Roundtable Deep Dive

For those who want to see the heavy theological lifting behind our communal rhythm, we have made available here the full Master of Divinity thesis, presented to Vanderbilt Divinity School, that started it all. It explores how moving away from a corporate church model back toward a "kingdom of priests" changes everything about how we read scripture and share leadership. 

The Deuteronomic leader

By: Michael Arseneau

Presented to

Vanderbilt Divinity School

In partial fulfillment of the requirements of

Master of Divinity Degree

Edited by "The Council of Nine" (my thesis seminar group)

With Special thanks to the Branch Roundtable

Submitted: January 21, 2022

A Theological Decline

I remember my first two years of undergraduate education, as an engineering major, as some of the most spiritually formative years of my life. I had been raised in the church my whole life and had been fortunate enough to have, what I thought at the time was, a spiritually healthy life exemplified for me both in my home church, and in my group of college friends. However, the waters were soon to be troubled. Thinking we were fulfilling our calling to expand the Kingdom of God, I met with a group of people every week during my first and second years of undergraduate education to walk around campus and “talk to people about Jesus.” Our goal was to simply show them the Love of God and to invite them to join our weekly meeting. What I discovered during those excursions was that there was a side of God I had not yet seen. While most people were not interested in what we had to say, there were some who stopped to talk with us, and some of the questions they asked hit me like a sledgehammer, and I had nothing to provide solace. I wasn’t sure what I thought of “the slaughter of the Midianites”, or how I could think there was a God apart from reading my Bible, or even what to do about the different genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke! As my group continued to engage people, these questions grew, but there were never any sufficient answers provided, nor was room made to further think about these questions. Instead, my companions would often just say, “I don’t know but I am happy to pray for you” and then we would go on our way. The leaders I approached with these questions after we finished our rounds offered similarly dissatisfying answers, and no space was provided to sit with these questions. While this may have been alright for them, I found that these questions continued to gnaw at my mind and spirit. They made me restless and sent me on a journey for answers.

            Eventually, I found sanctuary in the realm of philosophy. What I discovered there was a church that has a history of incredible thinkers who were engaging these questions in meaningful and spiritually deepening ways that I was completely unaware of. Beyond just providing answers for the questions that I had (especially as some of them proved to be unanswerable), what I found was a rich tradition that provided a place for me to sit and wrestle with the hardest questions that came my way. This was the first step on my journey into ministry and theological education. As I continued my studies, I began to realize just how important these thinking spaces were (and continue to be) for Nazarene theology. John Wesley, in an address to new ministers, once said,

"Should not a Minister be acquainted too with at least the general grounds of natural philosophy? Is not this a great help to the accurate understanding of several passages of Scripture? Assisted by this, he may himself comprehend, and on proper occasions explain to others, how the invisible things of God are seen from the creation of the world; how "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork;" till they cry out, "O Lord, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all.”[1]"

For Wesley, natural philosophy[2] was a necessary way for a minister to engage theologically with the Spirit of God, and to see how God was (and is) working in the world. There was, and remains, something special about the process of reflection through hard questions that cause people to grow in ways that are impossible otherwise. For me, finding this tradition provided something more than just a process for right thinking, it was the first time I had spiritually engaged the “life of the mind” and it was the first time I had felt true spiritual freedom.

            However, as I have continued my journey through theological education, and have had the joy and privilege of engaging with and learning from people who think in diverse ways, the unfortunate experience that I had early on in my years of undergraduate education has continued to prove to be the norm inside the Nazarene churches I have served in. There always seemed to be a discomfort around hard questions or providing space to wrestle with something we may not fully understand. I can still remember times where I have heard pastors and leaders say, almost with a sense of pride, “I don’t think through things theologically.” “I’m not sure I can lead a Bible study; I better just focus on music.” “I don’t think through those things critically like you guys do, that is just too much for me.” These conversations have taken place in staff meetings, passing discussion, and sermon preparation meetings. I have lost count of the number of times over the past few years where I asked a theological question (i.e., what does the gospel say about the pandemic) only to be met with blank stares and answers about not being able to think through things, especially not theologically. While I want to respect the various and diverse ways that people process information, and do theology, for a pastor or religious leader to claim that they don’t think through things, theologically, philosophically, or otherwise, is more than terrifying–it is downright dangerous to those who subscribe to their leadership for religious guidance. Ultimately, a leader lacking in theological and philosophical reflection fails to give congregants a glimpse of how their lives might intersect with the Divine (which is probably the reason they are at church in the first place!). Instead, this kind of leadership results in a pedagogy that can and has led to “bumper sticker theology” and “tweetable quotes” (i.e., “Don’t worry about the evil in your life, God has a plan!”) as the main source of instruction. However, these are also the same leaders who are heralded as “great people of faith” who have “won many souls for the kingdom”. In my mind, this kind of pedagogy and heralding points to an issue that goes beyond a pastor’s individual thinking/teaching preference or ability, but is something systemic that the church is rooted in.

            In my mind, the church (Nazarene specifically) has become too rooted in the church growth movement. While this movement has a storied history, it is sufficient to note here that the entire goal of the church on this model is three-fold: to get people “saved,” get them to tithe, and get them to evangelize. Then, simply rinse and repeat until the whole world is “in the church.” Unfortunately, this model provides a definition of success that is not concerned with the spiritual health and growth of people (as individuals or as a community) as the primary goal, but rather is concerned with numerical and measurable values[3] that smack more of capitalism than the Church of Jesus Christ. The ongoing vitality of the church growth movement phenomenon is easy to see, one need only to do a search for “ministerial leadership books” to see that many people, likely church leaders, are looking for church models that will give them a framework for measuring success,[4] and how many of these books are closely related to the “church growth movement”[5] or are just general practices for leadership (often leaning towards “business leadership”). These books can be juxtaposed to popular conferences like “Exponential” which are geared towards churches becoming “multiplying communities.”[6] The prevalence of these resources tells me that the church, and especially the Nazarene church in my experience, is still caught up in the “church growth movement,” where success is defined by numbers in attendance and tithing. This has had many different effects over the years, the most detrimental being a decline in theological pedagogy by current pastors and leaders.

            I believe that the decline in theological pedagogy has resulted in many of the difficulties that I have experienced throughout my theological education. Over the years, I have lamented the loss of space for critical thinking. A space that would have been so welcome and beneficial for me. A space to sit with and discuss hard questions and problems that face the church. A place to fully engage my mind as a spiritual practice. I lament the comfortability that the church has lost with hard questions, and the act of sitting with mystery. The neglect of this space has led to a lack of direct support for the life of the mind. Far from just being a question of philosophical and Biblical literacy,[7] though this area of knowledge has been impacted as well, the church has lost a place to think through hard questions together. Often, when people in our contemporary world think of a place to go for hard questions and potentially more difficult answers, the church is on the bottom of the list. In my experience, people do not come to church to ask hard questions­–they go to a school, or to social media, or to some deep and dark corner of the internet; lest the “purity” of the church be soiled by something the church can’t handle! This kind of thinking has been extended to the pastor as well. Often, people do not think of pastors as a source of knowledge, or as a deep reflective thinker, but instead pastors and religious leaders are viewed as mystics who can engage in some kind of “special prayer” for them. Other times, the pastor is viewed as an authoritarian ruler who will criticize and demean them if they break even one small rule.[8] The idea of “Pastor as Scholar” has fallen largely out of favor. I can think of very few pastors who would be willing to sit down and talk theology for an extended period, and even fewer who would be able to contribute something outside the “company line.” While the love of God, and the mystical experience that sometimes accompanies it, might be evident in a pastor, or in a community that they lead in worship, it can sometimes be hard to see how the mind of God is reflected. Otherwise, if the mind of God is seen, it is portrayed as a monolithic, “easy to understand” word that we can hear if only we will think about it correctly. It appears the image of God[9], especially as a rational being, is not finding full expression in our communities and leaders. If the image of God is not being expressed, by communities or leaders, then it stands to reason that our worship is no longer directed at the God we proclaim, and our proclamation points to a reality apart from the Divine.

Transactional Theology

Where, or to what, then is the church pointing? I contend that, in place of God, the church has adopted a “transactional theology” that points to a capitalist ideology. This can be seen in the attitudes of churches, leaders, and congregants. In the Nazarene church, we have a yearly meeting where all the churches in a single district get together. At these meetings, each church offers a report on their status. These reports are centered on attendance and tithing numbers,[10] and churches that show a decline in either are said to be “unhealthy.”[11] This fascination with numbers as a metric for growth reveals the Nazarene church’s transactional theology. While there is a place for understanding numbers for distributing resources, I believe our fascination with numerical growth has crossed into unhealthy territory. A similar line of thought can be seen in many congregants. Most pastors and religious leaders have heard a congregant say they are “church shopping.” Basically, they are looking for the place that is going to give them what they want in spirituality, in the way they want it, and if the church doesn’t suit their tastes, they will move on to another one. In my mind, there is no clearer analogy between the church and capitalism than the idea of church shopping. To compensate for this, Nazarene churches have tailored their worship services to fit preferences in lieu of spiritual growth. We are more concerned about pleasing who we have than supporting the community and loving the neighborhoods our churches are located in.

This transactional relationship can also be seen on the side of the leaders. I have heard too many pastors and leaders talk about people who must have “walked away from the faith” because they are no longer coming to church. If the metric for salvation is attendance and tithe, then they would certainly be right! While the salvation of a person coming to church is never a claim that is made explicitly, the pressure to have people engage with the church as their number one priority (instead of the place of the church as a community where life is lived) looks a lot like a business trying to advertise their way to a permanent spot in the minds of consumers, with the pastors and leaders at the head of the charge. Additionally, the relationship between pastor and congregant has become something transactional as well. In a similar fashion to the congregant who goes “church shopping”, leaders are placed into a position where their salary is held over their head. Congregants expect the pastor or leader to do whatever they ask because they “pay their salary.” Or, on the other side, people hesitate to come to the pastor or leader because they only expect to hear something from the leader that will continue to merit their money. Pastors and religious leaders have been placed into a meritocracy of the worst kind, where their livelihood hangs in the balance, and behind it all is transactional theology.

The problem, if it has not been made explicitly clear already, is that this kind of theology, and subsequent pedagogy, is ultimately upheld by capitalism, driven by money, and is antithetical to the covenant we are called to live under! Nazarene history tells us that we are a denomination that has always desired to deepen the spiritual lives of people by providing spaces for critical thinking. This is why there is a Nazarene school in every region of the United States, as well as one in Africa. These spaces continue to provide opportunities for people of all different backgrounds to come and wrestle with hard questions as they pursue theological education. These universities were started by pastors and are kept alive today through funds from churches. It is a messy relationship, but it is one that we have held as necessary for the entirety of our existence as a church. However, our current operating theology has diminished this relationship to a utilitarian one, where we send students to the schools and hope they come out as “Christian” as when we sent them.

Beyond our support of higher education, our very theology demands that we act in different ways. As holiness people, we are called to love God with our entire being, and that includes loving God with our mind. This is not a simple process of thinking the “right thing”, but it is being taken on a journey of reflection as we wrestle with hard questions. Therefore, it is so vital that the scriptures, our Holy Book, is not given as a series of “dos and don’ts”, but rather primarily as narrative and poetry. Both styles of literature require participation on the part of the reader to get to the message behind the words. It is vital to remember that our creedal confession says that the scriptures “inerrantly [reveal] the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation.” This is not a monolithic statement that requires hearing a word and believing it, but it is an invitation to dialogue with, and participate in, the story of scripture as God’s will is being revealed. As William Sloane Coffin notes, “It is a mistake to look to the Bible to close a discussion; the Bible seeks to open one.”[12] Engaging scripture in this way is dangerous, and certainly too unstable for transactional theology, so often most churches are happy with easy answers and feel-good passages.

            Moreover, our theology requires us to live a life that is completely relational. As H. Ray Dunning notes in Grace, Faith, and Holiness, “In theologically analyzing Genesis 1-11, we see indications that all four relationships that constitute original righteousness (imago[13])  were disrupted.”[14] What Dunning is describing here is his concept of sin as fracturing of the Divine image in humans, expressed primarily through four relationships: relation to God, to others, to nature, and to self. What Dunning asserts in this chapter is that, upon entering a state of sin, the original Divine image, understood relationally, was fractured so that all human relationships were thrown into chaos. However, this is also what the redemptive process brought by Jesus was meant to address. The restoration of relationships, in perfect unity, is the goal of sanctification[15] and it is what the church is meant to work towards. This immediately raises problems for our current pedagogy, because inside of this redemptive process there is no room for a capitalist transaction. For what price could be paid to make restitution between people, or between people and the earth, or between people and God? Beyond that, how many times does a person need to attend church before they are sanctified, or how much tithe do they need to pay? If what we value in churches are only these two things, we have neglected our own theology and turned to the way of the “almighty” dollar.

The Deuteronomic Leader  

How can we regain what we have lost? If our theology is already being transgressed, do we have any other theological tools that can shape how pastors engage their communities? I believe that if we turn to the scriptures we can find a healthier pedagogical model. Let’s start with a differentiation between “human-led” leadership and “divine-led” leadership.[16] In the ancient understanding, authority was equivalent to a ruling structure, often depicted in terms of “kings”. The lens of monarchy is one that can prove helpful in determining how a religious leader is meant to lead.[17] In thinking about the concept of a monarch, the Hebrew Bible seems to present us with conflicting views. On the one hand, monarchs seem to be divine instruments, put in place by God to enact the divine will among the people. In return, should the monarch fail to lead the people to (what the Deuteronomistic Historian would consider) “right relation and worship,” their evaluation in the text is negative and they are written off as a “bad king.” However, what is more central to our discussion of monarchy is the existence of the leadership office itself. While Deuteronomy seems to affirm that a “king” is inevitable[18], it also appears that (in the mind of the Deuteronomistic Historian) a human king was never part of God’s original plan.

1 Samuel 8 recounts an encounter between the prophet Samuel and God. Having been asked to appoint a king over the people, Samuel prays to God. God responds with,

"The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people, to everything that they say to you. For it is not you they have rejected, it is me they have rejected as being king over them! Just like everything that they have done from the day I brought them up from Egypt up to this day, they have forsaken me, and they have served other gods. Thus, they are doing also to you. But now, listen to their voice. Indeed, you must warn them, and tell them the way of the king with which he will rule over them.”[19]"

This short segment reveals a couple things about the human desire for an absolute ruler (whether to put one over themselves or to be one). First, it is an outright rejection of the God of covenant. Kings were often seen as “divine” in the Ancient Near East, and choosing to appoint a king, in this context, would be similar to forsaking the divine ruler already in place (namely, God).[20] Second, it serves as a warning to anyone who would be involved with this “king.” The passage in Samuel goes on to record what kings do: they take. Like a demolition crew seeking to tear a building down from its foundation, they take the things that are most central and continue to take until there is nothing left. They take children, fields, grain, cattle, and anything else they can get their hands on. While it may be easy to scoff at this idea of a king from a distance, many modern readers will see within this description the not-so-distant realities of colonialism and slavery. Not only does this kind of leadership result in the impoverishment of the community, but it sets the stage for transactional theology, and “my way or the highway” thinking.

            This, then, begs the question, “what is the point of even talking about a king?” Is there any benefit? While the scriptures make certain that the way of kings is to “take”, there is a way for a king to act in a manner that reflects God. However, before we look at the king being a helpful theological analogy for the pastor, we need to first understand the community that this kind of king operates in. Exodus 19 provides a hint for the ideal community–this community would be a “kingdom of priests”[21]. This kind of community is to mediate God’s presence to the rest of the world and to each other. This is to be an entire community that not only reflects the Divine image but participates in it to such a degree that the Divine presence is seen and felt by all people connected to this community. This also means that no one person can hold anything akin to absolute authority, because everyone in the community is part of this “priestly order.” All people are on the same level but contribute in different ways. Just as one priest may oversee worship through songs, another may oversee temple upkeep and cleaning. This is analogous to our churches, while one may speak through art, another may find they care more for the material needs for the community.

            It is inside of these differing roles that we find this “Divine-led leader.” This is not meant to be a person who will rise above the rest, but rather can help guide and direct the whole community further into God’s will. This is the place where the pastor, and the analogous king, find themselves. Deuteronomy 17:14-20, in admitting that a “king” is inevitable[22], also lays out what this kind of leader looks like. Verses 14-17 take extra care to build a fence around this leader. Not only is the leader going to be put into a vulnerable position (where it is easy to take advantage of their work), but the community is also placing themselves in a vulnerable position by giving someone the “steering wheel” of the community. What a dangerous venture! But this leader is called to not be like other leaders we have experienced; this is a leader that is only like[23] the leaders of the nations. While externally they may appear to function in a similar manner, internally their conduct doesn’t match what “kings” do at all. This is what these first several verses of this Deuteronomy passage are concerned with. The leader should not,

multiply horses for himself, and he will not return the people to Egypt in order to multiply his horses. For the LORD has said to you, “you will not return that way again.” He will not multiply women for himself so that his heart will not turn away. Also, he will not multiply silver and gold for himself in excess.[24] The divine-led leader doesn’t need many horses, because there is no army protecting them that requires that many horses. They don’t need to return the people to Egypt (back to slavery)[25] because they are not concerned with numerical progress and buildings, or the oppressive work conditions demanded by a political system. They don’t need to acquire many spouses because they are singularly devoted to their community, and they are not concerned with finding “the next best thing.” They don’t need gold and silver in excess[26] because they realize that once their needs are met it is time to ensure the rest of the community is taken care of–there is enough to go around.[27]

            Rather, on the affirmative side, this leader is meant to be one who lives and dwells with the members of the community. This becomes especially tricky as what we define as “community” shifts and morphs as the world around us changes. However, I think this is a reminder for the leader to stay grounded in the reality of those whom they are leading. There is no need to run away to a high-walled castle, rather this leader is meant to live side-by-side with their community, to the point that they are willing to call others “sibling.”[28] Ultimately, this is a leader who is not constrained or driven by the transactional culture, wondering what they will get out of being part of the community. Instead, they are a leader who lives in relation to the rest of the community, to the divine, and (hopefully) to the space that the community occupies. This accurately reflects the “four-fold relationship”[29] that our Nazarene theology promotes!

            While this is all well and good, there is not much dispute at this point as to what a good leader needs to do. With this backdrop in place, we can now turn to the actions of the leader. What are they to do to ensure that the life of the mind is fully reflected? Deuteronomy 17 continues by noting that the king “will write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. And it will be with him, and he will read it aloud all the days of his life.”[30]  The crux of my argument lies here. The leader of this community is meant to write a copy of this law in the presence of the Levitical priests. Within the context of this passage, this likely refers to the need for an authoritative “approval” of the text. However, this is directly related to our situation as well. If Exodus 19 is to be believed, and the whole community is a “kingdom of priests” then this means that the leader is to write and engage with the law (torah, better translated as “instruction”) in the presence of the whole community. Far from just being a pastor in their study, this model of leadership necessitates bringing the text that will shape and form a community to the community to oversee before, during, and after it has been written.

To put it more explicitly, this is not a model of “top-down” teaching/preaching, but rather this is a model of communally seeking the will and word(s) of God. This means that “the transforming word arrives, not as a decisive judgement or as a personal insight, but as an emergent communal reality.”[31] Instead of the pastor seeking to simply teach, the pastor brings the text to the community in conversation and is listening to how this text is shaping and forming the whole community, then uses this listening to shape the whole community by speaking these words over them. This, then, necessitates the “pastor as scholar” model that has become so lost by our churches. If the pastor is to have meaningful conversation around a text, the pastor must research possible readings of the text including, but not limited to, commentaries in the pastor’s tradition, finding articles from Bible scholars, translating, and (most importantly) finding writings from people who are not represented in spaces where the text is being discussed. This becomes a never-ending journey of exploring what the text is saying to the community as the community lives its life. It also necessitates continued study, as a stagnant word will become stale and inert, never able to truly shape a community. The leader is placed in the unique position to ask good questions of the text, and of the community, and to hold space for hard questions that are necessarily brought up when any topic is explored with close friends. This is where critical thinking meets the spiritual life, through hard questions and sometimes uncomfortable answers. Ultimately, the leader is geared towards supporting the growth that is provided by the Spirit of God.

With this kind of focus on the text, the leader is necessarily thrust into a place of relationship.[32] In thinking about the four-fold relationship, the leader must grow in relation to creation, as they care for the spaces they inhabit and the spaces those spaces inhabit. This will also mean that the leader will have to do some work on their “relation to self” as well, because asking hard questions has a way of doing that. Most importantly, though, engaging the text in this way creates a unique opportunity to take the relationship with the community from one of transaction (the pastor needs to give me what I want, or I will leave) to one of transformation (I may disagree with what has been said, but I got to speak my mind and feel as though I was heard). This also means that success can no longer be measured by “how many people” either in tithes, or in attendance. Rather, “success” must be measured by the strength of the relationships formed, and the restoration of whatever relationships have been broken. This is all done with the goal that, as Deuteronomy notes, the leader (and I would argue the community as well) would learn “to fear the LORD his God.”[33] This is worship language at its finest. The leader learns and understands, alongside the community, that God is ultimately still the sovereign one who is working to restore all things. This is the reminder that no one single person has the authority or right to stand in the place of judgement–that seat is already taken. No one can deny access to this community because it is not their place. The only goal is to learn who God is, together.

This idea of relationality is supported by one other idea in the Deuteronomy passage, “and it (the law) will be with him, and he will read it aloud all the days of his life.”[34] This work is continuous and ongoing. Again, the work flies in the face of any kind of transactional theology we might make. It is only through the consistent reading, communicating, re-reading, and re-communicating, that relationship can truly be formed. This is also the space where critical thinking thrives the best, and where we can live out our calling to fully reflect the divine image. But, as a life-long process, it is meant to establish more than just a tool for living; it is meant to become an entire way of being. We would do well to learn from our spiritual ancestors who held tightly onto, and were crucially shaped by, the idea of Midrash.[35] 

This kind of work is meant to be an embodied work. The main verb of verse 19 is the verb qara’ (קרא) which is translated here as “read.”[36] However, this word implies something more than just sitting down and reading some words on a page. The word carries a connotation of an audible sound coming from the mouth of the speaker, and is commonly translated as “call out”, “cry out”, or even “read aloud”.[37] This kind of language forces the leader out of their own personal headspace and invites them to “read aloud” the words that are shaping and forming them daily. This goes beyond just the preaching event (which the leader is often responsible for) but is an extended invitation to the leader to participate fully with their bringing in a shaping, forming, and healing word to bear on the community.

In the same way that the divine word “became flesh and lived among us,”[38] this passage invites the leader to continue to bring the living word to bear within the community, as a member of the community. In place of the “king”, who only knows how to take, this leader knows how to receive. This is work, maybe even the hardest work[39], but it is necessary if the community is ever going to learn to grow and change together. This is not work that can be done all at once–it takes time, a lifetime even, of working and reworking. This must become the central heartbeat of the church if it is going to thrive again.

The risky business of theology is daring to say something about God and to act in light of the Divine name, a being that we have no complete grasp of and who stands both transcendently and imminently related to creation. Yet, much like God meeting us in the incarnation, theology has a way of entering our lives and forcing us to make changes that are often uncomfortable, but more closely align with what we believe we are being called to. The same is true of this project. If what I am proposing here is taken at face value, then leaders must undergo the theological and practical work of transitioning from “taking” to “receiving”, from “transaction” to “relation”, and from “teacher” to “listener.” This is, indeed, a dangerous venture. The leader must be willing to give up control, the community must be willing to pick up power, and both parties must be ready to act in ways that are vastly different from what they are used to. This is where we are met, face-to-face, by the Spirit of God, beckoning us deeper into new life.

The ”Roundtable” Meeting

What does this work look like in practice? At the head of this work lies the task of centering the will and Word[40] of God. Far from taking these words away from the preacher (who is called out of a community to preach this Word to the community), what I propose is a way to add other voices to the conversation, but to add them in a way that unites the community in the four-fold relationship.[41] To begin, what I propose is a weekly meeting that is centered around a conversation with the scriptures at the center. The leader must understand their role as the community comes before the scriptures, lest this meeting devolve into a typical “Bible Study” where it is easy to sit back and hide. The leader comes into the meeting having done some research into the text at hand, to whatever extent they are able (including past research and experience with the text as the leader “reads the text aloud all the days of their life”). The leader’s role is not to act as an internet search that can provide any answer to any question the community may bring. Nor is it the role of the leader to provide the paradigm for thinking about a text. Rather, as the community comes to the text, the leader needs to take on the dual role of host and participant. This means that the leader is the one who organizes the meeting, prepares/selects the text, and keeps a general idea of where the conversation is going. However, the leader does not stand apart from the community, rather the leader joins in on the discussion surrounding the text primarily through asking questions of the community that the text raises. This is a clear point where McClure and I differ. He states that the preacher needs to be involved in the conversation, so their voice is not lost. For him, the sermon becomes a place where the whole voice of the “roundtable” is brought before the community to offer a word that shapes and forms the community. While I agree that it is vital to have the voice of the community represented in the sermon, I think the time dedicated to the communal reading needs to be more formative for the community. Simply, I think the leader needs to function differently in this meeting and will have an opportunity to use their voice in the sermon. This more closely aligns with what I believe Nazarenes think the role of the preacher, as one who is called out from the community to preach, is.

Moreover, learning to ask good questions is exactly what we learn to do in Divinity school[42]. As leaders we have been trained to ask good questions and to sit with those questions as we make our way through a text. For this new way of being, asking questions becomes the primary pedagogy. Drawing from the Socratic method,[43] the leader helps the community to examine both their individual lives, as well as the life of the community, through questions of the central text (and how our lives meet the text). Both deconstruction, as hard questions are asked, and reconstruction, as the community seeks answers in relationship to each other and in relationship to God, are embraced as the community journeys together. In this way, the leader acts as host and as participant. There is, however, a caveat. It is up to the leader, called by the Spirit of God, to continue to push and dive deeper into the question of the mystery of God, and to not settle for “the old company line” for answers. This is where questions of race, gender, class, and sexual identity can and must take center stage (as questions that have been on the margins for too long) in a formative way. For example, in place of reading the story of “the prodigal son” as a story about a son who returns home to a welcoming father, we begin to ask questions about the father’s ability to count how many sons he had, and the perspective of the elder brother.[44] This leads to questions like, “Who has the church needlessly neglected while we have played favorites?”[45] These are the kind of questions that begin a communal discussion alongside the text. The community is shaped and formed by wrestling with these questions that keep the text “alive and sharp.”[46]

For these questions to have full effect, the seeking of the Word of God together should be done in smaller groups, so that all voices will be able to participate and not feel as though they are fighting for space.[47] This idea of a communal meeting is more than just playing to the strength of the pedagogy, though. Rather, having smaller groups[48] allows the text to be the center of conversation, but gives the necessary space to the community for all voices to be heard in the conversation. These groups should create a safe space where people are free to speak their mind, are caring for the members of the group[49] and are constantly reassessing who is not present to ensure the whole community is engaged. These meetings should remain as an open invitation to any who would come. Ultimately, this process of communally seeking God’s word should remind everyone that there is no one voice, not even the voice of the preacher, that is privileged enough to speak the Word of God. That act, and whatever manifestations it takes, is reserved for God alone. Rather, as the image of God the community must be willing to seek the Divine will together and to be shaped and formed by the process, from conversation to sermon.

These kinds of conversations, led by the questions of the leader, require an open process to be successful. This comes first on the part of the leader in recognizing that our contemporary world has changed since we last encountered the text. I would describe it as the two worlds, the world of our experience and the world of the text, are continually meeting, but it is never in the same place. As our world changes, the text shows its dynamic nature and asks that we hear anew the Word of God. In a lecture I was part of, Barbara Reid said, “it is not our job to play first century Bile land; we must be constantly re- interpreting.”[50] This is a critical reason for a leader to have not only a solid foundational knowledge, but also to utilize the questioning skills they learn in higher education. To put it another way, this open process necessitates the “leader as scholar.” Without the willingness to ask good questions and seek out new voices, the text’s dynamic nature is unable to be grasped, and its efficacy is diminished.

With this open process comes a new purpose. In place of a community meeting to monolithically hear what a text says, the community now is focused on seeking the will of God together. In place of the leader getting up and telling the community what to do and how to live, the community has a voice in understanding the Divine will. Everyone has a stake in what is said and done from that point forward. Everyone is shaped and formed by the Word as they wrestle with questions together. This communal voice then becomes the basis on which the Sunday morning sermon is preached. Here, the leader is given the words of the community, as they sought the Word together, to give full voice and life as the community worships. In place of a “one and done” sermon, or a single question that is neatly wrapped up with an answer in thirty minutes, the words spoken in worship are pushed to move the community to embrace the unknown and to live relationally.

The riskiest part of the process, though, is the duration and consistency of it. If this process is to be successful, and if people are really to be shaped and formed as they engage in conversation, then leaders who adopt this must be willing to embrace a long, slow, and ongoing process. As anyone who has done street evangelism, or thanksgiving family politics, can tell you, you will almost never change someone’s mind in fifteen minutes. In the same way, we cannot expect someone to embrace the process of changing their heart and mind with only a thirty-minute sermon that they have no say in. The leader must be willing to move from a position of teaching and taking, to a position of listening and receiving. To be sure, this is extremely hard and frustrating work as people are creatures of habit and do not like to change. In addition, since so much of our culture has been baptized in transactional theology, these will often be the answers that a leader encounters (accompanied by stares of confusion when they start to wonder if the text might be read in a different way) as they ask questions. However, learning to embrace the process–to embrace the struggle and difficulty that comes with it–fills our need for relationship in theology. The truth is relationships are messy and often involve struggle and hardship to produce growth. We also know, though, that what can be gained from relationship is worth immeasurably more than anything else we can have in this life. Our process of doing theology can and should reflect that. By creating a space where questions are welcomed, encouraged, and wrestled with, the four-fold relationship in our theology is addressed and met. We grow in relation to God as we engage the “life of the mind” together. We grow in community with each other as we wrestle and struggle with hard questions. We relate to creation as we commit to do and embody the Word found in community. We relate to ourselves as we discover more about who we are through the process. 

____________

[1] John Wesley, An Address to the Clergy. By John Wesley, (Gale ECCO, Print Editions, 2018).

[2] Philosophy is understood here as: “A word from two Greek words, phileō, “to love,” and sophia, “wisdom.” Thus, a philosopher is a lover of wisdom. Socrates held that the unexamined life is not worth living, and the ancient Greek philosophers sought wisdom regarding truth, knowledge, beauty, and goodness. In this sense, then, philosophy is the attempt to think hard about life, the world as a whole, and the things that matter most in order to secure knowledge and wisdom about these matters. Accordingly, philosophy may be defined as the attempt to think rationally and critically about life’s most important questions in order to obtain knowledge and wisdom about them. Philosophy can help someone form a rationally justified, true worldview, that is, an ordered set of propositions that one believes, especially propositions about life’s most important questions.” For a more complete discussion on Philosophy, see J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd edition (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2017), Chapter 1.

[3] Attendance and tithes being the primary ways success is measured. These also become the primary goals that churches try to meet as they think “ministry strategy”.

[4] “Amazon Best Sellers: Best Christian Church Leadership,” accessed December 2, 2021, https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Christian-Church-Leadership/zgbs/books/7259426011.

[5] “Amazon Best Sellers: Best Christian Church Growth,” accessed December 2, 2021, https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Christian-Church-Growth/zgbs/books/7259425011/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_7259426011.

[6] “Church Planting and Multiplication Resources,” Exponential, accessed December 2, 2021, https://exponential.org/. These conferences often have tens of thousands of pastors attend.

[7] Simply knowing ideas and passages central to the tradition that one ascribes to.

[8] From my years in ministry, it has been evident to me that people will intentionally change their behavior around me when they find out I am a pastor and I come into proximity.

[9] Which humans as individuals and communities bear according to my interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27

[10] There are also metrics added for “people reached” with programs and activities that the church does over the year.

[11] “District Assembly and Conventions - MidSouth District Church of the Nazarene,” District Assembly and Conventions - MidSouth District Church of the Nazarene, accessed November 29, 2021, https://midsouthnaz.org/recordings/district-assembly-and-conventions/. There are also discussions of other things that the church and district are accomplishing, but the main metrics are attendance and tithe.

[12] William Sloane Coffin, The Heart Is a Little to the Left: Essays on Public Morality, 1st edition (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2011).

[13] Image of God

[14] H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology (Kansas City, Mo: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1988), 290.

[15] Dunning, 486.

[16] Thoughts taken from: Timothy Green, “Old Testament Theology Class,” Old Testament Theology Class (November 7, 2018).

[17] This, however, is not to impart the title of king onto any specific person, rather, as I hope to show, the human understanding of “king” differs drastically from what a “divine” conception of “king” looks like. For the sake of consistency with the text, I will be using “king” as a parallel term, with the understanding that it is not meant to be a title used to denote absolute power.

[18] Deuteronomy 17

[19] Verses 7-9, my own translation.

[20] This becomes tricky, as the presence of God is mediated by the religious sector, who seem to prop themselves up as the rulers of the community. While this goes beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to keep in mind that all humans are on the same plane, regardless of occupation or otherwise (i.e., being in the religious sector doesn’t make one inherently “better” or “more suited” for leadership).

[21] Verse 6, my translation.

[22] Verse 14, my translation. A prophetic perfect tense, “you will say.”

[23] Verse 14, my translation: “let me place a king over myself like all the nations which surround me.”

[24] Verses 16-17, my translation.

[25] This is a consistent theme in Deuteronomy, and also speaks to the need for Sabbath. The reason for Sabbath given in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 (paraphrased) is that “you were once slaves in Egypt, don’t you dare go back there!” As opposed to the reason given in Exodus 20:8-11 (paraphrased) “God made everything in 6 days and rested on the 7^th day. You should do the same.”

[26] This is a word I tried to highlight in my translation to draw out this point. This is often translated “greatly” which I believe is too soft to use here.

[27] Many of these become a critique of what Solomon ends up doing. In order to build the temple, Solomon acquires wealth and conscripts labor from the people, even sending some of them to Egypt! See 1 Kings 9-10.

[28] Verse 15, my translation: “you will place a king over yourself from among your brothers. You are not permitted to set a foreigner over yourself who is not one of your brothers.” Inclusive language is not used here as this is a literal rendering of the text. This is in no way meant to imply that leaders of a community can only be male, nor does it imply that leaders cannot come from somewhere that is not originally in the community, as my interpretation has described.

[29] The four-fold relationship, as explained earlier by Dunning, is relationship with God, others, creation, and self.

[30] Verses 18-19, my translation.

[31] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 54-55.

[32] McClure. This kind of Bible reading reflects what McClure calls symmetrical relationships between preacher and congregant. This kind of relationship develops an interpersonal dependence in community where the Word/will of God can be sought.

[33] Verse 19, my translation.

[34] Verse 19, my translation.

[35] “The usage (of midrash) coincided with a wider recognition that biblical interpretation was among the most pervasive activities pursued by all Jews, including the followers of Jesus, throughout the Second Temple Period and well into late antiquity.” David Stern, Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation, second edition, fully revised and expanded (Oxford: Oxford university press, 2017), 707.

[36] Verse 19, my translation.

[37] “H7121 - Qārā’ - Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon (Nasb20),” Blue Letter Bible, accessed November 2, 2021, https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb20/gen/1/1/s_1001.

[38] John 1:14, my translation.

[39] Often this kind of word is not the most popular to hear.

[40] Not intended to mean “the Bible” in this paper, but rather is used to mean “God’s revelation”.

[41] This method is taken extensively from McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit. With some slight deviations.

[42] Nazarene education track or seminary for those who took a different path.

[43] Used loosely here, I am drawing on the primary tenants of examining our lives and asking good questions.

[44] See Amy-Jill Levine, Ben Witherington, and Cambridge University Press, The Gospel of Luke, 2019. For a full breakdown of this reading of the parable.

[45] For example, who has the church rejected by favoring heterosexual families? Singles, people identifying as queer, couples unable to have kids for whatever reasons come to mind.

[46] Hebrews 4:12

[47] The recommendation is 6-8 for the group size with 8 being right on the edge of too big. Though, this will differ depending on how leaders function with a group.

[48] I envision this being a process where several groups can meet, and the leader can rotate groups/change the composition of groups to ensure all voices are heard.

[49] As members of the community must

[50] Barbara Reid, “Gospel of Luke” (Vanderbilt University, November 17, 2020).

Bibliography

• “Amazon Best Sellers: Best Christian Church Growth.” Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Christian-Church-Growth/zgbs/books/7259425011/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_7259426011.

• “Amazon Best Sellers: Best Christian Church Leadership.” Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Christian-Church-Leadership/zgbs/books/7259426011.

• Exponential. “Church Planting and Multiplication Resources.” Accessed December 2, 2021. https://exponential.org/.

• Coffin, William Sloane. The Heart Is a Little to the Left: Essays on Public Morality. 1st edition. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2011.

• District Assembly and Conventions - MidSouth District Church of the Nazarene. “District Assembly and Conventions - MidSouth District Church of the Nazarene.” Accessed November 29, 2021. https://midsouthnaz.org/recordings/district-assembly-and-conventions/.

• Dunning, H. Ray. Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology. Kansas City, Mo: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1988.

• Green, Timothy. “Old Testament Theology,” Old Testament Theology Class. Trevecca Nazarene University, November 7, 2018.

• “H7121 - Qārā’ - Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon (Nasb20).” Accessed November 2, 2021. https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb20/gen/1/1/s_1001.

• Levine, Amy-Jill, and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation. Second edition, Fully revised and Expanded. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2017.

• Levine, Amy-Jill, Ben Witherington, and Cambridge University Press. The Gospel of Luke, 2019.

• McClure, John S. The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.

• Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. 2nd edition. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2017.

• Reid, Barbara. “Gospel of Luke.” Vanderbilt University, November 17, 2020.

• Wesley, John. An Address to the Clergy. By John Wesley,. Place of publication not identified: Gale ECCO, Print Editions, 2018.