Spring 1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

8/9/2019 Spring 1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

1/116


2/116


3/116

V O L . 6, NO. 1 SPRING 1986

QUARTERLY REVIEW

CONTENTS

Editorial: Going to ChurchCharles E. Cole 3

Authority in Mutual MinistryLetty M. Russell 10

Responsible Grace: The Systematic Nature of Wesley'sTheology Reconsidered

Randy L. Maddox 24

Who Is the Director of Worship?Richard F. Collman 35

Computer Theology: A New Era for TheologyW. Paul Jones 41

Jewish Resources for Christian WorshipS T Kimbrough,Jr 56

Homiletical Resources for the Easter SeasonDavid G. Buttrick 65

Where Is Current "Church Planning" Leading Us?/. Michael Ripski 86

Book Review: Recent Titles in Medical EthicsLarry R. Churchill 97


4/116


5/116

I


6/116

PROCLAMATION '86

A n I n t e n s i v e N a t i o n a l P r e a c h i n g a n d Wo r s h i p C o n f e r e n c e

M o n d a y, J u l y 1 4 F r i d a y , J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 8 6N a s h v i l l e , Te n n e s s e e

Proclamation '86 will help you develop stronger, more effective homiletic skills under the guidanceof experienced, qualified leadership.You will have the opportunity to grow personally, spiritually, and professionally.Preaching, worship, and workshops will be led by foremost religious leaders.

Sue Anne Steffey Morrow, Princeton Theolog ical Seminary, Mortimer Arias, Claremont School of Theology, J a m e s Forbes, Union Theological Seminary, and Fred Craddock, Candler School of Theology, are among Proclam ation '86 faculty who are being

invited to preach and lead workshops.

Proclamation '86 is co-sponsored by Cokesbury Educational Services (a service of The UnitedMethodist Publishing House) and the General Board of Discipleship, Section on Wor shi p.

Tuition for the entire 5-day event is $175 when registration is received prior to May 1, 1986 .Tuition is $ 2 0 0 after May 1. The conference is to be held in historic downtown Nashville atMcKendree United Me thodist Church, Downtown Presbyterian Church, and at the Hya tt

Regency, Conference Hotel. Special rates are available at downtown hotels to meet every budget.

^ ^ ^ C o k e s b u r y

IbDUCAlUNALScWlCbS]

Sue Anne Steffey MorrowPrinceton University

Contact:

Cokesbury Educational ServicesP. O . Box 801Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2

Mortimer AriasClaremont School of Theology

J a m e s ForbesUnion Theological Seminary

Fred CraddockCandler School of Theology


7/116


8/116

ThroughT t h e ,Landscape

of Faith

LUCY BREG

To help you nurturea rea so ne d faith.T h r o u g h t h e L a n d s c a p e o f F a i t h ,by Lucy Bregman. A f a s c i n a t i n ga n a l y s i s o f " c o n v e r s i o n " a n d i tsi m p a c t o n h o w a d u l t s r e s t r u c t u r et h e i r lives. B r e g m a n applies ab r o a d r a n g e o f s p i r i t u a ld e v e l o p m e n t m o d e l s , b i b l i c a ls c h o l a r s h i p , a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y

p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s . Westminster.W03-146306. $ 9 . 9 5

J e s u s : T h e D e a th a n d R e s u r r e c t i o no f G o d , by Donald G. Dawe,A f t e r c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r i n g t h ew r i ti n gs o f M o l t m a n n ,

K i e r k e g a a r d , B a r t h , T i l l ic h , a n dm a n y o t h e r s , Dawe assesses t h eb i b l ic a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f C h r i s t a n di ts r e l e v a n c e t o o u r w o r l d , c u l t u r e ,a n d f a i t h . John Knox.K03-149311. P a p e r , $ 1 5 . 9 5

^^^^^^^

CokesburyRDER TOLL FREE AT1-800-672-1789

OR VISIT YOUR LOCALCOKESBURY STORE


9/116

A r e you reading someone else's copyo f Quarterly Review?

T O S T A R T Y O U R O W N P E R S O N A L S U B S C R I P T I O N C O M P L E T E

A N D R E T U R N O N E O P T H E P O S T A G E -P A I D O R D E R C A R D S B E L O W

Q RPlease start my subscription to Qua rterly Reviewas indicated.

Th re e year s for $33 (Sa ve $12 )

Two years for $26 (Save $4)

One year for $15

A d d $2 for postage and handling if outside the continental United States,

Bill Me Later Check/Money Order Enclosed

Send to: Name

Addres s

City

State Zip Co de

Please start my subscription to Quarterly Reviewas indicated.

Th re e years for $33 (Sa ve $12 )

Two years for $26 (Save $4)

One year for $15

A d d $2 for postage and handling if outside the continental United States,

Bill Me Later Check/Money Order Enclosed

Send to: Name___

A d d r e s s _

City

State Zip Cod e


10/116

Quarterly Review Subscription Order Card

Complete a n d Mail T O D AY !

N O P O S TA G EN E C E S S A RY

IF MAILEDIN T H E

UNITED STATES

BUSINESS REPLY CARDF IR S T C L A S S P E R M I TN O . 5 10 N A S H V I L L E ,T N

P O S T A G E W I L LB E PA I D B Y A D D R E S S E E

Q RQ U A R T E R LY R E V I E WP. O . Box 801Nashville, TN 37202

N O P O S TA G EN E C E S S A RY

IF MAILEDIN T H E

UNITED STATES

BUSINESS REPLY CARDF IR S T C L A S S P E R M I TN O . 5 10 N A S H V I L L E ,T N

P O S T A G E W I L LB E PA I DB Y A D D R E S S E E

Q RQ U A R T E R LY R E V I E W

P.O. Box 801Nashville, TN 37202


11/116

E D I TO R I A L

Going to Church

Today was Easter Sunday, and so all of us once more trickledoff to church and all that sort of thing.

S o wrote Lord Mountbatten in his diary. His view, we imagine,represen ts that of the mass es. Going to church ( i .e . , worshiping ina congregation) remains low on the list of popular activities. Wesense this reluctance even among committed worshipers. Thosewho are normally very devoted can be thrown off the track by theslightest distractiona head cold, a visit from a relative, theprospect of a jaunt to the lake, the weather. What hope is there forchurchgoing when worship, which ought to be primary, becomessubsumed under the et cetera principle?

This question perplexes us because it leads us not againstprincipalities and powers but against ghosts and fantasies.Indifference and apathy make for targets hard to see and harder tohit. People rarely make cogent arguments for failing to be atworshipthey just disappear. Give us the hardened sinner anyday. Centuries of religious conflicts have perfected strategies forconquering 100 proof sin. Prophet and priest and pastor, we havebeen drilled by our mentors on confronting the hosts of evil. Butwe are less well equipped to handle the evanescent, amorpho usnonchurchgoer.

These reluctant worshipers are not merely sinnerstheyconst itute a subversive threat to the clergy. They have the power toconvert the converter. Those who come into contact with thisspiritual di sease may inhale the germs that will infect them as well.Soon, having been sent as missionaries to convert the heathen, theclergy adopts their heathenish ways. The priest becomes the

3


12/116

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E W , S P R I N G 1 9 8 6

confessee and not the confessor. The preacher becomes the lostlamb instead of the shepherd. Th e rabbi sits at the foot of the fool.How does this reversal take place?

Clergy may be tempted by nonchurchgoers because clergymember s themselves resent the very things that Mountbattenitesand their kin object to. For example, worshipers typically dislikebeing lectured to or preached atthey do not mind questioning orcriticism as long as it is done with some allowance for their ownopinions and value judgments. And there is nothing preachersdislike more than this same arrogant spirit. Worshipers also seemto crave ritual. This need is often expressed in pleas for familiarhymns and old-fashioned forms of wors hip , and educated clergymembers regularly show their cultured despite of this kind of

religion. Even so, much of the recent literature on worshipemphasizes its ritualistic nature, and this in a social and culturalsense, not merely a religious one. And at bot tom most clergy reallydo dislike worship that ignores this urge for the ritualistic. Anothercriticism that many worshipers have of worship is that it isdeadit is cold or too formal or dull, they say. Here again,designated leaders of worship feel the same waysometimes theworship experience can be depressing. In such cases we can onlysadly acknowledge the legitimate reasons for avoiding worshipaltogether. We can then begin to sympathize with the church

member who prefers to drink a second cup of coffee and read thesports page on the day of worship rather than taking the trouble togo to church, where worshipers may be asked to sip grape juice inminiatur e plastic cups and to follow an order of worship that isbadly typed and entirely conventional.

But some do go to church, and my guess is that they are verydedicated. Worshipers in general must be a committed lot;otherwise their faith would be undermined by going to church.Much of the responsibility for this subversion of faith rests on thepoor performance of leaders of worsh ip t hemse lves. Believing thatthe ordained clergy surely have an edge on exegesis andtheological insight, worshipers may find instead a preacher whoreads the text as if he or she had never read it before , and whosesermon reflects no reflection. Trying hard to believe that historymay yet have a purpose despite the threat of nuclear war and thehorrors of crime and drug abuse, they may enter a service made up

4


13/116

E D I T O R I A L

entirely of catch phrases and c liches that hardly mentioncontemporary realities and the possibility of hope. Seekingstrength to contend with their own destructiveness as well as that

of others, they may find themselves mere observers in a servicethat is superficial and showy, a performance and not a liturgy, a"people at work" (laos and ergon). Some worshipers emerge fromchurch only with a sense of stoic accomplishment, having survivedthese attacks on their faith one more time.

Not everyone goes to church under duress, however. Conservative Protestants seem to have little difficulty attracting worshipers, and enthusiastic ones at that. Fundamentalist, charismatic,and right-wing, they seem to offer a popular form of worship thatstrikes a responsive chord with many Americans. One way of

understanding this phenomenon is through the concept oftransposition, used by Martin Marty in describing contemporaryreligion. According to Marty, whereas Protestant conservatives(nowhere defined by name) once placed Christ over againstculture, now they merge with culture. Roman Catholics used toseem backward in their social views , but now they offer moreleadership than Protestants. Twenty years ago the seculariststhought religion to be declining; now religion, particularlyconservative religion, is thriving and the secularists are on thedefensive. Black church leaders, who formerly seemed to serveonly the religious interests of blacks , broadened their perspectiveto include whites and others. Jews, who formerly had madealliances only with the hei rs of the colonial churchesthe so-called"mainline churches"now find friends among right-wing fundamentalists. (See "Transposit ions: American Religion in the 1 9 8 0 s , "Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July,1985 . )

Within this context we can see that mainline religionists havelost power. These groups include some Roman Catholics andReform Jews as well as Protestants. The ascendant groups arethose who define themselves clearly. They stress "boundaries"what sets them off from the culture around themand identity,which Marty implies means social and psychological ident ity, notonly religious identity. Identity and boundaries seem to be thecrucial factors in determining whether religion grows or dies.Marty refers to a "Law of Cultural Dominance," which says that

5


14/116


cultural systems exploiting the energy resources of a givenenvironment are those that grow, and the conservative religionsare exploiting these resources by emphasizing personal experience, authori ty, and persona l and social identity. The mainlinereligionists have "misread" the situation. They not only relied oncareful reasoning with regard to religious authority but wereambivalent about contemporary technology. The conservativesnow seem more world-affirming than the mainliners with regardto technology, affirming television and the commodity culture andeven "blessing" nuclear weapons.

Marty further projects a "Law of Evolutionary Potent ial " atwork, which means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,measured by growth of membership. This law dictates that highly

specialized and adapted forms at a given stage of developmenthave less potential for entering a higher stage. Translated, thislanguage appears to mean that mainl ine religions have no future,or at best a very limited one. By implication, we cannot expectpeople to go to mainl ine churches in any number s or to participatein worship with the same liveliness we see in the conservativechurches. Marty believes mainline religions will not die but willsimply bec ome atrophied. He might well quote from one of the oldgangland movies of his hometown: "It's curtains for youse guys."

Bu t before we sign the death certificate for the mainlinedenominations, perhaps we ought to remind ourselves of other,countervailing trends. One of them is a law of physics thatmilitates somewhat against the Law of Evolutionary Potential.Simply stated, this law is: What goes up must come down. Theconservative churches may be growing now, but , as recently as the1 9 5 0 s , so were the mainline denominations. And conservativechurches actually declined in membership from 1907 to 1923 . Thuswe are entitled to wonder if the current growth of conservativereligions is only another "boom" in the continuing cycle ofAmerican religions. And if it is, then not only can we expectconservative churches to peak in a few years, but we can alsoexpect future generations to revive the religion of the mainlinedenominations. For it will then be not a faddish or current"liberalism" but a romantic tradition. We probably ought not tospeculate, however, because if we do have faith, we have torecognize that Other Powers may be at work: "And the Lord will

6


15/116

E D I T O R I A L

make you the head, and not the tail; and you shall tend upwardonly, and not downward" (Deut.28:13; italics added).

But perhaps this response seems defensive. Suppose Marty isright. Ought clergy in mainline churches simply to lower theirexpectations and be humble while serving in churches thatAmericans eschew? Probably a more admirable response would beto exploit the opportunities for faith given in a situation of decline.For example, when the Quakers ran the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania in the eighteenth century, they were the establishment, and they found themselves torn between the temptations ofworldly wealth and power, and the dictates of conscience, whichcalled for the simple life. But when they lost out as a dominantgroup, they seemed to become harder and purer. Now a tiny

group, they have a cohes iveness and power that other groups lack.Like Mennonites and other small religious groups, they give apowerful witness on such critical issues as peace and justice. Not tohave powerwhat a relief it is! The conservative religionists whoseem to want a theocracy are already finding that they will beblamed for whatever goes wrong in the culture at large. It isbecoming harder to blame the mainliners, because after all, theyare not in charge.

Adjusting to decline in this way may see m like making a virtue ofnecessity. We may feel that we too would rather be in charge, butsince we cannot, we will take integrity. But decline throws intorather clearer relief the obligation that is always on us to be faithfulto God and to our religious traditions. Let me confess that theDeuteronomy quote was not rendered in its completeness. Therest of the quote reads: " if you obey the com man dments of theLord your God, which I command you this day, being careful to dothem, and if you do not turn aside from any of the words which Icommand you this day, to the right hand or to the left, to go afterother gods to serve them." What are we called to do? What do wego to church for? This appeal to Deuteronomic criteria of obeyingcommandments may seem odd, since Deute rono my is oftenconsidered a retrograde interpretation of the law. But surely thereal sense of the text and the tradition is that we are to be obedienteven in the face of unpopulari ty and even when conditions are notin our favor. The conservative churches formerly did this. Theyfollowed the code of their religion, even whe n they were ou tcasts.

7


16/116


Perhaps we too in the mainline churches need to follow our owncode. This kind of faithfulness will mean emphasizing racial andcultural inclusiveness, questioning the beneficence of suchdangerous t echnologi es as nuclear weap ons , and employingreason within revelation. None of these will help our televisionratings or give us a larger share of the market. But to be thecommunities we are called to be requires that we remain faithful,not try to emulate conservatives as a way of enticing people backinto church.

This plea for the faithfulness of a tradition could result in ourrethinking the meaning of decline, or even our concern with it. Tobe obsess ed with decline or its oppositeusually called "suc ce ss "echnically it should be "incline"seems to express a sort of

religious narcissism. It is as if we were forever asking, like themayor of New York City, "How are we doing?" In comparison,those concerned with faithfulness would presumab ly be characterized by a sort of forgetfulness about self and institutions, adiffidence that would give new meaning to our positive terms forachievement or growth.

While we are declining , or worrying about declining, or both, wecan still keep on worshiping and in fact may need to worship morethan we need to do other things, like count heads. Perhaps wecannot restrain the clergy, who, like social scientists and

historians, have a compul sion to quantify. But at least we can ent erinto a higher stage of statistical practice, where the divine economycomes into play and rebuts the pretensions of those who believethat the larger the crowd at worship, the better. One writer, alayman, has put it very well:

There was a time when I wondered why more people didnot go to church. Taken purely as a human recreation, whatcould be more delightful, more unexpected than to enter avenerable and lavishly scaled building kept warm and cleanfor us one or two hours a week and to sit and stand in unisonand sing and recite creeds and petitions that are like pathsworn smooth in the raw terrain of our hearts? To listen, or notlisten, as a poorly paid but resplendently robed man strives toconsole us with scraps of ancient epistles and halting accounts,hopelessly compromised by words, of those intimations ofdivine joy that are like pain in that, their instant gone, themind cannot remember or believe them; to witness the

8


17/116

E D I T O R I A L

windows donated by departed patrons and the altar flowersarranged by withdrawn hands and the whole consideredspectacle lustrous beneath its patina of inheritance; to pay, forall this, no more than we are moved to givesurely in alldemocracy there is nothing like it. Indeed, it is the mostavailable democratic experience. We vote less than once ayear. Only in church and at the polls are we actually given oursupposed value, the soul-unit of one, with its noumenalarithmetic of equality: one equals one equals one. (From JohnUpdike, Pigeon Feathers and Other S tories,Knopf, 1962,p. 249.)

CHARLESE. COLE

9


18/116

AUTHORITY IN MUTUAL MINISTRY

L E T T Y M. R U S S E L L

How can church leaders break out of familiar paternalistic and autonomous patterns of authority?

Recently I taught in a continuing education program for churchprofess ionals on the wes t coast. In one of the sessions we tried outa model of contextual Bible study that was based on a mutualsharing of life stories and situations that seemed to illuminate thetext and its context. One pastor raised his hand and said, "I try toget others to speak in Bible study, but the women, and sometimeseven the men, defer to me as having authority. What should I do?"

Every day we find such examples of the problems of authori ty in

the life of the church. Every day we solve them in different ways,using different models for ministry and for Christian community.T h e pr ob le ms and sol ut io ns are not ne w. Th ey lead toreinterpretation of the traditions within the Bible as well as in thesubsequent life of the church. But the challenges to patterns ofauthority take on new forms in contemporary society.

In the short space of this article I would like to explore thequestion of ministerial authority. After establishing a workingdescription of authority and power, I will try to describe thedifference between the exercise of authority in minis try through

Let ty M. R ussell is professor of the practice of theology at Yale University Divinity School.Ordained to the ministry in 1 9 5 8by the United Presby t er i an Chu rch , USA, she has served asa pa s to r and e d u c a t o r in the East Har l em Protes tan t Par i sh for eighteen yea r s . The au tho r ofseveral books, including The Future of Partnership ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Growth in Partnership ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,andChanging Contexts of Our Faith ( 1 9 8 5 ) ,she is also active in the Faith an d Orde r Commission ofthe National Council of C h u r c h e s and of the Wo r l d Council of C h u r c h e s .

1 0


19/116

M U T U A L M I N I S T RY

paternalism and through partnership. Then I will return to thepastor' s question and any clues we might find to help in this searchfor mutual ministry.

A U T H O R I T Y A N D P O W E R

There is no one definition of authority, although there seems tobe some consensus that the Latin word auctoritas derives from theverb augere, mean ing "to aug men t. " Hanna h Arendt tells us thatthe concept of authority in Western civilization derives from theRoman idea that those in authority constantly augment thefoundation of the ancestors or founders of Rome. 1 The Englishword author retains this sense that the one in authorityimaginatively builds upon the prior work of others. God, theauthor and builder of life, is the authori ty in our lives as Christians.Those who share in God's work are stewards of God's continuingcreative and redemptive activity (Eph. 1:9-10; 2:10, 19-20) .

Working descriptions. For the purposes of this article I willfollow Richard Sennett in describing authority as a relational bondthat leads persons to give assent without coercion or persuasionbecause they find security in the real or imagined strength ofothers. 2 Emphas is here is on the relational bond that leads per sonsto respond with assent or obedience to the authority of, for

instance, a person, busines s firm, governm ent, church, or set ofwritings. Authority inspires obedience because persons considerthose in authori ty to have legitimate power based on their ability toact for the common good. W hen, in the proces s of socialinteraction, force is used, this is an indication that the authority isno longer fully in control and must be suppor ted by other means ofevoking assent or legitimacy.

For the pu rposes of this article I will describe power as th e abilityto accomplish desired ends through various means such as authority,coercion, persuasion, and the like. Authority and power overlap in

their meaning because to have authority is also to have power.Electric power carries the same type of meaning. It is "power"because it makes things happen when it is "turned on." In oursociety power is usually understood as domination or the use offorce to control others. But it can just as easily be unde rstood as thecapacity for self-actualization. W hen the latter aspect is stressed by

n


20/116


feminist writers, they usually speak of empowerment: self-actualization through sharing power with others. 3 When these writersdescribe power, emphasis is placed on the desired end or theaction necessary to attain it, in contras t to an emphasis on the bond

of assent in authority.Source of authority. The self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ

and through the Spirit is the source of author ity in our lives asChris tians . Thus the foundation of our lives is the faith claim thatthere is a God who is the source of life and love and that this Godhas chosen to be with us as Emmanuel. As Karl Barth hasreminded us in The Humanity of God, God wants in fact to be ourpartner and savior and has shown this in choosing to share ourhumanity. In the New Testament we hear of a God whoseauthority works through the power of love. In hearing the story ofthat love in the l ife, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we"fall in faith." (Subsequent theological development has stressedthe image of a God who rules through the power of domination"an omnipotent, impassible, immutable, Caesar-god," in JohnSkinner's wordsrather than a God of suffering love and servantministry.) 4

Christians often speak of the Word of God as the source ofauthority in their lives and actions. Here they are referring to thebiblical story as a witness to God's actions, and especially to the

gospel story of the One whom we call "the Living Word." God'sWord has authority because it has been made known by God andexperienced by the people of faith as life-giving, as a source ofstrength, a foundation for their lives. As a Christi an communitywe hear the biblical message as the Word of God when it is insp iredby God's Spirit so that faith shapes l ife. Because we trust God asthe source of l ife, we also trust God's Word and are willing towrestle with it in order to respond faithfully in our own context ofobedience. As Phyllis Bird puts it, the Scriptures are "the placewhere the church hears God speaking and discerns God's presence

when their words are studied and pondered and questionedandopened for us by the Stranger who accompanies us on our journeyand breaks bread with us." 5

Authority of Je sus ' ministry. Each Christian community has apattern of criteria for what constitutes an authoritative witness toGod in Jesus Christ. Usually that configuration includes the

1 2


21/116

!

ii

! M U T U A L M I N I S T RY

resources of scientific knowledge and human experience as well asthose of Scripture and church tradition. David Kelsey has pointedout that there are limits on theological interpre tation as it seeks todiscern this pattern of meaning . Th ese limits are rooted in the need

to continue to witness to the gospel message, and thus the criteriamust reflect the biblical and church tradition, while at the sametime being intelligible and seriously imaginable in a particularcultural setting. 6

Whatever the pattern of criteria may be for a particular church, itis not that pattern that has authority. It is the relationship betweenthat pattern and the divine self-revelation of God that gives itauthority and limits its claims. For Chris tians, an importantcriterion is consistency with the use of authority in Jesus' ministry.When we look at the Gospe ls, we discover that Jesus has authorityas the agent inaugurating the kingdom of God (God' s newcreation). Although the kingship metaphors were drawn from thecontemporary social patterns, the content of this kingship is quitedifferentso different, in fact, that the disciples never seemed tohave understood it and were always waiting for Jesus to expel theRomans and claim his throne. In an article on authority incommunity, Madeleine Boucher wrote that Jesus "rejected every

The mutual minis try of the church shares Jesus ' authorityonl y wh en its wi tne ss in wo rd is l ived out in acti ons of lov e.

authority role of his patriarchal tradition which the Messiah hadbeen expected to assume." 7 His authority (exousia) and power(dynamis) were gifts of God for the work of ushering in the new age.Jesus had authority to forgive sins, cast out unclean spirits, andpreach the good news. He taught with authority because he spokeof God's will directly and not only on the basis of scriptural

interpretation (Mark 1:22).The Gospels describe power in Jesus' ministry as the power to

heal. There is no indication that he used his power to dominate.Rather, he was one who proclaimed release to the captives andbrought sight to the blind (Luke 4:18-19) . He proclaimed God'sradical reversal of the sta tus quo: the very ones who were the least

1 3


22/116


in society were to be empowered for new life and partnership inGod's kingdom. The authority of Jesus' ministry became theauthority of his disciples and followers. They were to forgive, tocast out evil, to heal, and to preach good news. The authority to

perfom this ministry of service and care is the life-style of JesusChrist. The mutual ministry of the church shares this authorityonly when its witness in word is lived out in actions of love so thatthe Word of God continues to be incarnated in our world. In thissense the authority of faith, which builds on this dual foundation,is every bit as much dependent on its orthopraxy as upon itsorthodoxy.8 A teaching evokes our consent when we see it leadingtoward t he actualization of Chri st's ministry in both word anddeed.

P A T E R N A L I S M , A U T O N O M Y,

A N D P A R T N E R S H I P I N M I N I S T R Y

Whe n we ask how this under standing of authorit y in communityis expressed in Christian churches today, we discover instead thatin many ways we are strongly influenced by the idea of authorityover community. It seems that we have become the inheritors of apatriarchal paradigm or under standing of authori ty, which wasshaped in the social world of the ancient Near East, rather than the

partnering paradigm exhibited in Jesus' own critique of hierarchyand in his solidarity with the outcasts of society. In a patriarchy, aperson's place in the social hierarchy is determined by blood ties tothe elder males, who claim obedience through these ties. Althoughthis tradition was called into question by Jesus' teaching aboutGod's kingdom and by some of the models of early church life, itwas reinforced by the culture of the Roman Empire as well as itstheological traditions, whose image of God was that of a rulingpatriarch.

In Western medieval society that paradigm of authority was

patrimonial. That is, control, which still rested in the hands of theeldest males, took the form of proper ty ha nded down from onegenerat ion to the next through this male line. According to RichardSennett, the advent of modern industrial society has resulted inthe gradual erosion of patr imony, so that we now live in a Westernworld where two patte rns of authori ty predominate: paternal ism

1 4


23/116


and autonomy. 9 Sennett describes paternalism as an authority offalse love because it offers nurture and care but results independence. He describes autonomy as an authority without lovebecause it rebels against paternalism and seeks the freedom of theindividual from dependence on anyone other than him or her ownself. In my analysis of the ways professional church ministry canfunction I will be making use of these descriptions. I will alsocontrast them to partnership as an authority of freedom thatresponds to people's need for solidarity and care by empoweringthem through a relationship of mutuality.

Paternalism, Paternalism is an authority of false love that usespeople's need for strength and assurance to dominate themthrough a relationship of dependence. Paternalism is an authority

of false love that uses people's need for strength and assurance todominate t hem through a relationship of dependence . It seems to

Paternal ism is an authority of false love that uses people'sneed for strength a nd assurance to domina te them through a

relat ionship of dependence .

me that paternalism is a predominant pattern of authority inministry. It allows the clergy and other church leaders to continueto use the vocabulary and images of the patriarchal traditions eventhough that basis of authority has disappeared . Even when theseleaders exercise power as domination over others, they are able touse the language of fatherly caring to evoke feelings and responsesof dependence and thus can perform the caring, nurturing, servingtasks of ministry without any threat to their leadership positions.They can control which groups meet and when, what curriculumthey will use, etc., even when there is no need for such care.

Persons do not need the kind of support and care that keepsthem dependent, uncertain, and needy, but that which seeks theelimination of dependence so that persons can care for themselvesand others. For instance, it would be paternalistic to use theauthority of one's knowledge and expertise to keep peopledependent by refusing to preach or teach in such a way that a

1 5


24/116


congregation has the opportun ity of understanding and acting outthe biblical story. When the hearer s are only handed a message,rather than being encour aged to seek it out themselves throughgroup story and action, they remain dependent on the messengerand do not learn to carry out the ministry of the Word togetherwith others.

Autonomy. An extreme form of authority would be thepaternalistic offer to care for people as a father, while carrying outmany actions and policies that hurt them and keep themdependent. The opposite extreme is autonomous authority, inwhich a person projects an image of strength, appearing to betotally self-sufficient and invulnerable; needed by others but neverneeding others. This form of individualism is a valued and envied

trait in our society. It is small wonder , therefor e, that we seem toforget that all persons are interdependent. Carol Gilligan remindsus that growth in independence is part of a maturing processwho se goal should be full interdepen dence; it shoul d not be an en din itself, for those in ministry or for any other group of persons. 1 0

In preaching or teaching, an autonomous relationship ofauthor ity to the listeners would mos t likely involve a display of thepreacher's skills and knowledge in such a way that the preacherappears self-possessed and all-knowing. The bond of authorityformed through this image of superior ity is likely to be one inwhich eve ryone assumes that the speaker is so powerful and full ofwisd om that he or she cannot be challenged open ly. Unfortunately, this in turn discourages those who know that they aredependent on others from any attempt to develop a healthyindependence of thought and action in the life of the church.

All persons need to develop independence in their lives, butbeing subject to the autonomous authority of pastors, employers,or government officials is more likely to reinforce feelings ofinferiority and dep end enc e. It follows that the exercise of

autonomous authority is not a creative alternative for ministrybecause it leads persons to deny their co-responsibility with Godfor their neighbors and for the world. Nor, as we have seen, ispaternalism helpful to the life and growth of the Chr istiancommunity. Paternalistic authority continues to use patriarchalimagery to justify the dependent status of laypersons , and

1 6


25/116


especially of women. In my view partnership represents analternative paradigm of authority that would foster mutualministry and interdependence.

Partnership. Partnership is an authority of freedom that uses

people's need for solidarity and care to empower them through arelationship of mutuality. This would not necessarily be the onlyalternative to paternalistic and autonomous forms of authority. Yetit seems to me that in bonds of assent based on partnership we canbe more responsive to God's actions in freely becoming partnerswith humanity, as well as to the actions of Jesus in reaching out torestore human wholeness and community. In my books onpartnership I describe it as a new focus of relationship in JesusChrist that sets us free for others. Like faith, partnership or koinoniais a relationship of trust with God and others that c omes to us as agift of Christ's love. Like faith it is "caught, not taught." Koinonia isa word used frequently in the New Testament for sharing withsomeone in something, and it usually stresses a common bond inJesus Christ, which establishes mutual community. The emphasisis on a two-sided relationship of giving or receiving, participationor community (I Cor. 10:16-17) .

In this new focus of relationsh ip there is continuing commitmentand common struggle in the context of a wider community. Suchrelationships happen as a gift; nevertheless we know that

commitment is more likely to grow where there is responsibility,vulnerability, equality, and trust among those who share adiversity of gifts and resources. Because partnerships are livingrelationships that share the "already/not yet" character of newcreation, they are always in process and never finished, as theydraw us together in common struggle and work, involving risk,continuing growth, and hopefulness in moving toward a goal orpurpose transcending the group . By definition, partner shipinvolves growing interdependence in relation to God, persons,and creation so that we are constantly in interaction with a widercommunity of persons, social structures, values, and beliefs thatmay provide support, correctives, or negative feedback. There isnever complete equality in such a dynamic relationship, but apattern of equal regard and mutual acceptance of different giftsamong partners is essential.

1 7


26/116


Authority in partnership grows in a community where peopletake time to be partners with one another. Using preaching as anexample: This might mean that mutuality would be developed bygroup Bib le study in preparation for the sermon. The sermon in

turn would be a sharing of community action, insight, andquestioning. Rather than providing answers to what the congregation should believe and do, the s ermon wou ld make use of thepreacher's theological training and gifts to lift up the ongoing life ofthat congregation as part of God's continuing action. The stories ofthe participants could become the vehicles for biblical interpretation as the community discovers its mutual ministry of preaching.

P A R T N E R S H I P I N M I N I S T R Y

Paterna lism is a pale imitation of the old patr iarchal parad igm ofauthority over commu nity. In our society it has become a means ofcovering up alienation through empty rhetoric and family c l i ches .In the church it is an invitation to the sin of dependence andimmaturity in faith and action. Autonomy, as rebellion againstdependence through claims to egoistic authority outside ofcommunity, has led to equally disastrous results for the health ofour technological society. In the church it is also an invitation to thesin of pride and self ishness, masked in the rhetoric of objectivityan d excellence. Even though glimpses of partner ship as authorityin community are as yet few and far between, they offer a genuineinvitation to the freedom of Jesus Christ, whose love andacceptance sets us free to bear our own burdens and those of ourneighbors in mutual ministry (Gal. 6:2).

Perhaps it was thi s style of mutua l min istry that the pastor fromthe west coast was looking for when he spoke about his difficultrole as an authori ty figure in a Bible study group. As we look at hispredicament in the light of our analysis of the problems ofauthority in ministry, it would seem that there are some principlesfor action that might help him develop a ministry of sharedauthority in Bible study and in the life of the congregation. Each ofus would have a different set of principles for partnership inminis try, but he re I would like to suggest four that might help thatpastor and all of us as we seek to empower others by changingaccustomed styles of paternalistic and autonomous authority.

1 8


27/116


Begin from the unders ide . If the gospel for the poor andmarginal of society is the good news that they are not marginal inGod's sight and are welcome in the kingdom of God, then it islikely that the poor and marginal are those who can help us hear it

anew as good news. "Listening to the losers" not only helps us tounderstand the Bible more clearly, it also places us in a position tokno w the effects of domination and pa terna lism. It mak es us awareof the wasted talents and lack of self-esteem amo ng th ose who live

"Lis tening to the los ers " not only he lps us to unders tand theBible more clearly, it also pla ce s us in a po sit ion to kno w th e

effects of d omi nat i on and pate rnal ism.

their lives being treated as children because of race, sex, class, orphysical disability. In exchanging places with the "least of these"by role and job exchange we can become suspicious of our ownrhetoric and sensitive to the feelings of women, for example, whodo not speak in Bible study because their ideas are not consideredimportant.

When I worked as a pastor in the East Harlem Protestant Parishin New York City, I had to contend with my role in built-in

structures o f paternalism. Not only was I theologically educa ted, Ihad been sent to the church by the New York Presbytery and notcalled by the people. In addition I was white and middle-class in acommunity that was almost entirely black, Hispanic, and poor.Besides working to move the congregation out of "missiondependency/' I sought to develop a team ministry as a model ofpartnership in the life of the church. In order to share the gifts ofeach person on the team it was necessary to share tasks so that eachper son no t only exercised his or her ow n skills and responsibil ities,but also learned those of the others. A black woman on welfare

became the secretary and Christian educator. A Puerto Rican manwho had been doing factory work be cam e not only the janitor ofthe church but also a Spanish evangelist and worship leader. I didsome of each of their jobs, and they learned my job of education,preaching, and evangelism. By risking the possibility of gaining

1 9


28/116


new skills we were all able to develop a partnership in ministry thatwelcomed the many gifts of the congregation by its example.

Follow the questions. In a group study context we can start bystaying quiet and beginning with the questions and observations of

others rather than with answers to questions that were not asked.Keeping quiet can help the leader listen for the questions and letthem be the guide for a discussion in which the group searches foranswers. In following the questions of others we signal a genuineregard for their struggles of faith, with the result that more peoplebegin to risk speaking out. At the same time, such attentive listeninghelps the group find its own collective authority because we come tohave "ears to near" when a consensus is reached on an issue orquestion of importance. Such moments of group consensus canbecome starting points for action and ministry in the life of thecongregation and foundational material for congregational sermonsand continuing theological reflection.

Once in East Harlem I met with a group of women around akitchen table to discuss a question that had come to us from a studygroup in the World Council of Churches in Geneva . They had sentus a letter asking what salvation means in East Harlem and wemade this question our own. For many people in this multiracialghetto of poverty it would mean the possibility of "coming outahead" in their struggle for survival, perhaps hitting the numbersor getting a job. For others it would mean religious revival or theheavenly music of a storefront Pentecostal church. For those of usseated at the table it was a big question. How could we name thediscovery of new life and hope? What did it mean in ourexperience? A few "conversion stories" later, one womansuddenly blurted out, " It means that I'm more free!" And that wasthat. We all agreed: in New York City, and in the year 1967,salvation had to mean freedom freedom to hope in God, freedomto be somebody. Of course, we needed to do a lot more reflectingon the meaning of such words as these from Paul's letter to theGalatians, "For freedom Christ has set us free" (5:1, R S V ) . Yetfollowing this question and listening for clues together helped usto speak the gospel in our own context.

Act toge ther . None of us knows the answers to certain deep anddifficult questions. It is only the need to be paternalistic thatpushes us to assume that we can answe r everyone' s questions and

2 0


29/116


to feel threa tened whe n we cannot. By admitting that we do notknow an answer, we open up the possibility of acting together inlittle and small ways. Tha t is , we can all go home and try to find outa particular thing, or one or two persons can volunteer to do some

research. Or, more importantly, we can devise ways of workingtogether on a project that helps us to "act our way into thinking."For insta nce, if the group is puzzled about the increase of violencein the community and in the world, it can study this and share itsfindings, but , further, it can also undertake to work with victims ofviolence in a rape crisis center or a hom e for batte red women andchildren. Being involved in this latter project may help us to getbeyond the easy answ ers so that we can hear the voices of pain andsuffering.

This sharing happens with other groups as well. In one church in

West Haven a woman pastor was visited recently by a laywomanwho wanted to reach out to the physically challenged persons inthe church and community. The pastor welcomed this idea andworked with the parishioner to develop the Committee onMinistry with the Aging and Disabled (COMAD). More than halfof the committee members were themselves physically challengedand welcome d the opportunity to plan for a ramp fund campaign,education programs, and services of worship. In only a year,one-half of the needed mon ey had been raised for renovat ions andmodifications to the church buildings, worship had been led by

physically challenged persons, and the youth group had writtenand prese nted a play to raise the conscio usness of the congregat ionabout this issue.

Demystify the structures. Every important issue in our lives isembedded in social, economic , political, and rel igious structures. Ifwe are going to work toward partnership in community, it is crucial toanalyze the way these forces shape our understanding of reality and of theproper use of authority. For instance, the pastor I mentioned at thebeginn ing of this article nee ded to understa nd the structures ofchurch and community life that lead to a hierarchical unders tanding of teaching and decision-making. For if he had understood, hewould not have expected women to speak out simply because herequested it. In order to work as partners people need to bepolitical. That is, they nee d to look at the way power and authorityare functioning in their group and in the larger institutions in order

21


30/116


to be able to understand how decision-making works and whoshould be held accountable. Without such knowledge of structures, pe ople will conti nue to be dependent on those who rule "forthem."

In working to demystify the structures of racism, sexism, andclassism that functioned in East Harlemthose that promised a"Great Society" and delivered more unemplo yment, burned-outbuildings, a nd miseducationit was necessary for us to begin withthe small things in our own lives: rent str ikes against particularlandlords; Head Start programs in local schools; installation oftraffic lights where our children crossed the street. From thisbeginning people discovered the way city agencies work andbegan to gain self-confidence in organizing for change. The samedemystification process needs to be at work in relation todenominational structures if the churc h is to be a full partner in thedecisions that affect its ministry and mission.

Partnership as an authority of freedom is both difficult and risky.Difficult because it means learning to live out the signs of newcreation in a world where we and everyone else have internalizedthe relationships of domination and subordina tion. It is riskybecause church leaders who share power may find that they nolonger fit in the church as we kn ow it. The purpose of exercisingauthority thr ough partnership is not easy success but faithfulnessto a God whose authority is exerci sed in solidarity with the losersof this present world.

N O T E S

1. ' W h a t is A u t h o r i t y ? " Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (NewYork : Viking, 1968) .

2 . Authority (New York: Vintage, 1 9 8 1 ) , pp . 16-27 .3 . Fo r example, see Jean B a k e r Miller, Toward a New Psychology of Women (Boston:

B e a c o n , 1976) ,p. 116; also Let ty Russell, "Women and Ministry: Problem or Possibility?" inChristian Feminism; Visions of a Neiv Humanity, ed . Judi th L. Weidman (San Franc isco :H a r p e r & Row, 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 7 5 - 9 2 .

4 . Th e Meaning of Authority (Washington, D.C.: University Pr. of A m e r i c a , 1983) , pp.1-10 , 68 .

5 . Phyllis A. Bird , Th e Bible as the Church's Book (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982) , pp .1 0 7 - 1 0 8 .

6. David H. Kelsey, Th e Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia: For t ress , 1975) ,p . 165 . See also Let ty Russell, "Authority and the Challenge of Feminist In te rpre ta t ion ," inFeminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed . Let ty M. Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) .

2 2


31/116

M U T U A L MINISTRY

7. "Authority-in-Community/' Mid -Stream 31:3 (July, 1982) : 4 1 5 - 1 6 .8. James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed New York: Seabury, 1 9 7 5 ) , pp. 36-37 .9. Authority, pp. 50-62 , 84-85 .

10 . In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambr idge : H a r v a r dUniv. Pr. , 1982, p. 74).

2 3


32/116

R E S P O N S I B L E G R A C E :T H E S Y S T E M AT I C NATURE OF

W E S L E Y ' S T H E O L O G Y RECONSIDERED

RANDY L. MADDOX

Wesley's theological writings have traditionally beenviewed as those of a third-rank theologian, but thenotion of responsible grace allows us to apprec iate

Wesley as a m a j o r systematic thinker.

An essay investigating the systematic nature of John Wesley'stheology must strike many readers as misconceived. Wesley iswidely respected as an evangelist and the organizer of a renewalmovement within Anglicanism; however, even his strongestdefenders are often willing to concede that, far from being acreative and systematic thinker, he was a third-rank theologian.There are two reasons for such an evaluation. In the first place,rather than pursuing theology primarily in dialogue with and in

the scholarly language of professional theologians, Wesley optedfor what Albert Outler has called a "folk theology," expressing theChristian message in its fullness and integrity in "plain words forplain people." Secondly, Wesley never composed a summa, i.e., asystematic work embracing the whole range of Christian revelationand relating it to the other areas of human knowledge.

N E W P E R S P E C T I V E S O N

T H E N A T U R E O F S Y S T E M A T I C T H E O L O G Y

In reopening the question of the systematic nature of Wesley'stheology, we are not challenging the two characteristics of his

R a n d y L, Maddox is assistant professor and head of the religious studies p r o g r a m at SiouxFalls College in South Dakota. He also conducts continuing education classes, offeredthrough a satellite p r o g r a m of Lu the r-Nor thwes t e rn Seminary of Saint P a u l , Minnesota, forthe clergy in eas te rn South Dakota. He is the a u t h o r of Toward an Ecumenical FundamentalTheology (1984) .

24


33/116

R E S P O N S I B L E G R A C E

theology just noted. Such a challenge is neither possible nordesirable. Rather, we want to challenge the model against whichWesley's theology was measured and found wanting. This model,whether in the form of a Thomist Summa or a HegelianEnzyklop'ddie, has reigned throughout most of the history ofmedieval and modern Christian thought. The central premise ofthis model is that the ideal approach to theology is one concernedwith: (a) the systematic summary of the entire range of Christianrevelation and (b) the rational demons tration of the truth claims ofChris tian faith in view of the breadth of human knowledge. Withinsuch a model, the theological reflections of Wesley (or Luther!)would obviously be second-rank at best. The claim to a trulyscholarly and systematic theology would be limited to the likes of

Aquinas and Calvin.One of the most exciting and significant developments in recent

discussion of the nature of theology is a growing rejection of thisonce-dominant model of theological reflection. In its place isemerging an understanding of the task of scholar ly theo logy that is"practical." 1 For this approach, the ultimate value of theologicalreflection is not to be found in its abstract theoretical momen ts, butrather in the use of the results of such moments for makingcritiques of and establishing norm s for contemporary churchdiscourse and life. The overarching goal of theology is to bring thetradition of Christian doctrine and the skills of disciplined thoughtto bear on the practical problems of the contemporary Christiancommunity. Likewise, the goal of theological education is notprimarily the memorization of a system of theology, but rather thecultivation of an ability to make theologically responsiblejudgments about contemporary Christian life and practice.

From the perspective of this new model, the criteria for being ascholarly and systematic theologian would undergo a corresponding change. The key questions would become: (1) whether

the person used critically assessed methods in drawing on theChristian tradition, (2) whether he or she followed theologicallyresponsible methods of weighing evidence in making occasional( i .e . , situation-related) judgments, and (3) whether there was aconsistency of perspective among the various occasional judgments.

25


34/116


35/116


aspect of Wesl ey's theological method that has been most widelyacclaimed is his self-critical awareness of the relative roles of thevarious sources of theology in formulating a theological judgmenti.e., the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. 4

Unfortunately, the third questionwhether one can discern anorienting concept that provides a consistency to Wesley'soccasional theological judgmen tshas rarely bee n addressed,even by those involved in the recent renewed considerations ofWesley's theology. The major reason is that this recent work haslargely limited itself to expositing and defending Wesley'sunderstanding of the order of salvation, i.e., his doctrines ofjustification and sanctification. While it is true that Wesley himselfunderstood the core of his theology to lie in the order of salvation,

it can be argued that his contribution to theo logy goes far beyondthis locus. 5 Within his works one can find treatments of almostevery major theological issue. Moreover , the topics and arrangement of his second series of sermons resemble the classicalProtestant "salvation hi story" model of a dogmatic theology text.As such, it is entirely legitimate to pursue our re-evaluation ofWesley as a systematic theologian. As suggested above, theoutcome of any such re-evaluation will hinge on whether it can bedemonstrated that Wesley utilized, at least implicitly, a centralor ient ing co ncept in render ing his occasi onal theological

judgments.

R E S P O N S I B L E G R A C E W E S L E Y ' S O R I E N T I N G C O N C E P T

Our major thesis in this essay is that there is such an orientingconcept in Wesley's theology; namely, the concept of responsiblegrace. To substantiate this thesis we will first define this orientingconcept and t hen illus trate its influence on Wesl ey' s theologicalreflection.

The orienting concept we are calling "responsible grace" is notsimply a doctrine discussed by Wes ley. It is a fundamentalconviction about the nature of divine-human interaction whichprovided the distinctive slant to all of Wesley's theology. The mostsuccinct expression Wesley gives of this concep t is actually a quotefrom Saint Augustine: "He that made us without ourselves, willnot save us without ours elves ." That Wesley quotes Augustine in

27


36/116


this regard is ironic, for, as Outler notes, "[Wesley's] drivingpassion was to find a third alternative to Pelagian optimism andAugustinian pessimism with respect to the human flaw and the

human potential."6

Wes ley found this third alternative in aconcept of respons ible grace , where by salvation is clearly a gift ofG od (we cann ot save ourselves) but neve rtheles s a gift that calls usto respond and to take responsibility (God will not save us withou tourselves).

In the first place , Wes ley was utterly convinced that humanbeings have neither the existing moral purity to merit salvation northe power to achieve such purity on their own. If we have even onegood thought or one good desire, we should be careful to give thehonor to God because it is a gift of grace. Salvat ion, indeed eventhe desire for salvation, is fundamental ly a free gift of God offeredto undeserving human persons. Far from meriting this gift, we canonly accept it in faith. Moreover , even the faith by which we acceptsalvation is a gift of God . Clearly, the theme of grace was cen tral toWesley's preaching and theological reflection.

The theme of responsibility was just as central and provided atype of dialectical balance to the theme of grace. It was Wesley'sconviction that, alt hough God may on occasion irresistiblyconstrain a person to perform a specific task in fulfilling divine

providence, such was never the case in relation to personalsalvation. The gift of grace upon which salvation depends operatesso as to empower us to respond without compelling us to obey. 7 Bymeans of prevenient grace, God acts upon every human person toenable her or him to ent er into a saving relationship. However," G o d does not continue to act upon the soul, unless the soulre-acts upon Go d" ("Th e Great Privilege of Those That Are Born ofGod"). We must respond to God's grace, and ultimately we bearthe responsibility if we do not do so.

This theme of responsibility is not limited to the initialacceptance of salvation. Indeed, Wesley's most characteristicstress is on the conti nuing responsibility to put the grace of God towork transforming our lives, lest it be received in vain. Concern ingthis transformat ion, Wesl ey is quite clear that even the mos t saintlyChristian still stands in the tension found between two confessionsof Scripture: "Without me you can do nothing" and "I can do all

2 8


37/116


things through Christ strengthening me." Wesley gives a detaileddescription of this tension in his sermon, "On Working Out OurOwn Salvation":

[First,] in as much as God works in you, you are now able towork out your own salvation. . . . You can do something,through Christ strengthening you. Stir up the spark of gracewhich is now in you, and [God] will give you more grace.Secondly, God worketh in you; therefore you mustwork . . . otherwise [God] will cease working.

In brief, Wesley understood the essential Christian message' tobe one of God-given grace, but grace which both called for andempowered human response, thereby preserving human respon

sibility. We believe the title "Responsible Grac e" captures well thisperspective. It places primary emphasis on God's indispensablegift of gracious empowermen t while carefully qualifying thisempowerment as one that enables rather than overrides humanresponsibi lity. Moreover, this title invi tes ready and insightfulcomparison with parallel formulations for Lutheranism (unmerited or free grace), Calvinism and universalism (sovereigngrace), traditional Roman Catholicism (infused grace), etc.

T H E O R I E N T I N G C O N C E P T A T W O R K

It should be evident by now that the dialectic between grace andresponsibility that we are terming "respons ible g race" is present inWesley's theology. What remains to be shown is that thisconviction functioned as an orienting concept, providing the basicconsistency between Wesley's various theological decisions andformulations. Obviously, there is not space for an exhaustivesurvey of Wesley's theological reflections in this regard. Accordingly, we will focus on his doctrine of God and his doctrine ofsalvation.

Doctrine of God, Wesl ey's position regarding the various aspectsof the doctrine of God has been chosen for first considerationbecause it provides the theological basis for his more extendeddiscussion of the order of salvation. The major focus of Wesley'sreflection on the doctrine of God was the nature of God'ssovereignty. His main point, directed at Calvin (as he unders tood

29


38/116


Calvin), was that God's sovereignty should always be related tothe other divine attributes. Failure to make this relation wouldultimately lead to an abstract and determin istic view of sovereigntywhich would unde rmine both God 's justice and G od' s love. Itwould also destroy human responsibility.

Moving beyond critique, Wesl ey provided several constructiveproposals for understanding the nature of God in a way that holdsdivine sovereignty, mercy, and justice together. In the first place,he refused to follow the nominalists in making a distinctionbetween God 's will and God' s nature. This view of the unity of willand nature removed the possibility of vindicating God 's sovereigndecisions by placing God above the divinely estab lished moral law.In the second place, Wesley located the primary expression of

God's sovereignty in the bestowal of mercy rather than in theabstract concept of self-sufficiency and freedom. 8 This movepurged the notion of sovereignty of its frequent over tones ofarbitrariness and domination. Final ly, Wes ley argued at lengththat a conception of God wherein God could interact effectivelyand providentially with human beings while still allowing ameasure of human free agency does not detract from God's glory.On the contrary, it immeasurably deepens our sense of God'sglorious wisdom, justice, and mercy, without, at the same time,undercutting human responsibility.

This basic stance regarding God' s nature as loving and just findsexpression in Wesley's judg ment s regarding several related issues.To cite just one example, it led him to opt for a conception of divineforeknowledge that did not imply determinism. Wesley foundsuch a concepti on in the not ion o f etern ity as above time. From thisperspective, matters related to personal salvation do not take placebecause God knows them. Rather, God knows them because theytake place.

Clearly, Wesley's judgments concerning the nature of God arecongruent with the notion of responsible grace outlined above.

The more crucial point, which must now be argued, is thatWesley's strong convictions about responsible grace played adecisive role, albeit often implicitly, in arriving at these judgments .As evidence for this asser tion , consider the following passage from"Free Will," concerning the Calvinist conception of God'ssovereign predestining will:

3 0


39/116


It destroys all [God's] attributes at once: It overturns both hisjustice, mercy and truth, . . . You represent God as worsethan the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But yousay you will prove it by Scripture. Hold! What will you prove

by Scripture? that God is worse than the devil? It cannotbe. . . . Better it were to say [Scripture] had no sense at all,than to say it had such a sense as this. . . . No scripture canmean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all hisworks.

Note how Wesley's convictions about the mercy and justice ofGod become criteria for determining the meaning of Scripture. Inall fairness, this quote must be balanced by Wesley's claim that hisconvictions about God's justice and love are thoroughly grounded

in Scripture. Nonetheless, it is a clear illustration of at least onearea where Wesley's basic convictions about responsible gracewere a decisive influence in his determinat ion of issues ofChristian doctrine and practice.

Doctrine of Salvation. The influence of Wesley's convictions aboutresponsible grace is also evident in every major area of his doctrineof salvation. At the most basic level, its influence can be seen in hisdefinition of major terms. For example, he defines salvation notmerely as deliverance from hell or going to heaven but as presentdeliverance from sin. "Grace" is taken to include not merely ourfree acceptance by God , but the power of God at work in us both towill and to do according to God' s good pleasure. In addit ion, faithis understood as more than mere assent . It is a disposition wroughtin our heart that is productive of good works. Accordingly, inWesley's terms, salvation by grace through faith can never beunderstood in an antinomian sense. But neither can it beunderstood as self-salvation, for Wes ley is quite clear that the lovethat transforms our lives is a gift of God.

The tension between grace and responsibility is expressed

structurally when the possibility of growth in Christ-likeness(sanctification) is made contingent on God's gracious acceptance(justification), while the continuance in God's acceptance (justification) is made contingent on growth in Christ-likeness (sanctification). 9 It is a dual tension that allows Wesley to integrate "faithalone" with "holy living" in an authentic dialectic. A logical

31


40/116


corollary of this tension is Wesley's affirmation of the third use ofthe lawto guide Christian l ife.

The most distinctive element in Wesley's doctrine of salvation ishis affirmation of the possibility of entire sanctification. Thisaffirmation has been the focus of numerous critical evaluations.These evaluations typically charge Wesley with overlooking thepresence of sin in all believers and with overevaluating the naturalhuman ability to conquer sin. Obviously, such charges, if true,would be in radical conflict with the pr inciple of responsible gracearticulated above. However , a careful reading of Wesley proves thecharges to be ungrounded.

Wesley states quite clearly that the experience of entiresanctification, if ever obtained, is a gift of God, not a product of

human effort. At the same time, he stresses human responsibilityin relation to entire sanctification. In the first place, Wesleyconsiders the possibility of entire sanctification to hinge on a prior(typically long) period of responsible growth in grace whichincludes progressive victory over the sinful inclinations thatremain in the life of a believer (sanctification in the larger sense ofthe word). It is clear that his major emphasis lies on this ongoingprocess of Christian growth, because he is (theoretically) willing toconcede the possibility that entire sanctification may be a realityonly at or shortly preceding death. 1 0 In the second place, Wesley

stresses the element of human responsibility within the state ofentire sanctification i tself by emphasizing the continuing need forgrowth in Christ-likeness even here , the absence of which wouldultimately lead to the loss of the experience. 1 1 Indeed, it ischaracteristic of Wesley that his advice in A Plain Account ofChristian Perfection to those who claimed entire sanctification was toavoid pride, enthusiasm, and antin omian ism. In brief, while theaffirmation of the possibility of entire sanctification may bedistinctive of Wesley, the conception of sanctification (as a whole)as the progressive responsible application of the free grace of God

is characteristic of Wesley. It was thus no acciden t that Wesley choseas a motto for the Methodists the phrase "not as though I hadalready obtained."

We believe the preceding analysis of Wesley's doctrines of Godand salvation provides sufficient initial warrant for the claim that

3 2


41/116


Wesley was guided in his occasional theological reflections by ach ie f orienting conceptresponsible grace . To provide furtherwarrant it would be necessary to demonstr ate the influence of thisconcept in other doctrinal areas. It is our conviction that such ademonstration is possible, and we would encourage investigationsof such issues as Wesley's view of sacraments or eschatology fromthis perspective.

C O N C L U S I O N A N D I M P L I C AT I O N S

If our basic argument to the claim that Wesley's varioussituation-related theolog ical reflections wer e guided by theconcept of responsible grace is accepted, then it has several

implications for Wesley studies and Wesleyan theology.In the first place, an awareness of the unifying perspective of

Wesley's work provides a significant help in understanding andrelating the various parts of Wesley's thought. It also provides acriterion by which to assess claims about unresolved tensions orsignificant changes in Wesley's perspective.

Perhaps more impor tantly, an awareness of the definingperspective of Wesley's theological reflection provides a criterionfor guiding and/or assessing contemporary expressions of Wesleyan theology. Albert Outler has issued a timely call for a newphase in Wesley studies which moves beyond presentations ofWesley as either an idealized cult figure or a mere endorser ofparticular popular causes. Outler envisions an approach totheology, replacing these earlier phas es, wherein Wesley plays therole of mentor or guidea voice behind us saying, "This is the way,walk in it. " 1 2 In light of the preceding analysis, it can be suggestedthat the way Wesley would lead us is in seeking an ever moreconsistent and relevant expression of "responsible grace." Attimes this may mean cor recting or moving beyond Wesley himself.

Often it will mean liberating Wesley from the tradition of laterWesleyan theologians, both liberal and conservative, who havelost the dynamic balance embodied in the concept of responsiblegrace. Always it will mean carrying out our theological reflectionsin a way that addresses the burning needs of the present churchand the world.

3 3


42/116

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E W , SPRING 1986

N O T E S1. Examples of this new approach in a variety of contexts would include: Don S.

Browning, Religious Ethics and Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: For t ress , 1983) ;George Lindbeck,Th e Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Doctrine in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster,1984); and J a m e s D. and Evelyn E. Whitehead, Method in Ministry: Theological Reflection and

Christian Ministry (New York: Seabury, 1980) . The most detailed defense and elaboration ofthis type of appr oach is found in two work s by Gerhar d Sauter: WisscnschaftstheoretischeKritik der Theologie: Die Theologie und die Neuere Wisscnschaftstheoretische Diskussion (Munich;Christian Kaiser, 1973); and Arbeitsweisen Systematischer Theologie: Eine Anleitung (Munich:Chris t ian Kaiser, 1976) .

2 . See especially Sauter, Arbeitsweisen, p. 19,3 . On Luther see Christian Dogmatics, ed. Car l E. Braa ten and Robert W. Jenson

(Philadelphia: For t ress , 1 9 8 4 ) , 2: 130. On Calvin see Paul Tillich, A History of ChristianThought: From Its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins to Existentialism (New York: Simon andSchuster, 1968) , pp . 2 6 2 - 6 3 .

4. On both of these points see Colin W. Williams, John Wesley's Theology Today (NewYork: Abingdon, 1960) , pp . 2 3 - 3 8 .

5 . This and other interpretations of Wesley are derived from his Works, available invarious editions, which are not cited here but are available on request.

6. Albert C. Outler, Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit (Nashville; Tidings, 1 9 7 5 ) , p. 35.7. It should be noted that this in te rpre ta t ion of Wesley is not without its competitors. Onthe three major types of in te rpre ta t ion in this r e g a r d see Thomas Langfo rd , Practical Divinity:Theology in the Wesleyan Tradition (Nashville: Abingdon, 1 9 8 3 ) ,p. 33. We believe the secondin te rpre ta t ion Langford mentions is clearly the most adequate and consider the cur ren tessay a validation of that judgment.

8. Cf. M. Douglas Meeks, The Future of the Methodist Theological Traditions (Nashville:Abingdon, 1 9 8 5 ) , pp . 2 9 - 3 0 .

9 . The best exposition of this dual tension is Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification:A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation (Wilmore, Ky.: Franc is Asbury Publ. Co., 1981) , pp .8 3 - 1 0 4 , 213.

1 0 . However, Wesley himself believed the experience was possible prior to death anda t t r ibu ted the alternative opinion, held by his brothe r, to an absolutist view of perfection.See Williams, Wesley's Theology, p. 169.

1 1 . To understand how one could be "perfect" or "sinless" and still need to grow inChrist-likeness, it is necessa ry to recall Wesley' s distinction b etwee n a "mora l " definition ofsin and a "strict" definition of sin ("On Perfection" and "The Repent ance of Believers"). SeeJoh n L. Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (New York: Abingdon, 1956) , pp .3 9 - 4 6 .

1 2. Albert C. Outler, "A New F u t u r e for Wesley Studies: An Agenda for 'Phase III, '" inMeeks, Methodist Theological Traditions, pp. 3 4 - 5 2 .

3 4


43/116

WHO IS THE D I R E C TO R OF WORSHIP?

RICHARD F. COLLMAN

Wh o plans the order of worship in your church? Theministeror the church secretary?

Wh o directs worship in your chur ch? The minis ter? Probably notalways, because the demands upon him or her often prevent it.Then the role of director of worship is likely to be ass ume d by themusic director, or perhaps by the secretary, who not only musttype the bulletin but compose it as well! A director of worship is aperson who thinks through and plans the worship in the localchur ch. Th e task is far too important to be left to cha nce , but whenthe weekly deadline looms large for the minister, such planning issometimes left for the secretary out of convenience.

If worship is not directed and coordinated, who is at fault? Fewseminaries offer courses in the history and practice of Christianworship, in spite of the fact that parish pastors spend up toone-fourth of their time in prepar ing for worship (includingsermons) and in leading it. Liturgy is too important to be up forgrabs in the local church. I ask the question againwho is thedirector of worship in your local church? After all, such workshould not be the job of the secretary who was hired to print theorder and not plan the worship service.

Every local church, no matter how small, need s som eon e tothink through, coordinate, and lead worship. In our day ofchanging and revised rituals, this becomes an even more urgent

Richard F. Collm an is the minister of worshi p and mus ic at First United Methodist Church inSioux Falls, South Dakota.

3 5


44/116


task. Worship is of primary importance to the life of every churchand to the whole church. Whatever else the church does, it alwaysworships, and all of its activities should grow from this center orheart of its existence. Historically, the church has always gotten

into trouble when it has forgotten the confession "Jesus Christ isLord" that is nourished and reaffirmed in its public worship.

The direction of worship is often a neglected area of pastoralattention. Why? Ministers are busy. We function with manydeadlines and many pressing human needs. Counseling takestime; sermon preparat ion is ongoing; reading time is nil. There aremany real excuses, and while we are often about, doing what webelieve are crucial tasks in meeting human needs, we haveforgotten the primary need of the churchguidance in prayer andworship.

Browne Barr, in his book High-Flying Geese; Unexpected Reflectionson the Church and Its Ministry (Seabury, 1983) reports the words of acollege-town radical to an activist pastor: "Your church tries to doin a half-ass way everything that someone else in this town doesbetterchild care, education, food pantry, housing, politicalaction. But you don 't seem to know how to do the only thing youare expert at and which no one else gives a damn aboutprayerand worship!" While that is hard counsel, it is appropriate. I amold enough to have lived through the social-activist phase of the

church in the late sixties and into the current prayer andspirituality phase of the church, and I long for some balancebetween the two! The church should neglect neither social actionnor worship, but each should inform the other and be held inbalance. I would hope that one of the reasons we protest nuclearbombs is because we are persons who are praying for the healt h ofthe social order.

Direction of worship may also be neglect ed because members ofthe clergy lack knowledge of and interest in liturgy. How often wesimply lead worship the way we experienced it as children or as

college or seminary student s! New rituals do at least mak e us thinkabout what has to be done differently, but that can be intenselyfrustrating if we have not been prepa red adequate ly for suchchange, either in seminary or in continuing education workshops.While nearly all seminaries require preparation for preaching, notmany require course work in the history and practice of Christian

3 6


45/116

D I R E C T O R O F W O R S H I P

worship. This neglect is sad and even tragic. Continuity in thestructure and content of liturgy throughout the church's historyhas protected the church from the idiosyncrasies of the cle rgy. Weare in a dangerous time, when preachers may disdain or toy withthe given structures. The result could be the degeneration of thesacraments of Christian baptism and marriage into sentimental,secular ceremonies, and the Eucharist into a dreary afterthought tothe sermon. We are not free to fly with creative worship unless weare first of all grounded in the history of worsh ip of the ecumenicalchurch and the denominational church.

Worship is one of the most important areas of pastoral attentionand contact. It deserves careful advance planning and lovingexecution. William H. Willimon, in his book Worship as Pastoral

Care (Abingdon, 1979) , asks how pastors can help congregations toworship. He reminds us that edification or upbuilding is our chiefpastoral goal. The thesis of his book is that worship is a major butrecently neglec ted aspect of pastoral care. He then focuses on fourfamiliar acts of worsh ip to illustrate his ideas: funeral, wedding,bapti sm, and the Lord' s Supper. In his discussions of baptism asidentity and of the Lord's Supper as community, Willimonillustrates the ways in which worship offers opportunities forpastoral care that are often overlooked by parish leaders.

The direction of worsh ip is an important need for every church.Barr emphasizes the centrality of worship:

The "being" of the church is realized in and through itsworship, the breathing of the Body of Christ. It is only throughthe filling of its lungs, its bones, its whole body with theenjoyment and glory of God, that it can realize its power tohelp save a civilization on the edge of self-destruction. As aconsequence, when Christians talk together seriously about 1

the leadership of the church, they must talk about its'liturgy , . . the work of God's people.

People who attend church know whether or not they are beingfed. They say so if they are, and they have amazing patience withthe leader of worship if they are not! A unified, cohesive servicebuilt on a solid scriptural foundation with integrated responsesand music does not go unnoticed. I have heard members ofcongregat ions say how much they have appreciated the

37


46/116


integration of all facets of a worship service. Some even actsurprised that it has happened so well, which may be acommentary on how chaotic their experiences of worship havebeen. The laity notice the liturgy, and we must talk about whetherpeople feel consonance or dissonance as they come for guidanceand nourishment at pulpit and altar.

Many resources for cohesive planning for worship are nowavailable. In some churches, progressive members are pushingtheir pastors to get invo lved. While this chang e can be threatening,it is also refreshing to see people calling for a deeper integration ofthe elements of worship in order to be fed more fully. If you as apastor have a planning t eam that wants to do something special, oreven to make changes on a regular basis, get out o f the way and let

them function. They may be in touch with thei r own needs and theWord of God in ways you never thought possible.

Public wor ship establishes our identity and declares who we are.In worship we rehearse over and over again the salvation story.Wesley declared that the Eucharist is "the ch ie f form of evangelismand convers ion ." Yet United Methodi sts lost appreciation for theLord's Suppe r in their quest to cover the country. Evangelism wentahead of church rather than remaining centered in the worship ofthe church. But we dare not forget the symbols that tell thesalvation story and help us re-enact its power. Public worship isvastly important for the spiritual formation of persons who arebeing patterned and formed into Christian disciples. If worshipdoes not dispose us toward loving God and our neighbors morefully, why should we participate in it? The world does not needsentimentality or nostalgia; it needs compassion and sacrificial loverooted in the convicti on that we are loved by God and sent forth toredeem the world that God loved.

Wh o is in charge of worship? Someone needs to be, and mostoften the minister must be in charge of the formation of the

celebration. This does not mean that he or she must always be thepresider, but it does mean that this person should be the directorand resource. The ordained person is in charge of the basicfunctions of the church and is responsible for its celebration ofworship. James F . White discus ses the role of the liturgical directorin his book, New Forms of Worship (Abingdon, 1971):

3 8


47/116

D I R E C T O R O F W O R S H I P

Just as we have turned much of the educational work of theministry on the large church staff over to a specialistthedirector of religious educationso we may one day look foranother specialist on such staffsthe liturgical director. He

may not lead services himself (some have been laymen), but hewill coordinate the numerous services of worship offered eachweek by differing groups within the congregation. And insome of these he may very well have a function not dissimilarto that of a producer in the theater, (pp. 36-37)

That "one day" may come sooner than we expect, as morecongregations press for increased involvement in worship. Theway worship is conducted over time can mean the differencebet ween the church bein g faithful and bei ng unfaithful to the Lordof history.

In the large chur ch,

Spring 1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

Documents

Transcript of Spring 1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry