Covenant and Grace

Covenant and Grace

A study of the diaconate of the United Methodist Church

in light of John Wesley’s theology

by

Vetle Karlsen Eide

Translated by Bruce Bawer and Harry T. Cleven

Advisor: Dr. Hallgeir Elstad

Master’s thesis, health sciences - the study of diaconia

The Theological Faculty

University of Oslo

Autumn 2000

85

To the memory of Tore Meistad

85

Contents

2

Contents 3

Foreword 5

1. Introductory section 6

1.1 Introduction 6

1.2 Approach and method 7

1.3 Definition of terms 9

1.4 Sources 10

1.5 Outline 12

2. Caritas and diakonia —a historical sketch 12

3. Presentation and interpretation of John Wesley’s theology and sermons 16

3.1 Presentation of the material under analysis 16

3.2 Analysis 20

3.2.1 Grace, creation, and eschatology 20

3.2.2 Justification and sanctification 25

3.2.3 The good steward 33

3.2.4 Relational theology 38

3.2.5 John Wesley on diakonos and diaconal ministry 41

3.3 Summary 43

4. Presentation and interpretation of the diaconate in the United Methodist Church 45

4.1 The Methodist movement, The Discipline, and the UMC - an historical outline 45

4.2 Analysis 48

4.2.1 Covenant and baptism 49

4.2.2 Ordained ministry as a part of Christian ministry 59

4.2.3 Brief summary 62

4.3 The permanent diaconate 63

4.3.1 The diaconate’s ”trinity” 64

4.3.2 Embody 65

4.3.3 Articulate 66

4.3.4 Lead 68

4.4 The UMC’s permanent diaconate vs. John Wesley’s theology 70

4.4.1The diaconate as goal and means 70

4.4.2 Charity and liturgy 73

4.4.3 Wholeness and holiness 76

4.5 Summary 77

5. Overview 78

5.1 View of the church 78

5.2 View of diakonia 80

5.3 View of mission 81

5.4 View of God 82

6. Bibliography 82

Primary sources: 82

Secondary sources: 82

Other current literature: 85

Foreword

In the thesis that follows, I focus on my own church denomination and my own spiritual father. The thesis has grown out of a desire to become more familiar with the thought of John Wesley, the Wesleyan-Methodist movement, today’s United Methodist Church (UMC). I also wish to focus critical attention on their understanding of diaconal theory and practice. It is my firm conviction that inherited traditions must be tried and tested in new generations. Only then can they be accepted as being true and relevant—or be rejected. This thesis is a part of that process. It is my hope that it will lead to further study, discussion and debate.

While I am solely responsible for the content and conclusions made in this study, I owe a debt of gratitude to those who have give me their support and counsel along the way. First of all, thanks are due to Hallgeir Elstad, my advisor at The Theological Faculty, University of Oslo, who has provided much positive assistance throughout the project. I also wish to extend my thanks to Liv Berit Carlsen, member of Rådet for den ordinerte tjeneste i Metodistkirken i Norge and a (permanent) ordained deacon in the Methodist Church in Norway, Lillestrøm congregation.

Thanks also to Trygve Wyller, Tarald Rasmussen, Dag Thorkildsen, Berge Furre and Aud Tønnesen of The Theological Faculty, University of Oslo, for their help and encouragement throughout the project. I am grateful for the help and support of students in the department of health sciences—study of diaconia.

I am deeply grateful to Stiftelsen Betanien – Oslo for financial support that made it possible for me to study during the summer of 1999 at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois, USA. Without this assistance, it is doubtful that my thesis could have become a reality. The foundation has also contributed funds to make the thesis available in English.

Thanks must also be extended to Joaquin Garcia and the UMC’s Board of Higher Education and Ministry in Nashville, Tennessee, and the translators, Bruce Bawer and Harry T. Cleven, both of whom have a background in theology. The UMC has also provided financial support for the translation of my thesis.

In the final instance, however, greatest thanks are due to my loved ones, Erlend and Brynhild, who have shown much patience and understanding throughout this hectic, laborious and educational period.

This work is dedicated to the memory of Tore Meistad who served as my advisor for a short period. Tore was an internationally respected Wesley scholar. He died of cancer during the summer of 2000.

Landro, Norway, November 2000.

1. Introductory section

1.1 Introduction

During the summer of 1996, the United Methodist Church (UMC) held its General Conference at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. That summer delegates came to Denver, Colorado, from around the world to participate in the task of plotting out the course for the international United Methodist Church. In this paper I shall consider one of the decisions voted on at the General Conference. The Conference moved to replace the tradition of a transitional diaconate with a permanent diaconate.

The transitional diaconate was an arrangement whereby candidates for ordination who had completed their theological education were “pastors during a trial period,” or deacons as they were also called, before being ordained into regular parish ministry. This UMC practice is similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. The permanent diaconate represents a different view of the office than the transitional diaconate. Here the ministry of deacons and deaconesses is recognized as a permanent office with a value equal to that of the ministry of the elders and bishops. On a worldwide basis, we can observe an ecumenical orientation toward this triadic type of structure.[1]

From regarding the diaconate as a springboard to the office of elder , the UMC has introduced a diaconate that shall instead function as a permanent office on a par with the office of elder. This change, as well as the theology that forms the basis for this new office, calls for reflection. I find it interesting to compare the thought behind the permanent diaconate with the theological viewpoints of John Wesley. The reason for this is that the United Methodist Church is the largest of the many church bodies that trace their roots back to John Wesley and the Wesleyan-Methodist movement that arose in eighteenth century England.

John Wesley came from the little village of Epworth. His adult life was focused on a quest for sanctification within the framework of the doctrines and polity of the Church of England. This individual quest was to become the basis for a movement that spread around the world.[2] When Wesley died in 1791 at the age of 88, he left behind him a wealth of written material, including many sermons. In these he formulates his theology, giving us the opportunity to read about and reflect on his belief system.

1.2 Approach and method

In what follows, I shall compare the permanent diaconate as understood by the UMC with the tradition from Wesley as it is formulated in his sermons. In other words, I shall attempt to answer the following: What connection is there between the permanent diaconate introduced by the United Methodist Church in 1996 and the theology of John Wesley?

In raising this question I shall attempt to convey the actual content of the resolutions voted by the General Conference in 1996 regarding the permanent diaconate, why the UMC established the office of the permanent diaconate, and what the UMC expects of it. I shall do this by analyzing the permanent diaconate in light of John Wesley’s theology as it is formulated in a selection of eighteen sermons and two letters. This material is included in the fourteen-volume work, The Works of John Wesley.[3]

It is natural that this dialogue between the UMC and John Wesley should occur, since Wesley holds a central position in today’s UMC. The UMC has explicitly bound itself as a Christian denomination to the doctrinal standards formulated by John Wesley. This is owing to the fact that in UMC theology there is a set of Wesleyan doctrinesthat are determinative as regards the ways in which the UMC practices, reflects upon, and represents its theology.[4] Since the UMC historically understands itself as a Christian denomination with its roots in the tradition of Wesley and the Wesleyan-Methodist movement that he led, I believe it is important that dialogue with Wesley continue.[5] By introducing the permanent diaconate in favor of the traditional diaconate, the UMC has broken a long tradition. This is interesting. Is this new orientation the result of discovering new sides of Wesley? Are there conditions in the church today that have been determinative, or are there other factors that have contributed to the process the UMC has been through prior to this decision?

I find it interesting to reflect on the lines of connection between the UMC and Wesley because the UMC so clearly sees its existence as a denomination in relation to John Wesley and the Wesleyan-Methodist movement.[6] What implications does this have for today’s UMC? Is it important only to take Wesley along into the future as a memory from the past, or is there something about his theology that still influences, has the ability to engage, and can shape the denomination in its confrontation with the challenges of the present?

These questions, and the acknowledgement of Wesley’s position within the UMC, are the primary motivations for this paper and my attempt to reveal the extent to which Wesley’s theology forms the basis for the theology of the permanent diaconate. It is not my intention here to assess whether or not the introduction of the permanent diaconate is at cross purposes with the Wesleyan theology to which the UMC is bound. My chief purpose is to evaluate the content of the texts in which the UMC describes the permanent diaconate in light of John Wesley’s theology and, in particular, in light of the notions of diaconal ministry conveyed in a selected number of his sermons and letters.

I have deliberately chosen not to include other denominations in the Wesleyan-Methodist church family in this study, as this would have been far too comprehensive. My use of the word Methodist in this study refers only to those who are members of the United Methodist Church.

I have based this study on a careful reading of selected texts by John Wesley and the UMC. The presentation and analysis of John Wesley’s sermons and letters and the two introductory chapters of this study together comprise the theoretical framework on which this study is based. My analysis of Wesley comprises this study’s theoretical center. My presentation, analysis, and discussion of the UMC’s permanent diaconate will take this theoretical framework as its point of departure.

1.3 Definition of terms

In this study the terms diakonia and diaconal ministry are those most important. As we shall see the term diakonia makes up the theoretical framework and is the concept which diaconal ministry, diaconal practice, comes out of. The noun diakonia is a Greek word with the corresponding verb; diakonein and the corresponding noun; diakonos (diakonoi, pl.).[7] If one wishes to understand the concept of diakonia, according to Mats J. Hansson of Ersta Sköndal College in Sweden, it is too simple just to refer to the biblical material because “(…) references to it in the New Testament occur in very differing contexts. They can appear without having any liturgical or religious content.”[8]

Collins, in his book Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Resources, seeks to discover the origin of the terms in order to arrive at a more precise understanding of them. He shows how the word diakonia was already used in the Greek language 400 years before Christ to refer to individuals who found themselves in what may be described as the role of an intermediary. These persons were in an intermediary position between the person who assigned a task and the receiver of a service or assignment.[9] The term diakonia was only a neutral designation. When the term was introduced to the early Christian church, it was without religious connotations.[10] When it became a part of ecclesiastical language and began to be used to refer to services within the ancient church, diakonia began to be understood as service. Diakonia as service in a broad sense is how the New Testament writers understand this term.[11] This understanding would form the basis for diaconal ministry in various forms and traditions of diakonia throughout the worldwide church. Thus, what was to provide the basis for the formation of a new concept was, in fact, a neutral term that was assigned specific content by the church itself.[12]

Today, the term diakonia is used by Christian denominations around the world to describe a ministry of caring—a ministry of caritas. The diaconate refers to a specific ecclesiastical office or structure that seeks to express various aspects of diaconal ministry. This does not mean that denominations necessarily believe that diaconal ministry takes place exclusively within a church setting or that it is a particularly ecclesial phenomenon. But the church, with the introduction of the diaconate, has sought to preserve those aspects of the practice of caring that it considers important. As we shall see in chapter two, the term diakonia has been understood differently by various churches throughout history, and has led to differences regarding content and the formation of the diaconate within various ecclesiastical traditions. This is, naturally, also true of the UMC. Therefore, I find it difficult here to launch an operational definition of the term diakonia and diaconal ministry without first examining its history in the church. It is also clear that the term caring—caritas, can, in a broad sense, be used interchangeably with the term diakonia, well aware that the concept of caring is not necessarily an unambiguous term. But by indicating that diakonia today may be understood to refer both to the performance of good deeds for the benefit of one’s neighbor and to caring for one’s neighbor, I am a step closer to grasping the meaning of the word diakonia and diaconal ministry both for the worldwide church and for the UMC.