by Steve | Nov 14, 1993 | Archive - 1993
Archive: Matching Our Walk with Our Talk
By Kenneth Cain Kinghorn
Kenneth Cain Kinghorn recently received a letter from a bishop of the United Methodist Church in which the bishop lamented the inconsistent lives of professing Christians. He invited Dr. Kinghorn—vice president-at-large of Asbury Theological Seminary—to respond to the theory that theological beliefs do not make much difference in peoples ethics and conduct. What follows is Dr. Kinghorn’s response to the bishop.
Your letter raises the important question of the relationship between one’s theology and one’s behavior. Ideally, of course, orthodoxy and holiness go hand in hand. But as you pointed out, the links between theology and ethics are not always consistent. You wrote that you had “about concluded that all our theological posturing about who is and who is not correct seems to have very little impact on personal holiness.” I certainly understand your disappointment.
I agree that some who make high claims of holiness do not always show honesty and integrity in their lives. In fairness, however, we must say that the theological left also produces its share of ethical disappointments. The lack of common courtesy surfaces all across the theological spectrum. (I am reminded of John Dryden’s evaluation of Jeremy Collier: “I will not say ‘The zeal of God’s house has eaten him up’; but I am sure it has devoured some part of his good manners and civility.”) We are saddened when moral and ethical inconsistencies appear in the church.
Theological imbalance may be part of the problem. Some sincere people contend that the best theology consists of the most narrow or the most broad position. In my thinking, the narrowest or the broadest theological position is seldom biblical. For instance, the narrowest theological stance that one could take regarding sanctification is to insist that God extracts original sin, as a dentist removes a rotten tooth, and the sanctified never sin. I knew one who held this view, and he objected to praying the Prayer of Confession in the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper. He said in my hearing, “I haven’t sinned in 17 years!”
The broadest interpretation of God’s grace, on the other hand, leads to universalism. I know those who interpret God’s love so expansively that they deny that Jesus Christ provides our only means of salvation. Consider a different example: The strongest position that one can take on God’s sovereignty would lead to a denial of free will and a belief in double predestination, either to salvation or damnation. Let me reiterate: the most extreme view on any theological issue is seldom correct, whether conservative or liberal, the most narrow or most broad. Theological extremes usually distort the truth.
I was interested in your comment, “I was never able to make much connection between personal holiness and where a person happened to be on the theological continuum.” In my view, we sometimes measure sanctity by the wrong canons. I am sure that you would agree that good manners, intellectual achievement, and tolerance—while admirable qualities—do not spell Christian holiness. Some of the most tolerant church leaders that I know hold views repeatedly rejected by the ancient creeds and councils of Christendom. Recently I heard one of your colleagues say that it is “not loving” for Christians to pronounce Buddhism wrong or to seek the conversion of a Muslim to Christianity. I regard the notion of unlimited tolerance as not loving—if Jesus was who he claimed to be and if Scripture is trustworthy in what it teaches. We cannot confuse tolerance with holiness.
C.S. Lewis contended, in his Reflections on the Psalms, that tolerance often stems from a lack of profound convictions about religion. Some within our church have a greater interest in what seems “lovingly inclusive” than in what Scripture clearly teaches. As I see it, a homosexual, whose disclosed behavior creates scandal, harms the Christian cause less than a seminary professor or prominent church leader who lobbies for United Methodism to accept homosexual behavior as a valid expression of sexual love.
Some in the church confuse holiness with good manners and intellectual acumen. Many 19th-century American church members praised the lectures of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and some clergy invited him into their pulpits, although most confessed that they could not understand much of what he said. With winsomeness and compelling intellect, he spread his mystical idealism throughout the churches. Of course, he uttered some truisms. Yet his religion of transcendentalism contradicted Christianity at every vital point. There are some who excel in tolerance, wit, and intellect, whose theology is pernicious and destructive.
As you point out, there are those who hold unorthodox theological opinions and yet who live more sacrificially than their orthodox critics. I think, for example, of Albert Schweitzer who left careers in medicine and music to do charitable work in Africa. I contend that, despite his sacrificial labors, his Christology was completely unacceptable. His ministry does not erase his defective Christology and poverty of Christian doctrine. His was a ministry of practical deeds, devoid of theological specifics. Christianity could not long survive on that sort of fare.
Over the years, I have observed a theological herd instinct that causes some to praise currently popular theologians, even when their views supplant the doctrinal standards of the church to which they subscribed at their ordination. One can always find a parade of admirers lined up behind theologians who introduce doctrinal and ethical innovations. It is not uncommon to meet people who seem to think that the more difficult it is to understand a theologian, the more profound the theologian must be. Others are impressed with theological innovation. Apparently some regard the most outlandish view as the most “courageous.” I hold to the time-honored truism articulated by Princeton’s Charles Hodge: If a doctrine is new it isn’t true, and if its true it isn’t new.
You mentioned Paul Tillich. He said in his Systematic Theology (Vol. I, 205) “God does not exist. … To argue that God exists is to deny him.” I can’t make sense out of that view, any more than I can understand someone saying, “To argue that my wife exists is to deny her,” a formula Tillich applied to God. How could Abraham Lincoln have being if he did not exist? Of course, Tillich said some interesting things, and he said them with phrase-making elegance. Nevertheless, I cannot accept any theology as being Christian when it rejects Christ’s resurrection and the doctrines of heaven and hell—to say nothing of denying God’s existence. Not every theologian who attracts a train of admirers writes Christian theology.
The principle point of your letter was that some orthodox Christians do not live up to their theology. This reality continues to perplex and grieve us both. Martin Luther, too, agonized over certain religious leaders whose morals failed to square with what they taught. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because the theologically orthodox Pharisees placed their self-serving agendas before the love or service of God. Never mind their high claims of holiness—primarily, they loved cash and control.
To this day, some people use theological orthodoxy as a means by which to gain material assets and acquire power. I suspect that those you mentioned belong in this category. They lusted for money and power. They may not have started their Christian journey as double-minded disciples; yet somewhere along the line, secular tares choked the good seed.
A variation of this theme surfaces in the lives of some who give unconditional allegiance to an institution. Some folks permit religious organizations to take precedence over everything—even truth, people, ministry, and God. I would argue that the best church members put Jesus Christ ahead of all else, including the religious system with which they have affiliated. It seems, however, that some who are not serious about holiness of heart and life enjoy being around those who are. They find it gratifying to associate with committed Christians who genuinely put the needs of neighbors ahead of personal needs. These camp followers give a bad name to the good people in whose territory they lodge.
Despite exceptions to the contrary, it has been my observation that balanced Christian orthodoxy produces the best examples of Christian character. I know several Christian saints. They all hold orthodox theological views. I contend that orthodoxy also produces the lion’s share of enduring Christian ministry. Personally, I do not know any “secular saints” or “holy heretics.”
I recently spoke with a friend who had just returned from a meeting of the Christian Management Institute (CMI). This organization consists of 3,300 Christian organizations, all holding orthodox theological views. The CMI includes some of the most respected and effective ministries in the world. My friend reported that he was surprised at the vast number of ministries to the homeless carried on by the member groups. They say little about their social work, but their ministries to soul and body are astonishingly impressive. It’s important to recognize that orthodox religion at its best does more than talk about the need for ministry. Orthodox congregations and organizations can and do carry on remarkable social ministries.
The inconsistent correlation between people’s theologies and their moral lives remains a conundrum to me. God alone will unravel the mystery in his own good time. Yet, I think we can make some headway in our efforts to change things for the better. The formula has not altered since apostolic days: we must unite right thinking and right living. Nothing substitutes for a long obedience in the same direction, provided the Bible informs the way. Your letter encourages me to strive to stay close to Scripture and, as Bishop Stephen Neil would have said it, “to live Christianly.”
Kenneth Cain Kinghorn is vice president-at-large of Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is an ordained UM minister and an author of numerous books, the most recent being The Gospel of Grace (Abingdon, 1992).
by Steve | Nov 11, 1993 | Archive - 1993
Archive: Four Corners for Jesus
By Lorena Lynch
November/December 1993
I was not born into a Christian family. In fact, in the 1940s less than five percent of my people were Christian; so my story is similar to that of many others who grew up on the reservation in Arizona, New Mexico, or Utah.
Navajos have much of which to be proud – we know how to survive. Like myself, most of my generation grew up herding sheep. I still speak the Navajo language, weave Navajo rugs, wear traditional dress with moccasins and Indian jewelry, and love my large, extended family. And now I am a Christian, which makes me a better Navajo.
I first went to government boarding school at the age of 12 to begin the first grade. Although I did not know English, I tried to learn it as quickly as possible to keep from being punished. One day I didn’t have lunch money, so some of my friends said, “Go with us to this church at noon and they will give you something to eat.” I met two women who told us Bible stories and fed us cookies and kool-aid for lunch.
Some time later, when our home burned down, I stayed with the two women while it was being rebuilt. They asked me to be their interpreter. It was during this time that I gave my life to the Lord. I left high school during the 11th grade, got married, and moved away. I drifted away from the Lord, but when times were bad, I still remembered to pray. When we moved to Shiprock and my oldest daughter got into mischief with bad friends, I decided to send her to a church school. Yet I asked myself, “Why should I send my child to a church school when I am not even going to church?” So I attended the United Methodist Church in July of 1975 – it was on the same Sunday in which we were introduced to our new missionary pastor, Paul West, and his wife, Dorcas.
During the fall of that same year, Fred Yazzie, our only fully-ordained Navajo minister, was preaching a revival. It seemed that everything he said was meant for me. This is when I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. The next day seemed so different – I began noticing God’s creation, and saw the trees around my house as though for the first time. I liked my new life, but before long I was faced with many situations in which I had to either reconfirm my decision for the Lord, or go another way.
My first trial was in having all of my jewelry stolen. It was not so much the monetary loss ($4,000) as it was the emotional attachment which had made the jewelry very special to me. Some Navajos believe that turquoise is sacred and protects them from evil spirits and accidents. I simply felt loss and hurt. Our Navajo pastor, Henry C. Begay, prayed for me. My husband insisted that only the medicine man could find my jewelry, so I went with him, but was totally disappointed. From that time on, I trusted only God and he has taken care of me. Jesus is all I need.
In 1977, the Shiprock Church began the Four Corners Native American Ministry as a means of reaching Navajos for Jesus. The reservation is very large (about the size of West Virginia), but our pastor said we could do it: “If we will start and trust the Lord, it will be like a stone dropped into the water. The ripples will expand until the whole lake is covered.” Stella Lee, our first chairperson, explained this to be a prophecy of what God would do if we would but trust him.
We bought a canvas tent; and Pastor Henry preached, many times until one or two o’clock in the morning. He would then drive over 100 miles to return home, sleep a couple of hours, and go to work at the uranium mine. About this same time, work groups helped us build a two-story shelter for abused women and children in Shiprock. We also built a counseling center for alcoholics and a thrift shop. In 1992, we added a day care school. The Four Corners Ministry was growing in several directions, all at the same time.
Many people think Navajos are poor. But everything cannot be measured by money. Navajos are rich. They are rich in traditions, and as more Navajos are becoming Christians, they are becoming rich in faith. As the Four Corners Ministry has grown, we have seen what faith can do. We simply believe God for miracles, pray, and trust him with all of our hearts. We want to move forward, depending on the Lord. Jesus means everything to us and we want to serve him only.
The ministry evolved as Navajo families attended tent revivals, accepted Jesus, and began house meetings to win their relatives to Christ. The house would get too small and they would pool their money to build small, simple fiberboard buildings. After a few years the family would realize that they didn’t know much about running a church; or they would become burdened by their isolation and loneliness, or overwhelmed by church maintenance problems. When they discovered Four Corners Ministry, they found they liked the Christian fellowship, the Bible study, and the instruction on how to build up a congregation, administer a church, and develop their lay leadership. Perhaps most of all, they sensed that they were part of a people who would listen and support them in their ministry.
After 16 years, the Four Corners Ministry has 17 churches. Many of them are 100 to 150 miles away from Shiprock, but each has its own Navajo preacher, a heartfelt joy, and the desire to reach all of our people for Jesus. Today, there are over 220,000 Navajos, and approximately 25 percent are Christian. Over half of our population is 19 years old and under. We have much work to do and more programs to develop – especially for the youth.
The United Methodist Church is still new to us on the reservation. We have one fully-ordained Navajo pastor, one student in seminary. And one student in college headed for ministry. The rest are lay-preachers. Often, Navajo people think all churches are alike and they don’t understand denominations. We thank God for that, but we also know that our church family is United Methodist.
I have learned a lot through the Four Corners Ministry. I used to avoid traveling off the reservation because I was afraid white people would not accept me. But when I was asked to speak at churches in other states, I was surprised and happy to learn that I was accepted. I discovered that we Navajos have much to share, and that people off the reservation are not prejudiced.
I believe we can win our reservation for Christ and even reach out to other tribes by loving the people. We can also be the kind of people who will cause those around us to ask questions about the difference in our lives. We can tell them, “I act like I do because I have Jesus as my personal Savior.”
For years now we have been trying to tell people that we are a “third world’’ country, with our own culture, language, and national sovereignty. We need missionaries to work with us since we are very new to the Christian faith. No one heard us until the Mission Society for United Methodists came out and saw for themselves the problems we face. Immediately, they offered to help, working through the New Mexico Conference and our Four Corners Board.
Navajo Worship
Our people love to praise the Lord. They enjoy clapping their hands; and as they sing you can hear shouts of “Amen” and “Thank you, Jesus.” When Navajos become Christians they want to be in church. Their services go on for two to five hours. If a Navajo preached for only 20 minutes, the people would throw him out. My people want to get filled up. They don’t want to leave church feeling empty.
When our people first enter the church, they go to the altar. It gives me such a good feeling to enter a Navajo church and see the seats empty and the altar full.
Allow me to paint scenes of a recent church service for you. I see an old grandmother with her squaw skirt spread out over her tennis shoes and she is crying out to God. The altar is strange to her, so she prefers to kneel on the hard floor with her face to the ground. When she gets up, I see tears on her face. I don’t know what she prayed for, but I can see she is happy and ready for the service to begin.
The service should have started 30 minutes ago but no one is concerned. The musicians start tuning up their electric guitars. As the altar clears, they begin an old gospel tune. The preacher gets behind the drum set and lets it rip.
After several songs, it’s testimony time. My heart is touched as I listen to a mother who weeps as she speaks about her alcoholic son. There were so many nights she had no idea where he was. But she kept praying for him until he was delivered from that bondage. Now he comes to church with her. An elderly former medicine man tells how he was so sick the doctor sent him home to die, but the church people came and prayed for him and he was healed. Now he wants to praise the only true God, so he volunteers to give a sheep or goat every time the church has a dinner. Others tell of family problems, fear of owls, or loneliness after the death of a relative, and how God has given victory. A shout of “Praise God’’ goes up from different parts of the congregation.
Navajo Christians believe in miracles. In fact, the problems on the reservation are often so bad that only a miracle could help! Another song, and the preacher gets up. He reads the Scripture in Navajo and those who have Bibles follow along with their fingers, often repeating the words after him. The preacher goes verse-by-verse and explains the meaning. By using a lot of home-grown illustrations and by acting out stories, he has the people laughing, shouting, and crying.
Whatever the preacher says, he always emphasizes the power of God. He will mention sin, but there is no need to hammer away at it. His people are already depressed with all that has gone wrong in their lives. They are aware of their sickness of body, heart, and soul; and they have a sense that they are out of harmony with others, with nature, and with God.
God really works in our culture, but you would have to understand my people and see their special need before you could see how God’s grace is present for us. The fear or witchcraft, owls, and dead things are big issues for us.
Even after we become Christians we have to deal with some of these fears, but Navajo preachers understand us. They tell us, “God is good. He cares for you and loves you. He will always be with you and never leave you. When we feel hopeless the preacher tells us, “call out to God and he will save you!” We have trusted God and he has always been faithful to lift us again. On this day we know that God is good to us!
You can find out more about the Four Corners Native American Ministry HERE
by Steve | Sep 21, 1993 | Archive - 1993
Archive: Playing Skillfully
By Marilyn N. Anderes
Politically correct. We hear it everywhere. The media exalts what the establishment dictates. The problem is that our morally deficient establishment elevates tolerance over truth. Samuel confronted a similar culture. The surrounding nations had kings, but for Israel to impose a monarchy, the people had to depose God as King.
Samuel pleaded, “You don’t really want a king. He will tax and spend, he’ll demand your sons for his battlefield, and he’ll expect you to serve him.” But change was demanded just as it was in November, 1992, in the United States. And just as the Israelites put their hope in men, so it is with Americans. Samuel asked the question we must ask: How do I best serve the interests of my God in the midst of wayward people?
God gave directions for just such a time in his psalm to the nations. “Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy” (Psalms 33:3). Samuel’s life demonstrates eight ways to play skillfully in post-Christian times. Follow along in I Samuel 12.
1. Listen (verse 1). Samuel heard what the people said. He listened with his ears and his heart. We would do well to be alert to the heart pleas of our acquaintances. Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk once said: “One of the best ways to persuade others is by listening to them.”
2. Reaffirm your life message (verse 2). The prophet Samuel proclaimed, I am a faithful leader under God. We, too, can recommit to Christ’s lordship and ask anew how he would be pleased to use us now.
3. Maintain personal purity (verses 3-5). Purity was maintained by Samuel in his own conscience, in the people’s eyes, and from God’s perspective. We need to examine our hearts before God and man. If we’ve slandered our leaders more than we’ve prayed for them, we need to ask God’s forgiveness. To be honorable vessels of use in times of moral decay, we’ll need to examine and cleanse decay in our own lives first.
4. Confront with the evidence (verses 6-13 and 16-18). Samuel’s challenge was, “Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence.” He reminded the people of God’s acts in their behalf and he revealed the people’s foolishness. Then “the people stood in awe of the Lord and of Samuel.” Do our neighbors stand in wonder of God because of our lifestyles?
In The Knowledge of the Holy, A. W. Tozer wrote, “the heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until it is once more worthy of Him.” When the Church reveals the true God, people watching will stand in awe of his majesty and prefer his ways to anything labeled “politically correct.”
5. Offer directions for success (verses 14-15). It would be cruel to show what’s wrong without offering directions for returning to what’s right. Samuel offered four steps for success. Fear God, serve God, obey God, and follow God. Run the checklist. Am I reverencing God? How am I serving him? Am I obeying him; even in the littlest of things? Am I walking ahead of him or following him? Godly living will speak louder than empty preaching.
6. Motivate wholeheartedness (verses 20-25). Samuel reassured the people, “Do not be afraid.” He upheld the name of the Lord and underscored the fact that God would not reject his people. Then he warned them, “Do not turn away.” We must not turn disgusted backs on policies or policy makers. Playing skillfully involves keeping up with the issues, writing editorials, chairing politically-active boards, calling Congress, and running for office ourselves.
7. Intercede with urgency (verses 19, 23a). The peoples’ request of Samuel? “Pray to the Lord your God.” Samuel’s reply? “Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by failing to pray for you.” If God’s people won’t pray, who will stand in the moral gap and intercede?
8. Be bold with gentleness (verse 25). Samuel picked no bones. “If you persist in doing evil, both you and your king will be swept away.” We must assert God’s truth, remembering that the only thing that separates spiritual boldness from ‘bullyness’ is humility. We once plugged our ears to God’s call on our lives, too.
Will you join me in the following prayer? “Far be it from us, O Lord that we should sin against you by failing to pray for our country, and we will teach our neighbors by example your good and right way. Help us!” (Paraphrase of I Samuel 12:23)
This is the second article in a three-part series.
by Steve | Sep 20, 1993 | Archive - 1993
Archive: Unravelling Modern Theology
By Dwight Sullivan
Recently I attended a lecture that was both striking and disturbing. The speaker was Dr. Eta Linnemann, an eminent New Testament scholar who studied under the famous Rudolf Bultmann, a giant of the “Historical Criticism” of the Bible. Well into her own eminent career, Dr. Linnemann—according to her own account—came to know and accept Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. Her outlook has changed on the Historical-Critical Approach to biblical interpretation. Once its champion, Dr. Linnemann has now become its challenger and presents her case in Historical Criticism of the Bible—Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical (Baker Book, 1991).
Dr. Linnemann’s new thinking represents a critical challenge for our United Methodist Church. The average United Methodist may not be aware that the Historical-Critical Approach shapes much of our UM theological outlook. Our UM seminaries teach it. Its results are accepted as scholarly fact (often with the attitude that there is no other viewpoint except those espoused by the ignorant, unenlightened, or simple-minded.) Our modern theology is shaped by it; our Sunday school material inspired by it; our faith based on it.
What is Historical-Critical Methodology? Conceived over 250 years ago, it is an approach which claims to be scientific. It begins by treating the Bible, for the purpose of inquiry, as any other writing. Its aim is not devotion, but dissection. Rather than give a biblical passage the benefit of the doubt, it doubts the words until they can be “proven” or “confirmed.” It subjects every biblical passage to the scrutiny of human thought to find “truth,” which then directs interpretation.
Dwight Sullivan
Now this bedrock of our theology is being challenged by one with the name and knowledge to do it. This methodology, which has brought forth numerous theories of unseen writers of the Bible (such as “J”, “E”, “P”, “D”, in the Old Testament and “Q” in the New Testament), is now being cross-examined as suspect.
Dr. Linnemann states that the Historical-Critical Approach:
- claims to be both “scientific” and “objective” but is neither,
- has made idols of science and reason,
- relativizes the Scriptures,
- believes “what the biblical text clearly states can by no means be true,”
- tries to open the Word of God using methods that function as though there is no God,
- and uses “pseudo-morphosis,” which is using the right Christian words while switching their meanings.
When I heard Dr. Linnemann, something inside me went “click!” To earn my doctorate I was pickled in the Historical-Critical Methodology for five years of school, and it seemed quite kosher. But after nearly 19 years as a pastor in the real church, I have increasingly profound doubts. I must be honest. What this method of biblical interpretation results in does not seem to be the same Christianity as that which swayed the Roman Empire (or for that matter, 18th Century England through John Wesley).
Given our United Methodist adherence to the Historical-Critical Methodology, would Dr. Linnemann’s expose explain why:
- those who believe the Bible as really true—such as evangelicals or charismatics—seem faintly welcomed in our denomination, and tend to be discouraged from the clergy, screened out from our seminary faculties, and “frozen out” from places of leadership?
- during annual conference floor debates, there seems often to be light regard for the Scriptures as being the authoritative Word of God?
- biblical words seem to be used differently now? Is this how, for example, “sin” has had its biblical meaning of “idolatry” replaced for some by “discrimination” or “homophobia”?
- our membership is declining?
If Dr. Linnemann is right, might this not mean we need to re-examine our theological education? Have “mainline” biblical scholars become like a school of fish blindly heading into the belly of a whale? Have they become so busy reading each other’s writings that they miss reading the Handwriting on the Wall? Are the local churches actually funding the paganization of their own church? In the name of the “honesty,” “modernity,” and “objectivity” that is claimed by the faithful of this approach, are we ending with a “different Gospel”?
Dr. Linnemann raises for me troubling questions about the cornerstone of our UM Church, the Critical-Historical Methodology. How we deal with her honest and probing questions will be crucial for our future.
Dwight Sullivan is the pastor of Whittier Evangelical United Methodist Church in Whittier, California.
by Steve | Sep 15, 1993 | Archive - 1993
Archive: Good News Convo Hears From UM Evangelism Professors
by Jean Caffey Lyles
An increasing number of evangelism professors at UM seminaries is evidence that the work of concerned evangelicals is bearing fruit in the denomination. That point was made during the mid-July Good News Convocation at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina. Speaking to some 550 registrants were two of the professors from UM-related seminaries not noted for their evangelical leanings.
Featured were the Rev. Seth Asare, a native of Ghana, West Africa, who serves as E. Stanley Jones professor of evangelism at Boston University School of Theology, and the Rev. Billy Abraham, a native of Ireland and McCreless professor of evangelism and professor of philosophy at Southern Methodist University’s Perkins School of Theology in Dallas.
Good News officials say they cannot claim credit for the growing number of endowed chairs of evangelism at church-related seminaries, but they praised the work of the Foundation for Evangelism as largely responsible for the trend.
The foundation, an affiliate of the UM Board of Discipleship, has endowed evangelism professorships at Boston University, Wesley Seminary in Washington and Garrett-Evangelical Seminary in Evanston, Illinois—all UM-related schools. It will begin funding evangelism chairs at two more UM seminaries (St. Paul’s and Duke) soon.
Asare criticized any “Christian who does not share the good news, one who says religion is ‘private.’ We need people … to speak the word of Jesus Christ courageously.”
Asare cautioned listeners against assuming that “because we are saved by grace we can do whatever we want.” Growth in Christian maturity requires responsibility along with “righteousness in Christ,” he said.
Abraham, who spoke on church renewal, emphasized the need to nurture new converts, a task he deemed “impossible without the help of the Holy Spirit. You’ll have a double hernia and a heart attack if you try it.”
New Christians, Abraham said, do not have “half a chance of surviving in the world” without basic grounding and initiation in the church. “People need help in articulating how God is at work in their lives.”
Abraham, who worked with an annual conference in writing a handbook of evangelism, remarked on how “a lot of people at first didn’t want to use the ‘E-word.’” So far, 50 churches have used the handbook, which focuses on teaching fundamental beliefs, issues of faith, and spiritual disciplines both to “seekers” and church members.
“Renewal is hard work,” Abraham said. “You can’t just put it in the microwave.” Churches can’t afford to leave new Christians “to be initiated by Oprah Winfrey, to be taught the basics of the faith by Shirley MacLaine,” he said.
Abraham and the Rev. Dr. David Brazelton, former head of the Evangelism Section of the Board of Discipleship, both taught continuing education seminars drawing more than 40 participants during the week.
Another major speaker, Jay Kesler, former Youth for Christ leader and now president of Taylor University, Upland, Indiana, also addressed the convocation theme, “Nurturing the Family of God.”
Kesler said rapid social change—including growing divorce rates, a rise in child abuse, and a high percentage of births out of wedlock—means that “we’re getting used to things we’ve got no business getting used to.”
The family is the most consistent illustration used in the Bible, Kesler said, and many biblical nuances cannot be understood without an understanding of the traditional family.
Kesler recalled camping experiences with groups of troubled youngsters during his years with Youth for Christ. “We’d say, ‘God loves you; God is your heavenly Father,’ and they’d look [blank-faced] like they were painted on the chairs.”
“We finally figured out that these biblical [images] were reversing our engines” with youth who knew “father” as a person who came home drunk, and slapped the family around.
Kesler suggested that the church should provide “surrogate grandparents, fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers” to guide and befriend young people who lack fathers or other family members, giving them a positive experience of family.
Evangelicals Must Monitor GBGM Site Committee
In his report to the Convocation, James V. Heidinger II, executive secretary of Good News, urged evangelical United Methodists to keep a sharp eye on the task force seeking a new headquarters city for the denomination’s General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM). He reminded the group of the 1992 General Conference mandate to find a city for GBGM other than New York.
“I’m afraid the site-selection task force may decide that New York is a wonderful place after all,” Heidinger said. Critics of GBGM have contended that the Global Ministries agency would save money, attract employees with more moderate views, and increase its accountability if it were located in a city closer to United Methodist population centers.
Heidinger also urged Good News supporters to persevere in fighting “the insidious, continued push for acceptance of the practice of homosexuality.” The church must confront annual conferences that are ignoring a ban on promoting gay and lesbian life styles, he said.
Heidinger reported that an appeal is on its way to the Judicial Council, the church’s supreme court, to interpret the word “status” in a constitutional amendment voted on by annual conferences this year. While proposers said the intent was to add “marital status” to the list of circumstances that may not be used to bar people from church membership, Heidinger noted that the term could be construed to mean “homosexual orientation.”
The convocation included a half-dozen plenary speakers, inspirational preaching and singing, sacred music concerts, Bible study, practical workshops, and informal fellowship.
Of the 550 participants, the largest representations came from Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina and Indiana. Next year’s convocation will be held in Dallas, Texas.
Adapted from United Methodist News Service
