Sharing Pastoral Power - United Methodist Women · Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

Sharing Pastoral Power Wesleyan Foundations for Lay Leadership

David Lowes Watson

Creative Spiritual Disturbance

In common with much of the North American church, there is a widespread perception among United Methodists that we are in a time of creative spiritual disturbance. This is salutary. Such times can make us more responsive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and challenge the ecclesial self-preoccupation that has always been the pitfall of established Christianity. Times of spiritual disturbance also foster a marked degree of anticipation, even excitement, in recovering the missional identity of the church in a culture that endemically co-opts or rejects religious beliefs and practices to meet its social and personal needs.1

From the perspective of United Methodism, a critical aspect of this disturbance is a concern over pastoral leadership, especially in the forming of Christian disciples, the bed rock of congregational mission and ministry. Discipleship is a craft, as Stanley Hauerwas has cogently argued,2 and as with any craft, it has to be handed on, person to person, generation to generation. This is not being done in many United Methodist congregations, which means that, within a generation or even sooner, church members who can remember being formed as Christian disciples will have passed on, and we shall have lost the tradition of faithful discipleship that once earned Methodism its very name.3

Without seasoned Christian disciples in our congregations, programs and projects often prove ineffective in the long term, however well intentioned or skillfully designed. Such resources alone have never been sufficient for Christian living in the world, least of all in the individualistic and hedonistic Western culture of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.4 The need rather is for hands-on leaders, nurturing the craft of discipleship; yet these are the very leaders we lack, among clergy and laity alike.

1 See Darrell L. Guder, ed. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998)

2 Stanley Hauerwas, “Discipleship as a Craft: Church as a Disciplined Community,” The Christian Century, Vol.108, No. 27 (October 2 1991), pp.881-84.

3 See my chapter on Class Meetings and Class Leaders in United Methodism and American Culture, Volume 3, Doctrines and Discipline, ed. Dennis M. Campbell, William B. Lawrence, and Russell E. Richey (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), pp. 245-264, from which some sections of this paper are drawn.

4 This was brought into focus by studies such as Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism (New York: W.W. Norton, 1979), and Robert N. Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986). See also John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), and Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: HarperCollins/Basic Books, 1993).

Sharing Pastoral Power David Lowes Watson page 2

Few clergy know how to form Christian disciples in their congregations, not least because the formative disciplines of the Christian life have long been regarded as optional addenda in much of our theological education.5 Programming and administration have become much more appealing and far less demanding than facing the reality that mature disciples are badly needed and hard to find.

By the same token, few laity know how to form Christian disciples, not least because discipleship has largely become a matter of personal preference. Guidelines for Christian living are often regarded as restrictive or even legalistic, and church members are thus left to fulfill their Christian potential as best they can. Many church programs are offered on the assumption that discipleship is virtually autonomous, even in small group settings, and in such an environment there is little room for Christian growth and small demand for seasoned Christian leaders.6

Clergy and Laity: Complementary Gifts and Grace

All of which points to the need for recognizing and affirming the complementary gifts and grace of clergy and laity. Rather than training pastors to function as the professionals of the church, thereby relegating laity to the status of amateur Christians, pastoral leadership should be shared between clergy and laity, and this means forging partnerships with those laypersons who possess gifts and insights similar to those of the clergy, but who have not received the call to ordained ministry. The question to be asked is “How can we work together to build up the Body of Christ?”

We should not forget that all ordained clergy, both elders and deacons, began their Christian service as laity. Moreover, non-ordained laity with particular gifts have made the commitment to various forms of full-time service, to be addressed later in this paper. But the great majority of laypersons in our congregations serve Christ in their homes, communities, and places of work as faithful church members, and this time of spiritual disturbance provides the opportunity to acknowledge those among the majority who have the gifts and grace for pastoral leadership that is indigenous to congregational life and work.

The challenge for the church is how to accept these women and men as colleagues in pastoral leadership so that the roles of both clergy and laity are enhanced in service of the church and, more important, in announcing and manifesting the coming reign of God.

5 A situation in which there are now some welcome changes. See, for example, Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian: What the Faith of our Teenagers is Telling the American Church (New York: Oxford University Ptress, 2010).

6 For some consequences of this in the North American church, see Ronald J. Sider, One-Sided Christianity? (Zondervan/HarperSanFrancisco, 1993). See also any issue of Sojourners magazine.


Pastoral Leadership

Pastoral leaders are those who show their fellow Christians how to walk with Christ in the world. On the one hand they demonstrate how to develop a relationship with Christ:

Christians experience growth and transition in their spiritual life just as in their physical and emotional lives. While this growth is always a work of grace, it does not occur uniformly. Spiritual growth in Christ is a dynamic process marked by awakening, birth, growth and maturation. This process requires careful and intentional nurture. There are stages of spiritual growth and transition: Christian beginnings; Christian birth; Christian growth; and Christian maturity. These require careful and intentional nurture for the disciple to come to maturity in the Christian life and to engage fully in the ministry of all Christians. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶136, pp.97f.

On the other hand, pastoral leaders show their fellow Christians how to follow the teachings of Jesus in the world. They help them see that a relationship with Christ cannot develop or even be sustained without accepting the conditions that Jesus himself made very clear:

The ministry of all Christians consists of privilege and obligation. The privilege is a relationship with God that is deeply spiritual. The obligation is to respond to God’s call to holy living in the world. In the United Methodist tradition these two dimensions are wholly interdependent. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶135, p.97.

Pastoral leaders are those who guide their fellow Christians in living faithfully in the rough and tumble of a sinful world in which the Reign of God has yet to be fulfilled. In a word, the exercise of true pastoral leadership is by example.

Pastoral Power The key to this leadership is pastoral power, a phrase that requires careful definition, not least

because it has been the occasion of countless ecclesial disputes, including those that led to the Protestant Reformation. Moreover, in the democratized church of North America, congregations are cautious about granting any kind of power to anyone. We must be careful, therefore, not to allow this circumspection to concede the nature and purpose of the church to the axioms of the culture. Much more important, we should not allow it to stifle the energies of Christians as they seek to fulfill their mission; which is to say, God’s mission. The late Orlando Costas described the outcome of these suspicions as "a clergy-dominated church with a laity-dominated clergy," and his words still ring true.7 We should avoid this kind of costly contention and instead accept the reality and grace of pastoral power.

7 Orlando E. Costas, Christ Outside the Gate: Mission Beyond Christendom (Marynoll: Orbis Books, 1982), p.79.


Pastoral power does not mean dictating to people, nor yet does it mean legalistic guidelines. It does, however, mean an intentional guidance of people, nurturing them in the spiritual life, and helping them to practice the teachings of Jesus. It means pointing them toward the vision and the hope of the gospel, gently, firmly, and lovingly.

This presents us with a paradox. In spite of their caution about power, congregations for the most part entrust clergy with virtually exclusive power in areas of pastoral nurture and guidance. The result is that those members with pressing problems or issues tend to pre-empt their pastors’ attention, and the ratio of clergy to church members makes it impossible for clergy to spend pastoral time and energy on more than a few such members. Thus the majority of the congregation are given programmatic rather than pastoral guidance in how to live the Christian life, leaving them without the personal guidance and support to help them grow in their faith.

The inference is inescapable: If congregations are to be effectively pastored in the fullest sense of the word, the pastoral power of the church cannot reside with the clergy alone. For church members to be formed as Christian disciples, pastoral leadership must be shared between the clergy and those laypersons who emerge within congregations as indigenous leaders in discipleship. This in turn requires clear principles of pastoral leadership for clergy and laity alike.

A Pastoral Clarification: Salvation and Discipleship

Before addressing the principles of pastoral leadership we need to make a clear distinction between salvation and discipleship, since both words are often misunderstood in the mission and ministry of the church, most certainly in the North American context. This quickly becomes apparent if we compare what Jesus says about the cost of discipleship with how we welcome people into the church. If these demands of Jesus were made the condition of church membership, not only would we have very few people joining, we would also lose most of the members we already have. So instead we tend to blend salvation and discipleship, resulting in a confusion of both words.8

To resolve the confusion we need simply note that the ministry of Jesus had two tracks: for the people, and for his disciples. First the people, who came to Jesus in their hundreds and sometimes thousands. He welcomed them, he taught them, fed them, healed them, played with their children, and loved them. All of this was offered unconditionally, grace upon grace. By contrast, his call to discipleship was blunt, even harsh, and it always carried the word “if”. IF you want to be my disciple, then count the cost. “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:2627).

8 For example, the mission statement in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012), ¶ 121, p.91.


We need to make this distinction much more clearly in our congregations. The message of salvation in and through Jesus Christ is offered to everyone. As Charles Wesley put it:

Come, sinners, to the gospel feast, let every soul be Jesus’ guest Ye not one be left behind, for God hath bidden all mankind.”9

But Jesus did not call everyone to be his disciple, and when he did he made clear that accepting the call would be costly. There were those who were not ready to count the cost, and Jesus did not condemn them for not being ready; nor should we. We must welcome everyone and offer them the grace of Christ (which most congregations do very well), but we should not expect all of our members to be ready for discipleship. Accordingly pastoral leadership in the church, both clergy and laity, should affirm the call to costly discipleship, but should not thereby devalue the commitment to church membership which is also a means of grace – just as it was for the people who came to Jesus two thousand years ago to be fed and taught and healed and loved.

Ecclesiola in Ecclesia

To understand this notion of discipleship in our Methodist tradition we must begin with the fact that early Methodism was a movement within the Church of England. Wesley spent a great deal of his time and energy explaining this to the members of the societies, but was also at pains to advocate the necessity of remaining within the church, pointing to the undesirable aspects of separation evident in English Nonconformity.10 While he was ultimately thwarted by the separatist tendencies of the movement, fueled as it was by ecclesial, social, political, and economic pressures, and while the American Revolution forced the issue on this side of the Atlantic, the disciplined character of the Methodist societies remained essentially that of an ecclesiola (little church) in the large ecclesia of the Church of England.11 As such, membership in a Methodist society was more exacting than merely being part of an Anglican parish. By the same token, Christian interaction in Methodist circles could be, and was, more intimate.

In many ways The United Methodist Church of today is the equivalent of the Church of England in Wesley’s day. This is not to suggest that it is identical or even similar to the 18thcentury Anglican Church. For one thing, history does not permit such ready comparisons, albeit

9 The Works of John Wesley, Vol. 7: A Collection of Hynmns for the Use of the People called Methodists, ed. Franz Hildebrandt & Oliver A. Beckerlegge, asst. James Dale (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), p.82. Volumes in this Biecentennial Edition will hereafter be referenced as BEW.

10 See, for example, his sermon “On Schism,” Sermon III: 71-114, ed. Albert C. Outler (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), BEW: 3:58-69.

11 The steps taken by the Christmas Conference at Baltimore in 1784 make the Methodist Episcopal Church and its successors the mother church of Methodism. That this is rarely acknowledged on either side of the Atlantic is another instance of historiographical slippage.

http:England.11http:Nonconformity.10


in a Christian context. But more immediately, in the voluntaristic context of the American church, members are much more aware of their congregational identity than in the formalized parishes of an established church, then or now. This in turn engenders a degree of participation in church life and work, by clergy and laity alike, that would be altogether incongruous in a parish-oriented system, then or now.

The equivalence between the 18th-century Church of England and The United Methodist Church of today lies rather in the familiar “church” and “sect” typology of Ernst Troeltsch, which can still provide helpful insights into recent ecclesial history.12 To state the issue in functional terms, the church is an inclusive community of the Christian faith, interacting with its cultural context in ways that makes the gospel accessible to a wide range of persons with a wide range of commitment. On the other hand, the sect serves as a locus for those who are called to a deeper commitment -- to a disciplined (or methodical) discipleship. The tension between the two usually centers on whether such disciplined disciples remain within the larger church, or form separate ecclesial groupings that then become new churches.

If we are to adapt the practices of early Methodism for the church of today, we must not mismatch the characteristics of an ecclesiola with those of an ecclesia. Any attempt to apply Wesley’s polity, designed as it was for the disciplined life of a religious society, to the wider ecclesial life of inclusive congregations would be counter-productive. The majority of church members, while affirming belief in and commitment to Jesus Christ and following his teachings in the world, are not ready for the disciplined accountability of the early Methodist societies.

But by the same token there are members in the church of today (ecclesia) who are called by Christ to a disciplined discipleship (ecclesiola) just as in the days of early Methodism. The further opportunity we have in this time of spiritual disturbance is to recognize these women and men as lay pastoral leaders, and entrust them with pastoral power no less than the clergy. And for this we have no better guide than our early Methodist forebears. We must therefore find ways of defining the word discipleship in ways that do not make it synonymous with church membership. While the call of Christ to be his disciple should always be present in the range of ministry in congregational life and work, we should allow response to this call reflect growth in grace as the dynamic of the Christian life, and especially the dynamic of spiritual conception, birth, and maturity.13

12 According to Troeltsch, the church is a type of Christian society that is “a universal institution,” adapted to “the whole of secular life” in preparation for “the higher supernatural state.” By contrast, the sect derives its ideals “purely from the Gospel and from the Law of Christ,” upholding “the ideal of Christian perfection as binding on all Christians alike.” Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, 2 vols., reprint ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 2:461-62.See also David O. Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution: The Sociology of American Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), pp.73ff. Cf. Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp.176ff.

13 See John Wesley’s sermon, “The Great Privilege of those that are Born of God,” Sermons I:1033, ed. Albert C. Outler (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984) BEW 1:431ff.


Wesleyan Discipleship This dynamic of the Christian life was clear in the directives John Wesley gave to the

Methodist societies. The General Rules of the United Societies, first published in 1743, not only provided the guidelines for Christian living in the world, but also stipulated that “works of mercy” and “works of piety” were the practical and necessary condition of the Christian life.14According to these Rules, the good works in which we engage as disciples of Jesus Christ are not optional, but necessary. If we do not obey his teachings, we weaken and ultimately break our covenant relationship with God. The issue has profound theological implications for Christian discipleship, and requires more than a passing reference.

Following his experience at Aldersgate Street in the May of 1738, where he records in his Journal that “his heart was strangely warmed,” Wesley undertook a visit to the Moravian community at Herrnhut, whose missionaries to Georgia had provided him with something of a spiritual apprenticeship. During this visit he began to question some of the religious perspectives and practices of those who had been so influential in leading him to that critical juncture in his own pilgrimage.15 On his return to England, the entries in his Journal repeatedly dwell on the extent to which the assurance of faith was or was not concomitant with justification, culminating on October 29 when he records that, while “doubtful of [his] own state” and wondering whether he should wait in “silence and retirement” for an assurance of the kingdom of God, he came upon the words in his Testament that “by works faith [is] made perfect.”16 Just as significant is his entry for November 12, when he notes that he “began more narrowly to inquire what the doctrine of the Church of England is concerning the much-controverted point of justification by faith.”17

The question with which Wesley was wrestling was as old as the Reformation; in fact, as old as the church itself. In general terms it is usually described as the issue of faith and works: the extent to which good works are integral to our salvation, and the extent to which failure to make them a priority of our discipleship is not only detrimental to Christian faith, but can seriously

14 The Methodist Societies: History, Nature, and Design, ed. Rupert E. Davies, BEW, 9:67ff.

15 Journals and Diaries I (1735-1738), ed. W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, BEW 18: 266-297; Journals and Diaries II (1738-1743), ed. Ward and Heitzenrater, BEW 19: 215-224 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990); Letters II: 1740-1755, ed. Frank Baker, BEW 26: 24-31 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987).

16 BEW 19: 20.

17 Ibid, p. 21. Shortly thereafter he published an extract from the Homilies of the Church of England, titled The Doctrine of Salvation, Faith and Good Works, a pamphlet that went through twelve editions in his lifetime. The following year he published an edited version of two treatises by the early English Lutheran scholar, Robert Barnes, on justification by faith and on free will. Cf. Sermons II: 34-70, ed. Albert C. Outler (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 2:187.


weaken it. The issue was to emerge in varying contexts throughout his leadership of the Methodist movement, but a sampling of his Journal and early treatises indicates that Wesley recognized its theological significance at the outset of his ministry. We find it, for example, in his account of the dispute over Quietism at the Fetter Lane Society, in his discussion of the objections at Bristol to his preaching on free grace, and in “The Principles of a Methodist,” where he addresses it in relation to assurance of faith and Christian perfection. Of particular interest for our present investigation is the way it shaped the polity of early Methodism, where it is clear that the regulation of the societies was honed not only by pastoral exigency, but also by sound theology.18

Class Leaders and Class Meetings Even though Wesley himself resisted the name Methodist, the methodical discipleship

fostered by the societies quickly became the identifying mark of the movement.19 In particular, the office of class leader and the insistence that every member should attend a weekly class meeting, gave definitive expression to the tension of faith and works. Both class leaders and class meetings had their genesis in the most practical of considerations: the clearing of a building debt. Wesley’s account of this is well known. At the society in Bristol on February 15, 1742, it was agreed to pay the debt through weekly collection of monies by designated leaders from sub-groupings of the society, known as classes. These weekly visits quickly became pastoral as well as financial, and within a year, rather than have the leader collect the weekly contributions, it was determined that the pastoral dimensions of this would be better served by having the member bring their weekly penny to the leaders. Thus began the class meetings which became the normative means of mutual support and accountability for the discipleship of society members.20

In the plethora of small groups across the church of today it is sometimes forgotten that these classes in early Methodism were formed around the leader, and that this remained Wesley’s priority. In the General Rules the duties of the class leader were to see each person in his or her class at least once each week, to receive what they were willing to give toward the relief of the poor, to enquire “how their souls prosper,” and to “advise, reprove, comfort or exhort as occasion may require.” In turn, the leader was to be accountable to the minister and stewards of the society, reporting “any that are sick or walk disorderly and will not be reproved.”21 This

18 Works: Vol. 9: The Methodist Societies, pp.47-66; Works: Vol. 19: Journal and Diaries II, pp.151ff., 185ff.; The Works of John Wesley: Vol. 25: Letters I 1721-1739, ed. Frank Baker (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), pp.639f.

19 Wesley described the members of his societies as “the people called Methodist,” and The word did not appear on the title page of the General Rules until after his death.

20 The Methodist Societies, BEW 9:69f., 260f. See also Journal and Diaries II, BEW 19: 251,343.

21 The Methodist Societies, BEW 9:70.


indicates that the intent of the classes was pastoral oversight, whatever the other benefits of the weekly meetings might have been -- an important point to which we shall return.

The Rules then proceed to the particular requirements of membership; but first there is an important statement of purpose that directly addressed the issue of faith and works:

There is one only condition previously required, in those who desire admission into these Societies, a desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their sins: But, wherever this is really fix'd in the soul, it will be shewn by its fruits. It is therefore expected of all who continue therein, that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, First, By doing no harm, by avoiding evil in every kind .....Secondly, By doing good, by being in every kind merciful after their power....Thirdly, by attending upon all the ordinances of God.22

The theology of these words is incisive. Neither the immediate assurance of justifying grace nor the incipient sanctification of the new birth was a prerequisite for Methodist membership, but merely a desire for salvation. This made a distinction between prevenient (universal) grace and justifying (saving) grace, in which the liberation of grace is not license, but rather the opportunity to respond to the divine initiative in obedient discipleship. Accordingly the acceptance of God's grace, in whichever form, brings immediate obligations, a dimension of Christian discipleship that had been seriously weakened by the overloading of justification in the theology of the Reformation. The question was not whether undue attention to good works would deny the fullness of God's grace in human salvation, but whether lack of attention to good works would cheapen it.23

Put differently, the General Rules stipulated that while there were no pre-conditions for membership in a Methodist society, there were very clear post-conditions – if, that is, membership was to be continued. The Rules identified the basics for Christian living in the world with whatever “degree of faith” one had been graced, as opposed to identifying a standard Christian experience that then condoned a wide range of “Christian” behavior. This is what caused such tension between Wesley and the Calvinist wing of the Revival, and occasioned the charge of Pelagianism, especially after the 1770 Conference.24

22 BEW: 9:70-73.

23 See Robert E. Cushman, Faith Seeking Understanding: Essays Theological and Critical (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1981), p.74.

24 The Methodist Societies: The Minutes of Confrence, ed. Henry D. Rack (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011), BEW 10:392-394


A Matter of Heart and Life

One of the most succinct statements of the issue is a Journal entry following Wesley’s examination of the classes in the northern town of Gateshead in 1747. “The question is not concerning the heart, but the life. And the general tenor of this I do not say cannot be known, but cannot be hid without a miracle.”25 Wesley is not presenting heart and life as alternatives, but he is most certainly presenting a priority. How one lives is the clearest indication of what is in one’s heart. If the foremost objective of the Christian life is to seek the right kind of faith, then discipleship tends to be viewed primarily as belief in and experience of Jesus Christ, irrespective of obedience to his teachings. Whereas, if the priority is to follow the teachings of Jesus, discipleship can be attempted, irrespective of one's strength of belief or depth of experience.

Of the two notions of discipleship, Wesley clearly was at pains to advocate the latter. He affirmed that faith in Christ is a gracious gift from God, given to different persons in differing degrees. Discipleship, on the other hand, consists of learning to follow the teachings of Jesus with whatever faith one has been given. Thus, while faith and good works are wholly interdependent, the priority of discipleship, as the word implies, must be a disciplined commitment to doing what Jesus teaches us to do. Discipleship has to be disciplined quite simply because the teachings of Jesus run counter to so many of our natural inclinations. Learning to be a Christian disciple goes against the grain of human sin -- personally, socially, and systemically.

Methodical Discipleship: Mutual Accountability

This is why mutual accountability, the “method” of early Methodist discipleship, was so efficacious. By telling each other what they were actually doing to follow the teachings of Jesus, our forebears made obedience their watchword, and thereby avoided self-deception in the Christian life. By contrast, when faith is made the priority of discipleship instead of a craft to be learned from seasoned leaders, discipleship is viewed as a religious experience to be shared primarily in the company of like-minded people. And in an individualized culture such as present-day North America where community life is at a low ebb, the sharing of such experiences can fill a tremendous social need. Without the guidance of seasoned pastoral leadership, social exigencies can easily subvert the nature and purpose of faithful discipleship.26

25 Journals and Diaries III, BEW 20:163.

26 A Doctor of Ministry degree was awarded in 2012 by the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City to The Rev. Jay Sunberg for his thesis “The Sofia Discipleship Project, a Contemporary adaptation of the Wesley Class Meeting to meet the Discipleship Formation needs of the Leadership Team of the Sofia First Church of the Nazarene in Bulgaria.” Sunberg explored the dynamics of pastoral formation in a social setting that still evinced the caution of a former Communist society. An important aspect of his work was a creative use of social media that addressed precisely this issue.


This is not to suggest that Christian discipleship should be devoid of experience. On the contrary, a deepening relationship with Christ and thence with companions in the faith is one of the richest dimensions of the Christian life. But when these relationships become the priority of discipleship rather than obedience to the teachings of Jesus which he himself stipulated as the measure of our love for him (John 14:21,23), then we do indeed deceive ourselves. All the more need, therefore, to recognize Christian maturity in our congregations and foster the pastoral leadership of those laypersons who can help their fellow church members in their walk with Christ. This was the model established by Jesus himself. He welcomed the crowds who came to him, sometimes in the thousands, but he also called a few to help him care for the flock.

The Pitfall of Small Group Culture All of which presents a pitfall for the North American church: the contemporary small group

culture. As so often happens when the church lacks grassroots pastoral leadership, congregations have reflected and embraced this aspect of their cultural context with vigor. Small groups have proliferated in seemingly limitless variety: growth groups, enrichment groups, prayer groups, Bible study groups, sharing groups, outreach groups, action groups, and more. And they have become such an accepted means of pastoring that there are few seminars or workshops held in church settings that do not assume the familiarity of participants with this particular pedagogy.27

While many small groups in congregations are focused on the benefits and obligations of the Christian life, many are little more than churchly versions of what seem to be helpful responses to the needs of contemporary culture -- small group programs with no explicitly Christian content that are nonetheless hosted and embraced by local congregations. These programs often perform a valuable service to the community, and as such are a significant outreach ministry. Likewise many small group movements in society at large, especially twelve-step programs, adopt principles and practices that have an honored pedigree in the spiritual renewal movements of the church across the centuries, and have often proved to be the vanguard of social change.28Moreover, all of these groups, ecclesial and cultural alike, evince a phenomenon that social anthropologists have identified as cohesiveness of purpose and relationship.29

27 For an early history of the culture of small groups, see Kurt W. Back, Beyond Words: The Story of Sensitivity Training and the Encounter Movement, 2d ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1987). For an attempt to link them with early Methodism and other forms of Pietism, see Thomas C. Oden, The Intensive Group Experience. For a detailed analysis of the growing role they play in North American culture, see Robert Wuthnow, Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America’s New Quest for Community (New York: The Free Press/ Macmillan, 1994).

28 Wuthnow, Sharing the Journey, pp.89ff., 219ff., 257ff..

29 This cohesiveness has been attributed to the dynamic whereby individual members of a small group are under pressure to conform with the norms of the group as a whole. See Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance(Evanston, Il: Row, Peterson & Co., 1957). For an application of this theory to the spiritual development of JohnWesley, see Thorvald Källstad, John Wesley and the Bible: A Psychological Study (Stockholm: Nya Bokförlags Aktiebolaget, 1974).


Inasmuch as the early class meeting appears to exhibit these criteria, the notion of bringing it back into the fabric of contemporary Methodism has an immediate appeal. It appears to provide the mutual support and intimacy of an interaction that larger congregations find difficult to foster. It likewise appears to fulfill the scriptural directive to meet together for a range of Christian activities that tend to be neglected when left to individual responsibility, such as prayer, Bible study, and Christian service. Perhaps most important of all, it would seem to provide a means for over-extended clergy to feel that they are more in touch with their members, if only vicariously through a network of groups or cells serving as an extension of their pastoral leadership. This is especially the case with congregations that have come to be known as mega-churches, and who are often lifted up today as the paradigm for church growth.

A modicum of research into the early class meeting, however, quickly dispels any such cursory connections. While their benefits might have included small group cohesiveness and organizational efficiency, their purpose was at once more spiritual, namely, pastoral oversight through mutual accountability. They were the most immediate means of insuring that the conditions of membership in the early Methodist societies -- following the basic tenets of doing good and avoiding evil, and using the means of grace -- were being fulfilled. Regular attendance at weekly meetings was supplemented by a quarterly examination of one’s discipleship, on the basis of which a new membership ticket was or was not granted for the next three months. A great deal of Wesley’s voluminous correspondence was devoted to the role of the class leader in making sure that these disciplinary criteria were applied.

Of course, as with any small group, the class meetings generated interpersonal relationships that became warm and supportive.30 This was not, however, their purpose. The relationships were rather a blessing that emanated from the fulfilment of their purpose. If the class meeting is to provide any direction for the church of today, it cannot be just another small group program. The question rather to be asked is how the leaders and members of early Methodism saw their mission and ministry in their own day and age. We might then be in a position to emulate them in that purpose, allowing the Holy Spirit to work freely in our time as in theirs.

Democratized Religion and Corporate Church Governance We must also consider why there was a decline of class leaders and class meetings in

American Methodism. They diminished in importance from the mid-19th century onwards, and by the turn of the 20th century they had effectively ceased to play a role in the life and work of the church.31 Among the reasons for this, there are two that have particular relevance for today.

30 The Methodist Societies, BEW, 9:262.

31 This was not without pressing appeals from some notable church leaders. For example, John Miley, A Treatise on Class Meetings (Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Concern, 1851; Leonidas Rosser, Class Meetings: Embracing their Origin, Nature, Obligation and Benefits (Richmond: Published by the Author, 1855). The exhortatory tone of these and other publications indicate that class meetings were already well in decline in both of the Methodist Episcopal Churches.


The first is that the disciplined religiousness of class meetings in the early Methodist societies, conditioned as they were by the social structures of 18th century England, was quickly superseded on this side of the Atlantic by the unrestrained democratic spirit of the American Revolution.32 The mark of American Methodism, especially on the frontier where it most rapidly expanded, was an egalitarianism of religion, whereby a person’s growth in grace was far less important than the common sensibility of grace shared by fellow believers. This quickly rendered the disciplined accountability of class meetings less important than the shared experience of the members, and the weekly gatherings became merely one of the “nodal points in a network of friendship and community,”33 dominated by the emergence of the Adult Sunday School class, an institution peculiar to North America.34

The second reason was the increasingly dominant role of the clergy in congregations, as circuit riding gave way to stationed appointments and a concomitant investment in property for worship, education, and clerical residence. In the wider connectional church, Methodism moved toward an ethos of corporate governance rather than pastoral oversight.35 The centrality of preaching in the frontier church, and the organization that was required for rapidly proliferating congregations and districts, gave the clergy a great deal of control in both the spiritual and the temporal dimensions of the church.

As a result, the pulpit became the primary mode of pastoring, and the democratic process the primary mode of administration. This rendered the role of class leaders and class meetings not only marginal, but at times even suspect. This in turn changed the dynamic of how church members perceived their growth in the Christian life, which increasingly tended to be the extent to which the vigor and intensity of one’s faith and witness could be sustained in response to the preaching of the gospel. This was marked in the early nineteenth century by the Second Great Awakening, evincing not only enthusiastic religious revival but also significant involvement in social reform.36 At the grassroots of the church, however, and especially in Methodism, it resulted in a diminished role of the laity in pastoral leadership that had been the foundational characteristic of the pristine Wesleyan movement.

32 Bernard Semmel, The Methodist Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp.113ff. See also Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 9ff., 40ff.

33 A. Gregory Schneider, The Way of the Cross Leads Home: The Domestication of American Methodism (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), p.94.

34 Almost everywhere else in world Methodism, Sunday School is primarily for children.

35 See Russell E. Richey, Early American Methodism (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp.82ff. See also Schneider, The Way of the Cross, pp.196ff.

36 See Douglas M. Strong, They Walked in the Spirit: Personal Faith and Social Action in America (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. See also the Memoirs of Charles G. Finney: The Complete Restored Text, ed. Garth M. Rosell and Richard A.G. Dupuis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989).


Seniority in the Christian Life

If our Methodist heritage has anything to teach us about pastoral leadership today, it is the necessity of lifetime formative learning and practice. The Wesleyan concept of grace is dynamic and developmental, meaning that pastoral leaders must be formed in knowledge and example, faith and works, commitment and consistency. Moreover, we cannot limit these formative lessons to personal growth and patterns of Christian community, important though these might be. We must also allow ourselves to be confronted by the dynamic of grace in every aspect of our connectional life and work: personal discipleship, small group communities, congregational dynamics, and wider systemic polity.37 In all these expressions of Connection, pastoral leaders must be formed around the mind of Christ and must learn to walk with him in the world. All of which points to the recognition of seniority in the Christian life as the measure of pastoral leadership. Put directly, even simplistically, if someone has been a Christian for thirty years and has no advice or guidance to give to someone who is just beginning this pilgrimage, the question has to be “What on earth have you been doing for thirty years?”

The question then becomes, “By which criteria do we recognize this seniority?” This brings us back to the General Rules that John Wesley crafted for the early Methodist Societies (above, p.7.) First published as a penny pamphlet, they went through thirty-nine editions in Wesley’slifetime, and we can be sure that virtually every member of the early societies had a copy. Therewere three general directives:

Avoid evil, especially that which is most generally practiced. Do all the good you can to as many as you can in as many ways as you can.

Use the means of grace -- the spiritual disciplines of the church

Summarized as works of mercy and works of piety, they held in balance the two great commandments of Jesus: to love God and neighbor.

The General Rule of Discipleship

To make the General Rules accessible to the church of today, Wesley’s language has been translated into words that convey to 21st century Christians the same aspects of servant ministry that mercy and piety conveyed in the 18th century. And since we now live in a post-Marxian and post-Freudian world, we must also acknowledge that the commandments of Jesus have social and public significance as well as personal and private. Accordingly the General Rule of Discipleship provides a measured approach to Christian discipleship and an important compass heading for daily Christian living:

37 This point is made convincingly by Russell E. Richey, The Methodist Conference in America: A History (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1996), and Thomas Edward Frank, Polity, Practice, and the Mission of The United Methodist Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997).


To witness to Jesus Christ in the world and to follow his teachings through acts of compassion, justice, worship, and devotion

under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012), ¶ 1117.2.a, pp.596f.

The importance of the General Rule is the balance it maintains between the teachings of Jesus: Private & Personal: Acts of Devotion & Compassion; Public & Social: Acts of Worship & Justice.

Acts of Compassion: The simple things we do out of kindness to our neighbor. Our neighbor is anyone who is in need, anywhere in the world.

Acts of Justice: We must not only minister to people in need, but also ask why they are in need. In the name of Christ we must implement God’s loving righteousness and denounce injustice.

Acts of Worship: The means of grace that we exercise in community: the ministries of word and sacrament. They enable us to build each other up in the Body of Christ.

Acts of Devotion: The private spiritual disciplines of prayer, scripture reading, and inward examination that bring us face to face with God.

A Solid Foundation

This General Rule provides a foundation for the mission and ministry of the church as the bedrock of congregational life and work. It provides the same “methodical” form of discipleship that was practiced by our Methodist forebears, but it also allows for a range of response as church members come to faith in Christ and then grow in grace. It is not a set of rules and regulations, but rather a means of grace, an instrument to help Christian disciples follow the leading of God's Spirit in their faith. It acknowledges that God's grace reaches people right where they are in the world, and that we can respond to this grace within the routines of daily living.

The teachings of Jesus are not difficult to comprehend, but are often inconvenient, which is why pastoral leaders, both clergy and laity, need the early Methodist practice of mutual accountability even more than the majority of church members. Christian discipleship is not merely a learning process; it also means holding fast to the habits of the Christian life that can easily slip if we do not attend to them regularly. By grounding their own discipleship in the fourfold General Rule pastoral leaders can likewise hold themselves accountable.


Clergy and Laity as Pastoral Leaders

Since clergy and laity both have the gifts and the grace to exercise this pastoral power, it is important to be clear about their distinct and complementary roles.

✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙ Clergy are called to lead in Preaching and Teaching the Gospel.

✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙ Laity are called to lead in Christian Discipleship ✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙✙

These areas of leadership are by no means mutually exclusive. However, if the distinction is not made, the leadership of the laity tends to be regarded as what can best be described as “clergy lite” rather than the validation and embodiment of the preaching and teaching of the gospel. All of which makes our present spiritual disturbance all the more timely as the roles of clergy and laity in pastoral leadership are being reviewed and clarified. Thus it is important to acknowledge not only the complementarity of these two roles, but also their spheres of influence.

Clergy spend years in the study of the gospel, exploring its scriptural, historical, ethical and contextual dimensions so that their church members can be deeply rooted in Christian tradition. There are also sacramental privileges and administrative duties in pastoring a congregation, but the teaching and preaching of the gospel remain the focal points of clergy leadership.

Lay pastoral leadership by contrast consists of how to live out the gospel. Laity are at the interface of the gospel and the world, and are therefore much more directly involved in Christian praxis. While knowledge of Christian tradition is important, the craft of Christian living requires the kind of pastoral leadership by example for which the clergy are much less equipped.

The Ministry of All Christians Increasing awareness of this can be seen in The Book of Discipline of The United

Methodist Church over the past few quadrennia, beginning with an important section on “The Ministry of All Christians”:

There is but one ministry in Christ, but there are diverse gifts and evidences of God’s grace in the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:4-16). The ministry of all Christians is complementary. No ministry is subservient to another. All United Methodists are summoned and sent by Christ to live and work together in mutual interdependence and to be guided by the Spirit into the truth that frees and the love that reconciles.

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) Part IV, Section II, ¶131


The ministry of all Christians consists of service for the mission of God in the world. The mission of God is best expressed in the prayer that Jesus taught his first disciples: Thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as in heaven. All Christians, therefore, are to live in active expectancy: faithful in service of God and their neighbor; faithful in waiting for the fulfillment of God’s universal love, justice, and peace on earth as in heaven. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶ 133, pp.96f.

Pastoral Leadership of the Clergy Throughout the history of the church there have been many groups of Christians, even entire

movements and denominations, that have thrived without ordained clergy. But church history also shows that God continues to call and grace men and women with particular gifts for ministry, and most denominations ordain these persons to take authority for the doctrine and discipline of the church after careful examination and training:

Ordained ministers are called by God to a lifetime of servant leadership in specialized ministries among the people of God. Ordained ministers are called to interpret to the Church the needs, concerns, and hopes of the world and the promise of God for creation. Within these specialized ministries, deacons are called to ministries of Word and Service (¶328), and elders are called to ministries of Service, Word, Sacrament, and Order (¶332). Through these distinctive functions ordained ministers devote themselves wholly to the work of the Church and to the upbuilding of the ministry of all Christians. . . . . The ordained ministry is defined by its faithful commitment to servant leadership following the example of Jesus Christ, by its passion for the hallowing of life, and by its concern to link all local ministries with the widest boundaries of the Christian community. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶ 139, pp.98f.

The need for mutual support and accountability of ordained clergy has further been recognized in the formation of Orders:

All persons ordained as clergy in the United Methodist Church upon election to full membership in the annual conference shall be members of and participate in an Order appropriate to their election. An order is a covenant community within the church to mutually support, care for, and hold accountable its members for the sake of the life and mission of the church. These orders, separately or together, seek to respond to the spiritual hunger among clergy for a fulfilling sense of vocation, for support among peers during this stressful time of change in the church, and for a deepening relationship with God. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶ 306, p.221.


The specific and limited function of each Order is to (1) provide for regular gatherings of ordained deacons and ordained elders for continuing formation in relationship to Jesus Christ through such experiences as Bible study, study of issues facing the church and society, and theological exploration in vocational identity and leadership; (2) assist in plans for individual study and retreat experiences; (3) develop a bond of unity and common commitment to the mission and ministry of The United Methodist Church and the annual conference; (4) to enable the creation of relationships that allow mutual support and trust; and (5) hold accountable all members of the Order in the fulfilling of these purposes. All of the functions of the Order(s)shall be fulfilled in cooperation and coordination with the Board of Ordained Ministry and do not replace the normal supervisory processes, the processes of evaluation for ordained ministers, or the responsibilities of the Board of Ordained Ministry, the cabinet, or the Clergy Session. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶ 307, p.222.

As Annual Conferences throughout The United Methodist Church implement these Orders, four areas are coming into focus that shape their life and work together:

The spiritual life of each member: for example: spiritual growth and transitions; spiritual sensitivity; discernment of spiritual forces in the congregation; the fruits of the Spirit -- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

The personal life of each member: for example: openness to others; candor in sharing and receiving criticism; objective assessment of one’s strengths and weaknesses; willingness to listen; interpersonal skills; family life; communal and social sensitivities.

The professional life of each member: for example: preaching and liturgical perspectives and skills; sacramental understandings and responsibilities; counseling; leadership in handling conflict; motivating people; relating to diversity in church and culture.

The theological life of each member: for example: ongoing development of biblical, theological, historical and ethical perspectives; interpretative skills in relating Christian doctrine to the Christian life; relating the distinctive meaning of the gospel in the context of global religions; issues of ecclesial identity.

The nature and purpose of the Orders are also coming into focus.

They are not a means of supervision or evaluation, but rather a means of assessing one’s life and work in a collegial context. Sharing the demands and pressures of pastoral leadership with trusted colleagues is often the most effective way of dealing with them.

They are not occasional gatherings to discuss issues of personal or professional concern, but rather a means of developing lifelong patterns of pastoral leadership. Members gradually fashion mutual evaluative criteria based on what is happening in their congregations or other places of witness and service.


Their purpose is not to focus on mistakes, but rather to focus on improvement and learning. At first, the gatherings may seem time-consuming and even distracting. But with application they will greatly extend the gifts and contributions of each individual member.

It should be noted that the Clergy Orders are a work still in progress. There are some Annual Conferences where the Orders have formed peer groups as a means of mutual support and accountability in the Wesleyan tradition, especially the Orders of Deacons. There are others where the Orders consist mainly of a report to the Executive Session of Annual Conference and an annual gathering with a programmatic agenda. Likewise the Chairs of the Orders find they are pioneering a position that has yet to receive appropriate recognition and support.38

Even so, the Orders have been an important step in appropriating our Wesleyan heritage, and the framework is there for further development. One issue that has been raised is the role of the United Methodist Bishops, who are required to convene the Order of Deacons and the Order of Elders and work with the elected chairpersons of each Order..39 As Elders set apart for special ministry, they do not comprise a separate Order, and this may need to be addressed in due course.40

Lay Pastoral Leadership

In order to understand the importance of the Methodist heritage in lay pastoral leadership it will be helpful to turn again to our history as a denomination. Essentially there have been two phases of Methodist growth and development in North America.

The first phase, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, was led by a combination of courageous preaching and faithful discipleship, provided on the one hand by itinerant circuit riders, and on the other by class leaders and local lay preachers. Given the logistics of colonial and frontier life, the circuit riders were necessarily absent for long periods. This meant leaving a great deal of the worship to lay preachers and much of the pastoring to class leaders. These exceptional lay men and women laid the foundations for the great expansion of Methodism during the later 19th century, and we remain deeply in their debt.

The second phase began in the 1830s and 1840s, when circuit riding gave way to stationed appointments, and when clergy assumed full pastoral responsibility for established congregations. While this transition made Methodism a major force in North American Christianity, it also made preaching the focus of ministry and mission of the church. Accordingly, the need for leadership among the laity was greatly reduced. Class leaders became less important, as did lay preachers, and with various adjustments this has remained our pastoral pattern ever since.

38 For example, when he was Chair of the Order of Elders in the Memphis Conference, The Rev. Randy Cooperwrote a personal letter of pastoral support each week to one of his fellow elders, a gesture deeply appreciated.

39 The United Methodist Book of Discipline (2012) ¶ 414.10, p.331.40 The United Methodist Book of Discipline (2012) ¶ 402,p.315.


In the present climate of spiritual disturbance it is becoming clear that this imbalance between lay and clergy leadership is focusing congregational energies on the well-being of the church rather than the teachings of Christ, and in the small membership congregations that still comprise the greater part of United Methodism all too often the overriding objective is the raising of money to support a pastor, who in turn is expected to run the church.

This is a far cry from our roots, when itinerant preachers and faithful laity empowered a truly missional church, and it will be helpful briefly to review the heritage of their pastoral leadership.

Early Methodist Offices: Stewards and Class Leaders

In early Methodism, in addition to the Preachers, almost all of whom were laity, there were two lay offices: Stewards and Class leaders.

The Stewards were responsible, in Wesley’s words, for the temporal things of the Societies.41They were to receive the weekly contributions from the classes, to expend what is needful from time to time, to send relief to the poor, to see that the public buildings be kept clean and in good repair, and to keep an exact account of receipts and expenses. Stewards were to be frugal, to spend no more than they received, to do nothing rashly, and to expect no thanks from anyone. In the church of today, it can be said that these duties are well assigned, albeit with different job descriptions. Indeed, financial and administrative functions are specified to a much greater degree than in Wesley’s day, and in this regard The United Methodist Book of Discipline is a model of church organization, as are the Annual, Jurisdictional and General Conferences.

The Class Leaders, again in Wesley’s words, were responsible for “seeing each person in the class once a week at the least, to receive what they are willing to give toward the relief of the poor, and to inquire how their souls prosper, to advise, reprove, comfort or exhort as occasion may require.”42 This form of direct pastoral leadership was the key to the disciplined discipleship of the early Methodist societies. However, while the office and duties of the stewards have been adopted and developed in our present United Methodist polity, class leaders have all but disappeared, due in no small measure to the “professionalization” of the church. What this means is that those laity in our congregations who are called to pastoral leadership have no way of exercising their vocation other than to become involved in the activities of the church primarily as participants.

The key word here is pastoral, since there are many other areas of lay leadership. Moreover, as we shall presently observe, there have been significant moves in recent years to give these recognition and encouragement. There is one area, of course, in which laity used to play an important pastoral role, namely the Sunday School classes that have been the mainstay of

41 The Methodist Societies: The Minutes of Conference, ed. Henry D. Rack, BEW, 10:142-143. 42 The Methodist Societies, History, Nature and Design, ed. Rupert E. Davies, BEW 9:70.


Christian education and in implicit pastoral nurture. However, as already noted,43 the Sunday School teacher is a lay office that is losing its significance in the leadership of the church. Instead of classes having a permanent teacher, the professional staff of a church will arrange for programmatic resources, or invite guest speakers to give presentations on a range of subjects or issues, most of which are helpful, but few of which provide the pastoral guidance that once was the dynamic of the Sunday School, and before that of the weekly Class Meetings.

Offices of Lay Pastoral Leadership

Our present spiritual disturbance is therefore an opportunity to reclaim the Methodist tradition of lay pastoral leadership. The means to do this are already in place, established and recognized in the present Book of Discipline. What we must now do is to infuse them into our congregational life and work so that those who do not feel the call to ordained ministry can be recognized as means of grace right where they are.

This will involve a great deal of congregational consciousness-raising, since the present models of pastoral leadership are overwhelming centered on the clergy. However, there is no better time for this than our present state of spiritual disturbance.

The Office of Deaconess and Home Missioner

The most distinguished lay office, with a long history in the mission and ministry of the church, is that of Deaconess and Home Missioner:

1. The purpose of the Office of Deaconess and Home Missioner shall be to expressrepresentatively the love and concern of the believing community for the needs in theworld, and to enable, through education and involvement, the full ministry andmission of the people of God. Deaconesses and home missioners function throughdiverse forms of service directed toward the world to make Jesus Christ known in thefullness of his ministry and mission, which mandate that his followers a) Alleviatesuffering; b) Eradicate causes of injustice and all that robs life of dignity and worth;

c) Facilitate the development of full human potential; and d) Share in building globalcommunity through the church univesal.

2. Deaconesses, who are laywomen, and home missioners, who are laymen, areprofessionally trained persons who have been led by the Holy Spirit to devote theirlives to Christlike service under the authority of the church. They are approvedthrough a process established by United Methodist Women, consecrated andcommissioned by a bishop at settings approved by the board of directors of UnitedMethodist Women. . . . .

43 Above, p. 13 and n.34.


Deaconesses and home missioners are available for service with any agency or program of The United Methodist Church. . . . .

3. Full-time service is the norm for the ministry of deaconess or home missioner,meaning that the person’s entire vocational time is devoted to work of ministry in thefield of labor to which one is appointed by the bishop.

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶ 1314.1-3, p.623.

The Office of Lay Servant

An important addition to the Book of Discipline in 2012 is the recognition of church members who have received the call to lay servant ministry:

2. Lay servants are to serve the local church or charge (or beyond the local church orcharge) in any way in which their witness or leadership and service inspires the laity todeeper commitment to Christ and more effective discipleship, including the interpretationScriptures, doctrine, organization, and ministries of the church

3. Through continued study and training a lay servant should prepare to undertake one ormore of the following functions, giving primary attention to service within the localchurch or charge.a. To take initiative in giving leadership, assistance, and support to the program emphasis

of the church.b. To lead meetings for prayer, training, study and discussion when requested by the

pastor, district superintendent, or committee on Lay Servant Ministries.c. To conduct, or assist in conducting, services of worship, and present sermons and

addresses when requested by the pastor . . . . d. To relate to appropriate committees and ministry areas in providing leadership for

congregational and community life and fostering care-giving ministries.e. To assist in the distribution of the elements of Holy Communion whenever celebrated

upon request by the pastor of the church of which the lay servant is a member. . . . .

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012) ¶ 266, pp.210-212.

Lay Servants may serve in their local congregation, but may also be Certified for service in their District, Annual Conference, and other local congregations. This legislation has great potential for recognizing and realizing the role of lay pastoral leadership in a range of offices.

There are also provisions for Lay Servants to hold the office of Lay Speaker (¶ 266.6) and Class Leader (¶ 268.2),


The Key Wesleyan Office: Class Leaders

A further word needs to be said about Class Leaders, since of all the offices of lay servant leadership it is the one that holds the key to the forming of Christian disciples, which in turn is the key to the pastoral leadership of the church.44 The significance of class leaders in early Methodism was their responsibility for the discipleship of the society members, which meant they had a marked degree of pastoral oversight. Given our present pattern of congregational leadership, it is not surprising that this is the very responsibility many of our clergy are unwilling to share, and even those who are willing to share it hesitate to do so for the wholly valid reason that it is a sacred trust. It should not and cannot be delegated, except to those who prove themselves trustworthy.

With appropriate criteria, however, as in the requirements for Lay Servant Ministers,45 a revitalized office of lay pastoral leadership would allow the pastoral workload in congregations to be shared to the benefit of everyone concerned. As noted, many of the most faithful members of our congregations are not being pastored in the truest sense -- being helped to live out their faith in the world. Class leaders in partnership with the clergy could provide this kind of hands-on pastoral guidance, exercising the leadership that always commands respect: leadership by example. Such leaders are active in many of our Korean and African-American congregations, and many large membership churches have introduced this kind of pastoral leadership various forms, providing a means of cross-cultural mission and effective pastoral oversight in an increasingly diverse society.

Making the recognition and revitalization of the office throughout the church just another organizational option will not suffice. Nor will it sufficeto have it adopted or adapted on a piecemeal basis, congregation by congregation. The United Methodist Church is connectional in its polity and practice alike, and the point is that all of our congregations need this form of lay pastoral leadership -- the small congregations no less than the large and the growing, the weak no less than the strong.

Toward Orders of the Laity

What remains to be done is to raise awareness throughout The United Methodist Church that these lay offices are not “clergy lite” but rather comprise a complementary and equal leadership role. Accordingly it should be acknowledged that they too can form Orders similar to those of the clergy, an Order being “a covenant community within the church to mutually support, care for, and hold accountable its members for the sake of the life and mission of the church.”46

44 There continues to be renewed interest in the Methodist tradition of this office. See Kevin M. Watson, The Class Meeting: Reclaiming a Forgotten (and Essential) Small Group Experience (Wilmore, KY: Seedbed, 2014) and Pursuing Social Holiness: the Band Meeting in Wesley’s Thought and Popular Methodist Practice (Oxford University Press, 2014).45 The United Methodist Book of Discipline (2012) ¶ ¶ 266.1, 266.4, pp. 210f.

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012), ¶ 305, p.221. 46


The groundwork has clearly been laid for Deaconesses and Lay Missioners so to be recognized, and this could, indeed should, be the vanguard for recognition of other Orders in lay pastoral leadership. 47 Local Pastors and Church Professionals have already taken steps toward mutual support and accountability in the forming of Fellowships,48 and the Order of St. Luke, founded initially by Methodists, is not only broadly ecumenical, but also has lay members as well as clergy.49

The importance of Orders, Clergy and Lay, is the commitment to lifetime mutual support and accountability in answer to the call of Christ. In the present spiritual disturbance it should be recognized that such a commitment is not merely to be legislated, but must also be recognized by the connectional church. The forward momentum in the recognition of Lay Offices is heartwarming, It will hopefully lead first to exploratory honing, in which the call and the commitment to servant leadership are increasingly brought into focus. Then in due course the call and commitment to Lay Orders can be prayerfully discerned and affirmed by the church as a whole.

The laypersons gifted for this role are already in our congregations, and their leadership is self-evident. They must now be given church-wide authority to complement the administrative and programmatic roles already assigned to them in our polity.

Connectional Benefits of Shared Pastoral Power

If the pristine Methodist tradition of shared pastoral power can be recovered during this time of spiritual disturbance. there are several connectional benefits that could accrue from recognition of lay pastoral leadership.

Creative Deployment of Clergy

In the deployment of clergy, there could emerge two tracks for elders and deacons:

Pastorates, in which the gifts and grace of stationed clergy could be used to full advantage through long-term and multiple-staff appointments.

Circuits, in which teams of itinerant clergy could minister to multiple congregations by delegating much of the local pastoral leadership to laity – i.e., the return of circuit riders.

Both tracks would require intentional logistical support in a number of areas:

47 The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (2012 , ¶ 256.1b, pp.182f.; ¶ 266-270, pp. 210-213. 48 The Fellowship of Local Pastors (The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church ) ¶ 323, p.237,¶ 635.1a, p.459, ¶ 1421.4c,4h, p.654; The Fellowship of United Methodists in Music and Worship Arts, ¶ 630.4c, p.437, and the Professional Association of United Methodist Church Secretaries, ¶ 807.19, p.545.49 The Book of Discipline, ¶¶ 630.4c, p.437, ¶ 1113.14, p.593.


Equal Recognition and Equitable Stipends. The most important aspect of this initiative would be the connectional affirmation of both tracks, each receiving equal recognition and respect. At a practical level, this would mean paying circuit riders at parity with their colleagues in larger pastorates. This could be done by forming much larger circuits than we presently have, and reducing the number of clergy that serve them.

Expanded Circuits. For example, a circuit of 40 congregations with an aggregate membership of 5,000 could function very well with a team of 8 circuit riders in strategically located offices and parsonages, provided there was lay pastoral leadership in each congregation. Circuits could be formed with fewer congregations or with more, the only proviso being that each one be structured with adequate membership and resources. The finances of congregations in such circuits would quickly improve, and much missional energy would thereby be released.

Circuit Hubs. Another pattern could be the Circuit Hub, in which a larger congregation would serve as a staffing and resource center along with a number of smaller congregations in a given area. The collegiality between the clergy could be greatly facilitated in this way, and the training and support of lay pastoral leaders likewise enhanced.

Such concepts are not new, of course. Parish ministries in various forms have been with us for quite some time, and these proposals would merely takes things a step further. But In one very important way the expanded circuit would be different from these models. It would rely on two distinctively Methodist offices: the lay pastoral leader and the circuit rider. Rather than focus on programs and strategies, it would focus on honored offices in the Methodist tradition, clergy and lay.

Missional Energy for Small Membership Churches

Through the consolidation of membership and resources, expanded circuits and circuit hubs would likewise afford countless small congregations a new identity. They would be freed from the burden of trying to maintain what in many instances have become outdated pastorates, which would give them new energy in mission and ministry with other congregations.

By the same token, larger congregations in circuit hubs would be freshly empowered by the missional possibilities of reaching out through the changing social and community patterns to which parish-oriented ministries often find it difficult to adjust.

Revitalization of Lay Preaching

In expanded circuits or circuit hubs, obviously there could not be an ordained preacher in every pulpit each Sunday. Accordingly, there would have to be a greater recognition and utilization of lay preachers, identified as Lay Speakers under Lay Servant Ministries.50

50 The United Methodist Book of Discipline (2012) ¶ 266.6, pp.211f.


The role of lay preaching is what John Wesley described as the "extra-ordinary call." He did so, against his better judgment, because the call was self-evident, for women as well as for men. The early Methodist preachers in England were not ordained, nor were the early circuit riders in North America. Yet their preaching gifts and skills were authenticated by the large numbers who responded to the gospel, repented of their sins, and were converted to Christ.

Ironically, the very effectiveness of the circuit riders led to a diminished role for lay preaching once the pastoral pattern of Methodism became parish-oriented. The call to preach became the call to ordained ministry (the "ordinary call") and the "extra-ordinary call" was rendered peripheral to congregational life and work, just like the office of class leader.

Yet the extraordinary call remains alive in our congregations. There are laity whose gift of preaching the gospel would grace the mission and ministry of the church. But their gift requires fresh recognition as an authentic means of grace in their congregations. Our present identification of these persons as “lay speakers” says much about the adjustment we would have to make in reviving this Methodist tradition, not least being to raise the awareness in our congregations that these lay men and women have a distinctive message to bring to our pulpits. Lay preaching does not rival or supplant the preaching of ordained clergy. Rather, it provides complementary insights and perspectives that ground the gospel in worldly living.

The lay speakers we already have, and the many who would join them if they were given recognition and encouragement, are living proof of the authenticity of their call. As just one example, they could be a signal means of grace in re-activating Sunday evening worship.

Vocational Fulfilment and Freedom

Shared pastoral leadership through Lay Servant Ministries would provide vocational fulfilment for those laity in our congregations who have the gifts and grace for pastoral leadership, but are not called to professional employment in the church. Failure to provide opportunities for the use of these gifts deprives many congregations of valuable indigenous leadership, and can even lead to congregational disputes. The office of Lay Servant Minister can focus pastoral energies in building up the body for ministry and mission in the world.

By the same token, given the opportunity to exercise their gifts of leadership both in pastoring and in preaching, laity who are called to provide pastoral leadership could find rich vocational fulfilment. This in turn could provide congregations with fresh opportunities for ministry and mission. Lay pastoral leaders could also acquire deeper empathy for their pastors, as they begin to discover the burdens of pastoral responsibilities and the tremendous workload of preparing regular sermons. A great deal of the friction in congregations between pastors and lay leadership is caused by mis-communication due to lack of mutual understanding.


Shared pastoral leadership would also provide greater freedom for clergy and laity to pursue their respective vocational gifts. Clergy could be freed for the ministries of Word, Sacrament, and Order, which are the distinctive privileges of ordination. These are the very tasks that our present pastoral deployments prevent so many from fulfilling. The result on the one hand is overwork, and on the other hand professional and vocational disillusionment.

Collegiality for Clergy

No less beneficial could be the collegiality extended to the clergy by shared pastoral leadership. We have already noted that many pastors are unable to provide this leadership because there are not enough hours in the week.51 The result is that very few church members receive the personal guidance and support they need for their daily Christian living in a world where it is not easy to be a Christian.(above, p.4) With the help of lay pastoral leaders, this situation could quickly be remedied. Clergy would find themselves with the best possible support group: pastoral teams of laity who share the burdens as well as the privileges of forming Christian disciples.

Mutual Empowerment for Discipleship

This sharing of pastoral power will not come easily, but given the opportunity afforded by the present spiritual disturbance, it must be undertaken firmly. For without disciplined disciples in our ranks we will increasingly be held hostage by our culture. Such a church is unworthy of Jesus Christ, and most assuredly is no match for the forces of the world that still oppose the coming reign of God.

51 Above, p.4

Clergy and Laity: Complementary Gifts and GracePastoral LeadershipPastoral PowerA Pastoral Clarification: Salvation and DiscipleshipEcclesiola in EcclesiaWesleyan DiscipleshipClass Leaders and Class MeetingsA Matter of Heart and LifeMethodical Discipleship: Mutual AccountabilityThe Pitfall of Small Group CultureDemocratized Religion and Corporate Church GovernanceSeniority in the Christian LifeThe General Rule of DiscipleshipA Solid FoundationClergy and Laity as Pastoral LeadersThe Ministry of All ChristiansPastoral Leadership of the ClergyLay Pastoral LeadershipEarly Methodist Offices: Stewards and Class LeadersOffices of Lay Pastoral LeadershipThe Office of Deaconess and Home MissionerThe Office of Lay ServantThe Key Wesleyan Office: Class LeadersToward Orders of the LaityConnectional Benefits of Shared Pastoral PowerCreative Deployment of ClergyMissional Energy for Small Membership ChurchesRevitalization of Lay PreachingVocational Fulfilment and FreedomCollegiality for ClergyMutual Empowerment for Discipleship

Documents

Sharing Pastoral Power - United Methodist Women · Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,