Archive: Paul Morell: Treading Firmly Where the Lines Are Thinnest

by Steve | Jan 23, 1991 | Archive - 1991

Archive: Paul Morell: Treading Firmly Where the Lines Are Thinnest

By Martha Davis

It’s Sunday morning at First United Methodist Church of Carrollton, Texas. A crowd of 500 or more area-Dallasites is seated for the first of two morning services; the choir has sung the morning anthem. It’s time for the sermon, but the distinguished Rev. Paul Morell is not in his place behind the pulpit.

Instead, cradling his Bible, he preaches as he paces a narrow carpeted area in front of the speaking podium. It’s a mistake, he believes, to cling either timidly or tiredly to the elements of office, be they pulpits or policies, when those elements become serious barriers to effective ministry.

Not an easy man to understand, predict, or even engage in conversation, this United Methodist minister of more than 40 years can be described as a man of vision rather than vernacular. His face, most often serious, gives no indication of his years. His manner, at times, and his slim build give the illusion that he is taller than his actual medium frame.

He observes about himself “a willingness to meet the need without measuring the cost.” Few who know him would argue. “I have to remember what God told me when He called me into the ministry: “Paul, go where the line is thinnest.” And so his lifetime walk has been much like his Sunday morning paces—Christian service neither confined to the traditional, nor conformed to the ordinary.

Dr. Morell has been since 1983 senior pastor of the 3000-member First United Methodist Church of Carrollton. The 20 years previously he served as senior pastor of Methodism’s largest inner-city church, Tyler Street United Methodist Church in South Dallas’ Oak Cliff area.

According to UM Bishop Richard Wilke, “Paul has an uncanny sense of what time it is … where the church is, where God has placed him, spiritual needs and hungers. [He has] an awareness of shifting needs and an ability to discern and pursue unique opportunities.” Wilke, noted author of And Are We Yet Alive? and developer of the “Disciple” Bible study program, has been a colleague and friend since 1948 when the two were students at Southern Methodist University.

“Paul has always had an unwavering commitment to family and a commitment to reach the unchurched,” he continues. “Today when bishops are focusing on the local church, it is evident to me that Paul’s entire life has been devoted to generating vitality and power through the local church for missions and ministry. There is no question he has tried to follow Jesus Christ in ministry and in life.”

Wilke’s accolades are well-founded. Along with the energy Brother Paul (as he prefers to be addressed) devotes to his local church, and the priority he puts on being in the pulpit (or rather in front of it) on as many Sundays as possible, he has been a leader in national religious agencies.

He’s a pathfinder of sorts. When he becomes aware of a need and an organization does not exist to address it, he has at times helped begin one himself. Dr. Morell is a founding member of the advisory board of the Institute of Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C., and he has served several years as founding president of World Encounter Gospel Organization (WEGO), based at Tyler Street UM Church.

As executive secretary and founding member of John Wesley Creative Ministries, he helps provide scholarships for Wesleyan seminary students pursuing a doctorate degree. The foundation also financially assists missionaries, including the legendary Columbian missionary Bruce Olsson.

It’s easy to see this man is committed to spreading the Gospel of Christ. Morell remembers what he describes as “a decisive and incisive event” in his call to evangelical ministry. It was the summer of 1948. The Oklahoma district superintendent had asked him to pastor for the “small but wonderful” Wheatland United Methodist Church. “All summer I visited people, played croquet with the older men, worked with the youth, and encouraged those of my age to help me minister. But two weeks before returning to SMU, 95-year-old Mr. Love of the congregation passed away.

“I held the service and afterwards went to the tiny office, took the membership book, and scratched his name from the roll. Suddenly it occurred to me—instead of 95 members, I now had 94. I was going to give back to the bishop and the superintendent a congregation smaller than they had given me. I had been so busy caring for people, but not leading them to Christ. I perceived very clearly that I must always be about the business of evangelism and seeking the unchurched, of saving and recruiting for Christ…otherwise we die.”

In addition to a Master of Sacred Theology degree (cum laude) from Perkins School of Theology, Dr. Morell holds a Master of Arts degree in evangelism. In 1987 he was nominated for the Phillip Award for evangelism in the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Morell’s passion for evangelism extends beyond the U.S. borders. He serves on the executive committee and board of directors for the Mission Society for United Methodists. Earlier he was chairman of Good News’ Evangelical Missions Council. He has promoted mission work and led trips to Panama, Latin America, South and Central America.

“If I had 10 lives, seven of them would be spent on the mission field. Need is everywhere; money is lacking; commitment is better but still in short supply,” Morell says.

“Since I have only one life, I’ll spend it where it ought to be spent, and that’s where I am. I choose to believe I’m where God wants me to be for now—in the local church. Our highest calling is not to hold an office, but to simply be extensions of Christ in our given circumstance.

“Almost every United Methodist minister has to fight the desire to succeed and be applauded by his peers—to be district superintendent, bishop, or pastor of the largest church,” he continues. “I’ve not always been pleased at the level of victory I have achieved overcoming these desires, but I have learned it is more important to be faithful to what is entrusted to us than to abandon ministry for awards our system can give.”

Currently the noted pastor is involved with writing and editing his first book, Living In The Lion’s Den, which he explains, “takes a look at fear, insecurity, failure, grief, guilt, lust, and pride: the lions which tend to devour our life and happiness, and must be tamed.” He names pride a “fierce lion” for most pastors. “It’s so easy for us to feel we do not get what we deserve.” Living In The Lion’s Den is scheduled to be released by Abingdon Press in February of 1992.

Brother Paul describes his ministry as a “pulling of self and resources together toward the objectives God has laid on my heart: evangelizing; being an encourager to others; calling the church leaders to higher accountability than I see being practiced; developing a servant’s heart; doing church planting; and calling church-accountability to Jesus Christ rather than to the esteemed opinions of other educators and philosophers.”

Those who know him might say what is so distinctive about this man is his candor. To him, so many issues are black and white, and he’s nearly fearless about pointing to wrongdoings—even those within the church he loves dearly.

His disagreements with the United Methodist Church are serious and, at times, have provided a less-than-comfortable relationship between him and officers of the denomination. Still he is unwavering in his convictions.

“The churches I’ve pastored in the last 25 years have not always paid their full apportionments,” he reports matter-of-factly. “So many other ministries are so much more effective than those mandated by the United Methodist Church.

“There ought to be priorities by local related schools and other institutions to churches instead of blind payment. Today we live in a forced system. We consider dialogue a virtue, but what we do is minimal and our people give too little.”

With riveting frankness, he continues, citing the “absolute failure of seminaries to do the job the church has entrusted to them; and the inability of our colleges and universities to express strong Christian convictions of morals in faculty and student life.”

He cites the “radical left posture of many of our general boards and agencies.” His tone is steady, his voice never rises, his manner is almost casual as he relates his impressions, which he has obviously long pondered and surrendered to prayer.

“We have not discovered the difference between institutional, liberal, and evangelical effort,” he explains. “The Board of Global Ministries has little conviction that Jesus is the only way. In our mainline denominations, for practical purposes, universalism [the idea that all persons will be saved] is the norm.”

He is grieved by the denomination’s “flirting with homosexuality as a God-approved lifestyle; the hundreds and hundreds of divorced clergy in our denomination; radical feminism; and the absence of evangelism—the lack of concern for those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”

Even with all the church’s obvious blemishes, Morell is hopeful. He looks to the reasonably strong world connection in Methodism and the denomination’s size—“up to two and three times larger than other well-known denominations”—as definite strengths. “We have a good balance historically between head and heart, between vital faith and caring for people in vital ways. Much of the current-day Pentacostalism has its root in the evangelical wing of the Methodist Church of 80 and 100 years ago…we need the spread of scriptural holiness and Pentecostal convictions. Methodism has mild but definite moral and spiritual structures that reflect Catholic origins. Many of the positions and attitudes we hold are compatible with most branches of Christianity.”

His vision for the church is this: “That we be a willing instrument of the Holy Spirit to be used by God for exhibiting what the Kingdom of God truly is; that our institutions promote and expect the kind of moral and social behavior that the scriptures call forth from believers; that we see the church not so much as what it will do for us, but what the members will do for Christ through the church.

“I look forward to the day when the Council of Bishops and the general agencies of the church will spend most of their time, energy, and money, on matters that extend beyond the current leftward social and political agenda… . There are a good number of groups who have joined together, and in their effort to do much good are also doing much harm because they fail to call each other to accountability in matters beyond oppression issues.”

Of society, Morell’s talk is pointed. “We have forgotten how to love and we love not church or state, friend or family, or God. We treat one another as things rather than Christ’s sacred creations. The elderly are often not wanted.”

As is typical of him, Morell doesn’t wait for others to make the changes. He served as founding superintendent of Tyler Street Manor in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. The 14-story home for the elderly, built in 1972, is one of the finest elderly care homes in the Southwest.

He cringes at the lack of care of children he observes from parents and communities…and a “callousness with which so many teachers view their students… . Many, many children are neither loved nor cared for today. They are an inconvenience, an embarrassment to career objectives.”

While at Tyler Street, Dr. Morell helped establish a fully-accredited academy for students in kindergarten through high school. He currently serves as superintendent of the Carrollton Christian Academy, a ministry of the church be pastors. With his support, the academy, which enrolls more than 600 students, has added a junior high school, gained elementary accreditation, and is building a gymnasium and additional classroom and laboratory facilities to provide for expansion through the high school grades by 1993.

In addition, the Carrollton church has opened a Christian Child Care Center to provide for the hundreds of community families needing toddler and before- and after-school care for their children. Dr. Morell’s commitment to family and the church is most evident in the love he shares with his wife, Ann, his three married daughters and their families. They are closer than most families living under the same roof. “We’re all United Methodists together—serving, working, praying… .”

After much discussion of such heavy, heartfelt issues, Paul’s face relaxes as he speaks of his four grandchildren. His eyes widen and his face crinkles in an uncharacteristically lopsided, boyish grin. He takes his role as a grandfather as seriously as the rest. “I try to love them, help them to have a positive image about mankind, Christians, church. I try to challenge them to be their best. I am a pal on one side and an example on the other.”

Only a grandchild could get the distinguished Rev. Dr. Paul Morell to break away from the serious Christian business at hand to host an annual birthday party at a Dallas pizza and game restaurant or take in a baseball game at Arlington stadium.

In the last of the eight or so trips to the Holy Land Brother Paul and Ann have led, the trip of 1988 was perhaps the most memorable. Grandson Rocky, 11, accompanied the couple. “It was a great experience for him and me. It strengthened his faith, gave him insight beyond his years, and continues to help him do his best in all areas of his life.”

Morell gestures proudly to a framed letter hanging behind his desk—a note from Rocky’s teacher expressing how important that experience was to the boy.

And to a grandfather, the cherished memory of the boy’s sweet, clear voice, echoing the words of a German song (his mother taught him) through the Shepherd Caves just outside of Bethlehem makes this pastor’s steps a little lighter as he treads firmly where the lines are thinnest.

Marcia Davis, a freelance writer/photographer and former newspaper reporter/photographer and government information officer, has served as communications specialist to First United Methodist Church, Carrollton, and Carrollton Christian Academy for more than six years.

Archive: What Did the Neighbors Think?

by Steve | Dec 2, 1990 | Archive - 1990

Archive: What Did the Neighbors Think?

Were Nazareth’s backyard gossips abuzz about betrothed Mary’s pregnancy?

By Harold F. Greenlee

A young faculty member, my translator at a Bible seminary in Indonesia, was engaged to be married. I asked him when he planned to marry. He told me his fiancée was a medical school student, and they planned to wed in about a year when she completed her degree. I asked him about the ring he was wearing, which looked to me like a wedding ring.

As we talked, I learned he and his fiancée had signed the government marriage register; legally, they were married. At any time they could begin living together, and if either of them wanted to break the relationship it would require a legal divorce. They planned to have a church wedding and would not live together or consider themselves married until then, but that was by their choice and the custom of the Christian community. The fact remained that they were legally married and could not have been accused of immorality if they began living together—even without the Christian ceremony.

What does this have to do with the birth of Jesus? I believe Mary’s situation has too often been misunderstood because we have tried to apply our culture and customs to the relationship of Mary and Joseph.

Just recently I was reading a discussion about the visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. The writer stated that since Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral home, he doubtless had relatives there, but the relatives probably would not welcome Mary and Joseph because of the questions about the propriety of Mary’s pregnancy. In John 8:41 the Jews retorted, to Jesus, “We were not born of fornication.” William Hendriksen’s commentary, Edward Burton’s commentary (citing the ancient church father Origen), and the 1988 edition of International Standard Bible Encyclopedia suggest that the Jews mentioned may have been implying, “We weren’t born of fornication, but we’re not sure about you (Jesus).”

There has been an American cultural assumption that Mary was merely engaged to be married and wasn’t actually married until she was several months pregnant, and that she, her son Jesus, and (to some extent) her husband Joseph lived under a cloud of suspicion by people who did not believe the story of the virgin birth. I am confident these are totally mistaken views.

Let’s ask some obvious questions as we look at the biblical text.

First, what was Mary’s relationship to Joseph when the angel Gabriel visited her with his amazing announcement? Both Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1:27 say she was betrothed to Joseph, which has often been understood as merely engaged. (This “engagement,” I propose, is very similar to the “engagement” of my Indonesian friend.) Matthew adds, “before they came together” (Matt. 1:18), which in our culture would mean “before they were married,” but which actually means “before they began living together as husband and wife.”

Second, what was Mary’s initial response when the angel Gabriel told her that she would bear a Son? The RSV reads, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (Luke 1:34); the NIV reads, “… since I am a virgin.” The Greek text actually reads, “… since I do not know a man,” meaning, “since I do not have sexual relations with a man.” Mary’s comment does not indicate her legal status; it indicates only that she was not in a sexually-active relationship.

Even if Mary did not need to concern herself with what the neighbors might think, she did have some legitimate concerns. How could she expect Joseph to believe such an incredible story? It is a tribute to her trust in God that she was willing to reply to the angel, “May it be to me as you have said,” and to leave it to God to help Joseph understand.

Third, what was Joseph’s thought when he learned of Mary’s pregnancy? What the text does not say is that Joseph decided to break their engagement; rather, it says, “he decided to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19). A divorce would be necessary because they were bound in marriage.

Fourth, what was the angel’s comment of reassurance to Joseph? The NIV reads, “do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife” (Matt.1:20). This must not be interpreted that Mary was not already his wife; the Greek text does not include the word “as,” but corresponds to the RSV “do not fear to take Mary your wife.” Joseph’s response, according to the NIV, is that he “took Mary home as his wife.” Again, there is no “as” in the Greek text; it reads, as the RSV states, that he “took his wife.” There is no mention of an additional ceremony.

Alfred Adersheim, in his Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 148, says there was a distinction between betrothal and marriage. He immediately adds, however, that from the moment of betrothal the woman was treated as if she were married; that only divorce could dissolve the relationship; that she was guilty of adultery if she were unfaithful; and that her property belonged to her betrothed husband.

In other words, Mary and Joseph were legally married but had not yet begun living together as husband and wife when Mary as a virgin became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. When an angel informed Joseph in a dream of Mary’s condition, he believed the angel and took Mary to his home. If any of the neighbors noticed Mary was pregnant, they would not have suspected impropriety; they knew the couple had been married for some time. Mary’s condition wouldn’t have been too obvious to the community in any case because Mary soon went into the hill country for three months to visit her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-40,56).

Special feasts marking the beginning of a marriage are mentioned in the gospels: e.g., Matt.9:15 and parallels, Matt. 25:1-13, and John 2. There is, however, no mention of such a feast in the case of Mary and Joseph. I believe we can conclude that not all marriages were celebrated with a feast. If it is legitimate to look back so far, there is no record of any special ceremony for the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen.24:67), although there is perhaps one for Jacob’s unwitting marriage to Leah (Gen.29:22)—which, however, evidently served for his marriage to Rachel a week later as well (Gen.29:27-28).

It is important to understand that no slightest hint of impropriety—much less of immorality—could have been permitted in the carrying out of the birth of Christ, upon whose life, death, and resurrection the whole plan of redemption depended. Deut.23:2, for example, forbids participation in the Lord’s assembly by a person of illegitimate birth or by any of his descendants to the tenth generation. If there had been any such suspicion, Jesus would have had no possibility of being accepted by the common people. (See Mark 6:2-3 and John 7:46.)

After all, if God had wished Jesus to have no human father what were the possibilities? He could have chosen a virgin who was not betrothed, or a widow  who would have been willing to have a baby and be known as a “single mother” (always insisting that her baby bad no human father). In both cases the baby would have been deprived of the important presence of a father in the home, and the mother would have been in danger of punishment under the Jewish law. As for the son, any claim he might make or any good he might do would be rejected as coming from a man of illegitimate birth.

God could have chosen a woman already married and living with her husband. It would not, then, have been a “virgin birth,” but it could have been a birth by the Holy Spirit without a human father. The nature of the birth, then, could have been kept secret (as in the case of Mary) until the appropriate time. But how could even the mother and her husband be sure that there was no earthly father for the baby?

The only other possibility, it would seem, was what God actually did: he chose a pure young woman, betrothed and legally married to a godly young man, but who had not yet had any sexual contact with her husband. In this situation the baby could be conceived by the Holy Spirit. The husband could receive his wife but have no sexual relations with her until her baby was born. Until the proper time to reveal the miraculous story, perhaps no one except the mother and her husband would have the slightest indication that there was anything unusual about the birth. There would be no cloud of suspicion on mother, husband, or child.

Who, then, knew about the virgin birth of Jesus? I am convinced that until years later no one knew or even suspected that there was anything unusual about the birth of Jesus except Joseph and Mary themselves.

Is it possible that Mary shared her secret with her cousin Elizabeth? Scripture seems to indicate that Elizabeth recognized through divine inspiration that Mary’s baby was someone special when, in Luke 1:43 she cried, “Why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Even so, how could Mary have possibly expected Elizabeth to believe this baby had been conceived before Mary and Joseph had had any intimate relationship? No, I do not believe even Elizabeth had any hint that this baby was anything other than the child of Joseph and Mary.

Did Jesus Himself know the secret of His birth? In His divine nature He could presumably know everything. In His human nature, however, Mary hardly could have expected even Him to believe such a remarkable story. Possibly she may have felt she should share the story with Him after she had seen His miracles and knew He was not a mere man.

When did the followers of Jesus learn about His miraculous birth? The only two gospels which refer to his birth refer to it as a birth from a virgin mother. The fact that the Apostle Paul makes no specific mention of the Virgin Birth—his comment that Jesus was “made from a woman,” as Gal.4:4 literally says may or may not hint at it—is of no special significance; its implications were not central to his arguments.

Perhaps Mary felt free to tell the disciples the miraculous story during the days of prayer and sharing in the Upper Room. By that time, it was clear that Jesus was truly the Son of God. The memory of His wonderful teachings, of the miracles He had performed, and of His supernatural resurrection were making their impact on His followers. Mary may have felt that only at this point could she be believed.

I do not know when Mary shared her remarkable story. We can see, though, to the Jewish community there was nothing unusual about the birth of Jesus.

So let us have done with the thought that Mary and Jesus lived under a cloud of suspicion by any of their contemporaries—believers or unbelievers. God fitted His miraculous plan for the birth of Jesus into a situation which would provoke no doubts concerning the integrity of Mary, Joseph, or Jesus. It would seem to our human reasoning that only in this way could God’s great plan have been implemented with no unnecessary or reasonable doubts.

Dr. J. Harold Greenlee is a missionary of OMS International on loan to Wycliffe Bible Translators. He is the author of several books, including A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, and Scribes, Scrolls and Scriptures.