by Steve | Jul 4, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: Curriculum Confrontation: Louisville
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News
On April 14, 1969, 75 pastors met with Literature Editor Henry Bullock in Louisville, Ky. Discussion centered around a document prepared earlier by Rev. Les Woodson Pastor of Memorial U.M. Church, Elizabethtown, Ky. Most of this paper appears on pages 26-35.
One of the quickest ways to determine any church’s understanding of her mission is by reading her church school materials.
In the case of Methodism however, the materials are only giving the doctrinal slant of the members of the Board of Education and the writers selected by them. One of the most legitimate complaints coming from the people in the churches is that the Board is not speaking for them.
The members of the general boards are usually so far removed from the local parish that they are ill advised as to what the needs really are. While the local church should be served by the boards and agencies, the deplorable condition has developed in which the boards are dictating to the pastors and people. Therefore, the materials create a bad impression for The United Methodist Church when, in reality, they only reveal the views of a few men who have aligned themselves in the interest of a socio-political church.
The Curriculum Committee of The United Methodist Church (then The Methodist Church) Began steps in the mid 1940s to develop theological foundations for the new curriculum. The result was a comprehensive plan printed in 1960 in Foundations of Christian Teaching in Methodist Churches.
Let me begin with a quote From this forty-eight page book. “The Methodist Church is not a creedal, or confessional, Church So any suggestion of conformity On the part of any Methodist body would be inappropriate.” While this may be basically correct, we must remember that we do have a doctrinal statement in the “Articles of Religion” which restricts any individual or agency from crossing certain clearly-marked theological and ethical bounds with impunity.
The Board of Education and its writers in the youth and adult levels of the new curriculum need to come clean theologically with The United Methodist Church. Much of what is written in these materials is blatantly out of keeping with Methodist tradition. The worst evil, however, is the deceptive manner in which enough obvious truth is mixed with malignant error to make the body look healthy. It is a subtle and insidious evil which has been injected far enough beneath the surface as to remain unseen to masses of our dedicated but non-theologically oriented people.
In an attempt to get at the heart of this problem, let me cite some specific weaknesses and/or un-Christian premises taken in the bulk of the curriculum. After having looked carefully at these specifics (and I will limit myself to five sources), I will make a few observations of a more general nature which have grown out of the class-material confrontation itself.
(1.) Howard Grimes, in Real, (winter 1968-9), pg. 9, lesson manual for 11-12 grades, states, “There are answers which help, but there is no final solution to the problem of evil.” For two thousand years the Church of Jesus Christ has been preaching the Good News that Christ is the solution! We have seen far too much evidence of the totally transforming power of conversion to believe anything else.
I refuse to have my young people subjected to any teaching which renders the work of Christ even partially robbed of its final power and efficacy. … This is a fundamental point on which the whole mission of the Christian enterprise rests. If there is no final solution, then the Church is merely bandaging spiritual incurables in a sad rest home where men wait to perish from their terminal disease.
(2.) Newell J. Wert, in Dimensions for Decision (1968) pgs. 90-91, uses an illustration which is in very poor taste for a church school manual. My teachers were so embarrassed that they left it out without comment or dealt with it red-faced. The illustration is obscene in that it is treated without any censure. … The response which the class is asked to make is to be determined on the basis of relative ethics. The story concerns an act of adultery on the part of two married people.
What has happened to the Christian church school curriculum in which men were taught that there are definite moral absolutes and that decisions in such matters are to be related to what Christ and the Bible states? Dr. Wert says of the story, “Frank’s and Lynn’s capacities for eros may or may not help them solve the long-range problems of their respective marriages.” The whole matter of extra-marital experience is left so open-ended that the class is apt to make most any decision without regard to the divine absolute and think that they have responded in a truly Christian fashion.
(3.) Van Bogard Dunn, in God With Us, (1968) makes statements regarding the Bible which come to a head on page 49: “We are studying the Bible, perhaps the most important part of our religious heritage.”
Why this negative and weak approach to the holy Scriptures? It seems obvious that authority rests not in the Bible for this writer. Once again, it is the old story of endorsing subjective authority for one’s life.
Toward the end of the book is this statement, “The authority that the clergy exercise in the church is not the authority of external rules and regulations. It is internal authority, one that grows out of common commitment to a common cause.” (pg. 171) It is interesting that here the pastor is advised to use his own “internal authority ” in preference to the external authority (which must include the holy Scriptures). Neither God nor the bishop of the church has given any pastor that kind of blanket authority. We were ordained to “preach the Word.”
(4.) In discussing the birth of Jesus, Dr. Dunn observes, on pg. 59, “The idea of conception by the Holy Spirit does not commit us to any particular theory of how the life of Jesus began. It does, however, express the fact that in the totality of his earthly existence we see revealed the fullness of God’s power and presence.”
The latter sentence is valid, though Christologically weak. But the first is in complete disagreement with the clear teaching of the New Testament. And, in view of the discussion in scientific circles today about the possibility of human parthenogenesis in the near future, continued negative reaction to the Virgin Birth is unscholarly as well as anti-Biblical. Some of us are sick to our stomachs with the humanistic approach to everything divine.
(5.) In the apparent interest of the excessive Rauschenbuschian Social gospel, Dr. Dunn says, on pg. 165, “In Jesus Christ God had not called men to a private and individual relationship. Instead, he had called them to a community in which they were to receive and reveal that quality of life which characterized God’s relationship to men.”
Such a statement is a glaring example of … “half-truth.” Of course, conversion must issue in a total participation in the life of the community. But let us be especially careful to make it quite clear that regeneration is a “private and individual relationship” between a man and Christ! Without this deeply personal kinship, all other relationships are empty and groundless. …
(6.) Dr. Dunn also talks of the changing forms of ministry. It is obvious that the whole section is an effort to endorse the social gospel to the near exclusion of the preaching ministry. After having made reference to the ministry of preaching, he writes, on pg. 170, “When a particular ministry is no longer needed, it should be discarded to make a place for a new ministry that is needed.”
There are those of us who still believe that the commission of Jesus put preaching high enough on the list that it is never to be neglected for other forms of ministry, valid though those forms may be! Where preaching is done right, it is as effective as ever! I am cognizant of the fact that the author includes other forms of ministry in his discussion, but the important point is that preaching is lumped with the whole gamut of suspect forms.
(7.) Again, Dr. Dunn says, on pg. 174 after a paragraph concerning the “God is Dead” theology which the author is careful not to condone or condemn, “‘The way for us to overcome our childishness is certainly not the way of the closed mind that shuts out every new thought.” This is true—but there is a second statement which needs to be added. Neither does one overcome his childishness by leaving his mind so open that every new thought of man drives out every old thought of God. The author is once more guilty of half-truth.
(8.) Howard Grimes states on pgs. 45 and 50 of Real (winter 1968-9), “The young person—or adult—who is seeking real life, authentic existence, salvation or whatever you want to call genuine human living … etc.”
Five pages earlier, he has made essentially the same vague reference to “whatever you want to call” this high life which the author is not at all sure about himself. This does not have the clear ring of the Good News of the New Testament. If this is Education, it is hardly recognizable as being Christian!
(9.) On numerous occasions, Grimes reflects negatively on the moral demands of the Bible, on pgs. 59, 63: “We have not completely cast out rules in this study, but we have not emphasized them … This is one of the troubles with purely conventional morality: it can make a person respectable but uninteresting. But there is another fault with a moral outlook which is highly structured and inflexible: it can keep a person from responding positively and creatively in new situations.”
This is a completely lopsided view. There is no justification in hinting that moral absolutes make one uninteresting. It depends on what one considers interesting. Hugh Hefner of Playboy magazine and I have divergent views here!
(10.) “Christian truth is therefore not ‘timeless,’ but set in history. God speaks to specific persons, in specific situations, faced with specific decisions,” , writes Littel in Real (winter 1968-9) pg. 94.
This sounds quite out of touch with the Master Himself when He says, “I am the Truth.” The Church which is faithful to Jesus as Lord believes that Christ is timeless truth. A theology or ethic which stems from man’s sinful human situation will be humanistic and sinful. There must be a point of reference in the search for truth. That point is Christ and His teachings.
(11.) Wright, in New Creation (1968) pg. 8, makes reference to death by saying, “A set of answers not supplied by television comedies, Playboy magazine, funeral flowers, or after-life theology is needed.”
If I understand what the writer means by “after-life theology,” it is apparent that he is far afield. I have been through that valley myself and I know that life would have collapsed without my assurance that my “after-life theology ” was valid. This, with emphasis on the personal relationship with Christ which makes such belief legitimate, was the only thing which made any sense to either my wife or me as she lay dying. Furthermore, to class one’s hope of eternal life with Playboy magazine is blasphemous and insensitive.
(12.) In relating the creation account, Wright states on pg. 19, “The physical form of man is said to have been molded by God out of the dust of the earth, and the inner power is said to have been breathed into man by God. ” Later, writing of Enoch and Elijah, the author says, “Both of These men were supposedly taken by God without their dying … ”
Whatever a trained writer may feel about these Old Testament accounts, he has but little to occupy his time if he sows seeds of doubt in the minds of young people who already suspect everything except the world of pure matter. …
(13.) Anyone who can read the fifth lesson in New Creation, entitled “New Method and Renewed Vision” and arrive at some directive or draw some meaningful conclusion is either a genius or an imbecile. There is no meaning at all. And this is what thousands of our 9-10 grade students are subjected to during the one hour out of 168 during the week when they have a fleeting chance to meet the Christ.
(14.) The Board’s theological frame of reference is so openly excessive that no one in the conservative school of thought could possibly consider the Board of Education anything but non-Biblical. Of the 157 footnotes and suggested articles or books listed at the end of each lesson in New Creation, only 10 can be considered to be sources of evangelical or conservative thought. A total of 29 references were made to Tillich, Cox, Boyd, Bultmann, Robinson, and Pike. But only 18 references were made to the Bible in the entire quarter! The overall picture is just a little out of balance. In the Leader‘s Guide for New Creation, there are 19 lessons and only 13 references to Bible readings! Yet, Jesus Himself, in reference to His teachings which are preserved for us in the Bible, says, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” (John 13: 17)
(15.) By far the best adult manual produced in the New Curriculum is In Faith and Love, by Orio Strunk, Jr. This could hardly be otherwise since the entire work is biographical in nature and deals with the lives of selected great men and women. However, the personalities included are disciples of the social action philosophy with three possible exceptions: Rufus Jones, Joseph Gomer, and Simone Weil. These persons were deeply dedicated to a ministry of Good Samaritanism, as every Christian must be. But it is clear that there was something more fundamental than social action to these three people. Unbelievable as it might seem, there is a reference to a God-man encounter with each of these personages, an encounter which looks suspiciously like conversion. However, in the Selected Readings by the same title, Kagawa is quoted as having written of his own Christian work, “This spirit is not one that makes a fuss over religion or doctrine or belief or philosophy. It is not even a method of evangelism.”
While we are aware of the necessity of a social ministry, we believe that Jesus dealt with the whole man and not just his worldly misfortune. There is no Christian ministry deserving of the name which is not basically, unequivocally evangelistic. What the poor and oppressed believe is vitally important and must never be neglected in the interest of temporal support.
It is time that we refuse being swayed by men, living or dead, into an avenue of service which has not the imprint of eternity upon it. Social work without fervent evangelism is not fundamentally Christian. It is good and humanitarian, but it misses the whole point if it is not motivated by conversion to Christ in the life of the worker and for the life of the recipient.
(16.) Horace Bushnell is quoted in the same Selected Readings book, “What is the true idea of Christian education? … That the child is to grow up a Christian and never know himself as being otherwise … not remembering a time when he went through a technical (conversion) experience, but seeming rather to have loved what is good from his earliest years.”
Such a statement is utopian unreality. What is even worse, however, is the glaring discrepancy between this kind of philosophy and the teaching of both the Old and New Testaments concerning man’s being born in sin and standing in need of the new birth. A child may be so trained as to grow up naturally loving what is good, like the Pharisees of Jesus day, and still miss the Kingdom of God by the distance between the head and the heart. As in secular education, so in religious nurture the individual must be born before the process of education can become truly effective. Religious education must either lead one into “a technical (conversion) experience” or proceed from such.
(17.) Toward the end of the above mentioned volume of readings is a quotation from Visser’t Hooft in which he turns cartwheels trying to justify the act of Bonhoeffer’s conscientious objection to war on the one hand and his willing involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler on the other. This sounds a bit like the rationalization of which conservatives so often have been accused! If we are going to deplore war as unchristian, then we cannot logically justify the murder of one even so evil a Hitler!
The inclusion of these readings in the Selected volume indicates general agreement by the editor of the text or some hint would be made to the contrary within the text itself. No one objects to the use of quotations as long as some clarification of position is made concerning them. Methodists would appreciate having quotes like this from Visser’t Hooft clarified in the light of our tradition.
Now, for some general observations. After careful study on an Eighteen-month trial basis, one of the young adult classes at Memorial in Elizabethtown has made the following accusations. The decision has been wholly that of the class itself without any concourse with the pastor.
(a) Not enough emphasis on Bible and its application in the situations presented.
(b) Bible references and application, if any, too elusive for average layman to grasp.
(c) Deals in a biased manner with social situations.
(d) No solutions given for Problems—not even Biblical.
(e) Deflates one’s spirit rather than inspires.
(f) Completely over our heads.
(g) Writers manage to get their kicks and political views, applying pressure toward their prejudices.
Several statements need to be made in response to these obviously serious charges. Our lay people are growing weary with the lambasting attempts to force them into social involvement without the essential motivating fuel which comes from the life of personal piety which is being almost completely neglected. It is all a form of social humanism which no longer feels the need of the historical Jesus, the Holy Spirit, prayer, the Church, or even God! Reconciliation with God must have priority before there can ever be reconciliation with our neighbors. Without this prior, vertical relationship, our social efforts are as futile as putting iodine on a cancer! Thomas Merton, the Roman Catholic, was right when he said, “To reconcile man with man and not with God is to reconcile no one at all.” Secular service without personal conversion is to be “weighed in the balance and found wanting.”
We indirectly brag on our own intellectual ability when we argue that people could grasp the new curriculum if they would apply themselves. This is not so. All one needs to do to recognize this fact is to look at the suggested readings in New Creation. These are 15 year old young people who are being referred to Paul Tillich. Multitudes of seminary graduates find Tillich extremely thick reading. Our people are unprepared for this 220 volt shock which has already blown out the lights for many of our young seminarians. We are asked to plug into a source of knowledge which can be disastrous because it is either too powerful for our small equipment or foreign to our spiritual proton-neutron arrangement.
Who are we trying to impress? Our ninth and tenth grade classes have both requested to use eighth grade materials. One of our Ph.D.’s has quit teaching because the curriculum requires more time than even he can give to it! The United Methodist Church needs to cease trying to be pseudo—intellectual and recapture the “warm heart” which gave it birth and made it great.
Finally, the writers do “get their kicks and political views” into the lessons with strong bias. A quick look at the MYF monthly “Common Life Bulletin” is a perfect example. The content of these papers would be ideal for inclusion in a political journal, especially if it were acclimated to “left field.” It is popular to talk about a Christ who was a social agitator, but there is strange silence about His recognition of the priorities of morality.
It is ironic to me that churchmen today combine “absolute” social and political programs with “relativistic” situational ethics. This is a commentary on Paul’s “natural man” who is quite “double-minded” (to use James’ expression) in all his thinking.
Only the eternal Word of God can show the relative to be truly relative (e.g. political systems) and the absolute to be truly absolute (e.g. God’s moral law). The United Methodist Church has just spent $ 1 00,000 on influencing foreign policy in regard to Viet Nam (a topic the materials writers enjoy exploiting) and called it “a new form of evangelism.” Influencing foreign policy is not evangelism! Such expenditure of money given for the true ministry of Christ is poor stewardship!
We still believe that Christ died to redeem men from sin, that God has given the Church only one Great Commission—to “make disciples of all nations.” The result of genuine conversion to Christ creates a social conscience. The Church was involved in social action long before the radical rebels exploded with their charges of irrelevancy. Of course, the Church was far from perfect. It always will be. But, I will stake my life on the affirmation that the Church did more lasting good in the world before the shifting emphasis of the secular element, which calls itself “the new breed,” than this novel and fashionable substitute will ever do with its weak theology, thin Christology, anti-ecclesiology, relative morality, and self-centered anthropology!
The curriculum content is vague about such “irrelevant” matters as the authority of the Bible, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the necessity of the new birth, the person of Christ, the value of the Church, the evangelistic mission of the Christian community, the integrity of Old and New Testament writers, the moral law, and the eschatological hope of the Kingdom of God. By the same token, the writers of the new curriculum are crystal clear about such concerns as the immoral war in Viet Nam, the brutality of law enforcement officers, the plague within our democratic form of government, the wisdom of secular philosophy, the right to dissent (and often to violent dissent), the irrelevancy of institutions, the harboring of conscientious objectors even though atheists, and the compatibility of communistic philosophy with Christian truth. Under such an umbrella as this, our Church is in danger of helping create a society in which everyone is a “Christian” in name, and no one is a Christian in reality.
The new curriculum of the United Methodist Church (Adult and Youth levels) is guilty of pointing out the problems without offering valid, Christian solutions. This is wholly foreign to the kerygma of the New Testament Church! It is guilty of pessimism in concentrating on the problems of our time rather than on the “final solution to evil” which is found in Christ the Lord. It is further guilty of explaining the life need and expecting some sensible and Christian response without sound Biblical orientation and application. It is hyper-intellectual, super-ecumenical, anti-Reformation, and anti-evangelistic. It is filled with endorsements of the new morality, questions the authority of the Bible, emasculates Christ of His divine powers, questions civil obedience, and encourages the cause of atheistic communism. In “Christian Education” the emphasis belongs on the first word, and this is where the strength is missing in the new curriculum. Any jury in the land, comprised of men and women who love God, Christ, and the Church will reply, “Guilty as charged!”
I rest my case. Here I stand. God help me, I can do no other!
by Steve | Jul 3, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: Curriculum Confrontation: Chicago
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News
On April 18, 1969, a significant meeting took place at O’Hare Inn, Chicago, Ill. A delegation representing Methodism’s Wesleyan evangelicals met with the Advisory Committee of the General Board of Education’s Division of Curriculum Resources. The invitation was extended by Literature Editor Henry Bullock to Good News Editor Charles W. Keysor. The Good News delegation included one layman, one seminary professor, one pastor and one pastor-editor. In advance of the meeting, these men prepared a “position paper” summarizing theological considerations that make Methodist literature objectionable to many. This paper, minus appendix, appears on pages 23-25.
“There shall be one complete, coordinated system of literature published by the board for the entire United Methodist Church. This literature shall be of such Type and variety as to meet the needs of all groups of our People.”—Paragraph 972, DISCIPLINE, 1968.
The 1968 Book of Discipline clearly states that official curriculum must serve “all groups” within our denomination. We represent a large group of Methodists known variously as “conservative,” “evangelical” and/or “Wesleyan.” It is our deep conviction that our “group” is NOT Being served by Methodist curriculum. On the contrary, there Is a wide and unbridgeable gulf between the theology in Methodist curriculum and the theology that is based upon our understanding of the Bible, Methodist tradition and our personal Christian experience.
More important, Methodist literature generally presents a theology different from the basic Methodist doctrinal standards: Wesley’s Forty-Four Standard Sermons, Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, the Articles of Religion and now the E.U.B. Confession of Faith. Although the Apostles’ Creed is Not formally an official standard or Methodist doctrine, it does play an important function in relating us confessionally to the larger Church of Jesus Christ.
The departure of Methodist literature’s theology from these basic doctrinal standards is the main reason why thousands of Methodist classes refuse to use it. Many of us believe that Methodist literature is Methodist in name only. It becomes increasingly clear that the argument is not whether one approach is a better way to express a common belief. Rather, we are dealing with two increasingly divergent theologies. Sometimes these share a common vocabulary-but your editors repeatedly substitute entirely different meanings.
Such a serious dichotomy exists between your theology and ours that church school material prepared solely from your viewpoint cannot meet the needs of the great group of Methodists which we represent. The implications of this fact (in the light of paragraph 972) should certainly be our major concern at the Chicago meeting on April 18, 1969. It is unthinkable that the solutions to human problems offered by the historic Christian faith should not be made available to Methodist people today.
As you requested, we have supplied a brief appendix of “representative items to which we take exception.” (Not printed due to space limitations—Editor) These are some of the things apparent to faithful teachers and church school leaders. Often they sense the divergence, but can define it only in terms of the most obvious doctrinal deviations. Usually, Methodists merely state that they “don’t like it” (expressed in various parochial terms). You understand, of course, that in dealing with matters of theology, philosophical bias and editorial thrust, the “representative items” are less significant in themselves than the avowed or implied theses of the authors responsible for these statements.
We believe the following analysis summarizes why our denomination’s official curriculum materials are not “complete” and do not meet our needs.
(1) You have substituted various forms of naturalistic humanism for the supernatural theism taught in the Bible and basic to our Reformation heritage of Scriptural Christianity.
(2) You present a form of humanistic “process theology” in place of a theology based upon the ultimate revelation of God’s truth in Jesus Christ and in the Bible.
(3) You have elevated ethical behaviour to a disproportionate level, negating by omission the antecedent requirement of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
(4) You have distorted the balanced, Biblical presentation of Jesus Christ as incarnate deity, whose virgin birth, inspired teaching, vicarious death, physical resurrection and eventual return for judgement are emphasized throughout the New Testament and, likewise, in Wesleyan tradition.
(5) You seek to rationalize miracles, attributing pseudo- scientific explanations and there- by discrediting the supernatural action of a transcendent God.
(6) You present what is predominately a “moral influence” theory of the atonement. You ignore other important interpretations clearly taught or implied in the Bible and understood as valid by great minds of the Church through the ages.
(7) You reject the true ecumenism growing out of universal faith in Jesus Christ. You substitute a parochial denominationalism that is neither Methodist (see Wesley’s “Catholic Spirit”) nor Biblical (see Ephesians 2:8-10).
(8) By omission and distortion you eliminate the important Biblical teaching that there will be an eternal judgment.
(9) With eternal judgment omitted, you teach a syncretistic universalism in which there is no eternal separation as the Bible clearly teaches.
(10) You present an unrealistic view of human nature which accords with neither Scripture, human history or honest admission of human weakness and depravity.
(11) You teach an ethical relativism that makes truth dependent upon the situation. Divinely- revealed absolutes of truth and human behaviour are not accepted as being necessarily consistent with “love,” as you understand it.
(12) You undermine the integrity of canonical Scripture. You teach as absolutes, concepts of Biblical interpretation which ought, honestly, to be presented as theories rather than ultimate truth.
For these and other reasons, the official curriculum material of our denomination represents a critical divergence from the historic doctrines and traditions of Methodists. It is hoped that a Recognition of the divergence and Its implications will provide a Starting place for a plan “to meet the needs” of Methodists who believe that our historic Faith is relevant to contemporary problems without being compromised by humanistic philosophy and moral relativism.
Our position is well summarized by a student in one of our Methodist seminaries. Recently he wrote to “Good News”:
” … Never before in the history of the church has such ‘green’ theology been incorporated into any denominational literature … The ‘hidden Christ’ of the first section of Real, Spring, 1969, is an exposition of the idea of seeing Christ in the needy neighbor. The hippie is portrayed as the Christ who makes others aware of their need, etc. This section is based on an existential interpretation of Matt. 25:45.
“The second half of Real is on the Radical God is Dead theology … To give our youth Cox and Altizer is to give them stones. Why can’t our literature teach our faith instead of our doubts?
“The new youth literature is not something we can ‘live with’ or supplement. Those who shout for freedom might practice what they shout by allowing some leeway on the literature. We aren’t even supposed to read it before we order it. Yet we are supposed to teach our youth the newest, unsystematized theology recent graduates of our seminaries can dream up … “
by Steve | Jul 2, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: The Crisis in Methodist Curriculum
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News
Recently a man said to his Administrative Board: “I have been a Methodist pastor for 20 years. And I have always used Methodist literature. But this new stuff is not compatible with the Bible, Methodist doctrine, or my ordination vows! Either Methodist literature leaves this church or else I leave.”
Such is the crisis precipitated by the newest curriculum “improvements” from Nashville. Reports from across the country indicate that many churches and classes are canceling Methodist curriculum. One inter-denominational publisher reports a recent jump in Methodist business from churches which would “rather switch than fight.” And former E.U.B.’s report a widespread revulsion over the new curriculum which has become “theirs” as, result of merger with The Methodist Church.
Last month the Louisville (Ky.) Conference voted, without opposition, the following resolution, presented to delegates by the Conference Board of Education:
WHEREAS, some United Methodists are greatly disturbed and genuinely concerned over the theological trends reflected in the new literature, and
WHEREAS, some feel that the United Methodist literature does not increase one’s understanding or appreciation of the Scriptures, and
WHEREAS, some feel that the literature is not holding up the unique message of the Christian Church, and
WHEREAS, some feel that much of The material supports humanism, and
WHEREAS, some feel that the literature, questions the authority of the Bible and the deity of Jesus:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Bishop and his Cabinet select and appoint a task force to make a study in depth of the literature, its effect upon our people, and their response to it, across our annual conference; and that this task force report to the 1970 session of the Annual Conference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Conference Board of Education and The General Board of Education be informed from time to time of the progress and results of this study.
How has this unhappy situation come to pass? For decades The Board of Education has been dominated by non-Wesleyan, non–evangelicals. Editors and writers employed by the Board have introduced their favorite brands of non–Biblical theology and philosophy … not to mention politics, economics, anthropology and sociology. These have been force-fed to local churches as the way, the truth, and the life for Methodists.
A few recent examples are given on pages 26-35.
Is the church defenseless? Always, we have had official doctrine—the trouble is, they have been ignored. Officials responsible for our curriculum plead, “United Methodism has no series of creedal dogmas meant to be forced on church membership.” (Page 6, The 1969/70 Outlines of Curriculum, Division of Curriculum Resources of the General Board of Education.) Into their self-created doctrinal vacuum, they pour their own theologies.
Fortunately, the 1968 Discipline contains a clear prohibition which, if adhered to, could eliminate theological eccentricities from our official curriculum materials. Page 36 of the 1968 Discipline says ” … the ‘Wesleyan standards’ have been rightly construed as negative limits of public teaching in the church rather than the positive prescription of an inflexible system of doctrine.”
This means that no Methodist teachings should contradict the Articles of Religion (1968 Discipline, pages 37-44), Wesley’s 44 Sermons, and the Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. A parallel source of doctrinal “negative limit” is now the Confession of Faith of the former E.U.B. Church (1968 Discipline, pages 44- 48.)
Full Biblical authority is the backbone of United Methodist doctrine. The 1968 Discipline makes this clear on page 26: “In all matters of faith and morals, the authority of Holy Scripture stands supreme.”
That this injunction has been ignored is evident from the items mentioned on pages 22-35.
But the fault does not lie entirely with our General Board of Education. Methodist laymen have contributed to the curriculum crisis. All these many years many have grumbled but “gone along.” It is hard to believe that the national board could have flooded the church with un-Biblical teachings if enough Methodist laymen had (1) known the difference between truth and un-truth … and (2) had cared enough to organize an effective, sustained protest.
Pastors, too, bear a share of responsibility for our curriculum crisis. Many have never taken time to read what their church schools are studying. And to be candid, some Methodist pastors are afraid to reveal their objections- for fear of not receiving a “good” appointment “next time.” (Many believe that promotions are reserved for pastors smart enough not to raise embarrassing questions.) Of course, the denominational superstructure has contributed to the United Methodist curriculum crisis. Some Boards of Ministerial Training and Qualification have made willingness to use only Methodist literature a primary requirement for ordination. On the night of one ordination service, a Bishop declared that candidates should not even bother to come forward unless they intended to use Methodist literature only!
A little-recognized factor in our curriculum crisis is the prevailing Biblical ignorance. Relatively few church school teachers know the Scriptures well enough to teach creatively from the Bible itself. Instead, they rely on printed literature as a “crutch.” This dependence puts Methodist church school teachers—and classes—at the mercy of their printed literature. (At a recent meeting attended by over 100 Methodists, general astonishment was expressed at the idea of teaching directly from the Bible. Many thought the speaker joking.)
The very best teaching material is a modem language edition of the Holy Scriptures in the hands of a teacher who knows Jesus Christ personally … who respects the authority and integrity of the Bible … and who is led by the Holy Spirit in showing how relevant the Bible really is.
But the practical reality is that most United Methodist church school teachers do depend upon printed literature. So what choice is open to a local church?
First, it would seem only fair to make a careful evaluation of our own literature. (Many churches have never done this.) Assemble a committee of mature Christians, including Pastor and Superintendent of Studies. Carefully examine Methodist literature on the following points: Does it conform to the plain truth of Scripture? Does it coincide with our United Methodist doctrinal standards (1968 Discipline, pgs. 44-48) Is it practical for teachers to use? What is the reaction of students and classes? What is the quality of pictures and artwork? Does the publisher provide reliable service? How do literature Prices compare? Is it emphasizing Matters that have eternal importance? Does it reflect the Biblical standard of purity as the norm for Christian speech and thought?
If a careful examination leads to criticism of our official literature, write and tell the man responsible, Dr. Henry Bullock, Editor of Church School Publications, 201 Eight Ave., Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Be sure to Stress the need for evangelically-acceptable materials, either produced or approved by our Board of Education.
All Methodists should look carefully at 1968 Discipline paragraph 158.1: “The Commission on Education shall keep the Council on Ministries aware of sound educational procedures, and encourage and facilitate the use of curriculum resources based on curriculum plans developed by the Program-Curriculum Committee and approved by the Board of Education of the United Methodist Church.”
This is much less arbitrary than paragraph 233 of the 1964 Discipline. We rejoice in the Change which places literature responsibility more nearly in the hands of local churches.
The fact is that increasing numbers of United Methodists are exercising their conscience in literature selection. This attitude of independence is not mere divisiveness. Instead, it is the inevitable response of knowledgeable Christians to the un-Biblical humanism that prevails in Methodist literature.
Let Methodist evangelicals pray fervently (and work without ceasing) for the day when we can all be proud of our United Methodist church school literature.
ANOTHER KIND OF RAGE
Methodist leaders are urging us to listen to “black rage” expressed in the famous “Manifesto.” Listening is in order. And so our leaders should be also listening to another kind of rage!
The rage of Methodist people at seeing filthy language printed and circulated by the United Methodist Board of Education (See Motive, March-April issue, 1969).
The rage of Methodists who feel the church betrays them in spending money for questionable causes.
The rage of Methodist laymen exposed to “relevant” sermons on topics such as “How Can I Experience Fulfillment Sexually?” (From a worship service bulletin sent by a reader in Arkansas).
We hope Methodist leaders are hearing more than one kind of rage.
by Steve | Jul 1, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: The Lost Authority
By Lon Woodrum, Hastings, Michigan, Contributing Editor of Good News
In today’s widespread crisis of authority, none is more marked than that in the Roman Catholic Church. This is especially evidenced in the universal reaction to Pope Paul’s Humanae Vitae. The dissent to the pontiff’s encyclical on birth control runs counter to that monarchistic form of government by which the papacy has long reigned.
Recently the London Times remarked, “Today, after the heavy qualification given by Vatican II, it seems unlikely that any future Pope will conjure his plenary powers and define ex cathedra a dogma to bind the church irrevocably.”
Reportedly, the Pope is preparing another letter on authority, itself as a response to what has happened. Should this encyclical be as dogmatic as Humanae Vitae, further dissent could be engendered with damage to the entire church. For men in our time have learned to fear totalitarianism; and even in the area known as the “free world” the loss of personal liberty seems too often threatened.
However, man is so constituted that although he resents too much authority he cannot be content without authority. In truth, authority has been, for centuries, that element in the Roman church which vastly contributed to its continuity-as long as men trusted that authority. But with the authority questioned, many constituents are now restless and unhappy.
Indeed, it may well be that much of the turmoil among the peoples of the earth is due greatly to their need for an authority to which they can respectfully submit. Men are at loose ends, both individuals and institutions. The widespread complaint in the late national American election was that none of the candidates appeared qualified for the high office which he sought. Men ask for authentic leadership; they demand a voice fit to command. To be sure, they want freedom, but they want it under proper domination.
Unquestionably, millions of Roman Catholics who wish less dictatorship from the Vatican will nonetheless desire authority from some quarter. Their human nature will force them to it. But where shall they turn?
Was not this same sort of problem posed once before in the history of the Church—at the time of the Reformation? However, then, people departing from the papal rule found another authority. They found it in Christ, the incarnate Truth, in the Word of Truth and in the Holy Spirit of Truth.
They took up the Old Testament and observed how God had been joined to Israel in a free covenant, the Law needed only because outlaws were present, not because God wanted to rule despotically. They discovered, in the New Testament, that believers were not under Law, but under the love and grace of Christ. Their loyalty was not to a cold, impersonal legislation, but to a Person who cared enough for them to lay down His life for them on Calvary. They were bound to the law of Love—the only Law which could not be broken without breaking the heart of him who broke it.
It has been said that the word “authority” in the New Testament might well be translated “fitness”—as when one speaks of a person being fit to be a king, or a judge. New Testament believers were not bound to an earthly power with political structure; their authority was from the Word, and from the Spirit who gave the Word. We once heard a scholar translate a familiar text thus: “You shall receive competence after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you” (Acts 1:8). Christians are qualified witnesses for Christ, not legally, but charismatically—in the power and wisdom of God’s Spirit, indwelling each true believer.
In the Roman Catholic Church today some of the “modernists” Lean toward this New Testament Sort of authority. Those who Would return to the greater dominion of the papacy are dubbed “traditionists.” But in the Protestant world the order is reversed. It is the “modernist” who wants to forsake the authority of the Word, and the “traditionist” to keep it!
Which brings us to a sober truth. The Roman Catholics are struggling to free themselves from an undesirable authority. But, man being what he is, undoubtedly they will not wish to flee all authority; rather will they seek a more acceptable one. However, in these times, there would appear to be no Luthers or Calvins to turn to! For, disastrously, the Protestant churches, which owe their very existence to the authority of the Word have in far too great an extent jettisoned that authority!
Moreover, illogically and tragically, many Protestants who mutilate the Scriptures, still loudly maintain their championship of the Word! So, where authority once sat, confusion reigns. But silent is the cry that rose when the battle was joined at the Reformation: sola gratia! sola scriptura! (grace alone! Scripture alone!) In that day there remained a court of appeal to which the disillusioned could turn. The Scripture, which Jesus himself said could not be broken, spoke authoritatively to the human conscience.
Many may be impelled to ask in our day, now that authority seems lost in both the Catholic and Protestant camps. “Where shall we tum?” The truth of the matter is, the actual authority which God arranged has not been altered. Christ himself speaks for all time when He says “The Scripture cannot be set aside” (John 10:35). He also speaks to all men when He states that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39).
Man’s age-old discontent with unauthentic authority will not diminish. Nor will his age-old desire for competent authority. But this desire can find fulfillment only in Him whom the Scriptures present as announcing, “Full authority in heaven and on earth has been committed to me.” And only the unchanging WORD can guarantee that this authority will remain unchanging.
by Steve | Apr 4, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: What is Evangelicalism?
PART I
By Bruce R. Shelley
Condensed by permission from “Evangelicalism in America,” published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan
On his first Sunday in Georgia in 1735, John Wesley, the young Anglican missionary destined to become the founder of The Methodist Church, sought out a leader of the Moravians, a devout band of Christians working in the colony. En route to Georgia, Wesley’s ship had nearly broken to splinters during a storm. The nerves of all on board, including the seamen, had been severely shaken—all, that is, except a group of Moravians. Their peaceableness when the sea split the mainsail, and the joy of their singing, had deeply impressed the fearful missionary. So Wesley, once in Georgia, made it a point to seek out Spangenberg, the leader of the Moravians, to ask for advice about his own conduct.
“Do you know yourself’?” Spangenberg asked him. “Have you the witness within yourself’? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God? ”
Wesley was startled at such directness and scarcely knew what to say.
His Moravian interrogator noticed his hesitancy and discomfort and so he pressed home an even more personal question. “Do you know Jesus Christ? ”
Wesley hedged. “I know He is the Savior of the world.”
“True,” responded Spangenberg, “But do you know He has saved you?”
Thoroughly at a loss, Wesley stammered feebly, “I hope He has died to save me.”
But Spangenberg insisted, “Do you know yourself’?”
In order to free himself from a most embarrassing situation Wesley convincingly said he did. “But,” he later added in admirable honesty, “I fear they were vain words.”
That discomforting interview was a landmark in Wesley’s pilgrimage toward assurance of salvation. It is also a disclosure of the inner essence of evangelicalism.
From the Philippian jailer who asked his praying prisoners, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, to Wesley who squirmed under the heat of Spangenberg’s, “Do you know Jesus Christ?”, to a teenage terror off the streets of New York who bows in repentance at a Billy Graham Crusade, one major theme runs through that type of Christianity called evangelicalism. That theme is the necessity of personal salvation.
The word “evangelical ” is used in our time to designate a group of Protestant churches in Germany, “low church ” sympathies in the Church of England, Christians in the Wesleyan tradition, and American fundamentalists. It is most accurately employed, however, in referring to all within Protestant Christianity who emphasize salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching in contrast to ritual as a means of saving grace. …
In simplest terms, an evangelical is a Christian who accepts and lives the Gospel, for evangelion is merely the Greek word for “good news.” In our English Bibles it is often translated “gospel,” which is an old Anglo-Saxon word meaning “good (god) tale (spell).”
But what is the Gospel? It is the blessed bulletin about Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1). It broadcasts that in Him the promises of God, extended to His people in Old Testament times, are fulfilled. In Him the Kingdom, the rule of God over men, has come (Matthew 4:23 and 12:28) and through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection from the grave, all the enemies of man’s soul—Satan, sin and death—have been defeated. In His cross, rebellious men and holy God are reconciled (II Corinthians 5: 19); and in His resurrection new life becomes a present possibility for every man (Romans 4:25).
Evangelicalism, then, begins its explanation of true religion where Jesus began, with “repent and believe the gospel ” (Mark I:15). It emphasizes man’s need for a spiritual rebirth in the experience of conversion. Man is not by nature what he must be in order to please God. The change of heart he needs comes only by a creative act of God in response to his deeply meaningful repentance and his living faith in Christ. This emphasis on spiritual rebirth is the genius of evangelicalism. On one occasion, somebody asked George Whitefield, the tireless evangelist of the Methodist revival, “Mr. Whitefield, why do you preach so often on ‘Ye must be born again’?”
“Because,” replied the great revivalist, fixing his questioner with a solemn gaze, “‘Ye must be born again’.”
Evangelicals believe that there are two basic types of religion, the interior-personal and the exterior-institutional. They emphasize the first because they are persuaded that the Holy Spirit must do a work in the human heart. Only He can convict of sin and lead the penitent to a renunciation of his sins. And only He can provide the spiritual power necessary to live a transformed life. That is why evangelicals are more concerned about inner personal depth than they are about external churchly conformity.
The spiritual descendants of Wesley and Whitefield differ from many in contemporary Christianity in holding that conversion is a definite, decisive, and profound experience. Without endorsing his total philosophy, evangelicals share the views of Soren Kierkegaard, the nineteenth-century Danish Socrates, when he insists, “As an individual, quite literally as an individual, to relate oneself to God personally is the formula for being a Christian …. If once this occurs, then it is an event incomparably more important than a European war and a war which involves all the corners of the earth, it is a catastrophic event which moves the universe to its profoundest depths. … He whose life does not present relative catastrophes of this sort has never, not even in the remotest approximation, had recourse as an individual to God—that is just as impossible as to touch an electrical machine without receiving a shock.”
The indispensable means of gaining God’s new life, evangelicals are persuaded, is by believing the Gospel. Doctrine, then, is important. Evangelicals hold with all orthodox Christians the great cardinal truths of God’s revelation. They confess the divine Trinity; they accept Christ’s deity and atoning death; they look for a bodily resurrection and a judgment to come; they believe in the Church and the necessity of grace. Evangelicalism cannot long survive without orthodox beliefs. In evangelicalism, personal faith is wed to propositional faith. Jesus did not say, “Repent and believe your personal impressions.” He preached, “Repent and believe the gospel!”
Evangelicals know, however, that the balance between truth as proposition and truth as personal is a delicate one. On the one hand, the loss of spiritual dynamic often jeopardizes basic doctrinal truths. The followers of Wesley agree with Philip Melanchthon, Luther’s colleague, when he observes that theology is a matter of the heart as well as the head. Cold hearts, they know, find it hard to embrace the great revealed truths of God’s Word. In a lukewarm congregation, the surrender of basic truth is so gradual that it is hardly perceptible. First comes a de-emphasis on the value of doctrine. Then, old terms are used with new and equivocal meanings and the naive are misled. The process can only end in spiritual destruction.
On the other hand, churches sometimes react to a loss of spiritual power by seeking to strengthen their theological positions. As W. Curry Mavis argues, “Theologians then compensate for the loss of inner vitality by rigidly defining doctrinal positions. Theological i’s are dotted and doctrinal t’s are crossed with a note of ultimate finality. This leads to a doctrinaire situation which is lifeless and empty.”
For these reasons, evangelicals, while holding to orthodox beliefs, insist that Christianity is more than theological orthodoxy and religious conservatism. It is a spirit, a concern for sinners, a way of life. Its master motif is the salvation of souls; its guiding image the redemptive Gospel of Jesus Christ. All other considerations are subordinated to this standard.
“Orthodoxy, I say, or right opinion,” Wesley once said, “is but a slender part of religion at best, and sometimes no part at all. I mean, if a man be a child of God, holy in heart and life, his right opinions are but the smallest part of his religion: if a man be a child of the devil, his right opinions are no part of religion, they cannot be; for he that does the works of the devil has no religion at all.”
It was this recognition that truth is to be tested by love, that the practical and experiential outcome of belief counts for more than mere soundness of view, which marked the evangelical approach to doctrine.
This pre-eminent concern for experienced Christianity explains why evangelicals have differed with each other over the relation of God’s electing choice to man’s free will, and yet have found unity in the message of salvation.
In his book Protestant Thought Before Kant, A. C. McGiffert makes a discerning observation. “It is not surprising,” he says, “that the Calvinist Whitefield regarded Wesley’s Arminian views as extremely dangerous, and that the two men fell into open and bitt er controversy. But it is an interesting commentary upon the Gospel’s indifference to philosophy and theology that men representing … two radically diverse types of thought should both accomplish so tremendous practical results.
Ever since the time of Wesley and Whitefield there has been both Arminian and Calvinistic evangelicalism. But the underlying interest of the two types has been essentially the same, and their differences superficial and unimportant. …
Not all evangelicals will agree that the difference between Calvinists and Arminians are unimportant. But all will concur that the Gospel is the one indispensable particular for Biblical Christianity. …
That dimension of depth in faith, which evangelicals seek, has too often been missing in Christendom. The difference between profession of an orthodox creed, evangelicals are persuaded, and the personal experience of Christ is the difference between thumbing through a National Geographic and standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon. The Church has known her periods of decadent orthodoxy, but she has never witnessed a decadent evangelicalism. When the spirit of evangelicalism dies, it ceases to exist.
In harmony with this dominating theme of regeneration, evangelicals stress certain other doctrinal motifs. For example, the fall of man …. “We are already bound hand and foot,” Wesley preached, “by the chains of our own sins. These … are chains of iron and fetters of brass. They are wounds wherewith the world, the flesh and the devil have gashed and mangled us all over. They are diseases that drink up our blood and spirits, that bring us down to the chambers of the grave. ”
CONTINUED IN NEXT ISSUE
