In the latter plenary sessions I was surprised by the growing profile that was afforded to the idea that the work referred to as Diaconia may indeed be helpfully linked with the Diaconate as a distinctive form and orientation in ministry. Speakers representing the organisations that have resisted this link the most were heard rehearsing their new apprehension of these possibilities and their cognisance of the ground-breaking work of John N. Collins

The working groups presented their proposals in the final plenary and these will be written up and disseminated in due course. This is where the 'crunch' comes! Is it enough for interested people to gather, to discuss what concerns them within earshot of some ecumenical bureaucrats, and to disseminate their findings? In what context or at what level can such mandates be authentically raised and properly owned? These questions are so much more poignant since the new reading of Diakonia loads the term with nuances of mandate. So much of the history of 'Diaconia' in Europe bears the marks of worthy action taken independently from the institutional church. As such, it becomes a personal or shared ethical response to the gospel, instead of an authentic ecclesial and Christological identity. One example given at the conference gave a laudable sense of authenticated mandate, at least at local level: the tiny Waldensian church in Italy has an agency working for the welfare of illegal immigrants, many of which are forced into prostitution, but the project insists on there being local congregational support, and refuses to work independently.

The true sense of the church's apostolicity is at stake here; in what sense are we a sending church? At each stage in the forum it was declared that the church has something special to offer; but it was also noted how difficult it is to get the congregational/parochial church interested in these challenging social issues.