Ordained confusion… August 20, 2007
Posted by Mike Weaver in Methodism.2 comments
I was a lay delegate to the General Conference back in 1996, when the United Methodist Church decided to create a new order of “deacon,” eliminating lay “diaconal ministers” and transitioning the deacon from merely a transitional step on the way to elder’s ordination. Looking back over the past decade, I think the change has been good, even though considerable confusion still exists about the role of the deacon in relation to both elders and laypersons in local churches. Deacons are not allowed to administer either sacrament, and, as a former seminary professor of mine mentioned several times, deacons are not empowered to do anything a layperson cannot already do. In fact, he cautioned, the creation of the order of deacon might possibly detract from the ministry of the laity and discourage laypersons from taking the necessary initiative in Christian leadership that the church needs in this new missional time.
I personally believe that deacons have an important role to play in the church today, and perhaps may actually help move the church out of its maintenance-focused Christendom mode into a more modern missional stance. As an example, Steven Croft sees the possibilities in recovering of the office of deacon-evangelist in his own Anglican tradition.
Within United Methodist circles, confusion about the deacon’s role in the church continues. Increasing numbers of deacons argue for the authority to administer the sacraments, particularly in their own settings of ministry which are sometimes outside of traditional churches. When student pastors, local pastors, and lay supply pastors (none of whom are formally ordained) are offered the authority to administer sacraments, some question why deacons, all of whom with extensive theological education and training, would not also be fit to do the same.
A recent study of ordained ministry commissioned by the General Conference and conducted by a committee of pastors and laypersons took on the task of reviewing the denomination’s theology and practice of ordained ministry in light of the decade since the sweeping changes of 1996. In spite of the numerous requests and arguments by deacons for the authority to administer sacraments, the committee decided not to extend sacramental authority to deacons, and instead recommended making changes to how sacraments are administered by pastors who are not full elders. In essence, they took the arguments of the deacons about non-elders presiding at the sacraments at face value, but their recommendations had the effect of “closing the loophole” that deacons were using as part of their argument for sacramental authority.
Such a move is really unfortunate. It smacks of turf-protection dressed in theological garb. I suppose if deacons were allowed to administer the sacraments, there would be no real difference between elders and deacons (in the mind of elders). I hope I’m not jaded enough to actually believe that such a perspective informed the study committee. I would rather like to believe that missional, theological reflection formed the heart of their conclusions and recommendations.
The problem for me is that I see no biblical warrant for reserving sacramental authority to either deacons or elders. There are certainly practical considerations which, over time, would have led the early church to reserve these practices to representative leaders of the various church communities. It’s easy to see how these practices were eventually reserved specifically for ordained leaders of the community. There’s nothing terribly wrong with this development, as long as the church institution maintains a missional connection with its surrounding community.
And there’s the rub. The western church is slowly coming to grips with the death of Christendom. The cultural power that the western church has enjoyed (and depended upon) for 15 centuries is coming to an end and a new frontier is opening up. Like the Israelites fresh with memories of the “security” of Egyptian bondage, we peer restlessly into the land of God’s promise with evidence of both grapes (reward) and giants (risk). It is quite possible that the institutional structures (buildings, ordination, etc.) that brought us through the Christendom era simply are not fit to take us into God’s preferred future for the church.
If, as some suppose, God is moving in new ways to create new forms of Christian community, are we willing to move with God? If a “church” consists of a small network of home-based communities, apart from any physical buildings, can our forms of ministry (elder and deacon) respond to the “new thing” God is doing? My sense is that these “new things” will challenge us to rethink old categories that make the argument about whether deacons should administer sacraments seem pale and uninteresting.
What we can learn from E. Stanley Jones August 17, 2007
Posted by Mike Weaver in Evangelism.add a comment
A few years ago, a trip to the Middle East gave me an opportunity to get to know a number of Muslims who lived in Saudi Arabia and surrounding countries. The conversations that I had with some of those Muslims were rewarding, intense, and quite theological. We explored one another’s religious backgrounds, discovered significant differences, and even some similarities.
Today, within our neighborhoods and communities, the number of committed believers of other faiths is steadily increasing. We no longer need to travel to the Middle East or Asia to find passionate Muslims, Hindus, or other non-Christian believers. Some of them are right next door, and this new situation presents a crisis of faith for many of us.
I suspect that none of this would be a great surprise to E. Stanley Jones. He spent many years in India doing his best to “offer Christ” to those who did not know Christ, including the leader of India at the time, Ghandi. This great Methodist evangelist and missionary probably knew that the diversity of religions he experienced in India would soon enough find its way to the great social melting pot of America.
In the midst of religious diversity, I suspect that we are prone to chose from one of several extremes. We might, on the one hand, decide that theological integrity requires us to separate ourselves from those who believe differently. Pointing out our differences, our fear of being “unequally yoked” might prevent us from even becoming friends with neighbors who regularly attend temples, mosques, or even synagogues.
On the other hand, our desire to pursue unity, and even civic responsibility, might encourage us to set aside our differences and find the common ground. The uniqueness of Christ and his work on the cross for the salvation of the WHOLE world might well fade away in the passion of interfaith activity. Jesus’ call to make disciples of ALL nations might be neglected for fear of the offense that it might cause.
I believe that E. Stanley Jones can help us to navigate this new religious frontier. He ministered in colonial India, a country where Christianity was a marginal minority. Every day he rubbed elbows with Hindus and Muslims, many of them some of the most influential men and women in the country. He established retreat experiences called Ashrams, where people of various faiths came to talk and learn from one another. He created roundtable discussions for people to share their own religious story no matter what their faith.
But what I find remarkable about Stanley Jones was that in the midst of all this “dialogue” – which he considered so essential to establishing relationships with others – he never lost his passion to lead people to Christ. He never surrendered the centrality of Christ for the salvation of the world. He never put down other religions or called them false. But he always pointed to Christ as the final answer and kept offering him to friends and acquaintances. He even offered Christ through his friendship with Ghandi. It pained him dearly that Ghandi never accepted the offer.
Can we follow Jones’s lead? Can we become good friends with those who believe differently from us? Can we advance social causes through cooperation with people of other faiths? And, just as importantly, can we find the courage, in the midst of our friendships and dialogues, to offer Christ to ALL who do not know him?Maybe it’s time for the church to learn how to be witnesses again. Maybe we can teach them about the witness of E. Stanley Jones.
