by Steve | Jun 3, 1973 | Archive - 1973
The Knowledge of God
“To me they cry, ‘My God, we Israel know the Lord.’ Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him, (Hosea 8:2,3).” On first glance it would appear that these two verses are unrelated, since they seem to contradict each other. But on further study of the context, it becomes clear that irony is intended. All of Israel’s claims to the contrary, she does not “know” God.
What, then, does it mean to know God? If Israel does not “know” God, who does?
The English verb “to know” has two connotations (among others). Thus, you might ask a group if all those present know some nationally prominent person. Probably the majority would answer “yes,” meaning “I have an intellectual acquaintance with that person—I know who he or she is.” But if you were to ask whether anyone in the group really knows that prominent person, probably no one would answer “yes”—meaning that no one present has had an experiential acquaintance with him or her. No one really knows that person.
In the great majority of cases the Hebrew word yadac “to know” has only the latter connotation. We English-speakers may think of the knowledge of God as something primarily intellectual, philosophic, or apologetic. Not so the Hebrew! The knowledge of God was forged in the fires of conflict and testing, of disobedience and punishment, of repentance and grace. He knew God and God knew him.
The primacy of this experiential content is beautifully illustrated in the language of the sex relationship. The Hebrew text says literally that a man knew his wife. This is no euphemism. Rather, it means precisely what it says. Two people in the most intimate, personal, revealing ways give their bodies and their personalities to one another. And they know one another. In those moments of passionate, unreserved giving, one tastes the reality of commitment. This- is one more reason for the preservation of the sanctity of sex, as well as its freedom within the prescribed bounds: it is a type or illustration of the relationship between God and His own. So once again, when the Bible speaks of knowing God, it is speaking about an experience, not an abstraction-an experience not unlike holding a live electric wire.
Examples of this concept appear throughout the Old Testament; however, those from Hosea and Amos will suffice. One of the most poignant of the prophecies is that of Hosea. The touching interplay between the prophet and his unfaithful wife and God and unfaithful Israel is unforgettable. Hosea’s many allusions to marriage and sexual embrace are not by chance.
It is precisely because of her lack of knowledge of God that Israel will be exiled (4:1). She has not sustained such a relationship. The God who knew her in the wilderness (13:5), she has forgotten.
But as Hosea’s writing and, indeed, the whole Bible indicates, to sustain such a relationship is difficult. This is no cut-and-dried affair. This is the One who is truly Real, before whom all my tinsel is evident. This is the One who is truly Love, before whom all my apathy is made· plain. This is the One who is truly Holy, before whom my stained clothes are seen to be what they are. To allow myself to be enclosed in that embrace is to be unmade, to be remade. It is to feel my too-reluctant spirit heated white – hot, pounded, hammered, stamped into that unattainable image. It is too much! His designs are too great!
How much easier to backpedal, to sidestep, to propitiate Him with services, with sacrifices, with the reciting of creeds, with abstinences! Somehow we must find ways to keep Him happy without letting Him at the blueprint of our lives. We will show that we know God by doing all the religious things He likes so well. And God says, “There is no knowledge of me here (4:1,2,6).” What are religious deeds? Show me My nature in you (6:6)! I hate your religiosity (Amos 5:21-26)! Knowledge of God may indeed result in religious acts, but not before it has issued in a life which breathes the breath of God (Psalm 51).
Jeremiah speaks in a similar vein (9:25a). How easy it is to trust in externals, in religious practices, in our marks of circumcision. But where is the circumcision of the heart? Where is that knowledge of God, that consuming relationship with God, which issues in goodness, gentleness, justice, righteousness? (Micah 6:6-8). Where is the knowledge of God?
by Steve | Jun 2, 1973 | Archive - 1973
Archive: Jesus is Our Head
Condensed from an address by Kenneth W. Copeland Bishop, Houston (Texas) Area, United Methodist Church
At press time we learned the Bishop has gone to be with the Lord in glory.
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, His Body. This is the message Paul is affirming without any reservation whatsoever. The Church has been at its best at those times when it has been most committed to this irreversible truth. When the Church fails to be the Church, when it fails in its witness to the world, it is because it fails at the point of recognizing and responding to Jesus Christ as Head of the Church.
Today the divine call is for the Church to see with the eyes of Christ, to hear with the ears of Christ, to think with the mind of Christ, to love with the heart of Christ, to heal with the hands of Christ and to speak with the voice of Christ. If I read the mind of this Convocation correctly, I believe that is why we’re here. And what we believe the mission of the Church is all about. I believe this truth is absolutely basic to everything we talk about, hope for, pray and work for with respect to the renewal of the Church. What does concern us is that the Church will make a vivid and vital rediscovery of Jesus Christ as its Head and recommit the message and mission of the Church to His will in our day.
There is far more in these verses than any one human being can fully comprehend. However, it is both our duty and our privilege to examine what Paul is trying to say here under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
First, Paul is proclaiming the supremacy of Christ, the preeminence of Christ. The Layman’s Bible Commentary paraphrases part of verse 18 in this manner: “Christ is the source of the Church’s life, since He rose first from the dead that others might rise through Him. Thus in all things, in Church as well as universe, He shows Himself supreme.” How very important this is—and always has been—to any adequate understanding of the Church and its witness in the world! In the days of His flesh, our blessed Lord confronted His disciples with this question, “Who do you say I am?” On the answer to that question, the Christian and the Church either stand or fall. Nothing else matters very much if that question is not answered correctly, within the limits of our own humanity and the limits of our faith. No creeds, no activism, no philosophy, no resolution, no dialogue, no restructuring of organizations, no church program nor policy will avail much which does not arise out of a firm conviction that “You are the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
It makes a great deal of difference who we believe Jesus Christ is. Here is the profound and decisive difference between the Christian faith and all other religions. It separates them not in degree but in kind. Religions are man’s search for God; the Gospel is God’s search for man.
The Revised Standard Version has it that “in everything He might be preeminent.” Everything! “For in Him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell.” The Greek word translated “fufness” means totality. That is, the totality of divine powers chose to make their abode in Him. This phrase, therefore, claims full deity for Christ.
There’s a difference between divinity and deity. Not many people debate the divinity of Jesus Christ. Divinity is an attribute of God. Therefore, love is divine. Truth is divine. Beauty is divine. The Christian home is divine. The Church is divine. Divinity is an attribute of God, but Deity is God. The incarnation is the one great irreversible fact of history. God revealed Himself in the human dimensions of Jesus. Witness the question of Philip, for example, at the Last Supper, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied” (John 14:8). Jesus answered, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father…”
Dr. John Lawson is Professor of Church History at Candler School of Theology. In his book An Evangelical Faith for Today, he said, “The evangelical must insist that a further essential to the Christian system (without which the whole falls and upon which there can be no compromise) is that our Lord is the unique, divine incarnation in the full historic sense of the word. He’s the divine son made man, fully human, fully divine, one real Person, the permanent union of God with His handiwork, and the personal entry of God into the history of this world.” Let us reaffirm our unquestioned belief in the supremacy, the preeminence of Jesus Christ. The effectiveness of the Church’s witness in the world, in both the personal and the social dimensions of human life and society, depends upon the full acceptance of this truth, and our obedience to it.
Another great truth which comes to us from this Colossian passage is the power of Christ. It’s not accidental, my dear friends, that the Great Commission of our Lord is predicated by Jesus’ affirmation that all power had been given to Him, both in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Then follows His promise that He will be with us always, even unto the end of the world.
The intimacy of His divine companionship and the promise and provision of His power are set within the context of mission. Now let us add to the promises inherent in the Great Commission, the promise that He gave His disciples just before His Ascension to the Father: “You will receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and you will be witnesses unto Me in all Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The greatest need of the Church today is this power Jesus promised us we could have. Yet perhaps no dimension of the Church’s life and ministry is quite so misunderstood. It is popular, relevant and contemporary to talk about power structures within the Church. It’s also popular to demand a “piece of that pie.” For some, it is the “in” thing to organize our own power structures to fight the established power structures, fighting fire with fire. The end result is that all of us are severely burned in the process, and the Kingdom of God grinds down to a slow walk.
I hold no brief for persons who seek to dominate the program and the progress of the Church. I do not believe in dictatorships of any kind, whether of bishops or boards, of pastors or presidents, of lay or ordained persons. It would be presumption of the worst sort for any one of us to assume that he or she could take over the powers of the Head of the Church. One thing is clear: we’re on a dead-end street if we believe that’s the way to become empowered. The Church cannot grant power to persons. I want to say this again because you’re going to have to think very deeply at this moment The Church cannot grant power to people-that is, the kind of power Jesus was talking about, and the kind of power the Church must have to be the Church. The Church itself does not empower persons, it cannot empower ordained or unordained persons, laity or clergy, women or men, youth or age, white or nonwhite, rich or poor. The Church does not empower; only the Holy Spirit empowers.
The Church does, however, have the right and responsibility to grant authority to certain persons to speak and act in the name of the Church, in the pursuit of its witness in the world. The discipline of our church spells out these areas of authority and responsibility given to ordained and unordained persons, and we’re cautioned in Christian conscience to give a good account of our stewardship of this authority. However, at no point in the Discipline nor in the practice of the Church does the Church promise it can empower any one of us.
The power I speak of here, of course, is that power that Jesus promised would come—the power of redeeming, reconciling, recreating love. In relation to this power our lord affirms three great truths. First, He possesses it: “All power is given unto Me.” Second, He promises it: “You will receive power.” Third, He provides it: “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”
A bishop cannot increase a minister’s power by moving him or her to a larger parish. A person does not suddenly come into possession of this power when elected and consecrated a bishop. The opportunity to serve on some board or agency of the Church may give a person an enlarged opportunity to let the power of God flow through him or her in different and sometimes more creative channels. However, serving on boards and agencies of the church does not, in itself, grant a person spiritual power. Neither can spiritual power be gained by a struggle or a shrewd manipulation of the minds and wills of other persons for our own selfish ends. You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. This is the pathway to power, the only pathway.
It should be clear to those who read the Scripture and study the experience of the Church that the Holy Spirit is a gift from the Father. Read those precious promises in the 14th, 15th and 16th Chapters of John’s Gospel, where Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit’s coming. Let me just pick out phrases: “I will ask the Father and He will give you another to be your Advocate.” And then again He refers to the Holy Spirit “whom the Father will send in my name,” and still again, “when your Advocate is come whom I will send you from the Father,” and then again, “When He comes, who is the Spirit of all truth.”
These are promises of a divine gift from the Father, not of something one earns, works for, deserves, or for whom ritual preconditions must be met. The Holy Spirit is a gift! The power of God is a gift!
However, He must be received through faith; in confidence that He meant what He said, and He will do what He promised. That He initiates the offer of Himself, that He stands at the door and knocks, that He will come in if we but open the door, that He will sup with us and we with Him. Blessed, blessed promises, indeed!
The Holy Spirit comes as a gift from the Father and must be received through faith. Then He will abide in our hearts, and in the Church, and empower us and the Church as we obey Him. Jesus declared that the standard at the judgment would simply be “inasmuch as ye did it or did it not unto one of the least of these my brethren, Ye did it or did it not unto me.” Here are both the personal and the social, the individual and the corporate, both the local and the world-wide implications of the Gospel. These have never been separated; they are dimensions of one Gospel, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.
We see in this picture of Christ as the Head of the Church, not only preeminence and power but also His place in the unity of the believers. Paul emphasizes Christ’s headship of the Body, His Church, in his Colossian Letter, and emphasizes the individual responsibilities of the various parts of the Body in his 1st Corinthian Letter, Chapter 12. Three things need to be said quickly about the different parts of the Body as this truth applies to the Churches. First, the parts of the body have different functions and different responsibilities. The hand can do many things the foot cannot do. The foot has individual responsibilities other parts of the body cannot perform.
So it is with the Church—not only with different persons of the Church but with different ministries and different congregations. The gifts of the Spirit differ. Some are given the gift of prophecy. Others have the gift of proclamation, others the gift of teaching, others a diversity of responsibilities. This we come to call “pluralism,” at least in some applications of the term.
However, the individual parts function only as they remain within the Body. In his Corinthian Letter, Paul emphasizes the fact that a body is not one single organ but many. And no single organ is the whole body.
No Christian has either the right or the authority simply to “do his own thing” without regard to what it means to the Body. Pluralism is one thing; polarization is another. The one cooperates toward a common goal and brings all the diversities together, making its own distinctive contribution toward that end. But polarization is divisive, hostile, and ultimately destructive.
This truth needs to dawn anew and afresh in our hearts this day, my dear friends. We need to pray for renewal of the sense of belonging to each other. Let us, in the name of God, cease this cold war that exists among us.
The Head is the center of unity for all the parts. For 2,000 years the Church has read and reread our Lord’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus prayed that they might all be one, even as God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son are one.” I do not speak here of organic union, even though I could do so without apology, for the United Methodist Church and its predecessors have long been in the forefront of discussions of organic union and actualizations of union. We’ll continue to dialogue with our Christian brothers and sisters in other denominations about these possibilities.
However, far more important than organic union is the unity we already have in Jesus Christ. No reshuffling of the structure can compensate for the rejection of that unity. No amount of mergers can substitute for unity in Christ. And I’m sure that those who are most committed to the ecumenical movement believe this as much as we do here tonight.
We need not unite in customs or cultures. The Church of Jesus Christ does not require its members to have political or philosophical sameness. No race has any right to attempt to swallow up another race or subordinate its culture. However, all of us who claim the name of Jesus Christ had better learn what it means to come together in the Spirit of Jesus Christ and work together under one banner of His redeeming love-and we’d better do it pretty soon or the forces of evil will destroy us before we know what’s happening to us. It is only “in Christ” that there’s no East nor West, no North nor South, no bond or free, no male or female. Equality is in Him, unity is in Him. And when any two of us come close enough to touch Him, we’re close enough to touch each other. The saints have done it; God’s people can do it again.
Finally, it seems to me that Paul’s picture of Christ as the Head of the Church has to do not only with his preeminence, His power and His place as the center of unity, but also with His peace. Here the apostle is speaking about a cosmic Christ. Let me quote it again, “His is the primacy over all created things. Through Him God chose to reconcile the whole universe unto himself, making peace through the shedding of His blood upon the cross” (Colossians 1:20).
He charges us to be ministers of that peace and reconciliation. If – you read II Corinthians in the New English Bible, you will read these words, “The love of Christ leaves us no choice.” He’s the author of peace in the inner life, for He brings the peace of God to dwell in us through faith. He’s the author of peace between persons by breaking down the middle wall of partition that we’ve allowed our selfishness to build. He’s the author of peace in our world through His lordship of all of life. It remains now for us to let him do his perfect work through us and through the Church, His Body!
by Steve | Jun 1, 1973 | Archive - 1973
Archive: Christ Above All?
condensed from an address by United Methodist Evangelist Ed Robb, Abilene, Texas
I think I would like first of all to give you a word of encouragement. I travel all over the United States, around the world. In recent years and the last two or three years particularly, I’ve seen the Spirit of God moving as I have never seen before in my lifetime. And of course many of you have found this true also.
But another thing that encourages me is, more and more, I am seeing the Spirit of God working in the United Methodist Church. And I believe that this great Good News Movement has made a significant contribution toward that end. I believe that great things are going to happen yet in the United Methodist Church. I am seeing more evangelicals in positions of leadership and taking part in the structures of the church than I have ever known in my 26 years in the ministry. I am encouraged about this. I believe that there is a place for those of us who call ourselves conservatives in the United Methodist Church. I believe there is a place of leadership for us. I believe we have a contribution to make within the United Methodist Church.
I was ordained a good many years ago, and when I was ordained, I knew that the leadership of the United Methodist Church was dominated by liberalism. This would be the case of almost every man here tonight who is a United Methodist minister. Is that not right? You knew it was a liberal church.
But I have found a freedom to serve my lord in the United Methodist Church. I have never had a district superintendent or a bishop who has tried to tell me what to preach.
I also want to say this. I have been told for many years, that United Methodism is an “inclusive” church, a pluralistic church. I believe it is. And I appreciate this fact. There is room for me. But if this is a pluralistic church, why can we evangelicals not have representatives on the faculties of the theological seminaries of United Methodism? I would guess that a great percentage, if not the greater percentage, of money that is being given to United Methodist institutions is being given by evangelicals. By conservatives. I want to know why—if we are an inclusive church—we do not have our representatives within the institutions of our denomination? Recently a United Methodist institution had two vacancies in the department of religion. I submitted the names of five competent Ph.D.’s who had degrees from prestige schools. But not one of them was chosen. I ask you why. I ask you, United Methodist leaders, Give us a chancel Give us a place of expression. Give us a part in the decision-making processes of United Methodism.
If we do not have representatives in the religion departments of our colleges and our theological seminaries, you are going to see the money and the students going elsewhere.
We have come to St. Louis to give witness to the Church and to the world, “Above All Christ.” This is an attractive slogan. It is a proper theme for a Convocation of evangelical Christians. For we affirm that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (II Corinthians 5:19). The only God that we know is the God that has come to us in Jesus Christ. All other great religions are founded upon a system, upon ethics, upon philosophy; the Christian faith is founded upon a Person, Jesus Christ. He is our message. He is our hope. He is our religion. He is our salvation. He is our God. It is to Him that we owe our allegiance. We worship Him. We adore Him. We come to St. Louis to praise Him. He is our King. The best definition I ever heard for Christianity is this: Jesus Christ. He is our faith. So we say, “Above All, Christ.”
Now what does this affirmation imply? It’s easy to have a motto, a theme. But if we really mean it, what does it demand of us? “Above all, Christ.” If we are going to put Christ above all, it is going to require courage. But I have discovered that when you really follow Christ, unapologetically, without reservation, He gives you the courage.
General William Booth was standing before a Methodist Conference, asking for an appointment as evangelist. They voted “no” and Katherine Booth stood up in the balcony and she cried out, “No, never! No, never, William.”
William Booth walked out of the conference without any security, but obeying God—and founded the great Salvation Army.
If we are going to put Christ above all, we will likely be controversial. This Convocation is controversial. This Movement, as most of you know, is controversial. But any vital movement is going to be a controversial movement. And any person who takes a clear stand for Jesus Christ is likely to be a controversial person. We are likely to challenge the status quo. And there’s too much vested self-interest, too many anxious to preserve the status quo.
We look back at such great men of the Church as Martin Luther. But don’t you ever forget that in his lifetime Luther was controversial, a most hated man. I see him standing before the Diet of Worms. They demand that he recant his Protestant faith, and Martin Luther cries out, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Here I stand. I can do no other.”
Today John Wesley is universally respected, but it was not always so. He was invited to preach at Oxford University, and in the afternoon after his sermon he wrote, “I preached at Oxford today, but I fear it was for the last time. He was almost right; it was 30 years before he was invited back. They thought that they had invited a frustrated priest, but instead a flaming evangelist came to the campus. They did not want that; he was controversial.
The prophets of God, by their very nature, are controversial. They challenge the status quo. They probe our conscience. They make us uncomfortable. The Church has a history of killing her prophets—and then 300 years later canonizing them. We love dead saints, but we don’t care for living prophets. But I would that God would raise up in our time the prophets of courage and boldness who would die to declare the truth of God.
If we are going to put Christ above all, then we are going to have a compassionate concern for the hurts, the heartaches, sins, and the suffering of this world. Oh that as Christians, as evangelicals, we would be moved by the suffering of the world! It hurts me when my liberal friends are making a greater impression upon the world about their concern and about their care than you and I are making. We must carry a burden for the lostness of the world, if “Above All, Christ” is truly our theme. We must love the unlovely and the lonely, if we are truly going to be followers of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals are not going to make the impact that we want to on the Church and the world by witch-hunting for doctrinal heresy or by political manipulation. I have never read in the history of the Church where revival or renewal have ever come that way, have you? If we are going to experience renewal, and if God is going to use us in the Church today to glorify Christ, to bring needed reform in the Church, it is going to be because the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ is in us. Not only that we are orthodox. Not only that we believe the Book.
Hardnosed fundamentalists seeing a heresy behind every bush are a most unattractive people. There is nothing so dead as dead orthodoxy. Evangelicals maneuvering for political power tend to become like those they are seeking to replace.
I recognize the need of working through the structure. I recognize the need of participating in conference debates. But let us remember this: we have never yet had a revival because of a victory at General Conference. We have never seen renewal come to the Church because some individual was elected bishop. Revival and renewal follow Pentecost. When we have a Pentecost, then we are likely to see change in the Church. When you and I make a full surrender, make a complete dedication, when we have a new baptism with the Holy Ghost, then we are likely to have revival. Then we are likely to see changes at General Conference. Then we are likely to see some great men raised up by God, elected to the episcopacy, to lead us forward in a mighty way. It follows Pentecost, it does not precede Pentecost.
I challenge you today, fellow evangelicals, fellow United Methodists, fellow Christians, to put “Christ above all” in stewardship. I’ve been hearing something lately that disturbes me greatly: “God’s children deserve the best.”
When I was in Chile a while back, I was preaching at a community called Libertad. A humble, frame, unpainted Methodist Church. It was 40 degrees and they didn’t have heat in the building. They had no organ. They didn’t have a piano, and they had little rough benches that people sat on. I’ll always remember the day I walked up to that little church. There, standing in the mud, in the rain, in 40-degree weather, was a little 10-year-old Chilean girl barefooted. When I go back to Chile, I’ll tell that little girl (and the tens of thousands like her all over the world) that American evangelical Christians deserve the best. I’m sorry we couldn’t send you any shoes. I’m sorry we couldn’t help you paint your Church. American evangelical Christians deserve the best.
I was in India last year. We went up to a typical Indian village. And we went into a typical Indian village home. Open fire with no chimney. Two dark rooms with no ventilation. Seven children sleeping on the cow dung floor beside their father and mother. Two water buffaloes, their most prized possession, in that same room sleeping with them there. Their annual income was $60.00. When I go back to India, I’ll tell them that American Christians deserve the best.
A prominent author recently said that any Christian minister who has more than two suits is a hustler. There’s just enough truth in that statement to make me feel rather uncomfortable. Does it you?
“Above all, Christ” … in stewardship. We have professed the faith, but we have not always lived it. We have talked humility, sacrifice, but our hearts have shrunk from them. We have lived to see militant atheists stagger us with the utterness of their self-giving.
Have you read Dr. Sangster’s The Pure in Heart? It’s a great book. He tells of Alger Hiss and Whitaker Chambers, an editor of Time magazine and a former communist. One of the grand jurors asked, “Mr. Chambers, what does it mean to be a Communist?”
He answered that when he was a Communist he had three heroes. One was a Pole, one was a German Jew, and the third was a Russian. He said the Pole was arrested for taking part in the Red terror of Warsaw. When he was put into prison he requested that he be given the job of cleaning the latrines of the other prisoners, for he said, “It is a Communist philosophy that the highest and most developed of the party must be willing to do the lowliest of tasks.” This is one of the things it means to be a Communist, Whitaker Chambers said. His second hero, a German Jew, was arrested for participating in a revolt. He stood before the military tribunal; the judge sentenced him to death. Eugene Levine said proudly, “We Communists are always under the sentence of death.” Mr. Chambers said, “That, too, is what it means to be a Communist.”
He said his third hero was a Russian pro-revolutionary who had been arrested for his part in attempting to assassinate the Czarist Prime Minister. He was sent to Siberia. He wanted to bring to the attention of the world the awful conditions of Siberian labor, so one day he drenched his body in gasoline and became a living torch.
Whitaker Chambers said, “This, too, is what it means to be a Communist.”
While we have been talking about commitment, while we have been playing church, while we have been mouthing the words, while we have been going through the motions, the Communists have become more committed and they have conquered more than 1/3 of the world-while we have been in retreat.
I’ve got a minister friend with a large church. One day one of his inactive members called him and said, “I’d like to come by for coffee.” While they were drinking coffee, the layman said, “Do you happen to have a pledge card?”
Now if you want to make your pastor happy, just ask for a pledge card! The pastor gave him a card and the man signed the pledge for $600 a month. The pastor was rather astounded. He said, “Would you mind telling me why you made this generous pledge? You haven’t been giving anything to the church.”
The layman said, “I’ve been successful at making a living, but I’ve been a failure at making a life. I have a son who has a rather meager salary, but he is giving $600 a month to the cause of Communism. I cannot allow my son to outgive me.”
Are we going to allow a pagan world to outgive us? To out love us? Are we going to be committed to Jesus Christ? Are we truly going to put “Christ Above All” in our lives?
I have been studying some conference journals. They reveal some interesting facts. I have discovered that churches with evangelical pastors have the best record in missionary giving. Their Advance Special record is impressive. I have also discovered that these same churches have a better evangelistic record. Evangelicals have the motivation to win the world to Christ.
Lest we smugly wrap the robes of self-righteousness around ourselves, we should look more closely at the facts. I have a liberal friend of whom I have been most critical. The other day I was visiting with him and discovered that he goes to the jail every Sunday to share Christ’s love with the prisoners. I have not witnessed in a jail in years. Also, I learned that he has been actively involved in the black churches of our city. Before we throw stones we had better examine ourselves.
Have we put “Christ Above All”?
Some time ago I read a novel about a young married woman who was having severe personal problems. She had a brother who was a renowned priest. Someone suggested that she discuss her problem with her brother. “Oh, no,” she said, “I could not do that. He is too busy with important things like ecumenicity to be bothered with me.”
Is that the story of some of us? Have we been so busy with important things like church renewal that we have no time for persons?
I know an evangelist who has traveled around the world preaching the Gospel. He has preached from some of the great pulpits, coast to coast. Last month he was working in his yard. Two young boys, aged seven and three stopped and visited with him. He asked them if they went to church.
“No!”
He asked them if they knew who Jesus was.
“No!”
They lived across the back alley from the evangelist—I am that evangelist.
Are we witnessing? Are we witnessing where we are?
If we are serious about putting “Christ Above All” we must carry Him out into the world. Too long we have proclaimed the Gospel from the captivity of the sanctuary! Too long we have been satisfied to convince the convinced! Too long we have moved in the isolation of a Christian ghetto! Are we frightened by the world? Are we inhibited by the world? Are we insecure in the world? Is our concept of the Kingdom of God and the duty of a Christian too limited?
Some time ago I was in the home of a Presbyterian elder. Some friends called and asked him to go to the precinct convention of his political party the following week. He answered that he did not have the time because he was going to a Christian meeting that particular night.
I submit to you that the political convention might have demanded his Christian concern more than the committee meeting scheduled at his church. The Kingdom of God does not stop at the front door of our churches. Our faith demands involvement in the world, in the name of Christ.
Three years ago last January I was in Kansas City. One afternoon I was having coffee with three young ministers. One said to me, “Ed, last summer I was in Chicago at the Democratic Convention and participated in the demonstrations.”
I said to him, “You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”
He answered, “Ed, I have chosen the way of radical obedience. I am completely dedicated to Jesus Christ.”
I felt rebuked. For while I disagreed with this young man very much, I had to respect his dedication. He was willing to put his reputation, his ministry, his future, his very life on the line for what he believed. And where were most of us moderates and conservatives? At home watching our color television sets in the comfort of our air-conditioned homes, wringing our hands and crying out, “What is the world coming to?”
Some time ago I received a magazine with a statement by Jonathan Edwards on the cover. I liked it so well that I pinned it on my clothes closet wall. This is the statement. ” Resolved, to live with all my might while I do live.” I like that, don’t you? I see so many people vegetating, not really living. There are so many who are carefully protecting themselves. I want to live with all my might!
So I have changed the statement and made it my own. It now has been painted by an artist, is framed, and hangs on my study wall. It reads: ” Resolved, to live with all my might for Christ, while I do live.”
by Steve | Jun 2, 1972 | Archive - 1972
Archive: One Local Church Responds to Atlanta
After studying various reports of the Atlanta General Conference, the Administrative Board and Pastor of Long Memorial United Methodist Church, Neffsville, Pa. send the following letter to their district superintendent and bishop:
Out of deep concern about news reports, actual happenings and some legislative actions connected with the General Conference of the United Methodist Church when it met in Atlanta, Georgia from April 16 to 28, 1972, we, as a congregation, feel compelled to express our reaction and stand. We are an evangelical church centering our faith and actions in Jesus Christ. We emphasize the historic evangelical doctrines and disciplines as included in The Articles of Religion and Genera/ Rules of The Methodist Church and the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, and cannot relegate these to the role of “landmarks.” Basic beliefs are spiritual foundations which cannot be legislated. Many of us chose our denomination because of its evangelical doctrines and practices, and we have no reason to change, nor do we desire to be legislated to accept the new formulation of basic beliefs “set within a framework of Scripture, Christian Tradition, Experience and Reason” whenever this framework would conflict with or legislate change of our “landmark” beliefs. We believe that “random pluralism” free of evangelical restrictive standards opens the door for perversions of the Gospel and a watered-down Christianity that compromises its redemptive purpose and witness. As an indictment of this “new pluralism” and its excesses, we cite the actions of Cecil Williams and his group and deplore his inclusion in any part of the General Conference program as not compatible with our general witness and historic “landmarks.”
We also protest the treatment given to the over 16,000 petitions covering special concerns of evangelicals. We feel it was unjust to assign to these the status of just fourteen petitions when they represented thousands of entire congregations totaling hundreds of thousands of United Methodists attempting to speak with a united voice on these specifically selected matters. Their right to be granted the fair weight of their petitions was denied them. We, along with many other congregations associated with the “Good News” movement, purposely sent in these similar petitions as a united evangelical voice and now wonder what else can be done to get a fair hearing for evangelical Christianity?
Without going into details we also wish to make known our stand on several other matters wherein we have differing convictions from actions taken by the General Conference. We are not in favor of continuing in the Consultation On Church Union (COCU) nor in the World Council of Churches. We agree with the motion that was made but not adopted condemning International Communism as the aggressor in Vietnam, China and elsewhere, and cannot accept the one adopted which just lays the blame on our country. This lack of overtly indicting International Communism, while directly shifting the blame to America, is a gross miscarriage of justice and of the truth. We prefer to emphasize the New Testament’s rigid stand against homosexuality and offer the power of Jesus Christ to change such lives and cleanse from all sin, rather than the weaker rendition of “Not condone the practice” or “consider this practice incompatible with Christian doctrine.”
We mention the above matters not forgetting the many commendable actions of the General Conference, but to voice our concern on issues that for one reason or another have become focal in the minds and hearts of many United Methodists to the point of needing some reply, the lack of which would possibly lead to compounded resentments as well as division.
We realize that the General Conference is the legislative body of our church, but view with alarm the increasing tendency to maneuver its legislation by growing power blocks or caucuses financed and organized to direct issues to their individual and collective ends. What should the evangelical do under such circumstances- strive to become a power block organized and financed to “combat” liberalizing and other tendencies? God forbid! When conscience and heart cannot concur, and when there is a feeling of being discriminated against, how can our unity be voiced effectively without trafficking in political caucusing? Perhaps one way is through letters like this of concerned United Methodist congregations who want to remain ,in our denomination but who feel the frustrations of silence are not good for the soul. We will continue to promote “Scriptural Christianity within the United Methodist Church” while at the s,1me time taking a stand whenever that is necessary, whether this means voicing our disavowal of, and non-concurrence with, certain General Conference programming and actions, or nonsupport of programs and actions of our Annual Conference which we are not able to bear in conscience or in heart.
The clear unequivocal answer given by John Wesley to meet the spiritual and social ills of his day was, “I gave them Christ. ” This we believe is our answer too.
Respectually yours,
EARL REDCAY
for the Administrative Board and congregation
EDWARD K. KNETTLER, Pastor
by Steve | Jun 2, 1972 | Archive - 1972
Archive: A Liturgy from our new Social Creed
The Atlanta General Conference adopted a new Social Creed. It contains this liturgy, intended for unison reading by United Methodist congregations, as an expression of what we believe.
“We believe in God, the Creator of the world and society; and in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of creation. We believe in the Holy Spirit, through whom we acknowledge God’s gifts, and we repent of our sin to misusing these gifts to idolatrous ends. We affirm the natural world as God’s handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind. We joyfully receive, for ourselves and others, the blessings of community, marriage, sex and the family.
“We commit ourselves to the rights of men, women, children, youth and the aging; to the improvement of the quality of life; and to the rights and dignity of ethnic and religious minorities. We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the good of themselves and others, and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights of property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.
“We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world and to the rule of justice and law among nations. We believe in the present and final triumph of God’s Word in human affairs and gladly accept His commission to manifest the life of the gospel in the world.” science and after exhausting all legal recourse to disobey laws deemed to be unjust.”
… endorsed the principle of selective conscientious objection to all wars or to any particular war.
… favored the right of public and private employees and employers to organize for collective bargaining.
… approved the right of every person “to die in dignity.”
… affirmed equality of men and women “in every aspect of common life.”
… declared abstinence from alcohol and marijuana to be a form of faithful witness.
The newest social creed represents a continuation of the direction taken by our social creeds since the first one was adopted early in the present century. A sample is the new litany (left) which is now part of our Social Creed, extending its influence into worship.
Evangelicals hold many and differing ideas about what the Gospel means when applied in modern life. Good News has repeatedly declared that social concern, based upon Christ’s teachings and directed by His Spirit, are “must” for all Christians. We have also declared that social concern, without the necessary spiritual framework, is half a gospel. We register concern that the General Conference failed to preserve this vital balance; instead it devoted a disproportionate amount of time and energy to institutional matters and social concern without “equal time” for things of the Spirit.
Smorgasbord in Doctrine
Smorgasbord is a Scandinavian buffet supper. Everybody goes up to a serving table loaded with many kinds of food. You help yourself to everything that appeals; you ignore what you don’t like.
This total individualism in eating resembles the new doctrinal position adopted by the Atlanta General Conference. Its outstanding feature is “doctrinal pluralism” which means anybody is free to believe anything—with no negative limits.
This individualistic, anti- Biblical approach to theology was adopted by the astonishing majority of 925 to 17. Such a lopsided vote can probably be explained by a combination of reasons: 1) The enormous prestige of Dr. Albert Outler, chairman of the 36-member Doctrinal Study Commission which produced the report. He is the denomination’s most famous theologian and there was no questioning his concepts. 2) Smorgasbord theology appeals to lots of United Methodists. 3) Delegates probably did not comprehend the radical significance inherent in the commission report. The likelihood of ignorance was increased by the fact that the commission’s document, in final form, reached delegates a relatively short time before the General Conference began. This minimized serious thought and church-wide discussion. 4) Seeing that the final report sounded less radical than expected, many conservatives heaved a sigh of relief and voted “yes,” thankful that even a semblance of the Gospel remained.
The doctrinal report, as adopted by General Conference, has three sections. Part I conveys the idea that “doctrinal pluralism” is native and natural in our E.U.B. and Methodist traditions. In other words, we have never had clear faith requirements nor firm outer limits as to what is and is not acceptable to believe.
This is not true. You can see for yourself. Since the time of Wesley, we have had very clear and specific statements of “our doctrines.” You can read these in the 1968 U.M. Discipline, pages 35-95. Here, basic Bible doctrines are clearly spelled out as the essential core of faith. The unspoken corollary to these positive statements is that failure to believe them is not acceptable.
This understanding is based on an elementary law of logic: whenever you say something is true, you automatically, ipso facto, deny the opposite, whether or not the negative is stated. For instance, if you say a cow is white, you automatically deny that the cow can be black—without stating this specifically. And if you declare that Christ’s resurrection is a stated article of belief for Methodists, then you simultaneously declare that failure to believe the resurrection is out of bounds.
Thus, each positively stated doctrine in the Articles of Religion and the E.U.B. confession has an automatic, negative counterpart. Together, these negatives constitute the negative outer limits which are a real and vital part of our Christian heritage.
This positive-negative principle is often stated in the Bible. One example is I John 4:1-3: “My dear friends: do not believe all who claim to have the Spirit, but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know whether it is God’s Spirit: everyone who declares that Jesus Christ became mortal man has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the Spirit from God.”
Over many years, various theological confessions have developed in the Church in a continuing attempt to make clear the boundaries (outer limits) of acceptable faith. To claim that United Methodists are outside this process of defining doctrinal limits does not square with the facts. As one example take the resurrection of our Lord. The third Article of Religion, established by Wesley and printed on page 37 of our 1968 Discipline, reads as follows: “Of the resurrection of Christ. Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again His body with all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He returns to Judge all men at the last day.”
Christ’s resurrection is likewise confirmed as a faith-essential in Article II of the E.U.B. Confession (Discipline page 44).
These and other historic doctrinal positions of our denomination rest, in Christian tradition, upon the familiar Apostle’s Creed—which, in turn, rests upon the Scriptural foundation of I Corinthians 15:12-34, summarized as “If Christ had not been raised, then your faith is a delusion and you are still lost in your sins” (verse 17).
For all these reasons it is a dangerous distortion of truth to suggest as does the doctrinal report, that Methodists have never established positive-negative limits for authentic faith.
That United Methodists today are unfamiliar with the essential doctrines (positively and negatively defined) simply reveals the extent of our unfaithfulness to a doctrinal heritage that is both strong and clear.
Fearing compromise of the basic, essential doctrines, Methodism has always had in its church law a Restrictive Rule. You can see this on page 21 of the 1968 U.M. Discipline: “Article I—The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrines.”
If the doctrinal report, adopted by the General Conference was, in fact, a revocation, alteration or change of our doctrines, then it is illegal. But if no substantial change has been made, then the Atlanta vote is legal.
Good News believes that the adoption of the doctrinal commission report in Atlanta is a clear violation of this Restrictive Rule. It has been successfully circumvented by claiming that “doctrinal pluralism” is nothing new. The acceptance of this idea by United Methodism’s supreme court, the Judicial Council, led them to rule during General Conference that the new statement does not exceed the constitutional limits imposed by the Restrictive Rule.
Good News is not alone in interpreting the commission report as a “new thing.” On page 8 of a special issue reporting the General Conference, “Engage Magazine” describes the doctrinal statement as “… a new formulation of doctrine. … ” And on page 18 it is referred to as ” … a new doctrinal statement. … ” “The Texas Methodist,” on page 4 of its issue of May 21 says ” … the General Conference adopted, almost unanimously, a new formulation of Christian doctrine. … ”
One illustration of the radical departure is the fact that the report nowhere specifically mentions the atonement of Christ (i.e. His death upon the Cross paying the sin penalty, and thus effecting salvation for those who believe). Instead, the new statement suggests that we are saved by the Incarnation (i.e. Christ’s coming into the world). Thus the Cross is done away with.
God’s grace, Biblically expressed in the cross, has been radically redefined as ” … God’s loving action in human existence through the ever present agency of the Holy Spirit. … ” (Report, pg. 31).
The commission did not point out that John Wesley distinguished between opinions (not essential to salvation) and those doctrines which were-and therefore must be believed. A case in point is the mystery of Jesus Christ having two natures: perfectly God and perfectly man. This truth is a keystone to Biblical faith, and no pluralism was allowed by Wesley—Methodists had to believe. Period. But HOW these two natures existed in Jesus, that was a matter of opinion, so Wesley permitted Methodists to be pluralistic about their understandings of How Christ could have two natures. Thus historic Methodism was non-pluralistic on vital matters and pluralistic on secondary considerations only.
The crucial importance of Section I is clear: it is the cutting edge whereby a radically new and different theology has now become official, thanks to the masterful manipulation of the Doctrinal Study Commission and the historical and doctrinal indifference of voting delegates.
Section II of the document includes as “landmark documents” the Articles of Religion and General Rules inherited from the former Methodist Church, and the Confession of Faith, brought into merger by the former E.U.B.’s.
Section Ill describes theology as an ongoing process which evolves in a continuing progression, with minimal attention paid to fixed points of absolute truth. All is relative—meaning that today’s truth can be obsolete tomorrow.
The new report—now law for our denomination—largely sets aside God, the theos of theology. The name of theology is given to an assortment of largely human perspectives: Women’s Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Third World Theology, Theologies of Human Rights, etc. The primary accent is upon man’s ideas and problems instead of God’s truth, being, and His ways of dealing with the world. Muted is the central emphasis upon the great revealed truths of Scripture and historic Protestantism: the intimate reality of a God both transcendent and immanent; God’s sovereignty over the universe; man’s lost, sinful condition; the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ; His atoning death upon the cross; Christ’s bodily resurrection; the reliable authority of Holy Scripture as God’s guide for the Christian faith and life.
Heretofore, these Bible doctrines have stood as immoveable rocks of orthodox truth, around which have swirled and ebbed centuries of theological definition and speculation. Now, since Atlanta, the rocks are hidden for United Methodists. Instead, we are to trust primarily in fluctuating tides of human opinion. Gone, or greatly diminished, are the divine certainties which bring to the human soul a sense of God’s peace and eternal purpose.
Under the new doctrinal statement, United Methodists officially affirm the Trinity and say that salvation is in Jesus Christ. But these affirmations are robbed of authority because now other affirmations are acceptable even if they conflict. This is something like a city establishing a 35 mile an hour speed limit—but posting limit signs for 35, 45 and 60 m.p.h.
Is anyone excluded from the United Methodist Church on the basis of belief? Since Atlanta, the answer is “NO!” We have done away with the theological “musts,” so now, it is perfectly proper for a United Methodist to believe that Jesus never rose from the grave-or that our Lord never even existed! Since there is no “out of bounds,” logically nothing can be wrong.
This kind of total tolerance makes many people feel comfortable, but it is anathema to those whose faith is tuned to the New Testament. Lacking the exclusive New Testament claims that Christ is the ONLY Way to God, the commission report often sinks to a level of vague generality which allows for any interpretation one wishes to make. This ls sure to happen; in fact it has been going on for decades even though we had doctrinal limits as a permanent part of church law. The doctrinal degeneration of Methodism since Wesley is plain to see.
In the presently individualistic theological climate, experts may use traditional words like “salvation,” but imbue such words with private meanings that greatly differ from historic Methodism—and from the understanding of laymen.
For example, when a humanist says “salvation,” he does not mean liberation from sin’s bondage as a miracle of redeeming grace worked in and through Jesus Christ. Instead, “salvation” is used to mean improvement of the social order accomplished by education, political pressures on city halt, etc.! Thus experts play the game of re-interpretation, changing the meaning of words while ordinary church people think an authentic Gospel is being preached. Thus are the innocent deceived.
This game of paint-it-any-color-you-choose theology is officially endorsed by our new doctrinal position. Although the report does acknowledge an essential core of truth, the specific content of this core is never made clear. Hence it is a document full of loopholes; almost any opinion can be justified on the basis of a United Methodist’s right to believe anything.
Some sincere evangelicals praise the new doctrinal position. They declare that it honestly states what has long been a fact: United Methodists believe, preach and teach just about everything. Certainly this is true. But acknowledging that we have become doctrinally pluralistic is not the same as stating what God wants His children to be and to believe! Such reasoning in support of the General Conference action is like urging a couple to get married in order to make legal after-the-fact an illegitimate pregnancy.
Other evangelicals welcome the new doctrinal policy as “better than what we expected.” Said one leading churchman who participated in the commission, “When we started, the liberals wanted to throw out everything!” Speaking with an eye to political realities, it is perhaps better to have half a loaf than none. The trouble is that certain items of New Testament truth are not negotiable—either you hold them or you are not Christian.
Still another evangelical rationale is that the new statement, while far from perfect, does call the church to serious theological study and discussion. Out of this, the argument goes, evangelicals may be able to bring those in error closer to the truth. The emphasis is placed on dialog and the need for “openness” so dialog will happen among the various theologies of United Methodism.
One flaw in this idea is the universal indifference to doctrine among United Methodists. The 925 to 17 vote shows this clearly. Few preachers talk much about doctrine and this subject rarely, if ever, finds its way onto the agendas of district and annual conferences. A major shift in priorities and personal interest will be required before United Methodists get interested enough to dialog about doctrine. Also, by minimizing points of absolute truth, the new doctrinal position cuts the ground out from beneath dialog. You can’t dialog meaningfully without having different perspectives to dialog from.
Given the widespread state of unregeneracy in United Methodism, dialog may well be impossible until everyone faces the basic command of Jesus, “You must all be born again” (John 3:7). As Paul observed, “The man who does not have the Spirit cannot receive the gifts that come from God’s Spirit. He really does not understand them; they are nonsense to him, because their value can be judged only on a spiritual basis” (I Corinthians 2:14).
Historically, dialog seems to have been mostly unfruitful in bringing to truth a doctrinally erring, theologically indifferent majority. Rather, we see God’s Kingdom advancing as men aflame with zeal for Jesus Christ flung His demands and commands into the teeth of the religious Establishment and the culture which the religious Establishment reflected. In the resulting chaos and polarization God’s Kingdom advanced. Truth boldly proclaimed, not genteel dialog, seems to be God’s chosen way.
This idea can be seen in “Why Conservative Churches are Growing” by Dr. Dean M. Kelley of the National Council of Churches (reviewed on page 57). He says, ” … those who disdain or distrust [ dialog], among Christians at least, are those whose religious groups are growing, while those who engage in [dialog] are the ones whose religious organizations are shrinking. So is dialog a good thing or not?”
The idea of pluralism is borrowed from sociology, where it refers to something right and proper: people of many opinions living together in a state of reasonable toleration. But transferring this idea to theology is something else! What may be good in societal relationships, i.e. tolerance for differing views, amounts to heresy when measured against the radical exclusiveness of New Testament Christianity in which Jesus claims, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Good News believes in sociological pluralism, that is representation of various elements of opinion in operation of the church—i.e. membership on committees, cabinets, etc. This was the thrust of our spring issue’s editorial, “Making Pluralism Real.” But pluralism in basic doctrine is something else! This we reject as non Biblical and non Methodist.
“One Way!” is the Christian affirmation. One way to know God. One way to be cleansed from sin. One way to overpower sin’s dominance. One way to hope greater than any disappointment. One way to life everlasting with the Father Above. One way for every person to harmonize life’s purpose with an Eternal purpose. That one way is Jesus Christ! If you stand with Him you cannot also stand with those advocating other routes and substitute saviors.
Where do we go from here?
What are evangelicals to do, in the aftermath of Atlanta? Many are quitting, feeling that the United Methodist Church has abandoned and betrayed Christ, the Gospel and its members.
Good News feels deep sorrow and pain at the exodus of these brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not condemn any person for following God’s leading, but we feel strongly that God calls us to remain. This has been our motive from the start. This is why, back in 1966, we incorporated this Movement as the Forum for Scriptural Christianity WITHIN the Methodist Church. In all our meetings and printed materials we have urged “stay in the Church.”
To separate or not to separate, that is the basic issue. And so we feel it desirable to share with readers why we believe the most important place for evangelicals is inside the United Methodist Church.
First, Jesus has not called us to pleasant, easy, painless fellowship. Instead, He has called us to die for the cause of Gospel righteousness. Escaping from turmoil is a copout—like a soldier deserting the front line trenches. Jesus says to disciples: “The time will come when anyone who kills you will think that by doing this he is serving God … The world will make you suffer. But be brave! I have defeated the world!” (John 16:2, 33b). We must expect to suffer for Christ.
Second, Jesus said His disciples were to be leaven in the loaf and salt for seasoning. If the leaven loses contact with the lump of dough, how will the loaf be leavened? If the salt disdains contact with the meat, how will the meat be preserved? If believers, who have the truth, turn their backs on unbelievers, how will the unbelievers hear the Gospel and be saved? There is no greater evangelistic mission field than United Methodism! Here God can use every believer who is tough enough to stand the gaff.
Third, John Wesley thought of Methodism as a renewal movement with the larger Church which then, as now, needed revival. Becoming a Methodist Church happened only after Wesley died in England, and in the New World when the Revolution put the American Methodists on their own. To be a real Methodist means to be part of God’s saving remnant within a church-even though this church may be totally disobedient to the Gospel.
Fourth, The Bible’s idea of separation involves two steps. First, Christ calls us to Himself. We come to Him out of the world, surrendering all that we have and are to His service. This act of conversion separates believers from those who have not made the saving faith commitment. But this “coming out of the world” is only the first step. Then Christ, who summoned us out, also sends us back in. He said to His disciples, “Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples” (Matthew 28:19a). “As the Father sent me, so I send you [the disciples]” (John 20:21 b).
Rightly understood, the Bible’s twofold idea of separation prevents anyone from thinking of it as a negative act only—”come ye apart.” We evangelicals should not waste our energy trying to find a place of safe immunity from the dirt and pain of the church. Rather, we should understand that God has set us apart to serve Him where the need is greatest: among the lost sheep of Israel. In our case, this means the United Methodist Church.
Fifth, God does not depend on majorities. In the past He has worked miracles through tiny remnant groups which fear only displeasing the One who has called them-the One whom they know as Father. Who cares if we are a small minority? Numbers and success are pagan preoccupations. To gain control the denomination means nothing; to be faithful to Jesus Christ means everything. “Who will accuse God’s chosen people? God Himself declares them not guilty! Can anyone, then, condemn them? If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:33, 34a, 31b).
Urging evangelicals to remain within United Methodism, we now suggest some hints on how to remain …h ow to survive without compromise on essential matters. Since the situation is grim, let’s look first at the negative side of survival.
A car will not run without gasoline—and a great religious Establishment cannot run without money. The money comes from where? From local churches! Why should local churches keep on giving money to those who are destroying the Church? By continuing to support the destroyers we are something like the man who had termites in his house. Foolishly, he fed them vitamins so they could destroy his house faster!
Already, money cutoff and diversion are being widely practiced as some churchman’s ultimate act of good stewardship. There is talk of a broad coalition of many who wish to change the direction of the church. Since General Conference, we have heard increasingly serious talk of such a coalition which could send out missionaries independently … publish church school and other types of literature cleansed of Biblical compromise … and bring about a massive redirection of funds toward institutions and projects which unashamedly name the Name of Christ and honor Gospel priorities for mission.
Probably this development will “hang fire” while evangelicals watch to see whether the church continues to ignore those things which we consider important. Continued insensitivity by the church could trigger formation of a much wider anti-Establishment coalition that has yet existed.
There is need to unite in challenging our bishops. We must call them to stand up for what they really believe … to lay their lives, careers, and prestige on the line for Jesus Christ.
One of the saddest aspects of the present church scene is that some bishops apparently hold a faith that is privately evangelical—but they do not allow this faith to interfere with episcopal duties and decisions!
Being elected for life, our bishops ought to be fearlessly independent servants of Christ. Instead, they often appear to be slavishly fearful of upsetting the institutional status quo—of keeping up their intellectual respectability, even at the price of floating with the tide of humanism. Would to God that the episcopal prisoners might be set free from the chains of conformity! Would to God they might become spiritual leaders rather than just administrators! Would to God that one bishop might cry out boldly in protest against the rape of the church! If one rose up under power of the Holy Spirit, 10 or 15 others might find courage to stand with him.
Let us pray for our bishops. And let us have courage to speak honestly to them—not as peasant to master, but as one Christian to another. Let us realize that God, not the bishops, is sovereign, and that the United Methodist episcopacy can do nothing which God does not allow them to do. Fearing only God, who has power to destroy both soul and body in hell, we do not quake and tremble before bishops or bureaucrats. It is the wholesome fear of the Lord which brings a person ultimate freedom in today’s institutional church.
Let us stop supporting destructive seminaries; let us stop buying faith-perverting Sunday school literature; let us shut the purse to programs which do not centrally exalt Jesus Christ. And while we are at it, perhaps laymen ought to stop paying the salaries of preachers who use the pulpit as a place for promoting politics, culture, philosophy, amateur psychology, economics and Godless programs of any sort.
So much for the negative side of our survival. A positive side must also be given. Here are a very few of the things we can do.
We who believe in prayer have hardly touched the possibilities of a gigantic and continuing prayer intercession for Holy Spirit revival and renewal of the Church and its leaders. If as much time had been spent praying as complaining, the Kingdom might be here already! Let us be positively about the business of prayer. Why not a nationwide effort involving tens of thousands of laymen and pastors? Good News stands ready to back such an effort (see page 53).
Also, let us be guided by the Spirit into fresh ways of mediating Christ to people around us. A fine example is found on pages 12-21 of this issue. “The Shepherd of Brooklyn” shows what can happen when a man is converted and the Holy Spirit opens his eyes to the infinite possibilities of ministry at his doorstep. If thousands of U.M. pastors and laymen likewise followed the Spirit into bold new strategies of Gospel mission, the Church would be transformed—and America!
There is nothing unChristian about politics practiced for a Gospel purpose. Therefore let us organize at every level; let us take full advantage of the freedom that is ours. Let us elect lay delegates to Annual Conference. Let us elect delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences. Let us elect bishops too. Let evangelicals work systematically to gain control of key positions in the local church: the Committee on Nominations first, then Pastor-Parish Relations, Education, Missions, Finance and Administrative Board.
Remember that a small, dedicated, unified group banded together and supporting candidates by block voting can win against a large, disorganized, apathetic majority. Non evangelicals have long practiced this art so they are hardly in a position to complain if we unite politically as an avenue of our service to Christ.
Finally, let us remember it is not enough to make fine, orthodox-sounding sermons. Here we have stopped, all too often! Too often we have set back in smug, spiritual self-satisfaction, allowing the Body of Christ to be captured by the enemies of Christ.
In the Christian life, it is faith-generated ACTION that separates real Christians from pretenders. We believe God is looking for people who will DO SOMETHING to cure the church.
Dante, bless his medieval soul, was on target when he said, “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
We are far from defeated! In fact, we have hardly begun to “fight on for the faith which once and for all God has given to His people” (Jude 3b). RIGHT ON!
