![Archive: Methodism’s Silent Minority]()
by Steve | Jan 24, 2017 | Jan-Feb 2017, Magazine, Magazine Articles
Archive: Methodism’s Silent Minority
By Charles W. Keysor, Founding editor of Good News
By Charles W. Keysor, Founding editor of Good News-
Editor’s note: This article jumpstarted the Good News movement. Dr. Keysor died in 1985. Today, evangelicals within United Methodism are no longer a silent minority. Instead, they are an essential part of the vibrant and vocal mainstream.
Within The Methodist Church in the United States is a silent minority group. It is not represented in the higher councils of the church. Its members seem to have little influence in [denominational headquarters such as] Nashville, Evanston, or on Riverside Drive. Its concepts are often abhorrent to Methodist officialdom at annual conference and national levels.
I speak of those Methodists who are variously called “evangelicals” or “conservatives” or “fundamentalists.” A more accurate description is “orthodox,” for these brethren hold a traditional understanding of the Christian faith.
Orthodox Methodists come in theologically assorted shapes, sizes, and colors. But, unfortunately, the richness and subtlety of orthodox thought are often overlooked and/or misunderstood. There lurks in many a Methodist mind a deep intolerance toward the silent minority who are orthodox. This is something of a paradox, because this unbrotherly spirit abounds at a time when Methodism is talking much about ecumenicity — which means openness toward those whose beliefs and traditions may differ.
Yet it seems almost an intellectual reflex action to regard the orthodox brother as one who is ipso facto, narrow-minded, naive, contentious, and potentially schismatic.
This familiar stereotype contains only a shadow of truth. Orthodoxy is more complex and more profound than its many critics seem to realize. Intellectual honesty — let alone Christian charity — demands more objectivity than the church now accords to its silent minority.
Webster’s Dictionary tells us that orthodox means “conforming to the Christian faith as formulated in the church creeds and confessions.” These are Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist, which means that orthodoxy is the ultimate in ecumenicity. But what is orthodoxy?
Actually, there is no mystique. We who are orthodox believe that the Christian faith is comprehensively declared in Holy Scripture and is succinctly summarized in the Apostle’s Creed. Here, we feel, is faith’s essence, doctrinally speaking.
Orthodoxy in America has developed a theological epicenter known as the “five fundamentals.” These are by no means the whole of orthodox doctrine, as many people mistakenly suppose. Instead, these five points constitute a common ground for all who are truly orthodox. But beyond this common ground lies an enormous area of Christian truth where orthodox Christians disagree vigorously.
Despite the broadness of orthodoxy’s doctrinal scope, one must examine the five fundamentals in order to understand orthodoxy’s Point of view.
1. Inspiration of Scripture. Orthodoxy believes with a passion that the whole Bible is God’s eternal, unfailing truth. Some portions of this truth are more important than others (Isaiah 5 towers above Esther, for example), but everything in the Scriptures has sacred significance. A thing is not true because it happens to be included in the Bible; we believe it is in the Bible because the thing itself is true. Orthodoxy believes that God has expressed scriptural truth through human personality, by the agency of God’s Holy Spirit. Perverted orthodoxy limits inspiration to the King James Version, as though God had somehow lowered it from heaven on a string back in 1611. Another unfortunate mutation of orthodox doctrine is the idea of mechanic dictation: that human beings were nothing more than stenographers, recording mechanically every jot and tittle that was dictated from above.
True orthodoxy shuns these mistaken views of inspiration. Instead, historic orthodoxy regards inspiration of Scripture as a dynamic, continuing activity of the Holy Spirit:
First, God’s Spirit inspired the original authors, causing them to perceive and record God’s truth in their own God-given literary styles. (Hence the difference between James and Ezekiel.)
Second, acting through translators, redactors, and canonizing bodies, the Spirit has preserved Scripture from significant effort during the long and torturous process of transmission, right down to the present moment.
Third, the Spirit enables believers to get God’s intended meaning from Scripture. To properly understand Scripture without the Spirit’s illuminating inspiration is no more possible than for an airplane to fly without wings and engine! This is why pure orthodoxy considers invalid any hermeneutic which disregards or minimizes the Spirit’s threefold work of dynamic inspiration.
2. The virgin birth of Christ. We believe that our Lord was, literally, “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.” This must be true, or it would not have been written and transmitted in Holy Scripture. Naive? If so, we who are orthodox accept the label — along with such naive men of faith as the authors of Matthew and Luke, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and our own John Wesley.
We do not believe in Jesus because of the unusual circumstances surrounding his entry into the world via Incarnation. On the contrary, our experience of Christ’s lordship teaches us empirically what Scripture tells — that the entire realm of nature is subject to His sovereign authority. Therefore, Christ is not subject to known limitations of “natural law.” Order and unity and coherence for the entire cosmos center in Christ. Believing this about him, we logically believe that our Lord could be virgin born — just as the Bible reports.
3. The substitutionary Atonement of Christ. What happened on Calvary is a mystery which can never be adequately explained by theories and/or analogies. Scripture seems to justify several explanations of the Atonement. In trying to fathom this mystery of mysteries, the theologian is something like an engineer trying to locate the main channel of the Mississippi River at flood stage. The river is two miles wide, but careful examination reveals what undoubtedly is the main channel of the river.
Orthodoxy believes that the main channel of Atonement truth lies in the area of substitution: that somehow Christ on the cross paid the price of transgression which a righteous and holy God properly requires. We do recognize certain validity in “moral influence” and other such theories. But orthodoxy believes it is more correct to say that our Lord, “for a world of lost sinners was slain.”
4. The physical Resurrection of Christ. We think that Christianity is a hoax unless Christ rose bodily from the grave—as the Scriptures report. We do not believe that the Bible would make such a central emphasis on His being raised from death bodily if this were not true. Frankly, we are tired of ingenious theories which charge the Resurrection up to the wishful thinking of primitive Christians. More convincing to us is the Spirit of our risen Lord, bearing witness with our spirits that “He lives!”
5. The return of Christ. Orthodox Christians hold various views of the Parousia’s place in the order of last things. But all truly orthodox believers agree that Jesus Christ will return physically to “judge the (living) and the dead.” We do not regard the Great Assize passage (Matthew 25: 31-46) as parabolic teaching; instead, we believe it is a literal foretelling of the future judgment which Christ will execute when He comes again.
Perverted orthodoxy has made an illusory religion out of millennial speculation. This clearly ignores Jesus’ teaching that the time of His appearing is known only to the mind of God. Jesus did not intend for His disciples to dawdle with date-setting. We are not to waste time peering into the sky waiting for a homecoming Hero to solve the world’s problems!
Instead we are to let our Christian light shine in a dark world. Our calling is to be redeeming the time for the days are evil. This precludes two extremes: (1) setting dates for His return; (2) Pointing negatively to the fact that early Christian expectations have not been fulfilled according to man’s time scale. To both, orthodoxy says, “Be ready! But as you wait in confidence, be a Christ to your neighbor.”
Orthodoxy clings with joy to the “blessed hope” of Christ’s physical return. This expectation strengthens us for the living of these days. One of the most pronounced characteristics about authentic orthodoxy is its vibrant sense of eschatological expectancy. This is God’s gift to those, who cling to the “blessed hope” as we live in the eschatological twilight zone, between promise and fulfillment.
How many orthodox believers are there among the people called Methodist?
Probably there are quite a few. The evidence is elusive, but several clues bear examination. For one thing, more than 10,000 Methodist churches are using some Christian education materials based on orthodox theology. These materials do not come out of [denominational publishers in] Nashville but from [evangelical publishers in] Elgin and Wheaton, Illinois, and Glendale, California.
Theology is not the only reason why the wide-scale defection exists (price, service rendered by the publishers, and educational methodology are all significant factors). But theology cannot be dismissed by thoughtful Methodists who ponder the matter. The tenacity with which so many Methodists cling to non-Methodist literature strongly suggests the existence of an orthodox stratum down at Methodism’s grass roots.
Another clue was unearthed during preparations for our new Methodist Hymnal. Surveys of musical tastes showed a powerful desire for those “good old” gospel songs. Of course there are various reasons for this. One of the most important is that gospel music emphasizes strongly the five fundamentals, which the Gospel likewise emphasizes. One reason for the persistence of gospel music is the people’s persistent interest in the Gospel.
What is orthodoxy’s future within The Methodist Church? Persecution is not impossible, for just recently a high official in Nashville was heard to declare, “We are going to stamp out the last vestiges of fundamentalism from The Methodist Church!” Within the author’s lifetime, a Methodist bishop threatened to drive from his conference any man who affirmed from the pulpit Christ’s Second Coming.
More likely, however, is the objective prediction made by Dr. Paul Hessert, professor of historical theology at Garrett Theological Seminary. He foresees a continuing eclipse of orthodox influence within the seminary trained Methodist ministry. He also predicts that orthodoxy will continue among the laity —and, therefore, will remain strong among supply preachers.
As to the hierarchy of the church, Dr. Hessert believes that the present liberal influence will gradually give way to the newer theologies, which represent an evolution of old-fashioned liberalism. Neo-orthodoxy will have a lessening influence, he believes. The reason is that neo-orthodoxy is essentially a compromise position, and its adherents tend to slide away — mostly toward the newer liberalism.
Orthodoxy seems destined to remain as Methodism’s silent minority. Here lies the challenge: We who are orthodox must become the un-silent minority! Orthodoxy must shed its “poor cousin” inferiority complex and enter forthrightly into the current theological debate. We who are orthodox must boldly declare our understanding of Christian truth, as God has given these convictions to us. We must speak in love and with prophetic fearlessness, and must be prepared to suffer.
But regardless of the consequences, we must be heard in Nashville, in Evanston, and on Riverside Drive. Most of all, we must be heard in thousands of pulpits, for the people called Methodist will not cease to hunger for the good news of Jesus Christ, incarnate, crucified, risen, and coming again.
We must not speak as right-wing fanatics, intending to subvert the “establishment” and remake it in our own orthodox age. Instead, we must speak to our Christian brothers as Christian brothers, trusting that God will direct and prosper our witness to the truth as we see it in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Reprinted from Christian Advocate, July 14, 1966. Copyright (C) 1966 by The Methodist Publishing House.
by Steve | Jan 24, 2017 | Jan-Feb 2017, Magazine, Magazine Articles
Archive: The Making of a Movement
The Rev. Dr. Charles Keysor at the offices of Good News.
By James V. Heidinger II-
The Rev. Charles W. Keysor, a Methodist pastor in Elgin, Illinois, published the first issue of a digest-size magazine for Methodist evangelicals out of the basement of his parsonage in 1967. At the suggestion of his wife, Marge, he called it Good News.
It had all begun a year earlier when James Wall, then editor of the Methodist minister’s magazine Christian Advocate, asked Chuck, “Why don’t you write an article for us describing the central beliefs and convictions of this part [evangelical wing] of our church?”
Chuck’s article, “Methodism’s Silent Minority” was published in the July 14, 1966 issue of the Christian Advocate, where he identified the major evangelical convictions (see original article on p. 12).
To his amazement Keysor received over 200 letters and phone calls in response to his article, most of them coming from Methodist pastors! Two themes surfaced in the responses: first, “I thought I was the only one left in the church who believes these things,” and second, “I feel so alone — so cut off from the leadership of my church.”
As he prayed about the letters and phone calls, Chuck felt he must do something. Having been a journalist prior to entering the ministry, he decided to launch a magazine which affirmed the evangelical message of the Wesleys and Francis Asbury. Good News magazine was born.
Responses to the first issue were much like today. One disgruntled Methodist in Alabama wrote, “Your magazine is JUNK!” But Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, founding editor of the evangelical journal Christianity Today, wrote, “A mighty fine beginning — congratulations!”
Rallying renewal groups: Seeing the immediate surge of interest in his magazine, Keysor chose 12 Methodists to serve as board members, and the Good News effort became incorporated as “A Forum for Scriptural Christianity.” The board’s first meeting was in May of 1967, only two months after the appearance of the first issue of the magazine.
Good News was a breath of fresh air for Methodists seeking spiritual renewal, quickly becoming their rallying point. Pastors and laity began organizing clusters of like-minded Methodists who came out of a felt need for fellowship, support, encouragement, and prayer. Soon, they began to map strategies for increasing evangelicalism within their annual conferences. Today, renewal groups exist in many United Methodist annual conferences, forming an extensive grassroots network for evangelical advocacy, fellowship, and prayer support.
Convo fellowship: The Good News board soon felt a need to sponsor a national gathering to help unify Methodist evangelicals. The Rev. Mike Walker, a pastor from Texas and the youngest member of the fledgling board, headed up plans for the first national convocation held in Dallas in August 1970. To everyone’s amazement, a whopping 1,600 United Methodists registered, coming from coast to coast! The Holy Spirit drew people together in a remarkable way.
Emotion and excitement filled the air as participants discovered other like-minded Methodists. Tears streamed down the faces of worshippers as they saw the evening crowds swell to nearly 3,000 persons jammed into the Adolphus Hotel ballroom. Folks heard luminaries such as author and missionary statesman Dr. E. Stanley Jones (Christian Ashram), Bishop Gerald Kennedy (Southern California), Dr. Frank B. Stanger (Asbury Theological Seminary), Dr. Dennis F. Kinlaw (Asbury College), Dr. K. Morgan Edwards (Claremont School of Theology), Dr. Claude Thompson (Candler School of Theology), the Rev. Tom Skinner (author and evangelist from Harlem), the Rev. Howard Ball (Campus Crusade for Christ), the Rev. Dr. Akbar Abdul-Haqq (evangelist with the Billy Graham Association), the Rev. Dr. Ira Gallaway (district superintendent of Fort Worth), the Rev. C. Philip Hinerman (Park Avenue United Methodist Church in Minneapolis), and the Rev. Dr. Les Woodson (Elizabethtown, Kentucky).
In bringing greetings to the assembly, a message from evangelist Billy Graham stated: “Wish I could be with you for this momentous and historic conference. Methodism was born and it grew through revival and evangelism. It is my prayer that the United Methodist Church will have a spiritual renewal and help lead our nation in the spiritual revival that we so desperately need. May God bless you all.”
Twentieth century United Methodism was marked for renewal. Discouraged United Methodists received hope that they weren’t alone in their evangelical concerns. And most importantly, they began to dream of a new day of revival and renewal in their church. For 30 years following the Dallas Convocation, Good News sponsored a national convocation nearly every summer. United Methodists came for fellowship, inspiration, and instruction.
Improving Sunday school literature: One of the earliest concerns of the fledgling Good News movement was the need to improve dismal denominational Sunday school literature. Evangelicals were frustrated, but hardly knew where to begin to bring about change.
In 1968 Good News carried a stinging evaluation of Methodism’s new adult curriculum. One reviewer wrote, “What is missing here … is a particular and sustained biblical theology.” This reviewer looked in vain for any word about “salvation, any good news about the atonement of Jesus Christ, or any hint about the possibility of spiritual new birth….”
The next year a Good News team met for the first of many dialogues with the church’s curriculum editors and officials. The denominational leaders responded with obvious impatience and condescension toward evangelical concerns. One bishop informed the Good News delegation that they must realize that all contemporary scholars supported the Bultmannian notion that much of the Bible is myth. That was indicative of the gulf that existed between grassroots members and many in positions of national leadership.
Nevertheless, dialogue had begun. The United Methodist Publishing House gradually became more aware of its responsibility to serve the whole church, including the evangelicals. In 1975, Good News published its first edition of We Believe, a confirmation series for junior high youth. Pastors dissatisfied with United Methodist materials received it enthusiastically. It remains a widely-used confirmation curriculum yet today.
A 1985 evaluation of denominational curriculum revealed improvement in our church school literature. In addition, the Disciple Bible Study program has found a warm welcome in the church, as has more recently Christian Believer, a similarly-packaged in-depth study of Christian doctrine, a resource from the United Methodist Publishing House (UMPH) which is doctrinally sound.
The problem evangelicals had with church school curriculum was its lack of consistency. For adults especially, one quarter’s materials might be sound while the
Dr. E. Stanley Jones
next were disappointingly weak, which is the problem with materials that are published for a broad sweep of theological positions. This inconsistency, among other things, was the impetus that led Good News to begin publishing its Wesleyan and evangelical Bristol Bible Curriculum for many years, as well as Trinity Bible Studies and We Believe confirmation material.
Through its book and curriculum publishing endeavor, Good News exercised its heartfelt desire to provide theologically orthodox and biblically-based resources to United Methodists. In addition to the Wesleyan curriculum, the initial book titles included Basic United Methodist Beliefs written by a team of evangelical scholars and theologians and The Problem with Pluralism: Recovering United Methodist Identity written by Dr. Jerry Walls, noted philosopher and theologian.
Until most recently, both the We Believe confirmation materials and the Bristol Bible Curriculum were published by the independent, for-profit publisher, Bristol House, Ltd., headquartered in Georgia. (Good News sold its publishing ministry in 1991 to a small group of Good News supporters – that included Dr. John and Helen Rhea Stumbo, a lifetime Good News board member and current chairperson of our board of directors – who formed Bristol House, Ltd. in order to continue the publishing endeavor.)
Doctrinal doldrums: From the start, Good News’ primary concern has been theological. Born in an era when church radicals were demanding “Let the world set the agenda for the church,” we were convinced that the biblical agenda was languishing from both neglect and from theological revisionism.
Adding to United Methodism’s already-existing theological malaise, the 1972 General Conference adopted a new doctrinal statement of “theological pluralism.” While pluralism may have been included to express some of the legitimate diversity found within the parameters of historic Christianity, it was interpreted by many to mean United Methodism offered members a proliferation of theological views, many of which far exceeded the boundaries of sound biblical doctrine.
A young pastor friend of mine was distressed because a United Methodist seminary professor had denied the bodily resurrection of our Lord. He expressed his concern about the matter in his church newsletter. His district superintendent admonished him, saying, “Ed, you must remember that you are in a church that embraces theological pluralism.” For that superintendent, theological pluralism meant that some may affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ and some may not.
In 1974, Good News authorized a “Theology and Doctrine Task Force,” headed by Paul Mickey, who at that time was associate professor of pastoral theology at Duke University’s Divinity School. The task force was charged with preparing a fresh, new statement of “Scriptural Christianity” which would remain faithful to both the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren traditions. In addition to Mickey, the committee included myself, Charles Keysor, Frank B. Stanger, Dennis F. Kinlaw, Robert Stamps, and Lawrence Souder.
In 1975, the Task Force presented its statement to the Good News board and it was adopted at its summer meeting at Lake Junaluska. It thus became known as “The Junaluska Affirmation.” To its credit, The United Methodist Reporter published the affirmation in full and provided commentary. Dr. Albert Outler, United Methodism’s eminent theologian, praised Good News at the time for being perhaps the only group within the church to respond to his challenge for United Methodists to “do theology.”
Theological issues were always top drawer for Good News. Our questions and frequent criticism of theological pluralism played a major role in the 1984 General Conference decision to develop a new doctrinal statement for the church. The theological commission, authorized by that General Conference and chaired by Bishop Earl G. Hunt Jr., brought a new and much improved theological statement which was adopted overwhelmingly by the 1988 General Conference. It cited “the primacy of Scripture” as the new guiding principle for doing theology.
The term “theological pluralism” was purposefully and conspicuously omitted from the new statement. Some today still try to resuscitate “theological pluralism” under the guise of diversity. However, United Methodism has its clearly articulated doctrinal standards which are protected by Restrictive Rule in the Book of Discipline (Par. 17. Article I).
The seminary challenge: Good News has long been troubled over the liberal domination of theological education. Across the years, evangelicals at our United Methodist seminaries have consistently reported unfair caricaturing, ridicule, and intolerance toward their orthodox, biblical beliefs. They also have cited a troubling dearth of evangelical faculty at our seminaries.
In 1975, United Methodist evangelist Ed Robb Jr., in a fiery address at Good News’ summer convocation, called upon the church to restore Wesleyan doctrine to our United Methodist seminaries. Institutional leaders fumed and seminary professors fussed about his challenge. One could hear the murmurs echoing from their hallowed halls: “How dare he be so critical!”
However, Robb’s hard-hitting address led to a new friendship with Dr. Outler who taught at Perkins School of Theology in Dallas. Together, with help from others, they formed A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE). To date, more than 160 evangelical scholars, called John Wesley Fellows, have participated in the scholarship program, receiving grants to seek their PhDs with plans to return to teach at our United Methodist colleges and seminaries.
In 1976, Good News also began publishing Catalyst, the free newsletter sent to all United Methodist seminarians, with the goal of making them aware of evangelical scholarly resources which they did not always have in their liberal seminary setting. The Rev. Mike Walker, the board member who organized the first Good News convocation, has coordinated the editing and mailing of Catalyst from its inception. (It continues today under the auspices of AFTE.)
In 1977, Good News sent teams to nearly all United Methodist-related seminaries, engaging them in dialogue and urging them toward greater openness to evangelical faculty, course materials, and library resources.
Evangelist Ed Robb Jr.
Missions derailed: In 1974, United Methodist evangelicals from 23 states gathered in Dallas to discuss their concerns with the church’s world missions program. Those gathered criticized the declining number of overseas missionaries, the mission board’s preoccupation with social and political matters, and its lack of concern for matters of faith — including conversion and the planting of new churches.
The group formed the Evangelical Missions Council (EMC) which several years later would become an arm of Good News. Dr. David A. Seamands, Good News board member and former missionary to India, was named EMC’s first chairman. Conversations with the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) continued. However, after no less than 22 “dialogues” over an 11-year period between Good News and GBGM, Seamands, and others learned that “the unfortunate gulf separating us from the GBGM policymakers was wide and deep.”
For eight years, the Rev. Virgil Maybray, a highly-respected clergy member of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference, served as full-time executive secretary of Good News’ EMC effort, spending most of his time speaking in, and consulting with, local churches about expanding their missions programs. During that time, Virgil ministered in more than 350 UM churches in 35 states, raising millions of dollars for missions, with more than $1 million channeled directly through GBGM’s Advance Special Programs.
In 1983, when evangelical discontent peaked upon learning about the proposed new leadership of the World Division of GBGM, 29 large-church pastors and 4 missions professors (all United Methodist) met in St. Louis to form a “supplemental” missions sending agency. It was to be called The Mission Society for United Methodists. It opened its doors for ministry in February of 1984 and began helping United Methodists get to the mission field. Today, with headquarters in Norcross, Georgia, and now known as simply TMS Global, the sending agency now has 180 persons in ministry (full-time, standard support) in 35 countries.
Legislative landmarks: United Methodist evangelicals and traditionalists have struggled with how to respond to the church’s liberal theologies and programs. They could ignore them, find another church, or use their influence for positive change. Good News opted for the latter.
At the 1972 General Conference in Atlanta, Good News launched its first involvement in the legislative process. Board members Bob Sprinkle and Helen Rhea Stumbo prepared and distributed ten petitions and four resolutions. They also cranked out occasional newsletters. Although the 1972 conference was a disaster, approving abortion and adopting the statement on theological pluralism, Good News had thrown its hat in the ring.
The 1976 General Conference brought a stronger Good News showing with the additional help of the Revs. Robert Snyder and John Grenfell. By 1980, Good
Rev Virgil Maybray
News had launched its first full-orbed effort, led by Don and Virginia Shell. They continued leading Good News’ legislative strategy program until 1992, when they turned the leadership over to Lynda and Scott Field, a former Good News board chair and United Methodist clergy person in the Northern Illinois Annual Conference. They gave extraordinary leadership to the Good News General Conference effort from 1996 through 2004. The legistlative baton for General Conference has been handed over to the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, the vice president of Good News, and to his capable leadership of the Reform and Renewal Coalition.
The Good News effort has worked behind the scenes in annual conferences to get evangelical and traditional delegates elected as General Conference and Jurisdictional delegates, well-crafted petitions channeled properly, and a series of position papers published which articulate our stand on major issues.
The nearly two weeks Good News spends on site at General Conference with our 40-person team is the culmination of more than two years of careful preparation. As a result of Good News’ field work and legislative training efforts, many more United Methodist evangelicals became involved in the legislative process.
Traditionalist believers were encouraged by the efforts of concerned denominational leaders to formulate pre-General Conference activity such as the 1988 “Houston Declaration” and the 1992 “Memphis Declaration.” Both of these initiatives were spearheaded by the leadership of what is now known as the Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church — which included Bishop William Cannon and prominent pastoral leaders such as James B. Buskirk, Maxie D. Dunnam, Ira Gallaway, John Ed Mathison, Thomas C. Oden, William Bouknight, and William H. Hinson. The grassroots efforts noted above reflected the growing conviction that evangelicals must engage in the legislative process to make their voices heard if the church is ever to experience renewal and reform.
Proliferation of evangelical voices: It is amazing that at one time – 50 years ago – there were no groups or publications that spoke on behalf of United Methodism’s evangelical or conservative constituency. That, no doubt, helps explain the immediate flood of responses to Chuck Keysor’s inaugural article, “Methodism’s Silent Minority.”
It’s a different world today and The United Methodist Church is not the same church. Think of the organizations that didn’t exist in 1966: Good News; United Methodist Action, a division of The Institute on Religion and Democracy; The Confessing Movement, A Foundation for Theological Education, The Mission Society, Transforming Congregations, Lifewatch (the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality), the Renew Network, Seedbed, and Concerned Methodists.
We should also note the important contribution of several groups affiliated with the General Board of Discipleship, including the Council on Evangelism, the Foundation for Evangelism, the National Association of UM Evangelists, and Aldersgate Renewal Ministries. The above groups have been faithful voices on behalf of our Wesleyan theological heritage.
All of these groups, of course, have their own histories and purposes. They do not walk in lockstep, to be sure. But let’s not miss the significance of their existence. The voices of United Methodist evangelicals and traditionalists are finally being heard. Thousands of United Methodists have found avenues for evangelical ministry as well as ways to effectively address the spiritual, moral, theological, and social issues that exist in our church.
Emerging new spirit: The various evangelical groups noted above are a part of something new that is emerging within the United Methodist Church. I would call this new surge a growing expectation that the church be faithful to its historic message. More and more United Methodists have grown weary of theological revisionism and doctrinal fads; weary of those who would use the church in order to advance an ideological agenda. It is time for all of our United Methodist leaders to embrace, believe, and teach the historic doctrines of our Wesleyan tradition.
We are especially excited about the proposal for starting new congregations all across the country. Evangelism has always been a passion for the Good News constituency. For many years, Good News magazine was a promotional partner with The Alpha Course. By their account, our involvement was a major factor in Alpha being used in more United Methodist churches than any other denomination in America.
Cry for leadership: When United Methodists feel compelled to form alternative groups within the church and gather at their own expense to issue declarations to the church – as they did at Houston and Memphis and, most recently in, Chicago – what you have is a plea for godly leadership. We look hopefully to our bishops who are charged with the teaching and overseeing function in the church. Our bishops, according to Paul, “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught,” so they can “encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9).
It is easy for evangelicals to grow weary in the struggle for renewal. Some who do will often say, “The struggle is a distraction from the real ministry of the church.” But Presbyterian clergywoman, the Rev. Sue Cyre, former editor of the journal Theology Matters, has written an apt reply: “The battle over truth and falsehood is the real ministry of the church,” writes Cyre. “Everywhere the church goes, it is to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, but it is always against a backdrop of some false beliefs.”
New day for United Methodism? So perhaps a new atmosphere is emerging within the church. Granted, we still face serious problems, but there is much reason for hope.
As I have stated during my time as the president of Good News, evangelicals believe the church has been entrusted with a divinely-revealed plan of redemption. This message is set forth clearly in the Word of God. This fact automatically establishes the relevance of the Christian message. We must resist attempts to impose other standards of relevance upon it. The biblical message, proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit, will still bear fruit today. This trustworthy message will revitalize and renew United Methodism and enable us to share in the evangelical awakening that already is moving across our land and world. When our pulpits are alive again with the faithful proclamation of the Word of God, we can be sure the Lord will once again add daily to the United Methodist Church “those who are being saved.”
James V. Heidinger II is the publisher and president emeritus of Good News. Dr. Heidinger, a clergy member of the East Ohio Annual Conference, led Good News for 28 years until his retirement in 2009. He is the author of several books, including the forthcoming The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism (Seedbed).
by Steve | Jan 24, 2017 | Jan-Feb 2017, Magazine, Magazine Articles
Archive: Coming Out of Exile
Photo courtesy of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. All rights reserved. www.billygraham.org.
By Riley Case-
The 1960s were not a good time for evangelicals. For one thing, the Methodist liberal establishment did not even want to admit evangelicals were evangelicals. When I went to the head of the chapel committee at my Methodist seminary and asked if we might be able to include some evangelicals among the chapel speakers, he informed me everyone at the seminary was evangelical, and just who did I have in mind. When I explained he replied, “I believe you are talking about fundamentalists and we’re not going to share our pulpit with any of them.”
When Billy Graham came to Chicago and some of us wanted to ask Graham to visit our campus, the president of the school said, “No, because we do not wish to be identified with that kind of Christianity.”
The prevailing seminary and liberal institutional view was that “fundamentalism” was an approach to Christianity of a former day and was not appropriate for Methodists, neither in the present day nor for the future. Methodism was set in its direction. In a survey of seminaries conducted in 1926, every single Methodist seminary had declared its orientation as “modernist.” As early as June 1926, the Christian Century had declared that the modernist-fundamentalist war was over and fundamentalism had lost. It announced its obituary in these words: “It is henceforth to be a disappearing quantity in American religious life, while our churches go on to larger issues.”
Other larger issues in the 1960s included war, race, COCU, economic disparity, Death of God, the Secular City, liberation theology, rising feminism, process theology, and existentialism.
Institutional liberalism was out of touch – and I was frequently bemused in those seminary days by how out of touch it was. When someone mentioned revivals in seminary, the professor indicated that revivals were a thing of the past and he had not heard of a Methodist church that had held a revival for years.
It so happened that a friend of mine from Taylor University days, Jay Kesler, was at that very moment holding a revival and would preach at 152 revivals during his years at college, most of them in Methodist churches. Youth for Christ was on the scene, as was Campus Crusade and Billy Graham’s ministry. Evangelical schools were flourishing.
That was the situation when Chuck Keysor, a pastor from Elgin, Illinois, wrote an article for the July 19, 1966 issue of the denomination-wide Christian Advocate entitled, “Methodism’s Silent Minority.”
“Within the Methodist church in the United States is a silent minority group,” Keysor wrote. “It is not represented in the higher councils of the church. Its members seem to have little influence in Nashville, Evanston, or on Riverside Drive. Its concepts are often abhorrent to Methodist officialdom at annual conference and national levels.
“I speak of those Methodists who are variously called ‘evangelicals’ or ‘conservatives’ or ‘fundamentalists.’ A more accurate description is ‘orthodox,’ for these brethren hold a traditional understanding of Christian faith.”
Keysor explained in the article that this minority was often accused of being narrow-minded, naïve, contentious, and potentially schismatic. This was unfortunate because these people loved the church and had been faithful Methodists all their lives.
In making his case Keysor mentioned that there were many more of them than official Methodism was counting. At least 10,000 churches, for example, were using Bible-based Sunday school material instead of the official Methodist material. The 10,000 figures brought strong reaction and led to charges of irresponsibility and plain out lying. But Keysor knew whereof he spoke.
Trained as a journalist he had served as managing editor of Together magazine, Methodism’s popular family magazine. He had then been converted in a Billy Graham crusade and spent some years as an editor at David C. Cook, an evangelical publisher. The 10,000 churches figure had come from his years at Cook. He knew more about what churches were not using Methodist materials than did the Nashville editors at the time. At Cook, he also became aware of the evangelical world.
Riley B. Case
Keysor’s article drew more responses than any other article Christian Advocate had ever published. The responses followed a common theme: “You have spoken our mind. We didn’t know there were others who believed like we did. What can we do?” Keysor called together some of the most enthusiastic responders. Hardly any of those early responders would be recognized today. Nor were they recognized then. They, after all, were the “silent minority.” They were the little people, the populists — rural church pastors, long-suffering lay persons, conference evangelists.
The obvious step forward for Keysor, a trained journalist, was for a magazine. A notable voice of encouragment was from Spurgeon Dunnam of Texas Methodist (eventually becoming The United Methodist Reporter). In the September 6, 1968, issue Dunnam editorialized that the church needed a conservative voice. The liberal voice was presented by the official Methodist press with Christian Advocate and Concern (Dunnam was one who believed that an official “press” was too often public relations-oriented and thus reflected the views of the leadership) but there was no conservative voice and Good News could fill the void.
“The Texas Methodist is pleased to make known to its readers that within the past year a responsible ‘conservative’ journal of opinion has been born within the United Methodist Church. It is called simply Good News, and we think it is just that.”
Coming out of exile. Would it be possible for evangelicals to get together? On August 26, 1970, the first national convocation was held. Sixteen hundred registered and crowds on some evenings swelled to over 3,000. The speakers included luminaries such as evangelist Tom Skinner, Bishop Gerald Kennedy, Harold Ball of Campus Crusade, and E. Stanley Jones. Dr. K. Morgan Edwards of Claremont School of Theology gave the keynote address. People who came to the convocation prayed and hugged and worshipped and wept and said “Amen” and “Hallelujah” without fear of disapproving stares around them. Twenty percent of the attendees were between 20 and 35 years old. Keysor wrote of the event, “We are coming out of exile.”
The critics cried, “divisive.” Again Spurgeon Dunnam responded. In an editorial titled “Constructive Divisiveness” Dunnam commented:
“The question which remains is: are the evangelicals a divisive force within the church? Yes, they are divisive. Divisive in the same way Jesus was in first century Judaism. Divisive in the same way Martin Luther was to sixteenth century Catholicism. Divisive in the same way that John Wesley was to eighteen century Anglicanism. And, strangely enough, divisive in the same way that many liberal ‘church renewalists’ are to Methodism in our own day.
“A survey of Methodism in America today reveals these basic thrusts. One is devoted primarily to the status quo. To these, the institution called Methodism is given first priority. It must be protected at all costs from any threat of major change in direction….
“The other two forces do question the theological soundness of institutional loyalty for its own sake. The progressive, renewalist force has properly prodded the Church to take seriously the social implications of the Christian gospel…. The more conservative, evangelical force is prodding the church to take with renewed seriousness its commitment to the basic tenets of our faith…”
When Dunnam was writing those words, the Reporter was reaching a million persons per week and was the largest-circulation religious paper in the world. Under Dunnam’s leadership, it investigated both liberal and conservative activities. Even when Dunnam disagreed with Good News, he always treated us with integrity.
In the midst of all this activity, Good News was not on solid ground financially and staff-wise. Then a providential person and offer came on the scene. Dr. Dennis Kinlaw, president of Asbury College in Wilmore, Kentucky, was cheering Good News on from the sidelines, but he came up with an idea to help Good News as well as Asbury College. He offered Keysor a job of teaching journalism part-time at Asbury with the understanding that the rest of his time could be used to edit the magazine. For the fledgling Good News board it was an answer to prayer. The move was made in the summer of 1972.
At the time Good News was not even recognized as an advocacy group in the church. Engage magazine listed the special interest groups at the 1972 General Conference: Black Methodists for Church Renewal, the Women’s Caucus, the Young Adult Caucus, the Youth Caucus, the Gay Caucus. There was no evangelical caucus. By 1976 things had changed. Good News was able to generate 11,000 petitions, most having to do with maintaining the Discipline’s stand on marriage and sexuality in response to an aggressive progressive agenda.
Keysor knew that these controversial cultural and theological issues would divide the church. The institutionalists responded with the kind of language that would be used frequently of evangelicals of the Good News-type in the years to come: “reactionary,” “out-of-step,” “fundamentalist,” “highly subsidized,” “hateful,” “seeking to undermine the church’s social witness,” “not serving the interests of the church.”
One critic, Marcuis E. Taber, summed up the accusations in an article that appeared in the Christian Advocate (May 13, 1971) entitled, “An Ex-Fundamentlist Looks at the Silent Minority.” According to Tabor, Good News was an “ultrafundamentalist” movement with an emphasis on literalism and minute rules which was opposed to the spirit of Jesus. It had no future in a thinking world.
The Christian Advocate gave Keysor a chance to respond and so he did in the fall of 1971. The response, classic Keysor, was perceptive, straightforward and prophetic. It said basically that Tabor and others were reading the church situation wrongly. Storms were battering the UM Church and soon it will be forced to jettison more of its proud “liberal” superstructure. Meanwhile evangelical renewal was taking place: the charismatic movement, the Jesus People, Campus Crusade, stirrings in the church overseas. If there was a right side of history, it was with evangelical renewal. This is what it meant to be “a new church for a new world.”
Was Keysor right? Looking back on our history, this is worth a discussion.
Riley B. Case is the author of Evangelical & Methodist: A Popular History (Abingdon). He is a retired United Methodist clergy person from the Indiana Annual Conference, the associate director of the Confessing Movement, and a lifetime member of the Good News Board of Directors.
by Steve | Jan 24, 2017 | Jan-Feb 2017, Magazine, Magazine Articles
By Elizabeth Glass Turner-
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” … Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. … Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” – John 3:1, 2,5,7,8
Recently I watched an enormous convergence of red-winged blackbirds dip and sway outside my second floor study window, unknowingly choreographing a mid-air dance to the Bach cello suites I was enjoying. Like a school of fish, they moved in unfathomable unity and rhythm, following currents I could not see. What made them land and take off, beat their wings or soar, I could not tell. What ballet dancers take years to perfect – spry grace, effortless motion, pivots, wheels and stops – these birds know by nature, from their first tumble out of the nest. I can become a skilled birdwatcher and still be unable to anticipate which way a flock of thousands will turn at the last second.
I cannot fathom. I can only witness.
I can make a lifetime’s study of birds and their habits and still not know which branch they will choose when it is time to build a nest. I can give my mind to ornithology and still not predict where in a shorn field a cloud of blackbirds will choose to land. I cannot fathom. I can only witness.
It fascinates me when Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit. It is, as it were, an insider’s view. “Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Jesus speaks to the learned religious leader Nicodemus late at night, out of sight of prying, judgmental eyes. He gives Nicodemus a sneak peek of Pentecost, and Nicodemus simply doesn’t understand. His world is temple-centered, sacrifice-marked, roped-off Holy of Holies encased in thick, impenetrable curtain. Nicodemus is surprised quite naturally. It would be odd if Nicodemus weren’t astonished at Jesus’ words. But we see Jesus keep a wry upper hand by gentle instruction. “Do not be astonished.” And then – “the wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Nicodemus, you won’t be able to fathom. But you will be able to witness. And when you’re born of the Spirit, that’s the natural state of things. Are you ready for a new normal? It’s like you’re going to be born all over again.
Jesus could speak with authority about the coming normal. The Holy Spirit always – always – witnesses back to Christ. The person of the Holy Spirit isn’t an untethered Holy Ghost, freelancing the Godhead in a hit-and-miss fashion, nor is the Holy Spirit confined to showing up when a priest prays over the elements of the Eucharist. The Holy Spirit is always shaping and molding into the image of Christ: the Holy Spirit helps us love as Christ loves, act as Christ acted, as individuals and corporately, in your soul and mine, in our nation’s soul and the world. Pastors pray the Holy Spirit will come upon “us here, and make this be for us the Body and Blood of Christ”: however we understand it, we believe the Holy Spirit even makes bread more like Jesus.
You and I can understand this truly but not fully or completely. Right now we see dimly, after all; then, face to face. We may grasp Truth without fathoming it.
You cannot fathom. You can only witness.
I know people who have, by the grace of God, been the means of healing another person in decisive and supernatural ways. I know people who have, by the grace of God, received physical healing through the means of another person, in decisive and supernatural ways. I cannot hope to fathom it.
But I can bear witness.
I can’t explain how the prison doors shook open in the book of Acts. I can’t explain how a devastated Methodist believer from an AME church stands and weeps and says, “I forgive you” to a stony young man who shot and killed members of a Bible study. I can’t explain how an embarrassed but ill Catholic priest sneaks to a charismatic healing service (sans collar) and comes away well.
I cannot fathom. I can only witness.
I can’t fathom how God sometimes orchestrates circumstances in my life with astonishing, miraculous swiftness, in ways that couldn’t have happened otherwise. And I don’t know why a banner of blackbirds drifting through the air rises and lowers, sinks and elevates. They shift and merge, depart and gather. I witness their movement, even if I don’t comprehend it. I can speak of it truly, even if I can’t master its science – or improvisation.
“Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
We are called to watch out for the Spirit, as ardently as an amateur birdwatcher with binoculars slung around her neck, guide book in hand. We’re called to be ready to see the Spirit in action. We’re called to make a space for the Spirit, to pray, as 24/7 Prayer Movement founder Pete Grieg urges, “come on!” We’re called to stand on the windy porch, eyes on the sky, scanning the horizon.
But am I as agile as a red-winged blackbird? Am I as quick to respond to the current of the Holy Spirit? Can I dip and dive, rise and soar moment by moment, season by season, so that I fly with such quickness, such ready adaptability that my motions mimic the thousands of others’ around me? What may feel clumsy or wooden at first may yet become intuitive and natural. And while I may not be conscious of the ways my motions or seasons appear to others, when put next to the rest of the flocks’, a grand avian ballet may emerge.
And isn’t that the Body of Christ? This nimble flock of little birds, following the Spirit’s movements, no winged creature able to say to the other, “I don’t need you”? “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (I Corinthians 12:4-7). You cannot fathom. You can only witness, in your speech and soaring.
As this publication reaches its sage milestone of 50 years, we have the joy of celebrating many seasons of faithful witness to the work of the Holy Spirit consistently pointing to the person of Christ. We don’t just celebrate the founder, one person, or even an institution, but rather, we get to celebrate God’s faithfulness.
At the same time, we are compelled not only to celebrate how we started as nimble and responsive, but also how we may live into the future with elastic, intuitive readiness to the movements of the Holy Spirit.
This is essential. It is a full stop. We cannot rely on outwitting our opponents. We cannot rely on outfundraising those with whom we disagree. We cannot rely on outlasting our rivals. Wit and resources and tenacity are important, but they are not the most important. They are not indispensable to any movement. It is dangerously tempting to rely on what we know – on facts, figures, data, on our own history, heritage, contributions. That was the move that experienced, educated Nicodemus made.
Nicodemus, you won’t be able to fathom. But you will be able to witness. And when you’re born of the Spirit, that’s the natural state of things. Are you ready for a new normal? It’s like you’re going to be born all over again. You’ll have to relearn how to walk and talk, how to eat and sleep. Are you ready for that? To be as trusting and dependent as a newborn?
Well – are you?
Sometimes artists stumble into Truths bigger than they’re able to comprehend. It strikes me that the lyrics from Paul McCartney could easily mimic Jesus’ thoughts as he watched Nicodemus walk towards him in the dark, one late night:
“Blackbird singing in the dead of night/ Take these broken wings and learn to fly/ All your life/ You were only waiting for this moment to arise.
“Blackbird singing in the dead of night/ Take these sunken eyes and learn to see/ All your life/ You were only waiting for this moment to be free.”
Jesus said, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Are you ready, Nicodemus?
Well?
Are you ready?
Elizabeth Glass Turner is a writer and Associate Director for Community and Creative Development for World Methodist Evangelism. She is managing editor of www.wesleyanaccent.com and a frequent and beloved contributor to Good News.
by Steve | Jan 24, 2017 | Jan-Feb 2017, Magazine, Magazine Articles
The Rev. Anna Blaedel: “I am a self-avowed practicing homosexual.”
Three clergypersons from the Iowa Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church have filed a formal complaint against their former episcopal leader, Bishop Julius Trimble, for “disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church” and an unwillingness to do the work of ministry entailed by a bishop. Trimble has recently been reassigned to the Indiana Annual Conference. The complaint from the Revs. Craig Peters, Mike Morgan, and John Gaulke was sent to Bishop Gregory Palmer and Bishop Hee-Soo Jung, president and secretary of the North Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops. Fourteen additional lay and clergy members of the Iowa Annual Conference added their names to the complaint from Peters, Morgan, and Gaulke.
The focus of the complaint centers on the public testimony of the Rev. Anna Blaedel, a campus minister at the University of Iowa Wesley Center, when she announced before her colleagues at the Iowa Annual Conference in June, “I am a self-avowed practicing homosexual. Or in my language, I am out, queer, partnered, clergy.”
In response to Blaedel’s public comments, the clergypersons filed a complaint against the campus minister. After one supervisory response meeting, the bishop was unsuccessful in obtaining a mutually agreeable just resolution. Bishop Trimble summarily – and incorrectly – dismissed the complaint against the Rev. Blaedel and reappointed her as an ordained clergyperson.
The Iowa ministers who filed the complaint point out that Bishop Trimble does not have the right – according to the Judicial Council – to “legally negate, ignore, or violate provisions of the Discipline with which [he] disagrees, even when the disagreements are based upon conscientious objections to those provisions” (Decision 886).
The concerned clergypersons also contend that Bishop Trimble’s failure to provide a written explanation of the dismissal of the complaints is a failure to do the work of ministry of a bishop. “The disruption caused by Rev. Blaedel’s admission and the bishop’s dismissal of the complaint has been severe,” write the three pastors, “impacting local church members and clergy across the Iowa Annual Conference who do not understand why the clear standards of our Discipline have been ignored. Bishop Trimble made no provision for a process of healing, which constitutes a failure to do the work of ministry and a violation of the requirements of the Discipline.”
In his negligence to the process of the handling complaints, the ministers contend that Bishop Trimble failed to consult with – or even notify – the complainants before dismissing the complaint.
“We are reluctant to file this complaint and do so out of love for our church and its integrity,” state the clergypersons. “The integrity and trustworthiness of the church is undermined when a bishop chooses to arbitrarily ignore violations of our covenant life, especially when those violations are as public as Rev. Blaedel’s.”
