by Steve | Jul 2, 1968 | Archive - 1968
Archive: Evangelicals Believe in Ecumenism
By Dale Bittinger, Pastor
First United Methodist Church, Rockwood, Tennessee
Chairman, Good News Board of Directors
The immediate reaction to the statement found in our title will be varied. Ultra liberals will disagree and accuse evangelicals of disrupting the ecumenical movement through insistence on holding on to an “archaic theology.” Some evangelicals, concerned about the brand of ecumenism that gains the headlines today, will inwardly groan, even gnash their teeth. For these the word should be irk-u-menism not ecumenism.
These feelings and emotions have little bearing on the fact that there is an authentically Biblical ecumenism. Evangelicals are proudly loyal to Christian unity rooted in the scriptures. We recognize that when hatred, suspicion, and the like creep into the Body of Christ, the life of the body is threatened. No one needs to convince us that berating fellow Christians is wrong.
No honest evangelical will deny that many of the divisions within the Church have been scandalous and ridiculous. Some have sprung from childish and selfish motivation. However, we refuse to agree that all division and diversity is sinful or disgraceful. Moreover, we strongly assert that much of the cleavage has come about as a reaction to the distortion or denial of the historic Christian faith. Many groups have been raised up of God to preserve the evangelical message. If God blesses these churches, we cannot condemn them. Further, we declare that the real divisive scandal rests with those who attack the scriptures, water down the Christian message, misrepresent the nature and task of the Church, and lower Biblical moral standards.
So, we again repeat the statement, “evangelicals believe in ecumenism.” Now let’s look at the rallying points which we consider to be the irreducible minimum for Christ-like oneness. From these essentials – we cannot – we dare not retreat.
(1.) Evangelicals believe in an ecumenism built on biblical authority rather than theological consensus.
Many of those active in the movement toward church union do not believe that the Bible is inspired any more than any other good book. So, a Bible without authority necessitates a quest for theological consensus or agreement. These philosophical theologians reason as follows: Every religious thinker in his best moments has some intuition or intimation of religious truth. Ideas discovered in this way have a certain kind of authority. So, every theological idea, whether of the beatnik variety or not, must be considered. Through discussion and controversy, a compatible theology is being evolved. This theology will be forever relative and emerging. Agreement with the Bible is not considered a valid part of this process. So, such phrases as “trends in modem theology” have come into being. For many, then, the quest for oneness is centered in a consensus theology hammered out through intellectual struggle rather than divine revelation.
On the other hand, in John 17, Jesus’ prayer for oneness was preceded by prayer for sanctification through the Word. This sequence was not accidental. There was also a declaration that His Word was truth. He further prayed for those who would believe on Him through the Word of His disciples. This reference was to the Epistles and the Gospels. From these verses, we have a right to conclude that Christian unity must be preceded by a belief in the truth of the scriptures. No movement which denies or distorts the Word is authentically ecumenical.
(2.) Evangelicals believe in an ecumenism whose unity is derived from the “being of God” rather than from ecclesiastical structure.
The key to the oneness for which Jesus prayed in John 17 can be found in the phrase, “As we are one.” How were Jesus and the Father one? They were one in being. In verse 21 Jesus plainly states that the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. He then declares that his followers are to be one, “in us,” meaning in the Father and the Son. So, it follows that our unity must be in the being of God.
Two corollaries emerge from this fact of unity in the being of God. First, only a divine Christ could share in the “Being of God” as described in John 17. A merely human Christ could not provide any lasting spiritual cohesion. Second, a dynamic conversion experience is necessary for a sinful man to be initiated into the holy being of God. One cannot be simply “structured in.” At this point, one learns from modern medical science that an organ transplanted into the human body must be made compatible or be rejected. The New Birth is the compatibility process for transplantation into the Body of Christ or Being of God. Only those who have believed into Christ have a common purpose derived from mutual commitment to our Lord.
Paul continues this idea of unity in the Being of God in I Corinthians 12. Verse 4 talks of a diversity of gifts with the same Spirit. Verse 5 talks of a diversity of administrations with the same Lord. Verse 6 talks of a diversity of operations but the same God working in all. Verse 14 states that the body is not one member but many. The underlying principle in all these verses is that the unity of the body is in the life of the body and not the structure.
An amusing illustration of the folly of believing in unity without life once took place in an entomological laboratory. A group of students, eager to fool their professor, constructed a bug from parts of a variety of insects. The teacher was requested to identify the species. Pupils were inwardly rejoicing at the anticipated success of their ruse. However, their smugness was soon shattered by the voice of the old man. “My friends,” he said, “that is a humbug.” Could it be that there are some humbugs being constructed in ecclesiastical laboratories?
It must be observed, however, that Paul did not reject the idea of structural unity. He simply relegated it to a secondary status. So, we follow in the steps of our Lord and His great apostle in teaching that inner life in the being of God, not outer conformity, is the primary well-spring of Christian unity.
(3.) Evangelicals believe in an ecumenism that springs from the urgency of proclaiming the New Testament Gospel to our age.
The evangelistic task should draw the followers of Christ together. Mutuality of mission should result in unity. Nevertheless, the twentieth century Church has been sharply divided over the goals and methods of evangelism. We of the evangelical theological bent are suspicious of some efforts at unity because we cannot accept the substitution of non-biblically oriented ecclesiastical propaganda for the New Testament kerygma (good news of redemption in Christ). We are disturbed when such things as race relations, birth control, war and peace, and poverty relief are seen as the heart of the message of the Church. We stand aghast when civil rights marches, political lobbying, legislative agitation, and the like are given priority over the proclamation of the redemptive message of salvation from sin. For us, no movement toward unity can countenance the changing of society through pronouncements and agitation as of more importance than the changing of individuals through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. We believe that no constructive social change can be expected until individuals, who make up society, are transformed as individuals, through surrender to Christ and the receiving of His Spirit.
The evangelical ecumenist feels that Acts 1:8 spells out true evangelism: “Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you and ye shall be witnesses of me.” From this we see that the evangelistic enterprise is the presentation of the story of Jesus in such a convincing way, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that men are convicted of their sin and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Changed men will change society. No other conception of the task of the Church can have ecumenical cohesiveness.
(4.) Evangelicals believe in an ecumenism which derives its power from the Holy Spirit rather than from the impingement of numerical strength.
The “merging mania” with its accompanying belief that growth in numbers brings growth in power and prestige is foreign to the scriptures. The present world system may share this belief, but such is not the teaching of our Lord. He said, “Ye are not of the world even as I am not of the world.” The Bible also quotes God as saying that His means of operation is not by secular might or power but by the dynamic of the Holy Spirit. God’s Book also drives home the fact that God has never needed majority to carry on His work. Such incidents as Gideon and his 300 reveal that God does not need to create a monopoly to achieve His will.
Our government has recognized that man cannot be trusted with exclusive control in the commercial world. Pre-Reformation Church history has shown that men can also misuse an ecclesiastical monopoly. So, God’s people pray not so much for numerical strength as for spiritual power. Through the power of the Holy Spirit we will not only be welded together in oneness, we will also have a saving influence on our age.
In summary, let me say that we need one faith more than one organization. We need unity in Christ more than union of churches. True union will come not from voting or desiring it but from a common loyalty to Christ and His Word, and a common experience of Christ as Savior. So, we aspire not so much for one denomination as for one mind – the mind of Christ. We seek one Spirit – the Holy Spirit. We hold to one faith as revealed in the scriptures. We do not seek to build a super church, but we seek to lift up a super-Christ. In the words of Paul, our aim is that Christ may be all in all.
There are three contenders for supremacy in the Church: Christ, man, and Satan. God grant that Christ may prevail.
by Steve | Jul 1, 1968 | Archive - 1968
Achive: A Campus Revolution
Does the college campus respond to the clearcut claims of Christ?
July 1968
By Dr. James F. Engel
Professor of Marketing, Ohio State University
Trinity Methodist Church, Columbus, Ohio
Member, Good News Board of Directors
“Before you leave this course, your faith in Christianity, if you have any, will be destroyed. Christianity is a myth – a crutch for the intellectual misfit.”
Sound familiar? These words were stated this year by a philosophy professor at a major university on the first day of a required course with 500 students in attendance. And similar thoughts are echoed on other campuses around the country. Make no mistake about it – Christianity is facing a challenge that it cannot ignore, and our response will shape the very destiny of tomorrow’s world. Don’t forget that tomorrow’s leaders are in the college classrooms today.
What is the Church’s answer? This is hard to summarize, but the guiding philosophy on a number of campuses is a drive to be RELEVANT. (Don’t stick to an outmoded gospel! Let’s “demythologize the Bible!” “End the war!” “Burn the draftcards!”) ACTION! (“Today’s student doesn’t want to hear the fundamentalist line.” “The gospel is the social gospel.” “Conversion – leave that to Billy Graham.”)
There are thousands of men and women who study and teach at colleges and universities, who, like myself, consider the attack on Christianity to be an attack on our intelligence and the validity of our faith. Moreover, we don’t find draft card burning and some of the other attempts to be “relevant” to be even close as an answer. We believe that Jesus Christ is who He said He was – the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Furthermore, we feel that it is high time to state these views with force and clarity. We are convinced that Christ is the only answer in a tangled world.
Does the college campus respond to a clearcut presentation of the claims of Christ? You bet it does, and this can mean only one thing as it has throughout history – spiritual revolution!
The campus today is in turmoil with a myriad of undercurrents. Students and faculty are restless. Why shouldn’t we be? It is becoming increasingly apparent that knowledge alone is not sufficient to solve the problems of the world. We are no closer to peace today than we were hundreds of years ago, and it is said that the great majority of scientific advances have been packed into the past 10 years. If the answer is in knowledge, then we should have the solutions in sight. But where are they?
Many men and women on college campuses look at those of us in the church and, by and large, dismiss us as being irrelevant. They declare: “You blew it! You sit in your comfortable churches, but you do nothing to solve the problems of the world.”
It doesn’t take a very perceptive student to see that the world is aiming toward some type of climax, and to their credit, many of these men and women want to do something about it. Fault their strategy if you wish, but don’t fault their motivation. At least they are trying.
To the casual observer, it might seem like the campus is the center of atheism – that it is “off-limits” to meaningful Christianity. To some extent, a version of Christianity is off-limits on the campus, and that centers around the impotent Christ, the God on a throne in a placid heaven wearing a long white beard, the “meek and mild” Jesus, the Christianity that is proclaimed on Sunday morning but not lived on Monday. Hypocrisy is despised, and a Christianity that is powerless and irrelevant indeed has no place on the campus. But that is not really Christianity – only a caricature.
The real Christ, the living two-fisted Christ, is something else. This Christ was a complete stranger to me until June, 1965. Then, after 31 years of Sunday morning “churchianity” in The Methodist Church I was challenged at a Faith at Work Conference to let Christ take over my life. I had lived my life for my-· self and my professional reputation, but attainment of some of these very life goals left no satisfaction. To the eyes of the world, my wife and I would probably have been the ideal young faculty couple – financial means, nice home, nice family, good professional reputation. The only thing missing was meaning in life. And that did not come until Christ became our Lord and delivered that abundant life He and He alone can give.
Since beginning my walk with Christ, I have discovered that faculty and students alike are ready and willing to meet the real Christ – to live lives like the first century Christians who “turned the world upside down.” A faculty prayer breakfast at Ohio State turned out over 300 Christians, many of whom offered comments like “I have been a Christian, but I have never known how to live for Christ on the campus.” One log burning alone can do little. But watch out when several are put together! A movement is sweeping the country today under the sponsorship of Campus Crusade for Christ. It involves small “action groups” whereby students and faculty meet in real Christian fellowship, experiencing God’s love, and learning together how to see lives change right on the campus. The natural result of this kind of fellowship has to be an overflow of love and concern to the lives of others. Such groups are now in existence with students on nearly 1,000 campuses that we know of. In just one year, at least 50 campuses have seen the growth of such action groups among faculty.
How are these things happening? By and large, the organized church as we know it, has not taken the leadership. It is laymen who have experienced changed lives who, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, become God’s ambassadors where they are. When the church emphasizes draftcard burning and social action without Christ, the impact is virtually nil! This is being repeated on hundreds of campuses. But huge crowds throng to hear the Gospel presented meaningfully in campus lingo and jargon. The response is overwhelming.
To those with the emphasis on war and peace (and the emphasis on war and peace and the other social concerns which too frequently monopolize the Christian channel on campus), I issue this challenge: can you honestly show that you are getting the job done? Are lives changing? Is this restlessness and search for meaning being satisfied? I am convinced from my travels coast to coast that there is a hungering for God as there has seldom been before. Experience is showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that students and faculty will respond to Christ; that they are willing to accept the Bible as God’s Word; that they are willing to live for Christ. Just show them who Christ really is and how He can change a life. Far too many have sat in church going through the motions as I did and never have experienced true Christianity.
Just this last quarter, students thronged into my office to talk about their problems. Why? Simply because I unashamedly stated in class that I had committed my life to Christ and that He changed me totally! No preaching; just an honest statement of what is important to me. If others have the right to publicly attack Christianity, those of us who are believers have the right to proclaim Christ! Four students prayed with me in a period of several days and received Christ. Others who were Christians experienced genuine renewal and now are vibrant witnesses to the Gospel. Some might say these kids are just misfits. But in reality, each is a campus leader who knows the score and has lived in the mainstream of campus life.
A book could be written about the lives being changed daily, as students and faculty members themselves are witnessing to others. And isn’t this the kind of revolutionary Christianity that changed the world in the first century? We are finding daily that our God “frequently is too small” and that we must believe that Christ is willing to do things far beyond our dreams.
A revolution is taking place; God is putting His army together to change the world, and this is not limited to the campus. vi these times, as never before, we have unique opportunities to see lives change as we make ourselves available to Christ as His ambassadors. The church is far more than a structure; it is each person who knows Christ personally and will live a life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Methodism lies right at the heart of the Protestant mainstream, and God has given us a remarkable Wesleyan heritage for spiritual revolution. John Wesley preached Christ; lives changed; a total society changed! It can happen again.
The burden, however, is on you and me. We are irrelevant if we are not living lives consistent with our calling. Sunday morning Christianity is not enough. The pastorate, in tum, has a great obligation to ground us as laymen in the Word of God and to train us to be effective witnesses. Let’s remain true to original Christianity and proclaim openly and honestly that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
by Steve | Apr 4, 1968 | Archive - 1968
Archive: The Biblical Basis for Christian Social Concern
April 1968
By Donald L. Frank Pastor
First Methodist Church, Mineral Point, Wisconsin
Current times are very confusing to the dedicated Christian. He is the person who has heard the good news in Christ … he has responded … and now he is trying to live out the faith in his daily existence.
But he hears different voices shouting at him when it comes down to the matter of political, economic and social issues. One voice tells him that Viet Nam or the metropolitan riots, or poverty, aren’t the church’s business. But another church voice is urging “Start marching!” “Get arrested!” “Burn your draft card!” “Storm city hall!” “Run for office!” This, we are being told, is the proper pattern for Christian life-style today.
Is it any wonder, then, that so many people in our churches are confused? Is it any wonder that sincere Christians are searching for principles of Biblical truth and plain old common sense … principles to help them live according to God’s will in a world filled with complex and difficult problems?
We look to the Bible as the standard of authority, for both faith and practice. And so we need to bring the revelation of God, as found in the Scriptures, to bear on this specific question: What guidance does the Bible give for Christian involvement in the concerns of man’s social, political and economic life?
When we turn to the Scripture, our minds turn automatically to the life of Jesus Christ. For in the “Word made Flesh,” God’s revelation has reached its peak, and God’s will has been most perfectly expressed. As we look at the total picture of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, two major concerns spring into view. His first concern was about the individual person’s relationship with God. This great, over-arching concern of Jesus is evidenced from the very beginning of His public ministry: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15) Jesus was constantly concerned that men should live in close communion and obedient fellowship with God. Christ’s first recorded public message announced the way in which this was to come about: Man was to repent (tum around so as to face toward God) and believe in the good news which God had sent in the Person of Jesus Christ. The balance of Jesus’ earthly ministry was the proclamation of that good news of redemption, which the “turned around” man was to believe and to implement in daily relationships with God and his fellowman.
Our friends in the church who ignore the individual’s personal relationship with God in and through Jesus Christ ignore the very starting point for the Gospel of Christ. His message is intended to penetrate the lives of individual people, causing them to examine their motives and actions … to confess their sins … and then to receive God’s forgiveness. Thus liberated and inspired by His Spirit, believers can enjoy a new life, a new outlook and a new usefulness to God. There are certain things which must happen to change a man as an individual person. No government program, law, march, or protest can replace this inward transformation of the will, the value standards and the emotions. If, as we believe, a man’s life is ultimately dependent upon God and is incomplete without Him, then a man, whoever or wherever he is, must come to terms with God. First of all, a man must meet Him as an individual. Only then is it possible to live in a relationship of faith and trust and obedience, the source of practical Christian behavior in daily life.
The early church, as described in the Book of Acts, began with this kind of an outlook. It confronted the individual. It told him about Jesus. And then it drew him into a Christ-centered, intimate fellowship. It studied the teachings of Jesus. And it went out into the world to be accused of turning the world “upside down.” But always, top priority was given to man’s relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
It is tempting to stop at this point. And, to our shame, some Christians do just that. We have used the walls of our churches like the Berlin Wall: to isolate, to separate. In so doing, we have served up “half a Christ” (if even that) to the world – and to ourselves. For, as we said previously, there are two major concerns which spring from the life of Jesus. Over and over again, the Master showed vital concern about the relationship of man to his fellow man. This is a necessary and inevitable consequence of the personal relationship with God.
Examples are abundant: the parable of the Good Samaritan, the second great commandment of our Lord, the parable of the Great Judgement, and the personal attitude of Jesus as He healed, visited, fed, and reminded the people of their obligation to one another. All these are specific indications of the deep and constant concern which Jesus had for the way in which man lived with his fellow man – especially fellow disciples.
Jesus indicates that the way in which we live with God is tied up with the way in which we live with one another-and vice versa. For instance, look at the question asked Jesus in Mark 10:17, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Then look at Jesus’ answer: “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21) The thing which the man lacked, really, was an awareness of his responsibility to use his God-given wealth for the benefit of other people. He had fulfilled the commandments that applied to him personally. But, this was not enough to please God. The rich man’s outlook needed expansion – his own self and possessions had gotten in the way. If he was to inherit eternal life, he had tel find a loving faith which would unite him with his fellow man, as with his God. Both these dimensions of true faith were lacking; his religion was a matter of keeping rules.
Teaching about the Last Judgement (Matthew 25:31-44), Jesus points out that God will honor and save people whose vital faith made them care about others, even though “the blessed” were not conscious, at the time, that by serving other people they were simultaneously serving Christ. On the other hand, God will dismiss and reject people who lacked a faith real enough to generate spontaneous compassion such as the Good Samaritan demonstrated. The damned are those who fail to understand that “he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (I John 4: 20b). In this parable, the blessed and the damned are symbols of those of us who de fine things in isolated terms of religious and non-religious, church and world, and confine themselves to the “religious.” Jesus teaches that this kind of a dichotomy cannot exist in His disciples’ lives.
Over and over again these two themes are interwoven in the life and ministry of the Master: man’s relationship with God and man’s relationship with other man.
The life of Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the writing of the Old Testament prophets – writings which reached a peak in that famous passage in Micah 6:6-8 which concludes: “He has showed you, 0 man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” The prophets Micah, Amos, Hosea, et al., were all concerned about the way people were treated and taken advantage of by the so-called “religious elite.” These religious leaders went through the motions of being religious. But they were not concerned inwardly, so their religion was not a reality of heart and life. The condemnation of God’s spokesmen thundered down upon the hypocrites because they had broken covenant with the God, who required honesty and compassion toward others as the natural response to His kindness toward His chosen people.
Lying behind these utterances and attitudes of the prophets were the commandments and rules of the Jewish people dating from the Exodus itself. These divine rules show a concern for other people and often express a very exacting ethical standard of dealing with someone else. God’s concern for the man who is forced into servitude is shown by providing for a year of jubilee or release. God shows His concern for the person who loses an animal because of another man’s negligence. A fair method of repayment is set forth. God also shows His concern for the poor and widowed. Fields are not to be picked clean at harvest time in order that needy people might go through and glean some food for themselves. Written into the founding principles of God’s covenant is a holy concern for other people. This same concern for persons expressed itself fully and perfectly in the life of Jesus, the teaching of Jesus, as well as His death, resurrection and His promised return as Redeemer of the universe.
Following in the footsteps of Jesus, the apostle Paul continues emphasizing this same dual nature of the Christian life. In his splendid letter to the Romans, Paul outlines his doctrine of Justification by faith (Romans 3:21-22), which stands at the heart of our Christian faith. We are saved by faith in Christ. Christ alone. Let us never forget or lose this!
However, in the very same letter, Paul also writes: “I appeal to you therefore, brethren … to present your bodies as a living sacrifice …” (Romans 12:1 ) And he goes on in that marvelous twelfth chapter to speak of a life of love, hospitality, contribution, blessing, harmonious living, repaying no one evil for evil, peaceable living, feeding the enemy, and overcoming evil with good. If we do believe the Bible we cannot escape the conclusion that we are under God’s command to live with others in a way that reflects the faith which we profess to have.
We cannot read the Bible in its totality without running, over and over again, into the understanding that any man who is in a proper faith relationship with God is also under certain obligations toward other people. Here lies the Biblical mandate for Christian social action or concern in our own day. The individual who says that the church ought “to mind its own business” (meaning that the church ought to leave the cares of the world alone) doesn’t have a Scriptural leg to stand on. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a “social gospel.” That is a myth! There is one Gospel – the good news of Jesus Christ. It has profound social implications, but these cannot be divorced from the personal implications if the gospel of Christ is to be maintained in its intended fulness. For if we understand the faith only in terms of social involvement or action, we have departed from the faith as recorded in the Bible and as exemplified in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Any honest survey of the Bible, with the question of social involvement in mind, leads to the following conclusions:
- Our relationship to God is linked inseparably to our relationship with others.
- We are called to put our faith into action, socially as well as individually.
- Our involvement is rooted in Christ’s call to be one of His. Any social involvement that is Christian must be guided, empowered and nourished in a life of faith, worship, prayer, and growing knowledge of Scripture.
- Our commitment to God must find practical expression in the daily struggles of life.
- The Gospel is not social or personal – it is both.
by Steve | Apr 3, 1968 | Archive - 1968
Archive: Blessed Assurance
April 1968
By Buford M. McElroy, Sr.
Pastor, First Methodist Church, Camp Hill, Alabama
The late Bishop Bachman G. Hodge, of the North Alabama Conference, had a favorite story he loved to tell about one of his friends, who was an Episcopal minister. This friend was always kidding the bishop about the Methodists leaving the Episcopal Church. He would always end up by saying, “Bishop, when you Methodists left, you took the stove with you.”
Methodism always has been referred to as the religion of the warmed heart. I like the description. I wish it were always and everywhere true. But we Methodists have no exclusive right to this title. We’re not the only Christians who know in our lives the power of the grace of God. But The Methodist Church was the only church which took care to build into its very structure, the means of making sure that people should not continue long in membership without this knowledge.
The Episcopal bishop was referring particularly to the heartwarming experience which came to John Wesley. He wrote in his diary, under the date of May 24th, 1738, “I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had saved me, even me, from the law of sin and death.” Ever since, Methodists have cherished the memory of that experience of trustful fellowship with Christ by faith alone and its resulting assurance of full salvation. And we have stressed the necessity of a similar experience for members of The Methodist Church.
“The drunkard,” wrote Wesley, “commenced to be sober and temperate; the whoremonger abstained from adultery and fornication; the unjust from oppression and wrong; the sluggard began to work with his hands, and the miser learned to deal his bread to the hungry.”
For Wesley, the heart-warming was no transient experience. It was the result of contact with the fires of saving-love which bum forever in the heart of God. It completely changed his life, and manifested itself in all his relationships with God and his fellowmen.
There is one thing we Methodists must guard against – the peril of exalting Wesley instead of Jesus Christ. John Wesley was one of the great Christians of all times, no doubt about that. But Wesley was great because he exalted Christ.
In the eighteenth century, most thoughtful people were seeking certainty in one way or another. Wesley sought certainty of salvation. For years he sought it diligently by self-discipline and good works. But he did not find Christian assurance. Until Aldersgate, he was lacking “the inward witness” of the Holy Spirit that speaks peace and assurance to the soul.
The Methodist movement, begun at Oxford University by his brother Charles and others, was essentially an earnest endeavor of these young men to “work out their own salvation.” Their fiery zeal was from the beginning turned outward, taking the form of many good works. But it included, also an avowed ambition to save their own souls. Charitable pursuits, the visiting of the sick and prisoners, alms-giving, evangelistic, missionary enterprises – all were largely inspired by their hearts’ craving for the assurance of personal salvation.
It didn’t take these very first Methodists long to find out that they had started at the wrong end. Could they give others what they themselves did not have?
In the autumn of 1735 the “Holy Club” (as their group at Oxford had been nicknamed) had grown in strength and influence. But it ceased its activities on the day the two Wesleys decided that God was calling them to America.
John felt called to go on a mission to the Indians; Charles decided to become secretary to the Governor of Georgia. “Our end,” wrote John, “in leaving our native country, was simple-to save our souls.” In time, the end was reached-but not at all as they thought. John converted no Indians; his “mission” turned out to be a failure.
In Savannah, Wesley had known Spangenberg, a simple, quiet-mannered Moravian pastor who was sustained by a Presence of which Wesley knew nothing. Wesley was quick to sense the difference. Under Spangenberg’s direct questioning, Wesley realized that he did not know his sins forgiven … that he could not say that he knew Jesus Christ. On shipboard, crossing the Atlantic Ocean, Wesley found himself cringing with fear in the midst of a storm. But the Moravian passengers faced the peril with perfect poise. Why the difference? That question broke Wesley’s pride. Ever afterward, his prayer was to be delivered from a “fair-weather religion.”
This, Wesley’s greatest spiritual crisis, was created by the fact that he had no religion adequate for a crisis. For 13 years, his religion had been a load, and now his 13 years of burden-bearing produced no real confidence in God (who waits to carry our burdens. I Peter 5:7) In the twentieth century, we too are seeking certainty-in every field of endeavor, except the one that can bring peace to our troubled world. In the field of medical science, doctors were able to transplant a human heart from a 23 year old lady who was killed in an automobile accident to a 53 year old man whose heart was worn out. He lived for only two weeks, but the transplant was considered a success.
In the field of technological advancement, jet planes that now fly at the speed of 600 miles per hour will soon be replaced by jets that will travel 1600 miles per hour. In the outer space program, we are told that man will go to the moon within the next decade.
If we can know so much about all other phases of life, why don’t we know more about our relationship with the living God? It is inconceivable to think that God demands man to be born again without also giving ample knowledge of this relationship. How can a person experience God? Lots of individuals have only the experience of a religious tradition or ceremony. Not God. How can we move out of this deadness into the warmed climate of true Christian experience?
We can have Christian Assurance in our hearts, beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is God’s promise. We can know that our sins have been forgiven. We can be at peace with God. But first two conditions must be met:
(1) We must come to know Jesus as a Person. We may approach Him today, realize Him and be conscious of His Presence. Jesus can be just as real to us as any other person. He is not some mere theory, some inspiring memory, some vague personal influence; He is a Person to be approached, to be felt, to be trusted, to be loved, and obeyed – even unto death.
(2) We must acknowledge our need and confess our sins. Then comes the assurance of faith … or as Wesley called it “the faith of adherence.” For “he that believeth” with true living faith “has the witness in himself,” giving him assurance that he is God’s true child – forgiven, reclaimed and given the power of God to serve God and praise God n0w and forever.
by Steve | Apr 2, 1968 | Archive - 1968
Archive: The Dialogue We Need
April 1968
By James D. McCallie, Pastor, Wesley Memorial Methodist Church, Jeffersonville, Indiana Pleasant Grove Methodist Church, Charlestown, Indiana
This is the day of “dialogue” for churchmen of every persuasion. Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are emerging from their traditional isolation to listen to each other and to recognize valid elements of a common religious ancestry.
Methodism, in keeping with her glorious heritage, stands in the forefront of the ecumenical scene. Wherever there have been efforts for interdenominational cooperation, we Methodists have been involved. We exercise strong leadership in the World Council of Churches, while we consummate union with a sister denomination, the E.U.B’s. And discussions are already underway toward involving the resultant United Methodist Church m an eventual nine-denomination merger.
Meanwhile, there are deep undercurrents of unrest and rumblings of discontent within The Methodist Church. The irony of the situation is that the ecumenical spirit which prevails between denominations is being undercut by internal ideological differences which divide a denomination against itself. The obvious problem in Methodism is that which is found in every other mainline Protestant denomination – the widening gulf between the church’s liberals and conservatives. The basic issue is theological, in other words.
I use the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” realizing their relativity in describing the source of conflict. Both emphases can be found within any theological context. However, there inevitably arises from the theological complexity of our time two distinctly different views of the character and content of divine revelation. One is primarily liberal, while the other is primarily conservative.
The conservative view of truth considers Jesus Christ and the Scripture to be God’s ultimate revelation. The liberal position diminishes the importance of Scripture and stresses the human aspects of Jesus and His work. The liberal tends toward a mancentered view; the conservative toward emphasis on the supernatural activity of a transcendent God, who became immanent in the Person of Christ.
Conservatives accept the absolute authority and complete integrity of the Bible as a witness to Christ’s lordship in terms of His recorded virgin birth, miracles, vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, and personal return. This viewpoint is basically incompatible with the classical liberal position, which does not regard the complete Biblical portrait of Christ and His Gospel as being essentially definitive of His lordship, or normative for the church today.
Like other mainline Protestant denominations, The Methodist Church has a predominantly liberal leadership, while much of its constituency remains predominantly conservative. This does not discount the occasional conservative voices which have appeared even among the hierarchy, nor the liberal influences active in practically all congregations. Rather, it indicates that the breakdown of vital communications between the leadership of the church and its constituency has a bedrock theological foundation. The tension is greatest whenever the one point of view is considered a serious threat to the vested interests of the other.
What little encounter there is between liberals and conservatives today usually follows the anachronistic pattern of the “modernist-fundamentalist” controversy of a generation ago. Labels are exchanged with libel and caricature gives way to character assassination. The gulf widens between the “liberal” who wants to be rid of the “troublemaking fundamentalist” and the conservative who retreats deeper into his theological ghetto to avoid contamination by the “apostate modernist.”
Smear tactics and ascription of “guilt by association” keep the majority of Methodists in confusion concerning the real issues at stake. Too many non-conservatives apparently are under the illusion that all conservatives are die hard segregationists and supporters of rightest extremism. On the other hand, too many conservatives apparently are convinced that all non-conservatives are allied with Communist fronts, are anarchists, and accept the “death of God” and situational ethics.
This picture may seem a bit overdrawn, for clear-thinkers on both sides of the theological fence. But these erroneous images do persist, and they do divide our church. This sober fact makes some inescapable demands upon us. Basic Christian integrity dictates that liberals and conservatives alike make some mutually honest efforts to understand each other better. Light is needed in place of heat. Openness in place of tight-shut minds. Love in place of fear and suspicion.
It comes as somewhat of a surprise for a conservative to hear fellow ministers in the liberal camp express great apprehension about the supposed strength and influence of the conservative wing of the church. Actually, the conservative constituency is more widely scattered and less easily mobilized than most liberals imagine. Conservative evangelicals who want to be counted as loyal Methodists are often made to feel that they are the ones who face formidable obstacles in order to be true to their convictions.
Since conservatives must give an account to the liberal power structures within the church, many cautious churchmen are reluctant to express evangelical loyalty – for fear of being suspected of denominational disloyalty. They have discovered that a liberal mind-set can be as dogmatic as a conservative mind-set. Some liberals defend doctrinal indifference by glibly mis-quoting Wesley’s “think and let think” philosophy. But apparently these same liberals are willing to apply toleration to everyone – except their conservative brethren. Consequently, responsible Methodist evangelicals are reluctant to express openly the honest difficulties they feel in promoting the use of teaching and program materials which are often antagonistic to an evangelical, a Wesleyan, scriptural point of view.
Liberal inconsistency is exemplified in the recent action of an annual conference to outlaw charismatic teaching related to the practice of “tongues-speaking” – while no similar action was recorded to suppress the humanistic heresies which flourish throughout Methodism today. Liberal leadership obviously tolerates its own “new breed” of radicals to a far greater degree than those radicals who appear in the conservative camp.
Evangelicals face further handicap in the stigma created by reactionaries who use conservative theology to defend social noninvolvement and outmoded forms of piety. Some evangelicals are thus led astray by movements which thrive upon devilish distortion of truth, uncharitable attitudes, and negativism. This weakness feeds liberal suspicion toward all conservatives. And they can hardly be blamed for judging conservatives on the same basis they themselves are judged by conservatives – by the fruits born by their faith.
Probably the greatest hindrance to conservative Methodist strength and influence, however, is the large bloc of uncommitted Methodists who will give only lip service to conservative tenets. They do not question the time-honored creeds and customs of the church. But neither do these lukewarm Methodists take seriously the disciplines of Christian living which are inherent in true Scriptural Christianity. Refusing either to subscribe to the radical social policies advocated by liberals or to submit to the stringent Biblical demands of Christian discipleship advocated by conservatives, the mass of uncommitted Methodists maintain a deadening neutrality.
Thus, conservatives who consider themselves loyal to their Methodist heritage stand in de facto opposition to 1) intolerant ecclesiastical power structures, 2) disreputable conservative extremists, and 3) an undisciplined church membership. All conspire against the cause which conservative Methodists champion.
As a convinced conservative and an unapologetic evangelical who thinks he has had ample opportunity to test his convictions in the academic field and in the laboratory of life, I would offer a challenge to all who are of like persuasion. “Good News” provides a nation-wide medium by which concerned conservatives can begin to have conversation with each other. The result can be sharpened perspective, issues clearly defined, purposes clearly outlined, and objectives agreed upon. Through “Good News,” our scattered efforts can eventually be mobilized so that our witness can no longer be misunderstood, ignored, scorned by our church.
If the air is ever to be cleared, and a favorable atmosphere created for the dialogue we need, conservative evangelicals must take the initiative. I would suggest three ways for us to exercise a responsible and respectable influence in The United Methodist Church.
– First, let us witness consistently and convincingly in our own local situations. In order to do this, we must stay with our church. To leave The United Methodist Church under the pretext of finding greater freedom for witness is to abandon the one field which most needs our distinctive witness. If anyone has a right and a duty to maintain Methodist affiliation it is the conservative, standing in the Wesleyan tradition. We need no more specific official endorsement for our position than the doctrines and disciplines of our church.
However small a minority we may appear to be, history reminds us that God has never been dependent upon large majorities for the spiritual renewal of the church and also the reformation of society. His most effective work has been done through dedicated minorities. In my 15 years of ministry, I have yet to find any pastoral appointment to be a complete disappointment. Without exception, God has raised up Bible-believers therein and sealed the evangelical witness with at least one notable transformation of life. The battle is not only ours – it is the Lord’s.
– Second, let us seek wholesome fellowship with responsible conservatives everywhere. We must first find them among fellow Methodists lest we suppose, like Elijah, that we are lonelier than we really are. God guarantees a remnant sizeable enough to keep us from becoming discouraged.
We find this remnant not only in The United Methodist Church but also among evangelicals in all denominations. They are also drawn together by inter-denominated efforts such as the Billy Graham Crusades, Youth for Christ programs, Intervarsity Fellowships, and the like, constituting an ecumenical fellowship of sizeable proportions. (30 million according to estimates by the magazine “Christianity Today”.) There is no need to subsist on a spiritual starvation diet when such a trans-denominational spiritual fellowship is available.
Involvement in ultra-fundamentalist groups which distort facts and “grind axes” instead of exalting Jesus Christ do neither our Methodist heritage nor ourselves any positive and constructive good. But our ecumenical involvement with responsible evangelicals can be as refreshing and rewarding as we are willing to make it. Any venture to express genuine conservative unity across denominational lines will strengthen, rather than diminish, our concern for a vital evangelical witness within our own church.
– Third, let us stand up and be counted in all levels of Methodist program involvement. We cannot always do this without running some risk of misunderstanding or discrimination. Nor can this ever be done effectively without first having won the confidence of those who may differ with us. Prejudiced liberals have difficulty imagining that anyone can be exposed to the tenets of liberalism and remain unconvinced-unless that person is mentally or emotionally unbalanced.
If, however, we have proven to be reasonably competent in our own local situation, we shall have earned the right to be heard. And after all, there are honest liberals in the denominational power structure. They exemplify a tolerant and brotherly spirit which is the essence of true liberalism. We can count on the mounting array of competent evangelical scholarship. And also working for us is the spiritual bankruptcy of non-evangelical attempts at church renewal. Eventually this will vindicate us in our efforts to uphold Christianity that is Scriptural.
We can find encouragement in the statements of such Methodist leaders as Bishop Gerald Kennedy, who defended the rightful place of evangelicals in The Methodist Church (“Good News” lead article, Winter Issue, 1967). Dr. Harold De Wolf voices an appreciation of evangelical theology and experience in the life of the church (A Hard Rain and a Cross, pp. 32-36). Although such men are not always to be in complete theological agreement with us, we can appreciate their irenic attitude toward evangelicals.
Our task is to convince our liberal brethren that the conservative point of view can no longer legitimately be excluded from the high councils of the church. In order to accomplish this, we must first be convinced that such tolerant recognition can be won only by the disarming characteristics of the warm heart and the clear mind which shall always be the marks of a genuine Methodist.
