Archive: Curriculum Confrontation: Chicago

By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News

On April 18, 1969, a significant meeting took place at O’Hare Inn, Chicago, Ill. A delegation representing Methodism’s Wesleyan evangelicals met with the Advisory Committee of the General Board of Education’s Division of Curriculum Resources. The invitation was extended by Literature Editor Henry Bullock to Good News Editor Charles W. Keysor. The Good News delegation included one layman, one seminary professor, one pastor and one pastor-editor. In advance of the meeting, these men prepared a “position paper” summarizing theological considerations that make Methodist literature objectionable to many. This paper, minus appendix, appears on pages 23-25.

“There shall be one complete, coordinated system of literature published by the board for the entire United Methodist Church. This literature shall be of such Type and variety as to meet the needs of all groups of our People.”—Paragraph 972, DISCIPLINE, 1968.

The 1968 Book of Discipline clearly states that official curriculum must serve “all groups” within our denomination. We represent a large group of Methodists known variously as “conservative,” “evangelical” and/or “Wesleyan.” It is our deep conviction that our “group” is NOT Being served by Methodist curriculum. On the contrary, there Is a wide and unbridgeable gulf between the theology in Methodist curriculum and the theology that is based upon our understanding of the Bible, Methodist tradition and our personal Christian experience.

More important, Methodist literature generally presents a theology different from the basic Methodist doctrinal standards: Wesley’s Forty-Four Standard Sermons, Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, the Articles of Religion and now the E.U.B. Confession of Faith. Although the Apostles’ Creed is Not formally an official standard or Methodist doctrine, it does play an important function in relating us confessionally to the larger Church of Jesus Christ.

The departure of Methodist literature’s theology from these basic doctrinal standards is the main reason why thousands of Methodist classes refuse to use it. Many of us believe that Methodist literature is Methodist in name only. It becomes increasingly clear that the argument is not whether one approach is a better way to express a common belief. Rather, we are dealing with two increasingly divergent theologies. Sometimes these share a common vocabulary-but your editors repeatedly substitute entirely different meanings.

Such a serious dichotomy exists between your theology and ours that church school material prepared solely from your viewpoint cannot meet the needs of the great group of Methodists which we represent. The implications of this fact (in the light of paragraph 972) should certainly be our major concern at the Chicago meeting on April 18, 1969. It is unthinkable that the solutions to human problems offered by the historic Christian faith should not be made available to Methodist people today.

As you requested, we have supplied a brief appendix of “representative items to which we take exception.” (Not printed due to space limitations—Editor) These are some of the things apparent to faithful teachers and church school leaders. Often they sense the divergence, but can define it only in terms of the most obvious doctrinal deviations. Usually, Methodists merely state that they “don’t like it” (expressed in various parochial terms). You understand, of course, that in dealing with matters of theology, philosophical bias and editorial thrust, the “representative items” are less significant in themselves than the avowed or implied theses of the authors responsible for these statements.

We believe the following analysis summarizes why our denomination’s official curriculum materials are not “complete” and do not meet our needs.

(1) You have substituted various forms of naturalistic humanism for the supernatural theism taught in the Bible and basic to our Reformation heritage of Scriptural Christianity.

(2) You present a form of humanistic “process theology” in place of a theology based upon the ultimate revelation of God’s truth in Jesus Christ and in the Bible.

(3) You have elevated ethical behaviour to a disproportionate level, negating by omission the antecedent requirement of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

(4) You have distorted the balanced, Biblical presentation of Jesus Christ as incarnate deity, whose virgin birth, inspired teaching, vicarious death, physical resurrection and eventual return for judgement are emphasized throughout the New Testament and, likewise, in Wesleyan tradition.

(5) You seek to rationalize miracles, attributing pseudo- scientific explanations and there- by discrediting the supernatural action of a transcendent God.

(6) You present what is predominately a “moral influence” theory of the atonement. You ignore other important interpretations clearly taught or implied in the Bible and understood as valid by great minds of the Church through the ages.

(7) You reject the true ecumenism growing out of universal faith in Jesus Christ. You substitute a parochial denominationalism that is neither Methodist (see Wesley’s “Catholic Spirit”) nor Biblical (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

(8) By omission and distortion you eliminate the important Biblical teaching that there will be an eternal judgment.

(9) With eternal judgment omitted, you teach a syncretistic universalism in which there is no eternal separation as the Bible clearly teaches.

(10) You present an unrealistic view of human nature which accords with neither Scripture, human history or honest admission of human weakness and depravity.

(11) You teach an ethical relativism that makes truth dependent upon the situation. Divinely- revealed absolutes of truth and human behaviour are not accepted as being necessarily consistent with “love,” as you understand it.

(12) You undermine the integrity of canonical Scripture. You teach as absolutes, concepts of Biblical interpretation which ought, honestly, to be presented as theories rather than ultimate truth.

For these and other reasons, the official curriculum material of our denomination represents a critical divergence from the historic doctrines and traditions of Methodists. It is hoped that a Recognition of the divergence and Its implications will provide a Starting place for a plan “to meet the needs” of Methodists who believe that our historic Faith is relevant to contemporary problems without being compromised by humanistic philosophy and moral relativism.

Our position is well summarized by a student in one of our Methodist seminaries. Recently he wrote to “Good News”:

” … Never before in the history of the church has such ‘green’ theology been incorporated into any denominational literature … The ‘hidden Christ’ of the first section of Real, Spring, 1969, is an exposition of the idea of seeing Christ in the needy neighbor. The hippie is portrayed as the Christ who makes others aware of their need, etc. This section is based on an existential interpretation of Matt. 25:45.

“The second half of Real is on the Radical God is Dead theology … To give our youth Cox and Altizer is to give them stones. Why can’t our literature teach our faith instead of our doubts?

“The new youth literature is not something we can ‘live with’ or supplement. Those who shout for freedom might practice what they shout by allowing some leeway on the literature. We aren’t even supposed to read it before we order it. Yet we are supposed to teach our youth the newest, unsystematized theology recent graduates of our seminaries can dream up … “