by Steve | Jul 1, 1976 | Archive - 1976
Missionary to India, evangelist extraordinary, founder of the Christian Ashram Movement, author whose books number in the millions, the late E. Stanley Jones wrote an unforgettable chapter in the annals of world Methodism. Yet he liked to be known simply as
Archive: Brother Stanley
by Eddie Robb, Associate Editor, Good News Magazine
TIME magazine, Oct. 20, 1948—”A grand old man among U.S. missionaries is a rugged Methodist preacher named Eli Stanley Jones. Baltimore-born Missionary Jones went to India in 1907, and his 35 busy years there made him one of India’s best known and respected Americans. His preaching has converted many a Hindu and Moslem to Christianity; his 14 books (best known: The Christ Of The Indian Road) have quickened the faith of Christians all over the world.”
Little did the Time editors realize how rugged this “grand man among U.S. missionaries” really was! What was apparently intended as a career epitaph report, wasn’t. His “35 busy years” stretched to 61. His “14 books” increased to 27. And the number of his converts swelled dramatically.
Dr. Jones—”Brother Stanley” never seemed willing to quit. He often said, “When I die and get to heaven, I will take the first 24 hours to rest, the next 24 hours to seek out and talk with my friends, then I think I will go to Jesus and say, ‘Lord, do you have any other lost worlds where you need an evangelist? Please send me!’ ”
E. Stanley Jones—energy extraordinary! But it wasn’t always that way. In fact, he almost died of appendicitis in 1914. Only an emergency midnight trip from Sitapur to Lucknow in an army truck saved him—and even then he almost didn’t make it because 10 days after his operation tetanus set in. It looked as though Jones’ missionary career was over.
Somehow, he survived. Later, Brother Stanley recounted, “I had no intention of dying.” But within a few months the young missionary suffered the first of several nervous breakdowns. Eight years of strain in India had taken their toll, and so he was furloughed back to America for a year of recuperation.
Then he returned to India—and collapsed again. He later wrote, “I went to India with a deepening cloud upon me. Here I was beginning a new term of service in this trying climate and beginning it—broken.
“I saw that unless I got help from somewhere, I would have to give up my missionary career, go back to America and go to work on a farm to try to regain my health. It was one of my darkest hours. At that time … while in prayer, not particularly thinking about myself, a Voice seemed to say, ‘Are you yourself ready for this work to which I have called you?’
“I replied: ‘No, Lord, I am done for. I have reached the end of my rope.’
“The Voice replied, ‘If you will turn that over to Me and not worry about it, I will take care of it.’
“I quickly answered, ‘Lord, I close the bargain right here.’ That moment was the turning point of E. Stanley Jones’ missionary career—indeed, of his whole life!
The Voice was nothing new to Brother Stanley. He had been listening to it since college days … and it had led him to India.
He later wrote, “At the close of four years here [Asbury College, 1906], I was perplexed and needed guidance as to where I should spend my life. At that particular moment I received a letter from the college president saying, ‘It is the will of the townspeople, it is the will of the faculty, it is the will of the student body, and we believe it is the will of God for you to come and teach in this college.'”
At that same moment he got a letter from a friend saying, “I believe it is the will of God for you to go into the evangelistic field here in America.”
He then received a letter from the Methodist mission board saying, “It is our will to send you to India.”
“Here was a perfect traffic jam of wills!” he recalled. “I had to get my way out, to find my way into clearness. I … knelt down in my room, spread [the letter] out before God, and said, ‘Now; my Father, my life is not my own. Anywhere you want me to spend it, I will go.’
“Just as quietly the inner Voice said, ‘It is India.’ I arose from my knees, sure it was India.”
And so, E. Stanley Jones went to India at a critical period in its history. The country was in a great flux. The India which he saw was fascinating, alluring, but paradoxical. He described it:
“The Indian Road! The most fascinating Road of all the world. Every Road seems tame alongside this Road. There is no sameness here; and hence no tameness. A surprise awaits you at every turn.
“On this Road you will find the world’s most beautiful building—the Taj Mahal—cheek by jowl with the world’s most miserable hut. Here men disdain the world as evil and money as base, and yet on certain days will worship their own account books. … Here you will find the gentlest souls of the world … alongside of which you will find an explosive mentality. …”
In 1907, young Jones landed in Bombay. His first impressions struck him like a blow. “People were lying on beds in the day time under trees, or they moved about very slowly. I was used to life keyed up and energetic. Here life seemed to be run down and tired. Its poverty seemed to be accepted and life had adjusted itself to that fact.”
Though respected as a missionary, it was Jones’ prolific writing which brought him into world prominence. Since publication of his first book in 1925, he averaged authoring a book every two years. In addition he wrote scores of magazine articles.
After his death in 1974, his daughter, Eunice, and son-in-law, Bishop James Matthews, wrote, “Some of his books have become modern Christian classics … translated into more than 30 languages. ” Strangely enough, “It was almost by chance that E. Stanley Jones became a writer. It developed from his preaching. Dr. Ralph E. Diffendorfer of the Methodist Board of Missions suggested in 1925 that he incorporate into a book the addresses he had been delivering all across America the previous year. These were based on his missionary work among the intellectuals of India, with whom he had developed an unusual rapport. The unexpected result, a month later, was The Christ of the Indian Road, an immediate best seller.”
At age 83, Stanley Jones began his third autobiography. (He had scrapped the other two.) When asked why he chose to write his own biography, Stanley Jones characteristically replied, “If anyone else writes it, they’ll talk only about E. Stanley Jones, but if I do it, it will be about Jesus. ”
In spite of his writing success, until his death Jones insisted, “I am not a professional writer. I have not written for the sake of writing, nor for the sake of material gain. Rather, I have seen a need and have tried to meet that need.”
Brother Stanley wanted to be known not as an author—but as a witness for Jesus Christ. Since the beginning of his long ministry, this was his sole goal.
He once wrote, “I think the word ‘evangelist,’ the bearer of good tidings, is the most beautiful word in our language descriptive of vocation. I have been tempted to desert the name, for it has fallen on evil days and has a bad odor, but I have never been able to let it go, for it would not let me go.”
At one point in his ministry, Jones came near to missing his way as an evangelist. While home from India attending General Conference, he was elected a Methodist bishop, though he had earlier withdrawn his name from consideration. After a restless night Jones decided, “A mistake had been made and I knew it. I was headed in the wrong direction.”
“Bishop ” Jones was miserable but he revealed his doubts to only one man, a trusted and loved bishop. His reply was, “You’ve got to go on, no matter how you feel.”
Nevertheless, “Bishop ” Jones listened to another voice—The Voice. Jones recounts: “I went straight to the chairman, Bishop Johnson, and said I had a matter of high privilege. … He had to let me go on. I read my resignation, thanked them for the high honor … walked straight off the platform, out of the building at the back and down the street to my train. I did not wait to see if my resignation would be accepted. I was hastening to get back to the Indian Road—as an evangelist.”
Stanley Jones had learned the importance of being a witness (an evangelist) during his very first sermon. He had prepared for three weeks, feeling that he should act as God’s lawyer and plead His case for Him.
The little church was filled with relatives and friends, all anxious that the young man should do well. All went smoothly until he used the word, “indifferentism.” A young college girl smiled and put down her head. This unnerved him so much that he went blank. “I stood there clutching for something to say.” Finally he blurted out, “I am very sorry, but I have forgotten my sermon.”
On his way back to his seat, Jones heard the inner Voice say to him, “Haven’t I done anything for you? If so, couldn’t you tell that?”
Young Jones stepped down in front of the pulpit and said, “Friends, I see I can’t preach, but you know what Christ has done for my life, how He has changed me, and though I cannot preach, I shall be His witness the rest of my days.”
At the close of that service a youth was saved. Jones had learned a lesson—God wanted him as a witness, not a lawyer.
Brother Stanley was a faithful witness. He was fond of saying, “My theme song is Jesus Christ.” And He was. Long before the Jesus Revolution popularized the “One Way ” sign of Christian faith, Jones used a three-finger sign of Christian discipleship. He would smile, hold up his right hand with three fingers extended, symbolizing one of the basic facts of his life: “Jesus is Lord.” (The picture at the beginning of this article, taken at the Good News Convocation in 1970, showed Brother Stanley in this characteristic pose.)
Christ was the focal point of Brother Stanley’s faith—and his life. “I will have to apologize for myself again and again,” he would say, “for I’m only a Christian-in-the-making. I will have to apologize for Western civilization, for it is only partly Christianized. I will have to apologize for the Christian church, for it, too, is only partly Christianized. But when it comes to Jesus Christ, there are no apologies upon my lips, for there are none in my heart.”
Stanley Jones was especially gifted in adapting new methods to present his constant message—Christ. One such example is the Ashram (ah’ shrum) movement, which he brought to America.
Ashram is an Indian Sanskrit word, meaning “a retreat.” In India, an Ashram is a place where a guru, or spiritual leader, and his disciples go apart for disciplined spiritual growth. Jones combined this ancient Indian format with the Christian Gospel, and the result was an overwhelming success. (About 150 Christian Ashrams now meet annually around the world.)
One of the reasons for Ashrams’ popularity is their openness. “When we come into the Ashram as members,” Jones explained, “we lay aside all titles. There are no more bishops, doctors, professors—there are just persons. We call each other by our first names. …” Hence, the Rev. Dr. Eli Stanley Jones became known to millions around the globe simply as “Brother Stanley.”
Above all, Brother Stanley was a disciplined person. His son-in-law, Bishop Matthews, characterized him as “the most disciplined man I have ever known, so much so that at times he seems in this respect almost an anachronism in this century.”
Disciplined, indeed! Every night at 9:30 he would excuse himself to exercise and pray. He prayed one hour every morning and evening—regard less. Bishop Mathews said of him: “He is constantly reading; constantly writing; constantly replying to his extensive correspondence; constantly traveling. …”
But in spite of his relentless pushing, Brother Stanley is remembered by many as a “fun” person. For example, Rev. Dr. J. T. Seamands, Professor of Missions at Asbury Theological Seminary, and long-time colleague of Jones, shares the story of the time he and Dr. Jones were eating at a Japanese inn. Their repast was revealed to be octopus feet, two sparrows, raw fish, and seaweed. Upon examining the meal before them, Dr. Jones exclaimed: “Where He leads me I will follow; what He feeds me I will swallow!”
Brother Stanley was full of life—because he walked with the One who said, “I am Life.” He knew the Source of his indefatigable strength. Jones frequently said, “One day you’ll pick up the newspaper and read that Dr. E. Stanley Jones is dead. Don’t you believe a word of it. I’ll never be more alive than at that moment; and should you look into my casket with a glum face, I’ll wink at you.”
TIME magazine, Jan. 23, 1973—Died: Dr. E. Stanley Jones, 89, Methodist clergyman from Maryland, who became one of the world’s best known evangelists; in Barielly, India. …
by Steve | May 11, 1976 | Archive - 1976
Archive: Prayer Made All the Difference at the 1976 General Conference
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine
“Wisdom is better than weapons of war,” wrote the author of Ecclesiastes long ago.
What wisdom can we gain from the 1976 General Conference?
Above all, Portland demonstrated that amazing things do happen when many believers pray. The right people are placed on the right committees. The right information is supplied at the moment of need. Those obstructing Gospel principles are wondrously moved aside. Ordinary men and women are given supernatural wisdom to speak, strategize, and cooperate. They are silent at the right time and they speak at the right time. All this, and more, is the result of God answering the prayers of His people.
The day before General Conference began, we noticed a woman praying in the empty auditorium. For hours she sat alone in the semidarkness above the ground floor where workmen were busily setting up desks and microphones. Later we learned that she had prayed over each of the 1,000 desks. She had prayed for each person who would be sitting and voting in that vast auditorium.
This was symbolic. She was one of untold thousands across the country and around the world … United Methodists who love their church, who were deeply concerned, and who lifted these concerns to the Throne of God. They prayed that His will would be accomplished in Portland. That the UM Church would be strengthened. That the Holy Spirit would rule and overrule. That precious time and talents would be used to God’s glory. That God’s people would be wise and bold in upholding His truth. Perhaps this was the first time such a massive prayer barrage had been focused on a recent General Conference.
Perhaps this kind of saturation prayer would have changed history over the last 50 years … certainly this kind of prayer can shape the future in God’s way! For General Conferences yet to come, for annual conferences, for local churches, for pastors, and for church members.
It seems strange that we have only now begun to unite through prayer for positive changes in the church. Perhaps the admonition of James applies to us who have so long lacked influence in our denomination: “You do not have because you do not ask …” (James 4:2b).
Wisdom at the point of focusing our prayers is, indeed, “better than weapons of war.” It is, in fact, the believer’s ultimate weapon in the arsenal of spiritual warfare. Somehow, we must learn to use this weapon more effectively than we have done in the past.
A practical opportunity lies close at hand. On July 13-15 the five UM Jurisdictional Conferences will meet. The most important business at four of these will be electing bishops—the future spiritual and pastoral leaders of our church. Now is the time to begin praying that this great honor and responsibility will fall upon mature Christians. Pray that God will thwart the ambitions of political manipulators and mere guardians of the status quo.
The dates of July 13-15 should be entered on the prayer calendar of each United Methodist who believes that “prayer changes things.” The five conferences will be held:
Northeast, Bridgeport, Connecticut
Southeast, Lake Junaluska, North Carolina
North Central, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
South Central, Lincoln, Nebraska
Western, Salt Lake City, Utah
Prayer targets are also close to home. Your annual conference meets once each year in May or June. It deserves intense intercessory prayer. So do the various meetings of your own local church. Your pastor. Your fellow church members.
Indeed, “More things ARE wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” Portland proved it. Portland shows us that every United Methodist can help to bring about constructive change in our church—at upper levels. The question is: do we care enough to pray enough?
A New Politics Dawns in Portland
The 1976 General Conference showed that effective political action under the Holy Spirit, is a real possibility for UM evangelicals. This is something new! “Evangelical politics ” has a strange and unfamiliar sound.
Since the early 1900s, when evangelicals lost control of Methodism, we have suffered one defeat after another. Unfortunately, our most common response has been to retreat from combat and lick our wounds. This has been made easier because of our deep, natural preference to be preaching the Gospel, leading people to Christ, and building up the Body of Christ. Not politicking!
The great evangelical political withdrawal, part by intent and part by naivete, has left non-evangelicals in many places of decision. They have been calling the shots on church school literature … on missions policy … on choosing bishops … on colleges and seminaries. Our role has seemed to be just writing the checks and wringing our hands in helpless frustration.
The worm has turned.
A new day is dawning.
The time has come, evidenced by Portland, when evangelicals will vigorously and creatively “contend for the faith” where the votes are counted. We intend to be where the decisions are made-when they are made. This is a necessary part of our determination to work within our church. For to fail in church politics is to fail our Lord at a crucial point. He does care who makes the decisions in His Church!
The housekeeping activity of the church, which we tend to downgrade as routine and political, is, in fact, very necessary. (A house where housekeeping chores are ignored is a messy place!) Politics is an important part of our living together as Christians in the church.
Portland proved that evangelicals can be effective politically. It also proved that the various non-evangelical power blocks are not so formidable nor so unbeatable as they once seemed. They are faltering. They lack fresh vision. Often they are simply a replay of the “Old Left,” vintage 1964-1970.
The news is that yesterday’s progressives have become today’s reactionaries, guardians of the ecclesiastical machinery which they now control. It is the evangelicals, long disestablished, who now represent the potential for constructive change, reform, and wholesome church renewal. Those who once languished in the United Methodist rear guard are now becoming the vanguard.
Nobody expected this. Portland was something of a blitzkrieg. It left various power blocs confused, angry, and fighting among themselves. In the last hours of the 1976 General Conference they vowed to counterattack. They have determined to regain full dominance of the UM Church.
One church leader likened Portland to a parenthesis … a mere “bogey” on the radar screen … a brief aberration, after which the church would return to uninhibited secularism. He attributed the “conservative” trend in Portland to nostalgia kindled by America’s 200th birthday. By 1980, he predicted, it would be his “business-as-usual” for the UM Church.
Perhaps. But we believe that Portland represents something deeper and more significant. The sands of time are running out on the heirs of liberalism. Portland was a discreet, but clear, call for greater sensitivity and creativity on the part of UM leaders. Portland served notice that the church is impatient about continuing hemorrhage of membership loss, the dwindling church school, the secularization of our colleges … the faddism of our seminaries … the erosion of basic Biblical doctrines … and the condescension of church bureaucrats who through their insensitivity fan the flames of discontent and divisiveness.
Recently the Interpreter published an in-depth survey which revealed that many United Methodists are unhappy about such trends. It became apparent in Portland that Good News is no longer an eccentric voice in the wilderness. Thoughtful people were listening—and voting positively. Their voting patterns revealed a concern similar to what Good News has been expressing for the last 10 years.
What happens now? After the tumult of Portland has faded into history, will we settle back in complacency? Or will we move ahead? Will we capitalize for Christ on the momentum which God granted in Portland?
The Swinging Ship in Portland
The Willamette River port area of Portland, in the shadow of Memorial Coliseum, is about 80 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Almost every day foreign freighters dock behind the Coliseum to load cargoes of grain.
During odd moments we watched several of these ocean-going ships maneuvering into the Portland docks. We were impressed by the ships’ powerful forward momentum. Sometimes several sturdy tugboats were needed to swing the huge ships around, so strong was their forward thrust. Always, the turning was gradual.
The UM Church resembles a freighter. Our denomination moves forward with strong accumulated momentum in the direction it has been traveling for many years. General Conference, the top policy-setting authority, provides primary thrust. It also can turn the church in new directions.
To understand what happened in Portland, one must recognize both the beginnings of a turning … and also the powerful continuing thrust in a direction the church has been moving. Portland was neither a complete reversal, nor an uninterrupted continuation of the past direction.
Signs of a turning include these:
1. Voting down proposals by the UM Board of Church and Society to condone homosexual practice and fornication.
2. Rejecting various proposals for a four-year, churchwide study of human sexuality. Instead, the initiative is left with local churches.
3. Prohibiting any agency of the church from spending money to promote homosexual practice, or on organizations which do.
4. Strengthening the expressed official disapproval of so-called “marriage” between persons of the same sex.
5. Considering matters of ordination, inserted this portion of the Social Principles’ statement: we “do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” This safeguard made unnecessary an explicit disciplinary prohibition against ordination of professing homosexuals.
6. Decision to study effects of the “quota system.” This was underscored when delegates refused to endorse a quota for at least 40% executive staff leadership to be women. (The Judicial Council ruled that EUB quotas, established at 1968, will not apply at the 1980 General Conference.)
7. The legislative committee on finance resisted powerful pressures to apportion millions of dollars for various minority-group causes. This committee action seemed to reflect what an Interpreter magazine survey has revealed as a growing disenchantment with high-priority emphasis on minority concerns.
8. Required clearer accountability by boards and agencies as to their political activities. Such information must be provided to churches on request.
9. Evangelism was included among the three top “missional priorities” for 1977-1980.
10. Took action to stem the loss of membership which will, by the end of this year, probably exceed 1,000,000 since 1968.
11. Ordered a four-year emphasis on local church education, “Decision Point: Church School.”
12. Evangelicals emerged as a viable political force.
13. Diminished “clout” of several caucuses which had previously been very influential.
14. Delegates did not respond in Pablovian fashion to the kind of guilt-generating rhetoric which has so powerfully moved recent General Conferences. Delegates listened openly but voted independently.
15. Adopted a $600,000 per year program in “mass communications” to influence the media. This will offer support to the quadrennial emphasis, so it should include evangelism on radio and TV.
16. The theme for 1977-1980 will be, “Committed to Christ-Called to Change.” This offers great possibilities for the Gospel!
17. Insisted that our bishops be significantly involved in setting priorities for the church between General Conferences. This was a checkrein upon the power of boards and agencies.
18. Ordered continued study of a proposal to relocate the headquarters of the Board of Global Ministries. This would break up the denomination’s largest entrenched bureaucracy, separating it from proximity to the World and National Council of Churches in New York City.
19. Recommended that representatives from “small membership churches” be considered for membership on annual conference boards and agencies. This would help insure a fuller representation, since about two-thirds of all UM churches have 200 members or less.
20. Eliminated the UM Council on Youth Ministries which had acted as the spearhead for pro-homosexual advocacy. Debate showed that it had failed to fairly represent the opinions of youth of the church. The new youth structure, to begin in 1977, will be more accurately representative and accountable through the Board of Discipleship.
21. Adopted “guidelines” for charismatics and the UM Church. National Courier commented, “In effect, the guidelines tell UM preachers and laymen who are charismatics to deal gently and lovingly with those in the congregation without such experience. The guidelines also attempt to speak to non-charismatics by suggesting that they be more tolerant and understanding.”
22. Ordered that all staff executives be United Methodist—an effort to relate the bureaucracy more closely to the church which it serves.
23. Recommended abstention from alcoholic beverage. Some called this a stronger statement than adopted in 1972.
24. Condemned the spread of state-sponsored gambling.
25. Rejected a proposal for a publicly administered, universal health care plan.
26. Continued the life tenure for bishops. This defeated further weakening of the episcopacy and thwarted caucus domination in selecting bishops. Eight years was set as the maximum time a bishop may serve in one episcopal area. (Someone asked, “What do you do with a used bishop?”)
27. Established a new “Diaconal Ministry” for people not ordained, who are serving the church on a “full time professional basis.” Required each annual conference to establish a Board of Diaconal Ministry, as a counterpart of the Board of Ministry. These measures move toward equal recognition of the laity as servants, though unordained, of Jesus Christ.
Considered together, these actions of General Conference comprise an obvious turning of the Good Ship United Methodist. But other actions of the Portland General Conference indicate that the Ship still continues moving in the direction of recent years:
1. Voted a 19.8% increase in apportionments for 1977-1980. This seemed to indicate a greater sensitivity to pressure groups than to the realities of local church mood and capability.
2. Allotted evangelism $125,000 per year in apportioned funds. Allotted black colleges $6,000,000 yearly in apportioned funds; $2,000,000 apportioned yearly for world hunger; $2,000,000 apportioned yearly for strengthening ethnic minority churches.
Evangelism, which many United Methodists believe to be the first business of Christ’s Church, languishes as an under-budgeted stepchild.
3. Voted to increase yearly apportioned giving to both World and National Councils of Churches, after an effort failed to reduce this by 50%. NCC was allotted $470,000 per year during the present quadrennium: it will be allotted $500,000 per year from 1977-1980. And WCC, which was allotted $230,000 annually, will be allotted $300,000 per year from UM apportionments during the new quadrennium.
4. Accepted in principle the Council on Church Union (COCU) proposal for mutual recognition of membership among Christian denominations. COCU, widely considered dead, is evidently very much alive.
5. Delegates created more bureaucracy. They made permanent the temporary Commission on Role and Status of Women, with a budget of $200,000 per year from World Service. That this new bureaucracy could not be assimilated into the existing structures for women suggests that the Commission on Role and Status of Women will become an official base of operations for promoting “Women’s Lib” within our church.
6. Mandated a Commission on Religion and Race to be set up in every local church. This adds complexity to the local church organization, which is already difficult for churches with limited working personnel available to operate committees.
7. Approved gun control, Equal Rights Amendment, and eventual independence of the Panama Canal—issues on which United Methodists disagree sharply. These official endorsements guarantee four years of abrasion that will result when church boards and agencies make public pronouncements, join coalitions and spend church money promoting these causes which are not essential to salvation, as specified in Scripture.
8. Exhibited much greater “openness” toward homosexuality than either the Scriptures or the convictions expressed in thousands of petitions. Two UM bishops, Wheatley (Rocky Mountain) and DeWitt (Wisconsin) were listed as participants in a noon hour worship service sponsored by the homosexual caucus.
Mr. Keith Spare, homosexual caucus leader, was invited to speak briefly to the General Conference in the midst of a debate involving homosexuality. Equal time was not provided for advocates of the Biblical viewpoint.
On this issue, it was as if the Bible and the people had spoken in thunder but the General Conference heard only a whisper.
9. The bureaucracy exercised powerful influences, often protecting their vested interests.
10. This General Conference made it somewhat more difficult to remove inactive members from local church rolls. This restricts disciplinary initiative by local churches and may help to minimize membership loss figures during the next four years.
11. Refused to require a UM Men’s unit for each local church. Also refused to establish a division of men’s work within the General Board of Discipleship. General Conference seemed thus to minimize the importance of men, while maximizing the empowerment of women.
Yes, the Good Ship United Methodist has begun to turn. Change has started occurring. We need to recognize this and give thanks to God for every constructive sign of new directions! We need to push hard to accelerate every constructive change.
But we need also to be realistic about powerful forces which continue propelling United Methodism in directions which lead to shrinkage, spiritual impotence, and loss of Biblical distinctives.
A Macendonian Call in Portland
General Conference ended at 2:00 a.m. Saturday, May 8. At 10:00 a.m. May 8, some Good News leaders met to assess what had happened. On a wind-swept hilltop overlooking Portland, we were suddenly reminded of Revelation 3:8, “Behold I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut.”
Did not God open a door in Portland? Is He not beckoning us to move through this door, into a future which He is even now preparing?
Is He not Lord of the future? Doesn’t His sovereign power tread down all His enemies, open pathways through impenetrable wilderness, feed His people, and proceed before them in cloud and pillar of fire?
Yes, a door has been opened! The initiative for church renewal and reform is being handed to those who believe the Gospel unhesitatingly, and who are prepared to act boldly because their belief is more than just God-talk.
Another thought came to us just after General Conference adjourned. We remember the Apostle Paul’s “Macedonian Call,” recorded in Acts 16:9, 10. In a dream, Paul heard a Macedonian man calling, “Come over … and help us.” In obedience, Paul went. He carried the Gospel into a new continent and a beachhead for Christ was established in Europe.
In Portland we sensed the cry of a great church, shorn of its spiritual power, weak as Samson bound before Delilah. We heard that church—our church—calling, “Come over … and help us. Help us to find the resurrection power of Jesus Christ!
“Come—set us free from the clutches of dead formalism and triviality in worship!
“Come—liberate us from perpetual piddling with church organization!
“Come—help us proclaim Jesus Christ to lost billions around the world!
“Come—help us teach children, young people, and adults the great, enduring truths of Holy Scripture!
“Come—and help us convert mil- lions of unsaved who mistakenly think that church membership is salvation.
“Come—drive out the awful apathy which strangles our praise, repels our youth, and makes our churches mausoleums rather than redemption centers.
“Come—and help us find the Holy Spirit’s power by which each United Methodist Church may become a transformer of our pagan culture.
“Come—and rescue us from the world around us which is squeezing us relentlessly into its own mold.
“Come—and help us place the Name of Jesus Christ above every other name in our worship, our programs, our meetings, our institutions, our publications.
“Come—and help us recover our first love for Jesus Christ, the love grown tragically lukewarm, the passion without which we perish.”
Heeding that Macedonian call is our task as evangelicals in the UM Church.
This cannot be done in our own strength. We are scattered. We are sometimes demoralized and timid. Too often we have a defeatist attitude, complaining that the problems are even larger than our God’s strength. Too often we retreat when we should advance, sidestep when we should engage falsehood with the weapon of divine truth.
No less than an outpouring of the Holy Spirit’s power can lift us in our weakness and thrust us through God’s open door into the future He has planned.
In Portland this began to happen. By God’s grace and power it can happen also in our churches. And in us.
by Steve | May 3, 1976 | Archive - 1976
Archive: Coni
The Story of a Seeker
Seven years ago—when I was 17—I was with the “in crowd” in high school. But things didn’t move fast enough for me. I was bored and looking for something that was more exciting. As the pressures of school grew, and the uncertainties of what lay ahead increased, my social drinking habit turned into an everyday crutch.
I remember one morning pulling myself out of bed. I took a few steps, and then suddenly my body started to tremble. It wouldn’t stop until I had that first drink. I reached into the cupboard but it was bare. I couldn’t even find a drop in my “stash” places. I turned the apartment inside out like a wild animal. The need became like a fire spreading through my whole body.
I ran out of the apartment and knocked on the other tenants’ doors, begging for some booze. Finally I called a friend on the phone. He brought half a fifth of liquor. I drank it to steady my nerves, and it lasted until I got to my “second home,” a bar. A so-called friend came over and sat down by me and said, “Coni, you can’t live without it.” These heavy words made me realize I was an alcoholic.
My mental processes started to fall apart, and my body looked more like the body of a 40-year-old woman than a 22-year-old girl. I decided to ask my parents if I could move back home after being away for four years. They said it was o.k.—on the condition that I wouldn’t drink and that I would get a full-time job. I agreed.
Things were going all right until the third day. Then I had my first taste of withdrawals. I just could not go through with it, so I ran to my only comforter, the bottle. I went on a two-week trip with the bottle and then returned home. I couldn’t see any way out. So I downed 14 thorazines (pills). Somehow I lived through it and after four days of recovering, my father hit me with one of his lectures. I remember only one sentence: “Get out of this house, Tramp.”
I really wanted help. So I decided to visit a “headshrinker” once a week. After three weeks the doctor and I agreed that we were getting nowhere. I knew that I couldn’t go on like this, so I committed myself to a state hospital as a “manic-depressive alcoholic.”
I spent the first month in solitary confinement. During this time I went through the most agonizing changes as my body and mind were trying to function without alcohol.
During my second month I was able to live in the ward like a human with other patients. They were mostly there because of drugs. I became friends with Greg. He had pleaded insanity in court after being “hassled” for possession of dangerous drugs. After being released, he was allowed to come back and visit me. He always brought “pot” (marijuana). I shared it with fellow patients. One day Greg brought a surprise for me—a tab of “acid” (LSD).
I decided to take it. An hour passed and nothing happened. So I went to a birthday party for three wards at which I was supposed to be master of ceremonies. When I was reading off the names of people who were getting birthday presents, I suddenly became speechless. Everything became distorted and I started seeing beautiful rays of many colors. That was my first taste of acid—but not my last.
Shortly after my release I decided to go out and really try to find myself. I moved to a section of town where the hippies and beatniks lived. I thought this would be a place where I could really do, say, and think like I wanted—be myself. After moving into a nice, but old, apartment, I discovered that I was living in an area occupied by criminals, junkies (dope addicts), and prostitutes. But as long as I had my “acid” I wasn’t worried.
It wasn’t too long before I found myself in a reeking, filthy house, surrounded by about 15 guys with a pile of white, powder—methedrine. They called it “speed.” They asked me if I wanted a “hit” and I found myself sitting with my sleeve pulled up. I was pumping my arm with a closed fist and a dirty rag tied tightly around my upper arm. The needle pierced my skin—it missed the vein and hit the muscle. It stung like 12 wasps had converged upon my arm at the same time! Before I knew it, my body was filled with the most titillating sensation. I bounded out the door—overflowing with new life.
“Speed” became my love, the only thing I wanted around. Soon my apartment was open to anyone.
After being “high” for 14 days without rest I “split” to California. After two weeks I returned and found my apartment filled with “speed freaks,” (methedrine addicts). Across the room a pair of dark eyes met mine—it was Shane.
Somebody told me he was married. I also learned that he was the biggest dealer in Portland, the sole supplier for pushers and street dealers. He started coming to my apartment to “do his thing.” Shane gave me two large “hits” for letting him use my apartment. From then on my soul belonged to the dealer.
As my escapade with “speed” continued, I began to lose contact with reality. Once I sat for four days staring into space. I couldn’t move or speak. I spent 24 hours on my stomach in a house, paranoid, thinking that the “pigs” were outside my door and windows look-in. One day I hid myself in a closet, standing on my head for a half hour. Twice I took an overdose of “reds” (second pills). But always I survived.
Shane moved to the coast and I had to look for another contact. In order to get drugs, stealing, cheating and lying were necessary. Twice I attempted to kill. I lived in smelly, cockroach-infested rooms. I slept in hallways, porches, and rooftops of apartments. I experienced barbiturate poisoning, desoxin poisoning, mass hallucinations and “freak outs.” I turned into an animal. I couldn’t reason, think, understand, read, or speak except for making noises.
I didn’t take drugs to find myself or to find God, just to get away from facing the fact that I was trapped.
In January I just couldn’t stand it anymore. I didn’t have any reason to live. So I took two bottles of yellow jackets (pills). Shane found me and took me to the hospital. For four days they tried to keep me alive. My heart stopped beating but it started again.
Shane came and got me at the hospital. He took me to a motel where he said I could stay. But a soon as he left, I went out t “score” again. I was going to make it. I wanted to die and that was all. So I got some more barbiturates and decided to “mainline” them, which would kill me for sure.
I was walking around in the snow with this dope in my pocket, looking for a place where I could “shoot up.”
Then Shane found me. He had come back to the motel and found me gone. He knew what I was going to do so he went out looking for me. Having no other place to take me, Shane took me to my parents.
By that time I had extensive brain damage. My mental processes were all messed up. I could hardly even talk. The state gave my parents two weeks to make a choice: either they would hire a 24-hour-a-day nurse to take care of me or commit me to a hospital.
The only person I wanted to see was Margaret Hansell. She had been my closest friend in high school. She and her husband, Bill, were working with a Christian organization in California. It had been three years since we had seen each other. My parents were pretty desperate so they contacted Margaret and Bill, who invited me to come and live with them.
In early February I arrived at Bill’s and Margaret’s apartment. After 15 hours of sleep and some food, Margaret and I sat down to talk. I pulled up my sleeve to show her what had happened since I last saw her. Both my arms were covered by meshy yellow and black bruises. My veins had collapsed from “shooting up” heroin.
The sight was too much for Margaret. She burst into tears and she told me that I didn’t have to go through all that. She said that God had a much better life for me if I would just take it.
Then I thought, here comes the big pitch about Christianity! My mind was made up that Margaret and Bill weren’t going to preach Christianity to me. When I heard the word “Christian,” I thought of church, rules, confinement, and authority, which turned me off. I threw the whole thing out before they could even tell me about it. I told her that I’d been to church and had tried it. I said Christianity might be fine for them, but it wasn’t for me.
What she said then caught me off guard. She replied that Christianity isn’t a religion—it’s a Person, Jesus Christ.
So I listened for the next 20 minutes as Margaret shared with me about her personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This was new to me. I thought God was distant and inaccessible. But Margaret talked as if she knew God … as if He were close to her.
The next day I spent trying to put the puzzle in my mind together. Margaret had given me a small pamphlet which told about God’s love for the world. But it also said that we are separated from His love and need to come back to Him. The pamphlet told the story of Jesus Christ who was the Son of God and who had actually come to this earth to bring us back into relationship with Him.
On the fourth day, Friday, Margaret asked me to go with her and Bill to another meeting. I wanted to stay home and it took a lot of convincing to assure them it would be safe to leave me alone for the evening.
After they left I went to the phone to make a long distance call to Shane. But as I passed the hall mirror, a strange thing happened. I expected to see the ugly reflection I had seen before—my eyes with deep circles under them, and my body scrawny and sickly. But what shook me up more than ever was what I saw inside me. It stood out at first glance. Even after leaving the mirror I couldn’t get it out of my mind.
What I saw in myself was utter despair. I realized that I needed help. I was desperate, so I picked up the pamphlet Margaret had given me.
I wondered whether I felt this way because God wasn’t part of my life. He seemed to make a difference to those other kids I’d met recently—and certainly to Margaret and Bill! They had the most beautiful marriage.
But I didn’t want to jump into anything. So I checked every verse in the pamphlet with a Bible. Near the end was a verse from Revelation where Christ was saying, “Listen, I stand at the door of your life and knock. If any man will hear my voice and open the door I will come in to him” (Revelation 3:20).
After I read this verse, my feelings came bursting out. I said, “Jesus, they call You God. They say You can change people’s lives. Right now I can’t dig life. Living in this rotten world is a bummer. All I can think about is nodding out forever. But for some outrageous reason, life wants me anyway. I’ve tried to end it three times but every time I came through.
“I don’t believe in anything and I don’t have anything. And since I am cursed to life I want a reason to live. I’ve hit bottom and can’t seem to get out.
“Christ, You said that if I ask You into my life You will give me something worth living for. So now, Christ, please come into my life. I want You as my Savior and God. I want a meaningful life and most of all peace of mind.”
The first thing I felt was a deep sense of forgiveness–like everything I’d done before didn’t count anymore.
Within the next few weeks one thing stood out—I lost my appetite for drugs. Two months later I began to see deeper results: reality began to replace fantasy. I felt a new inner strength which enabled me to face life in a way I never had before. Self-concern began to win over self-destruction. For the first time in my life I could move unselfishly.
Christ became real to me—not just as something Margaret talked about, but in my own life. The amazing thing was that all this happened without any conscious effort on my part. I wasn’t making it happen—it just was. (Reprinted from Good News, 1970 ).
by Steve | May 1, 1976 | Archive - 1976
Archive: The Portland General Conference: The Second Week
By the time delegates were seated and the General Conference began its business session Monday morning, 170 items had been cleared through the various legislative committees and were waiting final action. With thousands of items yet to come, the General Conference voted to consider together all items on which 90 percent of any legislative committee had voted negatively. On the last day these would be processed under one “blanket” vote of non-concurrence—with the understanding that any item could be removed for individual consideration if the General Conference wished.
A major action was taken to make permanent the Commission on Role and Status of Women, with an annual budget of $200,000. Created in 1972 to monitor and promote women’s rights within our denomination, CRSW has now become a permanent addition to the UM bureaucracy. This vote, vigorously contested, showed the full power of the feminist movement. Other expressions of its strength were a vote in favor of supporting the Equal Rights Amendment, and pressures to remove “sexist” language from printed materials of the UM Church.
Surprisingly, there was little debate on a resolution favoring return of the Panama Canal Zone to Panamanian control. It passed quickly, as did a resolution putting the UM Church on record in favor of removing felony penalties for possession of “small amounts” of marijuana.
Like an iceberg revealing the tip of a submerged ice field, the power struggle between national boards and the bishops showed itself in a debate over the bishops’ participation in setting churchwide “missional priorities” between General Conferences. The agencies wanted to severely restrict episcopal participation to only three, but a majority of General Conference delegates were reluctant to grant the bureaucracy such unrestricted power. Delegates voted to include bishops prominently in this process.
This helped tilt the denominational power balance back toward the annual conference and local church, of which the bishop is chief pastor. Ideally, bishops and the general boards ought to provide a system of checks and balances—as do the legislative and executive branches of federal government. But many observers feel that the power balance is now weighted heavily in favor of the general boards—with the result that opinions of churches are often undervalued.
The issue of “liberation” was raised prominently by Bishop Emilio de Carvalho of Angola. Denying that “communism took over Angola,” he told the General Conference that the “fundamental issue in Southern Africa is liberation.” The church in Angola, he said, is not divorced from this struggle, “which offers the church a great opportunity to become truly Christian.”
The much-publicized Rhodesian Bishop, Abel T. Muzorewa, was unable to leave Africa. He cabled his regrets and the General Conference voted “solidarity” with these two African bishops. The inference lying behind this vote was possible approval of armed ” revolution, which Bishop Muzorewa has indicated may become inevitable in Rhodesia.
The “code words” of “liberation” and “struggle” were often heard and seen at General Conference. Obviously, the idea of revolution in the political/social sphere has deeply penetrated the thinking of some significant UM leaders. This sentiment surfaced during heated debate to amend a proposed bicentennial resolution, making provision for injustices suffered by Indians and other minority groups during America’s 200 years.
The General Conference also elected members of the Judicial Council, our denomination’s “supreme court.”
A great variety of special meetings were held at noon, in the early morning, at dinner, and late at night. Delegations from most annual conferences had at least one dinner together. One unofficial meeting featured two former students wounded at Kent State; another included Iowa Bishop Thomas with Dennis Banks, leader of the American Indian Movement. (Banks had skipped bail after the Iowa annual conference of the UM Church had put up $5,000 bail money and another $5,000 had been furnished by the UM Board of Church and Society.)
Tuesday the General Conference continued until 10:30 p.m., an extra hour beyond scheduled adjournment time. The torrent of legislative items mounted and some of the more controversial measures were debated.
A new “Diaconal Ministry” was established for lay men and women working for the church full-time. Dean Langford of Duke Divinity School defined “diaconal” as “the ministry of servants or service.”
General Conference continued the Ministerial Education Fund, by which our 13 UM seminaries are primarily financed. Delegates suggested that the two UM seminaries in Ohio and the two in Atlanta move toward consolidation, to eventually reduce the total number of UM seminaries to 11.
Adopting a resolution on peace, the General Conference voted amnesty for “thousands of persons who have conscientiously refused to participate in war in a variety of ways.” Thus the principle of non-violence and pacifism was endorsed a day after General Conference had declared “solidarity” with two liberation leaders in Africa, where violence may not be rejected as an instrument of social change.
Beneath the surface, over the past several years, has been a growing concern about effects of the “quota system,” which was adopted in 1972 in an effort to overcome inequity in minority representation in UM funding and leadership posts. “Quotas” have since become the vehicle by which certain ethnic minority groups (Asians, blacks, native Americans, Hispanics) representing 4.3 percent of the church membership, now exercise great influence over church funds and executive positions.
Two UM bishops have publicly declared that quotas must be abandoned. Doubts are growing as the consequences of quota-system hiring have become more evident—for example, church extension in the National Division of the Board of Global Ministries.
Against this background of deepening churchwide concern, the editor of Good News submitted to General Conference a petition calling for an intensive study of “the effect of the quota system upon the proficiency and functioning” of UM boards and agencies “and upon the competence of those employed through the quota system.”
This petition was adopted by General Conference, which ordered the General Council on Ministries to investigate during the next four years. Some observers interpreted this vote as an expression of growing hesitancy concerning emphasis on minority empowerment, prominent since 1970, and reflected in allocations of money made by the 1976 General Conference. Two other anti-quota signs: General Conference refused to vote that 40% of UM agency executives be women; the EUB quota system, established at merger in 1968, has been set aside for 1980.
J. Robert Kemmerly, MD, member of the Good News Board and lay delegate from Louisiana, was instrumental in pressing for greater accountability of boards and agencies, as well as the debate on health care. Good News Board Member Tom McQuary was a Louisville delegate. Two former board members were also active as delegated: Robert G. Mayfield, Kentucky and Charles S. Kerr, Eastern Pennsylvania.
As delegates ploughed through mountains of legislation in the closing days of the second week, thoughts were turning toward 1980. Some 1,200 pens were given out, bearing the slogan “Indiana Area Welcomes You to the 1980 General Conference.”
“Born to Raise Hell” was the provocative title of the Wednesday afternoon sermon, preached by Dr. T. Cecil Myers, pastor of First UM Church, Athens, Georgia. Reading this news item early Wednesday morning in the “Daily Christian Advocate,” delegates received an umntent10nal, but perhaps prophetic, omen of the day’s legislative activity.
A long and vigorous debate was conducted over a proposal to change the present life tenure of bishops and elect them for eight years only, with no succession. This was a minority report issued by seven members of the Quadrennial Study on Episcopacy. It had been widely supported by a variety of people wanting to further restrict the authority of bishops. After much debate delegates voted against the eight-year limit 625 to 345.
“This action reaffirmed the office and power of episcopacy,” observed Rev. Dr. Paul A. Mickey, Associate Professor at Duke Divinity School, a process observer at General Conference for the General Council on Ministries, and first vice-chairman of the Good News Board. “But this also constitutes a mandate for bishops to take the reins of leadership, especially with regard to exercising restraining influence on the general boards and agencies.”
A surprise was the vote to include evangelism along with world hunger and ethnic minority church strengthening, as a three–faceted quadrennial emphasis under the theme: “Committed to Christ—Called to Change.” The first proposal called for funding in the amount of $250,000 per year for evangelism, but later, in a final budget shuffling, the evangelism allocation from World Service was reduced to $ 125,000 yearly.
Delegates were unhesitating in their desire to vote money for hunger and ethnic minorities, but they were reluctant to fund evangelism. At the last minute, they voted the Joint Committee on Communications an additional $659,000 yearly for promotional activities. In the end, evangelism rated no better than the $125,000.
The pressure for evangelism to be included seemed to come from two sources: 1) awareness of deep lay desire for more emphasis on evangelism, 2) worry over the loss of some 1,000,000 members since merger in 1968. But whatever the motive, this General Conference decision was cheered by those United Methodists who have always regarded evangelism—the winning of the lost to Christ—as the number-one business of the Church.
Wednesday night brought one of the tensest moments: consideration of the Social Principles statement, which the Board of Church and Society wanted to change so as to condone both homosexual practice and fornication.
Long hours had been spent in the legislative committee. With 5,758 petitions urging no change in the denomination’s position on human sexuality, the subcommittee consistently voted down the changes proposed by Church and Society.
David A. Seamands, Good News third vice-chairman and delegate (1-18) from the Kentucky Conference, had been assigned to the legislative committee on Church and Society. Wanting to be part of the particular subcommittee dealing with human sexuality, he had mistakenly signed up for a different subcommittee. Then, mysteriously, the subcommittee assignment list was misplaced! So the chairman invited members to make their choices again. This time Delegate Seamands got onto the crucial subcommittee.
As the debate on human sexuality approached, he felt led to tabulate the huge pile of petitions opposing the proposed changes. Several hours were spent sifting and counting.
Then, at a critical moment in the debate, one delegate sneered that the petitions had come from ignorant fundamentalists of the Bible belt. Delegate Seamands then presented his breakdown of the petitions. They had come from 45 states, representing every jurisdiction across the church, he reported. Annual conferences had sent 50 petitions. There were 749 petitions from charge conferences, administrative boards, councils of ministry, local UM Women, or various local church commissions. These facts seemed to blunt the drive to write “new morality” into our Social Principles statement.
During the debate in subcommittee, homosexual caucus leader Keith Spare, a UM layman from Reserve, KS, was given permission to speak. He claimed that 1,000,000 United Methodists are homosexual—a highly debatable statistic!—and he urged that it would be wrong to exclude this many people from full participation in the UM church. Another homosexual, Gene Leggett from Texas, also spoke for the “gay” cause.
The subcommittee listened, but then voted down the proposed changes. Further, it strengthened the statement against homosexuality by amending the present sentence: “We do not recommend marriage between two persons of the same sex;” to, “We do not recognize a relationship between two persons of the same sex as constituting marriage.”
Wednesday evening, with the atmosphere electric, the actions of this subcommittee came before the General Conference. The delegates voted to permit a three-minute statement by homosexual caucus leader, Keith Spare.
June Goldman, lay delegate from Iowa then said, “… What we are facing here is to listen to the voice of the grassroots of the church … I think it would be a great breach in credibility for this General Conference to vote against the wish which has become a mandate from United Methodism. …”
Another high point in the debate came when the venerable Dr. Albert C. Outler rose to speak:
“This is the moment I have been dreading for eighteen months, because this puts this conference and the UM Church on one of the tightest, hottest, and most significant points of decision we have ever been. …The essence of the issue before us is not Christian or pastoral compassion for homosexuals. … Nor is it some imagined difference between welcoming homosexuals into membership and refusing them ordination. No, we are being asked here and now … to condone homosexuality and to welcome and avow homosexuals into our ministry. We are being asked to vote for or against antinomianism in an acid test case. We are being asked to vote for or against moral decadence in one of its characteristic forms. We are being asked to endorse sexual promiscuity in the case of homosexuals, since we stipulate against homosexual marriage, thereby logically entailing endorsement of promiscuity for heterosexual Methodists (which some of them might prefer!).
“Beside being contrary to Biblical interpretation of sexuality and the whole tradition of Christian ethics, homosexuality is at least doubtful proposition as a positively equal sexual option, in view of a great many, if not most, modern biologists, psychiatrists, and ethicists. Moreover, the evidence is very far from solid that homosexual liaisons are positively good and humanly fulfilling over all and in the long run.
“Nevertheless we are now being asked to ignore all this and to pass directly from homosexuality decriminalization which we favored in 1972 to its positive institutionalization in 1976. This is wrong. This is unwise. This is a foolproof recipe for a irreversible disaster in the UM Church and in the Christian community. … This is an issue of conscience, and for me I aim to vote against that . antinomianism as any heir of Wesley would, and to vote against moral decadence; and I appeal to this conference to do the same.”
Dr. Leigh Roberts, psychiatrist and Wisconsin lay delegate (who served as chairman of the legislative subcommittee which handled the matter of a study of human sexuality) compared the anti-homosexual sentiments of the church to the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s.
The vote showed that General Conference strongly opposed relaxing our Social Principles statement’s clear position against homosexual practice. With that crucial vote, delegates protected the legal bulwark which both the bishops and the Division of Ordained Ministry considered the key reason why practicing homosexuals cannot legally be ordained.
The mood of General Conference was to listen carefully — as evidenced by permitting the top homosexual leader to address the delegates. Then the vote was cast decisively. It could not be said that this General Conference had been “closed” to the homosexuals. On the contrary, this General Conference has been far more “open” than the church itself. Yet the final show of hands vindicated both the Word of God and the overwhelming mandate of the church.
By Thursday, delegates were nervously eyeing the enormous pile of remaining business. Would adjournment be possible by Friday night? A poll showed that less than a quorum would be available on Saturday. So the 1976 General Conference would have to complete its business Friday evening. With an eye to this goal, the maximum (1-20) length of individual speeches was cut from six to three minutes. And as the clock ticked toward adjournment, an impatient General Conference often voted to shut off debate so business could proceed.
The closer to adjournment a matter was considered, the greater the pressure to vote with minimal deliberation. Herein lay a major problem: Some highly delicate, complex, and controversial matters were voted in this atmosphere of haste. In this manner, General Conferences have provided boards and agencies with wide mandates to involve the church in coalitions and to advocate positions which have proved highly divisive.
A long debate focused on two plans for the denominational youth representation. The present UM Council on Youth Ministries, which spearheaded efforts to gain acceptance for homosexual practice by the church, was abolished. A new youth organization, directly accountable to the UM Board of Discipleship, will begin in 1977. UMCYM’s strongest critics were youth and young adult delegates who spoke sharply of UMCYM’s inadequacy, and called for a new, more representative youth organization.
The most controversial portion of the Social Principles statement had been debated, and Church and Society proposals condoning homosexuality and fornication had been defeated. Consideration of the rest of the document brought ratification of the 1972 document, with some significant changes:
- An attempt to insert a specific condemnation of homosexual practice was overwhelmingly defeated. Delegates apparently felt this issue had been dealt with adequately.
- Ministry to divorced persons by the church is encouraged.
- The position on abortion was changed to read, “We support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.” This replaced the 1972 statement reading, “We support removal of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under laws related to other procedures of medical practice.” Thus the UM Church continues its favorable stance toward abortion. However, a proposal to endorse the pro-abortion decision of the US Supreme Court was strongly rejected.
- Added a statement favoring the licensing of all gun owners and registering all firearms.
Significantly, the delegates rejected a proposal by Church and Society for a publicly administered, universal health-care program.
The traditional church position recommending abstention from alcoholic beverages was affirmed, in what Newscope described as “a statement somewhat less permissive than the 1972 resolution.”
Delegates adopted a comprehensive communications program, replacing the defunct magazine, United Methodists Today, which died in June 1975. The new emphasis shifts away from the traditional church magazine, utilizing radio, television, church newsletters, and annual conference publications. No effort was made to launch a new all-church magazine, nor to compete in official news coverage with the flourishing Texas Methodist/ UM Reporter, now reaching 375,165 readers in 31 annual conferences.
“Ageism,” discrimination because of age, was added to “sexism” and “racism” as evils to be opposed by the church.
An interesting sidelight was a special presentation made by Bishop W. McFerrin Stowe, of the Dallas area, to Bishop and Mrs. Onema Fama of Zaire. The North Texas General Conference delegation purchased a quantity of snake antivenom, needed because people in the Mulungwishi mission station area of Zaire are dying from poisonous snake bites. Thus an unusual cry for help was heeded in between votes.
The last day of the 1976 General Conference tested the endurance of delegates, already groggy from activities of the past days. Business began at 9:00 a.m. Friday and did not adjourn until 2:00 a.m. Saturday.
From the mass of actions taken during the 13½ hours of this marathon closing session, perhaps the most significant concerned whether or not to authorize a churchwide study of human sexuality. Many United Methodists feared it would be, at best, a useless waste of resources, and at worst a “Trojan horse” through which pro-homosexual advocates could seek to “condition” the church during the next quadrennium.
John Grenfell, Superintendent of the Marquette District, Detroit Conference, and third vice-chairman of Good News, presented the minority report. The vote was 477 for, 446 against. The upraised hands translated the Good News-created minority report into church law. It meant that delegates had wished to avoid the hazards and extravagance of a churchwide study. Perhaps most important, it placed responsibility for study of human sexuality where it really belongs: with the local church. Resource materials will be collected by the General Council on Ministries, to assist local churches desiring a study. A wide variety of viewpoints will be included, but GCOM has indicated no pro-homosexual bias, and is the most representative of all UM boards and agencies. So we have confidence that the resources provided will be fair and balanced. Finally, results of local church studies are to be shared with the whole church through the Interpreter magazine.
A further protection was provided by a General Conference resolution ordering UM agencies not to give church funds to any “gay” caucus or group, “or otherwise use funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality,” reported UM Communications. The church’s chief fiscal agency was given the right to stop any such expenditures.
Another action of General Conference called on boards and agencies to spend church funds “only in accord with the denomination’s Social Principles statement.”
Bishop Kenneth Goodson, President of the Council of Bishops, spoke the final words. Compressing a closing address, due to the late hour, he declared that the 1976 General Conference “has been sensitive to grass-root concerns. The criticism that the local church 1 not heard is no longer valid.”
Emerging from Memorial Coliseum for the last time, delegates hurried through the early morning coolness to their rooms. Some packed hastily and snatched a few hours sleep before heading home.
By 9:00 a.m. Saturday the coliseum was being prepared for the next event. The thunder of ecclesiastical debate had been replaced by the sound of rock music, which entertained workmen disassembling the desks, the great stage, and the sound system.
The 1976 General Conference had passed into history.
“It was wonderful to be here,” commented one delegate as he checked out of his motel Saturday morning, “but it is time to be heading home. That’s where the wheel will touch the road on all we have done in Portland.”
by Steve | Mar 3, 1976 | Archive - 1976
The Church Beautiful
Condensed from an address delivered at the 1975 Good News Convocation by Paul Morell, Pastor, Tyler Street United Methodist Church, Dallas, Texas
Chairman of the Good News Board, 1974-75
I have some particular ideas that I want to share with you concerning the Church. The Church is meant to be a community of faith and fellowship. It is a service center, not a cultural center. It is meant to be a place of prayer and praise and power —not— a place where there is deadness in formal worship, or where there is informality in worship to the point of anarchy. And, the Church is not a place where our moral laxity is excused or OK’d!
The Bible teaches that the Church is the Bride of Christ. We are to be the Church beautiful while He is to be the Bridegroom (John 3:29). The beautiful Bride (Church) belongs to Him. In Matthew 9:15 Christ calls Himself the Bridegroom; His Bride is the Church.
In Matthew 25 there is that story of five foolish and five wise virgins. This entire parable is built around the Bridegroom’s expected arrival. Those who have come to attend the wedding have really only one purpose: to be ready when the Bridegroom arrives. To share with Him in His happiness is life. Not to be ready means that you shalI not share life with the Bridegroom … instead, you shall be left outside when the doors shall be shut.
The Church is lifted up as Christ’s Bride in chapters 21 and 22 of Revelation. Here we see an angel coming to take John the Elder and lifting him to a high place where he can see the New Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven as a bride adorned for her husband. From this vantage point with the angel, John gives a description of the New Jerusalem, Heaven, the City Foursquare, the City that is perfect, the City that is the dream and the fulfillment of the people of God who believe and who care. The angel describes this new and holy City of Jerusalem to be the Bride of the Lamb. We of the Church are meant to be the Bride, individually and collectively, of the Bridegroom who is Jesus Christ.
What does it mean to be a Bride?
The Bride is to be pure. The Bride is to be beautiful. The Bride is to be faithful. And the Bride is to keep alive her first love as she gives her total self to the Bridegroom. All things are centered in Him and for Him. The Bride’s purpose is the Bridegroom. She desires to be His delight and His joy. This includes the experience of worship, the experience of praise, the times of prayer, the times of service to mankind and to one another within the Church. In all the Church does we are endeavoring to be His happiness … His delight. For the Bride (all of us) Christ is the fulfillment of our dream … and we are here to be the fulfillment of Christ’s dream.
We are the Bride of Christ, and at this point we are feminine. We are married to Him in order to ultimately produce fruit; God expects us to be fruit, and that becomes beautiful. Beautiful indeed!
We must also see the Church as the Body of Christ. In Romans the 12th Chapter, St. Paul writes that there is only one Body though there may be many members.
First Corinthians 12, verse 14 in particular, also talks about one Body, many members. On either end of this passage are suggestions as to how gifts of the Spirit enable the Body to be alive and vital. Our purpose is to be united in the Spirit of Christ and so we are enabled, in the power of God, to be His Body.
The whole epistle to the Ephesians concerns the Body of Christ. In the fourth chapter we find a listing of the gifts of the Spirit of the Church. And of course they’re not just to the Church, they are given to individuals in behalf of what the Body must become. We are even told that Christ is to be the Head of the Body, that He is its Savior Himself.
Colossians 1:18 also lifts up the Body of Christ. Here it is driven home, We are the Body of Christ!
And the work of the Body is really to make people in the world beautiful through the power that God supplies. We’re supposed to gather together for inspiration and encouragement. And then, our souls marching under divine orders, we are supposed to go out and do the will and the work of God as the Body of Jesus Christ. We are to become God’s Word, enfleshed for our generation.
The Church beautiful is the Church that is willing to minister in the Name of Jesus Christ, without apology and without shame. But here I want to say a word of warning. As we begin to march out into the various types of ministries, we must make sure that whatever we are doing in outreach does not sap the time and the energy needed for the vital work of evangelism, and Christian nurture and growth. One difficulty of our age is that so much of what we’re doing in ministry is, frankly, sapping the strength away from the work of conversion … lessening our time to be involved in quality growth as Christ’s disciples.
Our church in Dallas sponsors a home for the elderly, located in the same block as our church building. Not too long ago an 85-year-old lady told me she wanted to belong to our congregation. She was a Baptist, she had been born Baptist, dipped Baptist, and had always believed Baptist.
I said to this dear lady, “Why do you want to join this United Methodist Church?”
Her answer was a simple one. She said, “You have provided a home for me. You are giving me spiritual nourishment. The least that I can do is belong and participate in the fellowship that cares like this.”
I said, “Amen.” We received her into the fellowship.
There was a Baptist church right across the street from where she was living, but she chose to respond to ministry that mattered.
Why did we build this home for the elderly? We are interested in increasing the number who believed and who would serve, who would praise and honor God.
I believe in making disciples. That is what the Church beautiful is all about. A few years ago, I went to a little church in eastern New Mexico. It had only 18 members, but we had a full-fledged, four-day revival. No one came into the fellowship or made a decision for Christ the first day, nor the first night. or the second day. Nor the second night. or the third day, third night, nor the fourth morning.
But on the final evening, the mantle of God’s Spirit fell upon the congregation. Two persons accepted Christ, and the congregation wept. They jumped around, dancing, they were so happy. For here was evidence that the Church was alive; that the church spire yet had purpose! Two people in their 20’s had accepted the Lord! A new generation would yet live in Christ and the church would continue the ministry for which it had been created back in 1912.
Why could they get so excited moving from 18 to 20 members? In the Church beautiful, we need to get excited about God redeeming and changing lives. The Church beautiful is the Church in which the Spirit flows. One of the things wrong with United Methodism in recent decades is that we have not had the Spirit flowing through us as we should. He must flow through us! He must cleanse us!
Do you know what is the initial two-fold ministry of Jesus? It’s in the first chapter of Joh n’s Gospel. Verse 29 records the words of John the Baptist, “Behold, the Lamb of God, he takes away the sins of the whole world!”
Yes, Jesus takes away your sins. That is first. Second, Jesus gives to you the Holy Spirit (John 1:33).
If you do not have the two-fold ministry of Jesus in your life, I doubt if Jesus has really come. If you are a Christian, the Spirit is within you. And if the Spirit of God is within you, then the power of the Spirit is there. This means that you are empowered to become a different individual, a new creation, a new creature in Christ. As there is color in a sunbeam, so there is power in the Christian because the Spirit dwells within.
Why does Jesus want the Church beautiful, and the people beautiful, to have His Holy Spirit?
Because we’re here to glorify God. The 15th chapter of John’s Gospel tells us this very clearly: without Christ we can do nothing. Since Christ has gone up to the Father, “even greater things shall ye do because I go unto the Father.” You have a Counsellor’ You have a Comforter’ You have an Eternal Presence with you’ And it is only in this Eternal Empowering Presence that we can move forward in the work of being the Body of Christ.
What about gifts?
By “the gifts of the Holy Spirit ” we mean the various ways by which the power of God works through the life of the believer.
By “the fruit of the Spirit” we mean the character and the nature of Jesus Christ shining through the life and the action of the believer. To have the Spirit is to be Christlike. And to be Christ-like is to have God’s Spirit. Oh, this is the joy of it! We need the gifts and we need the fruit. We need love, joy, peace and self-control. And we need the gifts as they are listed in I Corinthians, the 12th chapter.
This experience of gift and fruit is what makes the Church beautiful … the Spirit enabling … the Spirit making us lovely. And it is beautiful when we are willing to be the Bride of Christ. The beautiful Church is where the Spirit is able to flow among us.
Finally, the Church is beautiful when it is willing to pay the price required to be triumphant. The first Christian martyr, Stephen, paid that price. As he fell under the load of stones, he looked up and the door of Heaven opened. The clouds rolled away and he saw Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, at the right hand of the Father. That was his dying testimony as a member of the Church beautiful. The Church triumphant.
One day I went to see an Indian mission in my home state of Oklahoma. In the days of the five Indian nations, Presbyterians had opened the work there. I visited two graves on a little knoll in a persimmon grove. A hundred years or more had passed, but you could still see the names. One was the wife of the Presbyterian missionary. She had died in childbirth and the little baby was buried there too.
I didn’t have a hat on, but I sort of took it off anyway. I was kneeling in my heart as I thought of the price they paid to take the Gospel to the whole world.
My father has been gone six years now. Like many Methodists he went to church regularly. He used to walk across the frozen fields of northern Oklahoma in order to sing in a little country church.
My father wasn’t the religious type, though he was a church member. But my dad was a man of principle and of faith, and I know, a man of Christ.
Six years ago he came toward his final illness. He was in a Baptist Hospital in Oklahoma City. In the bed next to him was an elderly Baptist missionary pastor who had served Christ many years, and was in his last hours. Suddenly Dad’s roommate sat up in bed and said, “Lord Jesus, you’ve come for me.”
This scared my father! He wasn’t used to that kind of religion.
Then the Baptist minister lifted up both of his arms because Christ had come for him. Looking up with radiance in that sick face, he said, “Wait a minute, Lord Jesus. I’ve got someone I’ve got to pray for.” Then he fell back in bed. His hands came together, clasped in prayer. His lips moved. Then his eyes opened and the smile came back. He looked that look of love that can be looked only when perfect love is present.
“Thank you for waiting,” he said to Jesus. “I’ve prayed for him. Let’s go.” With that his arms fell to his side and he was gone.
I’m not positive what my father’s theology was about the triumphant ·church before then. But I know very well what my father believed in his last days, before he joined that great caravan of faith. He had seen the Church triumphant and it was beautiful!
What about you? Our fellow United Methodists? Our pastors? Our bishops? Are we really willing to be the Bride of Christ? To bear Him fruit and children of faith? Are we ready, as God’s people, to really be the Body of Christ? To minister as Jesus would today? Are we the Church which is willing to let the natural power of God flow through our lives? Do we welcome the living Spirit who cleanses and washes and challenges and lifts and empowers? Do we really believe in the Church triumphant? And do you and I, though our days may be few or many, and though we may be on the top or the bottom of social or material success … do we believe that all shall be made right when we are at His feet?
Dear people, pray for me. I pray for you, that together we may be God’s beautiful people. I pray that United Methodism may be the Church beautiful.
