Winter 1995-1996 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

8/9/2019 Winter 1995-1996 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

1/118

A JtH uiui i i f LhivLosit:j i R& atuc c? iir Mjni?If>

Tliaiiins W. OgletrecTelling Our Sfon': Cnn Marketing Help?

Taiiwttc M. EugeneRen cliiiig Across Cultiiivs in M iiiistni

Jiiini'sA. HiiniiBhHearing rHirf Pi-etiching Lciitcn Texts


2/118

E d i t o r i a l B o a r d

Neil M. AlexanderThe United MethodistPublishing House

Lloyd R. BaileyDuke Divinity School

Wilfred BaileyCasa View United MethcxlisiChurchDallas, Texas

Pamela D. CoutureCandler School of TheologyEmory University

BritaGill-AusternAndovcr Newton Theological School

Janice Riggle HuicDistrict SuperintendentSouthwest Texas Conference

Roger W. Ireson, ChairGeneral Board of HigherEducation and MinistryThe United Methodist Church

Jack A. Keller, Jr.The United MethodistPublishing House

Robin W. LovinPerkins School of TheologySouthern Methodist University

Robert C. NevilleBoston University School ofTheology

Thomas W. OgletreeThe Divinity SchoolYale University

Russell E. RicheyDuke Divinity School

Judith E. SmithGeneral Board of HigherEducation and MinistryThe United Methodist Church

Marjorie Hewitt SuchockiClaremont School of Theology

John L. TopolewskiDistrict SuperintendentWyoming Conference

John E. HarnishGeneral Board of Higher Educationand MinistryThe United Methodist Church

E. Tho mas TrotterAlaska Pacific University

Sharon J. Hels. EditorSylvia Marlow. Production Manager

Helen Poul iot, Production Coordinator


3/118

Quarterly ReviewA Journal of Theo logical Resources for M inistryVolume 15, Nu mb er 4

A Publication of The United Methodist Publishing Houseand the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry


4/118

Quarterly Review (ISSN 0270-9287) provides continuing education resources for scholars.Christian educators, and lay and professional ministers in The United M ethodist Church and otherchurches. QR intends to be a forum in which theological issues of significance to Christian ministrycan be raised and debated.Editorial Offices: lOOI 19lh Avenue. South. Box 871. Nashville, TN 37202 . Manuscripts shouldbe in English and typed double-spaced, including notes.QR is published four times a year, in March. June. September, and December, by the UnitedMethodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry and The United Methodist Publishing House.Second-class postage paid at Nashv ille, Tennessee.Subscription rate: $16 for one year; $28 for two years; and $36 for three years. All subscriptionorders, single-copy orders, and change-of-address information must be sent in writing to theQuarterly Review Business Manager, Box 801, Nashville, TN 37202. Orders for single copiesmust be accompanied with prepayment of $5.00.Postmaster: Address changes should be sent to The United Methodist Publishing House, Box 801,Nashville. TN 3720 2.QR is printed on acid-free paper.Lections arc taken from Revised Common Leclionary (Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1992).Scripture quotations unless otherwise noted are from the New Revised Standard Version CommonBible, copyrighted 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council ofChurches of Christ in the US , and are used by permission.

Quarterly ReviewWinter, ] 995-96

Copyright 1995 by The United Methodist Publishing Houseand The United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry


5/118

Vol. 15, No . 4 W INT ER 199 5-96

ContentsIntroduction

S haron J. Hefs 335

ArticlesTelling O ur Story: Can Marketing H elp Us?Tfiom as W. Ogletree 337Clergy Misconduct and the Gospel

Gregorys. Clapper 353Crosscultural Ministry: Theory, Practice, Theology

Toinette M, Eugene 36 3Globalization and Its Ironies

Ruben Hahito and Edward W. Poitras 375Globalization in Theological Education: Reflections from an AfricanPerspective

Solom on K. Avotri 389Melting Pot or Mosaic: What Difference Does Difference Maice?

Tyron inhody 399Why Owls M atter, Mosquitoes B ite, and Existence Remains a Mystery

Byron C.Bangert 415

QR Lectionary S tud yListening in Time

Jam es A.Iiarnish 427


6/118


7/118

Introduction

T e holiday season is an excellent t im e to reflect on the reali ty ofmarket thinking, that is , our part icipation in the exchange ofgoods, services, money, and t ime that consti tutes our economy.

Not that i t ' s easy to get away for thought and reflection these days.But in the case of this issue, the rewards for such contrar iness aregreat . Market th inking may be a secular phenomenon, but the gospelhas never been completely isolated from i t . The language of pr ice,exchange, and possession is something we can all relate to, and i t ' s anatural medium for expressing the things of God. Even to the earl iestChr i s t ians under s tood i t: "You were bo ught wi th a pr ice ," wr i tes Paulin 1 Cor. 7:23, "d o not bec om e the slaves of m en ." Th e imp lici tquestion of the marketplace, What is i t worth to you? goes deep intothe heart of our fai th: at Christmas we celebrate theologically that ourCreator , the author and sustainer of the world, valued us enough tosend a mortal being, a son, to win us back. Therefore in this cultureand in th i s t ime w e are no longer merely co nsum ers to be measur ed byour buying power ; our u l t imate wor th has been decided by God'sdesi re for us.

Th e interplay of though t in this issue to do with the dualexper iences of fami l ia r i ty and s t rangeness , o therw ise know n as theself and the other . Market thinking, for us North Americans, is thefamihar, the comfortable, the self-evident, what we consider s implecommon sense. In that context, the gospel is the unsettl ing, thegrating, that off-balance feeling that is not quite pain but may be loveor learning or the dawning of compassion. The gift in Ogletree 's essayis to show us both sides of the equation in a way that tells us m or efully who we really are.

And again, in the essays devoted to the specif ics of Christ ianservice in a world full of otherness, we are invi ted to see ourselves as


8/118

f igures in the tapestry of the whole. Toinette Eugene shows us that anunders tanding of cul tura l dynam ics can help us br idge the ga pbetween those of us who grew up in the dominant culture and those ofus who did not. H er ski ll as a social scientist comb ine s beautifullywith her passion for Christ ian ministry in this ar t icle.

Habi to and Poi t ras br ing a wor ld perspect ive to minis ter ia leducation, based on thei r vast experience and seasoned theologicalreflection. After reading thei r work, no one has any excuse for notbeing able to define the word globalization. Nor is there any doubt thatthis change in thinking will have a strong effect on church leadershipin years to co m e. In this context, i t is im portant to understan d andrespect the strong reservations about multiculturalism lodged byAfr ican theologians . Our fami l ia r , comfor table , commonsense not ionsof the world may be destabi l ized by clear voices from these othercultures. Dr. Avotr i ' s voice is one such, and his word of memorial andcaution for Afr ica is a necessary component of our discussion.W hen w e ar r ive a t Professor Inbo dy 's essay, we have reached apoint for a sustained reflection on the dist inctive challenge ofotherness . Wi th a marvelous economy of words Inbody expresses theessence of difference and why it is vital for our spiri tual health. I alsocommend Byron Bangert 's essay to you for i ts abi l i ty to move you toreflection about God's ongoing presence in the physical world. WithJ im H am ish 's lect ionary s tudy, we can hear the music of par t icular i tyin the universal messa ge of sa lvat ion. H am ish apt ly quotes JohnD onn e: . . and therefore never send to kno w for w hom the bell tolls;i t tolls for thee."

I bid you a safe and blessed holida y season,Sharon He ls


9/118


10/118

in terms of the benefi ts we expect to get out of those exchanges."What's in i t for me?" we ask. If we Uke "what 's in i t ." we' re ready todeal; i f we don' t , we walk away. When we begin to deal, we may thenweigh a lot of things: cost, quali ty, appearance, convenience,avai labi l i ty, rel iabi l i ty. If we ' r e satisfied that w e can secure thebenefi ts we value on acceptable terms, then we close the deal.Exchange completed. If we are not satisf ied, we keep shopping unti lwe find what we want.

In a market economy, enterpr ises of var ious kinds flourish whenthey are able to offer goods and deliver services that people need andwant on terms that they find acceptable. "Acceptable" usually meanson terms that no one else can qui te match. Enterpr ises that are unableto meet this challenge quickly decline and eventually go out ofbusiness . A mar ket ing context i s h ighly compet i t ive . Not everybodymakes i t . There are winners and losers. To succeed, you have to havean edge. Other wi se , you get nowhe re , and you wi ll yourself becom eone of the losers.

Advocates of market thinking do not worry about the negative sideeffects of competi t ion, however. They see competi t ion as a posi t ivegood. Competi t ion produces discipline. It focuses attention. Itstimulates the imagination. It calls forth in us that extra bit of effort werequire for success. In competi t ion, we achieve what we might nototherwise be able to do! The contention is that through market-dr ivencompet i t ion hum an energ ies wi l l be ful ly mobi l ized. A ggres s ive,h ighly compet i t ive hum an beings wi l l open up so ma ny newopportunities that even the least successful will benefit in the long run.

Finally , whether we ar e buyers or se l le rs , mar ket th inkingindividualizes us. It disintegrates the social bonds that in moretradi t ional societies formed and defined human li fe. If we are buying,we assess for ourselves what we need, want, and desi re as individuals;we then determine what i t takes to get these things. In the wholeprocess we may give only secondary attention to the implications ofour choices for others. If we are sell ing, we assess our capaci ty todeliver what people need and want for our own personal gain. Themarket does not dispose us to think of the common good.

Market thinking involves at least three things: 1) an or ientation toindividual needs and wants, 2) involvement in exchanges that addressthose needs and wants for personal gain, and 3) competi t ion amongenterpr ises offer ing part icular goods and services.


11/118

Market thinking has had a m ajor im pact on all of our basicsocial institutions. Wh ile this im pact has not been withoutpositive benefits, it has at best been m orally am biguous.Market thinking enhances individual freedom and ini t iat ive. It givesus a level of independence not previously known in human societies.Yet i t has also wea kened the bonds that mak e up our basic socialinsti tutions.

Consider the family. We speak nostalgically about family ties. Yettoday there are few, very few, who would pass up opportuni t ies forpersonal gain even though seizing such an opportuni ty has the effectof cutt ing them off from ongoing relationships with thei r extendedfamilies. We now expect people to go where the opportuni t ies are. Wecelebrate individuals who are ambitious, who desi re to get ahead. Weconsider this desi re to be the r ight of every individual.

Even intimate relations among lovers and spouses are continuallysubject to a ma rketi ng test: Is the relationship mu tually satisfying,fulfilling? Inde ed, I may as k. Is the rela tion shi p the mo st fulfilling andsatisfying am ong those that are avai lab le to me at a given t im e? We tryout relationships before we consider marr iage, and we treat marr iageitself as a provisional covenant. In a New Yorker car toon, a youngwoman, refer r ing to her new male companion, expresses herhappiness to a fr iend. "Isn' t he nice!" she says. "We have atwenty-four month lease."

"I did not come into this world to meet your expectations, nor didyou come into the world to meet mine," wrote Fr i tz Perls, a guru ofself-realization psychology. "If we happen to connect," he continued,"th at 's beautiful. If we do not, then no one is to blam e." M ark etthinking invades love and marr iage. The family was once a pr imalsocial unit; today it is an association of free and independentindividuals for mutual benefi t .

Pol i t i cs and government have undergone s imi lar t ransformat ionsunder the impact of market thinking. Within a l iberal democraticsociety, we once descr ibed poli t ics as public discourse about thecommon good. We viewed poli t ical part ies as advocates of contrastingphilosophies about how best to advance the common good. We do sono longer. Poli t ics and government are now about marketing, thoughin this case the fundamen tal me dium of exch ang e is votes, not money.Money comes as the fruit of successful political deals. As anindividual, I give my vote to the legislator or executive who will cast


12/118

his or her vote for legislation and for administrat ive policies that favormy par t icular in teres ts .

H ere , too. I ask , "W ha t ' s in i t for m e? " The successful pol i t i c iansare those wh o are ski lled at offer ing servic es and policies that favor awide array of diverse interests. The challenge, of course, is to packagethese offer ings in a manner that is acceptable to enough voters toensure re-election. We take i t for granted that each person has his orher own stake in the transactions that now make up legislative andadmini s t ra t ive pr ocesses . In teres t-group pol i t i cs , we cal l it . Languageabout the common good disappears, or better , i t serves as packaging inthe mar ket ing of pol icy pr oposals .

The n ineteenth century , some analysts a rgue, was the era of thena t ion-s ta te . Na t iona l i sm was the dominan t soc i a l and cu l tu ra lfo rce among human be ings , t r anscend ing o lde r r e l i g ious , e thn ic ,cul tura l , and class boundar ies . In that context , the pressure on thechurch was to combine the gospe l wi th na t iona l i s t sen t iments , wi thpa t r i o t i sm. Our goa l , we c la imed , was to Chr i s t i an i ze f i r s t theUni ted States and then the wor ld; in the process , of course , we alsoamer i can ized Chr i s t i an i ty . In the name of Jesus Chr i s t , we c rea tedc iv i l r e l i g ion .

In the late twentieth century, nationalism has been replaced byeconom ism and the nat ion-s ta te by t ransnat ional corporat ions a l lseeking market advantages in a wor ld arena. This new economismmay mitigate some of the worst excesses of nationalism, part icularlyracism and cultural chauvinism, as well as the mili tar ist ic pursui t ofglobal hegemony through armed conquest . Yet th i s economism alsoundermines the sense of social solidar i ty that once bound humanbeings together within identif iable national boundaries. As a result ,organic conceptions of society have given way to purely contractualconcept ions . Socie t ies a re mere conglomerates of indiv iduals whoenter in to var ious col lect ive ar r angem ents out of percep t ions of mutualadvantage.

It should not surpr ise us that market thinking now profoundlyaffects the churches' ministr ies as well. For the most part , we do notgo to a church because we are convinced that i t teaches the truth orthat it practic es faithful disci pleshi p. We go to a chu rch becau se i toffers services we value.

The services we seek are by no means tr ivial. They are vi tallyimpor tant to human well-be ing. We look to the church, for ex am ple,for resources to cope with l i fe 's stresses and to endure i ts tr ials. We


13/118

expect the church to he lp us absorb deep d isapp ointm ents , to surv ivegr ievous loses, and f inally, to face our own inevitable death. We lookto the church for meaning and purpose that will give direct ion for ourdaily existence. We want the church to re inforce our deepestconvic t ions and to conf i rm our pr imary va lues . We requi rel ike-minded people to he lp us fee l good about our own commitments .

Many of us also turn to the church for ass is tance in rear ing andnurtur ing children. We feel keenly the weakness and vulnerabil i ty ofthe family. We urgently seek programs that will help our children andyouth res is t powerful social and cultural pressures that now placethem in di re jeopardy .

In a market context, we shop for a church that can respondsatisfactor i ly to these need s, and wc affi l iate with a chur ch only if w efind what we are looking for . Even then, our commitment is l ikely tobe qualif ied. Wc part ic ipate only so long as and insofar as the churchwe have chosen fulf i l ls our expectat ions.

Not only do we pick and choose among churches , usual ly wi thoutregard for denominational aff i l ia t ion; we also pick and choose amongthe prog ram s and se rvices provided by the church w e do jo in. Weremain ready to change churches i f another promises to be moresat isfying. If we cannot f ind a church that sat isf ies us, we may resortto available social and cultural alternat i ves pro fession al cou nselin g,suppor t groups of var ious ki nds , f i tness cente rs , exper im enta l re l ig ioussociet ies . In this environment no congregation can flour ish unless i tcan compete successful ly for members .

I would even argue that the First Amendment to the U.S.Const i tution ins t i tutional izes a mar ket or ienta t ion within re l ig iousbodies . Because th is amendment both prohibi ts any es tabl ishment ofrel igion and also protects the free exercise of rel igion, every church,every re l ig ious assoc ia t ion must win and hold i t s members , one byone, or i t will have no members at all . That task requires some vers ionof market ing.

My basic cla im is that we can no longer escape a marketor ientat ion, no matter what our att i tude toward i t may be. I t ispervasive in our culture, and i t a lready operates in the churches weserv e. Inevitably, i t affects our m ini str ies . W e hav e to learn how totake this real i ty into account and to work with i t appropr iately if weare to be effective.


14/118

The m od ern roots of m arketing are capitalist econom ics.Given its origins, m arket thinking is independ ent of thegospel, even alien to it. It d id not em erge frofn sustainedattention to the Christian m essage. To use m arketing in ourm inistries is to apply contem porary social practices to thosem inistries.This point, I suspect, is fa ir ly obvious given my init ia l character izat ionof market thinking. When I say that marketing is al ien to the gospel, Ido not necessarily mean that it is hostile to it. Not all aliens areenemies! They may s imply be strange, unfamil iar . What is al ien to theChrist ian gospel is , however , essentially independent of dist inct iveChrist ian thinking. To f i t Chr is t ian fa ith and pract ice, i t must bereshaped. Wh en Chr is t ians a t tempt to reshape for thei r own purposescultural mater ials that belong to their wider social environment, thenthe i r se lf -unders tanding as Chr i s t ians wi l l a lso under go chan ge . Theywill see themselves in terms of their relat ionship with those culturalmate r ia ls .

There is nothing new about this interplay of fa ith and culture. I t hasbeen going on s ince the beginning of the Chr ist ian world mission.Nonetheless, i t is important to pay attention to these processes ofmutual adaptat ion and change when we assess the role of marketingprac t ices in our m inis t r ies .

For the modem West, market thinking f irs t came into i ts own in theopen squares of free European cit ies , that is , c i t ies that were not underthe control of the great landed estates of the feudal order. In these freecit ies , farmers, hunters , craftspeople, weavers, and bakers broughttheir wares to market and exchanged them, f i rs t by bar ter , la ter byus ing money as a means of exchange . Market exchanges made up theeconomic ac t iv i ty through which growing numbers of people ea rnedthe means of subsistence.

Under the aegis of European imper ial powers, f i rs t Spain andPortugal, and later , the Netherlands and England, this form of marketthinking soon took on world-histor ical s ignif icance. Indeed, the age ofEuropean explora t ion depended upon i t .

I t was only with the advent of industr ial capital ism in the nineteenthcentury, however , that the logic of the free market came into i ts own.Building upon the social philosophy of the European Enlightenment, i tbegan to shape the economic and poli t ical organizat ion of bothWestern Europe and the United States.


15/118

Init ia l ly, market capital ism required the protect ion of s trongnational s tates, preferably those with l iberal democrat ic poli t icalstructures. In fact , Karl Marx considered l iberal democracy to be anessential superstructure for fur ther ing the interests of an emergentbourgeois capital is t c lass. The democrat ic s tate was designed, on theone hand, to break the power of the older monarchies and theland-based ar is tocracies that supported them, and, on the other , tocontrol the r is ing proletar iat , the new class of industr ial wage laborers .The purpose of s trong, highly central ized nation states, Marxcontended, was not to inst i tut ionalize the freedom and equali ty of allpeopleas democra t ic theor is ts c la imed. I t was to mainta in aframework of social order suited to capital is t development.

Even so, Marx believed, the highest s tage of capital ism would beimper ial ism, thai is , a global marketplace that swallowed up andoverwhelmed all nat ional and regional differences. In this respect,Marx antic ipated the transcendence of nat ionalism in a globale c onom is m .

Marx's point was that market capital ism knows no bounds. I tsdr iving dynamic is the creat ion of wealth. The wealth i t createsgenera tes even m ore w eal th, and so on without end. Mor eover , marketcapital ism uses any means at i ts disposal to produce wealth. Par t icularproducts and services are matters of indifference, merelyexchangeable means to the product ion of weal th.

The problem is that capital is t logic entails the unrelentingexploitat ion of labor power, using up human beings as raw mater ialsin the productive process. Marx saw this exploitat ion of human laboras the Achilles heel of capital ism. At some point, he predicted, thewor kers would r ise up and say, "N o m or e ." They would se ize forthemselves ownership and control of the means of production, In sodoing, they would transform capital ism and the l iberal democrat icstate into social ism. The free market would then give way to a newkind of social order marked by social sol idar i ty and collect ive act ion.

Marx's project ions of social revolution have proven to be naive andUtopian. Market capital ism, not social ism, has emerged tr iumphant inthe forward movement of history. Yet Marx did correctly discern thepervasive influence of the market thinking that res ides in capital is tproduction. He also recognized that capital ism itself could not surviveunless workers found ways to restra in i ts excesses.

My point here is that marketing is not a fruit of the Chr ist ian gospelbut a creat ion of capital is t economics. If we are to make use of


16/118

market ing in the churches ' minis t r ies , we have to recognize tha t weare attempting to br ing into the service of the gospel a modality ofthinking that is in the f i rs t instance independent of the gospel, a l ien toit , and per hap s at t imes h ost i le to i t . We ar e, in shor t , dar in g to learnsomething from the shrewdness of the children of this age.

Contemporary discuss ions somet imes highl ight e lec t roniccommunica t ions media as the dr iv ing force behind cur rent changes inmark et ing pr ac t ices . They s t ress the develop men t of na t ional andglobal communications systems, where satell i tes and f iber optic cablesl ink com puter ne tw or ks , fax m achin es , te lephones , televis ion, and thel ike . I contend on the cont ra ry that comm unic a t ions techn ologies a r e 'themselves a der iva t ive of econom ic forces . I t was the global im petusof market capital ism that f i rs t prompted the development of thesetechnologies. At the same t ime, the global reach of capital ism couldnot be fully rea l ized wi thout the wi desprea d i mplem enta t ion of thesetechnolog ie s .

Elec t ronic communica t ions now furnish the pr imary media throughwhich mar ket ing occu rs , s ignif icant ly disp lac ing face- to-facebarga ining and a lso reduc ing the impor tance of pr int media . Tocons ider the uses of market ing in our m inis t r ies , we have to ga in som efamil iar i ty with and skil l in the uses of the electronic media.

Evangelical Protestantism , the d istinctively No rth Am ericanform of Christianity, has from its beginnings displayed anoteworthy affinity with m arket thinking. The peculiar successof this form of Christianity stem s from its congruence with amarketing orientation.M ax W eber argued that Calvinism fostered an ethic congeni al to the r iseof capitalism. It was no accid ent, he asserted, that capitalism firstestablished itself in national settings where Calvinism was preeminent. Ina similar fashion. I am suggesting that evangelical Protestantism iscongeni al to the mar ket o rientation, first, of a mercanti le society, andlater, of maOire capitalism. Evan gelical P rotestantism also has specialadvantages amid the economism of global capitalism. If we wish toexplore ways of utilizing market orientations in the service of the gospel,we would do well to examine the practices of evangelical Christians.

Evangel ica l Protes tant ism has roots in Luther an pie t ism and inBapt ist forms of Engl ish Pur i tani sm. I t enjoyed d ramat ic and


17/118

se lf -consc ious development in the e ighteenth-century Methodis tmovement in England. I t came fully into i ts own in North Americant radi t ions of grea t awakenings , reviva ls , and camp meet ings .

To display the connect ions b e tween evangel ica l Protes tant ism andmodern market thinking, I want to focus on two f igures: John Wesleyand George Whit f ie ld.

Unl ike his Lutheran, Calvinis t , and Pur i tan predecessors , JohnWesley was not a reformer. He accepted as normative classic Chr ist ianteaching, especially that of the ecumenical creeds. He rel ied heavilyupon the theological contr ibutions of Luther , Calvin, and theirsuccessors to guide his ow n thinking . H e aff i rmed the apostol icministry of Anglican pr iests , and he stressed the central i ly ofsacramental means of grace. He cer ta inly had no intention ofes tabl ishing a new church, or even a new denominat ion. His concernwas rather to reaw aken the churc h, to call it to new l ife in the Spir i t ,a l l within established ecclesial sett ings.

To renew the church Wesley had to br ing the gospel to the people.In the midst of ear ly capital is t developments, the English masses wereno longer much in evidence in the churches. Wesley also had to devisestructures of discipl ine to nurture new converts in the Chr ist ian l ife . Inmany respects , these structures of discipl ine were Wesley's mostlas t ing accompl ishment . These s t ruc tures were not intended as newforms of the church. They se rved as supplementa ry a r rang emen ts forfur ther ing Chr is t ian prac t ice . They p roved them selves by the i reffect iveness in promoting that pract ice.In his attempts to carry out l i is mission of renewal, Wesley found i tnecessary to recast Chr ist ian teaching in a fashion that dramatized i tsconcrete, exper iential import for human l ife . Pract ical Divinity, hecalled i t . Chr is tologies, doctr ines of the Tr inity, theor ies ofa tonementhowever t rue these and s imila r formula t ions of Chr is t ianteaching might be, Wesley believed, they are i r relevant to human l ifeunless we can show what difference they make in the ways weactually l ive and grow as persons of fa ith. Even Scr ipture, despite i tsformal author ity as witness to divine revelat ion, is i r relevant unless welearn to read i t not merely as a source of correct teaching but above allas a resource for Chr ist ian l iving.

Wesley repackaged the gospel, we could say, in order to make cleari ts import in relat ion to real human needs and desires. In carrying outthis task, he made use of thought forms and cultural expressions thatwere par t of his own sett ing. To the quest ion What 's in i t for me? he


18/118

had an answer : sa lva t ion. And sa lva tion em brac es human digni ty,person al wo rth, and above all , joy in kn ow in g yo urself to be a childbeloved of God. Wesley promised his followers hear ts f i l led with lovefor God and for neighbor . In turn, these followers submittedthemselves to the pract ical discipl ines he set for th, confident thatthrough them they too might par t ic ipa te joyfully in the wo ndr ous andunparalleled benefits of the gospel.

W here does Geor ge Whit f ie ld com e into the pic ture? For one th ing,he spanned the Atlantic , l inking the Methodist revival in England tothe Great Awakening in the United States, More important for ourpurp oses , he drew upon his tra in ing and exper i ence as a pr ofess ionalactor to perfect the process of s taging and marketing the evangelicalwitness .

In a recent biography of Whitf ield, enti t led The Divine Dramatist,my col league H ar ry Stout observes tha t Whit f ie ld se l f-consc ious lyplaced himself in the marketing context of the emergent mercanti lesociety in colonial America. This was the same society, incidentally,that Jonathan Edw ards deplored as mate r ia l is t ic , the epi tom e of hum angreed.

In this new societal sett ing, Whitf ield carefully planned andvigorous ly promoted reviva l meet ings where he would preach theevangelical message of salvat ion. Fully ut i l iz ing his craft as an actor ,he created a dramatic mass sett ing for his preaching and thendel ivered his se rmons as a per forming a r t . H e transformed the se rmoninto per form ance in order to persuade p eople to accept the prom ise ofnew l ife in Jesus Chr ist . So skil led an orator was he that even the oldskept ic Benjamin Frankl in came to hear h im preach. Frankl in was notinterested in evangelical Chr ist ianity, but he was fascinated byWhitf ield's abil i ty to put on a "really big show."

Like Wesley, Whitf ield had no intention of founding or buildingchurches . He was qui te de l ibe ra te about t ranscending es tabl ishedconfess ional and denominat ional boundar ies . His goal was a newawakening of fa ith. The established churches were welcome to followthrough if they were disposed to do so. His vocation was to put thegospel before the people with all of the communicative ar ts that wereat his disposal.

Because of his great success, Whitf ield became the model for greatevangelis ts f rom Billy Sunday to Billy Graham, including thete levangel is ts . W hat is notewo r thy abo ut George W hit f ie ld, however ,is tha tlike Bi l ly Graham in our own t imehe managed to avoid the


19/118

self- indulgent excesses that we associate with some televangelists.Temptat ions surely abounded, but he remained a s t ra ight a r row. Hisrew ard w as satisfaction in a job w ell done.

Protestant growth in the U.S. has from the founding of the nationbeen strongly led by evangelicals. Not only was thei r approachcongenial to the growth of capi talism, but i t was also ideally sui ted tothe "f ree e xer c i se" c lause of the Fi rs t Am endm ent. For evangel icals ,the church by i ts very nature cannot be "estabUshed." The church isprecisely the gather ing by fai th of those who have been "born again"in Jesus Christ . Evangelicals embraced the opening created by theFirst Amendment to win the nation for Jesus Christ .

Ini t ially the Methodists were uniquely successful in spreading theevangelical message. At the end of the Revolutionary War, Methodistswere an inconsequential fragment of the population of the fledglingnation. By the beginning of the Civi l War, however, they made up 30percent of the population. In subsequent decades, the Baptists caughtup and even surpassed them , jo ined m ore recent ly by H ol iness andPentecostal churches . These churches share in common an evangel icalunderstanding of Christ iani ty.

Evangelical Protestantism, I am suggesting, is a version of theChrist ian gospel that is part icularly compatible with market thinking:1) i t addresses individuals, not corporate bodies; 2) i t packages thegospel in a m ann er that highlig hts i ts l i fe-transform ing benefi ts forthose who receive i t ; 3) i t stresses performance ski lls by preachers fordeliver ing i ts message; and 4) i t creates associational contexts tosustain and nurture i ts adherents.

As this evangelical impulse detached i tself from the constraints ofolder catholic and reformed tradi t ions of Christ ian understanding, i tgenerated a new ecclesiology. The church came to be understood as agathered association of individuals whose l ives have been transformedby the gospel of Jesus Christ and who by the power of the Spir i t aregrowing toward holiness of l i fe. Baptists, Disciples of Christ , andPentecostals doubtless embody this understanding in i ts purest andmost consistent form. Yet none of the U.S. churches has beenunaffected by this pattern of thinking.

If this account of evangelical Protestantism is more or less accurate,i t should not surpr ise us that rapidly growing congregations, those thatfully uti l ize marketing pr inciples, are marked by an evangelical andchar i sm at ic e thos. The em phases on exper i ence and pract ical benef i tsl ikewise permit elements of new age spi r i tuali ty to make thei r way


20/118

in to more t rad i t ional Chr i s t ian contexts . The older Cathol ic andreformed standards of doctr ine tend to lose thei r authori ty, yielding tothe eclect ic i sm of contem porar y re l ig ious l i fe .

Our assessments of the appropr ia teness of market techniques to thechurches ' minis t r ies wi l l , I suspect , involve us to some degree in acr i t i cal reconsiderat ion of the evangel ical her i tage, wi th a t tent ionboth to i ts strengths and weaknesses, i ts relative legi t imacy and i tsl imi ta t ions .

Despite its alien and am b iguous qualities, m arketing can helpus think critically abo ut congregational practices in theservice of authentic Christian m ission.The important point to note here is that marketing is not s imply asearch for ways to tell our story more effectively. It is first of all anattempt to discover anew just what our story is , why i t matters, andwhy i t deserves a hear ing. Stated differently, marketing is not onlyabout persuading, convincing, enlist ing, sell ing. It is also aboutdefining, clar i fying, focusing, and then implementing our mission asthe people of God.

In secular contexts, marketing studies do not begin with theformation of a plan for promoting and sell ing a product or service. Ata more bas ic level , they involve recon ceiv ing , redes igning, and inextreme cases even reconst i tu ting v ar ious prod ucts and serv ices , inorder to respond to changing sensibi l i t ies within the society. As the feltneeds and value preferences of potential customers and clients shift ,market ing requi res a cor responding sh i f t in products and serv icesthemselves. A fai lure to adjust to changing needs and expectations willresult in a loss of market share, perhaps even of commercial viabi l i ty.

How can market ing help the church? Market ing chal lenges us toexam ine cr i t i cal ly w hat we are doing . It p resses us to weigh ourcur rent pract ices , to determine wh ether or not they cont inue to makesense in l ight of contemporary human reali t ies. I t st imulates us toventure new ways of doing things. It presses us to experiment withnew ways of configuring ourselves that may connect more effectivelywith the felt needs of those who are around us.

Last fall I had a student in my class from one of the newnondenominat ional megachurches . His church was self-consciouslyinvolved in market ing act iv i t ies . He repor ted ongoing d iscuss ions


21/118

among the lay leadership that centered on the questions What dopeople need? and How can we respond to those needs?

Questions of this kind can be quite salutary! It is often said thatexperi ence is the best teacher. Yet what w e learn from experi ence is thatmost people don't learn much from it. We tend to keep doing the sameold things regardless of the results. If things do not go w ell, w e g enerallymake excuses or look for someone to blame. Perhaps we try harder atwha t we are already doing in the hope that greater effort will turn thingsaroun d. This response is reinforced by the fact that there are alway s thoseamong us who have a personal stake in existing practices and who holdto them tenaciously. Only rarely do we reexamine our practices, assessthem critically, and venture new imd more promising approaches thatreflect what we have uncovered in our inquiries.

Pastors in particular easily slip into the pattern of sim ply reacting todemands that fall upon them. Servant ministry seems to imply that we areto do our best to meet any hum an n eeds and expectation s that com e to ourattention. Yet the deman ds of ministry eventually w ear us dow n. Wh en theyoverwhelm us, we " bum out." Wc do not easily entertain new w ays ofdealing with these dema nds that might make them m ore m anageable.

Market th inking does not a lways or even character i s t ical ly lead tohappy endings. In the midst of shift ing societal forces and relentlesssocia l change, not every minis t ry or every congregat ion i s v iable .Some are doomed to per i sh , l ike the blacksmi th shops that oncedot ted ou r coun t rys ide . Denomina t iona l commi tments o f va r iouskinds may no longer be susta inable , requi r ing us to res t ructure andst reamline our act iv i t ies .

Growing churches , we observe, a re character i s t ical ly located inhighly visible places on major transportation arter ies. They are readi lyaccessible to people over a fai r ly large geographic area. For the mostpart , they are large churc hes w ith large, specialize d professiona l staffscapable of const ruct ing and pr ovid ing a rem arka ble var ie ty of sp i r i tualsupport systems, calibrated to the diverse needs of thei r consti tuents.The s tudent I men t ioned ear l ie r r epor ted that h i s church had bec om e akind of center to address vi r tually all personal and associational needsof mem bers and consti tuents : day care , parent suppor t gr oups, apr ivate elementary school, a f i tness center , cultural and recreationalactivi t ies, not to mention a var iety of worship services reflectingdiverse l i turgical practices. Their goal was nothing less than to offer atotal Christ ian environment for the dai ly l ives of members. Only theworkplace and public arena were not addressed by their ministries. It is


22/118

probably not too much to suggest that the shopping mall provides themodel for such churches.

A comm itment to marketing is not automatically a comm itment tofavor megachurches. In business activities, the mass market may be themo st lucrative, but i t is also the most com petitive. Som etim es the betterstrategy is to locate a distinct niche that a given enterprise can fillsuccessfully. Similarly, a particular congregation or denomination mayidentify a distinctive m ission w ithin a complex social fabric, one notlikely to evok e a mass r espon se but still one that might p rove deeplymeaningful for selected individuals and fam ilies. In either case, a mark etorientation forces a church to become clearer about i ts central mission.

Market thinking can, of course, degenerate into a scramble to offerpeople whatever they seem to want, for instance, as the mass medianow tend to cater uncr i t ically to what appear to be the preferences of avast major i ty. That may be a formula for short-term success, for quickprofi ts; yet i t may also be a formula for long-term decline, wherestandards are lost in a swirl of immediacy.

At i ts best, however, market thinking can st imulate a congregationto fresh thinking about i ts identi ty and mission. Who are we as thepeople of Go d in Jesus Chr i s t? Wh at are our d i s t inctive t rad i t ions?H ow can we em bod y them m ore fai thfully, m or e fully, m oreeffectively? At this point, we are dr iven to a deeper engagement withour classic tradi t ions, with the elemental sources of our deepestconvictions. We have to discover anew what is at stake in thoset rad i t ions , what they say about hum an exis tence.

As we gain c lar i ty about our miss ion, we are a lso impelled tosearch for practical ways to implement that mission in the l i fe of theworld. We str ive to focus our resources and our energy in a way thatwi l l resonate wi th the needs of those who are wi th in our reach, evenif we cannot t ransform ourselves in to a m ass chur ch. We cancer ta in ly touch more deeply the l ives of those who become a par t ofour common l i fe , worship , and work.

Ma rket thinking can serve the Christian m ission only if werem ain critical of its operation, only if we find way s of lim itingtendencies within it that ultim ately contradict the gospel itselfMany things can be said at this point. I want to focus my concludingremarks on one theme: market thinking tends to respond to and foster


23/118

individualistic self-indulgence and short-term advantages at theexpense of genuine human well-being over the long-term. How canmarketing be qualified, even transformed, so that i t serves to glorifyGod and to foster the neighbor love that defines us as the people ofGod?

As I hear i t , the gospel does declare God's compassionate love forall creation . In this resp ect, God w ills my fulfil lment and y ourfulfi l lment as creatures of God. God also summons us to responsibleroles in the realization of the divine p ur pose . To be given these roles isnot a burden but a pr ivi lege, a mark of God's generosi ty. "Take myyoke upon you and learn of me," Jesus admonished his followers, "forI am meek and lowly of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls."

The re is , how ever, a par adox : though G od is interested in my good ,1 cannot claim that good for myself so long as I remain preoccupiedwith my own individual needs and interests. Paradoxically, I canrealize my own good only when 1 have ceased to care about i t , when Ihave rather become absorbed by the grandeur and beauty of the tr iuneGod. Simultaneously and in conjunction with my relation to God, Ilearn to delight in the beauty of my fellow human beings, indeed, ofal l God 's extraord inary creatures . Concern for the i r well-be ing beginsto surpass my former preoccupat ions wi th my own good. And where Isee ugliness and brokcnncss in those around me, I am not repulsed. 1feel compassion, l ike the compassion God has bestowed upon me; forI know that the ugliness I see discloses deep wounds that cry out forhealing. My bonds to God in fai th and to my neighbor in love displacemy anxious concern for my own advantage.

Jesus put i t quite succinctly: those who seek to save their lives willlose them, but those who lose thei r l ives for my sake and the gospel 'swill f ind them, Jesus' words refer specif ically to the cost ofdiscipleship that his followers will have to bear. Yet i t also names theprofound turnaround we require i f wc are to share in the promises ofthe gospel. If I am interested only in getting what I think I need andwant, then what I get will nei ther meet my needs nor satisfy mydes i r es . 1 can discover w hat I truly need and wan t, what authenticallypromises my fulfi l lment, only when by the Spir i t of God I have begunto find myself in the wider arena defined by the majesty of God andthe digni ty and beauty of my fellow creatures. "God knows yourneeds," Jesus reassured his disciples. "Seek fi rst the kingdom of Godand God's r ighteousness, and you will discover that you also have allthat you requi re ."


24/118

We do have a story to tell . We have g ood n ew s to offer the w orld.Specialists in marketing can help us tell our story more effectively. Wehave things to learn from those who are shrewd in dealing with thisgeneration! Let us, however, be wise as serpents and yet as innocent asdoves. Then we can remain fai thful to our call ing.


25/118


26/118

by the Bishop, Dis t r ic t Super in tendent , Board of Ordained Minis t ryand the Jo int Review Committee come under especia l ly sharpscrutiny. Because of this scrutiny, there is a strong temptation to beguided strongly by the safe and culturally accepted evaluations whichare done by therapis ts , insurance companies , and the cour ts .

But i t is precisely in these hard cases of clergy misconduct whereour theological self-understanding as a church must be invoked. Howthe church's own theological self-understanding should come into playin this process is the focus of this paper. Specifically, I want to dealwith the theological question at the heart of many questions involvingclergy misconduct. As I see i t , the issue can be stated this way: Shouldwe, as a church built on forgiveness, ever recomm end extremesanctions to a minister, such as the termination of Con ferencemem bership and the revocation of one's ordination?As a member of a Joint Review Committee, I have to say that thereare many who assume that the answer to this question is obvious,because I have heard from many people on this issue. The problem isthat this assumption is made by people on both sides of the issue. Thisquestion, then, needs some theological reflection.

C r i t e r i a t o C o n s i d e r W h e n D e a l i n g w i t h A l l e g a t i o n s o fC l e r g y M i s c o n d u c tA s stated in paragra ph 45 4. Ic of the 1992 Uni ted M ethod ist Book ofDiscipline, the Jo int Review Committee

shall receive from the chairperson of the Board of OrdainedM inistry all complaints and seek resolution o f them... Ifresolution of the matter is not achieved, the Joint ReviewCom mittee shall refer the complaint including the entire filewith any recommendations for remedial action to the Board ofOrda ined M inistry for its consideration.

This process of seeking "resolution" is not guided by any specialcr i ter ia in the Book of Discipline. Accordingly, let me share some ofthe cr i ter ia which were developed during the course of deliberations ofthe Jo int Review Committee of the Iowa Annual Conference. ' This i snot presumed to be an exhaustive list, but i t can be of help in seeingthe var iety of issues involved in such cases.


27/118

M any different issues are raised by an allega tion of clergy jmi scondu ct. The cr i ter ia for the evaluatio n of clergy cond uct can , |however, be placed in three broad and overlapping categories:pastoral, professional, theologic al. I will l ist here just a few of the ^specif ic issues whi ch are relevan t for each of these cr i ter ia . ;

iPastoral i W ha t ci rcu mstan ces will contr ib ute to the pro cess of healing , not :only for the victim but also for the m ini ster and his/h er fami ly and for :the local church and the Annual Conference?What action will help to ensure the safety of future par ishioners?ProfessionalIf the gr ievance has meri t , what should the sanctions be? i Sh ou ld the sanction s vary accor ding to the status of the other pers on involv ed? For instan ce, in cases of sexual mi scon duct, should there be ^different levels of sanction if the other party is 1) laity, not in thecongr egation ; 2) a m em ber of the cong rega tion; 3) a m em ber of the *congregat ion rece iv ing counsel ing from the minis ter ; 4) a fellow |c le rgyper son? 1In relation to the above concern, has the issue of power abuse beenadequa tely dealt with? , H ow is the sacred trust of or dina tion the trust of both the lai ty and |also fellow cler gy to be protected and defended ? | H ow are we to in terpret the Disc ipl inary ma ndates , especia l ly those ,found in paragraphs 2623 (fai r process) and 454 (procedural steps forchur ch discipline )? What has been the cost of dealing with a par t icular epis ode , n ot Justin f inancial terms but also in terms of energy, t ime and innocence?Theological H ow are we to understand Jesu s' mandate not to judg e, especially inlight of the character assessme nts whi ch must take place if the Boar d of [Or dained Ministry is to function as directed in the Book of Discipline! H ow are forg iveness , repentance, res t i tu t ion and res torat ion re la ted? [ Is confession i tself a reason not to suffer the con sequ ence s of on e's 'ac t ions? i W ha t is the me anin g of accountab i l i ty in this sett ing? } A s Chr i s t ians , a re we doom ed to mak e no progr ess in the bat tle \with temptation and sin, or are w c to take ser iou sly our Uni ted "


28/118

Methodist ordination vows to "expect to be made perfect in love inthis H fe" and to "earn estly str ive after i t? "

In what follows, I want to focus on the specifically theologicalquestions at stake in the process of clergy character assessment. Thepastoral and professional questions are equally important, butanswering the theological questions will help to inform the answerswe will wish to give to the other questions.T h e o l o g y a n d C l e r g y D i s c i p l i n eStanley Hauerwas in his recent book After Christendom? has statedthe tension that mo st contem por ary U .S. Ch rist i ans will feel wh encal led in to a quest ion of church d isc ipl ine . H auer was wr i tes :

The church seems caug ht in an irresolvable tension today.Insofar as wc are able to maintain any presence in modernsociety we do so by being comm unities of care. Pastors becomeprimarily people who care. Any attempt in such a context forthe church to be a disciplined and disciplining commun ityseems antithetical to being a comm unity of care. As a result thecare the church gives, w hile often quite impressive andcompassionate, lacks the rationale to build the church as acomm unity capable of standing against the powers we confront.

That the church has difficulty be ing a disciplined commun ity,or even cannot conceive wha t it wou ld mean to be a disciplinedcomm unity, is not surprising given the church's social positionin developed econom ies. The church exists in a buyer's orconsum er's ma rket, so any suggestion that in order to he amember of a church you must he transformed by opening yourlife to certain kinds of discipline is almost impossible tomaintain. The called church has become the voluntary church,whose primary characteristic is that the congregation isfriendly. Of course, that is a kind of discipline, because youcannot belong to the church unless you are friendly, hut it'svery unclear how such friendliness contributes to the growth ofGod's church meant to witness to the kingdom ofGod.^

We in the church must resist the temptation to shr ink from disciplineunder the c loak of "care" or " f r iendl iness ." As Hauerwas has


29/118

art iculated i t , discipline is not a s implist ic question of "law vs. grace."Discipline is a question touching on our basic identi ty.

The Jo int Review Committee i s cal led together to "speak the t ru thin love" (Eph. 4:15) about the behavior of a colleague. As a groupdealing with church discipline, at t imes the truth which the JointReview Committee must speak i s a word of judgment . Let us , then,be clear about this task of judging, s ince that is a term that does notfall easi ly from the tongues of Christ ians.

J u d g m e n t a n d H y p o c r i syThere wi l l a lways be many who wi l l remind the members of anyJoint Review Com mi ttee that Jesus has sa id , "D o not jud ge so thatyou ma y not be jud ge d" (M att . 7 :1) . This ho we ver i s hardly the las tword on morali ty and the evaluation of character . I t does not evenfully express the views of Jesus on these issues.

We must all be clear that the biblica l injunction not to ju dg e doesnot br ing about an aboli t ion of morals. Mercy is not the same thing aspretending that there are no moral s tandards . On the contrary , Godhas set a moral s tandardloveand we wi l l be held accountable byGod for upholding that standard (cf. Rom. 14:12, "So then, each of uswi l l be accountable to God.") .

W h a t is ruled out of the Christ ian l i fe by the biblical condemnationof hum an judging i s hypocrisy. Conside r the passage refer red toabove: "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged." The realmeaning of this passage is clear only i f one continues reading. It is notthe process of making character assessments that is being ruled out.

For with the judgment you make you will he judged, and themeasure you give will he the measure you get. W hy do you see thespeck in your neighbor's eye, hut do not notice the log in your owneye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speckout of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite,first take the log out of your own eye, and then you w ill see clearlyto take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. (Matt. 7:1-5)

This full reading makes i t clear that Jesus was here condemninghypocrisy rather than the evaluation of character . Consider anotherpassage which makes the same point :


30/118


31/118

li teral death. To equate this with the loss of ministerial credentials is tofall into secular "career ism" at i ts worst.

One might better br ing up King David, who continued to serve asking after committ ing adultery and murder, or Peter who denied Christand then was forgiven by him. But the whole biblical truth on theqtiestion of fai led leadership is not that s imple ei ther . Consider:

Moses, who led the Hebrews on the i r most def in ingjourneythe Exodusbut who also was denied entry to thepromised land because the Lord was angry with him (Deut.3:26)Ananias and Sapphi ra , whose cr ime of wi thhold ing moneyfrom the church led to thei r deaths (Acts 5:1-11).

No one cons i s ten t p r inc ip le can be d rawn f rom these va r iousexamples . Because of th i s , I suggest that the passage we might bestrefer to i s that found in 1 Cor . 4 :1-2 . Th er e Paul s ays , "T hin k of usin th i s way, as servants of Chr i s t and s tewards of God 's myster ies .Moreover , i t i s requi red of s tewards that they be foundtrustwor thy." Trust and accountabi l i ty are a t i ssue in cases of c lergymisconduc t , and min i s te r s shou ld be he ld accountab le fo r the i rbre ach es of t rus t . In tegr i ty , not jus t the m in is ter ' s but a lso theintegr i ty of the minis t ry and the in tegr i ty of the whole church, i s a ts take in ou r r esponse to the behav io r exh ib i ted by peop le whofunct ion as chur ch pr ofess iona ls .

We cannot quest ion the fact of God 's forg iveness for s insconfessed and repented of , Wc should not seek to deny a minis termembersh ip i n God ' s chu rch , o r even in any pa r t i cu la r Un i tedMethod i s t Church . But , i n l i gh t o f Pau l ' s admoni t i on in F i r s tC o r i n th i an s , we must be prepared to deny the chance to serve furtherto those who in the most egregious cases violate the responsibi l i ty oftheir position of trust and authority.S in a n d th e S a n c t i f l c d L i f eW hen confronted wi th the i r inappropr ia te act ions , min is ters a reusually asked why they had engaged in this activi ty. Sometimes thei rresponses come down to refer r ing to Rom. I:l5ff, where Paul says .


32/118

"W hat I want to do I do not do , but wh at I ha te I do ." Th is theologica lpos i t ion ca l ls for a theologica l r espo nse .

W hile PauFs statement in Rom ans 7 migh t be taken as descr ibing thebehavior and self-understanding of some ministers, this scripture passageby Itself is not fully descri ptive of even P aul's o wn v iew o f the Christianlife. We might keep readi ng in Rom ans to see Paul asser t , "You, how ever ,are contro lled not by the sinful natur e but by the Spir it, if the Spirit ofGod l ives in yo u" (Ro m. 8:9). H ow these two Scr ipture passages arereconciled is clearly a matter of interpr etation. But that is not to say that itis an arbitrary question, for we in the United Methodist Church have aspecific theo logical traditio n that we are called to use to help us interpretScrip ture. Th e part of our tradition wh ich is m ost relevant to this case isour understanding of sanctification.

This understanding is clear ly spelled out not only in Wesley'sSermons and Notes but also in the Book of Discipline, Par . 67, "OurDoctr ina l Standards and Genera l Rules ." The Ar t ic les of Rel ig ionconcerni ng sancti f ica tion can be found on pp. 65 and 68-69. We canalso look under the "General Rules" and see that we are to continue toevidence our des i re for sa lva t ion: "Fi r s t : By doing no harm, byavoiding evi l of every kind . . . " (p. 72) .

We also need to make reference to the histor ic quest ions asked atordina t ion (Book of Discipline, par . 42 5) . such as :

2 . Ar e you going on to per fec t ion?3. Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this l ife?4. Are you earnestly str iving after i t? (p. 226)Tl i is cons is tent emphas is of our Uni ted Methodis t t radi t ion is

re f lec ted in such compara t ive analyses as H. Richard Niebuhr ' s Christand Culture. Most ins t ruc t ive for our purposes would be a compar isonof Niebuhr ' s inte rpre ta t ion of Luther , which he ca l led "Chr is t andCulture in Par ado x," and his reading of John W esley, "Chr is t theTransformer of Cul ture ."

Mar t in Luther c lea r ly enunc ia ted a view of simul Justus etpeccatorthat we are both just if ied and s inn er at the sam e tim e.While vi r tua l ly a l l Chr is t ians would agree with th is , Lutheremphasized this duali ty to such an extreme that he felt that our l ives inthis world were totally paradoxical: we have one foot in both campsand there is no ge t ting beyo nd tha t . H ence N ieb uh r ' s descr ipt ion ofthis v iew as "Chr is t and Cul ture in Paradox."

Som e c le rgy a t tempt to cla im this theologica l po s i t ion w hen theyare caught breaking the i r covenant commitments . They say, "We a re


33/118

sinners . I t is regrettable that these things happen, but what else canone expect?" This is totally at odds with the Wesleyan emphasis onsanctif icat ion and the power of the Holy Spir i t to conquer s in, thepow er to " t r ans fo rm " the wor ld .

This does not mean that all ministers are expected to achieve"sinless perfect ion," for even Wesley did not l ike that phrase. But we,l ike all Chr is t ians, are expected to avoid evil , do good, and attend tothe means of grace ( the General Rules). When we do not, there areconsequen ces to our ac t ions . Min is te rs , going back to the verybeginning of our denominat ion, have been he ld accountable formainta ining a high s tandard of behavior , and they have been removedfrom their posit ions when they have not l ived up to these standards.(See , for instance, the Minu tes of the Annua l C onference of theMe thodist Episcopal Chu rch for the Years 1773-1828 , Vol. / , p. 66,min utes for 1796, ques t ion 9 "W ho h ave been expel led from ourconnect ion for immoral conduct? Richard Ferguson.")

If an appeal to Romans 7 is to be the overr iding defense for anyclergy guil ty of mi scon du ct, then there can be no just if icat ion formaintaining any standards for professional behavior , s ince we are allapparent ly doomed to ping back and for th randomly be tween s in andholy l iving with no expectat ion of an explainable pattern of l ifeposs ible . The w hole gospel , as inte rpre ted by our t radi t ion, h owev er ,tells a much different s tory about s in, human freedom, and the powerof the Holy Spir i t to br ing about sanctif icat ion.

C o n c l u s i o nThe quest ion of what sanctions to apply in any par t icular case is notclear ly answered by refer r ing only to the theological cr i ter ia which Ihave been discuss in g. At th is point we m ust come back to our pas tora land professional cr i ter ia and br ing these together with our theologicalcr i ter ia and the facts of the par t icular case. What our reflect ions show,however , is that we must as a church make re la t ive and humbleyetdecis ive^judgments about our fellow professionals . We must see thatthere is no cont radic t ion be tween d isc ipl ine and grace , even disc ipl inethat results in the separat ion from our ranks of those who choose toviola te the comm unity coven ants . Fina lly, we m ust see tha t we n eednot, indeed we cannot, rely solely on psychology, the courts , or


34/118

insurance companies to declare our identi ty for us. We must beprepared to do so us ing our own theological r esourc es .

N o t e s

1. These criteria were developed by the Joint Review Committee appointed for the1992-1996 quadrennium. Included on this committee were Dr. Charles Smith, chair;Dr Mary Pope; Dr. Roger CouUon; R ev. Eldon N olle; Rev. Deb K iesey; and Rev.Tompsie Smith, district superintendent; and the author.2. (Nashvil le: Abingdon Press , 1991), 93-94.


35/118

Toinette M. Eugene

Crosscultural Ministry: Theory,Practice, Theology

7"^ie fact that there are now challenges to minister to differentcultural groups within the same geographic area hardly needs tobe proven anymore. Especially in urban centers on this continent,d i fferent e thnic comm uni t ies jos t le each other in ne ighbor hood s, inschools and churches, and in the workplace. The problem is, ofcour se, not a new on e; this country has Seen a steady flow ofimmigrants and refugees from the very beginning. But the pace andthe var iety have intensif ied. The 1990 U.S. census indicates that thiscountry became more culturally diverse during the 1980s than in anyother decade in this century. The Asian population increased 114percent in the 1980s; there are now at least 22 dist inctiveSpanish-speaking cul tures represented in the Uni ted States . Ther e arenow parts of the country where no cultural group consti tutes themajori ty of the local population (Los Angeles County being perhapsthe most d iverse) . Only Austra l ia i s propor t ionately m ore d iverseculturally than the United States.

The se chang es affect not only the coasts and the big ci t ies; eve nrelatively homogeneous parts of the country now feel the tensions thatToinette M. Eugene is Associate Professor of Christian Social Ethics at Garrett-Ev ang el ical T heo logica l Sem inary and a me mb er of the graduate faculty at Northwestern Universi ty in Evanston, Il l inois. She is the author of two forthcomingbooks : Lifting as We Climb : A Wom anist Ethic of Care (Abingdon, 1996) and Balm

for Gilead: Pastoral C are for African Am erican Fam ilies E :cperiencing Abu se,co-authored wi th James N. Pol ing (Abingdon, 1996) .


36/118

the encounter between the cul tures can create . Ou r econom y i s deeplyinterdependent in i ts ownership, i ts markets, i ts flow of goods. Recentdebates about that const i tu tes an "Amer ican made" automobi lei llustrate the fact of a crosscultural existence: Does the Americannessdepend on the ownership of the company? or the assembly takes placeand who does i t? or the percentage of parts manufactured in thiscountry? The discussions go on and on. People in rural areas thuspart icipate in the encounter (and sometimes clash) of peoples as muchas those l iving in centers of di rect immigration.

The church is called to minister in these situations and is oftenunpr epared to do so. This is especially so because of impor tant shiftsin att i tudes toward cultural minori ty groups that began to take place inthe 1960s. Pr ior to the 1960s, immigrant communities were urged togive up cultural pratices that would hinder thei r assimilation into themainst ream of socie ty . These cul tural pract iceslanguage, customs,and the l ikecould be maintained in the pr ivate ci rcle of the familybut would need to be forfeited in the workplace, the school, and thelarger society. In return for doing this the dominant culture promisedthe benefits of liberal ideology that grounded its approach to life in theUnited States: social mobil i ty, economic prosperi ty, and part icipationin wider civic l i fe. H owev er, i t beca m e appar ent in the 1960s that thesame dominant culture was not deliver ing on these promises to somegroupsespecia l ly Afr ican Amer icans, Nat ive Amer icans, andHispanic Amer icans. Race was a pr inc iple reason for th i s .Consequently, these and other groups experiencing this discr iminationbegan to insist on not assimilating but maintaining thei r dist inctivefeatures. Rather, they suggested, the dominant culture would have toacco m m odate to them . As the languag e of the 1970s put i t, the UnitedStates went from an ideology of the melting pot to that of a saladbowl. Some ethnic groups procla imed themselves "unmeltable ." In the1980s, the continuing discussion evolved into the language ofcrosscul tural i sm.

The vocabulary of crossculturalism has helped the church see thecomplexi ty of the issue without necessar i ly providing a great deal ofguidance about what to do. That cultures in thei r integr i ty should beesteemed and affi rmed; that cultural differences should be celebrated,not repressed; that i t is not s imply a matter of accommodatingminori ty cultures to the dominant culture but also the other wayaroundall of this is accepted by most people trying to be sensi t ive tohuman and pastoral needs of d iverse groups. L ikewise , conservat ive


37/118

cr i t ics have made us aware that the language of crossculturalism canbe misused. It has been wielded as a weapon to bash WesternEuropean cultures and to promote often uncri t ical agendas ofself- interest. ' T he latter has been eviden t in some of the debates ineducation. Others fear that the emphasis on crossculturalism will undothe glue that holds a pluralistic society together.^

Despi te the confusion and the potential misuses of crossculturallanguage, i t sti ll reflects a reality that churches have to deal with. APresbyter ian minis ter on Chicago 's Nor th S ide to ld me some yearsago that he kne w of f i fty-three languag e group s within his par ishboundaries, f ive of which held services in his church each weekend.What do ministers do when they are called to serve several culturalgroups in the same area? And how do dioceses, distr icts, and otherjudicator ies organize themselves to suppor t both communi t ies andthei r ministers in these mosaics of cultures?

Thi s essay tr ies to offer som e sugge stions about this. Fi rst , how toapproach this question of crosscultural ministry. Minister ial mindsetsare st i l l often shaped by dominant-culture dreams of assimilation(especially i f the minister comes from the dominant culture). Wantingto affirm cultural difference is a necessary starting point, but i t is notenough. Thus some ways of thinking about crosscultural sett ings givea framework for approaching the matter in a fresh way. Thatf ramework can provide a movement to a second concern: namely,what are some practical things that we can suggest to implement moreeffective crosscultural ministr ies?

These f i rst two parts draw heavi ly on the social sciences and studiesin intercul tural com mu nicat ion. For the minis ter , however , som ethingmore is needed: a theology that gives coherence to ministry incrosscultural settings. That will be taken up in the third part of thisessay.

F r a m e w o r k s f or U n d e r s t a n d i n g C r o s s c u lt u r a l S e t t i n g sIt is important to have a basic respect and esteem for each of thecultures in which and between which one ministers. Without that,crosscultural ministry is bound to fai l . The minister expressing thesevalues of respect and esteem sets the stage for people responding intrust to the minister . They also bespeak the minister 's will ingness to


38/118

learn from people in the culture. The question then ar ises: what is thenext step?

For someone having responsibi l i ty to offer ministry to severalcultures at the same timeespecially when the minister is not amember of any of the cultures or of only one of the several culturespresentit becomes impor tant to have ways of v iewing the workingsof culture. This is so in order to understand not only each culture butalso how cultures will be able to interact. So-called subjective viewsof culture, in which each culture is considered unique, are useful asone is being immersed in a single culture. Approaches l ike CliffordGeertz 's "thick descr iption" can then be used.-^ But more objectiveapproaches are needed to com plem ent the subject ive appro aches in thecrosscul tural se t t ings . Object ive approaches s t ress commonal i t iesbetween cultures in thei r structures and processes. These do nothomogenize cul tures ; ra ther , they emphasize s imi lar dynamics thatallow us to compare and relate cultures. And crosscultural ministryfrequently involves relating different cultures to one another.

Using the results of objective studies that have investigated avar iety of cultures and cultural character ist ics, I would l ike to suggestframeworks for understanding (1) adaption in cultural groups, (2)elements of analysis for relating cultural groups, (3) communicationpatterns, and (4) patterns of attr ibutional response.Adaptation in Cultural Groups. An important thing to keep in mind isthat while a culture gr oup in the United States might look like and evenconsider itself to be the same as it was in its home setting, it takes on adifferent set of dyna mi cs in an imm igrant situation. That H ondu ranAm ericans cam e from H onduras is important for their identi ty. H owever,thei r constant encounter with nonH onduran group s every day in theUnited States means that they are not the same as they once we re. Life inH onduras continues to chang e, but H onduran Am erican li fe changes in avery different way. Cultures bec om e "eth ni c" in an imm igrant setting,whether they want to or not. This becomes especially importantgenerationally as children are bom and grow up in a new setting, neverhaving seen the ho m e setting. W hat happ ens is that the language getscorru pted or even forgotten, hom e custom s take on different or evenexaggerated importance in the new setting, and new relations arenegotiated. Indeed, these processes of change are going on all the time.

It is impo rtant for mi nisters and leader s in a cultural group to recogni zethis. These d ynam ics affect both those wh o cam e to the new setting by


39/118

choice and those forced into the new setting, i.e. , refugees. Theoristssuch as James Banks have suggested that these processes of changewithin cultural gr oup s go thr ough cycles.'^ M odifying Ba nk s'sframewor k som ewh at for a pastoral setting, I wou ld sugg est that there arefour stages of adaptation to other cultures (especially those seen asdominant to or more powerl 'ul than the culture group which must adapt).

The first stage is accommodation. During this s tage, the culturegrou p t r ies to com e to te rm s with the domin ant gro up and to ga in therewards promised by the dominant group in re turn for g iving upfeatures of i ts cultural dist i nct iv eness. At a cer ta in po int, f rustrationbuilds up about not being accepted by the dominant culture that leads,in turn, to a scrut iny for the causes of this breakdown. Then a secondstage sets in, that of separation. H ere the cul ture grou p c loses in onitself to protect its identity and repair its self-esteem after the bruisingfa i lures of accommodat ion. New emphas is i s placed on the cul ture ' slanguage and folkways . A somew hat exagger a ted cul tura l ident i tyoften emerges. When this rejuvenation is suff ic ient, a third stage ofdialogue occurs in which the adapt ing cul ture group, now sure r ofi tself and wiser about the dominant culture, will press i ts cla ims for i tsr ightful place in the larger picture. If the dialogue is successful, thefourth stage of adaptat ion, descr ibed as institutionalization, takesplace wherein cer ta in features of the adapting cultural group gainacceptance in the wider culture. In this fourth stage, a cer ta in level ofassimilat ion into the dominant culture has taken place, but not at theexpense of loss of identity.Banks notes that these four s tages of adaptat ion are not a one-t imeprocess but rather a recurr ing cycle that cultural groups go throughnegotiat ing their identi ty in terms of the dominant culture or othersur rounding cul tures . What becomes impor tant for the minis te r andthe leadership in the adapting cultural groups is not just to look atthemselves as Vie tnam ese , H a i t ians , and Mex icans but to seethemselves as ethnic Vietnamese , Ha i t ians , and Mexicans who a relikely to be in one of these four stages of cultural adaptation at anygiven t ime. Moreover , different generat ions within the same culturalgroup may be at different s tages of adaptat ion. Thus, recovery ofidenti ty (separat ion stage) is usually more important forthird-generat ion members of a cultural group than i t is forsecond-genera t ion members . Minis te rs and leaders should, the refore ,t ry to identify where in the adaptat ion process each cultural group is .That helps in chart ing their needs at a specif ic t ime and in responding


40/118

to those needs . Likewise , by compar ing where cuhura l groups a re a tany given t ime, i t becomes clearer if there is any l ikel ihood of groupsworking together . Forging common l inks works bes t when two groupsare both at the dialogue stage.

Bank s a lso sugges ts that gro ups mai nta in the i r cul tura ldist inct iveness in three areas: identi ty, sources of moral author ity, andframework s of mea ning of expla ining l i fe . Cul tura l d is t inc t ivenesswill not be surrendered unless each of these are found at a sat isfactorylevel in the larger community. Thus, groups told that they areculturally infer ior or "depr ived" will c l ing to their dist inct iveness allthe more, s ince being labeled infer ior is not a sat isfactory alternat iveto be ing "e thnic ,"Categories for Relat ing Cultures . A good d eal of crosscu ltural s tudyhas been done on cultural character is t ics . Hofstede studied for tycountr ies to der ive a set of four categor ies that would allowcom para t ive s tudies of cul tures .^ H is work has been expanded by agroup of researchers to s ix categor ies.^ These are summarized br ieflyhere. Each of these categor ies descr ibes a dimension of culture thatcan be seen as an axis or continuum upon which a character is t ic of thecul ture can be descr ib ed.

A culture can be viewed from its approach to immediacy. " H i g hcon tac t" cul tures emph as ize s tanding in c lose proxim ity, eye con tac t ,smil ing, touching. These kinds of cultures occur frequently in SouthAmer ica and Eas te rn and Southern Europe and among Arabs . On theother end of the spectrum are "low contact" cultures that emphasizedistance and less sensory involvement. These are frequently found inNor th Amer ica , Weste rn Europe , and Asia .

The second category is individualism-collectivism. This spect rumdefines how people l ive together , what they value, and why theycommunica ted. In Hofs tede ' s a forement ioned s tudy, the f ive mostindividual is t ic count r ies ( rank ed) were the U.S. , Aust ra l ia , G rea tBrita in, Canada, and the Nether iands. The f ive most coUectivist ic wereVenezuela , Colo mb ia , Pakis tan, Peru, and Ta iw an.

Gender is the third category. From the research, a masculinity indexmeansur ed a t t i tudes about s t rength, asse r t iveness , com pet i t iveness ,and ambit io n, whi le the feminini ty i ndex measured affec tion,com pass ion , nur turance and em ot ional i ty as va lues . In te rm s of thesescales, H ofstede found Japan , Austral ia , Venezuela, Italy, and


41/118

Switzer land the highes t in mascuHni ty, and Sweden, Norway, theNether lands , Denm ark, and Finland the highes t in the feminini ty index.

Power distance i s the four th dim ens ion , descr ib ing the degree towhi ch power , pres t ige , and weal th a re equal ly dis t r ibuted. H igh pow erdistance cultures tend to concentrate these in the hands of a few; lowerpower dis tance cul tures dis t r ibute power more widely, Hofs tede foundthe Phi l ippines , Mexico, Venezuela , India , and Singapore to have thehighes t power indices . Lowest power dis tance count r ies were Aust r ia ,Is rae l , Denmark, New Zealand, and I re land.

Uncertainty, the fifth dim ensi on, refers to the abil i ty to tolerate r isk,uncerta inty, and ambiguity in a culture. Those countr ies with thelowest tole rance were Greece , Por tugal , Belgium, Japan, and Peru.Those with the highes t tole rance of uncer ta inty were Singapore ,Den ma rk, Swed en, H ong Kon g, and I reland. H ofs tede a lso notes tha tpredom inant ly Cathol ic cou nt r ies a re usually less tole rant ofambigui ty, whi le Protes tant , H indu, and Bu ddhi s t cul tures are m oretolerant.

High and low context provi des the f ina l d im ens ion . H igh contextcultures rely on the environment and social relat ionships tocommunica te , wi th less informat ion expl ic i t ly encoded. Low contextseUings try to provide most of the information explic it ly. Thus,communica t ion be tween longt ime f r iends or family members is l ike lyto be high context , whereas computer communica t ion is lowcontexteverything needs to be expl ic i t . Hofs tede does not provideresearch on this axis of high and low context, but the aforementionedresearchers provide some specula t ions . As ian and Nat ive Amer icancul tures re ly on high context modes of communica t ion. Nor thernEuropean cul tures and the dominant cul tures in Nor th Amer ica a remore low context .

I t becomes useful for ministers and leaders in cultural groups tothink about how the cultures of which they are a par t and to whichthey must relate might be plotted on these var ious axes. Where aculture is on each of these axes helps explain both values and whatwill const i tute effect ive communication. A culture may adapt i tsapproach to accommodate others in the new sett ing or , a t the stage ofseparat ion, exaggerate i ts differences.Communica t ion Pa t te rns . So much of c rosscul tu r a l m in i s t ry has todo with the abi l i ty to engage in inte rcul tura l communica t ion. There a refour se ts of issues about wh ich mi nis te rs mu st be aw are .


42/118

The first is the relation of languag e use to identity. Language i smore than a means of communicat ion; our very ident i ty i s wrapped upin i t . Think of the experience of going to a place where you know thelanguage imperfectly or hardly at all . The feelings of inadequacy andinsecuri ty are strong. People will have a tendency to treat you l ike achi ld (engage in babytalk) or as less intell igent than you really arebecause you cannot express yourself. A not- infrequent exper ienceadult members of culture groups have is being treated as chi ldren bythei r pastors, often unintentionally, because of thei r inadequatecompetence to use the language. Both a minister 's abi l i ty to use thelanguage of the culture group and how the minister responds to the useof the dominant language by the culture group member are crucial toeffective cultural ministry.

The second is understanding the role of nonverbal cues. Eye contact,physical proxim ity, touching, body lan guage , laughter, and voice tone allvary as carriers of messages. They are exceedingly important in highcontext comm unic ation. R ealizing how these function in the cultures towhich one ministers and how they function in one's own culture canma ke the difference in effective crosscuh ural ministry.

Third, the alternation of speech and silence in communicat ion i sim portant. H igh contex t cultures tend to allow for s i lence as a vehiclefor communicat ion, whereas low context cul tures pr ize speech and sees i lence as noncommunicat ion. Anyone who has worked wi th Nat iveAmer ican peoples , for example, knows the impor tance of s i lence as acommunica t ive veh ic le .

Fourth, the comm unicative rule system of a cultural group must beknown. In other words, all the rules about how to ask questions, howto convey an undesi red response ( i .e. , how to say no), how to varycommunication patterns with persons of different age orgenderevery culture has an elaborate system of rules about thesethings. Not to understand these patterns is to fai l to communicate.

Many of the issues noted are things ministers learn throughexper ience often in fai led com m unicat ion . This can be inst ruct ive ,but i t should be noted that one can learn them in a m ore systema ticway to enhance crosscultural ministry.Patterns of Attributional Response. Attr ibutional response has to dowi th how we read someone 's communicat ion f rom another group andhow we respond to them on the basis of that reading. This is especiallyimportant in how we relate to one another. Intercultural


43/118

communica t ion theory dis t inguishes be tween dispositional at t r ibut ionsthat exphiin why the other says or does what i t says or does on thebasis of personahty, att i tudes, social inst i tut ions of that group, andbeHefs and situational attr ibutions, based on the context in which thecommunication occurs."^ What groups tend to do is to att r ibute posit ivebehavior of their own group to disposit ional factors (e .g. , they didwhat they did because they have the r ight values) and negativebehavior to s i tuat ional factors (e .g. , unfortunate c ircumstances). Thosefamil ia r wi th th

Winter 1995-1996 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

Documents

Transcript of Winter 1995-1996 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry