by Steve | Jul 9, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: “Go…” The Great Commission
by Charles R. Britt, Assistant Professor of Family & Child Development
Auburn University Pastor, Waverly United Methodist Church, Auburn, Alabama
What is the New Testament mandate for missions? Ask any mission-minded, Biblically-aware Christian and you are likely to have Matthew 28:19-20 quoted in reply. So powerful, attractive, and compelling has this statement of the resurrected Jesus been, in the centuries-long history of the Church, that we have come to know this passage as The Great Commission. In the list of ordinary, run-of-the-mill Biblical references it is likely to be known along with The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), The Love Chapter (I Corinthians 13), and The Prodigal Son (Luke 15).
Historically and currently, wherever there is a vital thrust in Christian world missions, Matthew 28:19-20 functions with effectiveness in at least three ways:
1. It is taken to represent the mind of the resurrected Christ as He addresses His Church in every place, in every generation.
2. It is taken as a personal address. This word of the Risen Lord is not addressed to the Church in general. It is addressed to me.
It might be difficult to find any missions leader today declaring as Robert E. Speer is said to have declared to an earlier generation, “The burden of proof is not upon the person who would go but upon the person who would stay.” In many sections of the Christian Church today, the imperative to be involved in missions is taken very personally. The great missions convocations of Inter-Varsity bear ample testimony to this.
3. The imperative is understood continuously, if not exclusively, to be an indicative pointing to the ocean – crossing, culture – crossing, racial line-crossing nature of Christian world missions. This, despite all efforts to implant other concepts of mission, is still the compelling image of world mission entertained by a high proportion of concerned Christian men and women.
It is said that the Duke of Wellington was once asked about Christian missions. His reply, with specific reference to The Great Commission was, “You have your marching orders.” I would not quarrel with this—I would affirm it.
There is much evidence from the world scene which renders the sending and being-sent aspects of Christian world missions as imperative today as ever. One illustration will suffice.
Anglican Bishop Stephen Neill (Call to Mission, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1970) speaks of the Fon, a West African people, living in the former French colony of Dahomey. These people number a million. Among them there are “a handful of Protestants and a rather large number of Roman Catholics … 600,000 people, equal in number to the population of Nevada and Wyoming together [who] not merely had never heard the gospel but were not in a position to hear if they wished” [italics added]. Bishop Neill refers to a study made in West Africa in the mid 1960s.
Missionaries? The case for their sending and their going is indisputable. This remains true despite all we now think we know of the further need to divest the expatriate missionary of every trace of cultural, spiritual, economic, political imperialism. (It is doubtful if that imperialism was ever so pronounced as some current commentators on the world Christian movement would have us believe.) The recognition of this need is at least as old as the 1659 advice given Roman Catholic missionaries by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith: ” What could be more absurd than to transport France, Spain, Italy or some other European country to China? Do not introduce all that to them, but only the faith ….”
That missionaries should be sent and that they should go, for most of us is unquestionable.
The how of their going is the real question. In search of answers to this question we may turn to The Great Commission as it appears in John 17:18, 21 and 20:21. Jesus is speaking:
As the Father has sent Me into the world, so I have sent you into the world … that the world may believe that Thou didst send me (17:18,21). Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you (20:21).
John R. W. Stott calls this “the most crucial … the most neglected because it is the most costly … ” form in which our records state our Lord’s will to call the world to Himself.
Reading these verses together, several urgently important emphases emerge:
1. Jesus’ own life’s work is a fulfillment of the sending nature of God. “The Father has sent me. …”
2. Jesus’ relationship to His disciples is that of the Sender to the sent. “I send you. …”
3. The manner of the coming of Jesus is to be the manner of the going of His disciples. “As … so. …”
It then becomes incumbent upon us to seek understanding of the manner of the coming of Jesus. Let us consider these:
1. He came in humility. The stories of His birth illustrate this. They are of a part with the Philippian description of His self-emptying. (Compare especially Luke 2:1-20 with Philippians 2:5-9.)
2. He came as a servant. The feeding and healing miracles of our Lord, linked with John’s account of the foot washing in the Upper Room, speak volumes concerning our Lord’s acceptance of the servant role as the model for His coming among us. (Compare Mark 4:21-41 with John 13:1-16.)
3. He came to restore full humanity here and now. These healing miracles recorded in the Gospels are not only evidences of the power of God expressing itself through Jesus Christ, they are also expressions of the limitless good will of God. They reveal His concern for setting human life free from that which in any way binds, inhibits, or diminishes it. Choose five acts of healing recorded in the Gospels and you’ll discover men and women set free from all manner of disabilities. They are saved in a most literal and meaningful manner.
I take it that this kind of salvation, though not the only dimension in which Christ redeems, is an integral part of the Christian mission.
4. There is an awesome more to Christian salvation of which we must speak. Christian salvation has an eternal dimension. It reaches beyond time, history, and this present life. The journey from death unto life which we make through a given faith in Christ is more than a totally earth-centered, here-and-now experience. There is the challenging reality of the ultimate and the final in hearing and receiving, or in hearing and rejecting the Gospel.
Any Christian who can speak lightly without heartbreak of the ultimate, eternal, negative destiny of men and women without Christ needs a reexamination of his or her moral foundations. We are, after all, disciples of One who wept over an unrepentant city and who spoke of the flood tides of joy which sweep through heaven when one sinner repents. The thought that some should be away from God—lost—through all eternity took Jesus to the cross. It ought to send us daily renewed into the task of Christian missions. To think that we are co-laborers with God in opening the gates of eternal life for all who hear and who believe should be reward enough.
5. Jesus came to the world.
In the New Testament “the world” is a term used both positively and negatively. In I John 2: 15 “the world” is that which is not to be loved by Christians. In John 3:16 “the world” is the object of God’s sending and giving mission through Jesus Christ.
If we look at the life of Jesus found in the Gospels we arrive at an understanding of “the world” to which He was sent as being the totality of human life. It is work and play, fear and hope, hunger and joy. It is weddings and funerals, Jewish life in a Roman-occupied land, religious questions, religious behavior, taxes, and work. “The world” is the whole teeming, toiling, sweating, laughing, crying, hungering, feasting, giving birth, dying arena of human existence. It is into the world that Christ was sent. It is into the world that we are sent.
Surely this implies caring, understanding, identifying with, serving, and seeking good for people as people, wherever they are found, in whatever circumstances they live.
This being said does not in the least imply that mere political, economic, physical liberation, or healing is the full and exclusive content of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. Quite the opposite is true. The salvation offered in Christ is infinitely more than a reordering of the physical, economic, or political circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Consider two examples:
Here is a man who has experienced many tragedies in his life. Divorce and financial failure hit him simultaneously in the late 1960s. He lost his moral, spiritual, and social bearings. Fear, frustration, rage, anger at God, and anger at life marked him. Heavy drinking and frantic sexual activity filled his hours and days away from work. Then, through the ministry of Christian men who had themselves “been there,” he came into a new, right, and life-giving relationship with Christ. For more than five years now he has, with the grace of the Lord, been rebuilding his life and reclaiming his rightful place in the family of God and in the life of his community.
Consider a younger woman who, in the ’60s, went the hippie route, the drug scene, who fell for the evil notions of group sex, and finally became a small-time call girl in a mid-sized southern city. A chance and mutually embarrassing encounter with two high school classmates opened to her the thought that maybe, just maybe, there was something better. Again the miracle of conversion occurred and is continuing. She now finds life filled with meaning as she works with retarded children. She is at peace with herself and with her world. In a most literal sense she has experienced atonement. She is at-one with God through faith in Jesus Christ.
On the other hand we may affirm that abundant life in Jesus Christ includes the hope and possibility of salvation from this kind of dimunition of the Divine Image within us, as surely as it includes the hope and possibility of that deeper, inner reconciliation with God which is the effect of the saving work of Jesus Christ through faith and grace.
In Water Buffalo Theology Professor Koyoma has written of the enormous complexity of interpreting the Christian Gospel to men and women in the Orient. He initiated the concept of “water buffalo theology” to develop the theme that the words of the Gospel must be sounded in accents and acts clearly understandable as the very message of God Himself. We do not have to agree fully with the development of his theme to accept the validity of his basic insight. He is saying what Mable Shaw said earlier, in a highly poetic manner, as she spoke of the missionary posture. In Africa she suggests (and only because that was the continent of her own labors), that it involves “those who will kneel down in the midst of the people, and with faces almost to the ground, blow upon the embers, and heedless of the smoke and dust, blow until the flames leap up, and men and women and little children, made glad and free at home, gather round to warm their hands at the Fire of Life.”
So The Great Commission stands. Matthew 28:19-20 is unrevoked. But we read it better and we live it better in understanding that other form of The Great Commission: “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you” (John 17:18,21; 20:21).
by Steve | Jul 8, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Charles Keysor Leaves UM Church
By James V. Heidinger II, Editor, Good News Magazine
Dr. Charles W. Keysor, founding editor of Good News magazine, transferred his ordination June 1 to the Evangelical Covenant Church of America. Dr. Keysor was formerly an elder in the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. He indicated in an interview with the United Methodist Reporter that his decision had been reached after a gradual process.
Rev. Mike Walker, Chairman of the Good News Board of Directors, said, “Evangelicals in the UM Church are very grateful for the courageous initiatives and prophetic churchmanship of Charles Keysor in his 15 years with the Good News movement.
“We trust that in the future,” he continued, “the denomination will be more appreciative of and open to evangelicals, so the exodus from the UM church will stop.”
Good News leaders stressed their continued commitment to renewal within the UM Church. Rev. Walker stated, “Those of us who remain in the church continue to work to see Dr. Keysor’s original dream for a renewed church come to reality.” Dr. James V. Heidinger, II, Editor /Executive Secretary of Good News, commented, “We are deeply indebted to Dr. Keysor for his courageous leadership, though we remain firmly committed to working for renewal within the United Methodist Church.”
Dr. Keysor resigned as Executive Secretary of Good News in January, 1981.
by Steve | Jul 7, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Bishop Wheatley Stirs Contention
by James Robb
A Western Jurisdiction investigative committee meeting in Los Angeles May 20-21 cleared Bishop Melvin Wheatley on charges that he had spread false doctrine. But the committee’s action only added fuel to the raging controversy that began last year when the bishop reappointed a self-avowed, practicing homosexual to a United Methodist Church.
The investigative committee was called when charges were received against Bishop Wheatley by three small churches in Georgia, pastored by Rev. Dr. David Hendrix. The churches accused the bishop of disseminating doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of the church with his statement, “… I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin.”
Bishop Wheatley made that statement in a November 20, 1981 letter to all the ministers in his Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, explaining why he had appointed Rev. Julian Rush to a Denver church. Almost immediately, the letter was circulated throughout the denomination. Charges were filed by the Georgia churches, which stated that Wheatley’s letter had undermined “the authority of Holy Scripture.” Tyler Street United Methodist Church in Dallas soon filed an identical set of charges.
A group of United Methodist laymen in Boulder, Colorado, also filed charges against the bishop, accusing him of gross misconduct and maladministration in his handling of last year’s appointment of Julian Rush after Rush had revealed himself as homosexual.
The investigative committee acted as a church grand jury, deciding whether the charges against the bishop merited a full church trial. The seven-member committee said in its final report that it found no “reasonable grounds” for accusing the bishop. While admitting that there are “Biblical statements condemning homosexual activity” the investigative committee countered, “It is debatable what perspective on homosexuality and homosexual activity emerges when Biblical witness as a whole is brought into interaction with tradition, experience and reason.”
By taking the position that clear passages of Scripture can be overruled by the supposed overall message of the Bible, together with tradition, reason, and experience, the committee echoed the argument of the bishop himself. Bishop Wheatley denied that his actions had undermined Scripture. On the contrary, he said, “I may have well precipitated more Bible study than all bishops combined.” He said what he was talking about is doing “more Bible study,” implying that a more intense study of Scripture would support his case.
The Rev. Donald Sanders, the bishop’s counselor, had his own idea about the root cause of the charges: “The real issue is not Bishop Wheatley’s conduct but homophobia. It has permeated the air,” he stated. “Is there a doctrine of sin in the United Methodist Church today? Yes. Denying people the right to be fully human is probably the best definition of sin in the church today.”
The committee hearing lasted over six hours, followed by eight hours of deliberations. At the end, committee chairperson Rev. William Ritchey said he hoped the committee’s report would “lead to talks about the issue [of homosexuality and ordaining homosexuals].” He said he hoped an atmosphere would now exist where “we as a church can get our heads together on this.”
The conclusions of the committee were not totally surprising. Two members of the investigative committee, Rev. James Lawson and Rev. Barbara Troxell, were already on record as opposing the statement in the Discipline that homosexuality is not a Christian lifestyle. At the 1980 General Conference in Indianapolis, both of them had signed a minority report asking that the statement in the Social Principles be removed that reads, “We do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Good News quickly expressed its disappointment with the results of the hearing. Dr. James V. Heidinger, II, Editor/Executive Secretary of Good News, said that the 1980 General Conference had clearly intended to rule out homosexuality as a valid Christian lifestyle. “Our church’s inability to affirm that intent, in recent months,” he stated, “has caused the denomination the loss of both pastors and laypersons. This is tragic and unnecessary.” He noted that other mainline Protestant churches have spoken clearly on the issue of homosexuality in recent years, and United Methodists are “disillusioned and embarrassed that their church is unable to be clear.”
Good News Board Chairman Rev. Mike Walker said, “It appears that our doctrinal indifferentism is leading us to moral indifferentism.”
During the hearing Bishop Wheatley related that one of his family members is homosexual. In a news release to the media, Good News suggested that this fact might seriously impair his objectivity on the issue. The news release also stated, “the lingering questions from this hearing only reinforce the need for specific prohibitive legislation to be brought before our 1984 General Conference concerning the ordination and appointment of practicing homosexuals.”
Meanwhile the committee’s findings were being challenged, beginning at Bishop Wheatley’s home base, the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, meeting the second week in June in Denver. Several resolutions barring the ordination of practicing homosexuals were presented. But all were either tabled or referred to committee for study. The young man whose appointment last year started the controversy, Julian Rush, had decided to go to school this year, preventing any challenge to his appointment. But not all measures proposed by conference members holding orthodox views on ordination were deflected. One minister gained the floor and asked Bishop Wheatley to rule on an abstract question: whether a probationary member of the annual conference who is a self-avowed, practicing homosexual could, in his opinion, be ordained an elder. When the bishop answered in the affirmative, the minister immediately asked for a vote to refer the bishop’s ruling to the Judicial Council, to test the ruling’s legality. More than the necessary 20 percent of the conference members voted for the referral, which indicated discomfort with Bishop Wheatley’s pro-ordination stance right in his own conference.
But although the minority position on the question of homosexuality had triumphed for the moment in the Western Jurisdiction, elsewhere around the church the views of the majority were being clearly voiced.
A number of annual conferences, meeting in the first weeks of June, passed strong resolutions in support of the church’s present stand against the practice of homosexuality. Several conferences passed resolutions calling for stronger language in the Discipline on the issue.
The Kentucky Annual Conference passed nearly unanimously what is probably the first petition to the 1984 General Conference. The petition asked the General Conference to add a paragraph to each section of the Discipline which discusses moral qualifications of persons eligible for ordination, stating that no self-avowed homosexual “shall be eligible for candidacy, ordination, appointment, or reappointment by a Bishop or Superintendent in the United Methodist Church.”
The Missouri West Annual Conference overrode a committee in adopting a resolution which asks that the 1984 General Conference alter the Discipline to bar “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” from the ministry.
Two Pennsylvania conferences acted. The Central Pennsylvania Annual Conference formally asked the Council of Bishops to rule on whether Bishop Wheatley, in ordaining a homosexual, was acting on his own or whether he speaks for the whole council. The conference affirmed that homosexuality is an expression of original sin found in humanity.
The Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference passed a resolution stating, “the annual conference instructs [the bodies charged with approving candidates for ordination] … to not knowingly approve the candidacy, except for conference membership, or ordain a practicing homosexual.”
The Northwest Texas Annual Conference, after listening to an episcopal address by Bishop Louis Schowengerdt in which he said, “It is wrong to ordain a homosexual or appoint a homosexual as a pastor of a local United Methodist Church,” passed a resolution affirming the present language in the Social Principles. The resolution stated that the language is clear and ought to be obeyed. The conference also passed a resolution calling on all general agencies not to rent office space to homosexual groups.
The South Georgia Annual Conference stated in a resolution that homosexuals “have no place in the spiritual leadership ” of the church. The resolution affirmed the rights of annual conferences, but only within the context of the Discipline. The conference said the issue of homosexuality must be dealt with uniformly.
Bishop Joel McDavid of the Atlanta Area, writing in his conference newspaper, said, “It is clear that the church would disapprove the ordination of any known homosexual.” The bishop stated, “It matters not what any United Methodist minister or lay person, church leader or follower may say or claim, the position of the church is clear.”
The East Ohio Annual Conference passed a resolution strongly affirming the present Social Principles, and passed another one opposing the candidacy and ordination of practicing homosexuals and recommending the termination of present pastors who are practicing homosexuals.
One annual conference, Northern New Jersey, passed a resolution supportive of Bishop Wheatley’s position. It asked the 1984 General Conference to delete the sentence from the Social Principles which states, “… though we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. ”
But every one of the other seven annual conferences that took action did so clearly in opposition to Bishop Wheatley’s unorthodox stance on homosexuality.
So now many thoughtful United Methodists are asking with a hopeful voice: After a struggle lasting more than a decade, is the writing finally on the wall concerning the ordination of practicing homosexuals into the United Methodist ministry?
by Steve | Jul 5, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Remaining United Methodist
By James V. Heidinger II, Editor, Good News
Each week word comes of persons who have decided to leave the United Methodist Church. There’s no use not talking about it. It’s happening too frequently across the church.
Sadly, many who leave have been lifetime (United) Methodists. They have served, given, prayed, attended, struggled, endured, become discouraged, and finally given up. With heavy hearts they leave the church their parents and grandparents attended in order to seek a fellowship more compatible with their understanding of the Christian faith.
With full awareness of the various controversies and conditions we face within the church, we would still encourage United Methodists to reject the urge to leave.
Ultimately, of course, that decision must be made by each person individually, in the context of his/her own personal struggle. (See Epps’ story.) We are also aware that the United Methodist Church may not be for everyone. But we are convinced there are compelling reasons for United Methodist evangelicals to remain and labor faithfully in their church.
First, though we acknowledge serious problems in our denomination, we must also recognize, in fairness, that in thousands of United Methodist churches, persons are finding Christ as Lord and Savior, are being grounded in His Word, and nourished in Christian fellowship. We fail to see the picture adequately unless we acknowledge that at altars of prayer, in counseling rooms, church school classes, Bible study groups, and in the pews, thousands of United Methodists are hearing the Word and responding to it in faith. Lest we be unfair in our analysis, we must admit that numerous United Methodist churches are doing many things right. As evangelicals within the denomination we have a responsibility to help strengthen, establish, and preserve the fruit of such ministries. When evangelicals leave, they weaken the Body in its nurturing function.
Second, to pastors the responsibility has been given to “Tend the flock of God that is your charge …” (I Peter 5:2). They are charged with the task of overseeing the flock, to be shepherds willing to lay down their lives for the flock. But when evangelical pastors, grounded in the Word of God, leave the denomination, it diminishes the general spiritual well-being of 9½ million United Methodists. In addition, upon leaving, many find a new set of problems in their new church and discover that all communions of Christ’s Church have their struggles and disagreements. (See the Borchers’ story.)
The Wesleyan contribution
Third, the Wesleyan branch of Protestant theology has made a major contribution to Christendom. United Methodists are the largest group in a world Methodist community of over 50 million members. And it is the evangelicals within United Methodism who are excited about Christian doctrine and committed to the Wesleyan theological tradition. (See Bennett’s story.) The great Wesleyan distinctives of prevenient grace, original sin, justification by faith, assurance, sanctification, and perfect love must not be relegated to the theological archives. We can be sure that today’s liberals will not maintain our rich Wesleyan tradition. Only the evangelicals will do that.
Fourth, the United Methodist Church remains a strategic opportunity for the proclamation of the Gospel and the renewal of the nation. Through a vast connectional system, this church reaches into villages, towns, and cities the length and breadth of the land. There are more local United Methodist churches today than there are post offices in America! We have a chance to be God’ s vessel for spiritual and evangelical renewal all across the nation. If we think this is not possible, let us remember that “… with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
Contending for the faith
Fifth, we must be willing to contend for the faith. Jude wrote: “Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We must “contend” for the faith without becoming contentious in spirit. In spite of being misunderstood or misrepresented, it is imperative that in our contending, we exhibit the love of God and the very fragrance of Christ. If we don’t, we find ourselves in the contradictory posture of contending for the Gospel which brings holiness of heart and life, but doing so in an unholy manner.
The early church soon and continually encountered doctrinal controversy. Paul confronted Peter when he compromised with the Judaizers. Paul did not just affirm that they had diversity. Rather, Paul “withstood” or “opposed” Peter “to his face” (Galatians 2:11). Peter, who walked with Christ, was literally rebuked by Paul, the apostle born out of season. Why? Because Paul knew that a vital theological principle was at stake. He would accept no deviation from the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith. To do so would have destroyed the Gospel. What significant “contending” that was on behalf of the integrity of the Gospel!
Many pastors and lay persons have talked with me about how much they dislike controversy. I share those feelings. I would much rather focus on reconciliation. But I am alarmed that many choose to avoid controversy totally. To follow that course may mean never standing firmly and publicly for anything.
The major temptation for United Methodist clergy may be just that–to become so amiable that they stand firmly for nothing. To assume such a posture means one has settled down and become comfortable with some things that should arouse anger and opposition. The One who called us into ministry said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). I t was the Prince of Peace who said our peace might be disturbed because of the Gospel.
United Methodist clergy would do well to remember periodically that we were asked when ordained if we would “… give faithful diligence duly to minister the doctrine of Christ, the Sacraments, and the discipline of the Church, and in the Spirit of Christ to defend the Church against all doctrine contrary to God’s Word?” We answered, “I will do so, by the help of the Lord.” Not to defend against contrary doctrine is an abdication of our responsibility as ordained ministers. Our charge is to “contend,” not leave.
Enabling bold leadership
Finally, by remaining and bearing faithful witness, United Methodist evangelicals will encourage other leaders to be bold in their stand. A United Methodist bishop once re marked, “Some bishops a re really evangelical, but to be very honest, we don’t want to risk the scorn of some fellow bishops who identify conservatism as not being intellectually respectable.” The spector of intimidation among evangelicals in the church is a sad reality. Many are silenced or compromised by such intimidation. Laity know of it too, so let none of us underestimate the power of intimidation. To feel the scorn of one’s colleagues can bring fear to even the strongest.
An encouraging sign is that an increasing number of laity, clergy, and church leaders are voicing their convictions. The re-emergence of the homosexual issue has brought numerous petitions and resolutions to annual conferences this spring. New voices have been raised and will continue until the 1984 General Conference.
At this writing, several United Methodist bishops have spoken to this issue forcefully. Bishop Joel D. McDavid wrote in the Georgia Wesleyan Advocate, “From the above (references from Discipline), it is clear that the United Methodist Church respects the rights of all people, but does not approve homosexuality as an acceptable Christian lifestyle. It matters not what any United Methodist minister or layperson, church leader or follower may say or claim, the position of the church is clear. This official action has been taken at three successive General Conferences and thus should clear our thinking and aid us in knowledge of the stand of the church on this question. … It is clear that the church would disapprove the ordination of any known homosexual. This, too, is without question in its meaning” (June 2, 1982, p.2).
Another indication of this trend comes from the 1982 Kentucky Annual Conference. At that session, a petition dealing with the homosexuality issue was presented by David A. Seamands. It was unanimously passed by the Committee on Resolutions, adopted by the Board of Church and Society of the conference, and passed almost unanimously by the annual conference. It resolved that: ”The Kentucky Conference petition the 1984 General Conference to amend the Discipline by adding to all those sections which pertain to the moral qualifications and character of those persons eligible for the ordained ministry, the following paragraph: ‘No person who is a self-avowed practicing homosexual shall be eligible for candidacy, ordination, appointment, or reappointment by a Bishop or Superintendent in the United Methodist Church. ‘ ”
By remaining in the church and continuing to bear faithful witness, United Methodist evangelicals will give encouragement and support to United Methodist leaders to speak their mind boldly as they ought.
Renewal within the United Methodist Church will continue as the Holy Spirit helps us restore church discipline and accountability within the community of believers. He will enable us to confront one another in love. Bonhoeffer’s words from Life Together have never been more timely: “Where defection from God’s Word in doctrine of life imperile the family fellowship and with it the whole congregation, the word of admonition and rebuke must be ventured.”
Good News has been and remains committed to working for renewal within the United Methodist Church. We believe there are compelling reasons for such a commitment. We urge United Methodists to remain within the church, working and praying fervently for the Lord to do in and through us that which He wills.
by Steve | Jul 4, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: A Former Homosexual Testifies to the Gospel of the Grace of God
By Jeff Painter, Musical Evangelist, Fairmont , West Virginia
My name is Jeff. I am in full-time ministry as a Christian pianist and evangelist. This is done with the approval and recommendation of the Evangelism Committee of the Western Pennsylvania Conference of the UM Church.
But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24, NAS).
I accepted Christ as my Savior in the eleventh grade. But, as many of you know, that doesn’t automatically take care of all the troublesome areas of one’s life.
When I was a piano major at West Virginia University, I had a singing group that ministered in churches on weekends. The group sang and testified to the power and love of God.
However, my week days were anything but a testimony to God’s love and power. At best they were a testimony of serving two masters: love of God and the love of being gratified in the form of homosexuality.
To be honest with you, I don’t know how I ended up the way I did, and I don’t believe anyone else knows either. Even then I knew that I couldn’t equate the purity and holiness of Christ with the gay life in which I was floundering. There was always a lustful undertone, no matter how lovely the experience was meant to be.
Quite frankly, it got to the place where I didn’t want to live anymore. I had never heard a preacher talk of how the Lord could either heal or deliver you successfully from such a lifestyle. I didn’t feel I could turn to my college friends, and I didn’t want to have to confront my parents without some ray of hope. So finally I cried out in prayer, “Father, Help! If You can’t help, then I guess I’ll just have to be through with this life.”
To make a long story short, I just happened to see Oral Roberts on television, and I decided to write him for help. I received a letter back within a few weeks saying that he had prayed for me and that God would begin to answer my prayer in three days. I laughed and threw the letter away.
Three days later I was in a Christian broadcasting station in Morgantown, West Virginia, waiting to provide music for a television program when I overheard a conversation between two ladies. One was telling the other of a former minister, Don Fitzwater, who had shared his testimony the week before. He’s married, has two kids, and had come out of a homosexual lifestyle. I got Don’s address from one of the ladies. That was exactly three days from when I had received Oral Roberts’ letter.
I went for counseling at the Jesus Outreach Christian Center in Fairmont, West Virginia.[1] There I met Don and a woman counselor, Joyce, and that was the beginning of the Lord’s healing in my life. That day I claimed the Scripture of Revelation 12:11 for myself: “And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death.” For a year it was quite a battle for me to claim that whole Scripture because my reputation was probably more important to me than Christ.
But praise God—when I began sharing and living that Scripture in all its fullness, God started to work in a fabulous way. I’ve been out of the gay life now for five years. My testimony is a public testimony. It’s even mentioned on the back of my first record album. Since coming out of the homosexual lifestyle, I’ve had the blessed privilege of helping teen-agers and young adults do the same. That is one of the major ministries of the Jesus Outreach Church of Living Waters.
From a personal standpoint, I had come to accept with equal joy whether I was to remain single or be married. Being in the center of His will was more important. Last November, 1981, on Friday the 13th, I was married to Lisa Kay. I praise God for a wonderful wife. The Lord has done sufficient healing in my life. This does not mean there is never any temptation, but it does mean that the Lord has given me the capacity to love and care for a woman for the first time in my life.
I hope you see that the reason I have such a deep joy in my life is not because of the healing He has done in my life; it’s not the people to whom I’m privileged to minister in concerts and individually; it doesn’t even come from the satisfaction of making theological statements to support what I believe and know to be true; but it’s because of the intimacy and loveliness of my relationship to Father God.
Like St. Paul, I heard my Father in Heaven say, “Jeff, My grace is sufficient for you. ” I praise God that the uncontrollable area of my life became a vehicle through which I was compelled to let God be my strength, my desire, and my sufficiency. Though it’s been five years since my last homosexual encounter, the greatest healing that has taken place in my life is the relationship to my Heavenly Father. That relationship is being healed to such an extent that my Father God has allowed the fruit of that relationship to overflow in healing family relationships. My family is now being challenged to a deeper reliance on Jesus Christ in their daily lives. God is also using me to reach out in concerts to minister, to be an instrument in the healing of relationships of many other families. Once I thought the only thing that God wanted was to heal me from my old lifestyle! I was really self-centered!
My Heavenly Father spoke to me, “Jeff, are you willing to be My living sacrifice and not some cause’s living sacrifice? Are you willing to believe you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you? Even if I allowed you to be blind in one area of your life, are you willing to believe that I would never forsake you or leave you, that in the fullness of My time I would be glorified by your complete healing? Are you willing to follow Me even if I decide not to deliver you out of the fiery furnace of temptation like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Will you get to the point where you will not bow your knee to anyone except Me, no matter what? If by faith you will, I promise that I’ll walk with you and there will never be a fire that will be able to consume you. ” Hallelujah!
In my opinion, if gay ministers ever came to the point of saying, “Father, take this consuming fire of temptation out of my life … but if You don’t, let it be known that Your relationship to me and my fellowship with You is so sacred and precious I will never bow the knee to other gods such as lust, self–centeredness, or man’s theology,” whatever success they’ve had as a minister of God will be multiplied at least five times. And, in the fulness of His time, they would be healed. (I say this because God has done both in my life, and He is no respector of persons.)
I would have made a terrible mistake if I had succeeded in working out a suitable theology which would have allowed me to practice homosexuality while proclaiming Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If this would have happened I would have died spiritually instead of being spiritually deepened. My family would have been destroyed instead of being healed. My music and words would never have been effective in reaching out as God’s vehicle of healing to other families and individuals. God’s anointing could never be on my music if I were not playing with clean hands and my words were not spoken from a pure heart.
We need to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and freedom for those who are downtrodden.
Since homosexuals have the third highest suicide rate in the country, they need desperately to know the love and forgiveness that comes when they meet the Savior Jesus Christ. They also desperately need a church which is willing to show through words and lifestyles (individual and collective), compassion, hope, and resurrection power how to be an overcomer in Christ.
We, the Church, are to be the voice of God to a world of confusion, grey areas, indecision, doubts, and hopelessness. No church should vote to ordain practicing homosexuals. To do so would deny the sovereignty of God’s Word. It would also create more confusion, grey areas, and doubts in that person’s individual life and in the church.
Jesus Christ is pure love. Anything in my life that doesn’t come from His pure love ends up in confusion anyway. My indecision and my doubts began to be erased when He answered my prayer of desperation exactly as the letter I received said He would—in three days!
He showed me in Jeremiah 29, that He has a plan of welfare for me—not calamity—to give me a future and a hope, if I am willing to see Jesus Christ and Him crucified in my life. I believe God’s Word that He is faithful to finish what He has started. If He didn’t and couldn’t, I wouldn’t be alive today. I’m free in Jesus. “It’s no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me ” (Galatians 2:20).
[1] Now called Jesus Outreach Church of Living Waters, 704 Country Club Rd., Fairmont, WV 26554. If anyone wants counsel or guidance, please contact Jeff Painter and this ministry. Jeff is also available for music evangelism and/or seminars on counseling the homosexual.
