What does ‘in light of’ mean?

What does it mean to ask a question “in light of” John Wesley’s questions for preachers?

I was looking through the proposed legislation from the Ministry Study Commission when a three-word phrase caught my eye. The new language is part of an amendment that would replace a requirement that candidates for ministry write responses to Wesley’s historic questions:

1. Do they know God as pardoning God? Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire nothing but God? Are they holy in all manner of conversation?

2. Have they gifts, as well as evidence of God’s grace, for the work? Have they a clear, sound understanding; a right judgment in the things of God; a just conception of salvation by faith? Do they speak justly, readily, clearly?

3. Have they fruit? Have any been truly convinced of sin and converted to God, and are believers edified by their service?

In place of written responses, the candidates are to be interviewed “in light of” Wesley’s questions.

Replacing the written responses with an interview is a good idea. It takes away a lot of writing and reading that can be settled in a face-to-face conversation. The interview also lends itself to a give-in-take in which a candidate’s answers can be explored and discussed.

The language about how the questions are to be asked, however, raises questions for me. My concern is with that phrase “in light of.” Of course, some flexibility is necessary. For instance, these questions are not well written for an interview. They are written, in fact, to be answered by the person who will recommend another for license or ordination. So, requiring them to be asked exactly as written does not make sense. Second, the interview should not be a checklist of only these questions. The answers that are given should open the door to further questions and conversation.

But that phrase “in light of” leaves a great deal of wiggle room. I’m not even certain you could get common agreement about what “in light of” means. I can imagine interviews that do not ever actually touch upon the candidate’s personal conviction of sin or understanding of salvation by faith, for instance, and yet the interviewer would claim to be working “in light of” Wesley’s questions.

The amendment further erodes the importance of these questions by changing their role. In the current Book of Discipline those recommending a person for candidacy are charged to prayerfully consider the answers to these questions. The clear implication is that these questions should guide the decision to approve clergy candidates.

Under the proposed changes, the candidates must be interviewed in light of these questions, but the language in the current Discipline charging examiners with earnest and prayerful consideration of the answers is dropped.

My fear is that a practice that may not be that rigorous now might become little more than a formality. The historic marks of a person suited for ministry will become part of a pro forma exercise to jump through the hoops. That would be an utter defeat of the purpose of the questions and the needs of the UMC.