by Steve | Jan 16, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: Bishops Back UMC Moral Standards
Responding to efforts by some groups to liberalize United Methodism’s stance against homosexuality, United Methodist bishops issued a statement in Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, November 19 calling for high moral standards.
During its semiannual sessions, the Council of Bishops also reminded church members that only the General Conference, not the general boards and agencies, speaks officially for the denomination.
Their “statement of concern” was prepared in response to a presidential address given early in the international body’s week-long meeting by Bishop Earl G. Hunt Jr., Lakeland, Florida. Bishop Hunt urged colleagues to lead the church in warfare against evil, beginning with racism and sexual immorality.
The church’s official stance on homosexuality as found in the 1984 Book of Discipline acknowledges that “homosexual persons, no less than heterosexual persons, are individuals of sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance of the church” and that their civil rights should be ensured. However, the statement adds, “we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Other sections prohibit the use of United Methodist funds by “any ‘gay’ caucus or group” or “to promote the acceptance of homosexuality,” and ban the ordination or appointment of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.”
The homosexual issue has heated up in recent weeks as official and unofficial groups within the denomination have announced proposals they will take to General Conference in St. Louis April 26-May 6. These include deletion of language condemning the practice of homosexuality and prohibiting ordination of homosexuals.
Noting “this very volatile and controversial issue facing our church and society,” the Council of Bishops called on all United Methodists to “join with us in being faithful to the standards, fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness, which have been adopted through the struggles of our covenant community of faith over the years.
“At the same time,” the bishops continued, “we call on United Methodists to exercise the utmost pastoral sensitivity and gracious understanding as we seek to maintain high moral standards and to discuss in a good spirit issues of human sexuality.”
In his address, Bishop Hunt said, “I believe the intercession of episcopal leadership on this issue is warranted because of the involvement of basic principles of historic Christian teaching. I also raise the matter in this setting because I believe the church’s response to serious overtures for radical change in our present positions rising from the proposals now being generated could affect substantively the unity of United Methodism in the next quadrennium.”
The bishop cautioned against compromise saying, “Our collegiality with friends and coworkers who favor a more liberal perspective on human sexuality has often made us reluctant to voice convictions which might offend them, and so we have risked becoming unintentional accomplices in the perpetration of a monstrous and fatal compromise.” He added, “Mere endorsement of ‘safe sex’ is an incalculably weak position to be assumed by a church dedicated to the promulgation of high moral principles and fundamental Christian values. Our worldwide community of Christian believers has a right to expect far more of us.”
He said a statement from the bishops is needed to assure the church that “we will never surrender to the pressures of articulate and persistent groups who propose to write a new chapter for Christian sexual ethics quite apart from the total impact of Scripture and ecclesiastical history … when those people represent only a small contingency in United Methodism.”
Calling for retention of language now in the Book of Discipline, Bishop Hunt said it provides balance between “clear, historic Christian principles and insistence upon all-embracing Christian pastoral compassion and love.”
Bishop Hunt said the potential for divisiveness around the issue of homosexuality is “monumental.”
“Methodism in the 1840s was ruptured by differing views about human slavery,” he said. “It could be that our church in the 1980s must decide if radically differing views on human sexuality will be allowed to rupture it again.”
On the second “evil,” Bishop Hunt called racism “the most disgraceful scandal in United Methodism.”
“The long trains of change seem to be lumbering to a halt in the North as well as the South,” he said. “The latent, inbred racism of my generation of whites … has begun to move in upon our moral exhaustion and bring once more the discouraging specter of satisfaction with the status quo.”
He called on the bishops to take the lead in arresting this “ominous development.” Battle lines within the church, he said, are open itinerancy (bishops’ appointment of pastors to churches regardless of race), ministerial recruitment and stronger clergy leadership in predominantly ethnic minority congregations.
Ethnic quotas in national and regional church organizations have taken leaders from local ministry to “more glamorous and often better-paid positions,” he said.
“Satisfying quotas at the expense of the very constituency such quotas were designed to protect is grotesquely self-defeating.”
In closing, Bishop Hunt said, “we bishops … must lead vigorously in converting or ‘turning around’ the mind of United Methodism to a fully Christian view on the issue of race and to a creative use of the principle of open itinerancy.
“Likewise we must not fear to try to sway the mind of the modern world toward a philosophy of human sexuality that will honor Scripture and civilized tradition as well as safeguard the integrity of the family and the health of the human race.”
About 90 bishops attended the meeting November 16-20. The council includes 46 active bishops in the United States, 15 from overseas, and about 50 retirees.
The council agreed to address the issue of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) at its next meeting, saying, “increasingly, United Methodists will be exposed or touched in some way by the effects of this disease.”
The body also commended Soviet and U.S. leaders for their efforts to negotiate elimination of intermediate-range nuclear forces and to cut by 50 percent strategic nuclear weapons. The bishops designated December 6 as a special day of prayer across the church about these negotiations.
The council heard from several study commissions that will report to the 1988 General Conference. A full evening was given to a critique of a report from a commission charged with studying ministry.
The next meeting of the council will be held in Kansas City, Missouri, immediately preceding the General Conference in St. Louis.
by Steve | Jan 14, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: Does God Have A Detailed Plan For Your Life?
What is the relationship between God’s will and your decisions? Here are two viewpoints
Yes
By Leslie and Bernice Flynn
A survey taken at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport asked, “Do you know God has a plan for your life?” More than 90 percent of those answering said they were not aware of this. Yet just as God led Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Peter and Paul, or nearer to our time, William Carey, David Livingstone, George Muller and D. L. Moody, so today He is able to guide us.
The possibility of doing God’s will is implied in a verse like “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. 12:50, KJV).
The Bible abounds in promises of God’s guidance, such as “I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shall go; I will guide thee with Mine eye,” (Ps. 32:8, KJV) and the well-known Proverbs 3:6, “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”
Scripture cites people who were led by the Lord, including the Israelites through the wilderness (Ps. 136:16), David (Ps. 16:7), Paul (Acts 22:14) and, supremely, Christ (John 5:30).
The Bible’s precepts command that we “prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2, KJV). Paul wrote, “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17, KJV). James rebuked those who made plans while disregarding the will of God (4:13-15). Many times Paul indicated he wanted to plan his schedule according to the divine will (Rom. 1:10; 15:32; I Cor. 4:19, 16:7).
Frequent prayers were made for divine light, both for the petitioner and for others. The Psalmist prayed that the Colossians would be “filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col. 1:9, KJV).
Overwhelming evidence shows that God has a plan for His children’s lives. But how can He communicate His will to us? For example, in today’s working world, there are more than 35,000 job titles. How may a person discover which job God wants him to pursue?
The three major resources for making decisions in accordance with His will are: the Bible above, the burden within and the bearings without; or to restate: the divine command, the inner call and the outer circumstances.
The Bible Above
Large areas of life are already outlined for us with guidance that is clear and unclouded by ambiguity. In these matters we need not pray, wonder, nor waver in a moral tug-of-war. We never need to seek the leading of the Lord about any subject on which the Scripture already has a command.
A respected Sunday school teacher confided in a friend that she was having an extramarital affair with a married deacon, then added, “But this isn’t some cheap affair you read about. This is different. You see, his wife doesn’t understand him, and our love is from God!” But God had already written, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14, KJV). The Bible makes it plain that it is wrong to cheat, steal, lie, gossip, commit fornication, murder or covet. The moral will of God is expressed in the Ten Commandments (Rom. 2: 18).
The Burden Within
How does the Spirit guide us? Often by inward impelling. By affecting our mental processes. By putting impressions into our thinking. By energizing our minds toward some task. By stressing the urgency of some course of action. By pointing to some need. By jogging our memories. By stirring our imaginations. The compelling, insistent desire to study law, medicine or architecture, or the strong propensity to follow a certain course may well be the Spirit’s voice within. Nehemiah wrote, “God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy” (7:5, KJV). Sometimes the inner call is so insistent that it seems like a real voice.
The Holy Spirit does work by inner urges; that doesn’t mean every compulsion is from God. John Wesley warned, “Do not hastily ascribe things to God. Do not easily suppose dreams, voices, impressions, visions, or revelations to be from God. They may be from Him, they may be from nature, they may be from the devil. Therefore, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be from God.”
Here are some tests for discerning whether the inner voice is the Holy Spirit.
- The true inner voice must be in agreement with Scripture.
- The true inner voice asks nothing irrational.
- The true inner voice will be unrelenting and persistent.
- The true inner voice will find outer confirmation.
The Bearings Without
God uses circumstances to guide us along the way. Things don’t just happen. Coincidence is mindless fortuity or patternless chance, whereas circumstances forge a coherent chain in the purpose of God who “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” and “for good to them that love” Him (Eph. I: 11; Rom. 8:28, KJV).
But some people tend to make circumstances 95 percent of their guidance. Such overemphasis on circumstances can be dangerous. Just as a closed door does not always indicate God’s will, neither does an open door always confirm divine guidance.
When King Saul was pursuing David and learned he was nearby, he wrongly concluded it was God’s will for him to kill David (I Sam. 23:7).
Later, when David came upon Saul sleeping, David’s general suggested that God had delivered the enemy into David’s hand to kill, but David refused to let this set of circumstances dictate the murder of Saul (I Sam. 26:7-9).
Decisions should not be based on clever coincidences. To dream of an airplane, then to wake up to a phone call from an old friend in California, does not indicate God’s leading for a trip west. Someone called this the “simultaneous experience” approach. If a fellow gets a letter from a girl right after praying for a mate, this does not mean she is God’s choice for him. Although circumstances can affirm God’s will, they should not be relied on totally—especially when the end result is contrary to Biblical principles.
Circumstances should always be tested against the Word of God. Apart from the Bible, circumstantial evidence can be misread.
To know God’s individual will, look first to the Word and the Spirit; they are the prime pointers of God’s leading. But usually circumstances ultimately fall in place, like the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle.
A major circumstance that often determines God’s direction is the task at hand. True guidance is never contrary to plain duty. One man testified that the best advice he ever received was, “Do the next thing.” He said this procedure was especially helpful when he didn’t know God’s will in a situation.
You ask: “What’s the will of God?”
Well, here’s the answer true:
“The nearest thing, that should be done,
That He can do—through you!”
—E. C. Baird
A believer from Africa reported to a North American church about the spread of the Gospel on his continent. A member of the congregation approached him. “I’ve been thinking that perhaps I should serve the Lord in Africa myself.”
The African asked, “What are you doing to serve the Lord here in your country?”
“Not much of anything,” came the reply.
“Then, please,” countered the African, “don’t go to Africa to do it.”
The will of God may be the undramatic and often monotonous repetition of daily tasks. A daughter whose duty was to do the dishes after the evening meal would not be doing the Lord’s will by dillydallying awhile, then running off to youth Bible Study, and neglecting the assigned job.
God’s will is first things first. For the student it’s that assignment. For the office worker, it may be tedious clerical work. For a mechanic, doing a good repair job on the next car. For the housewife, getting meals, doing housework and taking care of the children. For all of us, it’s throwing the covers off and getting our feet on the floor when the alarm goes off. The doing of first things first leads to the next step, and the next, with God’s will progressively unfolding.
To know God’s will for us we should also seek the counsel of friends. The Lord should speak to others on mutual matters. Dr. Paul Little said, “I get very suspicious of people who come with very pious and spiritual language, telling me that God has led them to do some wild, outlandish thing, and nobody else had gotten the message. Undoubtedly, God may in rare instances guide us in a way that is totally contrary to the thinking of equally committed Christians, but I think it would be the rare exception rather than the rule.”
In conclusion, God has an individual will for our lives. To make decisions in accordance with His will entails that we consider the Word from above, the call from within and circumstances from without (which at times means simply doing the task at hand), and that we seek wise counsel.
Leslie Flynn is pastor of Grace Conservative Baptist Church in Nanuet, New York. He is the author of God’s Will: You Can Know It, from which this article is excerpted by his permission (published by Victor Books, 1979).
NO
By Garry Friesen with J. Robin Maxon
Does God have a specific will for every detail of a person’s life? Traditionally evangelicals have believed that He does have an ideal plan (individual will) uniquely designed for each believer.
It is my contention, by contrast, that the idea of God having an individual will is not found in Scripture. If I am right, the most startling ramification is that many believers are investing a great deal of time and energy searching for a specific plan (or “dot”) that is nonexistent.
In seminars that I have conducted on the subject of God’s will, people with whom I have talked have readily admitted they have often been unsure of God’s individual will before making decisions. Furthermore, a good number have testified they are never 100 percent certain of God’s individual will. Of course if there is no individual will to be found, this common experience can be easily explained.
There was a time, though, when such confessions were few and far between. Before I began my study of God’s will many years ago, I was convinced that everyone else was successful in finding this “dot” that so often eluded me. Whenever someone gave a testimony of God’s specific detailed guidance of which they were 100 percent certain, I would nod my head along with everyone else. I never stood up to testify that I had a hard time finding God’s will all the time. No one else did either. We all listened to the testimony and said to ourselves, “Yes, that is the way it should be.” We sincerely believed that our frustrations in finding the “dot” must have been the result of sin or insincerity in our hearts. For we continually heard, “God will always clearly reveal His will to the sincere seeker.”
One woman who adopted an alternative position to the traditional view of the “dots,” said that when she did, she began enjoying her Christian life for the first time. In her sincerity to seek God’s individual will, she had been continually plagued with feelings of guilt as well as frustration. She earnestly looked for indications of God’s plan, but she had to admit to herself that she was never 100 percent certain that she had found it. The result was feelings of anxiety before every decision, and feelings of guilt following every choice. Since life is filled with decisions that must be made, she was not able to enjoy her Christian life. When she learned that “finding the dot” was not the essence of Christian decision making, she was set free from the frustration and guilt. In their place, she found the joy that she knew Christians were supposed to have in Christ.
The idea that God has an individual will for our lives will either be liberating or unsettling. But in either case, the believer has a mandate to evaluate the Biblical data.
Let’s consider the Scripture passages most often quoted by the traditional view as teaching an individual will. For the person who assumes that God has an individual will for each life, each of these passages will, upon first reading, appear to confirm that presupposition. However, in most cases study will show it is more likely the writer is referring, instead, to the moral will[1] of God. We expect, then, that these key passages will not prove an individual will of God for each person; rather a stronger case can be made for understanding them in terms of the moral will of God.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5-6).
Usually, it is the King James Version that is noted, for the translation ” … and He shall direct thy paths” gives a vivid picture of personal leading according to an individual plan.
Hebrew lexicons and commentaries on the Psalms and Proverbs agree that the correct translation of Proverbs 3:6b is: “… and He shall make your paths straight, (or) smooth, (or) successful.” The noun “path” is frequently employed in the Psalms and Proverbs. But it does not have the idea of an individual will of God. Hebrew writers use it to describe the general course or fortunes of life (see Proverbs 4:18-19; 15:19). When the verb “make straight, make smooth” is connected with the noun “paths,” the meaning of the statement is, “He shall make the course of your life successful.” This meaning is clearly indicated in Proverbs 11:5: “The righteousness of the blameless will smooth his way, but the wicked will fall by his own wickedness.” This verse contrasts the righteous man who experiences true success in life with the wicked man who brings trouble upon himself by his own devious behavior. This is a common theme in Proverbs (4:18-19; 11:5; 15:19; 22:17-21).
The point of Proverbs 3:5-6, then, is that those who trust God, and trust in His wisdom rather than their own worldly understanding, and acknowledge God in each part of their life, will reap a life that is successful by God’s standards. This understanding fits the larger context precisely. Proverbs 3: 1-10 is a series of two-verse couplets. Each couplet describes the internal or external blessings which come to the person who acknowledges God. A summary of each couplet would look like this:
Keep my commandments and have long days and peace (1-2).
Keep kindness and truth and find favor and good repute (3-4).
Trust in the Lord and He will make the course of your life successful (5-6).
Fear the Lord and it will bring healing to your body (7-8).
Honor the Lord with your wealth and your barns will be filled with plenty (9-10).
The way one acknowledges God in all his ways is by believing and obeying the Law of God rather than trusting and following man’s finite, worldly philosophy for success and happiness. With this elucidation of the writer’s meaning it can be seen that Proverbs 3:5-6 is not dealing with specific guidance into an individual “path” marked out by God. This fact is confirmed by Dr. Bruce Waltke.
All of us have had the shock of discovering that a favorite verse in the King James Version was inaccurate, and hence that we had been led into an inauthentic experience. I recall the astonishment of one of the committee members assigned to translate the Book of Proverbs for the New International Version when he discovered that Proverbs 3:5[-6] had nothing to say about guidance. He had taken as his life text: “In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths.” But when confronted with the linguistic data he had to admit reluctantly that the verse more properly read ” … and He will make your path smooth.”
The true intent of Proverbs 3:5-6 is to set forth a pattern to be followed to experience true success in life-a pattern in which one demonstrates his trust and obedience to God by following the directions of God’s moral will.
“I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go; I will counsel you with My eye upon you” (Psalm 32:8).
In the King James Version, the second clause is translated: “I will guide thee with mine eye.” The verb translated “guide” has the sense of “counsel” as it is rendered by the New American Standard Bible above. Such counsel is given in the form of instruction and teaching which represents a kind of guidance. The traditional view understands the speaker to be the Lord who is promising specific guidance in a particular “way”—i.e., the individual will of God.
The speaker could be God. But some respected commentators believe that it is David himself who is speaking. The reason for such an idea stems from the relation that Psalm 32 bears to Psalm 51. Psalm 51 is a prayer for forgiveness and restoration offered by David after his sin with Bathsheba was exposed by God’s prophet. In that prayer, David promised that if God forgave him, he would teach transgressors God’s way (Psalm 51:10-13). Psalm 32 records David’s response when he received word that God’s forgiveness had been granted. What David had promised in Psalm 51:13, he fulfilled in Psalm 32:8.
Again, the “way which you should go” refers to the course of life one should follow. This is the way of righteous living which the Law revealed and David taught.* Even if God is viewed as the speaker, He is seen teaching His way of righteousness. This customary usage fits the context, so an individual will is not in view.
Virtually all commentators struggle with the last phrase “with My eye upon you.” The best explanation seems to be that David is giving counsel to sinners as his eye of concern is upon them.
In all likelihood, if the word “guide” had not been used in the rendering of the King James Version, this verse would never have been used in presentations on guidance. For it is simply reiterating the message of so many other Old Testament passages that describe instruction in the life of righteousness provided by the Law, the moral will of God.
These are just a few examples of Scripture that can have alternative interpretations. With these, we see the possibility that the Bible does not teach that God has an individual will for each person.
If we are to conclude, then, that God does not have a unique plan specifically outlined for each of us, are we to further conclude that God does not provide guidance? Are we to cease looking to Him for help in making decisions? Of course not. On the contrary, His Word establishes four principles by which we can make decisions according to God’s will.
1. The principle of obedience: In those areas specifically addressed by the Bible, the revealed commands and principles of God (His moral will) are to be obeyed.
2. The principle of freedom: In those areas where the Bible gives no command or principle (non-moral decisions), the believer is free and responsible to choose his course of action. Any decision made within the moral will of God is acceptable to God.
3. The principle of wisdom: In nonmoral decisions, the goal of the believer is to make wise decisions on the basis of spiritual expediency.
4. The principle of humility: In all decisions, the believer should humbly accept, in advance, the outworking of God’s sovereign will as it touches each decision.
Garry Friesen former Bible professor at Multnomah School of the Bible, is currently pursuing short-term missions work. J. Robin Maxson is head pastor at United Evangelical Free Church in Clamath Falls, Oregon. This excerpt is from the book Decision Making & the Will of God by Garry Friesen with J. Robin Maxson, copyright 1980 by Multnomah Press. Published by Multnomah Press, Portland, Oregon 97266. And Principles for Decision Making by Garry Friesen with J. Robin Maxson, copyright 1984 by Multnomah Press. Published by Multnomah Press, Portland, Oregon 97266.
Notes
1. Frances Brown. S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, s. v. ” “. See also: C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. 8. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1950). vol. 6: Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Song of Solomon, by F. Delitzsch. trans. by M. G. Easton, p. 232.
2. Bruce K. Waltke. “Dogmatic Theology and Relative Knowledge.” CRUX 15. no. I (March 1979).
3. Keil and Delitzsch. Commentary on Old Testament. Vol. 2: Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. by F. Delitzsch. trans. by Francis Bolton. p. 398; Joseph Addison Alexander. The Psalms: Translated and Explained (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1975). p. 139.
[1] God’s moral will may be defined as the commands and principles which God has revealed in the Bible to teach how we ought to believe and live.
by Steve | Jan 13, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: Tipp City Turnaround
By Cynthia D. Lanning
Ginghamsburg UMC boasts eight times the attendance it had eight years ago
The church growth strategies at Ginghamsburg United Methodist Church in Tipp City, Ohio, sound like prescriptions for failure. Prospective members must first attend an orientation session, followed by a 16-session membership training class with heavy homework assignments. No wonder that of the 40 to 50 people who attend each quarter’s membership training classes, only about 26 decide to actually join the church.
None of this bothers pastor Mike Slaughter. “Membership is not the goal; discipleship is,” he explains. “We care more about them than names on a roster.” He believes people can rush into church membership like an unwise marriage. In contrast, his flock is challenged, and people join only after counting the high cost of discipleship.
Nevertheless, people in this north-Dayton suburb are responding to that challenge in droves. Unlike most United Methodist churches where weekly attendance is a fraction of actual membership, at Ginghamsburg some 700 people attend Sunday services despite a membership of only 400. About 20 first-time families attend each week.
But things weren’t always that way. Rev. Slaughter remembers his first Sunday at Ginghamsburg, his second appointment after graduating from Asbury Seminary. (His first appointment was to Anderson Hills United Methodist Church in eastern Cincinnati, where he was youth minister to 200 teenagers.) On his first Sunday as senior (and only) pastor, 118 people showed up to inspect the new young preacher. He remembers realizing that this congregation was smaller than the youth group he had led at Anderson Hills.
The next Sunday was even bleaker as the church slid back into its pattern of 70 to 90 people attending each Sunday.
Undaunted, Rev. Slaughter began inviting people from the church into his home on Wednesday nights. Using the Bible and classics such as Basic Christianity by John Stott and The Problem with Wineskins by Howard Snyder, Rev. Slaughter wrote a “Basic Christianity” curriculum to help people learn who Christ is and understand gifts and their place in the church. (The membership/discipleship course Ginghamsburg uses today is based on that original course, with refinements and additions made by those who have taught it in the years since.) He also began inviting youth into his home for similar discipleship training.
Lynn and Diane Kubal joined that first small group in Rev. Slaughter’s home. “I had been wandering around for 40 years thinking I was a Christian but wasn’t. We knew something was missing,” says Lynn. Today Lynn and his wife, Diane, who is Ginghamsburg’s full-time staff person in charge of adult ministry, lead the rigorous “Basic Christianity” course.
Class members are asked to make a personal decision for Christ in the fifth session of the course, after the groundwork has been laid. Lynn believes this emphasis on discipleship has spurred the church’s remarkable growth. “The Holy Spirit is there to guide us, but if people aren’t obedient, the work won’t get done.”
The Kubals have just begun videotaping the “Basic Christianity” course so people who miss one of the 16 sessions can make it up. The videotapes also help the course leaders learn names and faces more quickly.
A ”Real Mixed Bag” Church
Today, the Ginghamsburg United Methodist Church is what Rev. Slaughter calls, “a real mixed bag … it’s what a church has to be to grow. We’ve not claimed any handle.” Christians who consider themselves evangelical, charismatic, liturgical or doctrinal in orientation feel comfortable at Ginghamsburg. The church’s three Sunday morning worship services have not assumed different flavors. Instead, a wide variety of people attend each service—some in blue jeans, some in shirts and ties, some with uplifted hands, some holding hands. “We’re going from a real Wesleyan model, reaching out to make disciples,” says Rev. Slaughter. “We are more of a witness to the world if we can love each other in our differences.”
An Unlikely “Super-Preacher”
Rev. Slaughter is a friendly type who would rather slip a witness for Christ into a conversation about cars than accost his listener with ultimatums. He doesn’t write people off, perhaps because he remembers how far he once strayed from the path.
Although he grew up in a “traditional Methodist Church,” his senior year in high school found him living anything but a committed Christian lifestyle. Three days before graduation his grades were so low he almost didn’t get his diploma. Only because a teacher changed an “F” to a “D” at the last minute was he allowed to graduate. He was in a rock group when two of his fellow band members were busted for drugs. Who wouldn’t have given up on the young Mike Slaughter?
But he says that God was dealing with him during that time. “I began to search. I had no direction, no purpose, no self-esteem.” Although his family’s church was not evangelical, he did know enough about the Bible to turn to it for answers, and accepted Christ over a period of time. “I went from darkness to light,” he explains.
He attended the University of Cincinnati the next year, and the former “F” student earned a 3.4 grade point average his first quarter. After graduating magna cum laude, he entered Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, upon the advice of a woman in his church. “Asbury was a breath of fresh air,” he recalls.
A Vision in a Field
Rev. Slaughter says he always felt God had a special plan for Ginghamsburg, even before he began his ministry there. “I had a vision while standing in the field behind the church that God had a special plan,” he recalls. “I don’t want this to be a ‘successful’ church but to be the Body of Christ, a place where lives are radically changed through Christ and people are sent out to win others.” This is the legacy he coveted for his church.
At Ginghamsburg the emphasis on discipleship extends to every age level. A separate full-time staff person oversees children’s, youth and adult ministries. Last year more than 350 people participated in week-long camping experiences for families, kids, teens and adults, which the Ginghamsburg staff plans.
Rev. Slaughter wants his church’s members to have three points of contact with the church: (1) worship/ learning, (2) small groups for personal growth and (3) opportunities for ministry/serving.
Ginghamsburg UMC helps meet people’s needs and then works to move them into the life of the church. The church doesn’t want to be caught unaware by changes in society. For example, statistics indicate that by 1990 half of the adult population will be single. Therefore, the next staff members they plan to hire will minister to unmarried persons.
Rev. Slaughter says the church should be “a place where people should be able to dream God’s dream by seeing burning bushes.” He suggests the church should then “throw gasoline on those burning bushes. Too many churches are throwing water on those fires instead.”
Spirit-filled preaching has definitely contributed to the church’s growth. “He’s got to be the easiest teacher to listen to,” says Jackie Allen. “He includes history in his sermons and doesn’t talk down to you.”
This unconventional United Methodist Church continues to grow, even though it has no evangelism committee. “We never got around to it,” Rev. Slaughter explains. In 1979 about 90 people attended worship service, with 60 in Sunday school. Today some 700 people attend its three services and 520 come to its Sunday school. In 1979 the entire budget was $27,000; today it is just under $500,000. Rev. Slaughter remembers when the church had only one phone line; today it has four. Often all four lines are in use, and he has to wait to make calls. If only all churches could have such problems!
Getting the Attention of Unchurched People
Ginghamsburg UMC aggressively seeks new members from among the unchurched by its contemporary style of service, its many community outreach programs and even by its snappy paid advertisements (prepared by ad agency employees in the church) in local newspapers. The exciting happenings have even attracted news reporters from local papers. For example, the Dayton daily paper ran a large article with photos headlined “The Little Church That Could.”
First-time visitors receive a personal letter from the pastor. Later they receive an invitation from assistant pastor Rev. Tom Sager to attend the monthly orientation meeting.
Ginghamsburg is going to start a policy of delivering a tin of cookies to all first-time visitors the week after they attend with a brief “we’re glad you’re here—call me if you have any questions” message. The church is also thinking of beginning 5:30 p.m. Saturday or Sunday night worship for people who don’t attend Sunday morning services. And if a congregation member misses three Sundays, someone from the church contacts him’ or her.
Growing Pains
One drawback to this growth, Rev. Slaughter has discovered, is that it is now impossible for him to know every person who attends worship services. He tells about a time he stopped to put gas in his car, and someone came up to him and said they enjoyed last Sunday’s sermon. Rey. Slaughter realized with a pang that he didn’t know that person. “But the important thing is that someone does,” he observes.
Rev. Slaughter has contact with his staff and key leaders in the church, who in turn oversee the various small groups. “That small group leader is their minister,” he notes.
The Value of a Free Pulpit
Has a dynamic pastor who is outspoken about his literal Biblical beliefs been hassled by the United Methodist hierarchy? Rev. Slaughter says he has not. He is “excited about the freedom the United Methodist Church gives us to be Christians. We lose the prophetic right to be pastors if we try to tow denominational lines. Our obedience is to Christ.”
Ginghamsburg has had strong support from its district superintendent, the West Ohio Annual Conference, and its bishop, including the financial support the church has needed to grow. “I’m under appointment, like anyone else. I’m accountable, and I like that,” says Rev. Slaughter. He observes that some large, loosely-structured, non-UM churches don’t have that sense of accountability and therefore have lost integrity. “The United Methodist Church allows a lot of freedom for revival to take place at the local church level,” Rev. Slaughter continues.
People from United Methodist backgrounds are glad to find their spiritual needs met so well in a UM church. “We were looking for a dynamic, Bible-based learning and growth experience,” says Bill McGraw. “We discovered it here. We were taught to love and be loved. At first we had a hard time adjusting to the style of worship (I was used to the pipe organ)—the praise songs instead of traditional hymns, clapping hands, people praying instead of just the preacher.”
Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Jones are also life-time United Methodist. “We were looking for a church that really was excited about the Gospel. We became misfits wherever we were,” says Clarence. “In most churches there isn’t enough leadership and small groups foster leadership.” The Jones’ also support Good News. “The renewal movement is slow,” he notes, “but people who drop out have no right to criticize. You have to stay [in the UMC] to have an effect.”
Saying Goodbye to the Little Church by the Side of the Road
Not all churches would welcome this kind of growth. Rev. Slaughter estimates that maybe 25 of the original 90 church-goers left when the church began to expand. “Some wanted it to stay the little church by the side of the road,” he remembers. The defectors had no trouble finding many churches that fit that description.
Is there any limit to how large a church should grow? In Rev. Slaughter’s opinion, no, “as long as there are lost people. A church dies when it quits reproducing new cells.”
Not surprisingly, Rev. Slaughter is now frequently asked to speak about church growth around the country. What is surprising is his message: “People shouldn’t judge value by size. They say, ‘We’re OK because we’re big.’ We were OK when we were only 90 people. We can plan; God causes the growth.”
Cynthia Lanning is a free-lance writer in Cincinnatti, Ohio.
by Steve | Nov 10, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Why the Church has Declined
The diagnosis is grim, but there’s hope for recovery
By Ken Kinghorn
A story is making the rounds in Moscow. It’s about two workmen with shovels, one of whom stops every 20 feet to dig a hole, his companion fills it up, and they repeat the process.
“Comrade,” shouts an observer. “What are you doing? You dig a hole, then the other fellow fills it. You accomplish nothing. We’re wasting money paying you!”
“You don’t understand,” one of the workers replies. “Usually we work with a third fellow, Mikhail, but he’s home drunk today. I dig the hole, Mikhail sticks in a tree and Dimitri here puts the dirt back in the hole. Just because Mikhail is drunk doesn’t mean that Dimitri and I have to stop working!”
Success in any venture requires properly focused objectives. Athletic teams know they cannot win games unless they move in the right direction, coordinate their efforts—and regularly score points. Without a proper objective firmly in our minds, our work will not lead to worthwhile results.
Christian work uniquely involves spiritual objectives. Christ mandated the church’s primary mission—winning persons to Christ and nurturing them in Christian discipleship (Matt. 28:19, 20). And the unique nature of this mission requires the church to rely on divine assistance. Jesus stated, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).
Decline does not have its roots in outer circumstances, such as unfavorable sociological or demographical trends. Decline in the church results from substituting human plans for divine direction and enabling. When Christian organizations neglect their God-given objectives and fail to rely on divine empowering, they eventually decline—first spiritually, then institutionally. However, the process of decline seldom happens instantly. It unfolds incrementally in the following stages.
1. A failure to seek God’s direction results in the silence of God. A Quaker woman once asked a young man, “Hast thou heard God speak lately?” “No,” replied the young man, “I have not.” The woman commented, “Thee must have forgotten to be still and listen.” When we do not ask for God’s direction, we do not receive it. And if persons or organizations persistently fail to seek divine guidance, they miss the Lord’s way (I Sam. 16:14; 28:6; Ps. 81:11,12; Isa. 59:2; Ezek. 39:21-24; Hos. 10:13).
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, theological liberalism sought to develop new wineskins for communicating Christianity to secular culture. Liberal theologians wanted to mediate “abiding values through changing categories.”[1] This quest was legitimate, because, in the period after the Civil War, fresh statements of the Gospel were needed. However, in its extensive reconstruction of Christian doctrine, theological liberalism embraced many of the secular views of the very culture it wanted to address.
Near the end of his career, Henry Van Dusen, himself a champion of liberal theology, admitted that the fundamental flaw of liberalism was an uncritical deference to modern culture:
In seeking to save religious belief from annihilation by the accepted thoughtforms of the secular world, [liberalism] has become a pallid reflection of the secular philosophy.[2]
In his study of liberal theology, Kenneth Cauthen came to a similar conclusion:
In its enthusiasm for modern modes of thought, liberalism lost sight of much that was of permanent validity in the historic tradition. Liberal thinking was too greatly influenced by a cultural faith centering around an exaggerated confidence in the goodness of [humankind] and in the redemptive nature of history.[3]
Liberalism’s anthropological starting point did not take the Biblical revelation seriously enough. Any gains of theological liberalism were offset by its failure to recognize the limitations of human nature and the need for divine intervention in the world.[4]
Theological liberalism shifted the basis of theological inquiry from divine revelation to human reason and experience.[5] And when natural intellect replaced Biblical revelation, the church began to stray from its mission as set forth in Scripture. Human nature being what it is, all too easily and quickly we get into the habit of trusting our own reasoning powers.
In Christ’s day, many religious leaders boasted of their faithfulness to Yahweh. Yet, in practice, they placed their own traditions ahead of God’s commandments (Matt. 15:3). Jesus denounced them as blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 23:29-38). Characteristically, these sightless guides did not recognize their own spiritual inadequacy. Substituting human ideas for divine revelation is always a telltale sign of spiritual poverty.
2. The silence of God results in spiritual confusion. The failure to receive divine guidance leads to a loss of direction. Without a sure word from the Lord we drift from our course and dissipate our energies in a variety of zealous activities. Churches do not decline so much because of inactivity, but because they fail to work toward the right things.
Repeatedly, Israel fell into confusion and deception because the leaders neglected to seek guidance from God. The writer of Joshua observes:
The men of Israel … did not inquire of the Lord (Josh. 9:14).
Israel’s leaders became muddled because they trusted in their own wisdom. Jesus warned that if the light within becomes darkness, the darkness is great-and spiritual confusion surrounds us (Matt. 6:23).
Several of the old line denominations boast of theological pluralism; and pluralism, carried to an extreme, minimizes all claims to absolute authority. Jerry Walls points to the confused state which comes from rejecting authority:
Ironically … when authority breaks down, claims to authority increase rather than decrease. So there is today no shortage of theological pronouncements coming from every quarter. The contemporary scene can be aptly described as a cacophony of voices vying for attention and allegiance.[6]
Invariably, when individuals or groups cease hearing from the Lord, substitute voices and influences move into the vacuum, shaping objectives, priorities and actions. H. G. Wells once lamented, “For many, the voice of the neighbor sounds louder than the voice of God.”
When persons or institutions do not accept the unique authority of Scripture they enter into doctrinal indifference or they begin the zealous advocacy of personal ideologies. Religious gatherings illustrate this inner division, when conference participants devote more time to political maneuvering than to celebration, worship and prayer. In such a context we easily confuse human aims with divine mission, and we seek to determine our direction by majority vote.
A substantial amount of contemporary religion functions apart from Biblical revelation and seeks to work out human problems in secular ways.[7] This compromised Christianity builds on human reason, allies itself with secular methods, noticeably neglects the power of the Holy Spirit, and denies the reality of a future divine judgment.
Human efforts will not change the world; only Christ can. Albert Outler offers a healthy reminder of the Wesleyan heritage:
Wesley was as vitally concerned as ever the humanists were about the quality and dignity of human life—only he knew, as they did not, that life’s highest quality and dignity cannot be gained, but must be given, that life’s enduring meanings and values are all dividends of grace.[8]
All theological and institutional schemes which place more faith in human systems than in God’s power will certainly fail. Such nonbiblical religion lacks spiritual power, and it cannot bring lost persons to faith in Christ.
Spiritual confusion always blurs the distinction between truth and error. And, historically, error creeps in as a consequence of an inner moral failure. In a classic study of theological shifts within an oldline denomination, Robert E. Chiles observed:
The compromises of orthodoxy are serious … because they tend to betray the prior depletion of viable redemptive reality.[9]
Theologies which contradict Scripture usually have their source in an unwillingness to accept divine authority and providence. These moral failures lead to elevating human opinions and objectives above plain Biblical teaching. And such religious mayhem inexorably leads to ever more serious deviations from Scripture, common sense, and historic orthodoxy.
3. Spiritual confusion leads to institutional decline. Spiritual health, by definition, includes growth; and fruit-bearing constitutes the unmistakable norm of vital Christianity (Matt.13:23; John 15:5, 8, 16; cf. Acts 2:47). Jesus stated that when His word falls on unreceptive hearts it cannot grow or multiply (Matt. 13:18). But when God’s Word enters receptive hearts, it will grow and reproduce abundantly (Matt. I 3:23).
Lacking a clear sense of God’s guidance, confused office holders give their energies mostly to maintaining organizational structures, enforcing “correct procedures” and defending current trends. William Willimon and Robert Wilson observe:
A declining organization falls into the hands of managers. In fact, it is more comfortable with managers than leaders, with people who write and interpret rules, persons who protect the institutional status quo … and defend conventional values against maverick critics or reformers.[10]
Of course, there are exceptions to every generalization; the church has produced some exceptionally fine leaders. However, some church structures are bloated with custodians who “manage decline,” “administer maintenance plans” and continue to produce and defend ineffective programs. These managers tinker with organizational and institutional matters, while ignoring the fundamental mission of the church.
Peter Drucker, the dean of American Management Consultants, remarked:
There are few things less pleasing to the Lord, and less productive, than an engineering department that rapidly turns out beautiful blueprints for the wrong product.[11]
To put the matter another way, we sometimes become more concerned about “doing things right” than in “doing the right things.”
All the while, spiritually starved persons look to the church to satisfy their spiritual hunger. Not finding spiritual bread, they cease visiting worship services, and they never join the church. At the same time, creative and vital church members complain that the boards and agencies of the church have abandoned Biblical mandates for fads and political agendas. Disappointed and angered, these potentially productive members of the church quietly leave. And the church declines.
Confused people concentrate on meeting their own needs, not the needs of others. George Hunter reminds us of two Detroit companies in the 1920s—the Ace Buggy Whip Company and the Ford Transportation Company:
Each company, at the time, manufactured buggy whips, but the two companies saw their main business differently. Ace saw their business as selling buggy whips; Ford saw their business as providing personal transportation for people …. Ace tried harder and harder, in vain, to sell buggy whips to people, who now wanted cars, while Ford was leading the automobile revolution in the middle-class market.[12]
One company looked for the public to meet its needs; the other company sought to meet the needs of the public. One company was drowning in confusion; the other company had a mission. Those churches which fail to meet the needs of people will and should decline.
The setting aside of Scriptural guidelines eventually leads to condoning ideas and practices clearly forbidden in the Bible. Some even label those who speak against Scripturally forbidden practices as narrow-minded, lacking compassion or failing to love others. In Galatians, Paul specified a number of unacceptable attitudes and actions. He declared, “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (see Gal. 5:16-21). I recently heard a professor of theology comment on that passage of Scripture: “Paul’s outdated morality smacks of legalism. Paul’s views must be replaced with the doctrine that God unconditionally accepts all people, regardless of religion or lifestyle.”
The Bible constitutes our ultimate guideline for knowing God’s will and God expects our obedience. The truth of Samuel’s declaration echoes into our own day:
Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry (I Sam.15:22, 23).
No religious ministry will enjoy the Lord’s favor unless the ministry conforms to God’s Word and relies on God’s power. Without God’s direction and empowering we cannot bear fruit. And, typically, those who do not bear fruit spend much energy criticizing the methods of those who do.
4. Spiritual decline eventually leads to a death wish. Not uncommonly, some people prefer to see their organization die rather than to lose control over it. Often the death wish festers unconsciously, but examples of a death wish appear regularly in the churches.
Richard G. Hutcheson Jr. tells the story of King College, a small church-related college in Tennessee. By the mid-1970s this school had lost most of its students. Mounting debt had brought the college to the point of bankruptcy. Denominational officials were powerless to save the school, and they agreed to merge the venerable institution with a state-supported university.
In the meantime, a group of concerned clergypersons and laypersons raised enough money to save the school. They established a budget, recruited new students and rescued the college from certain extinction. The faculty made plans for a new semester. Together, the rescue committee and the faculty committed themselves to return King College to its original mission, as outlined in the school’s charter. Morale on the campus skyrocketed, and the campus came alive with new hope.[13] Enrollment began to rise. The new leaders promised faithfully to continue the school as a denominational college. They proposed to reorganize the Board of Trustees and to replace the outgoing president with an experienced administrator from Wheaton College.
But, surprisingly, fierce opposition surfaced. Says Hutcheson:
The denomination power establishment now rose up in arms. The synod, which had made no concerted effort to rescue the college financially in the preceding years, now mounted a major effort to stop the “takeover.” Lawyers were retained for court action. All funds currently in the synod’s hands, which had been given by churches and designated for King [College], were placed in a special account to pay legal fees. … One of the denomination’s leaders in the field of higher education wrote an editorial … maintaining that it would be preferable to close the college rather than let this new group … assume control.[14]
Why this objection to the denomination’s own members saving the college and vowing to keep it within the denomination? Why this death wish? The reason is simple: The entrenched leaders, who showed neither the will nor the ability to save the college, preferred to preside over the death of King College rather than to relinquish their control.
These, then, are the steps that lead to decline: First, a failure to seek God’s direction results in the silence of God. Second, the silence of God results in spiritual confusion. Third, spiritual confusion leads to institutional decline. And, fourth, spiritual decline eventually leads to a death wish. These steps follow each other inexorably. A fundamental law of God is that we reap exactly what we have sown. We are free to make our choices, but we are not free to escape the consequences of those choices.
Dean M. Kelly, a staff member of the National Council of Churches, makes the following statement about declining institutions:
Having once succumbed to debility, a church is unlikely to recover, not because measures leading to recovery could not be prescribed and instituted … but because the persons who now occupy positions [of control] will not find them congenial and will not want to institute them. They prefer a church which is not too strenuous or demanding—a church, in fact, which is dying.[15]
From a human perspective, Kelly may be correct about the slim chances for renewing a declining religious organization. But the Church is more than a human institution. The Church belongs to Christ, and the Church is divine. Certainly we must not abandon hope for a new day. I believe we can see church renewal and the reversal of institutional decline.
Fresh start.
The Biblical formula for renewal remains clear: renewal comes through repentance and obedience. The Biblical prescription for renewal does not begin with spending more money, reorganizing structures, maintaining the status quo or sacrificially giving oneself for organized religion. We need the forgiveness which follows repentance and the rekindled fellowship with God which results from obedience to His Word.
Jesus’ declaration remains prophetic for our own time:
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. … Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father. … Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (Matt. 7: 15-27).
Regression and decline are not inevitable. Hearty repentance and faithful obedience to God can bring us a fresh start.
Harry Emerson Fosdick once issued a challenge that bears repeating:
[One] is an excellent cook who knows how to make a good dinner out of the left-overs, and hardly a more invigorating truth is taught by history than that most of the finest banquets spread for the delectation of the race have been prepared by [those] who made them out of the leavings of disappointed hopes.[16]
Ezekiel insisted that dry bones can live again. We can see renewal in our time.
But renewal must come on God’s terms, not ours. When we obey God’s Word and rely on God’s power we will experience spiritual revival and institutional growth. As we respond to Christ’s call, the Holy Spirit will give us His wisdom, favor and anointing. And then-we shall reverse decline and glorify the Father.
Dr. Kenneth Kinghorn is vice-president at large of Asbury Theological Seminary. He is co-author of Discovering and Using Your Spiritual Gifts, new from Bristol Books.
[1] A fair presentation of theological liberalism at its best is L. Harold DeWolf. A Case For Theology In Liberal Perspective. The Westminster Press. 1959.
[2] Henry P. Von Dusen. The Vindication Of Liberal Theology. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1963. p. 56.
[3] Kenneth Cauthen. The Impact of American Religious Liberalism. Second Edition. University Press of America, 1983, p. 215.
[4] Liberalism generally regarded sin more as a defect or as ignorance than as a spiritual disease. Often liberalism focused on the social sources of evil rather than on the corruption of the human heart.
[5] Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) substituted human experience for scripture as the primary source for religious knowledge. His writings exerted a profound influence on Protestant thought.
[6] Jerry Walls. The Problem Of Pluralism: Recovering United Methodist Identity. Good News Books, 1986. p. 77.
[7] Peter Gay and Richard Lovelace hove compellingly demonstrated that heterodox theologies reach bock to the materialistic philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome. Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation: The Rise of Modern Paganism. Alfred A. Knopf. 1966. pp. 111-419: Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life. InterVarsity Press. 1979. pp. 416-419.
[8] Albert C. Outler, Evangelism In The Wesleyan Spirit. Tidings, 1971. p. 106.
[9] Robert E. Chiles. Theological Transition in American Methodism. Abingdon Press. 1965. p. 16.
[10] William H. Willimon and Robert L. Wilson. ”The Present Crisis: The Impact of the Membership Decline in the Mainline churches.”” Quarterly Review. VII. #3, Fall. 1987. pp. 76, 77.
[11] Peter Drucker. The Effective Executive. Harper & Row, Publishers. 1967. p. 4.
[12] George G. Hunter III. To Spread The Power: Church Growth In The Wesleyan Spirit. Abingdon Press. 1987. p. 139.
[13] Two religion professors on campus were exceptions. They opposed the plan for renewing the college.
[14] Richard G. Hutcheson Jr., Mainline Churches And The Evangelicals. John Knox Press. 1981. pp. 16, 17.
[15] Dean M. Kelly. Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. A Study In The Sociology Of Religion. Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977, p. xviii.
[16] Harry Emerson Fosdick. The Meaning Of Being A Christian. Association Press. 1964. p.108.
by Steve | Nov 6, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Concentrating On Conversions
By Sara L. Anderson
One of the most recognizable faces in the National Football League stares out at the gridiron from under his trademark hat. So intense is his concentration, so unchanging his expression, that writers have compared his visage to one etched in granite. What many people do not realize is that Dallas Cowboys’ head coach Tom Landry, a United Methodist, directs equal intensity toward encouraging people to put their faith in Jesus Christ.
“I’m really kind of an evangelist—most people think I’m a Baptist,” the third winningest coach in the NFL says with a chuckle. But Landry takes seriously the role he feels evangelism should play in the denomination. “I think we neglect this a great deal,” he says of United Methodists.
Personal Conversion
The issue may be of extra importance to Landry because he discovered his need for a personal relationship with Christ somewhere other than through his denomination. Thomas Wade Landry was born September 11, 1924 to Ray and Ruth Landry in the Rio Grande Valley town of Mission. The Landry family lived a half-block from the Methodist Church. Ray Landry was Sunday school superintendent, and the family made it to church every Sunday.
“We didn’t study the Bible as a family; we prayed over meals when we had company. My parents’ view was that we were Christians,” Tom explains. “I was taught good principles by my family, but I never knew what the Gospel of Jesus Christ was all about,” he recalls. “I never really heard it, although I’m sure many ministers preached it from the pulpit. But my ears were closed and my eyes were shut, as the Scripture says.”
So Landry continued to attend church and considered himself a Christian. After a stint in the Air Force, he married Alicia, played football at the University of Texas and developed his football career as a player and coach for the New York Giants. He had everything that would make a yuppie of today grin with satisfaction. But Landry still looked for that illusive, missing “something.”
The Landrys had moved to Dallas, and in 1958, Tom, who read the Bible from time to time, was invited to a prayer breakfast and Bible study.
“I had never studied the Bible before and I was 33 years old at the time,” he says. “When I started studying the Bible, God opened my eyes to what the Gospel was all about. I became a Christian.”
Tom and Alicia, members of Highland Park United Methodist Church, remained faithful Methodists after their conversions. But they weren’t always comfortable with the direction the church was taking.
Frustration nearly led Landry to leave the denomination in the early 1960’s. “It was all social gospel, even in our church, even in Perkins Seminary at SMU,” he recalls. “We had a Sunday school teacher at that time who said the 10 Commandments were out of date.”
Then Landry decided he wanted to start a Thursday morning Bible study/breakfast for the men of his church. He wasn’t sure how to go about it, and he had trouble finding anyone in the church who would help him arrange it. “Finally, one assistant minister helped me, and I started it,” he says.
“I was going to move out, but for some reason God kept me in the Methodist Church,” Landry says. His perseverance was rewarded. Leighton Farrell, who had worked with Landry during the 1972 Billy Graham Greater Southwest Crusade in Dallas became the Highland Park pastor. “When he came into the pulpit it was revitalized because he believes in the Word of God,” the coach says, adding that Highland Park now has five services every Sunday.
Landry attends the early morning service when he’s home, even when the Cowboys are scheduled to play only hours later. In the past he’s held church office and taught Sunday school. But with the obviously heavy demands on his time, Landry limits his outside-football activities to those he considers best suited to his gifts and most significant.
Of utmost importance to Landry is the role he feels evangelism should play in the church. Because of this he is participating in the United Methodist Foundation For Evangelism’s plan to raise money to establish chairs of evangelism at all UM seminaries. Part of the strategy involves promoting the sale of fine art lithographs, reproductions of the Kenneth Wyatt paintings of “The Twelve (Apostles)” and “Offer them Christ.” Proceeds from the sales would help to endow the chairs of evangelism.
“I became concerned with the areas of Scripture and evangelism because I believe in the inerrant Word of God,” Landry explains. “Unfortunately, some of our Methodist churches do not believe this.
“A church needs to be Spirit-driven to be a really flourishing church,” he adds. “John Wesley was one of the great evangelists of our time, and we’ve gotten away from that in our church. But that’s what the Methodist Church needs.”
Conversion Of Priorities
Landry is not one to merely talk about evangelism; he quietly and consistently lives his relationship with Christ—before the city of Dallas, the press and his players. His life aims are not what you would expect from a coach whose team has won two Super Bowls and 20 playoff games.
In fact, the first thing Landry noticed after his conversion was that his priorities fell short of the Scriptural goal. “What you consider most real and valuable in your life is [really] your religion. Football was my religion,” the coach says. While going through high school and college Landry thought that if a person was successful in football, “then that was what life was all about.” He says he began to discover the fallacy of such thinking after being part of the New York Giants world championship team.
“I was searching at the time a friend got me into that Bible study. Once I accepted Christ, my priorities changed,” he says. “God was first, my family second and football was number three.”
The coach has not kept those convictions a secret, much to the chagrin of some of his players. The Cowboys’ great defensive lineman, Bob Lilly, recently told the Waco, Tex., Tribune-Herald, about hearing the priority speech when he was a rookie. “He said he wanted us to know how he had his priorities arranged …. I remembered after he had left, we rookies agreed we’d never win because he had his priorities all out of order. But 27 years later, I believe he was right,” Lilly says.
Landry is not one to be reticent about his relationship with Christ, but at the same time he is not abrasive. He wants to be a witness in his organization through example. He has initiated chapel services and Bible studies with players and their wives held on Thursday nights. “To me this is the way I influence our organization. It’s good to see the number of players that eventually accept Christ,” Tom says.
While Cowboys party animals have been known to chafe under such a straight-laced coach, others have been deeply influenced by his walk with God. Denver Broncos’ head coach Dan Reeves and Chicago Bears’ head coach Mike Ditka are among them, not to mention Lilly, who after his retirement from football, also trusted Christ.
Landry has also been criticized for maintaining a bit of aloofness from his players because he feels they would not respect a buddy as a leader. Yet Tom can let his guard down at appropriate times. He made a brief appearance on the team’s music video, submitted to being tossed in a swimming pool during the 1978 Super Bowl victory celebration and donned a real-live Cowboys outfit for a credit card commercial. Besides, the granite-faced stereotype is definitely broken when Landry isn’t concentrating on screen plays and roll outs.
Landry’s Christian activities go beyond his team and the church. He has given much time to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, at one time serving as national chairperson. He’s a board member of Dallas Theological Seminary and has given testimony to God’s faithfulness at evangelistic crusades sponsored by Bill Glass and James Robison, as well as Billy Graham. He’s been involved with prayer breakfasts sponsored by city and state officials, and a form of that Bible study he started through the church 20 years ago still exists.
While his commitment to the UMC is evident, Landry is ambivalent when asked for his impressions of the current state of Methodism. “Encouraged and yet not encouraged,” is the answer. “So many of the Methodist churches are too liberal—for me,” he says. “I just can’t accept that. But I think the church is still of Jesus Christ, wherever it is. Our only hope is in Jesus Christ and the church.”
If a Cowboys’ offensive strategy isn’t working, you can be sure Coach Landry will work on improving it. He feels the same way about the problems of the denomination. “It’s our job as lay people to try our best [to bring about reform],” he says.
Part of “doing our best” for Landry involves not hand wringing, but fervent prayer. “If we’ve got enough people praying, there won’t be any question that [the United Methodist Church] will turn around. That’s the problem we have. We need to get more of our members concerned about the problem and praying that God will change it.”
Sara L. Anderson is associate editor of Good News.
