Archive: Is Evangelism Relevant?

by Steve | Jun 1, 1967 | Archive - 1967

Archive: Is Evangelism Relevant?

June 1967

By Leighton Ford

To many modern observers, evangelism seems like an antique chair in a museum: a curious relic of the past and an interesting phenomenon for study, but not to be sat on, not fit to bear the weight of today’s burdens — a hopeless anachronism in the twentieth-century world.

What is the use, ask such critics, of a church on its knees praying for lost souls, while a blinding population explosion dooms 100,000 new babies every day to slow starvation? What good is it for a vast throng to jam a stadium and listen to a sermon, while red-raw festering wounds of racial hatred blister the hide of civilization? Isn’t it worse than futile to take a man into a corner and ask if he’s “saved,” while a terrifying arms race spawns mass terror weapons? Evangelism seems a ridiculous — yes, downright dangerous — misdirecting of our energies.

Even some Christians have had their zeal for evangelism hamstrung by these doubts. They wonder whether, as W. E. Sangster put it, “an aspirin as a cure for cancer would be less ridiculous than evangelism as the answer to the world’s present ills. The human situation is so urgent. Talk of ‘world revolution by individual conversion’ is like talking about a long endowment policy to a man sitting on a time bomb.” Is evangelism really relevant amidst the tangled complexities of our modern dilemma?

Let me confess at the outset that I make no pretense of being objective. I write as a committed Christian and a committed evangelist. “Is evangelism relevant?” My answer is a resounding Yes! When people inquire as to the relevance of our Gospel, we must not be tricked into going on the defensive. We must immediately take the offensive, for our Lord Himself has promised that the gates of hell shall not withstand the assault of His Church. In this light, we need to rethink the question itself.

First, we need to define the subject of this question. “Is evangelism relevant?” really means “Is the evangel relevant?” For the genius of Christian evangelism is not in its method, but in its message. There are many “evangelistic” techniques. Communism has its brainwashing; Islam its proselytism; the commercial world its hidden persuaders. But the relevance of Christian evangelism really concerns not its means, but its content. The message of evangelism is simply — Jesus Christ. Christian evangelism does not depend on any given technique; but it does depend on one given message-that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. So, when we ask “Is evangelism relevant?” we are really asking, “Is Jesus Christ relevant?”

Second, we need to determine the thrust of this question, “Is evangelism relevant?” Relevant for what? And for whom?

I was asked recently to engage in a panel TV discussion on the topic “Is Religion the Answer?” My answer was blunt: No! And I answered “No” because the question itself involved a mis­understanding of our real situation before God.

Certainly Christ is the answer to ultimate questions! But our man-centered, earth-centered outlook tries to put God, as it were, “on the spot”! It is as if we present God with certain problems, grant Him a polite hearing, and then if He can sup­ply reasonable solutions, we con­sider the possibility of taking His advice.

The whole idea is absurd! It is God who is asking the questions:  from the beginning of Scripture, God addresses men and demands their response, calls to Adam “Where art thou?” and to Cain “Where is Abel, thy brother?” Is evangelism relevant? Again we ask, for what? Our purposes or God’s?

The charge that Jesus Christ is irrelevant is not new. Indeed, people made the same accusation during His lifetime. John, in his gospel, tells of a great crowd which followed Jesus because they had seen His miracles, and says that He took some loaves and fishes from a little boy and fed the multitude with this tiny lunch. Because the people did not understand this sign, they tried to seize Jesus and make Him king by force. But when Jesus realized their plan, He withdrew to the hills by Him­self.

It is noteworthy that Jesus declined to be king on their terms. If He had wished to, He could have begun at that very moment a popular uprising against the Roman forces of occupation. But He refused to be “relevant.” Why? As William Barclay has commented, “They wished to use him for their own purposes and to mold him to their own dreams. They looked for a messiah who would be king and conqueror, who would set his foot upon the eagle’s neck and drive the Romans from Palestine, who would change Israel from a subject nation to a world power.”

“What a king he’d make,” thought the crowd. “Let’s harness his power to our plans and purposes.” That attitude still lingers. We want Christ’s gifts without His cross. We want to use Christ instead of allowing Him to use us. Our humanistic, man-centered age habitually thinks more of what we want than of what God wants. The real question is not “ls Jesus Christ relevant to us?” but “Are we relevant to the purposes of Christ?”

Third, we need to decide the perspective from which we can answer this question. Our personal commitments are involved. A southern historian once wrote what he called “an unbiased history of the Civil War from the southern point of view”! If a man does not believe in God, nothing we can say is going to convince him that evangelism matters. The man who is opposed to the Gospel because he realizes its disturbing claims on his life cannot be neutral. He has a built-in hostility. Only the Holy Spirit can make evangelism relevant to him.

Much of the talk of making Christianity relevant is 2,000 years old. Like the crowd who followed Jesus because they ate their fill of the loaves but were not interested in “the food which endures to eternal life,” the ungodly man assumes that nothing is relevant unless it gives first place to the material. The secularist says we no longer need God to fill the gaps in our knowledge; the Communist, that religion is an opiate; the sophisticate, that faith is fine for children but excess baggage for grown-ups.

But what man thinks is relevant and what really is relevant to God may be very different things. Repentance, regeneration, and conversion mean a change of attitude and an inversion of values, without which men will still follow the mob that acclaimed Jesus when He offered them bread for their stomachs, but when He talked about eternal life, murmured, “This fellow isn’t relevant anymore,” and went on looking for a more popular prophet.

It is only the man who has fed his hungry soul on Christ, the Bread of Life, who appreciates His true relevance and is able, like Peter, to answer Jesus’ poignant question “Will you also go away?” with a firm “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Even the committed Christian has a problem in getting the whole picture. Eternity is the only adequate perspective from which to view the relevance of evangelism because there are eternal issues at stake. In evangelism we have to walk by faith and not by sight. We must evangelize not because we can see our success and prove our relevance, not because we can ferret out all the implications of our witness today for personal and social life tomorrow, but because our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the great Master Strategist, commands us to do so, and we believe that He will not let His Word return void.

History is helpful here. Looking back, we can see how God has blessed His Word in a way that would have been obscure to the people of a past age. What would the critics have said if they had seen that Jewish carpenter preaching from a boat and hanging from a cross? Would they have guessed that He, and not the Roman legions, would be the “hinge of history”? Can you imagine how contemptuously they would have dismissed Paul’s preaching in Athens? Could they have guessed that the message he preached would smash paganism and turn the Parthenon itself into a Christian church for centuries to come?

Which event would they have picked as most relevant in the early years of the fifth century: Alaric’s sacking of the city of Rome in 410, or Augustine’s writing of The City of God in 413? Yet it was the bishop’s book, not the barbarian’s bands, that controlled the Middle Ages.

Suppose they had lived in eighteenth-century England while revolution was brewing across the Channel and threatening in their own land, and had heard John Wesley preaching in a field. They would have cried, “Come down to earth! Problems enough here. Forget heaven. Be relevant.” But Lecky has said that the Wesleyan revival saved England from the French Revolution.

If we are tempted to think our Gospel is too puny for this spinning age of space and new revolutions, then let us remember that Paul and Augustine and Wesley were relevant because they preached Christ — and Christ is always relevant …

How then are we to present the relevance of Christ for personal need? Certainly not as a Christ who is only a crutch for the maimed. Most assuredly not as a beggar Christ, seeking for man’s condescending patronage. We shall present Him as the Imperial Lord — “for we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord.” We shall present Him as Lord over death — “I am the resurrection and the life.” We shall present Him as Lord over sin and guilt — “I am come to give my life a ransom for many.” We shall proclaim Him as Lord over the meaningless — “I am the Way — follow me,” remembering that at the bottom it is not the fear that Christ is irrelevant that makes men turn from Him. Rather, it is the knowledge that He is too relevant, too disturbing, too demanding. And it is only when men see His total Lordship, His claim to all of life, that they will see His relevancy as their Savior.

The Christian life must begin with personal experience, but it must not end there. If Jesus Christ is Lord of all, then He is Lord of our relationships to others in society. It is a scandal when we as Christ’s disciples compartmentalize our lives, putting our personal piety in one segment and our social responsibility in another.

Think of John Campbell White, the Scottish chemical manufacturer, who was influenced by Moody to become an evangelical leader in missions, revival, Sabbath observance, and abstinence. What a scandal it was when Keir Hardie showed that White’s employees were paid only three to four pence an hour, worked twelve hours a day with no time off for meals, had for the most part not one day off a week, and worked in horrid filth! White’s defense was that he was so busy with his religious activities that he left the direction of his business to others!

White is not the norm. One need not search far through history to find the social impact of the Gospel — as in the abolition of slavery. “The two doctrines which contributed most to the abolition of slavery,” declared Benjamin Kidd in his Social Evolution, “were the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of the equality of all men before the Deity.”

John Howard, the  great champion of prison reform, was quick to recognize John Wesley’s influence on his life. “I was encouraged by him to go on vigorously with my own designs,” he wrote of a meeting with Wesley in Dublin. “I saw in him how much a single man might achieve by zeal and perseverance; and I thought, why may I not do as much in my way as Mr. Wesley has done in his, if I am only as persevering? And I determined that I would pursue my work with more alacrity than ever.”

Like our Lord, who healed the sick and fed the hungry, we must see men as whole men, not as disembodied souls to be prepackaged for heaven. Evangelicals today must be deeply concerned to stand in the great tradition of those who down through the centuries have given the lie to the charge that we are simply promoting “pie in the sky.” …

We know that Jesus Christ is relevant to this burdened, bleeding, broken world. The point is that Christ wants to use us to show the world that He is relevant, that He does matter to them, and that they do matter to Him. He has given to us this ministry of reconciliation.

In the year 1909, the Hon. Earl Balfour was lecturing at the University of Edinburgh on “The Moral Values Which Unite Nations.” He had mentioned diplomatic contacts, commerce, common knowledge, common friendships. At the end there was applause and a question period. Then a Japanese student rose and asked, “But, Mr. Balfour, what about Jesus Christ?”

There was dead silence. Everybody felt the irony of the question as a foreign student from a far-off non-Christian land inquired of one of the great diplomatic leaders of the greatest Christian nation of that day, “What about Jesus Christ?”

This is how we make evangelism relevant. We ask of a world wistfully searching for security, forgiveness, purpose, peace, and love, “What about Jesus Christ?”

Leighton Ford is an Associate Evangelist, Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn. This article is condensed from The Christian Persuader. Copyright © 1966 by Leighton F. S. Ford, used by permission Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Archive: My Miracle

by Steve | Jun 1, 1967 | Archive - 1967

Archive: My Miracle

June 1967

By Granville E. Tyson

I don’t like categories. Names such as liberal, conservative, evangelical, existentialist, modernist, and fundamentalist are relative; to me they suggest one thing, and to you they suggest another. And they tend to separate us. But these “labels” can provide some sort of starting point for a discussion of how one changes from left of theological center (liberal) to a position right of center (evangelical). This is what has happened to me, as a result of a meeting with the Living God. I would like to share my experience with you, in hopes that someone who reads this may, thru the power of the Holy Spirit, be brought closer to Jesus Christ.

As most Methodist kids, I joined the church when I was about 10 years old. About four years later, I publicly gave my life to Jesus Christ. However, I realize now that I didn’t fully recognize the significance of those two acts. I continued to attend church and Sunday School regularly, on a voluntary basis. But my life didn’t seem very different from the life of an average 15- or 16-year-old boy. The church became a part of my life-but a small part. More important were the social advantages than enrichment of my spiritual life. As a matter of fact, I didn’t have much of a spiritual life until I got into college.

During high school and my early years in college, the church to which I belonged held more of a primary attraction for me in dating. Religion was secondary. It was during my last two years in college that the evening sermons brought by the young associate minister began to stir me. I was spiritually uplifted several times as some of the young people came forward to the altar to dedicate their lives to full-time Christian service.

About this time, I began to think seriously about the ministry instead of an Army career. These thoughts were subtle, and not very urgent. But they were consistent – as consistent as the reactions I had to those evening sermons at my church. As a result, my interest in religious news and current theological issues picked up. I began to read and listen more closely.

The youth director of my church was a student at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University. This was a major influence in the shaping of my initial attitudes toward theology. Many of our older youth class programs embraced modern theology, and a lot of our informal group discussions included the thoughts of modern theologians.

No issue was ever made of the contrast between evangelical and modern, liberal theology. But I came to look down my nose, so to speak, at the proponents of conservative religion. I classed Pentecostal churches as “religious fanatics.” I considered Baptists somewhat more acceptable, but I deplored their narrow views (some of which I now see to be a result of insufficient information on my part). I also disliked their consistent emphasis on being saved.

One reason for my lack of respect for conservative theology was that our literature, discussions, and programs were of a fairly liberal nature. Not much, if any, really evangelical theology was included. Perkins School of Theology was spoken of as a very good place to study, and one of Methodism’s best seminaries. Being close to it geographically (Fort Worth) we occasionally invited professors from the faculty to address certain groups. Of course, for the budding ministerial student, Perkins was the place to go for a B.D. degree.

As I graduated from college, I realized my ideas of pursuing a military career were being subverted by my ideas about the ministry. I had a five-month waiting period before I went on my two-year tour of active duty with the Army. So I took a job as youth director at a smaller Methodist church in a town on the outskirts of Fort Worth. I saw this as an opportunity to help crystallize my thoughts on the choice of a career.

I went into the Army, and after about one year, I had made up my mind to go into the ministry. I had no complaint against the Army. But my experiences as youth director, and the consistent urging from inside me, pulled toward the ministry. I began writing to Perkins School of Theology. By January 1966, I was accepted, pre-enrolled, and ready to enter as soon as I was released from the Army.

While at Fort Hood, I had been able to come home nearly every weekend. I had become engaged to a wonderful girl whom I had met when serving as youth director.

I became active in a Methodist church in Augusta, where I began to teach as substitute in the older youth class. However, my impending marriage overshadowed all other activities. What little teaching I did there was not dedicated. Then I met Ken Long, a young spirit-filled, Pentecostal minister.

I picked up Ken as he hitch­hiked thru the town of Augusta; I discovered that he was a minister, was my age, and had so many interesting things to tell and to witness to, that I invited him home for dinner.

That evening after supper, he began to talk to me as I had never been talked to before. This young man sat down with me and discussed the Gospel of Jesus Christ like he had been brought up knowing it by heart. He spoke in a straight-from-the-­heart, sincere. convincing, and simple manner. The Word of God penetrated my soul like it was “the sword of the Spirit.”

I don’t remember exactly what he said to me that night. But I can see now that God spoke to me through Ken Long. I haven’t been the same since. Once one hears the Lord, no matter through whom or what, one never is the same. That night Jesus Christ became real to me.

Ken stayed with me four days, helping me see the reality of God and how He works through a person who is completely dedicated to doing His will. During this time we found a small, independent, Pentecostal church called Faith Chapel. The pastor, Mrs. Lilly Matthews, took us under her wing. She also is an unforgettable character. She is middle-aged, had plenty of experience in the ministry (she had been preaching for 30 years). She had a faith as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. She helped Ken look for a place to preach while he stayed in Augusta. And she started me out on a serious study of the Bible by sitting down with me and explaining many Scriptures to me.

My strong faith in and reliance on the Bible is due to her and Ken’s efforts, made effective through the influence of the Holy Spirit. They also demonstrated to me the power of prayer. I was able to see (and since have seen) many of my prayers answered. Before this, prayer had been rarely effective, and was not a regular part of my spiritual life.

My respect for the Pentecostal churches rose many notches. I found myself enjoying the hour and one-half Sunday evening service. The people of that small church sang the old Gospel hymns lustily and with a gusto rarely seen or heard in my Methodist background. I enjoyed it immensely. The phenomenon of speaking in tongues was strikingly interesting. I found the preaching to be effective in bringing the Word of God to people who, like me, were hungry spiritually. This preaching made Jesus Christ a reality in the lives of the congregation. Therefore, my causal ideas of the ministry were transformed into concrete and definite concepts. I came to realize that being a minister of Christ’s Gospel is one of the most important professions. I realized that we are involved in a battle for our lives – our eternal lives.

Soon after Ken Long left Augusta, something happened which brought me even closer to God – and renewed my faith in the spiritual effectiveness of The Methodist Church. Though I had been worshiping quite a bit at Faith Chapel, I continued to attend St. John’s Methodist Church regularly on Sunday mornings. A couple of weeks after Ken left, a Methodist Lay Witness mission came to Augusta. The pastor at St. John’s church opened the Sunday school classes and his pulpit to them, and they gave their testimonies. During the worship service, the four laymen and one laywoman told just how much Christ meant to them in their lives. They described how they came to a realization of their need for His presence, and how different their lives had become after His transforming power touched them. Listening to them speak, I was nearly beside myself in excitement. These men and women seemed to have experienced the same thing that I had, just a few weeks before!

The leader of the group spoke last. He summed up the presentation and gave a brief altar call. As we stood and sung the first verse of “Rise Up O Men of God” the Holy Spirit descended upon that congregation and around 30 people moved unhesitatingly to the altar, many in tears. I was one of them. Through my tears I could see many others, heads bowed, smiling as if a great joyous feeling had seized them. I felt a joy and a feeling of intense love, as if God himself were smiling down on that church that morning.

I felt amazed that such a thing could be happening in a dignified, somewhat formal, Methodist morning worship service. But I was greatly encouraged to see that there were many Methodists who would demonstrate a real hunger for the Word of God, be it testimony or Bible preaching.

Since these experiences I have tried to stay close to the fundamentals of the Christian faith in what few sermons I have preached. I have noticed a warm response to these. One of the most obvious lessons that I have learned from this is that Methodists are hungry for plain, simple, unintellectual (but intelligent) Gospel preaching which tells them how to grow in Christ. The growth of home Bible study groups will bear this out. Methodist people are not getting what they want and need, unfortunately, from many Methodist pulpits.

I can’t define what actually happened to me during those two or three weeks. Call it being born again, being re-converted, baptized by the Holy Spirit. Or call it my miracle. This is probably the best description by far. All I know is that I now have a faith that works. I have found a real joy in being in the will of God. But best of all, I have begun to grow in Christ. May He be praised!

Granville E. Tyson is the Youth Director, First Methodist Church, Euless, Texas.

Archive: Plea for a More Radical Gospel

by Steve | Jun 1, 1967 | Archive - 1967

Archive: Plea for a More Radical Gospel

June 1967

By Don R. Locher

I am convinced that the power and influence of the Church is seriously underestimated — even by the clergy. Consider the fervent criticism aimed at the Church from both the champions of the status quo and advocates of change. Rightists have correctly recognized the church as an arch enemy, attacking it with vehemence, and, in some unfortunate cases, making it a vehicle of extremist thought and action.

On the other hand, humanists, utopians, and Marxists criticize the Church because it refuses to be “relevant” in their terms. While the Christian doctrine of Man will not permit the Church to become the ally of the builders of Babel, we do hold much in common with the humanistic philosophies. It is precisely for this reason that we are tempted to over-react to their criticism. It is good to listen to the world — if we listen also to the Word. But in the language of H. Richard Niebuhr, the danger is that we are returning to an era of immanentism, of “the Christ of culture.” Robert Fitch calls it the “Age of the Sellout.” We must hear our critics, but we dare not reduce the structure, message and mission of the Church to the purely personal, patriotic or narrow piousity of the right. Neither should we be squeezed into the molds of humanism.

It is not our enemies, but friends of the faith who pose the greatest danger. There is an ever-present invitation to tailor the Gospel to the world. If men reject or ignore the faith when it is adequately proclaimed, we cannot be fully accountable. But when the Church and the Gospel are first domesticated, then ignored or rejected, woe unto us who are the false prophets.

The first victim of accommodation is the Christian vocabulary. If the wishes and presumed needs of the world are given primary concern, the great words and symbols of the faith are sacrificed. The Gospel is easily humanized in the obsession for “relevance.” The question needs always to be asked: relevant to what? For whom? And to whom? A constant battle must be waged to preserve the accuracy and integrity of our symbols. They must communicate to the modern mind in language man can understand, but they must also transform and transcend contemporary thought forms.

New symbols drawn from the arts and our common life are always needed to illustrate and amplify Christian doctrine. But the classical words should not be abandoned. New words are generally taken from whatever science is the vogue of the period. Just as biological categories once altered the meaning of the faith, now psychology and sociology threaten to do the same.

Students in all fields are required to begin by mastering the new vocabulary. Yet many preachers have all but abandoned words like atonement, sin, salvation, justification, repentance, and holiness, in favor of words more common, but also more vague. Fundamentalism has kept the vocabulary but has so blunted and distorted it as to make the use of these historic words still more difficult. Un­ fortunately, our substitutes do not carry the freight. Expressions like maturity, shortcomings, close to God, meaningful life, and wholeness. These lack the dimensions of grace. Moreover, they generally imply self-help and are purely horizontal in meaning. Thus, we confront a world with an impoverished Gospel not radical enough to cope with the sin and lostness of modern Man. The resulting Biblical and doctrinal illiteracy in our churches is the source of easy accommodation.

A diluted proclamation is neither heard, nor does it give new life. Hungry for response and troubled by an apparent loss of the Church’s power and influence, some pastors are attracted to almost anything new — particularly if it gets attention or seems to promise dramatic results. History and tradition are ignored, if not held in contempt. Any novelty or innovation is believed to be superior to whatever is or has been. Old heresies, unrecognized, appear to be new cure-alls for our sickness. Experimentation, which is so very essential, is reduced to the level of convention. Only theological extremes get a hearing. Ministers enamored with the “latest” go from slogan to slogan, casting out one rope of sand after another to a confused and bewildered laity.

Consider some of the nonsense currently finding support and restitution in the name of renewal.

(1) The Ecumenical Institute of Chicago is advocating brain­washing and indoctrination as essential tools of education. The thought is so incredible, one may think it a semantic problem. Investigation proves otherwise; its proponents believe the end justifies the means. Thus the “thou’s” become “its” as skilled pedagogues attempt to manipulate and mold persons into their version of the Christian faith by hidden agendas, gimmicks, fatigue, or any other devices intended to reach the “gut level” (their words, not mine). If this is renewal, spare me!

(2) Another bit of nonsense is the old humanist assumption that devotion to the life-to-come diminishes responsibility to one’s neighbor now. Piety and affection for personal virtues are considered an obstacle to the Church in mission. Some examples can be cited to support their point. Just the opposite can be seen, however, in the Quakers and in our own Methodist tradition. Figures like Luther, Wesley, and in our own time, Martin Luther King, refute the thesis. A comparison of humanist John Dewey and Reinhold Niebuhr, a neo-orthodox reformer and activist, also blurs their theory. I do not believe that history will substantiate their position.

Furthermore, there is nothing new in knocking piety in favor of social action. Members of the Ecumenical Institute accredit no wrong nor error to those whom they believe to be the committed cadre shaping history. Concern for traditional Christian virtues and character is shunned, if not opposed. This rejection of piety and arrogant claim to perfection is the renewal of the very old but recurring antinomian heresy.

The Church must be the spokesman for the least, the lost, the poor and the oppressed. The realization of justice, education, and decent living standards for every child of God must be a part of our mission and ministry. But what will be gained if we accomplish this and go down in a convulsion of immorality and dissipation? In a world of affluence and leisure, hearts may still be broken and lonely. Souls will be shackled with greed and pride and all the other deadly sins. We need both mission and piety (not piousity). Justice and righteousness are inseparable. Discipline and morality are the mortar of society. No matter how rich the social order, communities of persons without Christian character offer little to strive for. We are called not to be the servants of the world, but the servants of Christ. The two will often appear to be synonymous, but the distinction is a significant one.

(3) A corollary of the anti­piety bias is the employment of shock, supposedly to free the students from piestistic faith and create concern for the “real issues.” The goal is worthy, even though some of the proponents strain a bit to swear, smoke, kick shins and use illustrations of poor taste. Thus, a world already filled with vulgarity is to be robbed of the dignity of speech and manner it has a right to expect from the Church. Some respond, but many are polarized for the wrong reasons. They reject the teacher or react to the method without deciding upon the issue or content. Emerson said he could be lifted only by one who stood on higher ground. I believe he is still correct.

(4) Renewal for some means freedom from the structures of the Church. Granted, institutionism is as bad as any other “ism.” Outmoded forms need to yield to new and more appropriate ones. But it is quite another matter to oppose the need for structure.

Several observations can be made. First, there is a strong correlation between the men of this bias and those who are the loners, the spectators, never really working or participating in the responsible corporate work of the Church. Secondly, the anti-structure bias toward the Church seems not to dim the enthusiasm of some of its exponents for the most intimate confessional groupings. Yet in the small confessional group, structure becomes so strong the very individuality cherished in the ministry may be overridden. For this malady, see Paul Tournier’s book entitled Secrets.

More often, anti-structure bias is generally not aimed at all structures, but simply at structures created by someone else. In the case of the Ecumenical Institute, the aim is to infiltrate and take over the very structure they hold in contempt. Even if successful in a few places, I doubt if ideas unable to stand on their own merit will command enduring loyalty when brought into open debate.

Finally, without structure, the Church becomes the minister’s personality cult, or a skeleton­ less body — that is a jelly-like blob of protoplasm. Local churches victimized by anti-structure bias bear this out.

(5) The impact of humanism, like fundamentalism, seriously truncates the doctrine of salvation. The new cliche is that we should become fully human…. whatever that means. It includes salvation by good works, especially in the secular city. Tillich provides the means which is to “accept that we are accepted.” L. Harold DeWolf in his recent book, A Hard Rain and a Cross. calls this “a religious solipsism, in this instance a phrase symbolic of self-acceptance. Instead of repentance and faith in the Father who forgives us, Tillich is really exhorting us to accept ourselves.”

More often salvation is to “get with” and “live in” the world-as if we could do other. One must discover God not in the order’ and beauty of nature, or liturgy of worship, but in the disorder of human nature and involvement. The secular city is the wonderful place where we are to live fully. Ironically, contemporary literature and art is proclaiming the lostness and estrangement of 20th century Man, while humanism is causing some pulpits to praise Man’s arrival and ability to stand alone.

(6) One of the most serious features of this new mind-set is the neglect of parish duties. Pastoral visitation of the sick, prayer, preaching and even the family life of the minister are subordinated to the new image of an activist building the new tomorrows.

The real problem with all this is that it is not radical enough. It’s old stuff. It is the new domestication of the Church. Armed with a situation ethic, a gospel without transcendent power or hope, and a nebulous uncared-for church of uncertain form and structure, these men intend to renew the church. Robert Fitch, writing in the Christian Century, Feb. 16, 1966, put it this way: “If we … are to pass judgment on this well acculturated Christian — as he presumes to judge all others — what would be our most pertinent single objection? Let go such trifles as that he deletes the deity, debases the Christ, disintegrates the Church, explodes a Christian ethic: about such things how could he care less? There is yet an objection to be lodged against his performance, and it can be expressed only by a plain American term: the whole act is a phony.”

I believe that one day soon we will again realize the power and relevance of good pastoral care … of worship with dignity in form and language, and of a Christian vocabulary illustrated and amplified, but not replaced. Preaching, social witness and action will draw power and authority from the grace of Jesus Christ, the Bible, the tradition and personal example.

We will neither condemn the world nor be conformed to it. We will regard the world not as our agenda, but our patient to be healed and loved. We will encounter God where He is at work in civil rights … but also in the holiness of beauty and beauty of holiness. We will deal with the realities of change, but also with awe, wonder and eternity. We will not hesitate to shake and disturb, but we will also comfort our people. (Reprinted from NEWS PULSE)

Don R. Locher is Superintendent, Phoenix (Arizona) District of The Methodist Church.

Archive: Oh, but We Couldn’t Do That!

by Steve | Jun 1, 1967 | Archive - 1967

Archive: Oh, but We Couldn’t Do That!

June 1967

By William Harry Fetz

Several of us were talking together about a local religious sect whose members forced their way into homes to insist that their particular non-Christian views be accepted as the ultimate truth of Jehovah.

The question was put to me: “Pastor, why is this group growing so phenomenally and we are not?”

I answered: “Any religious group grows rapidly when it is young and small. And then when a bigness is achieved growth stops. Methodism also grew phenomenally when it was young and smaller.”

I then waited for the next question, and it came quickly: “Why should this be? Why have we stopped growing?”

“Because,” I said, “this group you talk about is doing what Methodist people once did, but now almost never do.”

An answer to the questioning looks, I continued: “Methodist people and preachers used to go house-to-house speaking to people about their faith. The group you talk about does this and grows; we grew as long as we did it.”

Almost in unison, several people exclaimed: “But we teach in Sunday School. We do other things in support of our church … ”

“Indeed, what you are doing is good and we need more of it,” I replied. “But the other group does all this for their halls, and still, they persist in calling in your home and mine to talk to us about our faith. We Methodists almost never talk to anybody about their faith in Christ.”

Then I asked, “How many of you will study lay evangelism and spend several months calling house-to-house to present Christ as Saviour?”

Several answered, “Oh, we couldn’t do that….”

“There you are.” I said, “That’s why Methodism has stopped growing!”

From their expressions I knew they understood.  But I also understood and sympathized with them. I knew my people actually were afraid they might infringe upon the sensitivity of others!

There is, however, a middle ground of sensible evangelism, which must be done person-to-person and house-to-house. This does not minimize newer tools of evangelism like radio and TV; nor older, proven tools like the printed and preached Word. But the personal approach of evangelism will always be basically person-to-person – by you and by me! This approach can be — must be — without over-bearing pressure. But evangelism must grow out of sincere personal interest and a genuine desire to offer Jesus Christ as Saviour.

Methodist Christians, we must regain our person-to-person interest in presenting Christ to others! Then God will honor our great denomination, for we will be justifying His purpose in calling us into being. Let us pray for one another.

William Harry Fetz is a Pastor of The Methodist Church, Savanna, Illinois.

Archive: A Methodist Perspective on Berlin

by Steve | Mar 1, 1967 | Archive - 1967

Archive: A Methodist Perspective on Berlin

March 1867

By Michael W. Walker, Associate Minister, Cosa Linda Methodist Church, Dallas, Texas

Over 1200 delegates and observers gathered in Berlin from 100 countries around the world to attend the World Congress on Evangelism. Sponsored by Christianity Today as its tenth anniversary project, the Congress drew leaders in evangelism from over 60 denominations and a number of independent evangelistic and mission organizations. Under the theme of “One Race, One Gospel, One Task,” the Congress met, October 26 – November 4, in Berlin’s famed Kongresshalle, accepting as its formidable task (1) to define and clarify Biblical evangelism for our day; (2) to establish beyond any doubt its relevance to the modern world; (3) to underline its urgency in the present situation; (4) to explore new forms of witness now in use throughout the world and new ways of reaching contemporary man; (5) to deal frankly with problems of resistance to the Gospel; (6) to challenge the church to renew its own life through an intensified proclamation of the historic faith; and (7) to show the world in a fresh and dramatic way that God is in truth Lord of all, and that He saves through His Son.

More than 40 leaders in missions and evangelism from The Methodist Church participated in the Congress. Several of them participated by giving major papers, leading discussion sections, or leading from the platform in some way. Among the delegates were two Methodist bishops and other well-known leaders in Methodist evangelism.

It is obvious that much of the emphasis of the Congress would be on the centrality of the Gospel in the message of the Church and the priority of the task of evangelism in the Church’s work. That the delegates were again and again urged to take the Great Commission seriously is not surprising either. The transforming character of the person and work of Christ and man’s universal need of a Christ produced transformation, involving both forgiveness and the impartation of new life, were, as expected, prominent in the emphases of the Congress. There were, however, a number of other continually recurring thrusts. Although these were not the main topics for papers, they had a way of capturing the concern of the Congress.

One of the most persistent concerns was the desire for greater unity among evangelical Christians. Remorse and frustration over disunity was repeatedly expressed by many from various parts of the world. There was repentant recognition of the many class, racial, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical divisions with­ in the Church. And there was a persistent call for a new spirit of unity among evangelicals. There was a call to unify evangelistic efforts and work for new cooperation in all methods of proclaiming the Gospel.

The responsibility of Christians for the social plight of man was recognized. Evangelists and church leaders were warned not to be indifferent to the sociopolitical and economic situations in which they work. It was acknowledged that evangelicals had too-often concentrated so much on salvation for the individual that they had forgotten to love the world. And the call was issued for evangelicals to attain a New Testament balance of proclaiming a personal Gospel and accepting social responsibility which the Gospel also demands.

Another underlying theme which broke to the surface time and again was that of the full authority of Holy Scripture. Delegates and observers were exhorted to submit their personal lives, their doctrines, and their practices of evangelism to the reliable authority of God’s Word. This theme developed with a double polemic. On the one hand, the polemic was against liberal Christianity with its weak and shaky view of Scriptural authority. On the other hand, the polemic was directed against traditionalism in the evangelical community.

Another prominent concern of the Congress was that the world­ wide Church recognize that if this age is to be evangelized, the job can be done only by making witnesses and evangelists of every true Christian. Professionals and the church’s clergy will never be able to evangelize the world. They must concentrate on training and equipping every believer to be an effective “fisher of men.” Closely related to this emphasis was the plea for evangelicals to identify and become involved with needy and sinful man in order to win him for Christ. In his exposition of John 20:21 in the Bible Hour of the opening day, Dr. John R. W. Stott pointed out that the Father’s sending of Christ involved (1) birth into the world (2) life in the world and (3) death for the world. If we are sent as He was sent, then we must also identify with sinful men. For we cannot successfully proclaim Christ to men while we remain at a distance from them.

The indispensability of the work of the Holy Spirit in evangelism found recurring expression. The tendency to “professionalism” and to organization which limits or excludes the work of God’s Spirit was denounced. The Church’s ultimate dependence must be on the leadership of the Spirit rather than on man’s efficient and systematic plans-no matter how carefully these may be carried out. The centrality of prayer to the work of evangelism was stressed.

The Congress felt very keenly the urgency of the task of sharing Jesus Christ with the world. Delegates were urged to use every available method to reach men, and to learn to use every available means of modern communication in order to saturate the earth with the Gospel message NOW. The loud tick of the special population clock in the lobby of the Kongresshalle reminded the participants each moment of the rapidly increasing numbers of men waiting to hear of God’s provision for salvation through Jesus Christ.

Increasingly, as the Congress moved toward its conclusion, it took on a pastoral tone. It began to concentrate less on the threats to evangelical Christianity and focused more and more on re­ hewing itself for its evangelical, missionary task. This emphasis was particularly evident, it seemed to me, as some of the barriers to evangelism were identified in the reports from the many parts of the world. While the barriers of secularism, atheism, some current theological trends, and religious suppression were cited as real obstacles, the problems within the Church were recognized as the primary ones: indifference and lack of love, preoccupation with church affairs, unpreparedness, deep divisions in the churches which cause both lack of cooperation and duplicity of effort and which hurt the Church’s witness to Christ; and the fai1ure of evangelicals to reflect the full power and person of Christ in their day-to-day lives.

Perhaps what happened at the World Congress on Evangelism could be more adequately described by sharing what it meant in the personal lives of the participants. These things which I felt seem to me to represent also the feelings of many others whom I came to know.

We discovered that we were all needy sinners – all alike before God in both our inadequacy and our unrealized potential. We recognized that we had been in varying degrees disobedient to God’s total call upon our lives. All of us came as learners. Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Kermit Long, and the unknown ones like myself – all came, not as accomplished experts, but as forgiven sinners aware of what God was calling us to become.

We discovered that the Holy Spirit produced a Christ-centered unity which surpassed our most optimistic expectations – a unity which saw the barriers of race, color, language, culture, denominational affiliation, political orientation, and even theological outlook fall before the Lordship of the One whom we all acknowledged as the Son of God. Our previously-formed misconceptions of one another disintegrated as we came to know each other. We found that in Christ there really is a bond which binds all those who love Him. An Anglican Bishop eating lunch with Oral Roberts, German theologians learning from newly literate Christians – God brought us together.

Some of us American Christians discovered that our brand of Christianity is cheap in comparison to the faith of many Christians in other parts of the world. We ate and lived with those who knew what it means to trust nothing but the sufficiency of God for their daily lives.

We were driven to repentance and from repentance to commitment – a commitment to boldly proclaim an all-sufficient Christ for sinful men, to give this task priority, to a balanced and total evangelism, to training the laity to witness and win men, to leading the Church to new holiness and Christ-likeness, to leading the Church out of the pews and into the streets.

As a Methodist Christian, I came away from the World Congress with some concerns about Methodism. Our church must somehow recover the Wesleyan love for lost men. Somehow, we must share with those men the message that Jesus Christ has died to pay the penalty for their sins and that He has risen to deliver them from the practice of sinning. We must lead our people to know Him experientially, rather than simply knowing about Him. The time has come to quit talking in vague terms about the Gospel as though everyone already knows what its content is. We Methodists talk and preach a lot about commitment. We lead many to make an initial commitment to Christ. But it seems to me that we fail in our exposition of the content of the Gospel to which we call men to commit themselves. We call men to Christ, assuming that they understand He has died for their sins, when in fact most people today have little understanding of what the atonement means. Many modern Methodists could not begin to tell what salvation means. We must lift up the person and work of Christ! And then we must encourage men to respond to Christ because of who He is and what He has done for us – and for the world.

I also came away from the Congress feeling that we must rethink our ecumenical efforts. I discovered that true ecumenicity is possible – if it is Christ-focused. This ecumenicity can be present whether or not organizational structures remain. Methodism must discover that unity in the Church of Christ must also include the evangelical branches of Christendom as well as the major denominations. In other words, we must be concerned about our relationship with the Pentecostals as much as we are about our relationship with the Episcopalians. We must learn that as we are brought to Christ we are brought together. This is what happened in Berlin. It is this movement together to Christ, rather than to a simple organic union, which will characterize any lasting ecumenism. As Christians and as Methodists, we can no longer succumb to the pressures of the “numbers game” which sees “additions” to the church rolls as evangelism. The object of our evangelistic efforts must be transformed men and women, not larger more “successful” churches.

Methodist evangelicals must learn not to let institutional machinery keep them from the awareness that all our sufficiency is from God. Organizational skills need to be used-but only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and only as instruments to the greater end of seeing men made new by our Lord.

Unfortunately, Methodism is still a clergy’s church. We must learn to train our laymen to share the good news of salvation in Christ. Now we train them to usher, to give of their money, to solicit pledges, to teach in the church school, and to serve on the commissions. How much more imperative it is that they know Jesus Christ in a way that they want to share Him and that they be given the tools to share Him effectively!

Finally, I left Berlin convinced that we must reach all men with the Gospel. We American Meth­ odists seem to feel we have been called to witness only to the middle and upper classes. We are concerned about the poor, the homeless and the uneducated. But we do not make them welcome in our churches. We are concerned about minority groups and the rejects of our society – but we are concerned from a distance. We must both identify with them and offer to them Jesus Christ as the only way to a new and better life. Too often we work for their economic and political wellbeing without sharing the Person of Jesus Christ with them. Can we not learn anew that Christ died for all men? Can we not learn anew that any man without a personal, experiential knowledge of Christ as Lord and Savior is hopelessly hungry and homeless and hurting?