Diakonia and Mission:

Charting the Ambiguity

Benjamin L. Hartley

DOI: 10.7252/Paper. 000050

About the Author

Benjamin L. Hartley is Associate Professor of Christian Mission and Director
of United Methodist Studies at Palmer Theological Seminary, the Seminary of
Eastern University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is an ordained deacon in the
Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of the United Methodist Church.
52 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

Around the world individual local churches, denominations,

seminaries, training institutes, and even governments struggle with the
meaning of diakonia and its cognates (diakonein, diakonos, etc.). In large
part the ambiguity of diakonia as a Greek term is due to the usage of
linguistic variations of the term outside of its New Testament context;
diakonie in German is best translated as religiously-motivated social work.
Scandinavian languages have similar terms with like meaning. Diakonia as
a New Testament term has been interpreted to mean acts of lowly, humble,
service, and this field of meaning has been assumed to apply equally
well to what Germans call diakonie. The precise nature of diakonie as a
religious term, however, is contested in the secular cultural context of many
European countries. Linguistic research on diakonia in the New Testament
context by Roman Catholic scholar John N. Collins further challenges
the traditional understanding of diakonia and diakonie as lowly, humble,
service. Needless to say, a term translated as “ministry” and “service” in
English Bibles directly impinges on our understanding of mission. The
ambiguity surrounding diakonia, therefore, is germane to challenges in
defining mission in general and is also directly relevant to our 2015 APM
conference theme of examining the naming of mission program titles.

The word’s assumed connotation of “lowly, humble, service” has

influenced ecclesial discourse in ways which have not always been positive.
The ubiquitous use of “servant leadership” language, for example, as the
paramount understanding of ministry can be a problem for a number of
reasons which I elaborate on later in this paper. Our APM colleague Bill
Burrows pointed out years ago the problem of reductionism in this move
away from the rich spiritual depth of ministry – observed perhaps most
poignantly in the liturgical theology of ordination rites – to ministry as
mere ethical commitment to be humble and morally earnest (Burrows
1980: 69). I see “servant leadership” rhetoric as sometimes engaging in
such reductionism. John N. Collins’s research further calls such rhetoric
into question.

The field of missiology has struggled with diakonia in several ways,

but perhaps most directly in our definitional concerns about how ministry
and mission are interrelated. Is ministry (diakonia) a subset of activity
done by specifically or generally commissioned persons on behalf of the
community which, as a whole, participates in the broader missio Dei, or is
mission a subset of activity – “mission in the dimension of difference” –
with ministry being just about everything individuals or the church does?
At the risk of being somewhat reductionist myself, I see John N. Collins
and Paul Avis representing the “ministry-as-subset-of mission” view and
 Benjamin L. Hartley | 53

Titus Presler representing the “mission-as-subset-of ministry” view (Avis

2005; Collins 1990; Presler 2010). My own view probably comes closest
to that expressed by Paul Avis. He simultaneously refers to mission as a
broad concept and also a concept more limited to “cutting edge” activities.
For Avis, “[m]ission is the whole Church bringing the whole Christ to the
whole world. In this holistic concept of mission, mission is seen as the
cutting edge of the total life of the Church” (Avis 2005: 1).

For missiologists what is at stake here is also related to the decades-

long debate (now somewhat muted or taking a different shape in an ethos
of anti-institutional attitudes) between the interrelationship of ecclesiology
with missiology. In the 1960s this was simplistically expressed in the
contrast between “God-church-world” and “God-world-church” framing
of how the Missio Dei ought best be understood. (The debate between
Hoekendijk and McGavran on this does not need to be pointed out for this
audience of missiologists.) How one conceptualizes ministry (diakonia) as
either a subset of mission or as the more encompassing term than mission
reflexively influences and is influenced by one’s ecclesiology.

For this paper, my intent is not to rehearse the missiological debates

around so-called ecclesiocentrism and liberal expressions of the missio Dei
of the early to mid-20th century (expressed, respectively, at Tambaram in
1938 and Uppsala in 1968) or even to wade into the debate about how
mission and ministry might best be defined. Rather, I want to focus on
the ambiguity surrounding diakonia specifically. This debate is reasonably
well known by theologians and church leaders in Europe and northern-
European influenced denominations and federations; Lutheran World
Federation and Porvoo Agreement denominations know this debate best
(Hanover Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Commission
1996; Dietrich, Jorgensen, Korslien, and Nordstokke 2014). The debate
around diakonia is almost entirely unknown by American evangelicals, a
group well-represented among our APM colleagues. Roman Catholics,
United Methodists, and Anglicans have scholars who have addressed the
matter extensively, but the extent to which their ideas have influenced
others in their churches is difficult to tell (Avis 2005; Collins 1990; 2006;
Gooder 2006; Hartley 2004).

To be clear, my contribution in this paper is primarily to call for more

conversation in missiological circles about the contested nature of the
biblical term for ministry – diakonia – as it is being used in a number
of academic programs in Europe which for Americans might be seen as
programs in mission or “holistic ministry.” How we talk about diakonia
54 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

makes a difference in whether and how missiologists build partnerships

with denominations and training institutes that use the term diakonia as
a constitutive dimension of God’s mission. Training centers such as the
Diakoniewissenschaftliches Institut at the University of Heidelberg is
probably the most long-standing and research-focused diaconal institute
in Europe, but similar institutes also exist in other European countries
(Norway, Czech Republic, Finland). I believe missiology has an especially
important gift to offer these regions where the church seeks to be faithful
in addressing its “asymmetrical burden” in the midst of European secularity.
Understanding diakonia is integral to being faithful in that context
(Schreiter 2010). Our understanding of diakonia also influences the
ministry of deacons in our churches, a ministry which Paul Avis describes
as “at the same time the most problematic and the most promising of all
the ministries of the Church” (Avis 2009: 3).

I look forward to hearing from conference participants about how you

are navigating the terrain around the term diakonia in the contexts in which
you serve. How are you experiencing – if at all – the ambiguity which
surround this term in your own academic programs or denominations? Is
this a problem primarily for Lutheran and Lutheran-influenced groups?
In the school where I work we have just barely begun to grapple with
this problem in our “Open Seminary” program which utilizes a number
of biblical Greek terms as an interpretive framework for its curriculum.
One of those terms is diakonia. In my own denomination of the United
Methodist Church I seem to be serving in a kind of mediating role
between two different understandings of diakonia and have been trying to
negotiate those differences for almost twenty years. As mostly a historian
of mission, the few times I have authored explicitly theological articles in
the last fifteen years have mostly been occasions where I focused on this
question (Hartley 1999; 2003; 2004; 2014; Hartley and Van Buren 1999).1

Conceptually, the ambiguity surrounding the meaning and practice

of diakonia might be best characterized as an ellipse which – for the
geometrically uninitiated – is defined as an elongated circle with two
gravitational centers. The various sorts of discourse about diakonia could
be seen as constituting the various orbital paths one could take in lesser or

1 This has been personally important to me as my calling as a permanent deacon

in God’s church is a calling that resonates as deeply as my missionary vocation.
In fact, I view my diaconal calling as a particular expression of my missionary
vocation. Interestingly and somewhat self-critically, my reflections on the
diaconate have not always reflexively informed my missiological thinking as
much as I think they could have or perhaps should have.
 Benjamin L. Hartley | 55

caritative emissarial

greater relationship with the two gravitational centers. Such “paths” could
be depicted with the use of many more arrows than in the figure above.
The gravitational centers are the caritative and the emissarial dimensions
of meaning for diakonia.

Caritative
For most northern European Christians today the term diakonia
mostly brings to mind the field of meaning which in German is called
diakonie or religiously-motivated social welfare work – the caritative
gravitational center in the figure above. The genesis for this understanding
of diakonia mostly comes from biblical interpretation of the choosing of
the seven in Acts 6 and the tendency of deacons (who were not known as
such in Acts 6) by the fourth century to be associated – at least sometimes
– with the imagery of the basin and towel (Connolly 1932: 148-150).
The understanding of deacons’ vocation to be focused on humble, loving
service found expression in Luther’s and Calvin’s ecclesiology as well
(Olson 1992: 99-118). In the nineteenth century the association between
deacons and social welfare work was strengthened further by the work
of Theodor Fliedner and Johann Wichern in their work among the poor
which Wichern famously called the church’s “Inner Mission.”

A one-to-one correspondence developed between deacon’s work and

loving, humble service such that biblical terms for ministry (diakonia,
diakonos, etc.) similarly took on a strong caritative meaning in German
56 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

and other European languages. During World War II the diaconal

movement in Germany largely acquiesced to the demands of the Nazi
party; diaconal workers were, by definition, humble servants after all.
Friedrich von Bodelschwingh (1877-1946) was a noteworthy exception
to this in his work to save the aged and mentally ill from being classified
as “Lebensunwerteslebens” (life unworthy of life) and killed by the Hitler
regime (Strohm 1990; Nordstokke 2014). (My own great-grandmother
who was severely mentally ill during the war years was so classified and
killed.) By the last few decades of the twentieth century a more or less
subservient understanding of diakonia in northern European languages
began to be modified somewhat around the concept of “prophetic
diakonia” and an understanding of diakonia that sought to infuse a stronger
ecclesial dimension into the understanding and practice of diakonia (Poser
1987). Juergen Moltmann was one prominent theologian who engaged in
theological reflection around the concept of diakonia in this period and
sought to apply insights from liberation theology to it (Moltmann 1984).

Prominent centers of study around diakonia mostly understood in

this caritative dimension have been established in a number of European
countries. The Diakoniewissenschaftliches Institut at the University of
Heidelberg is perhaps one of the most long-standing and influential
of these institutes. Some of these institutes have master’s level degree
programs which acquaint students with the debate surrounding diakonia
but do not appear to be explicitly missiological in the scholarly resources
which they utilize even if their program’s description seems to encapsulate
much of what the Association of Professors of Mission encourages. The
Norwegian Diakonhjemmet University College describes its master’s
degree in Diakonia and Christian Social Practice as follows:

After completing the programme you will have…

Obtained the knowledge of the theory and practice

of diakonia, as well as the professional competence
required to function within congregations, institutions
and organizations. This knowledge includes a basic
understanding of Christian theology.

Acquired an integrated and professional understanding

of diaconal approaches and methods that express
international and ecumenical awareness, interdisciplinary
perspectives, perspectives of participation and gender
awareness in relation to diaconal practice.
 Benjamin L. Hartley | 57

Gained competency in facing the major contemporary

challenges within diaconal action related to the struggle
for justice, stewardship of Creation, building inclusive
fellowships, and expressing love for one’s neighbour.

Developed his/her competence in applying acquired

knowledge related to understanding, methods and
problem solving – in new and unfamiliar environments
(Diakonhjemmet University College, 2015).

In this program description the term “missiological” or “missional”

could be readily inserted in place of diaconal. For us in the Association of
Professors of Mission it is worth considering why it is not.

Emissarial
The renegotiating of the concept of diakonia to be more liberative
and prophetic in the 1980s was even more strongly called into question
by the landmark linguistic study of diakonia and its cognates in the New
Testament by John N. Collins’s Diakonia: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources
(1990). In the twenty-five years since its publication it has prompted
considerable re-evaluation of diakonia by biblical scholars. To my
knowledge, no one has brought forth evidence which seriously counters the
claims made by Collins in his 1990 publication. The differences between
the older understanding of diakon- words and the newer interpretation
may be succinctly expressed by comparing the definitions of the term in
Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon in the 2nd edition (sometimes denoted
by the initials of its authors as BAGD, 1979) with the 3rd edition which
directly draws from Collins’s work (BDAG, 2001; Gooder 2006: 46-47).
58 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

Comparison of Definitions of diakoneo in the New Testament in

Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon2
BAGD 2nd edition (1979) BDAG 3rd edition (2001)
1) Wait on someone at table 1) To function as an
intermediary, act as a
go-between/agent, be
at one’s service with
intermediary function
either expressed or
implied.
2) Serve generally, of services of 2) To perform obligations,
any kind without focus on
intermediary function.
3) To meet an immediate
3) Care for, take care of need, help.
4) Help, support someone 4) To carry out official
duties, minister.
Rendering of specific
assistance, aid, support
(Acts 6:1); send
someone something for
support (Acts 11:29).
5) Of the ecclesiastical office
serve as deacon 5) Acts 6:2 poses a special
problem: care for,
take care of… “look
after tables” can be
understood of serving
food at tables… but
it is improbable that
some widows would be
deprived of food at a
communal meal. The
term diakonia (verse 1)
more probably refers
to administrative
responsibility, one
of whose aspects is
concern for widows
without specifying the
kind of assistance that
is allotted.
 Benjamin L. Hartley | 59

There are three insights which are critical in this shift of diakon- word
definitions in the New Testament (c.f. Avis 2005; Hannaford 1996; Collins
1992; 2002). First, there has been a significant change in understanding
these terms for ministry such that their field of meaning is increasingly
focused on intermediary or emissarial relationships of persons and less on
the caring, ethical, nature of the acts performed, such as in taking care of
or helping someone.3 It is the relationship with and to the church that is
critical to recover here not the officious status which may be associated
with terms such as emissary or ambassador. Ministry is something that is
given to someone by the church; calling something “my ministry” is thus,
strictly speaking, an oxymoron (Avis 2005: 46).4 Ministry is something
which the Church may give to an individual (whether lay or ordained) as a
public expression of the Church’s mission in the world. Something could
be designated a ministry through an informal public approval or through a
service of ordination; the point is that the work is in some way accountable
to the Church. For missiologists this understanding of ministry carries
with it the long history of missionary orders which may be especially
useful in infusing strength in what has sometimes become a rather anemic
understanding of ministry.

Second, as already suggested, the revised definition of diakon- terms

introduces a greater focus on the missionary meaning of the term such
that diakonos (minister) is more closely related to apostolos (messenger)
than our previous understanding of diakon-terms have tended to permit
with its focus on lowly, humble, service (Schmittals 1969; Braaten 1985).
Paula Gooder has underscored that the diakon- terms still maintain a
sense of menial service in some New Testament passages. However,
even when menial service is emphasized as part of a minister’s vocation
it is still very much related to the minister’s emissarial relationship to an
authority – and ultimately to Christ as his missionary (Gooder 2006:
46). At a personal level, a more apostolic understanding of a minister’s

2 The table above is a much-abbreviated depiction of an extensive comparison in

two editions of a Greek-English lexicon which also contains definitions of other
daikon - cognates such as diakonia and diakonos. For serious examination of
these definitions please consult Bauer (1979) and Bauer and Danker (2001).

3 I have only included the verb diakoneo in the table above but similar contrasts
are evident in related terms diakonos and diakonia.

4 A fruitful trajectory of reflection to explore here would be the interrelationship

between vocation and ministry – for pastors and others (c.f. Hunter 2003;
Placher 2005).
60 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

vocation may further guard against an unhealthy victim complex whereby

one perceives oneself as a burned-out servant of the people more than a
sent emissary of God. I believe that the old understanding of diakonia and
the attendant “servant leader” language is especially vulnerable to such a
distortion of ministry – especially if it is left ambiguous whose servant one
is (Dulles 1987; McCrimmon 2014). Instead, what is emphasized in the
revised understanding of diakonia – and, of course, elsewhere in the New
Testament – is that one can be radically free to perform menial and self-
sacrificial missionary service precisely because of the “high calling” and
close emissarial relationship and friendship one can have as a diakonos or
minister of Jesus.

In a similar way, the older definition of diakonia has contributed to

wider problematic ecclesial self-understandings. The missionary impulse
of the reign of God does not consist in a timid humility of a “let the world
set the agenda” variety as the World Council of Churches proclaimed in
1968. In this appeal the WCC was motivated in part by a well-intentioned
desire to correct the abuses of ecclesiastical hubris. The diaconate was seen
as a vehicle to accomplish this in the Church (Morche 1996). Indeed,
ecclesiastical hubris must be rejected, but in doing so one must not be
dismissive of the Church (Hannaford 2000: 239-279). An embrace of
a revised definition for diakon- terms, while of course not refuting true
Christian humility, may help the diaconate (and the Church as a whole)
embrace the radical missionary values of God’s reign whereby the whole
Church brings the whole Christ to the whole world.5 Deacons, deaconess-
es, and missioners cross boundaries with and for the Gospel;6 they do not
5 Of course, in a very important sense it is not the Church that brings Christ to
places and people where he is totally absent. Nor is it the case that the Church
is equated with God’s reign. The Church participates in God’s mission through
Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit. And yet Christians affirm that the
Church is also far from being merely incidental in accomplishing God’s mission
in the world.

6 I am very conscious of the fact that such language of “boundary crossing” is

received by some persons as linguistic remnants of a colonial enterprise. I
believe that much theological discourse about boundaries and mission needs
to be reframed in light of insights gained from postcolonial theory and other
sources. I have found David Bosch’s essay on the “vulnerability of mission” to be
especially useful in my teaching in this regard. Bosch notes that “the activities of
adherents of any religion which holds that it has a message of universal validity
will invoke images of paternalism. And since the Christian faith, as I have
suggested, is intrinsically missionary, it will often be experienced as paternalistic
even where it is not. This is, if you wish, simply an “occupational hazard” of
 Benjamin L. Hartley | 61

follow an ambiguous or secular “world” which calls the shots for its lowly
servants.7
A third insight which may be garnered from this new definition of
diakon- terms is best framed in a negative way: Ministry is not synonymous
with activities of Christian discipleship. There has been a rather widespread
ecumenical tendency since the 1950s to expand the meaning of ministry
to the service of all baptized believers (Poser 1986; Collins 2006). This
resulted in nearly everything being identified as a ministry with little
left to be considered a matter of Christian discipleship. Loving one’s
neighbor, caring for the poor, and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ
are activities all Christians ought to do as a matter of their discipleship and
are not necessarily ministries – although they could be. As Paul Avis argues,
all baptized Christians are potential ministers even if not all Christians
are, by virtue of their baptism, ministers (Avis 2005: 52). As ecclesially
accountable leaders missionaries and others are called to encourage and
support the serious discipleship of others whether their activities are
recognized by the Church (and therefore ministry) or not.

I believe the new interpretive direction opened up by John N. Collins

is rich with missiological opportunity. This is perhaps most strikingly
expressed in Collins’s paraphrased interpretation of the choosing of the
seven in Acts 6.

The Greek-speaking members of the community

complained against those who spoke Aramaic that their
housebound widows were being overlooked in the great
preaching (diakonia) that was going on day by day in the
environs of the Temple. So the Twelve summoned the
whole complement of the disciples and said: ‘We cannot
possibly break off our public proclamation before the huge
crowds in the Temple to carry out a ministry (diakonein)
in the households of these Greek-speaking widows.
Brothers, you will have to choose seven men from your
own ethnic group who are fully respected, empowered by
the Spirit, and equipped for the task. We will then appoint

Christian missionaries (Bosch 1994: 83).” Bill Burrows is helpful in this regard
as well (2010). Among United Methodists, Hendrik Pieterse provides a helpful
discussion of the way the UMC uses theological language as a worldwide church
(2013).
7 Paul’s description of himself and others as slaves (doulos) of Christ highlights an
honorific element alongside the menial in a similar way to the revised definition
of diakon- terms (c. f. Martin 1990).
62 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

them to the role that needs to be filled. That will mean

that the Twelve can get on with attending to worship in
the Temple and to our apostolic ministry (diakonia) of
proclaiming the Word there (Collins 2002: 58).

Even though I think Collins’s interpretation of Act 6 and other passages

hold a great deal of promise, it is also true that diakonia understood in this
new way is vulnerable to being misunderstood. Collins’s interpretation of
diakonia in no way calls for retrenchment to “take back” ministry from
laypersons and give it exclusively to those who have been ordained.
Accountability – a key dimension of a go-between’s or emissary’s calling
– can take many different forms and can be informal or formal in nature.

Conclusion
Our current intellectual context with regard to the understanding
and practice of diakonia – understood both as religiously motivated social
work and as a Greek term in the New Testament for ministry – does not
seem to be moving very quickly toward resolving the ambiguity of this
word’s usage. We seem to be at different places on our ellipse trying to
make sense of one another’s orbital paths as best we can. Whether this
ambiguity will soon be resolved is impossible to predict. Until then, it is
important for missiologists and especially professors of mission to at least
be aware that there is ambiguity here so that institutional partnerships,
ecumenical relationships, and even personal relationships might be
initiated or strengthened and not side-tracked by misunderstanding. It
would be a tragically ironic thing indeed for ministry to be stymied because
of confusion over diakonia.
Benjamin L. Hartley | 63
64 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

References Cited

Avis, Paul.
2005 A Ministry Shaped by Mission. London: T & T Clark.

2009 “Editorial: Wrestling witih the Diaconate,” Ecclesiology 5,

3-6.

Bauer, Walter
1979 A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other
Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Bauer, Walter and Frederick William Danker, eds.

2001 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other
Early Christian Literature, Third ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Bosch, David J.
1992 “The Vulnerability of Mission,” in James A. Scherer and
Stephen B. Bevans, eds. New Directions in Mission and
Evangelization 2: Theological Foundations. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 73-86.

Braaten, Carl E.
1985 The Apostolic Imperative: Nature and Aim of the Church’s
Mission and Ministry. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress
Publishers.

Burrows, William R.
1980 New Ministries: The Global Context. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books.
 Benjamin L. Hartley | 65

2010 “Moving Beyond Christian Imperialism to Mission as

Reconciliation with all Creation,” in Amos Yong and
Barbara Brown Zikmund, eds. Remembering Jamestown:
Hard Questions about Christian Mission. Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 145-156.

Collins, John N.
1990 Diakonia: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources. New York:
Oxford University Press.

1992 Are All Christians Ministers? Collegeville, MN: The

Liturgical Press.

2002 Deacons and the Church: Making Connections between Old

and New. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing.

2006 “Ordained and Other Ministries: Making a Difference,”

Ecclesiology 3 no. 1, 11-32.

Connolly, Hugh
1932 Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated
and accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Diakonhjemmet University College

2015. Program description: http://www.diakonhjemmet.no/
DUC/Studiehaandbok/Direkte-publisering/Studiekat-
alog/Informasjon/Master-s-Degree-in-Diakonia-and-
Christian-Social-Practice. Accessed 12 May 2015.

Dietrich, Stephanie, Jorgensen, Knud, Korslien, Kari Karsrud, and

Nordstokke, Kjell, eds.
2014 Diakonia as Christian Social Practice: An Introduction.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Dulles, Avery
1987 Models of the Church, Expanded ed. New York:
Doubleday.

Gooder, Paula
2006 “Diakonia in the New Testament: A Dialogue with John
N. Collins,” Ecclesiology 3 no. 1, 33-56.
66 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

Hannaford, Robert
1996 “Foundations for an Ecclesiology of Ministry,” in
Christine Hall and Robert Hannaford, eds. in Order and
Ministry. Leominster, UK: Gracewing.

2000 ”The Representative and Relational Nature of Ministry

and the Renewal of the Diaconate” in Gunnel
Borgegard, Olav Fanuelsen, and Christine Hall, eds.
The Ministry of the Deacon 2: Ecclesiological Explorations.
Uppsala, Sweden: Nordic Ecumenical Council, 239-279.

Hartley, Benjamin L.
1999 “Deacons as Emissary-Servants: A Liturgical Theology.”
Quarterly Review, 19 no. 4, 372-386.

2003 An Empirical Look at the Ecumenical Diaconate in

the United States. (Vol. Monograph Series No. 16).
Providence, RI: North American Association for the
Diaconate.

2004 “Connected and Sent Out: Implications of New

Biblical Research for the United Methodist Diaconate.”
Quarterly Review, 24 no. 4, 367-380.

2014 “What’s in a Word?” Diakonia and Deacons in the Bible

and Today,” Paper presentation at the United Methodist
Office of Deaconess and Home Missioner Conference
on Lay Order, Nashville, TN 26-28 September.

Hartley, Ben L. and Paul Van Buren

1999 The Deacon: Ministry through Words of Faith and Acts of
Love. Nashville: General Board of Higher Education and
Ministry, The United Methodist Church.

Hunter, Victor
2003 Desert Hearts and Healing Fountains: Gaining Pastoral
Vocational Clarity. St. Louis: Chalice Press.

Hanover Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Commission

1996 The Diaconate as Ecumenical Opportunity. Anglican Con-
sultative Council and the Lutheran World Federation.
 Benjamin L. Hartley | 67

Lutheran World Federation

2009 Diakonia in Context: Transformation, Reconciliation, Em-
powerment. An LWF Contribution to the Understanding
and Practice of Diakonia. Geneva: LWF, 2009.
Martin, Dale
1990 Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline
Christianity New Haven: Yale University Press.

McCrimmon, Mitch
2014 “Why Servant Leadership is a Bad Idea,” http://www.
management-issues.com/opinion/6015/why-servant-
leadership-is-a-bad-idea/. Accessed 19 July 2014.

Moltmann, Juergen
1984 Diakonie im Horizont des Reiches Gottes. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Morche, Margret
1996 Zur Erneuerung des Staendigen Diakonats: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte unter besonderer Beruecksichtigung der Arbeit des
Internationalen Diakonatszentrums in seiner Verbindung
zum Deutschen Caritasverband. Freiburg im Breisgau:
Lambertus Verlag.

Nordstokke, Kjell
2014 “The Study of Diakonia as an Academic Discipline,”
In Stephanie Dietrich, Knud Jorgensen, Kari Karsrud
Korslien and Kjell Nordstokke, eds., Diakonia as
Christian Social Practice: An Introduction. Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock.

Olson, Jeannine E.
1992 One Ministry Many Roles: Deacons and Deaconesses
through the Centuries. St. Louis, MO: Concordia.

Pieterse, Hendrik R.
2013 “A Worldwide United Methodist Church? Soundings
toward a Connectional Theological Imagination”
Methodist Review 5.
68 | Diakonia and Mission: Charting the Ambiguity

Placher, William C.
2005 Callings: Twenty Centuries of Christian Wisdom on
Vocation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Poser, Klaus (Ed.)

1987 Diakonia 2000: Called to be Neighbours, Official Report,
WCC World Consultation Inter-Church Aid, Refugee
and World Service, Larnaca, 1986. Geneva: WCC
Publications.

Presler, Titus
2010 “Mission is Ministry in the Dimension of Difference: A
Definition for the Twenty-first Century.” International
Bulletin of Missionary Research, 34(4), 195-204.

Schmithals, Walter
1969 The Office of Apostle in the Early Church. Nashville:
Abingdon Press.

Schreiter, Robert
2010 “Mission from the Ground Up: Emergent Themes
in Contemporary Mission,” in Ogbu U. Kalu, Peter
Vethanayagamony, and Edmund Kee-Fook Chia
eds. Mission after Christendom: Emergent Themes in
Contemporary Mission. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press, 12-24.

Strohm, Theodor
1990 Diakonie im ‘Dritten Reich’. Heidelberg: Heidelberger
Verlaganstalt.
Benjamin L. Hartley | 69