplcship Resources, 1978).
5. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church 1988 (Nashville:
T h e United Methodist Publishing House, 1988), Paragraph 5 3 1 , p. 293.
6. Allen J. Moore, "Perspective on t h e Teaching Office from Educational
Concerns," in Teaching Authority in the United Methodist Church, cd. by
Charles R. Foster and Elizabeth Box Price (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
forthcoming).
7. T h e European American cultural influence may be seen in t h e basically
individualistic character of t h e mentoring process and t h e view of servanthood
as a form of personal leadership, t h e voluntary character of ministry, t h e
tendency to view learning in linear patterns and education in schooling
structures.
8. William A. Henry III, "Beyond the Melting Pot," Time (April 19, 1990):
28
9. Trotter, p. ix.
10. The Book of Discipline, Paragraph 302, pp. 192-93.
11. Keller, e t . a l , p. 49.
12. Robert N . Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, A n n Swidler,
and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in
American Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 235fT.
13. Keller, et.al., p. 13.
14. Victor W. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure
(Chicago: Aldinc Publishing Co., 1969), p. 127.
15. Seymour B. Sarason, The Creation of Settings, the Future of Society (San
Francisco: Josscy B a s s Inc., Publishers, 1972), p. 61ff.
36
QR 1 1 / 1 (1991) 37-42
Two Responses to "Diaconal Ministry: Vision and Reality"
Linda Vogel
I STILL REMEMBER t h e excitement I felt in 1977 w h e n I

first l e a r n e d about 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
decision to consecrate persons to specialized ministries of love,
justice, and service. A s I examined what it m e a n t to become a
diaconal minister, I became convinced that this was an invita
tion from m y church to enter into a relationship of mutual
responsibility and accountability as it claimed and affirmed t h e
ministry God was calling m e to do. T h e form diaconal ministry
is to take in our church has b e e n growing and changing ever
since, as the church struggles with t h e larger question of t h e
nature and role of t h e ministry of all Christians and of repre
sentative ministry.
Charles Foster's paper helps us focus on several important
questions as w e in t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church (as a part of
the larger ecumenical church, which is also struggling with
issues around a permanent diaconate) continue to wrestle with
t h e mission of t h e church and t h e form of its ministry. I will
limit my response to three questions which Foster's paper
raised for me:
I. Is the diaconate "a s y m p t o m or a solution" to t h e church's
struggle to be faithful to God's call in this troubled age?
II. What are t h e dangers inherent in t h e struggle to define
and empower diaconal ministry?
III. What are t h e opportunities that t h e diaconate offers to
the church as it s e e k s to focus on its mission as w e move into
t h e twenty-first century?
Linda Vogel is Associate Professor of Christian Education Garrett-Evangelical

Theological Seminary. J o s e Palos is Coordinator of t h e office of Congregational
Development in the Rio Grande Annual Conference.
37
*
Foster rightly points out that there is always t h e danger in
any ordering of ministry of erring on t h e side of "continuity and
stability" rather t h a n moving out in faith toward prophetic,
servant ministry. This n e e d s to be guarded against in all forms
of ministry-baptized, consecrated, and ordained! As t h e church
s e e k s to define t h e nature and responsibilities of those in
representative ministry, I believe we m i g h t be guided by Jesus,
as portrayed by Luke. J e s u s engages in an inclusive ministry
that is for Gentiles and Jews, poor and rich, children, w o m e n
and m e n .
It is a ministry that s e e k s justice and brings hope to all
persons in all arenas of life. It is a ministry of loving, praying,
healing, feeding, evangelizing, teaching, preaching, serving. It
is a ministry of hospitality and judgment. It is a ministry that
accepts persons as they are and offers t h e m hard choices
regarding who t h e y will become. Interestingly, it is a ministry
that cannot escape questions of who, among those w h o minister
with Jesus, are t h e greatest!
It s e e m s to m e a false dichotomy to ask w h e t h e r anything is
a "symptom or solution." In this case, I believe diaconal minis
try has t h e potential for building bridges-empowering laity to
be the church in t h e world, as t h e y serve with those called to
word, sacrament, and order; and being t h e church's repre
sentative ministers among t h e poor and disenfranchised in
specialized ministries (currently diaconal ministers serve out
side local congregations in hearing-impaired ministries, coun
seling, peace and justice ministries, teaching, and in church and
community work, for example).
Diaconal ministry can embody servant ministry in special
ized arenas by educating and empowering laity for ministry in
t h e world and by using their specialized expertise and theologi
cal education in t h e n a m e and on behalf of all Christians where
t h e church sends t h e m to serve. Diaconal ministry will not solve
t h e institutional churches' problems; but it (and all forms of
m i n i s t r y - l a y as well as representative) can provide oppor
tunities for t h e church to acknowledge and affirm persons w h o
38
RESPONSE TO FOSTER
believe God calls t h e m to offer their ministry to God through

t h e church of J e s u s Christ.
*
There are certainly dangers at every turn as the church

struggles with ways to faithfully order ministry! Luke tells us
that "an argument arose among t h e m [the disciples] as to which
one of t h e m was t h e greatest" (Lk. 9:46 RSV).
Foster rightly points out that "much institutional energy
today is expended in efforts to reinforce and undergird t h e
power and authority of those who already possess it." In that
regard, all kinds of charges have b e e n laid at t h e feet of diaconal
ministry-e.g., "it will be t h e undoing of itineracy!"; "it will just
add o n e more layer to an unjust hierarchical system"; or
"diaconal ministers just want a bigger piece of t h e clergy-pie!"
As we seek to discern the role and function of diaconal
ministry (and all forms of ministry), it behooves u s to guard
against either scapegoating or idealizing any one form of min
istry. All baptized Christians and those in every form of repre
sentative ministry (church and c o m m u n i t y workers,
deaconesses, deacons, diaconal ministers, elders, h o m e mis
sionaries...[the list is alphabetical!] m u s t seek, together, to find
ways of being faithful to God's call to each one of u s and to our
church. There is plenty of ministry to go around and w e must
begin to seek ways to empower and aid one another. It is
deplorable w h e n e v e r persons in ministry join those early dis
ciples in seeking to position t h e m s e l v e s on Jesus' right and
l e f t - h o p i n g to gain life. We, like those with w h o m J e s u s walked
and talked, will discover that such actions lead not to life, but
to death.
It is also true that our church's approach to ministry is
"deeply r o o t e d in t h e r e l a t i v e h o m o g e n e i t y of N o r t h e r n
Europe" and that w e n e e d to move beyond t h e confines such
roots provide. I suggest that diaconal ministry can provide a way
of broadening our paths for ministry. As w e order ministry and
find ways to n a m e and affirm t h e ministries of those working
in t h e world as well as within the denominational institutions,
it is vitally important that w e be open to persons w h o s e e k to
39
engage in "tent-making" ministries, precisely because many

persons are called by God to serve in communities, agencies, or
congregations of t h e poor and disenfranchised which cannot
afford to hire full t i m e (or even half time) ministers.
*
My vision for diaconal ministry within t h e United Methodist

Church is a ministry of persons called by God and affirmed by
t h e c h u r c h - p e r s o n s w h o s e roots are deep and w h o know t h e
story of God's c h o s e n people, claiming it as their own; persons
w h o know and want to share God's love and saving grace;
persons who s e e k to be and to act in truth, with justice; persons
w h o are gifted and are open to t h e gifts of others; persons w h o
understand ministry as mutual, embodied, empowered by t h e
Spirit...
I pray that, as w e seek to discern t h e forms ministry may take
as w e move into t h e twenty-first century, w e will focus on ways
we can best live with and learn from all God's children on t h i s
fragile planet of ours; that w e well strive for ways to negate
competition and embody compassion.
I pray that all baptized Christians in our church, and all
churches, will work to build up t h e church so that as t h e Body
of Christ we might "bring good news to t h e poor,...proclaim
release to t h e captives and recovery of sight to t h e blind, to let
the oppressed go free, to proclaim t h e year of t h e Lord's favor"
(Lk. 4:18-19)
Jose L. Palos
I N "DIACONAL MINISTRY: VISION A N D REALITY,"

C h a r l e s R. F o s t e r r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s c o n f r o n t i n g
diaconal ministry in t h e United Methodist Church that merit
attention and discussion. First of all, Dr. Foster suggests that
t h e q u e s t for a p e r m a n e n t diaconate in t h e face of t h e
denomination's decline may r e p r e s e n t a s y m p t o m of t h e
church's concern for institutional order and control. Is such a
quest part of t h e problem or part of t h e solution?
Foster adds that t h e ordered ministry always has t h e danger
of identifying with institutional continuity and stability than
40
RESPONSE TO FOSTER
with God's call to n e w edges of ministry. This s e e m s to be t h e

c r u x of t h e w h o l e m a t t e r . I n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n c e r n s h a v e
dominated our denomination's ordered and representative
ministries. There are several examples of this, including "a
rising clericalism," t h e growing disparity of salaries and benefits
among staff m e m b e r s of affluent churches and staff of other
churches, and t h e inability to deal with t h e pluralistic nature
of our changing communities.
B u t Foster has overlooked one important factor: t h e primary
attention t h e church has given to educational standards for
representative ministries. Foster has s e e n that our inflexibility
as an institution in responding to racial ethnic ministries has
to do with educational standards. In today's world, education is
e s s e n t i a l for e f f e c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m i n i s t r y . B u t our
denomination has made educational standards t h e primary
(and almost exclusive) standard for representative ministries.
If we ask what sort of education we n e e d to respond to t h e
missional challenges which t h e church is facing today, w e s e e m
to be suggesting a lowering of educational standards. A number
of years ago t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church made seminary
education t h e basic standard for becoming an elder. There are
routes to becoming an elder that require less education, but to
be a full member of the Annual Conference it has remained the
s t a n d a r d . S h o u l d d i a c o n a l m i n i s t e r s h a v e t h e s a m e or
e q u i v a l e n t e d u c a t i o n a l standards as ordained m i n i s t e r s ?
Diaconal ministers should seek an education that responds to
missional concerns, rather than pressing to be equal to or
dained ministers, This is a primary example of our denomina
tional tendency to be preoccupied with institutional concerns
rather than with missional concerns.
T h e church's preoccupation with educational standards has
encouraged professionalism in t h e representative ministries.
Being a professional can be a good thing, generally speaking.
But in t h e church, professionalism can lead to elitism because
it allows t h e ordained minister to be separate from t h e people
of God and focus only on a job description. T h e author points
to this professionalism w h e n h e s e e s that "the task of mentor
ing" is s e e n as s o m e t h i n g that is added to t h e pastor's respon-
41
sibilities. How are seminaries and diaconal and ordained min

istry boards dealing with this? How will t h e church break down
t h e walls b e t w e e n representative ministers and t h e people of
God?
Foster identifies t h e shift in t h e practice of ministry took
place w h e n t h e denomination established "a n e w order for
doing m i n i s t r y t h r o u g h a Council of Ministries," so t h a t
programs, and not missions are focus of congregational plan
ning. W h e n mission is defined as program, it is no wonder that
ordained and diaconal ministers describe their ministry in
managerial terms.
Churches that are able to look beyond their own membership
to the larger community become known as "missional congrega
tions." T h e s e congregations care for t h e n e e d s of persons within
their communities and are responsive to t h e diversity of race,
ethnic background, class, and language in their neighborhoods.
We need missional representative ministers for t h e s e con
gregations. I would like to rephrase Foster's question: Will t h e
role of t h e diaconate be to serve t h e church as an institution or
to serve t h e church in its mission to t h e world?
42
QR 1 1 / 1 (1991) 43-55
Clergy A u t h o r i t y : To What
S h a l l We C o m p a r e It?
G a r y E. P e l u s o
W H E N A MIDDLE-AGED clergyman was asked, "If y o u

were to view your congregation as a family, what family
member's role do y o u play?," h e confidently responded, "The
father. I oversee, nurture, plan, and provide for spiritual and
material needs."
An older clergyman is frustrated by t h e expectations his
congregation has of h i m as a leader. T h e y want h i m to function
as a chief executive officer (CEO). H e says h e simply wants to
preach, visit, and pastor.
A clergywoman remarks with some anger in her voice that,
w h e n it comes to paying apportionments, her district superin
tendent considers parish clergy to be fundraisers for t h e con
nection. "Doesn't t h e cabinet understand," s h e frets, "that,
parish clergy m u s t woo and massage a constituency just like the
politicians? We can't make demands or force people to support
t h e church!"
Each of t h e s e vignettes, adapted from interviews done as part
1
of a research project on clergy s y s t e m s , illustrates t h e problem
of competing understandings of clergy authority, of what and
who clergy are "authorized" to be and do, How do we define
2
clergy authority? To what shall we compare i t ? Family s y s t e m s
theorists suggest that t h e clergyperson ought to function as if
the congregation is a family and s h e or h e ought to assume a
Gary E. Feluso is a Ph.D. candidate in practical theology at t h e University of

Chicago. H e is an elder in t h e Northern Illinois Annual Conference.
43
particular kind of parental role. Church growth consultants are

fond of comparing t h e church to a business corporation and t h e
role of t h e clergyperson to that of t h e CEO. F e w people openly
draw parallels b e t w e e n what a politician does and what a cler
gyperson does but, as will be shown below, parallels exist.
I have two purposes in this essay. First, I want to compare
and contrast t h e nature and function of clergy authority in t h e
church w i t h that of parents in t h e family, executives in t h e
corporation, and politicians in public service. What really do w e
mean by t h e s e comparisons? Secondly, I want to expose t h e
norms and philosophical underpinnings of t h e s e models for
ministry using three criteria. Each mode of authority should
involve norms and philosophies which are consistent with
Scripture and tradition, are psychologically healthy, and are
3
workable in t h e church's present c o n t e x t .
I have referred above, and will do so again below, to systems:
clergy, family, corporate, political. For our purposes, a s y s t e m
i s defined as a s e t of r e l a t i o n s h i p s (material, emotional,
spiritual) t h a t connects persons into a total environment.
Changing t h e environment can affect all t h e relationships,
while altering certain k e y relationships can affect all t h e par
ticipants in t h e system.
Parental Authority in the Family System
At its m o s t basic level, parental authority is t h e result of t h e

n e e d an infant has to depend on s o m e o n e else for physical and
emotional survival. If h u m a n infants are to survive and flourish,
t h e y n e e d t h e aid of someone w h o can feed t h e m , protect t h e m ,
hold t h e m , and teach t h e m to communicate. Society authorizes
the parent to fulfill t h e s e needs. Clearly, such dependence
diminishes (or ought to) as t h e infant grows into a child, an
adolescent, and an adult. Our culture generally judges a person
to be mature w h e n h e or s h e does not rely on a parent to m e e t
basic emotional and physical needs. This is w h a t psychologists
4
call differentation. If, as an adult, one still depends on parents
for physical needs, or if one's parents still control one's emo-
44
CLERGY AUTHORITY
tional well being t h e n that person h a s unresolved childhood

tensions that n e e d attention.
T h e nature of parental authority changes, then, as one grows
up. W h e n children reach maturity and no longer depend on
their parents physically or emotionally, parental authority con
sists in t h e practical wisdom t h e y can impart as persons further
along on life's journey than their children are.
According to t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of parental authority,
parents' authority functions as a m e a n s to raise their children
to maturity, i.e., to be socially functional citizens who take
responsibility for their own lives, w h o are differentiated from
their parents, and w h o are able to engage in healthy relation
ships with others.
Biblical writers refer to t h e church as a household (oikos) and
as sisters and brothers in Christ. Paul called himself a "spiritual
father" in churches h e planted. T h e Johannine epistles u s e t h e
family terms "father" and "little children." Catholic and Or
thodox priests, as well as Episcopal clergy are often referred to
as "Father." Early n i n e t e e n t h century American Methodist
clergy applied t h e same appellation to each other.
But did calling clergy "Father" develop because t h e nature of
clergy authority is analogous to parental authority? If so, is t h e
analogy between parental authority over dependent children
or mature adult children? If t h e former, t h e n are we implying
that lay people n e e d t h e clergy in order to survive spiritually?
This certainly does not cohere with U n i t e d Methodist tradi
tion, in which t h e m e a n s of grace are not bound strictly to
clergy-controlled sacraments. T h e former model also suggests
ties between t h e hierarchical conception of t h e family and that
of t h e church, with clergy playing t h e father or mother role and
everyone else functioning as obedient children, However, no
psychotherapist would consider parents to be healthy who did
not help their children become mature adults. Although some
persons like s o m e o n e else to take responsibility for t h e m all of
their lives, clergy do n o t have to indulge t h e m . Treating
parishioners as perpetual little children may be scriptural in a
limited sense, but it is not healthy.
45
Is a more helpful parallel to be drawn b e t w e e n t h e nature of

clergy a u t h o r i t y and t h a t of p a r e n t s w i t h m a t u r e adult
children? I think t h e r e is. Both construe t h e parent/pastor as
t h e bearer of practical wisdom. T h e recent upsurge in Protes
tants seeking a spiritual director is evidence that people are
looking for practical wisdom from one w h o knows s o m e of t h e
journey's terrain. Adult children or parishioners respect t h e
parent/pastor not because t h e y depend on t h e authority figure
for survival, but because t h e y have grown to respect who t h e
parent/pastor is and t h e power of his or her reflections.
There is also a parallel b e t w e e n h e a l t h y parental functioning
in a family and healthy clergy functioning in t h e congregation:
both u s e their authority to aid t h e system's m e m b e r s on their
journeys toward maturity. In t h e case of a congregation, t h e
goal, as defined by t h e a u t h o r of E p h e s i a n s , i s spiritual
maturity, measured against t h e standard of Christ (3:13).
A l t h o u g h clergy could l e g i t i m a t e l y claim parental-type
authority of t h e model defined above, t h e clergy in our research
were divided over w h e t h e r or not t h e y see themselves as
functioning in a parental way with their congregation. W e
asked them: "If y o u were to view your congregation as a family,
w h a t family member's role do y o u play?" T h e most significant
variable in w h e t h e r t h e y chose a parent role or a child role was
their age. All but o n e of t h e respondents over fifty chose a
parent role; t h o s e under fifty were almost evenly split between
parent and child roles. W h e t h e r one was married, single, child
less, or a parent m a d e no significant difference in t h e response
given. What accounts for t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e age
groups?
We offer two hypotheses. First, t h e clergy over fifty are
pre-baby boomers; those under fifty are, roughly, of t h e post-
World War II baby boom generation. T h e latter group was raised
in t h e Vietnam and Watergate days of "question authority";
parental authority may have oppressive connotations because
of the baby boomers' social conditioning. Furthermore, t h e
baby b o o m g e n e r a t i o n also h a s e x p e r i m e n t e d w i t h m o r e
democratic images of partnership within t h e family, rather
than holding to t h e hierarchical understandings of t h e older
46
CLERGY AUTHORITY
generation; choosing brother and sister roles in t h e congrega

tional family coheres with this emphasis on partnership.
Second, individual family-of-origin issues also may be at
work. Family s y s t e m s theorists argue that each of us learns
ways of responding to authority and to peers in our relation
ships with, respectively, our parents (or adults fulfilling paren
tal roles) and our siblings. Those clergy who e s c h e w parental
r o l e s m a y t h e m s e l v e s d e s i r e to be p a r e n t e d b y t h e i r
parishioners, to receive t h e attention and affirmation t h e y feel
deprived of in their family-of-origin, This stance, in turn, would
cause great conflict w h e n parishioners come looking to have
their own u n m e t family-of-origin n e e d s satisfied; t h e n hurt
child m e e t s hurt child instead of a mature or, in family systems
language, differentiated adult (the clergyperson) aiding t h e
hurt child parishioner on her or his journey toward maturity.
Ideally, w h e n clergy are fully differentiated from their own
family-of-origin t h e y are able to engage their congregations in
a mutual journey toward maturity in Christ. T h e clergyperson
t h u s moves away from t h e role of parent-of-hurting-children
and moves toward t h e role of authorized representative bearer
of practical spiritual wisdom. H e or s h e is also free to receive
such wisdom from others. In other words, as children in a
healthy family become more equal with parents as t h e y mature,
so it is in t h e clergy and parishioners in t h e church.
We should also see that comparing t h e church to a family has
limitations. A local church is composed of m a n y families, often
with competing i n t e r e s t s . T h e church cannot compensate
parishioners for any love and intimacy t h e y did not receive in
their families. T h e church in the United States also acts like a
voluntary organization in which ties do not necessarily bind as
tightly as a family's ties do, Moreover, while a family is bonded
by blood and marriage, t h e church is constituted by a shared
experience of God in J e s u s Christ. Consequently, clergy as
parent m u s t be balanced and corrected by other metaphors.
47
Authority In The Corporate System
We have s e e n above s o m e ways in which clergy authority in

t h e church is similar to parental authority in t h e family. B u t
our understanding of t h e church is not exhausted by t h e family
analogy. A n o t h e r popular o n e today is to compare clergy
authority to t h e corporation's chief executive officer (CEO).
As we shall s e e such a perspective has s o m e value, but is also
significantly l i m i t e d - e s p e c i a l l y by t h e differences b e t w e e n
employees and volunteers and b e t w e e n t h e perspective of t h e
local church and that of connectional officials. It also implies an
ecclesiology which stands outside t h e U n i t e d Methodist con
nectional tradition.
The CEO's authority is grounded in t h e mandate given by
t h e directors of t h e corporation to fulfill t h e goals of t h e com
pany. To m e e t t h e business' ends, t h e CEO is expected and
empowered primarily to accomplish two tasks. First, s h e s e t s
t h e tone and articulates t h e vision for the company. T h e
corporation's goals m u s t be presented persuasively so that
employees feel enthusiastic and confident that t h e company is
doing s o m e t h i n g important. Secondly, t h e CEO builds a t e a m
of e m p l o y e e s w h o share t h e vision, w h o are willing to work
toward its fulfillment, and w h o can communicate excitement
about t h e vision to fellow employees and to customers.
The CEO t h u s exercises a form of persuasive authority. B u t
s h e also is empowered with coercive authority. S h e has t h e
power to hire and fire. S h e demotes and promotes. Those
persons who work under her know very well that, if t h e y do n o t
perform up to t h e CEO's expectations, t h e y may be looking for
another job.
If one views t h e congregation as a corporation, t h e n clergy
authority exhibits definite similarities to t h e authority of t h e
CEO. As t h e CEO is empowered by a board of directors, t h e
clergyperson is empowered by t h e pastor-parish committee or
the administrative board to fulfill t h e goals of t h e corporation,
i.e., t h e particular local church. T h e clergyperson is expected
to set a persuasive vision before t h e congregation and to build
a t e a m of persons who will work toward that vision. Clergy u s e
48
CLERGY AUTHORITY
both formal (preaching, teaching) and informal (lunches) oc

casions to promote t h e vision. T h e i r role as chair of t h e
Nominations and Personnel Committee is crucial to building
t h e right lay team. If t h e church is large e n o u g h to have
multiple staff persons, t h e senior pastor is often expected to
build and head t h e employed team as well as t h e lay t e a m and
to coordinate t h e efforts of t h e two.
Here emerges, though, a key difference b e t w e e n the
authority exercised by a CEO and that performed by clergy.
T h e authority clergy have with volunteers is not t h e s a m e as a
CEO has with employees. T h e coercive power of t h e latter is
clear and legitimate, although open to abuse. Clergy can exer
cise a form of coercive power in omitting "troublesome" persons
from consideration in t h e nominations process, but lay people
may frequently view such exercise to be less legitimate t h a n a
corporation's e m p l o y e e s would perceive similar exercise within
their company. Moreover, few clergypeople would attempt to
hold their limited coercive power over t h e heads of lay t e a m
members, because t h e y are fully aware that t h e s e m e m b e r s can
always elect to attend another local church--a very different
situation than w h e n one's gainful employment is on t h e line.
T h u s far w e have b e e n comparing t h e authority of a CEO and
that of parish clergy. This parallel, however, is based on con
ceiving t h e situation from t h e perspective of t h e local church
in relative isolation from any larger connection. In fact, the
clergyperson as CEO model has definite affinities with a con
gregational polity and with t h e clergyperson functioning as
bishop of a single local church. Although this polity can certain
ly be found in Scripture and tradition, it is contrary to U n i t e d
Methodist tradition. Granted, many local churches would like
to view their ministry primarily, if not entirely, from t h e local
viewpoint. In our research, about 25% of clergy judged that
their congregation had a positive relationship to t h e connec
tion, another 25% d e e m e d t h e relationship to be highly nega
tive, and 50% b e l i e v e d t h e i r c h u r c h w a s i g n o r a n t of or
indifferent to t h e connection. T h e matter of apportionments
does not allow t h e local church to ignore t h e connection com
pletely, regardless of w h a t its feelings are. However, a sizeable
49
minority of parish clergy told u s that t h e best way t h e bishop

and district superintendents could support t h e m would be to
leave t h e m a l o n e - f u r t h e r evidence of a practical ecclesiology
that is, at base, congregational.
If, however, one defines what t h e "company" is from t h e
perspective of t h e connection rather than t h e local church,
t h e n t h e analogy b e t w e e n t h e clergyperson and a CEO is
delimited by t h e parallel b e t w e e n t h e clergyperson and a mid
dle-manager.
One of our opening vignettes was about an angry clergy
woman w h o was angry about apportionments. S h e had received
a letter from her district superintendent informing her of
past-due apportionment payments and threatening punitive
action if t h e payments were not forthcoming. Using t h e busi
n e s s analogy from t h e perspective of t h e connection, clergy are
employees, middle-managers appointed to promote connec-
tional goals. Here clergy are threatened with coercive action
from above, for t h e cabinet has real coercive power over t h e
clergy. T h e clergy, on t h e other hand, have only very limited
coercive power over t h e laity-and, in some congregations, all
t h e persuasive authority in t h e world would not be enough to
convince a congregation to pay its denominational askings in
full! Furthermore, denominational expectations for clergy-as-
managers, beyond paying apportionments, are often unclear.
Fifty percent of t h e clergy studied either did not know what
their district superintendent expected from t h e m or judged
that all h e or she wanted is that apportionments be paid.
This whole discussion of comparing the church, understood
either locally or connectionally, with a corporation leaves m e
wondering w h y w e u s e t h e analogy so often. T h e parallels s e e m
both limited and, depending on t h e implied polity, confusing.
Perhaps we have turned to t h e corporation for help because
"excellent" American businesses, especially as contrasted with
American politics, have a reputation for "getting things done,"
while ecclesiastical leaders and theorists l a m e n t t h a t t h e
church talks a big plan but finds it hard to deliver t h e goods.
Although calling oneself a CEO may help a clergyperson feel
more effective, t h e confused lines of authority and polities it
50
CLERGY AUTHORITY
occasions may not be worth t h e psychological boost. Further

more, while t h e cabinet may want to treat clergy like middle
managers, such conduct undercuts t h e ministry of t h e laity.
And w h e n t h e clergy have full responsibility for raising funds
for t h e connection, t h e laity are left to pay and o b e y - o r with
hold and rebel.
Authority In The Political System
In surveys asking people w h o t h e y trust, m o s t Americans

rank politicians near t h e bottom of t h e list, about t h e same
place as used-car salespeople. This may be one of t h e reasons
w h y relatively little discussion has centered on t h e clergy as
politician. Another may be that the pastor is s e e n as a prophetic
figure who deals in ideal ends, rather than as a pragmatist who
is willing to compromise. Regardless of our hesitations, t h e
parallels between t h e clergy politicians deserves a look, because
there are more strengths in this than w e m i g h t think especially
6
regarding our issue of authority.
T h e n a t u r e of political a u t h o r i t y i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
democracy comes from below. "We t h e people . .." begins t h e
Preamble of t h e American Constitution. We t h e people elect
leaders from our midst who will act responsibly on our behalf
and who are accountable to us.
We grant our political leaders authority so that t h e y can
fulfill the collective goal: to match t h e best m e a n s with t h e best
ends to accomplish as m u c h good as possible. Both m e a n s and
ends are important. The politician who cares only about m e a n s
is a mere bureaucrat; one who ruthlessly pursues an e n d - e v e n
a positive one--by dishonest m e a n s usually ends up being
prosecuted for it.
Certainly t h e politician's authority, in so far as h e is a law
maker, is coercive. But, primarily, political authority is per
suasive. That is w h y rhetoric-defined by Aristotle as t h e art of
persuasive s p e a k i n g - i s so important to politics. B u t Aristotle
did not m e a n that o n e should try to persuade regardless of t h e
question of truth, as perhaps our contemporary "sound bites"
and "ten-second spots" in political campaigns do. Rather, h e
51
m e a n t that rhetoric is t h e art of finding t h e persuasive argu

m e n t s in a case, an art that paid serious attention to questions
of ethics and truth. A good politician will u s e rhetoric so under
stood to s e t a vision of t h e good before t h e people with which
h e or s h e can attract and ultimately convince a constituency to
act upon both labor and capital. S h e or h e will also be skilled in
marshalling t h e m e a n s necessary to achieve as m u c h of t h e
good as is possible.
Like t h e politician's authority, t h e nature of clergy authority
is from below. T h i s is so e v e n in a hierarchically arranged
church such as U n i t e d Methodism. Clergy begin t h e ordination
process by obtaining t h e approval of their local church pastor-
parish committee. Throughout t h e remainder of t h e process,
t h e candidate m u s t m e e t t h e approval of elected committees at
district and conference levels. E v e n though United Methodist
clergy pride t h e m s e l v e s on t h e freedom of their pulpits, t h e y
know that t h e y are still accountable to t h e laity, as well as to
each other, i.e., at t h e conference's executive session.
Clergy authority has a similar relation to political authority
in that t h e clergyperson has to relate m e a n s and ends. Few
would disagree that t h e clergyperson n e e d s to have a vision to
s e t before t h e congregation. Granted, several of t h e lay leaders
and district superintendents w e surveyed worried t h a t too few
clergy had a vision t h a t e x t e n d e d beyond institutional main
tenance; but t h e y were u n a n i m o u s that clergy ought to be able
to give a voice to a theological vision of t h e gospel. T h e most
heavenly vision, however, will be of no earthly good if no one
gathers t h e resources necessary to incarnate it. Therefore, t h e
clergyperson n e e d s to deal w i t h m e a n s - a t least to t h e extent
of finding t h e right people who can do some of t h e detail work
necessary to s e e t h e vision come alive. S o m e t i m e s sufficient
m e a n s will not be available for t h e whole vision to be enacted.
Other t i m e s t h e people will dedicate t h e m s e l v e s only to a part
of t h e vision. Both cases require t h e pastor as politician, decid
ing how m u c h good can be accomplished under t h e present
circumstances.
Like t h e politician, clergy authority is primarily persuasive.
As a m e a n s of persuasion, rhetoric is a valuable tool for a
52
CLERGY AUTHORITY
politician; it is indispensible for clergy. Clergy w h o know how

to find t h e persuasive arguments in biblical, contemporary, and
h u m a n t e x t s - w h i l e attending to issues of ethics and t r u t h - g o
a long way toward leading a congregation. This bears a strong
resemblance to t h e way in which a good politician leads a
constituency.
It may be obvious to t h e reader that I find t h e parallel
b e t w e e n clergy and politician to be a valuable one, and one that
fits better with t h e way clergy authority actually functions than
do analogies with parental or managerial authority. According
to o u r c o n t e m p o r a r y d e f i n i t i o n s of psychological h e a l t h ,
leaders ought to be differentiated y e t connected. Clergy as
politician is a healthy way to think about t h e clergy role.
Furthermore, in a democracy-oriented church such as U n i t e d
Methodism is (or at least as t h e laity is), it is a workable model.
But what are its ecclesiological implications? Is t h e political
model of clergy authority faithful to Scripture and tradition?
T h e church has often b e e n construed as t h e Body of Christ
or t h e Family of God. Both of t h e s e images convey warmth,
intimacy, and organic connections. T h e church as a political
system, however, connotes voluntary association, competing
interests, and coolly rational calculation. Do t h e s e connotations
fit t h e church of J e s u s Christ? T h e answer depends on w h e t h e r
one thinks of ecclesiology from above, with what t h e ideal
church should be, or from below, with how t h e real church
appears to be. If one begins with t h e ideal church, t h e n t h e
answer is n o - t h e church is a community of disciples, not an
association of volunteers. It is a community in which t h e
centripetal pull of loyalty to J e s u s Christ is stronger than t h e
centrifugal force of any other interest. Its decision-making
process ought to be governed by concern for each h u m a n being
rather than by detached calculations. B u t if one begins with t h e
church as it appears, t h e answer is also y e s - t h e church in t h e
American context is a voluntary association as well as a com
7
m u n i t y of d i s c i p l e s . T h i s is a c o n s e q u e n c e of America's
denominational arrangement and it is no more a h e r e s y than
Europe's parish s y s t e m is an orthodoxy. Competing interests
have always b e e n a part of t h e church's life; t h e many biblical
53
calls for peace and unity strongly imply m u c h conflict. T h e

church, especially at t h e connectional level, exhibits as many
characteristics of a society consistent in its Wesleyan origins as
it does of a community, and every society n e e d s to m a k e
decisions about t h e good which are not good for every individual
involved.
I am not arguing that t h e clergyperson as politician is biblical
in the s e n s e that clergy as parent is. Rather, I argue that t h e
c h u r c h i s i n e v i t a b l y political and t h a t a c l e r g y p e r s o n ' s
authority has meaningful parallels to that of elected politicians.
In actual p r a c t i c e t h e c l e r g y p e r s o n h a s f u n c t i o n e d as a
politician.
Let u s also be clear, however, that I a m not saying that clergy
should not function primarily as politicians. Avery Dulles'
study of t h e church and Donald Messer's essay on contem
porary clergy images both correctly assert that multiple images
of t h e church and of ordained ministry are necessary to fully
8
understand e a c h . T h e images of clergy as parent and clergy as
politician deserve to be in that n u c l e u s of metaphors because
t h e y have descriptive power, t h e y are faithful to scripture and
tradition, t h e y are psychologically healthy, and t h e y are work
able in t h e church's present context. Clergy as CEO or cor
porate manager, however, is an image that is not faithful to a
connectional ecclesiology and leaves u s more confused than
ever about t h e nature of clergy authority. T h e corporation
metaphor, then, is not helpful to u s as w e try to reclaim an
effective authority for clergy today.
Notes
1. This project, sponsored by the Northern Illinois Annual Confcrnce Board

of Ordained Ministry of t h e Board of Higher Education and Ministry, examined
the multiple systems in which clergy function t h e Northern Illinois Annual
Conference. T h e research was conducted over t h e summer of 1989, and
included a total of sixy-five comprehensive interviews. A written summary
report (35 pp.) can be obtained from Gary E. Pcluso, 814 Bucll, Jolict, IL 60435.
2. A small sampling of books and articles on this topic includes: J a m e s D.
Glassc, Profession: Minister (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968); Putting It
Together in the Parish (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972); J o h n C. Harris,
Stress, Power and the Ministry (The Alban Instituc, 1977); Stanley Hawcrwas
54
CLERGY AUTHORITY
and William H. Willimon, "Ministry as More t h a n a Helping Profession," The

Christian Century 106 (March 15,1989): 282-84; E. Brooks Holifield, A History
of Pastoral Care in America (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983; Urban T.
H o l m e s III, The Priest in Community (New York: Seabury Press, 1983); Donald
E. Mcsser, Contemporary Images of Christian Ministry (Nashville: Abingdon
Press); Henri J, M. N o u w e n , The Wounded Healer (New York: Doublcday,
1972). For the claim that t h e leadership crisis extends to Catholicism and
Judaism, see K e n n e t h L. Woodward, "The High Priest of Scholarship,"
Newsweek (August 7, 1989): 52.
3. T h i s last sentence needs unpacking. I cannot at this point define precisely
what t h e nature and function of clergy authority a r e - t h a t is t h e issue under
inquiry here. But we can carefully examine t h e ways we commonly speak of
clergy authority, especially t h e analogies that w e employ from everyday life.
T h e n we can circumscribe what are legitimate possibilities for the church today
with t h e three criteria of faithfulness to Scripture and tradition, promotion of
psychological health, and workability in the church's contemporary context.
4. Edwin H. Friedman's Generation to Generation (New York: T h e Guilford
Press, 1985) forcefully stresses t h e need for clergy to differentiate from their
families-of-origin in order to avoid unhealthy situations in their ministry.
5. T.J. Peters and R.H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence (New York:
Warner Books, 1982). T h i s book was widely read, quoted, and reflected upon
in ecclesiastical circles.
6. T h e most thorough examination of t h e clergyperson as politician is Keith
Bridston, Church Politics (New York: T h e World Publishing Co., 1969).
7. For studies of the American denominational context and t h e church as
voluntary association, sec Andrew M. Greeley, The Denominational Society
(Glcnview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1972); and Russell E. Richey, ed.,
Denominationalism (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1977). That American
theologians conceive t h e church in both theological and sociological terms is
argued by T h o m a s Riplinger, An American Vision of the Church (Frankfurt:
Peter Lang, 1976).
8. Avery Dulles, Models of the Church, Expanded Edition (New York:
Doublcday, 1987); Mcsser, Contemporary Images of Christian Ministry.
55
QR 1 1 / 1 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 56-57
Globalization, Ecumenism,
in Theological Education
An Introduction
T H E ECUMENICAL M O V E M E N T HAS made a consid

erable impact on theological education in this country.
T h e alternative, an exclusive denominational orientation, h a s
all but disappeared from most American seminaries. Many of
t h e s e schools offer courses, lectureships, and special events to
keep their constituents up to date on t h e progress of ecumeni
cal dialogue. B u t their efforts are plagued by another kind of
divisiveness: there is no agreement about t h e nature of t h e
unity that w e s e e k in t h e church and in t h e world. Nor do w e
know what a truly ecumenical curriculum or pedagogy might
look like. Seminaries have similar difficulties with globalization
and interfaith dialogue. T h e y have encountered t h e effects of
globalization, and in its name t h e y have revamped curricula,
set up exchange programs for students and faculty from t h e
so-called Third World, and engaged in dialogue with people of
other faiths. But there is no clear consensus on t h e meaning of
globalization-and a good bit of reservation about using t h e
term at all.
The articles in this issue of Quarterly Review began as papers
that were delivered at t h e Consultation on Ecumenism, Inter
religious Dialogue, and Theological Education, held at t h e
Yahara Center, Wisconsin in March, 1989. Consultation or
ganizers Russell Richey and J e a n Miller Schmidt surveyed
United Methodist seminaries and discovered considerable com
m i t m e n t to e c u m e n i s m , globalization, and i n t e r r e l i g i o u s
dialogue. T h e y also uncovered a number of unanswered ques
tions that lie at t h e heart of theological education and t h e life
of the church. T h e report on this survey, written by Russell
Richey, provides a fine introduction to t h e topics under discus
sion.
56
GLOBALIZATION IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
We are reminded by Michael Kinnamon, D e a n of Lexington

Theological Seminary, that t h e ecumenical vision refers to the
unity and renewal of t h e w h o l e Christian Church, its worldwide
mission, and all humankind. All three dimensions are essential
to t h e life of a church that is faithful to t h e Gospel and t h e
ecumenical vision.
Roy Sano points to t h e implicit globalization of local con
gregations in t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church. T h e presumption
is that local congregations know little and care less about t h e
concerns of non-Methodists, Christians world-wide, and non-
Christians. H e argues that not only are congregations ready for
ecumenical insight and interreligious dialogue, t h e y n e e d it to
cope with their own changing communities.
The next t h r e e issues of QR will contain articles that develop
t h e t h e m e s of interreligious dialogue, globalization, t h e COCU
consensus, and denominational identity. In many respects
t h e s e articles present us with issues that w e n e e d to think and
pray about. Readers will encounter scholars who are deeply
committed church m e m b e r s wrestling with ideas and issues
that are at t h e heart of church life and theological education
today. T h e y are e c u m e n i s t s who believe that God surely wills
t h e unity of t h e Church and of all humankind. T h e y differ on
approaches and theological perspectives. T h e y offer no facile
answers or simple solutions. Instead t h e y invite us to discern
what God is calling u s to be as faithful Christians in our time.
Robert E. Reber, Dean

Auburn Theological Seminary
57
QR 1 1 / 1 (1991) 58-68
Globalization
in T h e o l o g i c a l E d u c a t i o n :
Findings and Observations from the 1987-88

Survey of United Methodist Seminaries
Russell E. Richey
CROSS N O R T H A M E R I C A N theological e d u c a t i o n
xJLsomething of a revolution is taking place. Its watchword
is globalization. In its name, faculties revamp curricula to man
date courses on t h e Third World, other living faiths, contextual
theologies; schools seek exchange programs with and exposure
experiences in Third World churches for their students; ad
ministrators scurry around applying for grants to underwrite
both faculty and student travel; faculty members engage in n e w
dialogues or refurbish old ones; faculties pledge t h e m s e l v e s to
incorporate t h e perspectives t h u s gained in t h e core cur
riculum; t h e accrediting agency, T h e Association of Theological
Schools in t h e U n i t e d States and Canada (ATS), assesses battle
readiness, maps grand strategies, trains leadership, recruits
(through start-up funds), and moves toward making globaliza
tion a criterion for accreditation; schools revise their catalogs
and promotional material to hoist this n e w banner as their
own.
The new watchword does not exactly replace old battle cries
- e c u m e n i s m , evangelism, world Christianity, missions, world
Russell E. Richey is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at T h e Divinity

School, Duke University, Durham, N C 27706.
58
religions. Rather, it envelops t h e m . Yet t h e place of t h e s e older
notions within t h e new campaign for globalization remains
uncertain. The t e r m 'globalization* invites schools to rethink
t h e purpose of their work, to re-order priorities, to reconceive
what students m u s t learn and how t h e y learn it, and so to
2
reshape t h e leadership of t h e church. In this essay, w e will
provide some indication of how U n i t e d Methodist schools are
conceiving globalization-we should say, 'were'-because our
findings are already dated by r e c e n t curricular efforts at
globalization in several of t h e schools.
Background to the Survey
In late 1987 and early 1988, J e a n Miller Schmidt and Russell

Richey, faculty m e m b e r s of Iliff and D u k e respectively, sur
veyed the United Methodist seminaries on behalf of t h e Com
m i t t e e on Ecumenical Perspectives and Interreligious Dialogue
in Theological Education of t h e General Commission on Chris
tian Unity and Interreligious Concerns (GCCUIC), t h e United
Methodist Division of Ordained Ministry (DOM) and t h e As
sociation of U n i t e d Methodist Theological Schools (AUMTS).
This survey had b e e n prompted by a report that Richey and
Schmidt had m a d e to GCCUIC on ecumenical and global
developments in U n i t e d Methodist seminaries, a report based
3
entirely on their analysis of t h e schools' catalogs. Their report
concluded by asking what role GCCUIC might play in t h e
seminaries' thinking and planning about global and ecumenical
factors and h o w t h e s e m i n a r i e s m i g h t i n t u r n r e s o u r c e
GCCUIC.
A mischievous query of this sort often catches t h e per
p e t r a t o r s r a t h e r t h a n t h e i n t e n d e d v i c t i m s . R i c h e y and
Schmidt found t h e m s e l v e s m e m b e r s of a n e w committee, the
Committee on Ecumenical Perspectives and Interreligious
Dialogue in Theological Education of GCCUIC. This commit
tee, established at t h e March 1987 m e e t i n g of the commission,
was charged to "work with seminaries on t h e place of ecumeni
cal perspectives and interreligious dialogue in theological
education." Chaired by Dr. Ridgway F. Shinn, Jr., a director of
GCCUIC, and staffed by Associate General Secretary J e a n n e
59
Audrey Powers, this committee was comprised of directors of
4
GCCUIC and D O M and seminary representatives. It initially
included Bishop Melvin C. Talbert, Professor Harriet Miller of
United Theological Seminary, Dr. Robert Reber of Auburn
Seminary, lay r e p r e s e n t a t i v e Martha Watanabe, t h e Rev.
Thomas Starnes from DOM, as well as Schmidt and Richey. (In
t h e new quadrennium GCCUIC m e m b e r s Talbert, Miller and
Watanabe w e n t off and Bishop William Oden, President Nor
m a n E. DeWire [METHESCO], T h e Rev. Patricia Farris and lay
representative [and doctoral candidate] Carol Colley were ap
pointed. T h e other m e m b e r s continued.) T h e committee took
its first duty to be a more thorough survey of t h e ecumenical
and interreligious interests and investments of t h e United
Methodist theological schools.
A questionnaire emerged from several committee sessions,
w e n t through n u m e r o u s 'perfections', and was submitted to
executive officers of both DOM and GCCUIC. In its final form,
it sought information from t h e seminaries on t h e global, inter
religious and ecumenical flavor of t h e entire scope of their
operations: t h e number and frequency of courses on ecumeni
cal and interreligious topics; w h e t h e r global concerns claimed
a central place in t h e curriculum, particularly in foundational
courses; how e x c h a n g e programs, consortia, v i s i t i n g lec
tureships and local dialogues claimed student attention; faculty
l e a d e r s h i p i n e c u m e n i c a l and i n t e r r e l i g i o u s affairs; t h e
ecumenical dimension to worship and daily life; t h e diversity
(denominational, racial, national) of t h e student body and how
that diversity is used; t h e place of e c u m e n i s m in continuing
education; initiatives taken in response to t h e ATS emphasis
on globalization; and future plans.
The survey invited attachments, copies of relevant reports
and statistical data so that each school could present its
5
ecumenical character to best advantage.
The Survey
T h e four-page instrument was s e n t to t h e dean or president

of each school. Along with it w e n t a covering letter from t h e
General Secretary, t h e Rev. Dr. Robert W. Huston, explaining
60
that t h e survey was undertaken on behalf of A U M T S and
D O M / B H E M . Follow up letters were s e n t by J e a n n e Audrey
Powers as needed. All seminaries eventually reported except
Gammon. Richey and Schmidt t h e n digested t h e responses, put
t h e information from t h e several schools into a common format,
returned this overview to t h e seminaries for c o m m e n t and
correction, and corrected t h e draft as appropriate. T h e revised
digest was reviewed by t h e GCCUIC committee, circulated to
t h e seminaries and submitted to GCCUIC and DOM. A s t h e
following commentary m a k e s clear, t h e digest ought to be
significant to both GCCUIC and DOM, particularly t h e former,
for t h e detailed information it offers o n t h e s e m i n a r i e s '
ecumenical operations and actors. Because of its detail, t h e way
that current developments have quickly dated it, and its lack
of an analytical dimension, t h e committee found itself pushing
6
beyond the survey to interpret its findings.
Summary Findings And Issues Raised
T h e survey represents a 1987-88 self-portrait of U n i t e d

Methodist seminary ecumenical and interreligious involve
ment. So understood, it provides a benchmark, a measure of
t h e ecumenical character of seminary ethos, curriculum and
program.
1) Global Commitments. Seminaries are in curricular fer
m e n t and c h a n g e , particularly i n relation to t h e global,
ecumenical or interreligious dimension of their life. Much of it
s e e m s to be t h e direct result of t h e Association of Theological
Schools* [ATS] exploration of globalization as a defining aspect
of theological education, though in one or two instances long
standing world Christianity or ecumenical c o m m i t m e n t s s e e m
operative. T h e institutional support for such global interests is
hard to gauge but apparently growing. We infer from t h e tenor
and scope of t h e reports a clear, t h o u g h not necessarily formal
and official, c o m m i t m e n t to globalization.
Most schools require at least one course t h a t has h i g h
ecumenical or interreligious content and offer an array of
electives with which to pursue those interests. T h e global,
interreligious or ecumenical flavor of t h e schools as a whole is
61
impressive. That had b e e n clear from t h e schools' catalogs; it
was even more obvious, detailed and concrete in their reports.
The survey disclosed within U n i t e d Methodist seminaries a
rich and complex array of involvement in areas described by
such terms as ecumenical, global, interreligious, missional,
international, Third World. However, while t h e schools all
claimed a global agenda, t h e y differed in its conception and in
t h e place accorded it. T h e fact of this global concern will not
surprise anyone presently working within theological educa
tion. We think it worth calling to t h e attention of t h e larger
constituencies w h o have a vital concern for theological educa
tion and its products. Globalization is very m u c h in vogue
2) Faculty. Of particular note are t h e many faculty members
w h o m t h e schools identify as possessing global interests. S o m e
have long played ecumenical leadership roles. Others repre
sent new talent on which GCCUIC and other agencies of t h e
church may wish to call. Of special note on t h e s e 'ecumenical
lists' are t h e non-Methodists serving on U n i t e d Methodist
seminary faculties, a talent pool not now well utilized by United
Methodism.
Here w e would point to a larger issue, one raised for GCCUIC
by the disclosure of this global talent, but with ramifications for
t h e entire church. How should t h e church make use of t h e
intellectual capital represented on seminary faculties? Has it
7
been well used in t h e recent past? We think n o t . Seminary
faculty participation in boards and agencies s e e m to have waned
in recent decades. T h e reasons for that are doubtless various.
Faculty m e m b e r s t h e m s e l v e s are reluctant to take on such
roles in part because of t h e p r e m i u m put on scholarship and
participation in t h e academy. Other factors might be our recent
suspicions of elites, t h e general scramble for place on national
boards, and t h e mandates to structure with sensitivity to t h e
diversity within t h e church. All militate against t h e appoint
m e n t of seminary faculty to board and agency positions. T h e
r e s u l t w a s , t h a t o n m a t t e r s of g e n e r a l i m p o r t a n c e l i k e
ecumenism, t h e agency (GCCUIC in this instance) lacked sub
stantial contact with U n i t e d Methodist theological education.
Not surprisingly t h e agency proceeded with its business while
t h e seminaries took their own (ecumenical) tack. T h e lack of
62
contact by seminary faculty with GCCUIC and GCCUIC's min
imal u s e of seminary faculty may explain t h e intellectual diver
gence on t h e nature of globalization.
GCCUIC had already b e e n working on its connection to
theological education prior to t h e establishment of its seminary
committee. With that m o m e n t u m , t h e committee has already
gone a long way towards rectifying this gulf between agency and
seminary. GCCUIC in turn has greater interest in t h e prepara
tion of the next generation of ecumenical leadership. Since
seminary faculties are quite limited in what t h e y can effectively
support this formula could not, and probably should not, be
a d o p t e d by o t h e r boards and a g e n c i e s . A n d y e t , U n i t e d
Methodist boards and agencies may well n e e d to find other
non-formal ways of drawing upon t h e church's intellectual
leadership.
T h e findings in t h e survey, t h e manner of t h e responses by
t h e schools, efforts by the DOM, and initiatives taken by
AUMTS--all clearly indicate o p e n n e s s and c o m m i t m e n t to
GCCUIC's specific charge, n a m e l y e c u m e n i s m and inter
religious concerns. Given that, how ought t h e educational mis
sions of seminary and GCCUIC to intersect? T h e question turns
really on the teaching office in Methodism: who exercises it and
how it is exercised. How do various agencies with legitimate
teaching roles interrelate, what incentives and deterrents for
cooperative endeavor might exist?
3) GCCUIC's Role In Leadership Formation. U p to this point,
w e have wondered how GCCUIC (and other agencies) might
profit from more contact with t h e seminaries and seminary
faculty. T h e i n v e r s e also s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d . S h o u l d
GCCUIC, perhaps in connection with t h e DOM, concern itself
with t h e way in which ecumenical perspectives and inter
religious concerns affect t h e curriculum and e t h o s of U n i t e d
Methodist seminaries? What about other seminaries in which
U n i t e d Methodist seminarians are trained? Larger issues are
obviously at stake. In what ways do agencies influence semi
naries? In what ways should they? How can schools remain
current with t h e church's agendas, policies and commitments?
And since t h e seminaries intersect with t h e church through
BHEM and DOM, t h e relation of t h e various agencies to one
63
a n o t h e r i s also i n q u e s t i o n . H o w e f f e c t i v e l y do U n i t e d
Methodist agencies interact w h e r e their programmatic man
dates overlap?
For GCCUIC, t h e pertinent question is "Are seminaries and
graduate programs developing a cadre of younger leadership
(including seminary faculty) w h o are committed to and articu
l a t e a b o u t t h e e c u m e n i c a l m o v e m e n t and i n t e r r e l i g i o u s
dialogue?" Are t h e y educating future clergy to give leadership
at t h e local level (and other levels) in such a way that the life
and ministry of all God's people is understood and exercised in
an ecumenical and interreligious context? If not, from where
will U n i t e d M e t h o d i s m draw its ecumenical leadership? W e
sense that this is a strategic time for GCCUIC to raise t h e
ecumenical banner in theological education. To do so, of course,
raises a further question about t h e colors to be raised.
4) Globalization, E c u m e n i s m , and Interreligious Dialogue. If
there is to be a single ecumenical agenda in t h e church, w h o
sets it, and of what does it consist? T h e survey indicates w h a t
ATS materials also attest, namely that there is a difference in
t h e global, ecumenical or interreligious thrust or style of t h e
several U M schools. Differences have to do with interests of key
faculty members, a school's constituency and make-up, t h e
specific contexts in w h i c h it works and local agendas, and t h e
international connections t h e school enjoys. T h e very t e r m s -
global, interreligious, missions, e c u m e n i c a l - r e g i s t e r t h o s e
divergencies. H o w do t h e s e terms relate? Are t h e y essentially
identical? compatible? What theological meaning do t h e y have?
Should t h e y have? If t h e t e r m s have different meanings and
are not essentially identical, how does t h e church's agenda g e t
set?
As t h e s e t e r m s b e c o m e central to t h e curricula~to t h e way
in which schools' conceptualize purpose and plan program--
their meaning, relation, and relative priority become of concern
to the whole connection. T h e question t h e n is determining
what role GCCUIC should play in providing precision in the u s e
of these terms, and identifying U n i t e d Methodist priorities.
It is our conviction t h a t a self-conscious discussion of
priorities is in order because t h e s e t e r m s do differ, and large
issues of direction and policy are at stake. Furthermore, w h a t
64
t h e seminaries do with t h e s t terms matters. If a single school
shifts its curriculum, there is little cause for notice; but if all
t h e church's seminaries do t h e same, there is indeed cause for
concern. Globalization apparently constitutes such a common
move.
T h e s e are obvious trade-offs to a general shift to globaliza
tion: for one, t h e emphasis on Christian unity will suffer. It is
n o t our business to argue t h a t Christian u n i t y should be
preferred over t h e other agendas represented in globalization.
But what is done in t h e n a m e of globalization--by training t h e
next generation of t h e church's leaders-will s e t agenda for t h e
church. Therefore, w e think it important to re-open discussion
on the nature and thrust of t h e church's global agenda. What
understanding(s) of t h e nature and purposes of theological
education guide(s) t h e s e endeavors at globalization? What
theologies of church and ministry inform t h e s e conceptions?
And how do t h e various indices of unity and diversity-race,
communion, sex, liberal/conservative, nationality, region, age,
degree program, etc.-intersect? What are t h e m o s t powerful
divisive forces, t h e most important punitive ones in today's
church and world? On which should t h e seminaries focus? In
such a discussion, w e presume that various parts of t h e church,
including GCCUIC, would play an important part.
5) Denominational Formation And Ecumenical Formation.
T h e survey indicated that t h e seminaries, s o m e more than
others, have labored to build a global aspect into t h e structure
and rhythms of institutional life. In one instance, it will include
t h e expectation that all students have some global experience,
preferably abroad. In other situations, interfaith dialogues give
shape to both curriculum and t h e community's c o m m o n life.
Worship frequently carries this commitment; t h e languages,
liturgies, gestures, music, drama, dance, color represented
within t h e community are juxtaposed in creative fashion.
T h e implicitly global or ecumenical features of seminary life
are highlighted-including t h e fact t h a t faculty (and students)
are drawn from various communions; t h e presence of interna
tional students; consortia, clusters, exchange programs, lec
t u r e s h i p s , v i s i t i n g scholars; t h e e c u m e n i c a l or academic
65
Q
character of instruction itself. T h e seminaries are exploring
what it m e a n s to be global.
At t h e same t i m e and through t h e same processes, semi
naries take responsibility for ministerial formation. All train
non-Methodists as well as Methodists, so that ministerial for
mation m u s t be done with sensitivity to t h e diversity within t h e
school. That acknowledged, t h e s e schools do have primary
accountability to U n i t e d Methodism and, of course, primary
responsibility for t h e shaping of its ministry. So, then, it is
appropriate to ask h o w global formation and denominational
formation cohere.
That question should eventually come to t h e fore, since
throughout t h e denomination there s e e m to be increased pres
s u r e s towards r e a s s e r t i o n of U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t i d e n t i t y .
Motivated by concern over t h e decline in numbers, t h e quest
for identity often puts a p r e m i u m on h e i g h t e n e d Wesleyan and
Methodist awareness. Can w e expect tensions b e t w e e n Wes
leyan awareness and global awareness?
An obvious place for global and denominational formation to
clash is in worship. In some schools, as w e have indicated,
worship expresses and dramatizes t h e community's global
awareness. Will that be done, can that be done while acquaint
ing United Methodist s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e new hymnbook and its
liturgies? (All t h e schools were given hymnbooks by t h e United
Methodist Publishing House, in part, for t h e s e formative pur
poses.) T h e new hymnals and t h e n e w global imperative raise
afresh a question that each of t h e schools has had to settle: How
should t h e common worship life give expression to both t h e
school's primary denominational orientation and t h e denom
inational (ethnic, ideological, national, linguistic) pluralism of
its student body? The issue obviously extends beyond worship.
What are t h e ground rules, criteria or norms by which semi
naries allot time, space, importance, etc. to denominational
formation and global (or ecumenical) formation?
IV. Concluding Observation
While t h e GCCUIC c o m m i t t e e initially undertook t h e sur

v e y to inform its own work, it recognized that t h e results were
66
important to those involved in theological formation and to all
concerned about t h e O n e n e s s of t h e Church. We concur in that
conviction but wish to turn some matters back to GCCUIC and
the church generally for consideration. Thus, we invite broader
conversation about what globalization m e a n s for both seminary
and church.
Notes
1. Much of this current interest can be discerned in t h e official publications
of T h e Association of Theological Schools in t h e U n i t e d States and Canada
(ATS), particularly its Bulletin and Theological Education. Notable are "Com
mittee on Global Theological Education," Global Challenges and Perspectives
in Theological Education, Programs and Reports, 35th Biennial Meeting. .
.June 16-18, 1986 and Bulletin 37, Part 6 (1986) which includes a significant
report by the Committee on Global Theological Education. See also t h e issues
of Theological Education entitled "Globalizing Theological Education in North
America," XXII (Spring. 1986), and "Theological Education in a Religiously
Diverse World/' XXIII (Supplement, 1987). For indication of t h e place of
globalization in t h e overall reflection about theological education, sec "Reflec
tions o n the Literature on Theological Education Published B e t w e e n 1955-
1985," by J a m e s M. Gustafson, Theological Education, XXTV (Supplement II,
1988), 9-86 and Christian Identity and Theological Education by Joseph C.
Hough, Jr. and John B. Cobb, Jr. (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985).
2. T h e term 'we* is used throughout to underscore the role that both Jean
Miller Schmidt and I played in the process that is described in t h e following
paragraphs, t h e shared character of t h e findings, and joint preliminary analysis
thereof. I take final responsibility for the transposition of t h o s e materials into
this draft.
3. T h e survey and t h e role of Richey and Schmidt therein grew out of a 1986
workshop at t h e Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, Switzerland devoted to "The
Teaching of Ecumenics." T h e Bossey event had gathered theological faculty
from across t h e world and from t h e various theological disciplines, a m o n g t h e m
and under GCCUIC sponsorship, t h e s e t w o American church historians
(Schmidt and Richey). T h e y assembled t o consider what might b e termed t h e
"mainstrcaming" of ecumenism, t h e inclusion of ecumenical perspectives
throughout a theological program, teaching "ecumenism" across t h e cur
riculum. T h e findings of this workshop, an effort to reconstruct t h e several
disciplines along ecumenical lines, comprise t h e October 1987 issue of T h e
Ecumenical Review,"Towards Ecumenical Formation in Theological Schools"
and appeared also, in more complete form, as a WCC paperback, The Teaching
of Ecumenics edited by Samuel A m i r t h a m and Cryis H.S. Moon. A related
consultation sponsored by t h e WCC, held t h e year previous, had issued in
Ministerial Formation in a Multi-faith Milieu: Implications of Interfaith
Dialogue for Theological Education. T h e s e volumes deserve attention in their
own right and are not herein summarized.
In making an oral report to GCCUIC on t h e workshop, Schmidt and Richey,
of course, highlighted t h e importance and excitement of this endeavor to
67
"mainstream" ecumenism, but w e n t on to m a k e a series of observations about
t h e 'ecumenical' state of U n i t e d Methodist theological education. Relying on
t h e catalogs of t h e seminaries, they reported o n t w o patterns: (1) t h e faculty,
courses and emphases expressive of long-standing ecumenical/Interreligious
commitments; and (2) curricular and extracurricular attention to globalization,
apparently inspired by t h e recent Association of Theological Schools (ATS) and
its Task Force o n Globalization. Richey and Schmidt asked about t h e relation
between t h e s e t w o patterns and what responsibility GCUIC had to t h e semi
naries (and vice versa) in charting U n i t e d methodist policy and program in this
general area.
4. Recognizing that this charge affected t h e domain of DOM, the Commis
sion had sought and received representation from that division, T h e Rev.
T h o m a s Starnes.
5. This survey was designed to discover t h e ecumenical intentions of t h e
schools. Richey and Schmidt and indeed t h e w h o l e committee are painfully
aware that a school's intentions and its actual opcrations~on global matter as
in virtually e v e r y t h i n g - m a y differ sharply. Since t h e purpose of data gathering
at this stage was to learn about goals, w e were quite content to accept t h e
schools' global self-understandings.
6. T h e following analysis draws on t h e suggestions of all members of t h e
committee, t h e ably constructed notes of t h e committee's chair and written
proposals by Richey, Schmidt, Powers, Rebcr, and Shinn.
7. T h e notable exceptions, but clear exceptions, were in t h e teams con
stituted for t h e several General Conference studies and in t h e preparation of
t h e new hymnal. For both, expertise as well as t h e support of the entire United
Methodist constituency was sought.
8. See Donald W. Shriver, Jr., "The Globalization of Theological Education:
Setting the Task," Theological Education, XXII (Spring, 1986), 15-16.
68
QR 1 1 / 1 (1991) 69-81
Globalization
in T h e o l o g i c a l E d u c a t i o n :
Naming the Issues in Ecumenical Perspectives

Michael Kinnamon
T HERE IS, I THINK, a real advantage to having a non-

Methodist w h o teaches at a non-United Methodist semi
nary help define ecumenical issues for a United Methodist
audience. I a m free to say "these are the problems as I s e e them"
without embarrassing anyone in particular. And y o u are free to
say "yes, we have those problems, too" or "thank God we're
better off than t h e Disciples."
I read t h e survey prepared by Russell Richey and Jean Miller
Schmidt with great interest and appreciation; it caused m e to
ask how Lexington Theological Seminary would have b e e n able
to respond to t h e questions. We are a school a bit smaller than
St. Paul in Kansas City. Our catalog lists thirteen courses that
are specifically ecumenical or global in character (though just
what that m e a n s is a question to w h i c h I will return). W e
sponsor various lectureships and less formal convocations deal
ing with global and ecumenical t h e m e s (the first w e e k in April
is designated "Global Awareness Week" with several repre-
Michacl Kinnamon is Dean and Associate Professor of Theology and Ecumeni

cal Studies at Lexington Theological Seminary (Disciples of Christ), 6 3 1 Lime
stone Street, Lexington, KY 40508.
69
sentatives from t h e Disciples' Division of Overseas Ministries

on campus). Six of our faculty are directly involved in such
things as t h e National Council of Churches' Commission on
Faith and Order, t h e executive c o m m i t t e e of t h e Consultation
on Church Union, t h e board of t h e Disciples' Council on Chris
tian Unity, and t h e General Commission on Christian Unity
and Interreligious Concerns. W e encourage cross-cultural
study and hope, within two years, to make it required for M.Div.
students. Our student body and faculty are not as culturally or
racially/ethnically inclusive as w e would like; but w e have made
progress during t h e past decade, including t h e regular presence
of visiting international professors. And w e are part of an
interesting consortium of schools--the Theological Education
Association of Mid-America (TEAM-A)--that includes Asbury
Theological Seminary, S o u t h e r n Baptist Theological Semi
nary, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and St.
Meinrad School of Theology (Roman Catholic). Perhaps seven
ty-five students from t h e s e seminaries take advantage of t h e
opportunity to register for a course at one of t h e other four
institutions during our common three-week January term.
Yet even as I offer this list, I feel t h e n e e d to add two large
qualifications. First, t h e s e courses and activities do not y e t
constitute an integrated focus or identity for our Seminary as
a whole. Second, I m u s t admit that many, if not most, of our
graduates are not particularly passionate about t h e unity of t h e
church or t h e renewal of t h e global h u m a n community - a n d
that, of course, is t h e bottom line.
Perhaps m y introductory concerns will gain clarity if I
recount a recent experience of our consortium. I proposed last
year to t h e other TEAM-A deans that we approve a course, to
be organized simultaneously on each of t h e five campuses, that
would involve our students in direct dialogue encounters.
Well, t h e deans agreed, but three of t h e m soon reported that
t h e y had no faculty m e m b e r s w h o were able or willing to tackle
such a course. T h e one exception was Southern Baptist. U n
daunted, I proposed to teach a "TEAM-A East" dialogue course
for Lexington and Asbury students while Dr. William Leonard
taught a "TEAM-A West" for Southern Baptist, Presbyterian,
70
and St. Meinrad students. Again t h e deans agreed, but w h e n

t h e dust had cleared from registration, w e had no one from
Asbury or Louisville Presbyterian, three students from St.
Meinrad, seven students from Lexington, and twenty-five from
Southern Baptist.
"Why," I asked a group of Southern Baptist students,"are you
so enthusiastic about this course?" "Because," t h e y replied,
"these issues and our inability to dialogue are tearing u s apart,
especially each year at convention time." For t h e s e Southern
Baptists, a willingness to approach t h e o l o g y ecumenically
(though t h e y may not quite know what that means) is a mark
of their identity. Being ecumenical m e a n s something, some
thing rather costly. I also had a revealing conversation with a
TEAM-A student representative from Louisville Presbyterian.
"Why didn't any students from your school sign up for this
course?" I asked. "Perhaps," she answered, "it's because w e are
ecumenical about everything so there isn't any need."
I hope this brief vignette has already stimulated reflection
about t h e problems and possibilities which bring us to this
topic. I want now to become more specific by naming four of t h e
overarching issues as I see t h e m .
Defining the Terms
T h e first issue is one of definition. What exactly do w e m e a n

w h e n w e speak of an ecumenical perspective in theological
education? I won't rehash t h e history of t h e word oikoumene
and its translations, but I do want to note that t h e term, in
modern usage, has generally referred 1) to t h e unity and
renewal of t h e w h o l e Christian community (i.e., to t h e growing
relationship among t h e now separated churches and their com
m o n effort to be t h e one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church),
2) to t h e world-wide mission of t h e church (i.e., to t h e work of
t h e church throughout t h e oikoumene), and 3) to t h e unity of
all humankind (indeed, of all creation), a unity which obviously
relates to and finally includes t h e church.
It is no secret that in t h e work of t h e ecumenical movement,
t h e search for visible unity of t h e church has, at times, b e e n
71
played off against w i t n e s s or service or social transformation.

B u t I a m convinced that this m o v e m e n t , at its best, has articu
lated a vision of t h e church and t h e gospel which powerfully
integrates t h e s e various definitions and priorities.
We s e e t h e foundations of this vision expressed in t h e 1978
statement, "Christian Unity: Imperatives and N e w Commit
ments," by t h e U n i t e d Methodist Council of Bishops. "God," t h e
statement begins, "created one world.. .Jesus called into being
one church," a church which "was to be t h e foretaste of t h e age
where t h e middle wall of partition b e t w e e n nations, races,
sexes, and classes-all forms of e n m i t y - h a d b e e n destroyed."
T h e church, in other words, is not simply t h e product of a
h u m a n urge for fellowship; it is, theologically speaking, a gift
of God. Our unity as Christians, across all four artificial walls
of partition, is not an option on which w e get to vote; it is a given
which w e m u s t seek to obey as part of our participation in God's
mission.
I like t h e way P e t e r Hodgson of t h e Vanderbilt Divinity
School puts it: "The exigency for unity does not reside in
scriptural proofs (though there are plenty of these) or even in
appeals to t h e classic 'mark' of unity, but in t h e fundamental
logic of Christian faith, which is oriented to a single, central
figure and e v e n t (God's redemptive action in Christ) and which
is intrinsically non-provincial in character (legitimizing no
d i v i s i o n s or e x c l u s i o n s o n t h e basis of race, s e x , creed,
1
nationality, locale, or language)." Our concern that theological
education become more ecumenical in perspective is not an
accommodation to t h e n e w experience of pluralism or to t h e
realities of t h e global village (though it clearly takes t h e s e into
account). It is a response to t h e gospel of God's universal love
and to t h e definition of t h e church as one, global, inclusive
community of faith.
I n e e d to m e n t i o n one other dimension of this ecumenical
vision as I understand it. The U n i t e d Methodist policy state
m e n t "On t h e Ecumenical Road" surely understates t h e point
w h e n it says
We see in none of the existing churches.. .the perfect exemplar
of the fullness of the Christian community we seek. What is needed,
72
therefore, is for the now-divided churches to abandon their erstwhile

claims to self-sufficiency"
T h e y m u s t also rediscover t h e spiritual treasures which God
has granted to their neighbors who s e e t h e gospel from other
confessional and cultural perspectives. The ecumenical vision,
in other words, regards unity as essential to the integrity of the
faith. It celebrates our pluralistic context as an enrichment of
our attempts to understand and obey t h e will of God; but it is
still God's will w e are attempting to understand and obey. As
Jane Smith p u t it, ecumenical Christians hold truth gently.
The ecumenical vision, to say it another way, is not philosophi
cally but methodologically pluralistic. An active faith that is
truer to t h e gospel is the goal; expanding t h e community which
seeks, through committed dialogue among differences, to un
derstand the gospel is one crucial m e a n s to that end.
I have spent some time on my understanding of t h e term
'ecumenical' and t h e vision of the church it implies because it
s e e m s to m e that this definition is being replaced in many
quarters by t h e notion of e c u m e n i s m as interchurch relations.
"On t h e Ecumenical Road" warns of t h e temptation to settle for
cooperation rather than to press for genuine unity through
transformation, but I fear t h e warning has gone u n h e e d e d . Our
churches and seminaries generally refrain from past polemics
and narrowly confessional perspectives, but we often do so, as
I see it, in t h e n a m e of tolerance rather than mutual growth in
Christ. The ecumenical status quo is valued for its own sake
("the blessings of diversity and openness") rather than as a
constant journey toward deeper, truer koinonia. Our expecta
tions for real unity are so low, and we have become so satisfied
with t h e gains of recent decades, that (unlike m y Southern
Baptist students) we no longer experience pain of our divisions,
t h e pain of giving such partial witness to t h e gospel. As a result,
there is little passion for ecumenism. W h e n tolerance becomes
an end in itself, t h e n cooperation becomes a sufficient goal, But
if t h e very integrity of t h e faith is at stake, t h e n n o t h i n g less
than t h e unity of Christ's Body will suffice.
Actually t h e situation may be even more dangerous than
that. I am now convinced that an e c u m e n i s m which is not aimed
73
at transformation of our c o m m o n life in Christ fosters a

relativism w h i c h does violence to t h e integrity of t h e faith. Our
TEAM-A consortium, for example, is characterized by a kind of
tolerant cooperation which reinforces present patterns without
dialogically challenging our various pet assumptions. Parker
Palmer labels this correctly w h e n h e speaks of a weak doctrine
of pluralism. "Because this notion concedes diversity without
calling us into dialogue," h e writes, "it leaves us in isolation and
destroys c o m m u n i t y as effectively as t h e objectivism it s e e k s to
2
resist."
I hope I have n a m e d this issue with sufficient clarity for u s
to address it. George Lindbeck argues in a recently published
essay that theology has for t h e m o s t part become procedurally
3
more ecumenical, but thematically less s o . T h e question I a m
posing is w h e t h e r or not t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e c u r r e n t
ecumenical posture in our seminaries. It is clear that w e value
and embrace diversity, including cultural diversity, as never
before. B u t do w e know how to bring that diversity into a
dialogue that prompts growth in faithfulness? Are w e com
municating a vision of t h e w h o l e n e s s of t h e gospel and t h e
church to which students can respond with passion and im
agination in their ministries? Have w e settled for cooperation
and openness rather than t h e unity of t h e universal church as
a sign and instrument of t h e unity of humankind?
Ecumenical Amnesia
The first issue, then, has to do with what it m e a n s in general

to be seminaries marked by an ecumenical perspective. T h e
second issue I want to n a m e has to do more specifically with t h e
teaching of e c u m e n i s m in t h e classroom. Part of t h e issue is
identified in t h e following s t a t e m e n t from t h e L u t h e r a n
ecumenist, Daniel Martensen, in h i s introduction to t h e report
of a B o s s e y C o n s u l t a t i o n in The Teaching of Ecumenics.
"Visser't Hooft would often say," writes Martensen, "that one of
t h e imgor failures of t h e modern ecumenical m o v e m e n t was its
inability to perpetuate t h e ecumenical memory." H e was u n
doubtedly correct. In no s e g m e n t of t h e world's Christian
74
population, including faculty and many professional ecumeni

cal staff people, can one assume knowledge of t h e modern
ecumenical m o v e m e n t . From this fact, w e can draw an impor
tant conclusion about t h e teaching of ecumenics, namely: un
less ecumenics is taught in a self-conscious fashion, it will not
be taught at all. It is not enough, h e argues, to promote cross-
registration a m o n g seminaries or to encourage a kind of general
ecumenical ethos. U n l e s s t h e quest for Christian unity and
common witness and service is addressed in a concerted fashion
and in self-consciously defined courses of study, t h e ecumenical
memory, to say nothing of t h e ecumenical vision of t h e future,
4
will be l o s t .
It is obvious that our schools are far beyond teaching theol
ogy or church history or pastoral care or biblical studies from a
narrowly denominational standpoint (whatever that m i g h t
mean). Since Vatican II, we seldom even speak of Protestant
theology and Roman Catholic theology as if t h e s e were separate
streams. And a t t e m p t s are also being made to avoid teaching
from a narrowly cultural standpoint. I suspect that t h e reading
lists for many of our courses include materials written by
persons from other parts of t h e world. But none of this neces
sarily m e a n s that w e are teaching students about t h e growth of
t h e ecumenical movement, that we are fostering c o m m i t m e n t
to t h e oneness of t h e church, or that we are introducing our
students to t h e nature and results of corporate ecumenical
dialogue.
I was recently at a m e e t i n g of local church educators from
t h e Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and t h e United
Church of Christ, m a n y of w h o m were seminary trained. No
one with w h o m I spoke was aware that t h e World Council of
Christian Education, whose roots are in t h e Sunday School
conventions of t h e n i n e t e e n t h century, merged with t h e World
Council of Churches in t h e early 1970s and that, since that
time, one of t h e WCC's three main program units has b e e n
entirely devoted to education and congregational renewal. The
otherwise excellent and comprehensive text edited by Seymour
and Miller, Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education,
contains no reference to t h e World Council or other ecumenical
75
bodies. T h e same can be said, I suspect, of other fields of study

as well.
I n e e d quickly to add that being ecumenical should not be
reduced to support for a movement, and t h e m o v e m e n t itself
should not be equated with t h e World Council of Churches. B u t
as Joseph H o u g h and J o h n Cobb observe, "the WCC thinks
globally because its m e m b e r s are from all over t h e world...
[thus] one valuable way of introducing ministerial students to
t h e global context is to make t h e m aware of t h e work of t h e
WCC in such a way that, as t h e y become church leaders, t h e y
will relate t h e church at all levels to t h e ongoing world discus
5
sions.
Should e c u m e n i c s be taught as a distinct area of t h e cur
riculum? If not, how do w e avoid t h e tendency to make t h e
ecumenical impulse so diffuse that it is nowhere intentionally
fostered? If so, how do w e avoid t h e opposite tendency (seen
frequently in t h e church) to treat e c u m e n i s m as a peripheral
elective, tangential to t h e core of t h e curriculum?
I want to add three quick and somewhat random observations
drawn from m y own experience. First, I agree with Charles
West of Princeton w h e n h e writes that ecumenics is an ongoing
event--the process itself is t h e real subject matter; t h e e n
counter b e t w e e n living traditions and involved Christians
struggling and working with one another. It is important for
students to study t h e history of this process in order that t h e y
t h e m s e l v e s may become a part of it. But t h e object of teaching
ecumenics is to involve t h e m as participants. T h e Vatican's
Directory Concerning Ecumenical Matters" m a k e s much t h e
same point: "the first thing to be attended to in ecumenical
education is conversion of t h e heart"--that humility of spirit
7
that m a k e s a mutually vulnerable pursuit of truth possible.
That is obviously t h e premise behind our course on dialogue
which, despite its institutional setbacks, is one of t h e finest
experiences I have had in teaching.
Second, I find that ecumenically-produced materials are best
used hot off t h e press. There are many problems with theology
by consensus and committee, including a frequent lack of
depth, which m e a n s that such materials do not stand up well
76
over time. For example, t h e Sheffield Report from t h e WCC's

On Community of Women and Men in the Church study will not
make a good textbook for t h e 1990s, especially w h e n compared
with more systematic treatments of w o m e n and t h e church
produced by individual authors. T h e report is invaluable, how
ever, as a record of global conversations at a particular m o m e n t
in t h e church's life and, as such, deserves m u c h more attention
than it has received in this country.
Third, I think it is particularly important to acquaint stu
dents with ecumenical initiatives currently under considera
t i o n i n their d e n o m i n a t i o n s in order t h a t t h e y can h e l p
interpret this work in their congregations. At Lexington, for
example, we have devoted two or three public lectures and
convocations, over t h e past two years, to COCU and its plan of
covenant communion. T h e COCU documents are taught in
various courses. And in t h e fall of 1991, w e will host a major
conference aimed at assessing t h e response to t h e COCU
proposal in t h e churches.
Understanding Otherness
T h e third issue I want to name is raised by t h e following

statement from t h e president of U n i o n Theological Seminary,
Donald Shriver: "Let u s grant no M. Div. or doctoral degrees
without requiring t h e candidates to demonstrate knowledge
and empathy for a culture, a constituency, a language, a profes
sion, or a point of view decidedly at variance with all that t h e
candidates know m o s t readily. It may be another religion,
another country, another ethnic American group, but let u s
require of ourselves that w e will sit in t h e s h o e s of this collec
8
tive, significant other . . ." I suspect that all of u s endorse t h e
importance of such an encounter with otherness. We fail t h e
church if a seminary education does not help students resist
t h e temptations of cultural, theological, political, or geographi
cal provincialism. But t h e question before us is what best
enables such stretching of horizons to occur.
Last fall's issue of Theological Education contains an essay
by Robert Schreiter of t h e Catholic Theological U n i o n in
77
Chicago, w h i c h argues that intercultural contact usually begins

by homogenizing t h e other, colonizing t h e other, demonizing
9
t h e other, romanticizing t h e other, or pluralizing t h e o t h e r . 1
hope w e will enable students to move beyond t h e s e postures to
authentic dialogue and e m p a t h y ~ i n t h e classroom, through
programs of study and work in other cultures, in t h e way w e
worship, through t h e lively presence of h u m a n diversity in our
seminary communities.
Tension between the Mandates
Finally, t h e r e is a tension in t h e present life of t h e church

between t h e two parts of t h e mandate of t h e General Commis
sion o n Christian U n i t y and Interreligious Concerns, a tension
which at least n e e d s to be named. T h e Commission's mandate
is 1) to advocate and work toward t h e full reception of t h e gift
of Christian unity in every aspect of t h e church's life and to
foster approaches to ministry and mission which more fully
reflect t h e o n e n e s s of Christ's church in t h e h u m a n com
munity, and 2) to advocate and work for t h e establishment and
strengthening of relationships with other living faith com
munities, to foster dialogue w i t h persons of other faiths, cul
t u r e s , a n d i d e o l o g i e s , and to work t o w a r d t h e u n i t y of
humankind.
I suspect that m o s t of us can and do affirm both Christian
unity and interreligious dialogue as priorities for t h e church;
indeed, w e likely see t h e m as complimentary aspects of a
c o m m o n vision rooted in our confession of t h e universal
Creator. But t h e r e are obviously many m e m b e r s of t h e United
Methodist Church, not to mention t h e Disciples and other
parts of t h e one church of J e s u s Christ, w h o reject t h e theologi
cal assumptions behind interfaith dialogue. It is possible to
argue that strengthening relationships or engaging in dialogue
with other faith communities does not presuppose any judg
m e n t of their place in God's plan of salvation, but this is hardly
a satisfactory response. If dialogue is defined as a mutually
vulnerable pursuit of truth (a definition consonant with t h e
WCC's Guidelines on Dialogue), t h e n Christians can presumab-
78
ly learn something new about the nature and purpose of God

from such encounters. The clear implications is that God is at
work redemptively in and through t h e s e other communities
(whose members w e regard more as partners in God's work of
shalom than as objects of conversion), and that is utterly unac
ceptable to many in our churches.
My point in raising this is to insist that w e hold t h e tension
and to invite u s to reflect together on t h e implications of
holding this tension for theological education. There s e e m s to
be an increasing tendency for "interfaith dialoguers" and "Jesus
only-ists" to dismiss one another as outside t h e circle of conver
sation. For example, t h e well-known historian of religions,
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, asserted at a recent m e e t i n g spon
sored by t h e WCC that t h e failure of Christians to affirm t h e
saving action of God not just within other religious traditions
10
but through t h e m is "blasphemy" -a kind of exclusive in-
clusivism.
I m u c h prefer t h e position taken by Harvey Cox in a 1988
article in The Christian Century. "It is easier for me," writes Cox,
"to converse with universally-minded Buddhists or Hindus
than with fellow Christians who not only dismiss such people
as pagans, but also want to dismiss m e for not dismissing t h e m
11
as such." Still, I believe t h e critically important conversation
among people of diverse faiths could founder and fail if w e - the
dialoguers-lose touch with our fellow believers who cluster on
t h e particularist side, T h e y remind u s that without t h e radical
particularity of t h e original revelation, w e would have no faith
to share. We remind t h e m that without t h e universal dream,
they falsify t h e message and diminish t h e scope of t h e original
vision.
F r o m time to time, w e have prospective students at Lexi
ngton Theological Seminary who apparently assume that our
self-designation as an "ecumenical seminary" m e a n s that w e
subscribe to some n e w orthodoxy of t h e left wing, instead of to
a methodology that s e e k s truth in a community of genuine
theological diversity. Let m e stress that we offer various cour
s e s on other faiths, especially Judaism, and are firmly com
m i t t e d as a faculty to t h e Commission's second mandate
79
(Interreligious dialogue). B u t our concern for t h e first mandate

(Christian unity) leads u s to affirm that even those Christians
who oppose Interreligious dialogue--or t h e whole ecumenical
enterprise, for that m a t t e r - m a y do so on t h e basis of principled
convictions which, in m y opinion, n e e d to be given voice in our
conversations.
If I a m not out on a limb already, I will end by inching out on
one. I speak as a person who loves t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church
w h e n I say that t h e biggest objection I hear from y o u r - o u r -
ecumenical partners is that t h e Methodists are too self-suffi
cient. W h e n I was in Indiana, we always got strong verbal
c o m m i t m e n t s to e c u m e n i s m from t h e two conferences of t h e
United Methodist Church, but few United Methodists ever
showed up at council of churches workshops because t h e s e
workshops conflicted with "our" Methodist educational events.
That story could probably be retold across t h e country.
My plea, therefore, is that y o u do not simply ask, "How can
w e become more ecumenical through our own devices?" but
"How can w e work w i t h i n t h e wider c o n t e x t of s c h o o l s ,
programs, and churches to prepare ministers marked by an
ecumenical perspective?" Before asking what programs you can
develop, ask w h a t existing ecumenical programs y o u can plug
into and support. Before asking what models y o u can develop
for preparing future ecumenical leaders, explore models being
developed by ecumenical partners. That in itself would be a
significant witness.
Notes
1. Peter C. Hodgson, Revisioning the Church: Ecclesial Freedom in the New

Paradigm (Fortress Press, 1988), 90.
2. Parker Palmer, To Know as We Are Known (Harper and Row, 1983), 66.
3. George Lindbeck, "Ecumenical Theology" in David F. Ford, ed., The
Modern Theologians, vol. II (Blackwell, 1989), 255.
4. Samuel Amirthan and Cyris H. S. Moon, eds., The Teaching of Ecumenics
(WCC, 1987), xi-xii.
5. J o s e p h C. Hough, Jr., and J o h n B. Cobb, Jr., Christian Identity and
Theological Education (Scholars Press, 1985), 103-04.
6. The Teaching of Ecumenics, 93.
7. T h o m a s F. Stransky and J o h n B. Shcerin, eds., Doing the Truth in Clarity
(Paulist Press, 1982), 63.
80
8. Quoted in Edwina Hunter, "Re-visioning t h e Preaching Curriculum" in

Theological Education (Autumn 1989); 74.
9. Robert J. Schrciter, "Teaching Theology from an Intercultural Perspec
tive" in Theological Education (Autumn 1989); 19.
10. T h e quotation is from an account of t h e meeting by S. Mark Heim,
Mission and Dialogue: 50 Years After Tambaram" in The Christian Century
(April 6, 1988); 342.
11. Harvey Cox, "Many Mansions or O n e Way? T h e Crisis in Interfaith
Dialogue" in The Christian Century (August 17-24, 1988); 735.
81
QR 1 1 / 1 (1991) 82-97
Globalization
in Theological Education:
Ecumenical and Interreligious Agenda

of The United Methodist Church
R o y I. S a n o
W H E N WE SPEAK OF "ecumenical and interreligious

agenda of t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church," our attention
is directed to t h e future. An agenda suggests topics requiring
further exploration and discussion. I would like to look at t h e
past, however, for clues concerning t h e unfinished agenda w e
m u s t address as a church.
A convenient point of departure is an indication of t h e vast
involvements of T h e U n i t e d Methodist Church in ecumenical
and interreligious ventures in recent decades. Within this set
ting I can only offer a highly abbreviated list of t h e major types
of ecumenical and interreligious efforts. I will u s e this sampling
to explore t h e ecumenical agenda for T h e U n i t e d Methodist
Church and its implications for theological education.
Involvements
Our c o m m i t m e n t s to e c u m e n i s m and interreligious efforts
are substantial. I turn first to t h e ecumenical ventures. In t h e
Uniting Conference of t h e U M C in 1968, t h e denomination
Roy I. Sano is Bishop of t h e Rocky Mountain Annual Conference of T h e U n i t e d

Methodist Church, 2200 S. University Blvd., Denver, CO 80210.
82
1
adopted a statement, "On t h e Ecumenical Road." At the same
General Conference t h e denomination also wrote into t h e Con
stitution of t h e Discipline t h e following mandate:
As part of the Church Universal, The United Methodist
Church believes that the Lord of the Church is calling Chris
tians everywhere to strive toward unity; and therefore it will
seek, and work for, unity at all levels of church life: through
world relationships with other Methodist churches and
united churches related to The Methodist Church or The
Evangelical United Brethren Church through councils of
churches, and through plans of union with churches of
Methodist or other denominational traditions.
T h e passage s u g g e s t s t h r e e basic t y p e s of e c u m e n i c a l
relationships and ventures. First, t h e mandate mentions direct
relationships which w e have as a denomination with other
M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h e s or u n i t e d c h u r c h e s r e l a t e d to our
predecessor denominations. We make provisions for direction
relationships through affiliations, concordats, and covenants
3
with autonomous Methodist c h u r c h e s . Such ties exist, for
example, with t h e British Methodists.
Dialogues and consultations with other churches, t h o u g h not
explicitly mandated in a constitutional provision, might be
m e n t i o n e d in this connection. W e have pursued bilateral
4
dialogues, for e x a m p l e , w i t h Roman C a t h o l i c s a n d w i t h
0
Lutheran denominations. We h a v e a l s o j o i n e d o t h e r
denominations in ministries and mission, such as in disaster
6
relief.
If t h e first type of unity establishes relationships directly
with another denomination, t h e second pursues relations with
other denominations through councils of churches. T h e World
Methodist Council can be mentioned in this connection, as can
8
the World Council of C h u r c h e s and the National Council of
9
the Churches of Christ in t h e U S A .
Third, we have pursued plans of union with churches of
Methodist or other denominational traditions. We have par-
ticiated, for example, in the Consultation on Church Union
1 0
(COCU) since its beginning in 1 9 6 1 .
83
I turn from ecumenical ventures to interreligious efforts. T h e
denomination does not have a constitutional mandate for inter
religious pursuits comparable to t h e s t a t e m e n t on "Ecumenical
Relations." There are, nevertheless, official denominational
statements adopted by t h e General Conference. In 1972 t h e
church adopted t h e statement, "Bridge in Hope: Jewish-Chris
11
tian Dialogue." In 1980, t h e church issued a statement,
"Called to be Neighbors and Witnesses: Guidelines for Inter
12
religious Relationship," affirming t h e place of witness and
dialogue.
While a 1988 official s t a t e m e n t is not constitutional, it never
t h e l e s s appears in t h e important Disciplinary section on "Our
Theological Task." E c u m e n i s m is understood broadly in this
setting.
Concurrently, we have entered into serious interfaith en
counters and explorations between Christians and adherents
of other living faiths of the world. Scripture calls us to be both
neighbors and witnesses to all people. Such encounters re
quire us to reflect anew on our faith and seek guidance for
13
our witness among neighbors of other faiths.
In line with t h e s e observations, t h e denomination, acting

through t h e General Commission on Christian Unity and In
terreligious Concerns, h a s continued interreligious dialogues,
for example, with Muslims and adherents of American Indian
spirituality. Results of t h e s e interactions appear in m i n u t e s
and reports. As of t h i s m o m e n t t h e s e dialogues have n o t
produced official stands. United Methodism also participates in
n u m e r o u s interreligious v e n t u r e s through t h e World Council
14
of C h u r c h e s .
While this summary of ecumenical and interreligious efforts
is succinct, each example is like a central switchboard at t h e
twin towers of t h e World Trade Center. Every connection
branches off into innumerable relationships and ventures. T h e
citations should explain w h y a single summary of t h e s e ac
tivities will never be complete.
84
Appropriating the Contributions
This survey of efforts in recent decades suggests several

avenues for action and reflection. I turn first to t h e importance
16
of incorporating or "receiving" contributions of ecumenical
and interreligious efforts. T h e y m u s t be tied into t h e life of our
local congregations, and t h e role of theological seminaries is to
train persons to do so.
Ecumenism in the Local Church
There are two stereotypes we m u s t overcome if w e are to
recognize t h e potential contributions of our ecumenical and
interreligious efforts. One has to do with our picture of people
in local churches; t h e other has to do with t h e nature of
ecumenical proposals and their use.
W h e n local congregations object to ecumenical proposals and
interreligious dialogues, there is often some media coverage of
their protest. This has led to the assumption that local con
gregations are ill-equipped to receive ecumenical insights. In
t h e meantime, w e overlook t h e increasingly interdenomina
tional composition of church membership and their conscious
n e s s of t h e global interactions in w h i c h t h e y live. T h e s e
realities m e a n that people in local churches have a greater
readiness to accept t h e contributions of ecumenical v e n t u r e s
and interreligious dialogues.
Consider t h e increasingly interdemoniational composition of
our membership. In many local congregations one half to two-
thirds of membership comes from other denominations. E v e n
where many m e m b e r s were raised in T h e U n i t e d Methodist
Church, denominational loyalties have lessened. Special inter
est groups within t h e church are often moved more by appeals
17
to W e s l e y a n h e r i t a g e t h a n to denominational l o y a l t i e s .
H e n c e , ecumenical standards are relevant to interactions
within our membership and not only to relations b e t w e e n
denominations at t h e highest levels.
Furthermore, our people are becoming more cosmopolitan
in experience than ever before. One travel agent, I a m told,
supports herself on t h e travel arrangements for six families in
Bozeman, Montana, a city with a population of25,000. Imagine
85
t h e broad-ranging e x p e r i e n c e s of t h e s e families, and t h e
employees on their ranches and farms.
Many of our farmers on t h e plains listen to t h e price of their
grains on t h e world market before leaving h o m e for work at 5:30
in the morning. T h e y listen to international news as they plow
t h e fields in t h e air-conditioned cabs of their combines. T h e s e
farmers have a picture of t h e m o v e m e n t of their grains on
interstate highways and train tracks across t h e U S . T h e y are
familiar with t h e shipping lanes that connect rmyor ports,
sending their products around t h e globe. Agriculturists in
America's heartland are hardly parochial and uninformed
about t h e global networks in which t h e y live and work.
Because their livelihoods are producing a n e w global con
sciousness, such people are ready to take seriously t h e inter
faith d i m e n s i o n s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l and cross-cultural
interaction. Economic contacts in t h e Pacific Basin, for ex
ample, are filled with exchanges, tensions, and conflicts in
formed by t h e Confucianist and Buddhist roots of Asian and
18
Pacific c u l t u r e s . Church m e m b e r s experience economic
rivalries and cultural clashes that might be eased by awareness
of interreligious issues.
Because our people are far more interdenominational, and
their experiences touched by interreligious exchanges, than
ever before, ecumenical and interfaith documents have a n e w
relevance in t h e life of congregations. But how can w e ap
propriate t h e results of t h e s e ecumenical and interreligious
dialogues? An analogy from stewardship will explain how this
might happen. T h e beginning point in stewardship cultivation
is an affirmation of t h e great things our m e m b e r s are doing with
God and God's people because t h e y are already contributing to
the denominational outreach. Even if their gifts are minimal,
w e still have m u c h to celebrate. T h e affirmation and celebra
t i o n p r e c e d e s a n y n e w challenges and additional respon
sibilities w e place before our members.
The same applies to our stands and proposals in ecumenical
and interreligious pursuits. T h e y provide resources for under
standing t h e ecumenical experiences and interreligious ex
changes that are already happening in and among our people.
86
Like great works of art, ecumenical convergences and t h e study
of interreligious dialogue help us see a world w e had not noticed
before. T h e d o c u m e n t s h e l p u s describe or n a m e what is already
taking place a m o n g our people.
Two concrete examples will suffice. We can treat t h e docu
m e n t Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) as a highly
abbreviated summary of erudite biblical scholars, church his
torians, theologians, and liturgical scholars, and assume that it
has little relevance for congregational life. In point of fact,
however, our congregations have since 1972 used over twenty
alternate worship resources that incorporated t h e emerging
convergence outlined in BEM. T h e final edition of BEM in 1982
therefore describes to a considerable extent what many con
gregations have already experienced but had not articulated for
themselves. That is to say, B E M should not be used as some
thing wholly n e w to our congregations or unrelated to t h e
experiences of supposedly uninformed laity.
Consider further t h e process of covenanting that w e have
developed through t h e Consultation on Church U n i o n (COCU).
Members in local churches are already taking a good number
of t h e steps proposed in Churches in Covenant Communion:
The Church of Christ Uniting. For example, laypeople have
already experienced considerable unity in faith as t h e y move
freely across denominational lines. T h e y recognize one
another's baptism and s e e various denominations as expres
sions of Christ's true Church. Many of our laity furthermore
welcome t h e ordained ministries of other communions. T h e y
experience t h e presence of Christ and proclaim his parousia in
various services of t h e Lord's Supper. T h e y also engage in
significant joint efforts in Christian mission. At all of t h e s e
points many of our m e m b e r s are already living out e l e m e n t s of
t h e covenant. Despite voices resisting ecumenical proposals,
t h e s e documents can be read first as descriptions of t h e best
that people already practice and appreciate and second as
directional s t a t e m e n t s of trajectories already astir in their lives
today.
Resistance to ecumenical s t a t e m e n t s can be accounted for in
other terms. In their zeal to mobilize support, promoters of
87
ecumenical a c h i e v e m e n t s often suggest their products are
avant-garde, perhaps e v e n radical and revolutionary. T h e in
evitable condescention speaks louder t h a n t h e substance of t h e
achievement. People hear t h e s e promoters saying that t h e y are
benighted and backward. After decades of this abuse, longsuf-
fering parishioners have begun to protest this decidedly un-
ecumenical ecumania.
It will therefore be necessary to move beyond stereotypes of
local churches and to adopt n e w approaches if w e are to realize
t h e great gains w e have made for Christian unity and interfaith
relations. We naturally turn to theological seminaries to train
those w h o can infuse t h e life of our churches with t h e s e con
tributions.
Ecumenism in the Theological Seminary
We have considerable work to do before theological semi
naries can train persons to appropriate t h e benefits of t h e
ecumenical and interreligious gains in recent decades. To begin
with, t h e resources in libraries for interreligious dialogue are
growing rapidly. Skills along comparable lines among faculty
are increasingly evident. We can celebrate t h e s e facts. There
is, however, a considerable lag in gathering comparable resour
c e s for Christian unity. It is a n exceptional library w h o s e
documentation of one commission in t h e World Methodist
19 20
C o u n c i l or t h e World Council of C h u r c h e s is u p to date.
Even t h e dialogues b e t w e e n and among churches on significant
issues are generally absent in library holdings and hardly ever
introduced as instructive insights for interpreting h u m a n ex
21
periences.
The oversights are understandable. Ecumenical documents
often represent a n e w and distinct literary genre. To learn how
to read some of t h e m is comparable to learning a now-deceased
language like Sanskrit for studying Theravada Buddhism, Fur
thermore it requires breaking through y e t another stereotype.
Because t h e s e brief s t a t e m e n t s usually compress days and
weeks, years and e v e n decades of i n t e n s e discussion, their
slight appearance s e e m s to encourage facile dismissals. Faculty
m e m b e r s seldom find occasion to consult such documents or
88
request libraries to acquire t h e m . T h e image barrier for their
use in theological education is therefore considerable.
But a theological education that neglects resources that
interpret t h e church in its local, regional, and global dimen
sions is like an trying to study economics without paying atten
t i o n t o s u c h t h i n g s as l a b o r u n i o n s , s m a l l b u s i n e s s ,
multi-national corporations, and governmental agencies. Can
w e imagine a library or faculty of a university economics depart
m e n t that would tolerate such a glaring omission?
Many people do have t h e opinion that seminaries overlook
t h e very institutions through which religious forces act most
i m m e d i a t e l y and overtly. Granted, religious forces m o v e
through politicians and journalists, painters and poets. But
churches are t h e institutions dedicated to the p h e n o m e n o n of
religion, even if t h e y s o m e t i m e s misguide us, or muffle t h e
power of t h e Holy. It is not by accident that many church
leaders turn to centers for congregational studies alongside
some of t h e finest theological seminaries, or t h o s e which
operate as freestanding institutions. The Rollins Center in
Atlanta or t h e Alban Institute are cases in point. T h e s e centers
do focus their studies on t h e church as an avenue for under
standing t h e dynamics of religion.
If t h e first i t e m on t h e agenda for t h e churches is to take full
advantage of t h e p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s offered b y our
ecumenical and interreligious efforts in recent decades, t h e n it
becomes important for theological seminaries to acquire t h e
resources and train persons in t h e u s e of t h e s e documents. To
repeat, the fruits of ecumenical m o v e m e n t s and interreligious
v e n t u r e s help u s see what we are already experiencing but had
not noticed. Like t h e mystery of faith, w e first believe in order
to understand. We seek understanding so that w e can gain
clarity in our lives, and therefore take greater steps in t h e
future.
I therefore turn to second general line of exploration. I move
from contributions to corrective; from complimenting what
ecumenical and interreligious leaders offer u s to complement
ing their contributions.
89
Pursuing New Directions
There are two directions that I would suggest from m y

sketchy summary of our ecumenical and interreligious involve
ments. T h e first is that w e continue to broaden t h e scope of our
efforts at several points, and t h e second is that we narrow our
scope in others.
Broadening the Scope
One area in which w e might broaden our scope is in inter
religious ventures. Efforts in relations with Jewish, Muslim,
and Native American neighbors are certainly appropriate. Each
require additional work. At t h e same time, to say t h e obvious,
there are persons best explained by Hinduism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, Taoism, and Shintoism, to m e n t i o n t h e more
c o n s p i c u o u s A s i a n traditions w h e r e m o r e t h a n a half of
humankind lives. In our interactions with persons around t h e
globe, animism is surely of major significance for our neighbors
in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and t h e islands of t h e seas.
In understanding t h e s e living traditions, I would hope that
t h e m e t h o d s for study and interaction could move beyond t h e
heritage drawn from t h e European Renaissance and Enlighten
ment. In both eras, t h e major approach was literary and dealt
primarily with ideas. While t h e verbal products of any civiliza
tion are surely among its richest expressions, people express
themselves over a far wider range of modes. T h u s t h e humanis
tic studies of texts n e e d to be supplemented with analytical
tools and procedures associated with other disciplines. Cultural
anthropology, for example, provides interpretations of t h e
religious d i m e n s i o n s of h u m a n s o c i e t i e s . T h i s discipline
focuses on symbolic interactions or artistic artifacts in music
and dance, m i m e and drama, paintings and architecture, cloth
22
ing and f o o d . Social psychology treats t h e publically acces
sible p h e n o m e n a as an avenue for understanding t h e religious
23
foundations of a c u l t u r e . Historical and sociological studies
of political economies and their religious dimensions offer y e t
another m e a n s to broaden t h e m e t h o d s for studying religions
2
for use in interfaith exchanges across cultures today. Be
cause t h e s e approaches to t h e study of religion deal with publi-
90
cally accessible p h e n o m e n a in culture and social interaction,
politics and t h e economy, t h e y can promote interfaith under
standing on a number of experiential levels.
With reference to t h e political economy, w e owe COCU a
word of gratitude for their "Commitment to Seek Unity with
Wholeness" in their proposal, Churches in Covenant Com
26
munion: The Church of Christ Uniting. Ever since t h e 1975
plenary session, w h e n COCU incorporated an appendix into its
emerging theological consensus to include "Alerts on t h e new
church-dividing potentials of some persistent issues," matters
of justice (including racism and sexism), as distinct from
familiar historic doctrinal points of contention, have b e e n in
26
cluded at t h e heart of its w o r k . COCU thus links concrete
issues of social justice with aspirations for religious harmony in
Christian communities. Such approaches are certainly valid
because our own history reminds us of t h e role of slavery in
church divisions.
Issues related to race continue to h a u n t us, and that is w h y
I offer suggestions for what I call a narrowing of focus in our
agenda as well.
Narrowing the Focus
While many of our most prominent efforts have b e e n inter
denominational and interreligious, w e now face a n e e d to be
intradenominational as well. I have in mind t h e n e e d for a m u c h
sharper focus on t h e tension between evangelicals and liberals
within The U n i t e d Methodist Church. I agree with Robert
Wuthnow, t h e Princeton University sociologist of religion, who
speaks of
the polarization that has come to characterize American
religion-the deep cultural divide between conservative or
evangelical Christians, on the one side, and religious liberals
and secular humanists, on the other side. According to public
opinion polls, this cleavage is fraught with considerable mis
giving and stereotyping on both sides. It divides the nation
into two opposing camps that are papproximately equal in
numbers, and it cuts directly through most of the nation's
97
major denominational families and faith traditions.
91
The U n i t e d Methodist Church n e e d to be particularly sensi
tive to this conflict because w e have virtually two parallel
denominations within t h e existing one. Conservative evangeli
cals have developed their own seminary and publishing house,
their own boards of global ministries and church and society,
their own network of evangelism and education, and m u c h
more. If it had n o t b e e n for t h e pension program and t h e trust
c l a u s e w h i c h p r o h i b i t s r e m o v a l of p r o p e r t y to a n o t h e r
denomination by "local option" w e could very well have split t h e
denomination several years ago.
I direct our attention to this reality because of our history.
T h e n i n e t e e n t h century holiness m o v e m e n t in t h e Wesleyan
household eventually became a divisive force and produced a
proliferation of denominations. T h e e m e r g e n c e of t h e holiness
groups represented what N a t h a n O. Hatch has called "the
28
democratization of American Christianity" amidst what Alice
29
F e l t T y l e r c a l l e d "freedom's f e r m e n t . " The existing
denomination could not incorporate t h e new burst of energies
because of its narrow liturgical practices, theology, and mis
sional outreach. T h e new m o v e m e n t s therefore were forced to
leave and organize a n e w denomination.
In a diversified denomination, t h e conservative evangelical
Wesleyans are now asking u s to acknowledge our distinctly
white heritage, as m u c h as w e have celebrated t h e contribu
tions of colorful people in recent years. T h e y are asking u s to
affirm t h e contributions of males, as w e have highlighted con
tributions of w o m e n . It does not surprise us that evanglicals
appeal to J o h n Wesley, a w h i t e male Anglo-Saxon.
While many factors are operating in t h e resurgence of con
servative, Wesleyan evangelicalism in T h e United Methodist
Church, w e cannot overlook t h e ethnic factor. This sector of
t h e church as lost patience waiting for an affirmative work
about white people in this nation and have therefore launched
a patriotic campaign. In h i s analysis of t h e "New Right" in
American politics in t h e 1980s, Alan Crawford spoke of a
"resentment" lying at t h e heart of t h e conservative move
3 0
ment. Conservatives have taken it upon t h e m s e l v e s to say
how good and right t h e (white, male) U n i t e d States is because
92
progressive voices have persistently said for several decades
how evil and wrong it has been. T h e y long to hear a witness of
t h e Spirit (Rom. 8:16) that t h e y too are "children of God" and
not simply a scourge of t h e earth, a curse to humankind which
liberals at h o m e and people of color around t h e world s e e m to
say that they are.
T h e intradenominational ecumenical agenda therefore calls
for new ways to affirm and celebrate diversity. We m u s t par
ticularly be inclusive of w h i t e s as well as people of color; m e n
as m u c h as women; straights as m u c h as persons with alternate
life styles; and ordinary people as well as special people with
handicapping conditions. U n l e s s w e find ways of incorporating
more explicitly this heritage in our theology and ethics, aliena
tion will grow among conservative evangelicals and schism
becomes a greater probability.
What inclusivity may m e a n for so-called mainline denomina
tions with a vocal and politically mobilized evangelical move
m e n t can o n l y b e d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h d i a l o g u e a n d
experimentation. An e c u m e n i s m that is exclusively denomina
tional and neglects t h e intradenominational tensions between
evangelicals and liberals is outdated to say t h e very least.
U n l e s s w e t a k e up t h e e c u m e n i c a l task w i t h i n our own
denomination, w e poison t h e balm that can heal both divisions
in t h e Body of Christ, and interfaith rivalries in t h e body politic.
Notes
1. "On the Ecumenical Road: T h e United Methodist Church and t h e Cause
of Christian Unity," Service Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 13th printing, June,
1986. Items distributed by t h e Service Center 7819 Reading Road, Caller No.
1800, Cincinnati, Ohio 45222-1800
2. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 1988 (Nashville:
T h e United Methodist Publishing House, 1988), par. 5. Hereafter Discipline,
It may be important to recall the status of this constitutional commitment
to ecumenical relations. U n l i k e many other portions of t h e Discipline, which
require a simple majority of General Conference delegates voting, a m e n d m e n t s
to this portion of T h e Constitution only occur with "two thirds present and
voting and a two-thirds affirmative vote of the aggregate number of members
of the several Annual Conferences present and voting." (par. 62)
3. Discipline, par. 647-654.
4. T h e UMC-Roman Catholic Dialogues have produced three documents.
T h e first round produced an agreement on "Holiness and Spirituality of the
93
Ordained Ministry: A Report of T h e U n i t e d Methodist-Roman Catholic
Dialogue-1976," w h i c h is available from t h e Publication Office, United States
Catholic Conference, 1312 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
20005. T h e second dialogue from t h e 1977-81 which produced "Eucharistic
Celebration: Conversing T h e o l o g y - D i v e r g i n g Practice" is n o w out of print.
Participants in a third dialogue issued "Holy Living and Holy Dying: A United
M e t h o d i s t / R o m a n Catholic C o m m o n Statement," (n.d. Stock # 1 2 8 7 ) available
from t h e Service Center.
This n o t e and t h o s e that follow in this section will list a lighly selective
sample, with primary attention to faith and order interests. T h i s sample will
illustrate a point m a d e later in t h e paper concerning t h e vast ranging bibliog
raphical resources in e c u m e n i s m w h i c h theological libraries could consider.
5. T h e results of t h e first series of dialogues between U M C and Lutherans
between 1977 and 1979 on baptism appear in a special issue of t h e Perkins
Journal (34:1981). T h e second series between 1985-87 produced a statement
on "Episcopacy: 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" (Stock # 5 0 2 2 ) , Service Center.
6. Sec t h e history in N o r m a Kehrberg's Love in Action: UMCOR-50 Years
of Service (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989).
7. Sec t h e Proceedings of the Fifteenth World Methodist Council, Nairobi,
Kenya, July 23-29, 1986 (Waynesville, N.C.: World Methodist Council, 1986)
edited by J o e Hale for an indication of t h e denominational relationship
through this "confessional" body (pp. 336-337).
Interactions a m o n g t h e various Methodist denominations w h o are members
of the council produced several statements published in the 1986 Proceedings,
including "The N o r t h / S o u t h Dialogue and Solidarity with the Poor" pp. 337-
340), the "World Methodist Social Affirmation" (pp. 380-381), "Six Major Issues
as Methodists Witness to t h e Gospel," (p. 381).
Documents from dialogues with other world-wide confessional bodies
through t h e World Methodist Council (WMC) also appear in t h e 1986 Proceed
ings. They include dialogues with t h e World Alliance of Reformed Churches,
1985, on t h e gospel (pp. 339-342), with t h e Lutheran World Federation,
1979-84, on "The Church: Community of Grace" (pp. 341-360), and with t h e
Roman Catholic Church, fourth series, 1982-85, on the topic, "Toward a
Statement on t h e Church" (pp. 360-372).
T h e 1986 Proceedings also mentions t h e first series of dialogues between
t h e WMC and R o m a n Catholics. T h e summary statement appears in The
Denver Report covering t h e 1967-70 sdialogues on Christianity in t h e contem
porary world, spirituality, family, eucharist, ministry, and authority. T h e
second dialogue appears in The Dublin Report covering the 1972-75 period on
t h e eucharist and ordained ministry. T h e third dialogue appears in The
Honolulu Report covering t h e period of 1977-81 on ethical decisions and other
topics. All three documents are conveniently found in Growth in Agreement:
Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level,
Ecumenical D o c u m e n t s II (Mahwah, N J : Paulist Press, 1984), edited by Hard
ing Meyer and Lukas Vischer, pp. 307-387. T h e first two dialogues are sum
marized in Confessions in Dialogue: A Study of Bilateral Conversations among
World Confessional Families, 1959-1974, Third, Revised and Enlarged Edition
(Geneva: WCC, 1975), edited by Nils Ehrcnstrom, pp. 40-44.
94
QUARTERLY REVIEW, SPRING 1 9 9 1
8. S e c the Handbook: Member Churches, World Council of Churches
(Geneva: WCC, 1982), edited by A n s J. van der Bent, for a description of
approximately 3 0 0 member churches with which United Methodism has ties
through t h e WCC.
Three items will illustrate t h e i m m e n s e variety of significant documents
produced through t h e Council of Churches. All three arc edited by A n s J, van
der Bent. They include Six Hundred Ecumenical Consultations, 1948-1982
(Geneva: WCC, 1983), A Guide to Essential Ecumenical Concerns (Geneva:
WCC, 1986). A n additional volume, Index to t h e World Council of Churches'
Official Statements and Reports, 1948-1978 (Geneva: WCC, 1978), edited by P.
Bcffa, et al., indexes documents by topics and refers to t h e volumes in which
they appear.
Several documents in relation to t h e historic statement o n Baptism,
Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) (Geneva: WCC, 1982) illustrate t h e enormous
volume of documentation from one WCC unit on a single topic related to our
focus on ecumenical relations among Christian churches. See Ecumenical
Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, edited by Max Thurian
(Geneva: WCC, 1983) for important essays on t h e document and t h e follow-up
studies; and Baptism and Eucharist: Ecumenical Convergence in Celebration,
edited by Max Thurian and Geoffrey Wainwright (Geneva: WCC, 1983) for
sample liturgies which demonstrate t h e amazing convergences. As of the
writing of this paper, t h e denominational responses to BEM appear in six
volumes of Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the "Baptism,
Eucharist and Ministry" Text (Geneva, WCC), vols. 1 and 2, 1986; vols. 3 and
4, 1987; vols. 5 and 6, 1988. V o l u m e 7 is forthcoming.
See note 14 for a sampling of WCC documents related to interreligious
dialogue.
9. A sampling of t h e statements issued from o n e unit, T h e Commission on
Faith and Order (COFO) of t h e NCCC appears in t h e list of publications in
"Program of Studies, 1988-1991," published by COFO/NCCC, 175 Riverside
Drive, Room 872, N e w York, N Y 10015-0050.
10. T w o most immediately relevant items from COCU are The COCU
Consensus: In Quest of a Church of Christ United, edited by Gerald F. Mocde
(Princeton: COCU, 1985); and Churches in Covenant Communion: The Church
of Christ Uniting (Princeton: COCU, 1989), b o t h available from COCU, Re
search Park, 151 Wall Street, Princeton, N J 08540-1514.
11. "Bridge in Hope: Jewish-Christian Dialogue," 7th printing (Cincinnati:
Service Center, 1985), # 2 5 7 4 .
12. "Called to be Neighbors and Witnesses: Guidelines for Interreligious
Relationships," (Cincinnati: Service Center, 1981), # 3 8 4 0 ,
13. Discipline, par. 69.
14. Sec Six Hundred Ecumenical Consultations, pp. 59-66, for a description
of t h e consultations staged by t h e unit o n "Dialogue with People of Living
Faiths and Ideologies" and t h e documents they produced.
Recent publications include Guidelines on Dialogues with People of Living
Faiths and Ideologies (Geneva: WCC, 1984); The Bible and People of Other
Faiths (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989) by Wesley Ararajah; Courage for Dialogue
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1981) by S.J. Smartha; Spirituality in Interfaith
Dialogues: Testimonies, edited by T o s h Aral and Wesley Ararajah (Geneva:
95
WCC, 1988); and Risking Christ for Christ's Sake, by M.M. T h o m a s (Geneva:
WCC, 1987).
15. Citations above offer illustrations of t h e enourmous network of ties and
joint efforts connected to a single ecumenical or interreligious relationship.
References have cited documents primarily related to faith and order dialogues
in interreligious concerns. T h e citations illustrate a point concerning library
resources that will highlight below.
16. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry called for a "process of reception" (p.
x). T h e concept was chosen carefully. T h o s e w h o selected t h e word had in m i n d
something akin to t h e passage in J o h n 1:12: "all w h o receive h i m (Jesus), w h o
believe in his name, (God) gave power to become children of God." Sec Ulrich
Kuhn, "Reccption--An Imperative and an Opportunity," in Ecumenical Perspec
tives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, pp. 165-168, for t h e biblical and
H
theological understanding of "reccption drawn from t h e Greek word, lam-
banein, and its cognates. S e e too, A n t o n Houtepcn, "Reception, Tradition,
Communion, ibid., pp. 144-149, for its historical usages.
17. Sec, for example, Robert Wuthnow's observations concerning t h e declin
ing significance of denominationalism and t h e growth of special purpose
groups in his book, The Restructuring of American Religion (Princeton: Prin
ceton University Press, 1988) pp. 71-131.
18. J o h n Bcrthrong, a faculty m e m b e r of t h e School of Theology, Boston
University, has called by attention t o recent studies in Japanese Confucianism
and its role in Japanese behavior, including their activities in global economic
ventures. H e also cites recourccs w h i c h uncover t h e Confucianist elements in
t h e interactions between Japan and t h e U . S . in world t r a d e S e c H e r m a n Ooms,
Tokugawa Ideology: Early Constructs, 1570-1680 (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1985); Peter Nosco, ed., Confucianism and Tokugawa Culture
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); Tctsuo Nagita, Visions of
Spiritual Cultivation in J a p a n e s e New-Confucianism: T h e Life and Thought of
K a i b a r a E k k e n (1630-1714) (Albany, NY: S U N Y Press, 1989).
19. S e c n o t e 7.
20. S e c n o t e 8.
21. S e c notes 4 and 5.
22. Observations concerning Japanese Americans might be cited here. T h e
studies of the cultural anthropologist, Chie N a k a n o in Japanese Society
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970) and t h e classic work by Ruth
Benedict, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture
(NY: World, 1946) have an enduring value. They study both t h e social and t h e
cultural manifestations of religion. O n e of t h e reasons w h y D.T. Suzuki has
worn so well In uncovering t h e identity a n d behavior o f J a p a n e s e people is that
he has combined careful studies of religious texts with an analysis of their social
and aesthetic expressions. Sec, for example, his very familiar volume, Zen and
Japanese Culture (Princeton: University Press, 1959).
23. S e c for example t h e study of t h e social psychologists, T a k c o Doi in his
The Anatomy of Dependence, trans, by J o h n Bester (Tokyo: Kodansha Inter
national, 1973).
24. Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans,
by Talcott Parsons ( N e w York: Scribncrs, 1958), represents a historic example,
as docs his study, The Religion of China' Confucianism and Taoism, trans, by
96
H a n s H. Gerth ( N e w York: Free Press, 1951). Robert Bellah's Tokugawa
Religion: The Values of Preindustrial Japan (New York: Macmillan, 1957)
traced t h e religious roots of an emerging political economy which still has
implications for understanding Japan. M. Douglas Meeks in his landmark
study, Ood the Economist: The Doctrine of God and Political Economy (Min
neapolis: Fortress, 1989) provides an example of interpreting t h e religious
dimensions of our o w n society through its economics.
25. Churches in Covenant Communion, pp. 16-18.
26. H. Richard Nicbuhr, in his Social Sources of Denominationalism (New
York: Macmillan, 1929) recognized t h e "social forces" in church divisions. T h e
COCU documents have gocused more sharply o n t h e issue of stratification.
27. The Struggle for America's Soul: Evangelicals, Liberals, and Secularism
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), p, 17.
28. N a t h a n 0 . Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989).
29. Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom's Ferment (Minneapolis: University of Min
nesota Press, 1944).
30. Alan Crawford, Thunder on the Right: The "New Right" and the Politics
of Resentment ( N e w York: P a n t h e o n Books, 1980).
97
QR 1 1 / 1 (1991) 98-112
R e a d i n g s from 1 J o h n :
L i v i n g in t h e L i v i n g S e a s o n s
P a u l F. A s p a n
rpHE EPISTLES USUALLY play t h e role of t h e poor

-L relation in t h e lectionary in most any liturgical s e a s o n -
but perhaps no more so than in Eastertide. T h e grandness of
resurrection appearances, of final commissions and consola
tions, and t h e overwhelming s e n s e of triumph and relief
naturally grab t h e attention of homilist and congregation alike.
T h e gospel narratives have led u s into to passiontide, and w e
instinctively k e e p our focus there to balance t h e pain with t h e
joy, the waiting with t h e fulfillment. Furthermore, w e n e e d t h e
reward t h e Gospel lections offer u s for having endured t h e
winter, and of y e t again awaiting a late spring--if not in t h e
weather of our region, t h e n perhaps in t h e climate of our lives.
The epistles this Eastertide speak of beginnings rather than
completions. T h e lections from 1 J o h n come out of a fractious
context, where struggle, sin and judgment, and h u m a n incom
pleteness dominate t h e interests of t h e biblical author. For
these reasons alone, t h e judicious preacher may wish to steer
a wide berth around t h e s e lections, preferring to settle into
"ordinary time" before returning to t h e pulpit with such a focus.
Yet t h e author of First J o h n reminds us that t h e fundamental
Paul F. Aspan is Assistant Professor of N e w T e s t a m e n t at St. Jospeh's Univer

sity, 5600 City Avenue, Philadelphia, P A 19131.
98
LIVING IN THE LIVING SEASONS
Christian mystery is a living Reality, as concrete and vivid as
t h e dancers in "East Coker," one of T. S. Eliot's "Four Quartets":
Round and round the fire/

Leaping through the flames, or joined in circles,/
Rustically solemn or in rustic laughter/
Lifting heavy feet in clumsy shoes,/
Earth feet, loam feet, lifted in country mirth/
Mirth of those long since under the earth/
Nourishing the corn. Keeping time,/
Keeping the rhythm in their dancing/
As in their living in the living seasons . . .
Worship in Eastertide proclaims a reality that m u s t be lived.

The author of 1 J o h n understood this so well that to ignore h i s
message is to ignore t h e full Reality of Easter. T h e epistle
lections can help us focus not only on t h e challenges but t h e
joys of living in this foremost of t h e "living seasons."
The Historical Context of First John
First of all, t h e identity of t h e author is not important. T h e

author of 1 J o h n never identifies himself. Most recent com
mentators believe that t h e author is part of t h e larger Johanine
community, but is not identical to t h e author of t h e Gospel of
J o h n (hereafter GJ). It is more likely but not certain that t h e
author of 1 J o h n is t h e same as that of 2 and 3 John. But First
J o h n gives a distinctive treatment to t h e m e s and concerns
which percolate throughout t h e literature of t h e "community
of t h e beloved disciple," and this should be t h e primary focus
1
for t h e h o m i l i s t . 1 J o h n 2:18-19 s e e m s to be a clear indicator
that t h e epistle is m e a n t to address a historic circumstance of
internal division:
18. Children, this is the last hour, and just as you have heard
that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have
come into m'stercce-wherefore we know that it is the last
hour.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; For had
99
they been of us they would have remained with us. Rather,
it has been manifested that they all were not of us.
My translation differs from t h e RSV primarily in v. 18 where
I have highlighted t h e author's u s e of t h e Greek ginomai. T h e
RSV translates renders this t e r m as have come. I believe that
t h e rhetorical logic h e r e states that those w h o left became
antichrists by t h e fact of their secession from t h e community.
Thus, w e see that 1 John's primary opponents are former
2
members of t h e same flock.
This group has apparently sundered t h e community's unity
for four reasons: t h e y do not believe that J e s u s is of God (4:3);
they do not k e e p t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s (2:4), nor believe t h e y
have sinned and therefore n e e d forgiveness (1:8-9); and t h e y
have abused f e l l o w m e m b e r s of t h e community (2:9-11,3:10-20,
4:7-21). Of course, w e only hear t h e i r v i e w s r e p r e s e n t e d
through t h e voice of our a u t h o r w e cannot know how fairly h e
is representing t h e m . Furthermore, there is one aspect of t h e
letter that indicates that t h e s e four failings are symptomatic of
t h e major ill which afflicts t h e community, t h e schism itself.
This may be s e e n if w e investigate a key t e r m used by t h e
author, koinonia ("fellowship," RSV: 1:3, 6, 7).
An excellent study of this t e r m has b e e n produced by J. Paul
3
S a m p l e y . Sampley has discovered that in t h e Greco-Roman
world of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writings, one meaning ofkoinonia
was an voluntary agreement among two or more partners that
was legally binding once entered. Koinonia (which Sampley
indicates was understood as "consensual societas" in Roman
society), existed only as long as all partners maintained their
obligations to it. Yet if some m e m b e r s of t h e partnership ar
bitrarily withdrew, t h e y were subject to legal judgment.
Both Paul and 1 J o h n have appropriated this notion of
"consensual societas" for t h e self-understanding of their com
munities. This u s e is especially prevalent in Paul in Philip-
pians, P h i l e m o n and t h e Corinthian correspondence. Paul was
extremely concerned about t h e potential loss of koinonia in all
three of t h e s e s instances. Paul's rhetorical logic in t h e s e instan
ces consistently indicates t h o s e who break koinonia are guilty
oferitheia ("partisanship," "selfishness," RSV: Rom. 2:8, 2 Cor.
100
12:29; Phil. 1:17; 2:3; Gal 5:20). Aristotle u s e d this t e r m to
describe ancient politicians w h o abused their sacred public
trust for self-aggrandizement. It was also u s e d in other litera
ture of t h e time to describe those who by profession or disposi
tion placed their n e e d s above t h e good of t h e body politic.
Eritheia should be understood as t h e antonym to koinonia
also in that t h e latter carries a strong connotation of mutual
interdependence. J u s t as t h e Greekpolis was governed by t h e
cooperation of representatives of t h e citizens, so Christian
communities are governed by a spirit of cooperation and har
mony, which s e t s t h e n e e d s of t h e whole above advantages for
t h e few, according to Paul and 1 John. T h e full meaning of t h e
frequent exhortations in 1 J o h n to "love one another" requires
nothing less than full c o m m i t m e n t of t h e self to t h e n e e d s of
t h e congregation as whole. Paul states t h e very same s e n t i m e n t
this way: "Do n o t h i n g from selfishness or conceit, but i n
humility, count others as better than yourselves. Let each of
your look not only to your own interests, but to t h e interests of
others" (Phil. 2:3-4, RSV).
Though 1 J o h n never u s e s t h e specific t e r m eritheia (else
where in t h e N T only in J a m e s 3:14, 16), it is clear that those
who have broken koinonia with t h e author are guilty of t h e sort
of behavior it connotes (at least in our author's eyes). We hear
in t h e opening verses that fellowship with t h e author and his
audience constitutes a necessary pre-condition to salvation.
The four ills of t h e secessionists described above all s t e m from
their fundamental sin of eritheia, or breaking t h e koinonia.
Furthermore, 1 John's pronouncements of j u d g m e n t upon
those who have broken t h e fellowship are in keeping with t h e
legalistic nature of t h e model used to describe t h e churches of
Paul and 1 John.
For our author, t h e creative and constitutive force of t h e
koinonia is agape. 1 J o h n u s e s this t e r m no less than 27 times,
usually in one of three phrases:
1. (If) God has loved u s

2. (If) we love God
3. Let us love one another.
101
The appropriation of agape, like that of koinonia, represents
another instance of Christian theological creativity. As Brown
notes, t h e t e r m was rarely used in classical Greek, and t h e n in
4
a fairly "colorless" way, e.g., "to prefer," "to be content with."
This in fact may have r e c o m m e n d e d t h e t e r m to t h e first
Christian t h e o l o g i a n s - t h e y appropriated a sterile t e r m and
infused it w i t h n e w meaning to articulate t h e new Reality t h e y
experienced in their proclamation of Christ's resurrection.
Brown gives a cogent insight to t h e broad parameters of t h e
meaning of agape:
Agape is not a love originating in the human heart and reaching

out to possess noble goods needed for perfection; it is a spontaneous,
unmerited, creative love flowing from God to the Christian, and from
the Christian to the fellow Christian" (AB, pp. 254-55).
While Brown and other great scholars make invaluable con

tributions to our understanding by discussing t h e precise
meaning of t h e term, w e are again faced with a metaphor coined
by early Christianity--and t h e m e a n i n g of a metaphor depends
as much on ambiguity as it does on precise definition. For t h e
Johanine community, agape connoted t h e deep c o m m i t m e n t
of God to t h e people, a c o m m i t m e n t which was best articulated
in t h e community's "living out" t h e legacy of t h e "beloved
disciple" (as Brown has told us). Agape m e a n t fellowship with
God; y e t fellowship with God also implied a contractual-like
c o m m i t m e n t to one's community. Fellowship was understood
as t h e result of God's i n i t i a t i v e - a creative act, which impelled
similar, creatively loving acts on t h e part of t h e faithful toward
one another. In our author's context, t h e concepts koinonia and
agape are inseparable. A healthy respect for t h e inter-connec
tedness and fluidity of t h e terms utilized by our author will
serve to enrich our preaching this season.
From 1 John's Context to Ours
T h e specific lectionary selections h e l p us bridge t h e gulf of

t h e centuries which separates 1 John's shattered koinonia
from our own. In t h e six passages which w e will discuss below,
t h e author concentrates on t h e blessings and requirements of
102
those who will keep t h e fellowship alive, rather than judging
those who did not measure up to h i s expectations. Let us follow
t h e wisdom of t h e lectionary and accentuate t h e roles to be
played by those who represent t h e koinonia incarnate, in all its
limitations, rather than wasting energy pronouncing j u d g m e n t
upon t h e real or imagined faults of those who choose not (or no
longer) to join us.
One recent concrete example of this sort of approach m a y b e
s e e n in t h e Saving Stations program initiated in t h e northeast
by a pastor in Washington D.C. T h e program, while described
as a "holy war on drugs," actually focuses t h e individual
congregation's energy on education, rehabilitation, h e a l t h
programs, safe h o u s e s for t h e abused, food and shelter for
0
addicts and their families, and e v a n g e l i s m . In this model, t h e
church becomes an oasis of resources for living, a voluntary y e t
morally bound partner with t h e larger community. This pro
gram stresses t h e mutual interdependence of t h e individual
congregations both with one another and with their broader
social context. Below, w e shall observe further how well t h e
values of 1 J o h n might be realized in congregational outreach
like that of t h e Saving Stations program.
Second Sunday of Easter: 1 John 1:1-2:2
Mark, Luke, and 1 J o h n all cite t h e "beginning" (arche) of t h e

J e s u s traditions in either their first or second verse. T h e Gospel
of John, of course, apparently has more cosmic beginnings in
mind, though t h e play on J o h n 1:1 by 1 J o h n 1:1 is undoubtedly
intentional. In a situation of internal schism, it is not surprising
that our author establishes his authority by recalling t h e
primal origins of his tradition.
Brown points out that t h e language of t h e first five verses
reveals that t h e author speaks as "part of a chain of tradition
bearers" (AB, p. 161). T h e point is not that t h e author is a literal
eyewitness, but rather that in t h e second generation of Chris
tianity, the tradition is as vital and redeeming as it was at t h e
beginning. J u s t as t h e author of t h e Gospel of Luke claims to
hand on to Theophilus "an orderly account" which was delivered
103
to h i m "by those w h o from t h e beginning were ministers and
eyewitnesses of t h e word," so does 1 John. Mark, Luke and t h e
Johanine community believe that their communities are to
serve as bridges to t h e present for t h e ministry of t h e word.
Although t h e lectionary rendering of this passage truncates
t h e author's t h o u g h t at 2:2-3, this passage so limited has a
central image: koinonia. T h e t e r m is used four t i m e s in this
brief lection; twice in 1:3, and also in 1:6 and 1:7. In its intensive
u s e of t h e term, 1 J o h n reveals a classic pattern of ancient
rhetoric-chiastic structure:
A 1:3a: we proclaim that you may have fellowship with us;
B 1:3b: our fellowship is with God and with his son Jesus
Christ;
B 1:6: If we say we have fellowship with [God]
A 1:7: If we walk in the light.. .we have fellowship with one
another
Chiastic structure was used in Hebrew and Greco-Roman
rhetoric alike to highlight thematic emphasis. T h e message in
its original context stressed t h a t "fellowship" with God was
contingent upon holding "fellowship" with t h e author. First
John's original audience was to manifest koinonia by accepting
and submitting to "that which was from t h e beginning," which
is now proclaimed by t h e author. T h e rhetoric of this passage
literally pivots on t h e usage of koinonia. Furthermore, t h e
frequent appearance of t h e t e r m at t h e beginning of t h e letter
indicates that this concept is foundational to 1 John's under
standing of "church" or "congregation." Here is a clear example
from ancient rhetoric of how t h e medium--in this case, t h e
literary structure of t h e w h o l e - b e c o m e s t h e m e s s a g e . .
Brown translates t h i s t e r m as "communion," t h e RSV as
"fellowship." T h e t e r m "partnership" also would represent a
reasonable rendering. How do w e decide between t h e s e three
options? Obviously, it is not on t h e basis of one being more
correct than t h e others. W h e n w e encounter ancient t e r m rich
in societal a n d religious m e a n i n g s , w e m u s t explore t h e
metaphoric dimensions of that term. T h e congregation should
be left not just with t h e s e n s e that any of t h e s e three words
would do. T h e y should be led to meditate upon koinonia as a
104
fundamental principle for t h e self-understanding of t h e first
Christian theologians.
As such, one m i g h t offer t h e t h o u g h t that fellowship actually
represents a multi-dimensional Reality for early Christianity,
T h e Christians of t h e Greco-Roman world reached into their
store h o u s e of moral and social models and appropriated a t e r m
which originally did not have "religious" connotations. Thus,
t h e point can be made that t h e t e r m koinonia expresses a
fundamental metaphor for "Church." T h e n , t h e u s e of t h e
Greek terminology in t h e homily m i g h t serve to highlight t h e
fact that what 1 J o h n and Paul m e a n by "fellowship" that living
out t h e c o m m i t m e n t of God to t h e Christian community in
concrete ways, for example, through endeavors like t h e Saving
Stations program, T h e full meaning of t h e metaphor is ul
timately discovered only as one incarnates one's c o m m i t m e n t
to t h e greater n e e d s of one's "fellowship."
The second half of t h e passage for this Sunday focuses upon
"fellowship" with God and Jesus. As judgmental as our author
will be towards t h e secessionists, this section of t h e letter
(1:6-2:2) contains explicit s t a t e m e n t s of consolation m e a n t to
prepare the audience for t h e exhortations which comprise t h e
balance of the letter. Membership in t h e "fellowship" is predi
cated upon a self-awareness of one's own moral limitations
(1:7). It is precisely this limitedness which necessitates t h e
fellowship-both with God and with each other (1:9).
This passage also indicates that while our author h o p e s that
h i s audience will not sin (2:1), h e holds open t h e possibility of
forgiveness for t h o s e who fail. Because t h e y have "fellowship"
with God, J e s u s Christ will continue to intercede for t h e m (2:2).
T h e passage ends on a compassionate note, one which gives a
further glimpse of t h e nature of t h e fellowship.
In this first week, w e encounter a lyrical, carefully structured
and theologically rich picture of koinonia. Membership i n t h i s
m e a n s nothing less than beholding t h e manifestation of "eter
nal life" (1:2). This represents 1 John's vision of t h e congrega
t i o n - i t has b e e n and is to be t h e place where "life was made
manifest, and w e saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim [ i t ] . . . "
(1:2). T h e hard question for reflection concerns w h e t h e r or not
105
t h e present, living tradition of our congregation exemplifies
"life made manifest." If we are resources for our community,
well springs for t h e vital concerns of our neighbors, t h e n w e are
"living in t h e living seasons." If not, our fellowship with God y e t
allows forgiveness and a n e w beginning. However humble,
however failed w e may envision t h e ministry of our congrega
tion, w e m i g h t well begin this Easter season with a reminder
from t h e Talmud: "If not uswho? If not now-when?"
Third Sunday of Easter: 1 John 3:1-7

This is surely one of t h e m o s t revered selections in t h e
lectionary. T h e first verse represents perhaps t h e single m o s t
eloquent expression of t h e kinship metaphor found in t h e N e w
Testament: "See w h a t love t h e Father h a s given us, that w e
should be called children of God; and so w e are." T h e author
nicely balances t h e t h e m e s of belonging ("children of God") with
rejection ("the world does not know us"). T h e passage is also
nicely balanced b e t w e e n consolation and exhortation. T h e lec
tionary again has cut off t h e author's t h o u g h t almost in mid-
utterance. This represents a challenge to t h e lector, and a
distinct opportunity for t h e homilist.
T h e lector m u s t be prepared not to end t h e reading to
abruptly, or verse seven will s e e m to h a n g in t h e air without
resolution. For t h e homilist, t h e w e i g h t of t h e final verse is
equal in gravity to t h e w e i g h t of t h e opening verse:"... let no
one deceive you--he w h o does right is righteous..." This renews
t h e t h e m e from t h e previous w e e k that t h e business of t h e
koinonia is to "do right." T h e full profile of t h e "fellowship"
includes not only t h e assurance of t h e loving adoption of God,
t h e constant forgiveness of God, but t h e faithful response of
t h e congregation. This b e c o m e s even more apparent in the next
passage.
Fourth Sunday of Easter: 1 John 3:18-24

T h e connection b e t w e e n t h e previous w e e k and t h e this
becomes immediately apparent: "Little children, let u s not love
in word and speech, but in deed and truth." Brown has observed
106
that t h e two nouns, deed and truth, can be of equal value in
constituting a single sphere of activity. T h e idea h e r e is that
t h e author is speaking of deeds that have truth as t h e principle
from which t h e y flow, i.e truth as God's revelation dwelling
within t h e Christian, which expresses itself in t h e way which
t h e Christian lives (AB, p. 452).
If w e remember that our author was writing to a sundered
community, w e may also see that t h e author did not prescribe
passive recuperation for t h e wounds. T h e author was aware of
h i s congregation's vulnferability-again i n 3:19-21, w e ex
perience a powerful message of consolation. We should under
stand t h e consolation in 1 J o h n as a prescription for renewed
health through active involvement. This s e e m s to have b e e n a
classic pattern in early Christianity, especially if w e recall that
t h e celebration of P e n t e c o s t is fast approaching. As w e reach
t h e midpoint in t h e Easter season, t h e gaze of our preaching
may now turn gradually towards our next major liturgical des
tination.
Fifth Sunday of Easter: 1 John 4:7-12
The Johannine literature is often said to exhibit a "spiral"

style of rhetoric: phrases, t h e m e s , images used consistently
throughout t h e entire piece, with nuances added in many
instances where t h e repetition takes place. Another way of
saying this is that our author will show us as many different
sides of one t h e m e as h e can conjure throughout t h e course of
his exhortation. At this point in t h e season, t h e homilist may
want to call explicit attention to this stylistic device in 1 John,
so as to continue h i s or her own development of t h e t h e m e s
found there.
In 1 J o h n 4:7-12, t h e precise focus shifts towards internal
relations within t h e community. T h e schism obviously forms
t h e backdrop to t h e exhortation: "Beloved, let u s love one
another... if God so loved us, w e also ought to love one another"
(4:7,11). The g e n i u s of 1 John's insight here lies in his under
standing of t h e n e e d for community. That is, t h e call to love one
107
another is another version of t h e exhortation to koinonia w h i c h
is so programmatic for this letter.
John's spiral style is evident in t h i s rendering. Rather t h a n
speak of fellowship, h e u s e s t h e t e r m "born of God." This t e r m
has continuity n o t only elsewhere in t h e epistle (this i s one of
10 instances), but also in t h e Gospel of J o h n (19 times). "Born
of God" and "fellowship with God" are obviously synonymous
terms. There is an opportunity h e r e to stress that in attempting
to describe t h e n u m i n o u s realities of faith, t h e biblical authors
found no o n e expression or metaphor adequate to describe t h e
both t h e mystery and t h e truth of t h e experience of God in
their lives. In this epistle alone, w e have s e e our author tap
political, m o r a l a n d social ( k i n s h i p ) i m a g e r y to describe
religious reality. In t h e "spiral style," each image is refracted
through t h e others as a m e a n s of pointing to t h e greater reality
being sought.
Sixth Sunday of Easter: 1 John 5:1-6
This passage comprises both a n opportunity and a danger for

t h e homilist. A s an opportunity, it neatly dovetails t h e m e s from
t h e previous t h r e e w e e k s . This offers opportunity for further
comment on t h e tradition's "spiral" style of exposition, and for
one's further development of image and t h e m e s from prior
homilies.
On t h e o t h e r hand, t h i s passage should be approached w i t h
e x t r e m e caution. H e r e i n l i e s o n e of t h o s e passages t h a t
throughout t h e history of Christianity h a s given rise to Chris
tian chauvinism or triumphalism: "Who is it that overcomes t h e
world but t h e one w h o believes that J e s u s is t h e son of God" (1
J o h n 5:5). T h e s e r m o n should not become t h e equivalent of one
of those ridiculous signs everpresent at televised sporting
events, for example: "John 3:3." Rather, t h e idea of overcoming
t h e world by obeying t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s could serve as a
strong challenge to t h e congregation to embrace t h e com
plexity and t h e richness of t h e Scriptural call this Eastertide.
In t h e context of our author, keeping t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s is
equivalent with both t h e love of God and t h e love of o n e
108
another. While t h e idea of koinonia is ever present here,
perhaps t h e homiletic focus should turn to t h e author's u s e of
another key t e r m in h i s piece, t h e verb agapan, "to love." As
m e n t i o n e d above, God is t h e source of this sort of love so special
to t h e experience of t h e Christian community. Given that fact,
one should hardly feel chauvinistic about a Reality for which
one cannot take any credit. T h e focus for t h e community is on
"keeping t h e commandments," surely none of which have to do
with s m u g superiority or presumptuous proselytizing.
This passage tells u s that keeping t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s leads
to t h e church "overcoming t h e world." It is well known that in
t h e Johannine correspondence, beginning with J o h n 1:9, that
t h e "world" (kosmos) bears hostility towards those w h o are
"born of heaven." In t h e e y e s of t h e J o h a n n i n e community, t h e
t e r m kosmos carries wholly pejorative connotations. A struc
turalist analysis would remind us of other diametric opposi
tions in t h e literature of this community, which s h e d light on
t h e fuller meaning of any one t e r m or set of oppositions.
Other key oppositions in this literature are light vs. dark
ness, flesh vs. spirit, truth vs. lies and most importantly, life vs.
death. We n e e d not get into speculation regarding potential
Gnostic influence upon this community. It is e n o u g h to n o t e
that for our author's tradition, "the world" connoted t h o s e
forces in existence w h i c h most threatened life and salvation.
"The world," for our author, represented those forces radically
divorced from and forthrightly inimical to t h e message and
power of God. W e c a n - a n d should-identify such forces in our
life setting, while realizing that t h e epistle does not call on u s
to condemn t h e created world or earthly existence.
Seventh Sunday of Easter: 1 John 5:9-13
It is fitting that on t h e last Sunday before Pentecost, t h e

epistle selection emphasizes t h e ideas of "testimony" and "wit
ness." T h e narrative of Acts 2 stresses t h e testimony and wit
n e s s of t h e Apostles to t h e Christian message on w h a t is often
called "the birthday of Christianity." In this passage, w e have
our author's direct definition of t h e testimony, as well as a
109
chance to consider this terminology in t h e broader context of
1 John.
Our author defines t h e testimony this way: "And this is t h e
testimony, that God gave u s eternal life, and this life is in his
Son" (5:11). Once again, t h e focus of our author's testimony is
not upon t h e a c h i e v e m e n t of h i m s e l f or h i s community, but
upon t h e creative and saving initiative of God. Thus, w h e n w e
hear t h e condemnation in t h e second half of t h e next verse--
"He w h o has t h e Son has life; h e w h o has not t h e Son has not
life"--we r e m e m b e r that t h e author h a s in mind those who, in
his estimation, have voluntarily aligned t h e m s e l v e s with t h e
forces of evil. This verse is far from a s t a t e m e n t of self-con
gratulation. For a text kindred in tone and intent, one should
remember t h e conclusion of t h e book of Joshua, where t h e
main character puts t h e choice of life or death before those who
have heard h i s testimony. Like that book, this one challenges
its audience to incarnate t h e saving Reality which has b e e n
made manifest to t h e m .
Our season of this epistle concludes with t h e following as
surance: "I write t h i s to y o u w h o believe in t h e n a m e of the Son
of God, that y o u may know that y o u have eternal life." T h e
context of our previous lections, and t h e epistle as a whole, has
informed us that t h e many consolations of this piece do not s e e
complacency as their end. Rather, t h e gift of eternal life stands
as t h e foremost challenge of this epistle. Do t h e contours of our
lives-individually and collectively-suggest that we believe this
testimony?
Final Thoughts
Earlier in this piece, w e m e n t i o n e d that t h e author of 1 J o h n

saw his c o m m u n i t y as a "bridge to t h e present" for t h e tradition
which gave birth to their religious self understanding. As w e
have read through t h e epistle, w e have also s e e n t h e com
munity envisioned as a conduit for t h e agape of God to one
another. T h e proclamation of t h e this epistle in our churches
in this season impels u s also to be a bridge to t h e present for
110
t h e agape of God. As God has done for us, so m u s t w e for others
manifest t h e initiatives of creative and saving love.
We have s e e n one such example of this in t h e Saving Stations
venture on t h e east coast. This sort of project incarnates t h e
ideal from 1 J o h n 5:5 of "overcoming t h e world" through belief
that J e s u s is t h e Christ. While it has b e e n described as a "holy
war on drugs," its profile indicates that it represents a commit
m e n t of the Church to t h e community. T h e participants in this
program s e e m to understand "love" and "fellowship" as 1 J o h n
did. As t h e y rescue lives through their outreach, t h e y overcome
what 1 J o h n m e a n t by "the world."
While the so-called drug problem touches every community
in this country, our readings from this season do not allow for
an easy jingoism to substitute for lived faith. "The drug prob
lem" has become a cliche, a rallying point for reckless politicians
who give lip service to t h e symptoms, but dare not n a m e t h e
true disease. We t e n d to forget that t h e u s e of any drug is an
inherently neutral act. It is t h e profit for t h e self at t h e expense
of t h e others that represents t h e real "drug problem" in this
c o u n t r y - a n d t h e drug of choice is money. Corporate raiders,
junk bond traders and drug dealers--to n a m e j u s t three models
of t h e successful e n t r e p r e n e u r - e x h i b i t more similarities than
dissimilarities, from t h e cars t h e y drive to their lack of concern
for t h e public welfare. Their entrepreneurial orientation could
not be more representative of what t h e Johanine community
understood as "the world," t h e complete antithesis of koinonia.
Our call from First J o h n is to be a saving station for our
community, to offer t h e challenge of community building and
t h e hope of forgiveness, no matter how late t h e spring of our
life may be blooming. If w e believe in t h e eternal life promised
us, t h e n we know it is t i m e to be living in t h e living seasons.
Thus, now is t h e time to preach about t h e challenge and
difficulty of beginnings. In t h e Reality c o m m e n c e d by the first
Easter lies our own end. W h e n w e reach it, w e will know t h e
meaning of t h e mystery that forms t h e conclusion of "East
Coker":
111
We must be still and still moving/
Into another intensity/
For a further union, a deeper communion/
Through the dark cold and empty desolation,/
The wave cry, the wind cry, the vast waters/
of petrel and porpoise.
In my end is my beginning.
Notes
1. S e e Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple ( N e w

York: Paulist, 1979). T h i s book effectively charts the evolution of a single
Christian community (though probably not a single author) w h i c h produced
t h e Gospel of J o h n as well as t h e three epistles.
2. T h e idea of "spiritual lineage" is especially important in this community's
tradition. It is seen in t h e Gospel of J o h n ' s prologue (1:12-13), where t h e key
motifs of t h e entire gospel arc enunciated; and here it is repeated throughout
t h e Gospel of J o h n 3:lff; 8:21ff (esp. cf. 8:44!); 9:18ff; etc. It is seen in 1 J o h n ' s
prologue, w h e r e t h e author immediately cites t h e connection of his preaching
to "that which w a s from t h e beginning" (1:1). Furthermore, t h e epistle high
lights this concept in 5:4, 18. Thus, my translation above tried to retain t h e
sense of having c o m e into existence, rather t h a n mere physical arrival at a
destination.
3. Pauline Partnership in Christ. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).
4. Raymond E. Brown, T h e Epistle of J o h n , T h e Anchor Bible, vol. 30 ( N e w
York: Doublcday, 1982) p. 161. Hereafter AB.
5. So reported for t h e New York Times by Marvine Howe, October 1 4 , 1 9 9 0 .
Selected bibliography
The following books should be of some help for farther study of the Johannine epistles. The
selection is by no means exhaustive. Those interested in the formation of the community of the
Gospel of John and Its influences should also look to the works of Alan Culpepper, Robert Fortna,
Robert Kyser, J. Louis Martin, Fernando Segovia, and D. Moody Smith, to name just six.
Works on the Epistles:

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple, (New York: Paulist, 1979);
The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible, vol. 30, (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
Although placed oddly enough at pp. 130-46, this work contains a good bibliography
of works to 1980.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles, Hermeneia Series (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1973).
Danker, Frederick W. Invitation to the New Testament: Epistles IV, (New York:
Image/Doubleday, 1980).
Houlden, J.L. A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, Harper's New Testament
Commentaries, (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
Thusing, Wilhelm, and Alois Stoger, The Three Epistles of St. John/The Epistle ofJude,
New Testament for Spiritual Reading, (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971).
112
When the papers pile up,
you can stay on top of the news
with Newscope.
This weekly, four-page, late- Summaries o f annual

deadline newsletter takes all that conferences
paper that c o m e s across your desk Briefings on unusual ministries
:
and condenses it into manageable of conferences and local

summaries. Published by The churches
United Methodist Publishing
Jobs available in national
House, the publication covers
major events, actions, and ad agencies and institutions
dresses of national interest to 50 issues for $19.50, second class;
United Methodists. $24.95, first class; or $15, elec
tronic mail.
Special features include: To order write: N e w s c o p e , P.O.
Box 801, Nashville, T N 37202 or
Reports of general agency
call, t o l l free, 1-800-672-1789.
meetings and actions
Interviews with n e w church
leaders s Newscope
i
Quarterly R e v i e w is a publication of The United Methodist Publishing
H o u s e a n d the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Board of H i g h e r Education a n d Ministry.

Spring 1991 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Spring 1991 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

VOL. 11, N O .

Breaking the Power of Cancelled Sin:

Diaconal Ministry: Vision and Reality

Clergy Authority: To What Shall We Compare It?

Readings from 1 John: Living in the Living Seasons

Plus Special Feature:

A publication of The United Methodist I*ubtishing House

T H E FAILED EFFORTS to avert war through negotiation

We pray for peace on earth, but will it ever be achieved? If

Paul Aspan closes this issue with a lectionary study on 1

Breaking the Power

He breaks the power of cancelled sin,

T O DEVELOP A WESLEYAN social theology w e must do

Theodore R. Weber is Professor of Social Ethics in the Candler School of

Social Hopes and the Persistence of Sin

Among t h e questions asked of candidates for full connection

tion in social analysis rejected t h e notion of sin as well, locating

they reject t h e notion of original sin out of hand, with no serious

convictions concerning t h e persistence of sin by reason of

Justification, according to J o h n Wesley, is t h e cancelling of

Englishmen" and socially hereditary rights that w e r e not

Is there another possibility, one perhaps that is n o t literally

t h e merit of corporate identity as justification. Conversely, it

Interlude: Some Qualifications

Having redefined justification in corporate terms as the

Tightness. Groups may offer good reasons for t h e causes t h e y

carries morally legitimating authority superior to t h e reconcil

Sanctification: Breaking the Power

Corporate identity n e e d not be destroyed, as w e have noted, as

power of merit and sin and t h e opening of societies to the

it is a gracious gift and we depend on God for it in every

Sanctification: The Constructive Principle

Nor does the constructive principle of sanctification ever

aside or transcended. What we m u s t confess, however, is that

process of liberation on t h e basis of Wesley's response to

Formulating a contemporary Wesleyan social theology in

merit (read sin)--the critical a s p e c t - a n d opening t h e groups to

1. Millcnarian sects and m o v e m e n t s of the Middle Ages and t h e Reformation

methods included t h e slaughter of priests, Jews, landlords, magistrates, prin

T H E S E ARE STRANGE TIMES for what t h e sociologists

Charles R. Foster is Professor of Christian Education at Candler School of

is more: t h e lack of internal resiliency in t h e church due to t h e

Issue I: Institutional Dilemmas

T h e formation of t h e diaconate permanent deacon in t h e

emphasize t h e n e e d for authority and control for t h e sake of

clergy to larger and more prestigious congregations based on

That i s - u n t i l t h e church attempts to reach out to n e w

congregations in t h e s e ministry roles. T h e seriousness of this

t h e mentor. If w e are not careful this can easily be diminished

Issue II. The Local Church

For our denomination t h e meaning of t h e practice of minis

t h e s e responsibilities. As congregations exercised their newly

3. In m o s t annual conferences, racial/ethnic congregations

latter view is what church leaders had in mind w h e n t h e y began

Issue HI: Diaconal Ministry and

power in t h e diaconal spirit of service? Or does t h e spirit of

In The Creation of Settings, The Future of Society, Seymour

process at work in regard to t h e diaconate in t h e U n i t e d

Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future ( N e w Brunswick: Rutgers University

Two Responses to "Diaconal Ministry: Vision and Reality"

I STILL REMEMBER t h e excitement I felt in 1977 w h e n I

Linda Vogel is Associate Professor of Christian Education Garrett-Evangelical