Diaconia and Christian Social Practice in a Global Perspective: Concluding Synthesis of Emerging Topical Issues and Themes

1. Movement Toward a Global Agenda

It should already have become clear that, under the construction of a “global perspective”, we understand the integration of scholarly contributions to diaconal practice from different parts of the world that provide evidence of a shared (albeit thematically, conceptually and contextually diverse) interest in the broad topical concern with “Diaconia and Christian social practice”. While such a construction does not exclude contributions from what may still be perceived as the traditional, dominant center of a theory and practice pursued under the latter topical concern, it nevertheless aims to show how this field has evolved to include in its ranks a considerable variety of inputs beyond the traditional center of academic dominance. Taken together, this evolution leads one to recognize that the considerable variety of inputs are simultaneously both enriching and challenging the traditional center in terms of its overall thematic, conceptual and methodological scope. This is to the extent that one might, notwithstanding prevailing points of critique, with a growing degree of certainty, lay claim to the growth of a distinctive subject field on an international or global scale, which is noticeably diversified through the contributions from various contexts, but also unified through the broad common interest of the same contributions.

Against the backdrop of such understanding, we regard it as imperative to apply our own synthesizing efforts to concrete examples of the already noticeable movement toward a global diaconal and Christian social practice agenda. In this way, we want to show that we are mindful of the fact that we are not taking the lead in capturing a distinctive selection of emerging topical issues and themes that are shaping the global agenda; instead we are, at the most, making an informed contribution towards this goal.

Beginning with our list of examples, there can perhaps be no more concrete evidence today of the movement toward a global agenda than the related ecumenical initiatives that led to the recent publication of two compendiums of truly international scope, the International Handbook on Ecumenical Diakonia (Werner et al. 2021b) and International Handbook on Creation Care & Eco-Diakonia (Werner et al. 2022b). Spanning 700 and 800 pages in length, respectively, and combining the collaborative efforts of several regional ecumenical organizations and other institutional formations,1 both of these publications are impressive in the way that they mark undertakings that have assembled contributing authors from all over the globe2 to meet the aims of the two handbook projects. The editorial of the first handbook states:

The purpose of this volume is to identify, to collect and where adequate to produce leading introductory key-texts and survey articles on Diakonia and diakonic management for students from the Global South studying in theological education institutions with Diakonia studies in their home-contexts or in international study programs.

(Werner et al. 2021a, p. xxi)

And the editorial of the second handbook specifies its rationale:

The handbook is designed to provide a basic and ecumenically-oriented resource collection for training future church leaders, students and practitioners in the areas of education for sustainability, eco-diakonia and ecological transformation in churches and (mainly Christian) faith-based organizations around the world. The aim is to allow for more South-South (and North-South) exchange in terms of Creation Care and to encourage mutual learning between churches, ecumenical agencies and networks of ecologically sensitive players in different cultural, political and geographical contexts in this area of church witness and service.

(Werner et al. 2022a, p. xxx)

For obvious reasons, our concluding reflection does not allow us to elaborate in much greater detail on the two international handbooks. For that, we refer readers to the respective editorials and publications as a whole. However, for our purpose here, it is sufficient to recognize the extent to which the two publications specify their deliberate accommodation of inter-contextual and terminological diversity, while not losing sight of a common diaconal and Christian social practice agenda and, in one instance, giving preference to voices from the Global South (Werner et al. 2022a, p. xxviii). The statements from the two editorials are, as such, informative and are appreciated by us as being very much in accordance with the approach that we decided to adopt for our special issue. Thus, in the same way that we wanted to attract global participation from diverse contexts through a conceptual and terminological openness under the twin rubric of “Diaconia and Christian Social Practice”, the editorials highlight how a wide range of key concepts emerged from their multiple article contributions. In the first handbook, under the umbrella term “ecumenical diakonia”, the authors include concepts such as “vulnerability”, “conviviality”, “poverty”, “empowerment” and “development” (Werner et al. 2021a, pp. xiii–xxiv); in the second handbook, under the umbrella term “eco-diakonia”, the editors include concepts such as “Christian services for creation care”, “ecological mission”, “Christian witness for environment and climate justice”, “advocacy for sustainability ethics”, and “protection of biodiversity” (Werner et al. 2022a, p. xxix).

In addition to the striking examples of these two international handbooks, we could highlight a number of further worthwhile examples that are, at present, giving shape to the new movement toward a global diaconal and Christian social practice agenda. To start, we mention the ongoing endeavors of the International Society for the Research and Study of Diaconia and Christian Social Practice (ReDi) to mobilize scholars and scholar–practitioners to advance research and study in the broad field. On its website, ReDi states that it wants to be:

[a] society for all interested in the study and research of the churches’ contribution to social welfare and health. The broad field includes very large organisations and small local initiatives. Contributions are made through the provision of services, advocacy, by working for change and much more. ReDi aims to strengthen research in the field.

(ReDi n.d.)

We want to express our appreciation for ReDi’s ongoing efforts, in existence today for more than a decade; these are evident, for instance, from the biennial conferences it has organized since 2013 and the academic journal it supports as a stakeholder, Diaconia: Journal for the Study of Christian Social Practice.3 The biennial conferences (ten held to date)4 and the journal are indeed significant mobilizing efforts to advance the field. At the same time, however, one needs to observe how it remains an ongoing challenge for ReDi and the journal to become truly international and expand their reach and interests beyond the traditional, dominant center of Central Europe (noticeably but not exclusively Germany) and the Nordic Countries (Norway, Finland and Sweden in particular).5

Our identification so far of relevant examples necessarily leads us to acknowledge an accelerated number of completed and nearly completed book projects in recent years as a further important category of examples that are shaping and giving ongoing momentum to the movement toward a global diaconal and Christian social practice agenda. We could especially mention here the prominent role that Regnum Books, the book publishing arm of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, has been playing and continues to play as a publication outlet for the book projects.6 Book projects that appear through Regnum Book’s support all display a clear intention to expand the field of diaconia and Christian social practice as an international interest, but the two handbooks mentioned above may rightly be recognized as perhaps the two foremost publications in this field under the auspices of this publisher. Nevertheless, while the two handbooks deserve special recognition, other published and forthcoming works of note under the auspices of Regnum Books are worth mentioning:

• A four-volume book series initiated through the leadership of scholars of diaconia and Christian social practice at VID Specialized University in Norway under the themes “Diakonia as Christian Social Practice: An Introduction” (Dietrich et al. 2014); “Diakonia in a Gender Perspective” (Dietrich et al. 2016); “The Diaconal Church” (Dietrich et al. 2019); and “Developing Just and Inclusive Communities: Challenges for Diakonia/Christian Social Practice and Social Work” (Haugen et al. 2022).
• A book project led by three German scholars in the field, assembling contributions from their peers across all six continents of the globe under the theme “Diaconia in Contexts: Regional Case Studies and Linking Perspectives” (Eurich et al. 2025).7
• A completed book project led by scholars from the USA, which intentionally strove to be international, ecumenical and interdenominational by including, besides contributions from the USA, submissions from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Norway, the Philippines and South Africa under the theme “Diaconal Studies: Lived Theology for the Church in North America” (Nessan and Stephens 2024).8
• A completed book project inspired by the Edinburgh 2010 World Mission Conference, displaying a strong international collaboration of scholars through a combined interest in Christian evangelism and Christian diaconia under the theme “Evangelism and Diakonia in Context” (Dowsett et al. 2016).

The noble aim of all these book projects to broaden international participation in the contemporary diaconal and Christian social practice debate should be gratefully acknowledged at this point. However, it should also be evident from the listed examples that they are by and large led by editorial teams from the Global North and the traditional, dominant center of diaconal and Christian social practice scholarship. We want to flag this dominance at the cost of a broader leadership outside the traditional center as a major challenge to be met in the ongoing movement toward implementing a global agenda. Indeed, we need to add here that it is only when such a broader leadership is established that a realistic claim can be made to what we prioritized as one of the topical focal points for our special issue, namely, the detachment of diaconia from colonialism and its legacy.

Lastly, we also want to acknowledge the integral role that prominent international Christian ecumenical or apex bodies such as the World Council of Churches (WCC), ACT Alliance9 and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) have played and continue to play towards advancing diaconia and Christian social practice as a global agenda under the rubric of “ecumenical diakonia”. By their very nature, the three aforementioned bodies are actors that find themselves in a favorable position to bridge the often separated worlds of academia and practice, as well as diaconia and the church; they have, in recent years, developed a conspicuous collaborative and consultative relationship (World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, p. 14) to produce a substantial body of work on the understanding and practice of diaconia from an international, ecumenical perspective. Amongst the most important works in this regard, we want to mention:

• The WCC and ACT Alliance’s recently produced document, Called to Transformation: Ecumenical Diakonia (2022), which seeks to present diaconia as a comprehensive theological and social practice agenda that noticeably includes the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development “Transforming Our World” (World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, pp. 55–57);
• The consultative reports “Theological Perspectives on Diakonia in the 21st Century” (Ham 2012; World Council of Churches 2013, pp. 103–11) and “The Changing Development Paradigm: An ACT Alliance Discussion Paper” (ACT Alliance 2013), which emanated from the WCC and ACT Alliance reflections, respectively, in the early 2010s. They became the basis for one of the ecumenical conversations “Compelled to Serve: Diakonia and Development in a Rapidly Changing World” at the WCC’s 10th Assembly in Busan, Republic of Korea, in 2013 (World Council of Churches 2014, pp. 157–61) and inspired the theological affirmation of socio-economic and political marginalized groups as key agents of diaconia (Swart 2021, pp. 65–66; World Council of Churches 2013, pp. 106–8; 2014, p. 160; World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, pp. 38–40);
• The LWF-initiated documents Prophetic Diakonia: For the Healing of the World (2003) and Diakonia in Context: Transformation, Reconciliation, Empowerment (2009) that have in their own right become important resources in the ongoing ecumenical and international debate on diaconia and Christian social practice by, amongst other things, advancing “prophetic diakonia” as a key concept and connecting the discourses of diaconia and development, in a similar way to that of the WCC and ACT Alliance (The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) 2003, 2009, pp. 76–83).

2. Emerging Topical Issues and Themes Contributing to Diaconia and Christian Social Practice in a Global Perspective

From the vantage point of our reflection so far, we endeavor in this concluding editorial to identify emerging topical issues and themes of diaconia and Christian social practice that emerged from the contributions to the special issue “Diaconia and Christian Social Practice in a Global Perspective”. Such an identification does not allow for a synthesizing synopsis of all the topical issues and themes that were raised and discussed. On the basis of our reading, we instead identify three overarching thematic areas of concern that may serve as pathfinders or vistas for the future development of diaconia and Christian social practice from a global perspective. In identifying these thematic areas, we attempt to cluster selected sub-themes and related topical issues of concern under each thematic area. However, it goes without saying that this approach may not do full justice to all the issues and concerns emanating from a particular contribution as it is steered by our own subjective reading. Our identification should therefore be seen as a provisional suggestion for a prioritized, ongoing diaconal and Christian social practice discourse.

2.1. The Challenge of Transformation and Becoming a Transformative Practice Across Three Areas of Concern

A concern with transformation and the need to become a transformative diaconal and Christian social practice clearly emerged as a key concern in a number of articles. Not surprisingly, one of the prioritized areas emerging from this explicitly relates to the current global environmental crisis and ways to address it. Yet another emerging area, one that is not unrelated to the environmental crisis, concerns the challenge of decolonizing diaconia and Christian social practice. Albeit a theme confined to one contribution but certainly also of considerable importance, we also identify the quest for an interreligious diaconal practice, one that strives to transform diaconia and Christian social practice into an interfaith endeavor demanded by interreligious and plural societal contexts.

2.1.1. Interrelated Ecological and Social Transformation

Steered by the imperative to reduce the carbon footprint, the ecological debate is often preoccupied with the transformation of the economy. This focus leads to the unfortunate consequence that the dimensions of the ecological/environmental and economic are easily prioritized over the social dimension of transformation and that the latter may in fact be omitted from any consideration.

However, the transformation to an eco-friendly economy will only succeed if people are willing to accept and conform to the necessary changes. The challenge of the social dimension refers in particular to people in the lower- or no-income ranks, as they lack the financial capacity, for instance, to invest in electric cars or to buy a newer refrigerator that consumes less electricity. If this is true in industrialized countries, it is even more true on a global scale. The richer nations in the Global North, which have been responsible for most of the huge carbon emissions since the beginning of industrialization, are the ones who should render support to the not-so-rich countries in the Global South. The countries in the Global South undoubtedly bear the heaviest costs of climate change such as floods, rising sea levels, increasing heat waves, droughts, thunderstorms and more; at the same time, they are also less equipped to counter these challenges (Moe-Lobeda and Helmiere 2013, pp. 203–4).

How do diaconal and Christian social practices enter into this picture? There are three ways in which they are entangled in this challenge for transformation.

First, diaconal and other related Christian social practice actors constitute part of the economic and social system of a given country. Through their buildings and vehicle fleets, for example, they contribute to global warming and are challenged to become more eco-conscious.

Second, diaconal and other related Christian social practice actors are in multiple ways engaged in supporting people in challenging life situations. Economic inequality and climate change have detrimental effects on health conditions, especially those of poor people. As Dietrich Werner argues in his important contribution to the special issue, “social diaconia” and “ecological diaconia” belong together inseparably (pp. 14–16). He points to the basic question of diaconia in the 21st century: “How to develop both models of sustainable diaconia and of inclusive communities will remain the key task for the years ahead, which is the period of the biggest transition of humankind since industrialization” (p. 15).

An accepted ecumenical understanding of diaconia refers “to a constitutive dimension of the life and mission of the churches as communities which are called to live as an active witness to the values of the kingdom of God” (Raiser 2017, p. 2). However, the ecological debate is focused on socio-economic and political concepts that belong to a different sphere from the ones in which Christian theologies and the churches find themselves. The challenge, therefore, is to develop an eco-conscious diaconia and Christian social practice that would combine from the international and global perspectives the social and the ecological dimensions (Werner et al. 2022a, pp. xxviii, xxix, xxxiv). This challenge is also addressed in Theresa Carino’s article in the special issue, “Transformative Diaconia in China: The Amity Foundation as a Case Study”, in which she considers the transformative potential of a specific faith-based organization in contributing to sustainable development. She especially explores the opportunities and challenges confronting FBOs as they make the transition from service delivery to advocacy for sustainable development. By putting forward the case of the Amity Foundation, she identifies crucial issues and initiatives for sustainability-friendly diaconal capacity building for churches in line with sustainable development goals and principles (pp. 3–5, 7–14). Conceptual and theoretical studies such as hers are indeed very much needed in order to enable diaconia and related Christian social practices to fulfil a third function in the ongoing societal transformation.

Third, the field of diaconia and Christian social practice has to critically evaluate and interrogate current models of global transformation such as the Sustainable Development Goals agenda. As such, the field’s task is not to subserviently identify with the SDG agenda or national development plans. It has to challenge national economic paradigms and underlying notions of material progress and growth. It can draw on deep ecology ideas within theologies of creation and its preservation and activate prophetic traditions in challenging existing power structures that delay the necessary adaptations. The focus should be on acting in solidarity with the people who are most disadvantaged by the ecological crises and endure the harshest impacts of climate change worldwide. As Werner aptly states, “(t)he transformative potential of social and ecological diaconia should be much more intentionally realized by churches, development agencies, and national governments” (Werner in the special issue, p. 15).

2.1.2. Meeting the Colonial Legacy

The field of diaconia and Christian social practice has just started to reflect on its colonial legacy in a more concerted way. Western churches and their mission branches were complicit with the imperial interests of Western powers in colonized countries and peoples of the Global South. While the social engagement of mission agencies to build hospitals, set up schools, write a grammar for native oral languages and so on should be acknowledged, it also has to be said that their social activities were not always rendered unconditionally. Such activities were also a means to proselytize the people of the colonized countries. A critical investigation of this proselytizing impact has been ongoing for some decades, but it needs to be broadened and deepened in several ways.

Firstly, Western mission agencies today often share responsibilities and decisions with local churches in the Global South. However, the question is to what extent there are still power imbalances as in, for instance, the way in which funding power remains in the hands of Western churches. Alternatively, are there funding schemes in place that allow for independence of activities in the Global South? What is the governing narrative used in channeling funds? Or to borrow from the words of Kroeker, in her contribution to the special issue, are churches from the West willing to accept the invitation “to become a ‘relative’ … [and no longer just] a ‘helper’” of the churches and people of the South (p. 11)?

Secondly, the clash and confrontation of different cultural traditions have always been part of human history. The question today is, first, to what extent have Western missionary societies come to terms with their own history with regard to the exercise of coercion and violence in dealing with other ethnic traditions, in their own contexts but also elsewhere? Second, what precautions are the (formerly) dominant forces taking today to ensure a fair exchange of different cultural influences? Both questions are addressed impressively by Kroeker in her dealings with “‘Justpeace-Diaconia’ and the Challenges of Reconciliation in the Canadian Context”. She concludes her article as follows: “[A] diaconia framed as justpeace-diaconia that is committed to a fulsome understanding of ‘reconciliation’ … includes not only the effort to decolonize one’s own framework and activities, addressing issues of power and privilege, but also a commitment toward reparation through solidarity, not through the stance of helping.” (p. 11) Diaconal helping has traditionally implied an asymmetrical relationship between the helper (diaconal actor) able to assist a person in a weaker position because of their need for assistance. Western missionary societies have accordingly been involved in helping to a great extent, but this has kept those who received the help in a state of dependency. As Kroeker (p. 11) rightly asks: what is the prospect of a diaconia of solidarity over against a diaconia of helping? Can the traditional asymmetrical situation be overcome and what would such a diaconia of solidarity look like?

Thirdly, closely connected to the point made about the ecological crises is the interconnectedness between climate change and colonial heritage. The ever-increasing carbon emissions of rich countries can be seen as a continuation of colonialism, or what has aptly been framed as the “climate imperialism and environmental racism” sustained by the nations of the Global North (Moe-Lobeda and Helmiere 2013, pp. 203–4). To date, climate change has had far more severe consequences for countries of the South than the North, even though the latter are primarily responsible for it. With the serious deterioration in living conditions and economic opportunities as a result of increasing warming (including droughts, heavy rainfall, etc.) and the “disproportionate distribution of environmental danger”, climate change must be characterized as a great injustice (Moe-Lobeda and Helmiere 2013, p. 204; see also Section 2.1.1 above). This raises the question of what diaconia can do to combat this injustice (see Werner in the special issue, pp. 14–16). The contribution by Theresa Carino (already alluded to) offers a meaningful starting point in this respect by looking at Christian social practice among faith-based organizations in China, especially its transformative potential in contributing to sustainable development. She shows how, through a combination of service delivery and advocacy (Chinese style), FBOs in China can help to shift official and religious perspectives and attitudes toward a more participatory and sustainable approach to development (pp. 3–16).

Fourthly, it has become paramount for the field of diaconia and related Christian social practice—as part of its decolonial undertaking—to devote due attention to the conceptual and practice relevance of the relatively new phenomenon of ecclesial expressions that have emerged independently from the historical Western missionary enterprise. The importance of this is highlighted by Babatunde Adedibu’s contribution to the special issue. By presenting the case of a well-known Pentecostal megachurch in Nigeria, the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Adedibu is able to show how a different approach is represented by African Initiated Christianity’s focus on building up a Christian tradition of African churches beyond colonization. He frames his argument more pointedly within the contemporary debate on religion and development, not least that aspect of the debate incorporating the megachurches of sub-Sahara Africa (see e.g., Burgess 2020; Golo and Novieto 2022; Gukurume 2022; Öhlmann et al. 2020; Oluwu 2011), to evaluate the diaconal and Christian social practice relevance of the RCCG. While pointing out some prevailing shortcomings, his main argument is that the continued commitment to the social development of communities evident from the social practice activities of the RCCG provides a new approach “from below” for diaconal church work (cf. Swart 2020). As his argument makes clear, a distinctive missional focus and accompanying ritual, religious and ecclesiastical practices go hand in hand with the approach from below, which in turn raises a number of questions regarding the similarities and the differences between the RCCG’s diaconal and Christian social practice approach and established concepts of a diaconal church or the church becoming diaconal. This interrogation furthermore begs the question whether the development-from-below approach is too focused on economic progress or, at the same time, linked to the basic rights of individuals. Finally, we also recognize the need to examine the possible overlapping between this development-from-below approach and empowerment strategies in other contexts.

2.1.3. Interreligious Encounter

Interreligious issues are becoming increasingly important in diaconal studies.10 This is primarily because of the practical challenges resulting from the intertwined realities of contemporary religious and social change, but there is also a fundamental question about the definition of helping action in a religious perspective, which will be addressed first.

It is undisputed that helping is not necessarily something specifically religious. Agnostics and atheists can help in an equal measure. Since helping is a general human impulse and occurs in all world religions but also outside of them, the traditions of helping in the individual cultures and religions differ considerably in many instances. This means that the different justifications for and understandings of helping need to be brought into clearer focus. Even a cursory glance shows that helping is justified very differently in the individual religions. The corresponding religious practices of helping also diverge significantly. In a brief overview, Pompey (2000, pp. 152–69) lists ten differences between the major world religions with regard to helping, some of which are mutually exclusive. He states, for example:

Compassionate diaconia in the form of targeted, active elimination of suffering, need and illness is not seen as necessary by Hinduism and Buddhism. Rather, especially in Hinayana Buddhism, a passive-meditative-spiritual form of inner detachment from suffering is emphasized as a way of overcoming suffering, i.e., distance from the world rather than active social shaping of the world.

(Pompey 2000, p. 167; translated from the German by J.E.)

The differences captured above indicate that there is no ultimate justification for helping action and that it can consequently only be characterized as a multifaceted phenomenon (Løgstrup 1989, pp. 6–7). Therefore, it is precisely the existing differences in the understanding of helping that make an interreligious understanding of diaconia and Christian social practice interesting, mutually enriching and necessary. At the same time, however, as discussions of interreligious dialogue point out (see e.g., Knitter 1985, 1996), it becomes imperative that one’s own point of view is clarified, so that a well-founded and clear position can be presented as a starting point in discussions and dialogues with other religions from a Christian diaconal and social practice perspective. However, this position cannot be realized through an exclusive claim to absolute truth; instead, it needs to acknowledge the relativity of its own truth claims. The fact that a certain religious tradition can postulate claims for absolute truth in itself relativizes the claim as such. This is because there cannot be any claim to absolute truth when the monotheistic claim to one God in a particular tradition can be challenged by similar claims to one God in another. Consequently, interreligious dialogue ought to direct the search for interreligious diaconia and Christian social practice.

As Christoph Sigrist points out in his article on chaplaincy in Switzerland in the special issue, Muslim chaplains are invited to work in the Swiss Army and in a university hospital. This opens up opportunities to familiarize oneself with another religious tradition through first-hand experiences, creating a situation in which trust and collaboration between leaders of different religions can grow. Moreover, such exposure can also spur the development of an interreligious diaconal and Christian social practice in specific contexts. A careful determination of the frame of reference for such practice is of great importance in order to facilitate the mode of collaboration and minimize potential conflicts. The value of interreligious projects such as the ones highlighted by Sigrist is indisputably high, since such real-life encounters diminish (negative) projections of the religious other. However, there are also underlying notions of interreligious encounters that are still debated in terms of their impact on traditional religions, as discussed below.

The reference point in Sigrist’s example is a vague concept of spiritual care. The underlying question is whether such a vague concept of spiritual care empties specific religious beliefs of their validity. The argument runs as follows: spirituality is located at the “blurred edges of the religious field” (Graf 2004, p. 245; translated from the German by J.E.) and is a syncretic phenomenon that, due to its indeterminacy, is precisely suited to symbolizing indeterminacy and contingency. Spiritual care follows on from this, whereby the content of religion, the communication of certain value orientations and attitudes recede behind the authenticity of speech, so that religious communication “becomes increasingly independent of content” (Nassehi 2009, pp. 35–44, 40; translated from the German by J.E.). However, emptying the content of religious language creates a problem. In this respect, Isolde Karle, who writes from the perspective of hospital pastoral care, meaningfully observes:

Religion, in its historically evolved form, is always related to concrete content, rituals and social forms and is communicatively constituted. If religion is defined abstractly and vaguely, it is disembodied and de-sensualized, formalized and schematized. What remains is a fleshless skeleton that has lost its essence.

(Karle 2010, pp. 537–55; translated from the German by J.E.)

Even if the vagueness of the concept of spirituality implies a greater openness, the price to be paid for this is high, according to Karle: “It is the price of the de-sensualization and de-sensualisation of religion.” (Karle 2010, p. 554; translated from the German by J.E.) Thus, the fundamental theological challenge to Christian diaconia and related social practice in a pluralistic world is whether it will be compelled to keep specific forms and contents of religious language and meaning alive: that is, as indispensable resources in specific fields of action in order not to succumb to the danger of losing its distinctive character of referring to transcendence, to the triune God (cf. Karle 2010, p. 552).

2.2. Ongoing Development of Rights- and Community-Based Professional Diaconal and Christian Social Practice Services and Their Peculiarities and Challenges in Different Contexts

A second overarching thematic area of concern arising from the contributions to our special issue relates to the challenge of rights-based professional services in various contexts and welfare regimes. Economic inequality poses a significant challenge to diaconia and related Christian social practices. Poverty, unemployment, uneven opportunities for education and unequal distribution of resources are prevalent across the globe (OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) 2024). Addressing these disparities and providing equal access to resources and services can be challenging, particularly in areas with limited financial resources. The broad field of diaconia and Christian social practice has a long tradition of involvement in combatting poverty. We will first look at biblical reasons for doing so and then discuss different ways in which this orientation is rendered in specific approaches today.

From its beginnings, Christian diaconal and social practice—rooted in the Jewish–Christian tradition—has developed two focal points for helping people in poverty: the principle of justice and the principle of love. Already in the Hebrew Bible, the protection of weaker, disadvantaged people (slaves, foreigners, widows and orphans) in a community is regulated in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20). Compassion must not be left to the discretion of the individual but should, like the law, be expected and taken for granted. Legal regulations that guarantee a minimum level of living conditions for the poor and the weak are a matter of justice among the people. Love, the second focal point, is first mentioned as the commandment to love one’s neighbor in Lev 19:11. Some view love as a complement to justice, since love cares for the ones not protected or supported by any legal codes (see e.g., Delgadillo 2014; Van Stichel 2014). Others again expanded on these concepts to loving not only the neighbor but also the enemy, thus universalizing the idea of love extended to any member of humankind. It is thus not surprising that, following this tradition, separate charity organizations were founded throughout history to provide more appropriate help to people in need—an idea that is already encapsulated in the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan.

The two focal points already pointed out above suggest that there is a complex entanglement of different aspects to which diaconal services correspond, an entanglement that also shapes which approach a diaconal service follows. The following overview is based on the selective contexts of justice and love that are addressed by various contributions to our special issue. The overview is therefore not only a limited representation of aspects of diaconal and related Christian social practices, but it also stems from differing settings that do not allow for generalizing insights of single contributions. However, the respective contributions can be distinguished by the approaches they follow, by the hermeneutical or empirical methods they adhere to, by their focus on the range and objectives of diaconal services, by the contextual and nation state settings they refer to, by the target groups they address, and so on. What follows is an identification and brief capturing of the central thematic rubrics emanating from the relevant contributions.

2.2.1. A Multifaceted Outlook on Professional Diaconal and Christian Social Practice Services

The approach to combatting poverty and exclusion should be multifaceted. It is not enough to merely subsidize material resources, since poverty and exclusion are also social phenomena. Ensuring social rights represents a major step forward in overcoming the dependence of poor people on the fluctuating willingness of those around them to help, as Beukes and Beukes show in their contribution to the special issue. They point out that the degradation of human dignity resulting from conditions such as poverty and unemployment is significant in countries like South Africa. Therefore, for Beukes and Beukes the pursuit of social justice constitutes an ideal approach to a transformational diaconal and development “praxis” (p. 10). They accordingly propose including social justice principles as a means of empowering people to ensure effective development (pp. 10–17). This, amongst other things, entails that entitlements secured by social policy should guarantee an individual a decent standard of living without a violation of her or his dignity (pp. 4, 6). However, as the South African case highlighted by the two authors so clearly shows, the granting of social assistance under apartheid and colonial rule went hand in hand with the stigmatization of those who received such assistance (p. 2). This is why current approaches to diaconal and Christian social practice execution should crucially also be aimed at overcoming social exclusion by promoting social participation and self-determination through social policy (see Beukes and Beukes).

It is striking to observe how the need for developing social rights not only affects countries in which welfare state protection is underdeveloped and which therefore often focus more on basic material security for poor people, but that this need also exists in well-developed welfare states such as Norway. While one could realistically expect no group to be left uncovered and unprotected in the Norwegian and other strong welfare state contexts, Bjørn Hallstein Holte highlights that this is in fact not the case. Holte’s focus falls on the case of Roma migrants in the Norwegian capital city of Oslo, where these migrants constitute a distinctive group subjected to migration control measures and regulations that effectively bar them from all public welfare services (pp. 2, 6). It is in this context of exclusion, Holte goes on to point out, that Roma migrants generally rely on the emergency shelters, soup kitchens and other humanitarian services that non-governmental organizations and especially diaconal organizations provide (p. 2). He refers to these interventions as “service provision at the margins of the welfare state” (pp. 7–9) that may at first glance not seem to change the status quo, as “Roma migrants remain without individual rights” (p. 8). Yet, at the same time, this conclusion may not be as straightforward, because the diaconal engagement for Roma migrants in Oslo (based on research evidence) should not be seen as “merely a return to charity, service provision, or a welfare innovation”. This is because diaconal organizations in Oslo also “engage in case work and advocacy work”. Their work therefore “does not fit neatly on a scale from charity through mutuality to transformation … or from charity to rights-based services” (p. 8):

What diaconal engagement for Roma migrants in Oslo at the intersection of migration control, a universalistic welfare state, and its theological underpinnings represents—more than anything—is diaconia as the art of the possible to serve the needs, rights, and empowerment of people at the margins in one context.

(Holte, p. 8)

Thus, in countries with a developed welfare state, the principles of benevolence and compassion become relevant again in order to provide at least rudimentary necessities of life to unsupported groups and, at the same time, to push for the inclusion of these groups into social security arrangements and social participation. Depending on the context of the welfare state, diaconia and related Christian social practice should be working more in the direction of expanding human-rights-orientated social work and pioneering work to provide for people who have not yet been taken into consideration and to advocate for them. This is based on the recognition—at least by some—that the issue is not about social justice versus charity but is about the quest for a manifold approach to social service delivery and advocacy work (cf. Werner in this special issue, pp. 8–9) with the aim of enabling people to live more humane lives and overcome poverty, for example.

2.2.2. The Challenge of Community-Based Diaconal and Christian Social Practice Work in the Realm of Society’s Social Space(s)

An important development in some contexts is the rediscovery of “social space” in community-based diaconal and Christian social practice work (Eurich 2020). While welfare state regulations normally grant entitlements to social benefits to individuals, social space approaches refer to the social networks in a particular city quarter, town or village that are utilized to the benefit of the larger common good in such settings. This can involve employing the resources of the people, businesses, non-profit organizations and religious organizations that are active there. The blended mix of various groups (stakeholders) is a decisive aspect of such an approach, which strives to interweave self-help with the assistance of the neighborhood, technical solutions and state social regulations. One expression of such a dynamic from a diaconal and Christian social practice interest is offered by Stephan de Beer’s article in the special issue. De Beer alerts us to the critical issue of “housing” in the context of Africa’s contemporary urban revolution (pp. 1–3). From this vantage point, his article represents a profound plea to advance “housing as a Christian social practice in the cities of Africa” (p. 10; see also pp. 6–7). From the perspective of diaconal and Christian social practice concerns, one of the key arguments that he advances is that “(t)he process of housing should ideally form part of a more holistic community development approach that includes all the other elements of healthy and sustainable human settlements” (p. 6; see also p. 7). De Beer sees the Christian church as potentially playing “an enormous role” in enabling such a holistic approach (p. 6) and constructively proposes five concrete focal areas that could lead to churches fulfilling this role in Africa’s urban spaces: (i) supporting precarious households; (ii) preventing homelessness; (iii) creating housing; (iv) supporting rights-based land and housing movements; and (v) centering housing pastorally-liturgically (pp. 7–10).

Drawing from the context of post-WWII Japan, Stephan van der Watt’s article can be viewed as a second contribution to the theme of community-based diaconal and Christian social practice work in the special issue. Van der Watt’s focus falls on a specific Christian denomination, the Reformed Church in Japan (RCJ). He points to an emerging diaconal awakening in this church (pp. 14, 19) but at the same time meaningfully applies the concept of “social spaces” to argue that such spaces are still not as accessible to the RCJ “as for instance in many European (post-Christendom) countries, where Christian volunteerism manifests … [more easily] because of a long history of well-established professional diaconal agencies” (p. 17). For Van der Watt, therefore, there is a need to acknowledge the tension between what can be appreciated and what poses a challenge for the RCJ. As a diaconal church in the making, he argues, this church still has some way to go to “create meaningful social space networks” between itself as a church constituency and “public/social welfare organizations” in Japanese society. His point is that the church needs to be enabled to play a caring role in the crosscutting fields of education, social work, and physical and mental health; this will be brought to full fruition in a diaconally envisioned community- and church (or congregational)-based service (pp. 17–19). However, as Van der Watt also meaningfully illustrates, a concrete manifestation of the “gradual awakening … of diakonia as a core element of being Church, in local communities and beyond” (p. 19) is also evident from one outstanding RCJ case study: the Seikeikai Social Welfare Institute (pp. 15–17). He details how a synergistic relationship has developed between the RCJ and Seikeikai, “emanating into a larger welfare institute with many diverse projects” that focus especially on the (successful) social inclusion of people with disabilities at the communal level (pp. 16–17).

We may finally appreciate how Sturla Stålsett from Norway adds another important layer to the theme of community-based diaconal and Christian social practice work in this special issue. His contribution is a conceptually rich one that essentially aims to sensitize a community-based approach to diaconal and Christian social practice work to an inherent paradox in many (if not most) community building efforts, namely, that they are simultaneously spaces of “exclusion” and “inclusion” (pp. 1–10). For Stålsett, this is a reality that diaconia, “as Christian social practice in various institutional, cultural, and political contexts”, crucially needs to come to terms with in order to meet one of its main goals: “the formation of just and inclusive communities” (p. 1). Drawing on Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito’s reframing of “community” and “immunity”, he argues that “openness to otherness that exposes the personal as well as the social body to external influence (both positive and negative) is a necessary ingredient for the protection of social and communitarian life” (p. 10; see also pp. 3–5). If this openness is no longer present, communities tend to defend themselves by excluding others. Thus, Stålsett suggests that this openness can be seen as a fundamental ontologically necessary vulnerability shared by all living beings (pp. 5–7) that ought to lead to inclusive social practice concepts such as “conviviality”11 serving as a model for diaconal community building (p. 8). The questions for diaconal work are thus: (a) How can this approach link together congregational efforts with the social services of diaconal service agencies? and (b) How can this approach of conviviality be combined with social service regulations that often focus on the deficiencies of the individual and do not take account of the individual’s network or resources?

2.2.3. Diaconal and Christian Social Practice Agency Under Market Pressures

The linkage between church congregations (including volunteers from the church, church people on executive boards of diaconal organizations, congregational social outreach and so on) and diaconal social service agencies can strengthen the latter with regard to their position in the social market. Market processes enforce economic criteria such as efficiency, output and outcome in the governance of nonprofit-organizations. Diaconal and related Christian social practice organizations therefore often become more business-minded organizations because of the competition in social markets. They struggle to keep up a Christian or faith-based value orientation, which means in turn that their respective value-based diaconal profiles are placed under pressure. Collaborating with the social outreach activities of a church congregation can consequently be a means to strengthen the value base of a diaconal organization in a symbolic way. However, there are also other more complicated aspects such as corporate culture that need to be taken into account (Schein and Schein 2019). In building up a diaconal corporate culture that may contribute to an advanced diaconal profile, the value base of a diaconal organization must take the central position. Managers play a key role in implementing the values of an organization, e.g., by role modelling values, communicating values, basing decisions on values, etc. (Northouse 2013; Bass 2008).

There is a large body of literature on leadership discourse in general, but the self-understanding of managers in diaconal organizations is not often researched empirically. This gap is meaningfully addressed by Stephen Sirris in his contribution to the special issue. His article explores the values-based leadership discourse of a Norwegian diaconal hospital and is steered by the research question: “What characterises managers’ self-realisation within the leadership discourse in a diaconal organisation?” (pp. 2, 12–13) To answer this question, he adopts the concepts of individualization and individuation as analytical tools to interpret his data and understand the wider societal culture in which the studied organization operates. This leads him to identify individuation as allowing “for both the autonomous self as well as a collective identity” over against individualization as entailing a more exclusive focus on one’s own development and success (p. 13). Through this application, Sirris shows how managers in the studied diaconal hospital prioritized individuation over individualization through promoting pro-social values that emanated from the hospital’s shared values as a consequence of its distinct value-based leadership discourse. He writes:

The value of service was one of the core values in the hospital, and it surfaced in the interviews. This meant that the managers integrated self-realisation and the realisation of higher purposes transcending the self.

(p. 14)

Through his particular case study, Sirris is thus able to show how “(t)he studied diaconal organisation”—a diaconal hospital—“does not make a very good case for managerialism” (p. 15). This does not mean that management in this organization did not also concern themselves with the aim of “self-realisation”; however, the difference was that “the diaconal narrative” foregrounded “shared values and collective purpose, i.e., individuation rather than individualisation” (p. 16). “The managers in my study relate not only to their co-workers but also to the recipients of their services, namely the patients in their hospital and the parishes in the diocese.” (Sirris, p. 15)

Significantly, we could conclude that the findings of the above case study can be considered as very relevant to the task of training and recruiting future diaconal leaders at a time when church membership is on the decline in some countries and more managers from outside the church are hired. This highlights the need for considering the core role of a distinct diaconal-value-based leadership discourse within a diaconal organization. Hence, the key task is the search for new concepts of diaconal leadership that are based on theologically founded values of diaconal organizations12 as well as on sound principles of leadership development such as individuation rather than individualization. The question here is to ascertain “how the serving ideal relates to health personnel’s professional values and how they work relationally” (Sirris, p. 16).

2.3. The Role of Theology in Shaping Diaconal and Christian Social Practice Understanding Across Hermeneutical Approaches

It could rightly be claimed that the discipline of Christian theology and its sub-fields are central to the task of diaconal and Christian social practical reflection.13 This claim is perhaps nowhere better reflected than in one dominant position or approach in the field of diaconia and Christian social practice that understands “diaconia” to be “a theological concept” having a direct bearing on how the identity and mission of the Christian church ought to be understood as an institution called by the triune God to be intrinsically involved in “the challenges of human suffering, injustice and care for creation” (The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) 2009, p. 8; see also Nordstokke 2014, p. 47; Nordstokke 2021). Consequently, it comes as no surprise that this theological emphasis demands that diaconal and Christian social practice reflection need to start “with the biblical and theological setting of ‘diakonia’” (World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, p. 43; see also Nordstokke 2014, p. 48) including ecclesiological reflection on the diaconal nature of the Christian church (Dietrich and Thiani 2021; Nordstokke 2011, p. 225; Nordstokke 2014, p. 49; World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, p. 43). The importance of theology as the main or lead discipline accordingly stands out (Christoph Sigrist, cited by Öhlmann in the special issue, p. 8), prompting its proponents to “insist on the inherent connection between diaconal studies and theology” in order not to compromise the “diaconal character” of the former (Beate Hofmann, cited by Öhlmann in the special issue, pp. 7–8). Theology, in this way, is thus assigned “a steering and normative function” (Hofmann, cited by Öhlmann in the special issue, p. 8); from its insights may emerge new understandings of diaconal, ecclesial and Christian practice, more broadly speaking, as well as the possibility of new practices in real-life situations (Nordstokke 2014, p. 48).

However, the above identification necessarily leads us to allude to a second dominant position or approach put forward in hermeneutical discussions in the field of diaconal studies. Here, the entry or starting point shifts to a focus “on diaconal practice, activities and projects run by agents that present themselves and/or their services as diaconal” (World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, p. 43). On a concrete level, this may involve “activities organised by local congregations or diaconal institutions such as hospitals or homes for elderly people” (Nordstokke 2014, p. 48), but it may also extend more broadly to initiatives that involve “[i]nterchurch aid, refugee work, humanitarian aid, development work and advocacy” (World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, p. 43). Consequently, in this approach, the emphasis falls on contextual analysis, empirical research on diaconal and Christian social practice, and critical reflections on the generated empirical and case study findings (Nordstokke 2011, p. 224; 2014, p. 48; World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, p. 43). This does not mean that theological and biblical insights may not still play an important normative role as part of the critical reflection (cf. Nordstokke 2011, p. 225), but it effectively does lead to a position where theology becomes “one of several reference sciences that, through dialogue or trialogue, investigate social phenomena together” (Hofmann, cited by Öhlmann in the special issue, p. 7). This may in turn lead to a situation where the theological contribution or component shifts to the background of the discussion or even disappears from the discussion (see our discussion in Section 2.3.3 below; also Bäckström 2014).

It becomes important at this point to observe how both approaches are represented across articles in the special issue. We therefore find this identification of two approaches useful in providing us with a framework to organize the discussion of our identified third area of overarching thematic concern. As the heading of this section (Section 2.3) suggests, by presenting this area of concern, we are particularly interested, based on the different article contributions, in offering a perspective on the role that theological insight and application play in shaping diaconal and Christian social practice understanding. This enables us to identify the specific thematic focus or content that derives from this theological role and, based on the two approaches, to develop a comparative perspective that also takes account of those cases where the explicit theological perspective and contribution shift to the background or even disappear from the discussion.

2.3.1. Diaconal Identity and the Diaconate of All Believers: Distinctive Thematical Content and Perspective Deriving from the Lead Position of Theology

We can identify two contributions that fall very clearly within the approach whereby theology can be considered the lead discipline, namely, the articles by John Klaasen on “Diaconia and Identity: Agency of the marginalised”, and Craig Nessan on “The Diaconate of All Believers: Theology, Formation, Practice”. It is striking to note that neither article has so far featured in our reflection on emerging topical issues and themes emanating from the special issue. This suggests that these two contributions could be seen as exemplars of an approach that tends to confine its interdisciplinary scope, by and large, to the discipline of theology (cf. Hofmann, cited by Öhlmann in the special issue, p. 7). Here, we also find a noticeable focus on (diaconal) practice and a critical reflection on such practice, but the ideas, argumentation and perspective remain confined to the language and disciplinary domain of Christian theology.

Our intention is not to make any value judgements regarding what we see to be distinctive hermeneutical features of the approach and the two articles under discussion. Besides identifying the two articles as striking examples of the said approach, it becomes important for us to recognize the thematic content that the two articles bring to the fore. This is comprised of topical issues and themes that, from a leading and all-encompassing theological role and perspective, could well be expected to remain prominent in the future, in the ongoing unfolding of diaconia and Christian social practice as a global discipline (cf. e.g., Dietrich 2019a, 2019b; Dietrich and Thiani 2021; Ham 2012; The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) 2009; Nessan and Stephens 2024; Nordstokke 2021; Todd 2025; World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022). We now briefly consider the contribution that the two articles make in this regard.

In considering the crucial and inescapable issue of diaconal identity, John Klaasen’s contribution may be appreciated for the way in which he establishes a connection between ideas central to a Christian anthropology and the concept of “the agency of the marginalised”. Klaasen appropriately acknowledges the new importance of the latter concept in ecumenical diaconal discourse (p. 6; cf. Ham 2012; World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, pp. 38–40) and, from this vantage point, he brings his own innovative perspective to the debate. He draws on scholars from the fields of systematic theology, feminist theology and diaconal studies to develop his argument, which is consistent with the kind of interdisciplinary conversation fostered by the theological lead position approach. This brings him to the point of contending that “the carer” (at the center of power) and “those at the margins” both exert agency and elements of power (p. 4), which in turn leads him to the following argument, which is worth quoting in full:

An approach to diaconia from the margins does not exclude those at the so-called centre. The centre plays a role in diaconia on the basis that to be created in the image of God includes all humanity. When we consider the two perceived divergent notions of the image of God—that of Van Huyssteen (the absolute uniqueness of humanity) and that of Kelsey (the images of the image of God)—a synthesis is uncovered that does not divide or separate for the sake of domination or alienation. Instead, the dialogical action is different but not separated. The marginalised do not replace the centre to create another margin. Rather, the spaces of the margins provide specific and possible uniqueness that the centre is oblivious to or ignorant of.

(p. 8)

Indeed, Klaasen’s synthesizing perspective offers important food for thought for further development of the theme “The Diakonia of the Marginalized People”, which has shifted to the center of ecumenical diaconal thinking (Ham 2012, pp. 386–88; World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance 2022, pp. 38–40). In particular, his synthesizing perspective challenges the idea that the rich, non-poor and the powerful ought to become “the new objects of diakonia” under the latter theme (cf. Swart 2024, pp. 84–85). Instead, Klaasen’s concluding ecclesiological argument takes him in another direction. He pleads that “[t]he church ought to be an inclusive community with an inclusive mission”, which implies that “perceived opposites” ought to be kept “in creative tension” (p. 9). In terms of the diaconal task, this means that the “common denominator” ought to remain “service to the people with low incomes through the lens of human experience” and in solidarity with the margins (p. 9). The agency role of the traditional diaconal “carer” should therefore be upheld in a vision of the church as an authentic community where “all people are accepted as … created in God’s image and Christ reflects the perfect image of God” (p. 9).

Shifting our attention next to Craig Nessan’s article, the second written from a leading theological perspective, it becomes important to understand his contribution against the backdrop of his leading role in a recent international book project that sought to develop fresh perspectives for the revitalization of the church from a diaconal studies perspective in his North American context (Nessan and Stephens 2024). The concern that drove this book project similarly reverberates in Nessan’s article when he comments: “The homeostasis that strangles the vitality of the institutional church—which can be called “churchification”—remains a formidable challenge to reconstituting the church’s mission through the service of the baptized diaconate. In North America, a deep rift exists between what happens in the name of the institutional church and the rest of the people’s lives.” (p. 4).

It follows that Nessan’s contribution can be understood as a compassionate plea to revitalize the Christian church in his North American context but also beyond, via the theological dictum “The Diaconate of All Believers”. Nessan finds important impulses for such all-encompassing theological elevation in Martin Luther’s teaching about the universal priesthood of all believers, as well as theological ideas advanced in the ecumenical movement over several decades (pp. 3–4). This identification leads him to one of his core insights that the diaconate of all believers, which finds its vocational calling in the sacrament of baptism, ought to be lived out in “four arenas for Christian social practice”: “family, work, civic engagement, and church (or the religious institution of other faiths)” (p. 5). From this vantage point, Nessan continues to develop his argument by presenting an extensive proposal about the centrality of worship practices, interpreted as formation, to equip Christians for such a diaconate (pp. 5–9). He contends in his concluding argument that such a proposal fundamentally needs to form part of, and be born from, a transformed theology of the ministry that places the diaconate of all believers at the forefront (pp. 9–12).

2.3.2. Theologically Founded Thematical Content, Perspective and Focal Points Deriving from the Partial Position of Theology

Our reading of the complete set of special issue contributions leads us to identify the majority of articles—ten in total—as falling within the second approach, whereby theology occupies a partial position in the scholarly deliberation, albeit to varying degrees. This excludes the last cluster of four articles, identified and presented in Section 2.3.3 below, which remain relevant to the theological–diaconal debate but relativize theology’s position to such an extent that we group them separately. Given the limited space at our disposal, we start by first attending in more detail to the two articles that have so far not featured in our discussion (i.e., in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2), after which we continue with a more concise and integrated synthesizing discussion of all ten articles (i.e., including the eight articles that have featured in one way or another in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2).

We find it helpful to start with the question of why the articles by Erica Meijers and Rudolf von Sinner have so far not featured in the reflection. Here, our immediate answer is that this could be explained by the novelty of their respective thematic points of focus. In the case of the contribution by Meijers, her article focuses on the topic of real-life alliances between “community art” and diaconia in the context of a gentrifying Amsterdam neighborhood. This leads her very early in her article to come up with a similar answer to ours, as she contends that “[t]he value of community art for diaconal practices has received little attention in diaconal studies so far” (p. 2). For Meijers, therefore, art should be considered a novel focus for the field of diaconia and Christian social practice;14 however, it deserves to be explored and developed as a focus of great potential for innovation, as her article convincingly suggests.

Indeed, a closer reading of Meijers’ contribution makes it clear that her suggestion to adopt a particular practical theological approach leads to her discovery of the partnership value of community art for contemporary diaconal and Christian practice. This is an approach that finds it essential as a point of departure to “turn to specific situations and lived realities” (p. 2) for theological sense-making, in other words, an approach “inscribed in the tradition of theologies that are embodied, material, and emerging from everyday life” (p. 3). As her discussion reveals, it is precisely this immersion in a practical theology of lived religion that steered her to multidisciplinary/methodologically openness and a resultant “collaborative (artistic) action research” project in which she participated together with other research participants comprised of community artists, local congregants and social activists (see pp. 3–21). Her account, based on the project outcomes, subsequently highlights the potential of new alliances between art and diaconia to address the problem of spatial inequality and alienation, strengthen local communities in cities, and create new theological meaning. In the case of her project, it fostered new experiences of belonging to the neighborhood, while at the same attracting people back to the immediate vicinity of the church in a highly secularized city context, a neighborhood known as the “The Staatsliedenbuurt” in Amsterdam (pp. 20–23). In more overtly theological language, this outcome could be described as a hopeful alliance that also created new possibilities of experiencing God’s presence and living out the Christian witness of justice in the (secular) city (pp. 24–26).

Turning to the second contribution, Rudolf von Sinner’s adoption of the concepts of “shame” and “integrative diaconia” and their interconnection could be considered equally novel in the framework of diaconal and Christian social practice discourse.15 Von Sinner’s contextual focus falls on contemporary Brazil and on what he depicts from a deep critical perspective as the convergence of evangelical (evangélico) Christianity and right-wing political forces in this society (pp. 1–4). He contends that this alignment has given way to a “moralistic” agenda that “reduces care for humans (and nature) to issues linked nearly exclusively to family and sexuality” (p. 2). This does not mean that the “poorest of the poor” do not make up a visible part of Brazil’s evangelical or Pentecostal churches, nor that “[i]ssues of poverty and its overcoming” are not on the “radar” of these churches (p. 2). However, from Von Sinner’s perspective, these churches need to be profoundly criticized not only for their lack of consciousness regarding the structural plight of the poor and creation at large, but also for their alignment with right-wing political forces (pp. 3–4, 7–8).

Von Sinner’s argument accordingly finds deeper foundational meaning in the conceptual connection that he makes between an ethics of shame and what he calls an integrative diaconia. To this end, he draws from the fields of Christian social ethics and biblical exegesis to argue that creating and reinforcing “a sense of shame” ought to be seen as a natural outcome of the Gospel faith (p. 5). Shame, or a sense of shame, from this perspective, closely connects with the biblical notions of “guilt” and “sin” in order to be understood as “the knowledge of good and evil, which implies recognizing the distance of and lowliness before God” (pp. 5–6). Shame, or a sense of shame, could therefore be seen as an integral dimension of “the very humanity of being”, “a productive and even necessary indicator of humanity that is able to sense shame in relation to its own failure while watching on to the other’s suffering” (p. 6).

Thus, one may (from an overtly diaconal perspective) express one’s appreciation for how Von Sinner, who is more widely known as a scholar in the field of Christian public theology, offers a diaconal answer as the ultimate challenge to evangelical Christianity and its churches in contemporary Brazil. To paraphrase his argument, a necessary theological and biblically informed sense of shame needs to lead the evangelical churches in Brazil to pursue an integrative diaconia as its calling. This points to an understanding of diaconia and Christian social practice that resonates with the conceptualization of “ecumenical diakonia” in the realm of the World Council of Churches (p. 2), as well as being comprehensive in its insistence “on care for human beings—and beyond humanity for animals and the whole of creation—in their integrity” (p. 8). By implication, therefore, it points to a form of diaconal practice that “would seek to amplify care for the body and call to shame not only on sexual grounds but social grounds” (p. 9).

              **************

A synthesizing perspective that includes the other eight articles under the rubric of theology’s partial position—i.e., articles that have already been mentioned under Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 of the discussion—leads us to identify a collective contribution that reflects a rich and diverse thematic content and focus worth recapitulating at this point: “churches as diaconal actors of eco-social transformation” (Werner); “transformative diaconia in China” (Carino); “justpeace-diaconia in Canada” (Kroeker); “a social justice approach to diaconia for a South African context” (Beukes and Beukes); “housing as Christian social practice in African cities” (De Beer); “diaconal engagement for Roma migrants in Norway” (Holte); “community building in postpandemic diaconal practice” (Stålsett); “church-related diaconal initiatives in the context of social welfare delivery in postwar Japan” (Van der Watt); “community art and diaconia in the city-context of Amsterdam” (Meijers); and “shame as an ethical category for integrative diaconia in Brazil” (Von Sinner).

When reflecting more closely on the role that theological insight and application play in shaping the collective list of topical contributions, but by implication also in informing the overarching rubrics where we found a place for eight contributions from this list in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, our reading leads us to highlight three salient points emanating from our reflection.

Firstly, a common feature of the contributions is the way in which theological insight and application follow from and function as a response to a particular contextual analysis and what is presented as a particular contextual challenge. Here, we could allude to the normative task that theological insight and application fulfil (cf. Osmer 2008, p. 4) by directing the normative–critical interpretation of the respective identified challenge, while at the same time presenting it as a normative calling for diaconal and Christian social practice action. This includes the following pertinent challenges: global eco-social transformation (Werner); sustainable development in contemporary China (Carino); social reparation in contemporary Canada (Kroeker); poverty, unemployment and social injustice in contemporary South Africa (Beukes and Beukes); urban housing needs (De Beer); social exclusion of Roma migrants in Norway (Holte); the dynamic of enhanced exclusion brough about by the COVID-19 pandemic (Stålsett); increasing social inequality and prevailing social welfare needs in contemporary Japan (Van der Watt); secularization, gentrification and segregation in Amsterdam/the Netherlands (Meijers); and the convergence of right-wing political and religious forces in contemporary Brazil (Von Sinner).

Second, indispensable to all the contributions—while to different degrees of conceptual development—is the way in which theological insight and application provide motivational rationale for the calling to particular diaconal and Christian social practices (related to the above list of respective challenges). We may also refer to this aspect as the indispensable extension of theology’s normative task whereby theological insight and application conceptualize alternative visions (De Beer, p. 5; Holte, p. 6; Meijers, pp. 24–26) of “good practice” (cf. Osmer 2008, p. 4). In this respect, here, we should allude to the role that biblical insight and application play as an integral element of the theological reflection. This starts in more than one instance with a revisiting or recalling of the term “diakonia” as an interrelated biblical and theological concept that, as part of a broader reading of the Bible, provides the motivational rationale for a mode of “good practice” that is transformational and surpasses the notions of charity and humble service (Beukes and Beukes, pp. 4–5; Carino, p. 2; Holte, pp. 6–7; Kroeker, p. 3; Von Sinner, pp. 4–6).

We may go so far, then, as to identify the Bible as a “resource par excellence” (Swart 2021, p. 63) for the theological argument of at least five contributions, and by implication their envisioned and conceptualized “good practice”. Albeit developed to a lesser extent in the contributions by Theresa Carino and Stephan van der Watt, this regard for the Bible as a resource is nevertheless reflected in their respective accounts of the centrality of biblical contemplation and discernment for transformative diaconal and Christian social practice in China (Carino, pp. 9–10), and John 9:3 as a divinely sanctioned text for diaconal and Christian social practice engagement with people with disabilities in Japan (Van der Watt, p. 16). Even more strikingly, it is in the contributions by Jacques and Laurika Beukes, Wendy Kroeker and Rudolf von Sinner that one encounters more elaborate accounts of the centrality of the biblical message. In the case of all three contributions, they uphold the Bible as central to their respective calls for Christian diaconal devotion.16 Beukes and Beukes, in this respect, go so far as to lay claim to “the entirety of the Bible” (p. 5) as foundational to a call for “social justice” diaconia (pp. 5–6), while Kroeker finds a call to “a Christian praxis of peace-diaconia” to lie “[a]t the center of the Bible’s vision of a renewed world” (p. 4), and Von Sinner identifies Chapters 2 and 3 of the Book of Genesis as presenting “[a]n emblematic and often-cited case” (p. 6) for advancing his argument about shame. As a noticeable extension of these appreciations, their respective biblically founded arguments also lead them to discover a similar divine authority regarding God as the one who “summons” the diaconal call for social justice (Beukes and Beukes, p. 5), whose “compassionate nature” defines “[a]uthentic Christian justice based on biblical principles” (Beukes and Beukes, p. 6), whose “own mission of restoration and transformation in this world” determines the call to “peacebuilding and reconciliation” (Kroeker, p. 4), who, through “the model of Jesus”, paves the way for “being and doing peace-diaconia” (Kroeker, p. 5), and whose command for accountability demands a sense of shame in the light of neglecting other’s suffering (Von Sinner, p. 6).

Our discussion so far clearly suggests that the role of theological insight and application matters for diaconal and Christian social practice scholarship, also under the partial position—i.e., when compared to scholarship where such insight and application derive from theology’s leading position (see Section 2.3.1). In the case of the contributions under discussion here, it becomes clear how an emphasis on the fundamental importance of biblical insight and application is part and parcel of what some explicitly consider to be or refer to as a “diaconal theology” (Carino, pp. 10–11; Holte, pp. 6–7; Kroeker, p. 3). Thus, the different contributions give evidence of an already existing diaconal theological apparatus informed by its own distinctive tradition of theological ideas, diaconal scholars and study documents initiated by Christian ecumenical bodies such as the World Council of Churches and ACT Alliance (Beukes and Beukes, pp. 4–7, 10–13; Carino, pp. 8–11; Holte, pp. 6–7; Kroeker, pp. 3–6, 8–11; Stålsett, pp. 6–8; Van der Watt, pp. 13–18; Von Sinner, p. 2; Werner, pp. 2–16). At the same time, however, one also encounters in a number of cases a significant interdisciplinary broadening, whereby the theological insight and application presented emanate from a wide array of resources that fall outside the direct domain of, but further enrich, the diaconal and Christian social practice perspective. This includes: (i) different theological fields (social ethics, liberation theology, feminist theology, urban public theology, systematic theology, Old Testament studies, practical theology); (ii) theological ideas and metaphors of scholars and ecclesial figures not conventionally associated with the field of diaconal and Christian social practice (e.g., “shame”/Klaas Huizing/Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “huts with empty granaries”/Jean-Marc Ela, “household of freedom”/Letty Russell, “(window of) vulnerability”/Dorothee Sölle/Elizabeth Gandolfo, human dignity/Rev. Makio Ihara, “doctrine of discovery”/Pope Francis/Sarah Augustine); and (iii) confessional documents and declarations across denominational traditions (Accra Confession, Belhar Confession, Kairos Document, 70th Anniversary Declaration of the Reformed Church in Japan) (Beukes and Beukes, p. 10; De Beer, pp. 3–6; Kroeker, pp. 8–9; Stålsett, pp. 6–7; Meijers, pp. 2–3; Van der Watt, pp. 14–17; Von Sinner, pp. 4–6).

Thirdly, although featuring more prominently in some contributions than others, a closer reading of the eight articles under discussion here makes it clear how the issue of identity surfaces as another crucial aspect of theology’s role in shaping the understanding of diaconal and Christian social practice. Not unlike the case of the two articles discussed under the rubric of theology’s lead position in shaping the diaconal and Christian social practice perspective (Section 2.3.1), here, we see how the issue and theme of identity emerge as an integral element of the overall normative argument advanced through particular theological insight and application. In attempting to present some form of synthesis of the collective argument, for several contributions, it becomes essential to highlight that it is a particular “Christian” identity that distinguishes the conceptualized “good practice” from other forms of good practice (Beukes and Beukes, p. 6; Carino, p. 2; De Beer, p. 6; Holte, pp. 6–7; Kroeker, pp. 3–4; Werner, pp. 6–7). As such, it becomes one of the essential tasks of the theological argument presented to give meaning and content to the claimed Christian identity. It is, for instance, emphasized that this is an identity that emerges from and is steered by an “explicit faith language” (Werner, p. 9) and inclination of faith that “motivates” the particular action or practice and “views it as an expression of Christian discipleship” (Carino, p. 2; see also De Beer, pp. 4, 9, 11; Meijers, p. 1; Stålsett, pp. 6, 10; Van der Watt, p. 11–12).

Importantly, however, adopting this identity and its distinctive faith language and inclination does not mean that diaconal and Christian social practice actors do not share the normative outlook and concern of secular social actors who exert themselves to, for instance, advance the sustainable development agenda and strive “in its performance to alleviate human suffering and promote justice, peace, and human dignity” (Carino, p. 2). Yet, in the same breath, this shared outlook and concern can never fully overlap, as the work of diaconal and Christian social practice actors “cannot be completely and indiscriminately absorbed” (Werner, p. 6) by the discourses of their secular counterparts. Instead, their faith-based language and faith inclination lead them to make their own authentic contribution, which explains why authors from this selected group of articles can lay claim, through their theological and biblical arguments, to a distinctive (Christian) approach/response to address the challenges of eco-social transformation (Werner, pp. 7–8, 15–16), sustainable development (Carino, pp. 8–11), peacebuilding (Kroeker, pp. 4, 9–11), social justice (Beukes and Beukes, pp. 6, 10–14), housing (De Beer, pp. 6–11), social marginalization (Holte, pp. 6–9), community building (Stålsett, pp. 7–10), social welfare (Van der Watt, pp. 13–19), social care (Von Sinner, pp. 8–9) and social cohesion/inclusion (Meijers, pp. 24–36).

In conclusion, it is important to point out how the above argument about identity also integrates two further insights in the overall argumentation. First, for several authors, the authenticity and distinctiveness of what diaconia and Christian social practice have to offer are determined by the holistic and comprehensive nature of such practices (Beukes and Beukes, pp. 4, 6, 10; Carino, p. 5; De Beer, pp. 6–10; Kroeker, pp. 4–5; Van der Watt, pp. 13–18; Von Sinner, pp. 2, 8–9; Werner, p. 9). Because of their grounding in particular principles and convictions of faith, it is postulated, all forms of authentic diaconal and Christian social practice distinguish themselves in pertinent ways not only from secular modes of action/practice, but also from what may historically (erroneously) have been understood as diaconia and Christian social practice’s essential contributions to humble and charitable service (Beukes and Beukes, pp. 4, 10; Carino, p. 5; Werner, p. 9). Here, the line of argumentation advanced is that it is through its inclination in the Christian faith that diaconia and Christian social practice are able and called upon to make an authentic contribution by integrating elements that should be regarded as indispensable to durable, holistic and comprehensive social change and transformation. This includes not only aspects such as beliefs, values, convictions, conscience, pastoral sensitivity and the existential search for meaning and hope (Beukes and Beukes, p. 4; Carino, p. 5; De Beer, pp. 6, 10; Van der Watt, p, 14; Werner, p. 9), but also many others, such as those captured in the following selection of quotes:

Taking the model of Jesus himself, one can consider the relevance of this enactment of the kingdom of God in connection with intertwined peace and justice work … The Galilean component focuses on acts of serving, ministering, reconciling, empowering, inviting and being in solidarity, while the Jerusalem component includes protesting, resisting, challenging, criticizing, truth-telling, and consequently, suffering. Together these components represent the range of holistic dimensions that represent being the church in the world.

(Kroeker, pp. 4–5)

Concepts that will assist us in our understanding and application to move beyond a charity mode/services/one-off projects to social justice are recognition, redistribution, representation, including key concepts like fairness, empowerment, compassion, equal participation, building of relationships, and holistic well-being.

(Beukes and Beukes, p. 10)

What I call here “integrative diaconia” … refers to a comprehensive understanding of diaconia that cares for human beings—and beyond humanity for animals and the whole of creation—in their integrity, that is in all aspects of personal and social life, with an emphasis on mutual solidarity, care and support.

(Von Sinner, p. 2)

Second, for authors of the majority of eight articles, it also becomes impossible to separate the argument about identity and the underlying theme of authenticity and distinctiveness from a recognition of the Christian church—both in its ecumenical and local/congregational manifestations—as the primary institutional agent of diaconia and Christian social practice (Beukes and Beukes, pp. 2, 10–14; Carino, pp. 8–11, 14; De Beer, pp. 6–11; Holte, p. 7; Kroeker, pp. 3–5, 8, 10–11; Stålsett, pp. 2, 7; Van der Watt, pp. 13–19; Werner, pp. 6–16). This does not mean that the role of other institutional formations, under the banner of faith-based organizations (FBOs) or faith-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are not acknowledged by at least some authors for addressing pertinent diaconal and Christian social practice concerns (see Carino; De Beer). At the same time, however, it is the distinctive “spiritual nature of the church and its identity”, its status as the primary bearer of a “faith-based language” that secures the authentic and distinctive nature of diaconal and Christian social practice action (Werner, pp. 8–9). This also explains why diaconia and Christian social practice “should primarily be understood as church-based activities of care”, notwithstanding the fact that such activities are made operational “within the fields of education, social work, and physical/mental health” (Van der Watt, p. 19). Put differently, one can say that the church and diaconia and Christian social practice mutually define one another, an insight that leads several authors to the theological claim that diaconia and Christian social practice are integral to the mission/missional calling of the church (Beukes and Beukes, p. 2; Carino, p. 14; De Beer, p. 6; Holte, p. 7; Kroeker, pp. 2–3, 5; Van der Watt, pp. 14–15; Werner, pp. 5, 8).

2.3.3. Value-Based Leadership, Interreligious Cooperation, and Religion and Development: Thematical Content and Perspective Deriving from the Disappearing Position of Theology

Our framework of analysis (see again the opening paragraphs under Section 2.3) finally leads us to identify four articles in the special issue for which we could not find a place in the discussion of theology’s role under the categories that represent the discipline’s lead and partial positions in the overall academic landscape. Thus, in these four articles dealing with the topical issues of values-based leadership (Sirris), interreligious cooperation (Sigrist), diaconia and development/the religion and development debate (Öhlmann), and Nigerian Pentecostal Megachurches and development (Adedibu), theology has indeed disappeared from the discussion. This leaves us with the important question about their relevance under a section that very pertinently considers theology’s role in shaping diaconal and Christian social practice understanding. Put in another way, despite the intriguing fact that we found a place for three of the four articles elsewhere in our overarching thematic framework (Adedibu in Section 2.1.2; Sigrist in Section 2.1.3; and Sirris in Section 2.2.3), here, we are left with the necessary task of considering the place and value of this group of articles against the backdrop of a larger group of articles clearly displaying theology’s central role in bringing to the fore distinctive thematical content and related fundamental issues pertaining to the task of normative sense-making and identity construction.

Taking as our starting point the only article among the four that did not feature in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 of the discussion, and, by implication, our overall identification so far of emerging issues and themes, Philipp Öhlmann’s contribution may be valued for its meta-theoretical interrogation of the field of diaconal studies and its epistemological foundations. Öhlmann’s contribution, in this respect, is reminiscent of other contributions to the subject field in which calls have been made for an epistemological broadening of diaconal studies as an academic field (see Bäckström 2014). However, from a perspective that seeks to incorporate both the fields of diaconal studies and religion and development (pp. 3–11), he goes a step further by arguing for a reconfiguration of both fields as part of a new lead discipline that he terms “the study of Religious Social Practice” (p. 2). His reasoning is that this would hold several advantages:

• The formation of the new lead discipline would provide a disciplinary home for the field of religion and development;
• The new lead discipline would at the same time broaden the scope of and (truly) internationalize the field of diaconal studies by taking cognizance of the contemporary trends and challenges of religious pluralism/pluralization;
• The new lead discipline would enable the fields of both religion and development and diaconal studies not to be confined by the discourse of development and its ensuing epistemic baggage;
• These two fields would benefit substantially from the new lead discipline, as the scope of the latter would be the exploration of the social impact of religion in a global perspective;
• The new lead discipline would strengthen the interdisciplinary relationship between religion and development and diaconal studies, which, based on the evidence of existing scholarship, share several areas of interest (pp. 2, 11–16).

Our brief synopsis of Öhlmann’s argument brings us back to the question of its relevance in a discussion that values an understanding of the role of theology in shaping diaconal and Christian social practice. Indeed, we can go along with Öhlmann (and others) in stressing the importance of diaconal studies’ epistemological broadening, especially to meet the challenge of contemporary religious pluralism/pluralization (see again Section 2.1.3) and even greater interdisciplinarity. In this respect, his contribution also offers important insight into diaconal studies and religion and development as “common discursive fields” that share several areas of concern (pp. 11–14) and can therefore benefit greatly from mutual recognition and interdisciplinary cooperation.

From our perspective, however, it is precisely with respect to the issue of identity that Öhlmann’s proposal for a new lead discipline runs into trouble. Identity matters, as we have seen and argued in several parts of our reflection. It therefore becomes very hard to see how one will be able to sell such a proposal to the different constituencies that represent faithful social practice, whether it be from the Christian faith or any other faith tradition. Clearly, the danger of emptying specific religious language and beliefs (see Section 2.1.3), the driver of purposeful faith-based social practice, emerges again. This is an issue that Öhlmann takes scant account of in his contribution, a limitation that lays bare the serious implications when the role of theology and its essential place in the task of identity construction are marginalized, if not omitted, in the quest for epistemological/disciplinary broadening and greater interreligious sensitivity. This indeed marks a concern that should be prioritized for debate in the further development of diaconia and Christian social practice as an international field of study and practice.

As already noted, the other three special issue articles identified may be distinguished from Öhlmann’s article because they have been valued elsewhere in our discussion for their contribution to particular issues and themes relevant to the international field of diaconia and Christian social practice: meeting the colonial legacy (Adedibu), interreligious encounter (Sigrist), and diaconal and Christian social practice agency under market pressures (Sirris). This suggests the relevance of academic contributions to the subject field, even when theology occupies a marginal if not disappearing position in their argumentation and reflection. At the same time, however, this should not stop us from asking how the topical issues and themes presented by the three articles might have been enriched by an integrated theological perspective. We conclude with some final considerations in this regard.

First, as in the case of Öhlmann’s article, Babatunde Adedibu’s article provides similar evidence of how a diaconal and Christian social practice perspective is enriched by conceptual work in the field of religion and development, especially in an African context where “development” might be regarded as the preferred term for diaconal and Christian social practice work (see e.g., Chitando et al. 2020; Werner et al. 2021a, pp. xxi–xxvi). However, while Adedibu does not present us with the same kind of meta-theoretical complication as Öhlmann does, it can be argued that his argument about Nigerian Pentecostal Megachurches as actors in the interrelated sphere of diaconal and development practice remains less developed due to its omission of an integrated theological perspective. This shortcoming, we may postulate, becomes convincingly clear in the light of new contributions made today by theological scholars to a growing corpus of literature on “African Pentecostalism and Development”, showing how one cannot come to any full grasp of this flourishing representation of Christianity without taking account of the foundational role that Pentecostal theological application plays in shaping the diaconal and Christian social practice work of its churches (see e.g., Asamoah-Gyadu 2020; Matshobane 2024, 2025; Taru 2020).

Second, we have already discussed at some length the critical challenge of interreligious encounters brought to the fore in Christoph Sigrist’s contribution (see Section 2.1.3). Based on our critical remarks in this part of our editorial reflection, as well as our critical evaluation of Öhlmann’s article, our argument should be rather obvious that an integral theological contribution is called for to address the real danger of a voidance of specific religious language and beliefs surfacing in Sigrist’s contribution. Indeed, in a spirit fully open to mutual recognition and cooperation, theology’s indispensable role should be to render decisive substance to the language and beliefs that inspire the social work practices of a particular faith, whether it be the Christian faith or any other participating faith tradition. In such a case, theology’s indispensable role should not only involve sharing the particular faith’s own rationale or motivation “behind a common human struggle or venture”; it necessarily also extends towards ensuring that the particular faith does not submit to an uncritical legitimation of any program or social practice undertaking it might become involved in (Lubbe 1995, p. 167). The theological task is therefore to develop a theological argument in one’s own theological tradition with respect to an interreligious understanding of diaconia and Christian social practice. This is necessary to remaining faithful in a creative way to one’s own theological confession, while opening up to the search for common access points and practices with other religions (cf. our discussion in Section 2.1.3).

Third, if one agrees with the indispensable role of theology in giving expression to the issue of identity in diaconal and Christian social practice (as we have done in Section 2.3.2 above), then it is also necessary to recognize that an integrated theological perspective or understanding is crucially missing from Stephen Sirris’s contribution to the special issue. This is suggested, for instance, by the fact that the word “identity” is used 25 times in Sirris’s discussion of his case study research on the values-based leadership discourse of a selected diaconal organization. However, apart from mentioning that “projects on the role of values” constituted an important part of the strategic drive of this organization, a diaconal hospital, to “reformulate its Christian mission and identity” (p. 6), Sirris never considers the need for an integrated theological interrogation of this organizational reformulation. Having valued Sirris’s contribution for its empirically founded exploration, we would therefore argue for the need to address a second empirically based research question to do full justice to Sirris’s topic of undoubtedly crucial importance for the field of international diaconia and Christian social practice. This question, which we alluded to in our closing discussion at the end of Section 2.2.3,17 should very pertinently explore the extent to which particular theological ideas and inclinations of Christian faith shape/inform the self-understanding and by implication value orientation of managers in the selected organization. In putting forward this argument for a second research question, we see ourselves as being aligned with an emerging debate in the field on a “new diaconal professionalism” prioritizing the need for “a clear theological understanding” of why diaconal mangers/workers are doing what they are doing, and why they should turn toward people in need outside of their own constituencies (Hofmann 2017, p. 147). Consequently, it is from such a clear theological understanding that illuminating insights might be generated into the way that contemporary actors of diaconia and Christian social practice, be they organizations or individual persons, negotiate and perceive themselves in a world dominated by the values of corporate capitalism (cf. Hübner 2021).

3. Conclusions

The special issue “Diaconia and Christian Social Practice in a Global Perspective” shows the great variety of topics that are today being discussed in this broad and interdisciplinary field. Our endeavor in this concluding editorial reflection was to find common ground between the various topical focal points and to identify overarching themes as well as subjacent issues and sub-themes as a movement towards a global agenda. The list is impressive and extends from a concern with transformative practice in relation to contemporary ecological, social, interfaith and decolonial challenges to the ongoing development of rights- and community-based professional diaconal and Christian social services and their peculiar challenges when confronted with present-day market pressures and the quest for value-based leadership. Other contributions explore the connection between art and diaconia, as well as the political environment of Christian welfare work with reference to the concept of shame. This variety raises the question of whether a common denominator or common denominators exist across the contributions. Our analysis shows at least one such denominator, which we, on the basis of our analytic undertaking, have identified as the role of theology and its distinctive contribution of peculiar issues and themes.

For us, the fundamental issue of diaconal identity is closely linked to the question of theology’s role in diaconia and Christian social practice. Of course, there is also a variety of theologies, but they nevertheless have as a common reference point faith in God. The articles show various ways in which this faith and its consequences for diaconia and Christian social practice are reflected theologically in direct and more indirect ways. For some authors, the role of theology comprises a lead position in order to inform (all) aspects of diaconal and Christian social practice service and to inform concepts of justice; for others, i.e., for the majority of authors, a related role may be identified in the way that theology occupies a partial albeit prominent, if not indispensable, position in shaping the diaconal and Christian social practice discourse; for a few others, theology remains in the background or may be implied as a foundational normative resource. This leads us to identify as a key agenda for the further development of the field of diaconia and Christian social practice the challenge to address the following theological related questions: Does it refer to Christian theology and is it thus linked to Christian churches more pointedly? Is it an interreligious endeavor referring to social practices of helping of any religious tradition? Or does it involve both of these dimensions? Tackling these questions seems to us to be crucial for the ongoing development of diaconia and Christian social practice as an international field of study and practice in the years to come.