Am I a Parrhesiastes?
If so, is this a part of my servanthood as a minister of the Church?

Jonny recently wrote a theological reflection as part of their training, some of which they used in talking about parrhesia in Episode 47. They have kindly let us publish it here for anyone interested.

Introduction

In this theological reflection, I will be exploring what parrhesia is and how this applies to being a servant of the Church, specifically within ordained ministry as a presbyter in the Methodist Church. I will answer the question of whether I am to be a parrhesiastes in ministry. Parrhesia is, simply, ‘frank speaking’, but is associated with ‘speaking truth to power’ and being a parrhesiastes is the word for someone who acts in/with parrhesia. I will be drawing heavily on the work of Michel Foucault, his understanding of power and parrhesia. I will then relate this to Jesus Christ and that we are called to be Christ-like and, therefore, to enact parrhesia. I then apply these insights to help me understand how the promises made at the ordinations service for a presbyter relates to parrhesia and, thus, my servanthood as a minister of the Church. 

Foucauldian Understanding of Power

First, it is important to explore Foucault’s notion of power, how this affects our identity and how this can be seen in contemporary contexts.

Michel Foucault, a gay twentieth century French philosopher, examined histories of different area, such as Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilisation, etc., and found interesting patterns within them regarding power. In one of his seminal works, The History of Sexuality, he describes and critiques various ‘discourses’ that have shaped people’s sex (that is, sexual intercourse not assigned sex), in a process called discourse analysis.¹ When he uses the word discourse, he means the “…ways in which social scientists shape jargon and conceptual grammar, organize classifications and typologies, and determine what counts as “knowledge” in the information flow becomes formative for the identities and forms of life of persons in society.”² Comparisons between the use of the word discourse for Foucault and Hegel’s narrative can be made meaning that it is, in part, knowledge and understanding that shapes a person’s identity.³ 

One such discourse and contemporary context is seen in Lowe’s work, regarding a census in the USA in 2000. There are categories within it for people’s demographics, and Lowe examines the nomenclature of gender and ethnicity. She notes that there are two “gendered subject positions (male and female)” and there are “fourteen racial subject positions.”⁴  The discourse here delineates what is and is not particular to an identity, what is considered a gender and what is considered an ethnicity. This delineation could be said to be ‘ideology’, which is a structure of standards and thoughts that underly the foundations of political theories; ideology is the knowledge part.⁵ In categorising these subject positions in this way it means that the government has decided as to how many there are for each. Foucault calls this influence of ideology on an individual’s being and identity ‘subjectivation’.⁶ The ideology works to regulate how people are, in how they behave and live.⁷ This puts them into ‘subject positions’ and a person can have many different types of these.⁸ But the question for Lowe is with regards to what it does for those who do not align themselves in these categories? There is an unspoken assumption here as to how a person should identify, such as male or female, which is an ideology. Lowe concludes that there would likely be consequences to the individuals who do not conform to the ideological standards found within this questionnaire. Within this, there is a need to be attentive in discourses as to what is said or not said.⁹ This is because the power that is hidden can transmit its ideologies so subtly that they become a ‘given’, that is, it becomes normative.¹⁰ This is often why there are negative consequences to those who do not conform to the ideologies that are present within discourse.

Despite this negative consequence, there is the idea of resistance to the dominant power. Foucault reasons that discourse performs and generates power and forces will oppose this power, uncovering it and offering a way to combat it.¹¹ The extent of power is to be able to exert prohibitions, that is, to ban certain behaviours or expressions of other ideologies in something like the law (with the census, it was what gender you must fit into). However, as it offers these injunctions, there is a resistance to it, to go against the prohibitions and push for reform.¹² In other words, there is the “dominant and dominated”, the powerful and the opposition, the master and the slave – yet it is important to note that this does not necessitate a parity between the two forces, they can be very unbalanced.¹³ Resistance is key to power relations, as the resistance generates the potential change:

“…what I mean by power relations is the fact that we are in a strategic situation toward each other. For instance, being homosexuals, we are in a struggle with the government, and the government is in a struggle with us…the struggle, or course, is not symmetrical…[but] we are not trapped…there is always the possibility of changing… [and] if there was no resistance, there would be no power relations. Because it would simply be a matter of obedience.”¹⁴ 

Foucault’s idea of discourse analysis that there is a combining of power and knowledge that shapes our subjectivity, our identity, in the ideologies that surround the individual. Within this, a force may be exerting a particular ideology, but there will always be another force rejecting it. It is a processual model and one that is productive, it offers “continual variations” that show that discourse is in a constant flux.¹⁵ This analysis of Foucault shows how power is present in socio-historical contexts that concerns itself with identity, as that identity, for Foucault, is formed by discourse/narrative.¹⁶ 

To summarise this section: if power leads to the construction of identity through subjectivation. That is, power delineates what is and what is not, such as Lowe’s example of the questionnaire’s nomenclature of what can and cannot be in gender, ethnicity, etc. Despite this subjectivation, the force that the power creates also has an opposing force – Foucault calls this resistance. This resistance pushes against the subjectivation of what is and is not acceptable, permissible, moral, good, etc. This is where parrhesia comes in, a process in which resistance can reside.

Parrhesia

Following the paradigma found within Foucauldian philosophy, Scanlon and Adlam describe how power can demarcate those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out’. Through this delineating of boundaries, subjectivation, exclusion of the other that is violent and a separation of ‘me’ and ‘not-me’ is formed. The authors say: 

“It is about an exclusivity that, at its most benign, is always infused with superiority and a patronising noblesse oblige and, at worst, is a clear and present manifestation of relations of domination, coercion and control of those ‘without’.”¹⁷

This can apply to micro, meso and macro power dynamics, that is, from individual to communal to societal levels of power relations. It describes how those with power may abuse it over those who have less power or don’t have power.  The above examples of gender and race being subjectivation of others is an example of state/societal power abusing others. An individual level may be seen in cases of domestic abuse. On a meso level, this could be a community, such as a church, where there is a desire for worship in a particular way by the majority, but there is a minority who wish for a different way but are ostracised for their opinion/preference. However, there is something more to this idea of an abuse of power because, as discussed above, there is also the idea of resistance. 

Scanlon and Adlam explore the philosopher Diogenes, who refused his subjectivation through resistance, through parrhesia. Diogenes, a man who came from wealth that was gained from somewhat incredulous means, began to shun this wealth due to the shaming that he experienced for it from the town he lived in, which was called Sinope. Instead of being ashamed by what he did, he threw back the shame onto Sinope by resisting the homelessness and exile by living on the streets of that same town.¹⁸ Later in life, he moved to Athens and continued his techne of being a philosopher and, being a follower of Socrates, Diogenes would use his same rhetoric to expose the hypocrisy and untruths of Athens.¹⁹ This is the praxis that Diogenes demonstrates, one of parrhesia, where one needs “colossal courage and a strong sense of the ground you stand upon in order to speak truth to power from the wrong end of a significant power differential.”²⁰ Diogenes act of resistance to the power of his day was to use parrhesia and thus not be confined to the subjectivation imposed upon him.

Scanlon and Adlam both draw on Foucault’s work, whilst offering a psychoanalytic bent to it. Diogenes is a parrhesiastes, a person who practices parrhesia and the way he lived can be reflected in what Foucault says about this mode of being. In his book Fearless Speech, Foucault says this about parrhesia: 

“So you see, the parrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a parrhesiastes. In such a case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority’s opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia. Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the “game” of life or death.”²¹

Therefore, to be a parrhesiastes, like Diogenes, must have three things. First, is for the individual to have less power than those whom they are speaking to. Second, there requires a level of risk of harm to the individual’s own being, which can vary in severity. Third, speaking out requires a great deal of courage and the decision to be a “truth-teller rather than as a living being who is false” to themselves.²² Foucault continues to describe the being a parrhesiastes: 

“…parrhesia is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a specific relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people through criticism (self-criticism or criticism of other people), and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and duty. More precisely, parrhesia is a verbal activity in which a speaker expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life because he recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people (as well as himself). In parrhesia, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy.”²³

Here, there is a sense that morality is more important than one’s own comfort – that “certain relationship to his own life”. Foucault also points to the fact that the parrhesiastes does not act out of malice but rather out of a desire for better. Diogenes certainly embodies these qualities that Foucault describes, but so does Socrates, the ‘corrupter of the youth’, who spoke out against those in Athens. But the same could be said about many throughout history, such as those involved in the Suffragettes movements, the Civil Rights movements and the Stonewall riots that led to Gay Pride. Those involved in these movements are parrhesiastes, not only with their words but also through their actions. 

Later in the book, Foucault discusses Philodemus’ work on parrhesia with the phrase “το δι’ αλλελων σωζεασθαι”, which means “the salvation by one another”.²⁴ Foucault also notes that the verb of σωζεασθαι, for Epicureans (to which Philodemus was a part of the community) was about accessing a “good, beautiful and happy life.” Therefore, from this, parrhesia necessitates communal confession in order to lead to σωζεασθαι, a life that is good; and, it could be said that the converse is true, meaning that in order for life to be good, parrhesia is necessary to it. 

Parrhesia and Jesus Christ

I wish to understand this idea of Epicurean salvation – of a good life – with a more Christian lens. Drawing upon John’s gospel, which has many common influences with Epicurean philosophy due to the shared corpus of philosophy from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, there are some simple links to be made with Christian notions of salvation being linked with goodness. In John 10:10, Jesus Christ speaks about coming to humanity so that they can have “life to the full”. In my article on the wedding at Cana and my own wedding, I explore this in a bit more detail.²⁵ I make a case to suggest that goodness and ‘life to the full’ are closely linked and that a part of God’s working in the world requires our participation in it. Therefore, Jesus Christ was to bring us fullness of life, which means that we are to partake in God’s goodness and for us to access this we need to participate in God’s work – to work alongside Godself. 

I argue that this participation of humanity with God’s working helps lead us to ‘the salvation by one another’, that is, through parrhesia, we can participate in God’s working in the world and give a fullness to one another. Throughout the Bible there are examples of people ‘speaking truth to power’ (especially the prophets, Hagar, etc.), but what I wish to focus on is Jesus, as he is the perfect revelation of God to humanity. Indeed, Pope Francis speaks about parrhesia in one of his addresses and says, by way of example of Jesus Christ, that it is consistent with a Christian way of living to speak the truth and be courageous in it.²⁶ One such way that Jesus was a parrhesiastes was an event that is recorded in all four gospels: the proverbial ‘cleansing of the Temple’ (cf. Mt 21:12-17, Mk 11:15-19, Lk 19:45-48 and Jn 2:13-16). It was explosive and violent, yet Jesus, who was a teacher (in some manner), went against the merchants and the Temple officials alike. His actions spoke out against the hypocrisy of how the Temple was being used, which, in the synoptic gospels, enraged the leaders and were wanting to find a way to kill him. Jesus Christ, whilst God, was born and raised as a peasant, from the countryside of Israel and would likely not have had nearly as much teaching as those who were the religious leaders. He was also homeless and vagrant. Jesus Christ chose to not be in a place of power, in a human sense. Compared to the power of the cult and its institutions, he was very weak indeed. Yet he spoke out with courage against what was happening, challenging the status quo and highlighting the untruths of the time. The salvific aspects of parrhesia, as demonstrated by Jesus is beginning to take shape; however, the risk to Jesus Christ’s being has yet to be explored. 

The extent of the risk to Jesus Christ’s own being is seen ultimately in the events of Good Friday. He had riled and pissed off too many who were powerful, to the extent that he is violated and killed. He is so dominated that he is reified – his being sundered and his subjectivation is that he is no more a human “…but ‘that’ undifferentiated body”.²⁷ However, even in the Passion, Jesus Christ is still a parrhesiastes and the abject form that Jesus Christ’s body takes on a new meaning, revealing that, “[w]e are the ones displaced; that is what the crucified body of Christ recalls us to – a primary relationship to God from which we are estranged.”²⁸ Through his dying and death, Jesus Christ remains speaking truth to the powers that crucified him and even his plea of “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (cf. Lk 23:34) reverberates with the parrhesia that pours out from him. Perhaps this is one of the ways in which atonement occurs? That Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, is a theophany of our displacement from God: instead of the displaced, undifferentiated body that is hung on the cross, we have a revelation of how humanity killed Jesus Christ for speaking truth and desiring for the world to be better. That our untruths or flaws (which could be called ἁμαρτάνειν) are revealed to us through Jesus Christ’s life and death. It is not only Jesus’ ministry and challenging the status quo, but also the very Passion also speaks truth to power. Through the Passion, we see the consequence of Jesus Christ utilising parrhesia, that is, the risk to his being is being subject to others through violation and death. But why did this need to happen in this way with regards to parrhesia?

Jesus Christ is the embodiment of parrhesia when seen from this perspective – I argue that it is as though parrhesia is an aspect or quality of theophany. Jesus Christ’s economy and immanence are inseparable in this understanding, that his being in the world required being subject to others, as seen in the crucifixion but also the meeting others where they are at (cf. Lk 8:2, 19:1-10, Jn 9:1-38, etc.) and humbling himself to that of a servant (cf. Jn 13:2-17). Gorman explores this through the use of Philippians 2:6-11, where the author of the letter uses ancient liturgy/hymns to explain Jesus Christ.²⁹ Gorman focuses on the crucifixion, in how the nature of Jesus Christ’s servanthood enabled for the power of God to be displayed.³⁰ It is the Pauline idea of strength in weakness (cf. 2 Cor 12:9-10). Drawing this to the parrhesiastes and the risk it requires to their own being, then acting in and embodying truth necessitates a weakness compared to the power that the truth is being directed towards. Therefore, for Jesus Christ to be a parrhesiastes he needed to be weak compared to the authorities for him to be able to ‘speak truth to power’. For God to be revealed to the world and God’s truth, Jesus Christ needed to be subject to those he met. 

What, then, are the implications of parrhesia being an inherent quality of theophany for humanity? To begin with, the Early Church, as seen through the letters in the New Testament, calls for lovers of Christ to be Christ-like (cf. 1 John 2:6, 1 Peter 2:21, 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2, and more). If we are to be Christ like, then we must be parrhesiastes also. But if we are to be parrhesiastes, then we must be subject to others also. We must be ‘weak’ in order to be ‘strong’. Perhaps, to follow Gorman’s understanding of being Christ-like, we must be ‘cruciform’ in our lives for us to both be faithful to and transformed by God through Jesus Christ.³¹ That is to say that we must be able to resist the forces of power, which will be at a cost of our own safety to our being in some manner. If God came to us in Jesus Christ was for our salvation, of leading to goodness, requires parrhesia and for us to use it.  

I will now summarise what I have explored about what parrhesia is and how a person can be a parrhesiastes. First, there is the idea of power and that power generates subjectivity. People and institutions can generate this power and therefore control subjectivity, which is the process of subjectivation. There is also always a resistance to this power, but not necessarily one of equal force. Scanlon and Adlam discuss how there can be an abuse of this power – on micro, meso and macro levels – but that the resistance to this is through parrhesia. Using Diogenes as an example, they explore how parrhesia can resist the shaming that can come from others. I then explored Foucault’s conception of parrhesia and how a parrhesiastes requires three qualities: first, to have less power than those they are speaking to; second, there needs to be a level of risk to the parrhesiastes’ being; third, the parrhesiastes seeks to live truthfully and this requires courage. Parrhesia for Foucault quite importantly attempts to improve things and can lead to the Epicurean salvation. This last point was that parrhesia can lead to a fullness of life, that is, goodness and salvation can be formed through participating in with God. However, parrhesia requires that the parrhesiastes become subject to others, which puts them at risk of harm to their being. 

How am I to be a Parrhesiastes in Ministry?

Taking seriously the call to be Christ-like and, therefore, be a parrhesiastes, how am I to do this in ministry? This is particularly so as a presbyter of the Methodist Church, I will hold a great deal of power and oftentimes more than those whom I serve. I will not exactly explore the contradiction of serving others whilst holding power – however, an interesting critique could be made using the work of Deleuze in relation to roles found within sadomasochism and the power dynamics within.³² What I will explore is how I am to be a parrhesiastes as a public representative of the Church as a presbyter of the Church. To assist me in this reflection, I will be using the liturgy form the Methodist Worship Book (MWB) for the ordination of presbyters, specifically the promises that I am hoping to be making on June 30^th 2023. As I explore different aspects, the picture of how I am to be a parrhesiastes begins to develop and grow, culminating in justice, liberation and with-suffering.

“…to preach by word and deed the Gospel of God’s grace…”³³

These few words hold a great deal of weight and I will briefly unpack this an then follow it up with applying it to parrhesia. My understanding of the gospel, the ‘Gospel of God’s grace’ is that we have learnt, through God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, that God loves each person, utterly and that God wishes for us to know this love, that is, God is for all. Within this are those words of John 10:10 that I reference above – that we are to have life to the full through God’s love and action in and through us and creation. This too is fundamental to the Methodist understanding of God’s salvation and our response to this salvation in the world.³⁴ There are, of course, more things to understand this, but to offer a theology proper, a soteriology, etc. would take too long; the idea of God for all is apt here and I unpack this a bit more in my discussion on Liberation Theology below. In the ‘preach by word and deed’, this means that we must not only say what the gospel is but demonstrate it through our actions. I would go further to say that the intention of this is so that our very being demonstrates the preaching of the gospel – of God for all. But what is preaching in this sense? The Methodist Church would say that it does take many forms, yet its core is about proclaiming the good news, which is about conveying that gospel message of God for all (cf. 2 Tim 4:2).³⁵ To ‘preach by word and deed’, then, is to communicate that God is for all through our being. Is this sentence focusing on a part of being Christ-like that lovers of Christ are called to be? It is perhaps an aspect that focuses on communicating and demonstrating what being Christ-like is – a particular emphasis that is made for this form of ministry. 

Though communicating and demonstrating God for all must, therefore, necessitate parrhesia. As I discussed above, Jesus Christ’s being inherently involves being a parrhesiastes and he communicates and demonstrates parrhesia through this. If a presbyter is to preach the gospel (kerygma) through their being, then this must require a presbyter to be a parrhesiastes as well. Put simply, because Jesus Christ was a parrhesiastes, so too must a presbyter, indeed any preacher, by this logic. Now, applying this concept to me: as I approach a hoped-for ordination, I must inhabit this space. 

“In all things, give counsel and encouragement…”³⁶

Counsel is to give advice and perhaps instruction, encouragement is to built-up and spur on. Whilst these things can be seen as exclusive, I want to suggest that because of the conjunction ‘and’, they are connected and are in fact inclusive of each other. If I were to give another person counsel, then it would need to be for the purpose of building them up and help them seek out God. But what is not necessary to these words are the ideas of comfort and ease. An element of ethics comes into play here, that if I were to counsel and encourage someone to keep exploiting another because it was easier for them, this certainly would not be parrhesia. Disturbing another may be needed for giving good counsel and encouragement and this resonates with the parrhesiastes – why else would someone be risking their being if it were not going to disturb those who need it? This is not to say that counsel and encouragement cannot be comforting either, to say that ‘God has a preference for the poor, dispossessed and oppressed’ can be of great relief for some, whereas, for others, it may feel jarring or disquieting. But what does reside in counsel and encouragement is hope. Hope is very much like the aspect of parrhesia that is for the amelioration of situations, from moving from a place of untruth or even hypocrisy and into one of truth and goodness. It can sometimes be unseen, unknown, much like Moltmann discusses at the beginning of the Theology of Hope, especially if the hope is of God (even if not eschatological).³⁷ 

“Will you accept our discipline, and work together with your siblings in the Church?”³⁸

There is an element of following the political powers of an institution. Romans 13:1-2 speaks about God’s providence establishing powers that be. But what are we to say about parrhesia to this power? It is to accept the discipline, and through working together and building one another up (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:19) we can follow the practices, teachings and understandings for the betterment of one another. In all of it, trusting that God is at work in the structures, albeit that they are inadequate compared to God’s perfection. The discipline of the Church, I would argue is to adhere to and seek God’s love. This is expressed through our doctrine (cf. s.2 Deed of Union 1932), through our rules and policies (e.g. CPD Vol. 2), through our worship, and through our being lovers and students of Christ. God’s love is in that goodness and fullness of life for all that I expressed above. 

Another way of viewing discipline here and the accompanying ‘work together’ is that it is how we choose to organise ourselves. Our understanding of the Trinity can assist us in this – of the perichoretic dynamics of the Persons working in a Oneness – with our Methodist understanding of conferring. Conferring is how we understand doctrine and how we enact this in the Church.³⁹ This is not only through Conference, but all of our activities (such as Church Councils cf. SO603, or worship planning meetings). It is, essentially, the working out how we are Church, how we are ecclesia, the gathering of the lovers of Christ of the people who call themselves Methodists. The Trinity, especially the communitarian model of the Trinity (which can be seen in Tonstad⁴⁰, Boff⁴¹, Gebara⁴², et al.), can point us to that ‘divine dance’ of the Persons and how they interact with one another. No one of the Persons/Hypostases (who all share one substance/ousia) are more important, significant, prominent, present, etc. than the others. Whenever one of the Persons is at work, so too is the other. Each Person is equal to the other. The other aspect that is often emphasised in our understanding of the Trinity is via Jesus Christ and how there has been space made for humanity in the Trinity.⁴³ Through Christ, humanity is taken up into the Trinity and the plurality that already resides there is expanded by allowing humanity to be part of that divine dance/perichoresis. The consequence of this is that the grace of God, the workings of God and the salvation (liberation, as I describe below) is afforded for us. In relation to our model of conferring, God’s grace can, therefore, be involved and flow through and in our conferring. The relationality of God and God’s working in and through us (providential activity) is, therefore, at the heart of our understanding of conferring – the ‘I yet not I’ of Paul’s language (cf.1 Cor 15) but instead, ‘us, yet not us’ as it is ‘God and us’ and ‘God with us’.

The parrhesia in this is that we are not alone, isolated from one another nor isolated from God. What is good and loving from God constantly flows in and with us as we are ever invited to participate in the Trinity and its perichoretic relationality. 

“As you exercise mercy, do not forget justice; as you minister discipline, do not forget mercy…”⁴⁴

Mercy is a bit of a complicated word, has changed its meaning over the years and transliterations from Hebrew to Greek in the Hebrew Bible have also shown some complications (the Hebrew word chesed, was often transliterated into the Greek word eleos in the Septuagint). How I understand this word mercy, is that of compassion, that is with-suffering (deriving from the Latin cum-passio). If I understand mercy as with-suffering, I would say that this involves two things: first, it involves attempting to see a person as God sees them you; second, it involves seeing them as similar to you, that is, you are a fellow human being, or, to put in theological terms, beloved of God.

Justice here is an interesting one: the implication of saying that I would exercise mercy and pairing it with justice also have the implication that I would exercise justice. This implication is similar to ministering of discipline and mercy in the second coupling too. Justice is about the fair treatment of others (which, in the Christian perspective, would include nonhuman animals and creation), but what is fair? Interestingly, in the SCM core text the Christian doctrine, looking at justice in the index tells you to look love and the kingdom of God. Higton, in relation to these things, discusses how God exercises this through the Trinity: 

“Jesus is, in the Gospels, the one who points to the Father’s kingdom of love and justice, and so points to the Father. The Spirit is portrayed as the one who enables and impels Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom. The Spirit is portrayed as the one who enables and impels others to become part of the kingdom.”⁴⁵ 

In this, Highton describes how the kingdom is revealed through the Trinity and how humanity comes to know about the kingdom. This relates to his exploration of love in relation to how we come to understand it via a process of relating – mediated via the Spirit.⁴⁶ He also explains how our understanding of love is also determined impacts our understanding of salvation in this. Justice, therefore, means that there is a connection between it and the revelation and encountering of the kingdom of God and salvation. 

To me, this is distinctly similar to the justice that Liberation Theology holds. If Jesus’ kerygma is to revel the preferential love or option for the poor and oppressed of the world, which is grounded upon “God’s unmerited goodness to us.”⁴⁷ It is in this that salvation on this side of life can be enacted – liberation from oppression. God’s primacy for the poor and oppressed is how God is made available to all peoples, and Garcia expounds what I wholly agree with:

“I believe God is accessible and known by all of us, no matter who we are, and not just a specific nation, or class, or even religion. However, what I love about the Christian story is that this God makes that universal accessibility possible by choosing to be manifest exclusively through the foolish, the weak, the low and despised. Not everyone has access to high and powerful places, but everyone does have access to low and powerless places, including high and powerful people. So in order to be manifest to everyone, this God must exclusively manifest through the low and the powerless.”⁴⁸

The connection of the kingdom of God and love is shown to all through the low and powerless peoples of the world. And if I am to be with-suffering with these people (to connect with mercy), I must acknowledge the theophany that is found through them and associate with them. (I must also note the real danger of romanticising the low and powerless of the world, it is not a state of being that is to be lauded or sought after; instead, it is a state of being that must be sought out from, that is, to liberate people from their present suffering.) From this place of with-suffering, I would then need to act within justice – seeing that the kingdom of God is revealed in these places with these people and seek out salvation, which is liberation.

To understand how these nouns are operating and how to act in justice, the verbs exercise and minister need to be unpacked. To exercise something is to enact, execute, that is to apply something to another thing. Whereas, to minister involves an element of serving and attending to the needs of another. To me the implication of using these two verbs that both action and serving the other are inclusive of one another. Therefore, if we are to understand justice, mercy and discipline, these things need to be applied within the act of service. Therefore, with the lens of Liberation Theology, to apply myself within the act of service, I must seek to liberate the low and powerless. 

The application, the execution of justice, mercy and discipline, the ‘how-to’ of it, I argue is achieved, in part, through parrhesia. If I am to understand the truth of what is happening, I must understand the oppression, the suffering, the harm that is occurring. In order to do so, I must have mercy, the with-suffering, which necessitates I associate myself with the poor – just as Jesus Christ did and does. By being alongside others and seeking to see them as God sees them, I can begin to understand what is wrong and needs speaking out against. It is to see where the subjectivation is harming, where power oppresses and inflicts hurt. This could be with trans people who are ever increasingly being discriminated against and brutally harmed. This could be the ever-decreasing support and ever-increasing vilification of those whose mental health is poor. This could be seeking out those on the edges, those who do not fit within the subjectivated demarcations of what will treated and what will not be treated – such as young people aged 16/17 years old, who are placed into deeply vulnerable situations but are not supported by child services nor adult services in any meaningful way. This could be seeking out asylum seekers, who are violently excluded, in many ways, in the UK and elsewhere. This list could go on. 

Once the truth has been established, it must be revealed. The kerygma here is to proclaim that the oppression that is being caused does not and never will belong to the kingdom of God. The truth must be spoken to those in power, those who cause the subjectivation of these people who are low and powerless. In turn, the parrhesiastes becomes the one who demarcates God’s power and how we are truly formed in it, pointing towards the kingdom, and seeking liberation (thus, salvation). 

Conclusion

Following what I have explored in relation to parrhesia and the promises I will make at ordination, I summarise it as such: First, preaching, kerygma, is a necessary part of parrhesia. It is declaring the kingdom of God and what it means. Second, good counsel, even when it is challenging to receive, necessitates a building up of the other. Is parrhesia not seeking to be good counsel with the desire to meliorate the world? Third, how we organise ourselves and collectively understand God and the world is our discipline. It necessitates our working together and working with God – ‘God and us’ and ‘God with us.’ How we organise and how we understand things via the process of conferring, with the consequence of forming our discipline, necessitates God’s involvement with us. In a sense, conferring and perichoresis are analogous in the terms of how humanity is and with God and vice versa. Fourth, this leads to the understanding of liberation (salvation), with-suffering (compassion (mercy)), and justice (seeking the kingdom of God and seeking love). To be with-suffering with those whom God reveals Godself to all people and with all people, which are those who are low and powerless. In gaining an understanding of this, I can know what the truth is, which leads me to kerygma and speak this truth whilst holding the kingdom of God. In this proclaiming, I am seeking justice. In this seeking, I exercise justice. In this exercising justice, I can seek and achieve liberation. This is with the above point that it is not executed in isolation, but with others and with God – perichoresis. 

This is how I am a parrhesiastes

When I was about 21/22 years old, I came across Anselm’s quote, fides quaerens intellectum, credo ut intellectigam. I even had it tattooed on my when I was about 23 years old. It is a phrase that has stuck with me, that by my faith, I seek to understand and by my believing I will understand. It is to say that the process of seeking will lead to actuality. This seeking is how I see my faith and how I live it out, how I exercise it. By doing so, I believe that I will be able to achieve what my faith seeks – ‘understanding’. Understanding is the actualisation of what my faith sees as right: to love all as God loves all; to reveal God to all as Jesus Christ revealed God, through his very being and acting in the world; to meliorate the world, through God’s liberation. This, of course, is not achieved in isolation; I mention God, but it also necessitates others – the ‘God and us’ and ‘God with us’.

In this theological reflection, I have explored the Foucauldian ideas of power, identity and how the two interact through subjectivation. I exampled this with the nomenclature of gender and ethnicity in a questionnaire in Lowe’s work. I then explained what parrhesia was, aided by the example of Diogenes of Sinope. I described how Foucault outlines this: there is a need to have less power than the other; an element of risk to one’s own wellbeing; it takes courage; and that it seeks to improve the world. I apply this framework to our understanding of Jesus Christ and argue that he was a parrhesiastes in his life. I then explored the promises that I hope to make in June if I am to be ordained. 

The conclusion is this, that I am to be a parrhesiastes by my being a servant in the Methodist Church, set aside to become an ordained presbyter. My fides quaerens intellectum is the with-suffering of seeking the low and powerless, seeking justice and desiring liberation through God. The credo ut intellectigam is the process by which I can achieve this. One part of these two aspects is parrhesia, it is one tool in the toolbox by which I can seek out what is right, which could be said to be where God is. It is the desire for better for the world and not to be dwelling in a place of falsehoods and oppression. It is to hold onto the power of God through the revelation of the kingdom of heaven and God’s love we find in Jesus Christ, which then can subjectivate us towards liberation, rather than oppression. This demands for the relationality of the Trinity to permeate those actions, those understandings, and for our faith to seek it out. To be a parrhesiastes in ministry, I argues, requires to hold onto these things.

Footnotes

¹ Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 1st American ed (New York, 1978), 100. 

² Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich, 2007), 194–95. (Thiselton’s own emphasis.) 

³ Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 194–95. 

⁴ Mary E. Lowe, ‘Sin from a Queer, Lutheran Perspective’, in Transformative Lutheran Theologies: Feminist, Womanist, and Mujerista Perspectives, ed. by Mary J. Streufert (Minneapolis, 2010), 80. 

⁵ Michel Foucault and Paul Rabinow, The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984., 2000, 289. 

⁶ Foucault and Rabinow, The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984., 290. 

⁷ Foucault and Rabinow, The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984., 140. 

⁸ Lowe, ‘Sin from a Queer, Lutheran Perspective’, 81. 

⁹ Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 100. 

¹⁰ Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (Abingdon, Oxon, 2011), 10. 

¹¹ Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 101. 

¹² Butler, Bodies That Matter, 72. 

¹³ Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 102. 

¹⁴ Foucault and Rabinow, The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984., 167. 

¹⁵ Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 99. 

¹⁶ Butler, Bodies That Matter, 193. 

¹⁷ Christopher Scanlon and John Adlam, Psycho-Social Explorations of Trauma, Exclusion and Violence: Un-Housed Minds and Inhospitable Environments, 1st edn (London, 2022), 24. 

¹⁸ Scanlon and Adlam, Psycho-Social Explorations of Trauma, Exclusion and Violence, 27. 

¹⁹ Scanlon and Adlam, Psycho-Social Explorations of Trauma, Exclusion and Violence, 30. 

²⁰ Scanlon and Adlam, Psycho-Social Explorations of Trauma, Exclusion and Violence, 34. 

²¹ Michel Foucault and Joseph Pearson, Fearless Speech (Los Angeles, Ca[lif.], 2001), 15–16. 

²² Foucault and Pearson, Fearless Speech, 17. 

²³ Foucault and Pearson, Fearless Speech, 19–20. 

²⁴ Foucault and Pearson, Fearless Speech, 114. 

²⁵ Jonny Bell, ‘Two Weddings, One at Cana and Our Own: How the Analysis of Our Wedding Day Acts as a Model to Cultivate Intimacy, Reciprocity and the Fullness of Life’, Practical Theology, 2023, 1–11. 

²⁶ Pope Francis, ‘HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS “The Gift of the Holy Spirit: Frankness, Courage, Parresia”’, 2020 <https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2020/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20200418_lafranchezza-dellapredicazione.html&gt; [accessed 10 July 2023]. 

²⁷ Graham Ward, Cities of God, Radical Orthodoxy, 1. publ (London, 2000), 103–4. 

²⁸ Ward, Cities of God, 106. 

²⁹ Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, Mich, 2009). 

³⁰ Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 38–39. 

³¹ Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 166–68. 

³² Gilles Deleuze and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Masochism, trans. by Jean McNeil (New York, 1991). 

³³ Methodist Church, ed., The Methodist Worship Book, 1st edn (Peterborough, 1999), 302. 

³⁴ Clive Marsh, ed., Unmasking Methodist Theology (New York, 2004), 46. 

³⁵ Methodist Church in Britain, ‘Becoming a Local Preacher’ <https://www.methodist.org.uk/for-churches/local-preachers-and-worship-leaders/local-preachers/becoming-a-local-preacher/#:~:text=Through%20preaching%2C%20our%20faith%20is,enable%20others%20to%20worship%20God.&text=What%20is%20it%20that%20excites%20you%20about%20God’s%20word%3F&gt; [accessed 12 July 2023]. 

³⁶ Methodist Church, The Methodist Worship Book, 302. 

³⁷ Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, 1st Fortress Press ed (Minneapolis, 1993). 

³⁸ Methodist Church, The Methodist Worship Book, 303. 

³⁹ Marsh, Unmasking Methodist Theology, 82. 

⁴⁰ Linn Marie Tonstad, God and Difference: The Trinity, Sexuality, and the Transformation of Finitude, 2016. 

⁴¹ Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society, Theology and Liberation Series (Maryknoll, N.Y, 1988). 

⁴² Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation (Minneapolis, MN, 1999). 

⁴³ Kathryn Tanner, Christ the Key, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2010); Tonstad, God and Difference. 

⁴⁴ Methodist Church, The Methodist Worship Book, 308. 

⁴⁵ Mike Higton, Christian Doctrine (London, 2008), 80. 

⁴⁶ Higton, Christian Doctrine, 70–74. 

⁴⁷ Gustavo Gutiérrez and others, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, SCM Classics, Rev. version of the orig. Engl.-language transl., [Nachdr.] (London, 2010), 18–19. 

⁴⁸ Damon Garcia, The God Who Riots: Taking Back the Radical Jesus (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2022), 183. 

Bibliography

Bell, Jonny, ‘Two Weddings, One at Cana and Our Own: How the Analysis of Our Wedding Day Acts as a Model to Cultivate Intimacy, Reciprocity and the Fullness of Life’, Practical Theology, 2023, 1–11

Boff, Leonardo, Trinity and Society, Theology and Liberation Series (Maryknoll, N.Y, 1988)

Butler, Judith, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (Abingdon, Oxon, 2011)

Deleuze, Gilles, and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Masochism, trans. by Jean McNeil (New York, 1991)

Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, 1st American ed (New York, 1978)

Foucault, Michel, and Joseph Pearson, Fearless Speech (Los Angeles, Ca[lif.], 2001)

Foucault, Michel, and Paul Rabinow, The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984., 2000

Garcia, Damon, The God Who Riots: Taking Back the Radical Jesus (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2022)

Gebara, Ivone, Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation (Minneapolis, MN, 1999)

Gorman, Michael J., Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, Mich, 2009)

Gutiérrez, Gustavo, Caridad Inda, John Eagleson, and Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, SCM Classics, Rev. version of the orig. Engl.-language transl., [Nachdr.] (London, 2010)

Higton, Mike, Christian Doctrine (London, 2008)

Lowe, Mary E., ‘Sin from a Queer, Lutheran Perspective’, in Transformative Lutheran Theologies: Feminist, Womanist, and Mujerista Perspectives, ed. by Mary J. Streufert (Minneapolis, 2010), 71–86

Marsh, Clive, ed., Unmasking Methodist Theology (New York, 2004)

Methodist Church, ed., The Methodist Worship Book, 1st edn (Peterborough, 1999)

Methodist Church in Britain, ‘Becoming a Local Preacher’ <https://www.methodist.org.uk/for-churches/local-preachers-and-worship-leaders/local-preachers/becoming-a-local-preacher/#:~:text=Through%20preaching%2C%20our%20faith%20is,enable%20others%20to%20worship%20God.&text=What%20is%20it%20that%20excites%20you%20about%20God’s%20word%3F&gt; [accessed 12 July 2023]

Moltmann, Jürgen, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, 1st Fortress Press ed (Minneapolis, 1993)

Pope Francis, ‘HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS “The Gift of the Holy Spirit: Frankness, Courage, Parresia”’, 2020 <https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2020/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20200418_lafranchezza-dellapredicazione.html&gt; [accessed 10 July 2023]

Scanlon, Christopher, and John Adlam, Psycho-Social Explorations of Trauma, Exclusion and Violence: Un-Housed Minds and Inhospitable Environments, 1st edn (London, 2022)

Tanner, Kathryn, Christ the Key, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2010)

Thiselton, Anthony C., The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich, 2007)

Tonstad, Linn Marie, God and Difference: The Trinity, Sexuality, and the Transformation of Finitude, 2016

Ward, Graham, Cities of God, Radical Orthodoxy, 1. publ (London, 2000)