Archive: The Crisis in Methodist Curriculum

By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News

Recently a man said to his Administrative Board: “I have been a Methodist pastor for 20 years. And I have always used Methodist literature. But this new stuff is not compatible with the Bible, Methodist doctrine, or my ordination vows! Either Methodist literature leaves this church or else I leave.”

Such is the crisis precipitated by the newest curriculum “improvements” from Nashville. Reports from across the country indicate that many churches and classes are canceling Methodist curriculum. One inter-denominational publisher reports a recent jump in Methodist business from churches which would “rather switch than fight.” And former E.U.B.’s report a widespread revulsion over the new curriculum which has become “theirs” as, result of merger with The Methodist Church.

Last month the Louisville (Ky.) Conference voted, without opposition, the following resolution, presented to delegates by the Conference Board of Education:

WHEREAS, some United Methodists are greatly disturbed and genuinely concerned over the theological trends reflected in the new literature, and

 

WHEREAS, some feel that the United Methodist literature does not increase one’s understanding or appreciation of the Scriptures, and

 

WHEREAS, some feel that the literature is not holding up the unique message of the Christian Church, and

 

WHEREAS, some feel that much of The material supports humanism, and

 

WHEREAS, some feel that the literature, questions the authority of the Bible and the deity of Jesus:

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Bishop and his Cabinet select and appoint a task force to make a study in depth of the literature, its effect upon our people, and their response to it, across our annual conference; and that this task force report to the 1970 session of the Annual Conference.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Conference Board of Education and The General Board of Education be informed from time to time of the progress and results of this study.

How has this unhappy situation come to pass? For decades The Board of Education has been dominated by non-Wesleyan, non–evangelicals. Editors and writers employed by the Board have introduced their favorite brands of non–Biblical theology and philosophy … not to mention politics, economics, anthropology and sociology. These have been force-fed to local churches as the way, the truth, and the life for Methodists.

A few recent examples are given on pages 26-35.

Is the church defenseless? Always, we have had official doctrine—the trouble is, they have been ignored. Officials responsible for our curriculum plead, “United Methodism has no series of creedal dogmas meant to be forced on church membership.” (Page 6, The 1969/70 Outlines of Curriculum, Division of Curriculum Resources of the General Board of Education.) Into their self-created doctrinal vacuum, they pour their own theologies.

Fortunately, the 1968 Discipline contains a clear prohibition which, if adhered to, could eliminate theological eccentricities from our official curriculum materials. Page 36 of the 1968 Discipline says ” … the ‘Wesleyan standards’ have been rightly construed as negative limits of public teaching in the church rather than the positive prescription of an inflexible system of doctrine.”

This means that no Methodist teachings should contradict the Articles of Religion (1968 Discipline, pages 37-44), Wesley’s 44 Sermons, and the Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. A parallel source of doctrinal “negative limit” is now the Confession of Faith of the former E.U.B. Church (1968 Discipline, pages 44- 48.)

Full Biblical authority is the backbone of United Methodist doctrine. The 1968 Discipline makes this clear on page 26: “In all matters of faith and morals, the authority of Holy Scripture stands supreme.”

That this injunction has been ignored is evident from the items mentioned on pages 22-35.

But the fault does not lie entirely with our General Board of Education. Methodist laymen have contributed to the curriculum crisis. All these many years many have grumbled but “gone along.” It is hard to believe that the national board could have flooded the church with un-Biblical teachings if enough Methodist laymen had (1) known the difference between truth and un-truth … and (2) had cared enough to organize an effective, sustained protest.

Pastors, too, bear a share of responsibility for our curriculum crisis. Many have never taken time to read what their church schools are studying. And to be candid, some Methodist pastors are afraid to reveal their objections- for fear of not receiving a “good” appointment “next time.” (Many believe that promotions are reserved for pastors smart enough not to raise embarrassing questions.) Of course, the denominational superstructure has contributed to the United Methodist curriculum crisis. Some Boards of Ministerial Training and Qualification have made willingness to use only Methodist literature a primary requirement for ordination. On the night of one ordination service, a Bishop declared that candidates should not even bother to come forward unless they intended to use Methodist literature only!

A little-recognized factor in our curriculum crisis is the prevailing Biblical ignorance. Relatively few church school teachers know the Scriptures well enough to teach creatively from the Bible itself. Instead, they rely on printed literature as a “crutch.” This dependence puts Methodist church school teachers—and classes—at the mercy of their printed literature. (At a recent meeting attended by over 100 Methodists, general astonishment was expressed at the idea of teaching directly from the Bible. Many thought the speaker joking.)

The very best teaching material is a modem language edition of the Holy Scriptures in the hands of a teacher who knows Jesus Christ personally … who respects the authority and integrity of the Bible … and who is led by the Holy Spirit in showing how relevant the Bible really is.

But the practical reality is that most United Methodist church school teachers do depend upon printed literature. So what choice is open to a local church?

First, it would seem only fair to make a careful evaluation of our own literature. (Many churches have never done this.) Assemble a committee of mature Christians, including Pastor and Superintendent of Studies. Carefully examine Methodist literature on the following points: Does it conform to the plain truth of Scripture? Does it coincide with our United Methodist doctrinal standards (1968 Discipline, pgs. 44-48) Is it practical for teachers to use? What is the reaction of students and classes? What is the quality of pictures and artwork? Does the publisher provide reliable service? How do literature Prices compare? Is it emphasizing Matters that have eternal importance? Does it reflect the Biblical standard of purity as the norm for Christian speech and thought?

If a careful examination leads to criticism of our official literature, write and tell the man responsible, Dr. Henry Bullock, Editor of Church School Publications, 201 Eight Ave., Nashville, Tenn.  37203. Be sure to Stress the need for evangelically-acceptable materials, either produced or approved by our Board of Education.

All Methodists should look carefully at 1968 Discipline paragraph 158.1: “The Commission on Education shall keep the Council on Ministries aware of sound educational procedures, and encourage and facilitate the use of curriculum resources based on curriculum plans developed by the Program-Curriculum Committee and approved by the Board of Education of the United Methodist Church.”

This is much less arbitrary than paragraph 233 of the 1964 Discipline. We rejoice in the Change which places literature responsibility more nearly in the hands of local churches.

The fact is that increasing numbers of United Methodists are exercising their conscience in literature selection. This attitude of independence is not mere divisiveness. Instead, it is the inevitable response of knowledgeable Christians to the un-Biblical humanism that prevails in Methodist literature.

Let Methodist evangelicals pray fervently (and work without ceasing) for the day when we can all be proud of our United Methodist church school literature.

ANOTHER KIND OF RAGE

Methodist leaders are urging us to listen to “black rage” expressed in the famous “Manifesto.” Listening is in order. And so our leaders should be also listening to another kind of rage!

The rage of Methodist people at seeing filthy language printed and circulated by the United Methodist Board of Education (See Motive, March-April issue, 1969).

The rage of Methodists who feel the church betrays them in spending money for questionable causes.

The rage of Methodist laymen exposed to “relevant” sermons on topics such as “How Can I Experience Fulfillment Sexually?” (From a worship service bulletin sent by a reader in Arkansas).

We hope Methodist leaders are hearing more than one kind of rage.