by Steve | Jul 2, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: The Crisis in Methodist Curriculum
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News
Recently a man said to his Administrative Board: “I have been a Methodist pastor for 20 years. And I have always used Methodist literature. But this new stuff is not compatible with the Bible, Methodist doctrine, or my ordination vows! Either Methodist literature leaves this church or else I leave.”
Such is the crisis precipitated by the newest curriculum “improvements” from Nashville. Reports from across the country indicate that many churches and classes are canceling Methodist curriculum. One inter-denominational publisher reports a recent jump in Methodist business from churches which would “rather switch than fight.” And former E.U.B.’s report a widespread revulsion over the new curriculum which has become “theirs” as, result of merger with The Methodist Church.
Last month the Louisville (Ky.) Conference voted, without opposition, the following resolution, presented to delegates by the Conference Board of Education:
WHEREAS, some United Methodists are greatly disturbed and genuinely concerned over the theological trends reflected in the new literature, and
WHEREAS, some feel that the United Methodist literature does not increase one’s understanding or appreciation of the Scriptures, and
WHEREAS, some feel that the literature is not holding up the unique message of the Christian Church, and
WHEREAS, some feel that much of The material supports humanism, and
WHEREAS, some feel that the literature, questions the authority of the Bible and the deity of Jesus:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Bishop and his Cabinet select and appoint a task force to make a study in depth of the literature, its effect upon our people, and their response to it, across our annual conference; and that this task force report to the 1970 session of the Annual Conference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Conference Board of Education and The General Board of Education be informed from time to time of the progress and results of this study.
How has this unhappy situation come to pass? For decades The Board of Education has been dominated by non-Wesleyan, non–evangelicals. Editors and writers employed by the Board have introduced their favorite brands of non–Biblical theology and philosophy … not to mention politics, economics, anthropology and sociology. These have been force-fed to local churches as the way, the truth, and the life for Methodists.
A few recent examples are given on pages 26-35.
Is the church defenseless? Always, we have had official doctrine—the trouble is, they have been ignored. Officials responsible for our curriculum plead, “United Methodism has no series of creedal dogmas meant to be forced on church membership.” (Page 6, The 1969/70 Outlines of Curriculum, Division of Curriculum Resources of the General Board of Education.) Into their self-created doctrinal vacuum, they pour their own theologies.
Fortunately, the 1968 Discipline contains a clear prohibition which, if adhered to, could eliminate theological eccentricities from our official curriculum materials. Page 36 of the 1968 Discipline says ” … the ‘Wesleyan standards’ have been rightly construed as negative limits of public teaching in the church rather than the positive prescription of an inflexible system of doctrine.”
This means that no Methodist teachings should contradict the Articles of Religion (1968 Discipline, pages 37-44), Wesley’s 44 Sermons, and the Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. A parallel source of doctrinal “negative limit” is now the Confession of Faith of the former E.U.B. Church (1968 Discipline, pages 44- 48.)
Full Biblical authority is the backbone of United Methodist doctrine. The 1968 Discipline makes this clear on page 26: “In all matters of faith and morals, the authority of Holy Scripture stands supreme.”
That this injunction has been ignored is evident from the items mentioned on pages 22-35.
But the fault does not lie entirely with our General Board of Education. Methodist laymen have contributed to the curriculum crisis. All these many years many have grumbled but “gone along.” It is hard to believe that the national board could have flooded the church with un-Biblical teachings if enough Methodist laymen had (1) known the difference between truth and un-truth … and (2) had cared enough to organize an effective, sustained protest.
Pastors, too, bear a share of responsibility for our curriculum crisis. Many have never taken time to read what their church schools are studying. And to be candid, some Methodist pastors are afraid to reveal their objections- for fear of not receiving a “good” appointment “next time.” (Many believe that promotions are reserved for pastors smart enough not to raise embarrassing questions.) Of course, the denominational superstructure has contributed to the United Methodist curriculum crisis. Some Boards of Ministerial Training and Qualification have made willingness to use only Methodist literature a primary requirement for ordination. On the night of one ordination service, a Bishop declared that candidates should not even bother to come forward unless they intended to use Methodist literature only!
A little-recognized factor in our curriculum crisis is the prevailing Biblical ignorance. Relatively few church school teachers know the Scriptures well enough to teach creatively from the Bible itself. Instead, they rely on printed literature as a “crutch.” This dependence puts Methodist church school teachers—and classes—at the mercy of their printed literature. (At a recent meeting attended by over 100 Methodists, general astonishment was expressed at the idea of teaching directly from the Bible. Many thought the speaker joking.)
The very best teaching material is a modem language edition of the Holy Scriptures in the hands of a teacher who knows Jesus Christ personally … who respects the authority and integrity of the Bible … and who is led by the Holy Spirit in showing how relevant the Bible really is.
But the practical reality is that most United Methodist church school teachers do depend upon printed literature. So what choice is open to a local church?
First, it would seem only fair to make a careful evaluation of our own literature. (Many churches have never done this.) Assemble a committee of mature Christians, including Pastor and Superintendent of Studies. Carefully examine Methodist literature on the following points: Does it conform to the plain truth of Scripture? Does it coincide with our United Methodist doctrinal standards (1968 Discipline, pgs. 44-48) Is it practical for teachers to use? What is the reaction of students and classes? What is the quality of pictures and artwork? Does the publisher provide reliable service? How do literature Prices compare? Is it emphasizing Matters that have eternal importance? Does it reflect the Biblical standard of purity as the norm for Christian speech and thought?
If a careful examination leads to criticism of our official literature, write and tell the man responsible, Dr. Henry Bullock, Editor of Church School Publications, 201 Eight Ave., Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Be sure to Stress the need for evangelically-acceptable materials, either produced or approved by our Board of Education.
All Methodists should look carefully at 1968 Discipline paragraph 158.1: “The Commission on Education shall keep the Council on Ministries aware of sound educational procedures, and encourage and facilitate the use of curriculum resources based on curriculum plans developed by the Program-Curriculum Committee and approved by the Board of Education of the United Methodist Church.”
This is much less arbitrary than paragraph 233 of the 1964 Discipline. We rejoice in the Change which places literature responsibility more nearly in the hands of local churches.
The fact is that increasing numbers of United Methodists are exercising their conscience in literature selection. This attitude of independence is not mere divisiveness. Instead, it is the inevitable response of knowledgeable Christians to the un-Biblical humanism that prevails in Methodist literature.
Let Methodist evangelicals pray fervently (and work without ceasing) for the day when we can all be proud of our United Methodist church school literature.
ANOTHER KIND OF RAGE
Methodist leaders are urging us to listen to “black rage” expressed in the famous “Manifesto.” Listening is in order. And so our leaders should be also listening to another kind of rage!
The rage of Methodist people at seeing filthy language printed and circulated by the United Methodist Board of Education (See Motive, March-April issue, 1969).
The rage of Methodists who feel the church betrays them in spending money for questionable causes.
The rage of Methodist laymen exposed to “relevant” sermons on topics such as “How Can I Experience Fulfillment Sexually?” (From a worship service bulletin sent by a reader in Arkansas).
We hope Methodist leaders are hearing more than one kind of rage.
by Steve | Jul 1, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: The Lost Authority
By Lon Woodrum, Hastings, Michigan, Contributing Editor of Good News
In today’s widespread crisis of authority, none is more marked than that in the Roman Catholic Church. This is especially evidenced in the universal reaction to Pope Paul’s Humanae Vitae. The dissent to the pontiff’s encyclical on birth control runs counter to that monarchistic form of government by which the papacy has long reigned.
Recently the London Times remarked, “Today, after the heavy qualification given by Vatican II, it seems unlikely that any future Pope will conjure his plenary powers and define ex cathedra a dogma to bind the church irrevocably.”
Reportedly, the Pope is preparing another letter on authority, itself as a response to what has happened. Should this encyclical be as dogmatic as Humanae Vitae, further dissent could be engendered with damage to the entire church. For men in our time have learned to fear totalitarianism; and even in the area known as the “free world” the loss of personal liberty seems too often threatened.
However, man is so constituted that although he resents too much authority he cannot be content without authority. In truth, authority has been, for centuries, that element in the Roman church which vastly contributed to its continuity-as long as men trusted that authority. But with the authority questioned, many constituents are now restless and unhappy.
Indeed, it may well be that much of the turmoil among the peoples of the earth is due greatly to their need for an authority to which they can respectfully submit. Men are at loose ends, both individuals and institutions. The widespread complaint in the late national American election was that none of the candidates appeared qualified for the high office which he sought. Men ask for authentic leadership; they demand a voice fit to command. To be sure, they want freedom, but they want it under proper domination.
Unquestionably, millions of Roman Catholics who wish less dictatorship from the Vatican will nonetheless desire authority from some quarter. Their human nature will force them to it. But where shall they turn?
Was not this same sort of problem posed once before in the history of the Church—at the time of the Reformation? However, then, people departing from the papal rule found another authority. They found it in Christ, the incarnate Truth, in the Word of Truth and in the Holy Spirit of Truth.
They took up the Old Testament and observed how God had been joined to Israel in a free covenant, the Law needed only because outlaws were present, not because God wanted to rule despotically. They discovered, in the New Testament, that believers were not under Law, but under the love and grace of Christ. Their loyalty was not to a cold, impersonal legislation, but to a Person who cared enough for them to lay down His life for them on Calvary. They were bound to the law of Love—the only Law which could not be broken without breaking the heart of him who broke it.
It has been said that the word “authority” in the New Testament might well be translated “fitness”—as when one speaks of a person being fit to be a king, or a judge. New Testament believers were not bound to an earthly power with political structure; their authority was from the Word, and from the Spirit who gave the Word. We once heard a scholar translate a familiar text thus: “You shall receive competence after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you” (Acts 1:8). Christians are qualified witnesses for Christ, not legally, but charismatically—in the power and wisdom of God’s Spirit, indwelling each true believer.
In the Roman Catholic Church today some of the “modernists” Lean toward this New Testament Sort of authority. Those who Would return to the greater dominion of the papacy are dubbed “traditionists.” But in the Protestant world the order is reversed. It is the “modernist” who wants to forsake the authority of the Word, and the “traditionist” to keep it!
Which brings us to a sober truth. The Roman Catholics are struggling to free themselves from an undesirable authority. But, man being what he is, undoubtedly they will not wish to flee all authority; rather will they seek a more acceptable one. However, in these times, there would appear to be no Luthers or Calvins to turn to! For, disastrously, the Protestant churches, which owe their very existence to the authority of the Word have in far too great an extent jettisoned that authority!
Moreover, illogically and tragically, many Protestants who mutilate the Scriptures, still loudly maintain their championship of the Word! So, where authority once sat, confusion reigns. But silent is the cry that rose when the battle was joined at the Reformation: sola gratia! sola scriptura! (grace alone! Scripture alone!) In that day there remained a court of appeal to which the disillusioned could turn. The Scripture, which Jesus himself said could not be broken, spoke authoritatively to the human conscience.
Many may be impelled to ask in our day, now that authority seems lost in both the Catholic and Protestant camps. “Where shall we tum?” The truth of the matter is, the actual authority which God arranged has not been altered. Christ himself speaks for all time when He says “The Scripture cannot be set aside” (John 10:35). He also speaks to all men when He states that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39).
Man’s age-old discontent with unauthentic authority will not diminish. Nor will his age-old desire for competent authority. But this desire can find fulfillment only in Him whom the Scriptures present as announcing, “Full authority in heaven and on earth has been committed to me.” And only the unchanging WORD can guarantee that this authority will remain unchanging.
by Steve | Apr 4, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: What is Evangelicalism?
PART I
By Bruce R. Shelley
Condensed by permission from “Evangelicalism in America,” published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan
On his first Sunday in Georgia in 1735, John Wesley, the young Anglican missionary destined to become the founder of The Methodist Church, sought out a leader of the Moravians, a devout band of Christians working in the colony. En route to Georgia, Wesley’s ship had nearly broken to splinters during a storm. The nerves of all on board, including the seamen, had been severely shaken—all, that is, except a group of Moravians. Their peaceableness when the sea split the mainsail, and the joy of their singing, had deeply impressed the fearful missionary. So Wesley, once in Georgia, made it a point to seek out Spangenberg, the leader of the Moravians, to ask for advice about his own conduct.
“Do you know yourself’?” Spangenberg asked him. “Have you the witness within yourself’? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God? ”
Wesley was startled at such directness and scarcely knew what to say.
His Moravian interrogator noticed his hesitancy and discomfort and so he pressed home an even more personal question. “Do you know Jesus Christ? ”
Wesley hedged. “I know He is the Savior of the world.”
“True,” responded Spangenberg, “But do you know He has saved you?”
Thoroughly at a loss, Wesley stammered feebly, “I hope He has died to save me.”
But Spangenberg insisted, “Do you know yourself’?”
In order to free himself from a most embarrassing situation Wesley convincingly said he did. “But,” he later added in admirable honesty, “I fear they were vain words.”
That discomforting interview was a landmark in Wesley’s pilgrimage toward assurance of salvation. It is also a disclosure of the inner essence of evangelicalism.
From the Philippian jailer who asked his praying prisoners, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, to Wesley who squirmed under the heat of Spangenberg’s, “Do you know Jesus Christ?”, to a teenage terror off the streets of New York who bows in repentance at a Billy Graham Crusade, one major theme runs through that type of Christianity called evangelicalism. That theme is the necessity of personal salvation.
The word “evangelical ” is used in our time to designate a group of Protestant churches in Germany, “low church ” sympathies in the Church of England, Christians in the Wesleyan tradition, and American fundamentalists. It is most accurately employed, however, in referring to all within Protestant Christianity who emphasize salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching in contrast to ritual as a means of saving grace. …
In simplest terms, an evangelical is a Christian who accepts and lives the Gospel, for evangelion is merely the Greek word for “good news.” In our English Bibles it is often translated “gospel,” which is an old Anglo-Saxon word meaning “good (god) tale (spell).”
But what is the Gospel? It is the blessed bulletin about Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1). It broadcasts that in Him the promises of God, extended to His people in Old Testament times, are fulfilled. In Him the Kingdom, the rule of God over men, has come (Matthew 4:23 and 12:28) and through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection from the grave, all the enemies of man’s soul—Satan, sin and death—have been defeated. In His cross, rebellious men and holy God are reconciled (II Corinthians 5: 19); and in His resurrection new life becomes a present possibility for every man (Romans 4:25).
Evangelicalism, then, begins its explanation of true religion where Jesus began, with “repent and believe the gospel ” (Mark I:15). It emphasizes man’s need for a spiritual rebirth in the experience of conversion. Man is not by nature what he must be in order to please God. The change of heart he needs comes only by a creative act of God in response to his deeply meaningful repentance and his living faith in Christ. This emphasis on spiritual rebirth is the genius of evangelicalism. On one occasion, somebody asked George Whitefield, the tireless evangelist of the Methodist revival, “Mr. Whitefield, why do you preach so often on ‘Ye must be born again’?”
“Because,” replied the great revivalist, fixing his questioner with a solemn gaze, “‘Ye must be born again’.”
Evangelicals believe that there are two basic types of religion, the interior-personal and the exterior-institutional. They emphasize the first because they are persuaded that the Holy Spirit must do a work in the human heart. Only He can convict of sin and lead the penitent to a renunciation of his sins. And only He can provide the spiritual power necessary to live a transformed life. That is why evangelicals are more concerned about inner personal depth than they are about external churchly conformity.
The spiritual descendants of Wesley and Whitefield differ from many in contemporary Christianity in holding that conversion is a definite, decisive, and profound experience. Without endorsing his total philosophy, evangelicals share the views of Soren Kierkegaard, the nineteenth-century Danish Socrates, when he insists, “As an individual, quite literally as an individual, to relate oneself to God personally is the formula for being a Christian …. If once this occurs, then it is an event incomparably more important than a European war and a war which involves all the corners of the earth, it is a catastrophic event which moves the universe to its profoundest depths. … He whose life does not present relative catastrophes of this sort has never, not even in the remotest approximation, had recourse as an individual to God—that is just as impossible as to touch an electrical machine without receiving a shock.”
The indispensable means of gaining God’s new life, evangelicals are persuaded, is by believing the Gospel. Doctrine, then, is important. Evangelicals hold with all orthodox Christians the great cardinal truths of God’s revelation. They confess the divine Trinity; they accept Christ’s deity and atoning death; they look for a bodily resurrection and a judgment to come; they believe in the Church and the necessity of grace. Evangelicalism cannot long survive without orthodox beliefs. In evangelicalism, personal faith is wed to propositional faith. Jesus did not say, “Repent and believe your personal impressions.” He preached, “Repent and believe the gospel!”
Evangelicals know, however, that the balance between truth as proposition and truth as personal is a delicate one. On the one hand, the loss of spiritual dynamic often jeopardizes basic doctrinal truths. The followers of Wesley agree with Philip Melanchthon, Luther’s colleague, when he observes that theology is a matter of the heart as well as the head. Cold hearts, they know, find it hard to embrace the great revealed truths of God’s Word. In a lukewarm congregation, the surrender of basic truth is so gradual that it is hardly perceptible. First comes a de-emphasis on the value of doctrine. Then, old terms are used with new and equivocal meanings and the naive are misled. The process can only end in spiritual destruction.
On the other hand, churches sometimes react to a loss of spiritual power by seeking to strengthen their theological positions. As W. Curry Mavis argues, “Theologians then compensate for the loss of inner vitality by rigidly defining doctrinal positions. Theological i’s are dotted and doctrinal t’s are crossed with a note of ultimate finality. This leads to a doctrinaire situation which is lifeless and empty.”
For these reasons, evangelicals, while holding to orthodox beliefs, insist that Christianity is more than theological orthodoxy and religious conservatism. It is a spirit, a concern for sinners, a way of life. Its master motif is the salvation of souls; its guiding image the redemptive Gospel of Jesus Christ. All other considerations are subordinated to this standard.
“Orthodoxy, I say, or right opinion,” Wesley once said, “is but a slender part of religion at best, and sometimes no part at all. I mean, if a man be a child of God, holy in heart and life, his right opinions are but the smallest part of his religion: if a man be a child of the devil, his right opinions are no part of religion, they cannot be; for he that does the works of the devil has no religion at all.”
It was this recognition that truth is to be tested by love, that the practical and experiential outcome of belief counts for more than mere soundness of view, which marked the evangelical approach to doctrine.
This pre-eminent concern for experienced Christianity explains why evangelicals have differed with each other over the relation of God’s electing choice to man’s free will, and yet have found unity in the message of salvation.
In his book Protestant Thought Before Kant, A. C. McGiffert makes a discerning observation. “It is not surprising,” he says, “that the Calvinist Whitefield regarded Wesley’s Arminian views as extremely dangerous, and that the two men fell into open and bitt er controversy. But it is an interesting commentary upon the Gospel’s indifference to philosophy and theology that men representing … two radically diverse types of thought should both accomplish so tremendous practical results.
Ever since the time of Wesley and Whitefield there has been both Arminian and Calvinistic evangelicalism. But the underlying interest of the two types has been essentially the same, and their differences superficial and unimportant. …
Not all evangelicals will agree that the difference between Calvinists and Arminians are unimportant. But all will concur that the Gospel is the one indispensable particular for Biblical Christianity. …
That dimension of depth in faith, which evangelicals seek, has too often been missing in Christendom. The difference between profession of an orthodox creed, evangelicals are persuaded, and the personal experience of Christ is the difference between thumbing through a National Geographic and standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon. The Church has known her periods of decadent orthodoxy, but she has never witnessed a decadent evangelicalism. When the spirit of evangelicalism dies, it ceases to exist.
In harmony with this dominating theme of regeneration, evangelicals stress certain other doctrinal motifs. For example, the fall of man …. “We are already bound hand and foot,” Wesley preached, “by the chains of our own sins. These … are chains of iron and fetters of brass. They are wounds wherewith the world, the flesh and the devil have gashed and mangled us all over. They are diseases that drink up our blood and spirits, that bring us down to the chambers of the grave. ”
CONTINUED IN NEXT ISSUE
by Steve | Apr 3, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: How Shall We Escape?
By Buford M. McElroy, Sr., Pastor, First United Methodist Church, Camp Hall, Alabama
There must be a deep realization that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is relevant in our sophisticated “tech-ronic” age. But the cost of discipleship will not be found in Dow Jones average. The price of discipleship remains the same today as it was when Jesus first sent out the call for His first disciples. “And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”
Christian discipleship is composed of sacrificial life built at the great cost on the eternal foundation of Jesus Christ … and dedicated to an uncompromising fight to transform the world in His Kingdom, regardless of the cost—even unto death.
There are two reflections I would like to make in reference to this subject: First: we, as ministers, are not willing to pay the price of Christian discipleship to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world. I’m not sure I understand all that has taken place in our church today. We are supposed to be God’s people settled to our convictions and working to transform the world into His Way. But I am afraid the world has shaped us into its image! I think that most of us realize that America’s god has become the $. Not only America, but the Christian church has succumbed to the same god. We fall down and worship the almighty $ just as much as the non-Christian.
We who are in the ministry speak of our appointments as a six-thousand dollar, or an eight-thousand dollar assignment. We feel highly insulted if our new appointment does not carry with it a large increase in salary. Professionalism has invaded our ranks; there is no question about it. We need money to live on and provide for our families. We are not supposed to be paid for preaching, but given a living allowance so that we may be able to devote ourselves fully to preaching.
I think the words of John Wesley hold true today, maybe more so than when he first uttered them: “Your business is not to preach so many sermons, and to take care of this or that society, but to save as many souls as you can.”
Jesus told His first disciples to preach the Gospel and as they went to “heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils” (Matthew 10:8).
Brethren, is this true today? Or are we going forth unfit for the task, seeking to heal others when we need to be healed? We are going forth after bigger appointments and we have become slaves to our own profession.
My second reflection is that we are fighting the wrong fight. In the Christian Church we are fighting one another. Especially we Methodists are fighting among ourselves. We have come to the stage of name-calling and branding one another as “liberals,” “conservatives,” “far-out lefts” and “far-out rights.” And if these labels do not fit, we create one! There are holiness preachers, and for-the-race-issue preachers, and against-the-race-issue preachers, up-and-coming preachers. There is the preacher who preaches an hour and of course the 10-minute preacher. I think you know what I am talking about.
We fight one another over where the money of the church goes. The “conservatives” say the “liberals” are not using the money in the right way and therefore we will withhold our dollars. The “liberals” say they alone have the answers to all the questions- even the spending of church dollars. I do not approve of many things that have taken place in the Methodist Church. But I was called to preach not to judge. And besides, I think we forget that God knows what is going on. I give my tithes to the Church. If the bishop or someone else does not spend this money in accordance with God’s plan then God will hold them responsible, not me. If I spent my time fussing about where the money is being spent, I would not have time to preach the Gospel that I am called by God to preach.
I will be frank in this matter: I am afraid we are hiding the real issue by the name-calling. In reality, all this fussing is over who will control the physical power of the church. Or maybe a better word would be a “power grab.” The real issue is that none of us wants God’s power to control our whole being.
I don’t really know which one of these power groups I fit into. I’m sure that the “liberals” wouldn’t own me. And the “conservatives turn up their nose when I step on their toes in some such matter as this. But I guess my standing in church politics really does not matter. Because these things are not lasting. They too will fade.
There is one side I do hope and pray that I may be on. When Jesus comes back to earth, I want to be found on His side. Then all the hurts received from my brethren will be all forgotten … swallowed up in the new life with Him.
“We must hold on all the more firmly to the truths we have heard, so we will not be carried away. The message given by the angels was true, and anyone who did not follow it or obey it received the punishment he deserved. How, then, shall we escape if we pay no attention to such a great salvation?” (Hebrews 2:1-3a)
by Steve | Apr 2, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: A Local Pastor Prescribes Wesley
By John W. Evster, Pastor, United Methodist Parish, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin
John Wesley preached a series of 13 sermons on “Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount.” It is significant that he chose these sermons to be included among the 14 which, with his “Explanatory “Notes Upon the New Testament” (Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Alenson, Inc., 1958), were referred to in “the trust-deeds of the Methodist chapels as constituting … the standard doctrines of the Methodist connexion.” This meant that these two documents written by John Wesley were identified by him to be the foundation of Methodist doctrine.
As United Methodists today turn to our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount for study, discussion and preaching, why should we read sermons prepared and preached between 1737 and 1746?
First, these sermons are the sharing of thought and witness by one of the great saints of the Christian faith. Wesley made a significant contribution to the life of the body of Christ, the Church. Thereby he offers to Christians of all traditions meaningful insight to the Christian life and ministry.
Second, although Wesley would want to be considered a catholic Christian, “the people called Methodist” have a peculiar debt to his ministry. We understand ourselves to be spiritual children of Wesley because of the meaning which his interpretation of the Christian faith has for us.
Third, God’s Word to His people is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Word of God may be expressed via different idioms, styles, and media. But the message is the same. Therefore, the faithful witness to God’s Word and will in Wesley’s sermons is profound and significant TODAY! (Do not be surprised to find him talking about “mourning for an absent God”!)
Hopefully, a brief summary of the Wesley series will entice the reader to read through the series.
The first three sermons deal with the Beatitudes which Wesley calls the “eight particulars” of “true religion.” Sermons four and five delve into the “false glosses of man.” Wesley is keen to show “first, that Christianity is essentially a social religion; and that to turn it into a solitary one is to destroy it. Secondly, that to conceal this religion is impossible, as well as utterly contrary to the design of its Author.” Wesley adeptly challenges us as to whether or not our religion exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Turning to the “rules for right intention” in sermons six through nine, Wesley first discusses “works of charity or mercy” (almsgiving) and “works of piety” (prayer and fasting). The sixth sermon deals with The Lord’s Prayer and closes with “A Paraphrase on the Lord’s Prayer.” The seventh sermon deals with fasting. Perhaps contemporary Christians will wince in noting this, but read the sermon before writing it off as “old fashioned.” Next, Wesley turns to the “actions of common life” with the conviction that the “same purity of intention which makes our alms and devotions acceptable must also make our labour or employment a proper offering to God.”
Sermons 10 through 12 focus upon the hindrances to true religion, especially “judging,” “wide gate of sin,” and “false prophets.”
Sermon 13 is, according to Wesley, an application of the whole Sermon on the Mount as it considers “the case of him who … builds his house upon the sand: secondly, to show the wisdom of him who builds upon a rock … ”
These sermons by John Wesley have been significant to me personally and vital in my preparation of sermons in a current series on the Beatitudes. Pastors and laymen will find the Word and will of God helpfully delineated and stated in these sermons.
These sermons will be found in every complete collection of the works of John Wesley. The 44 sermons have been regarded part of the foundation of Methodist doctrine. For this reason Wesley’s sermons ought to be on every United Methodist’s bookshelf!
by Steve | Apr 1, 1969 | Archive - 1969
Archive: Reconciliation and the Bible
By Leon Morris, Principal, Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia
© 1969 by Christianity Today Reprinted by permission
To hear some people talk you would think that the Bible was basically a book about reconciliation. They will say that Christ’s atonement was essentially a work of reconciliation. Or they will say that the task of the Church in the world is first and foremost a task of reconciliation, of reducing tensions so that men learn to live at peace with one another. In view of the frequent use of the term these days, a little work on the concordance comes as quite a shock. The reconciliation words are used comparatively little in the New Testament. Reconciliation is not so central to the New Testament understanding of atonement as is, for example, justification. And it is not so central to Christian duty as is love.
This does not mean that reconciliation is not important. Though the passages in which it is mentioned are few, they are highly significant. We should not overestimate them, but neither should we minimize them. They certainly repay close study.
The basic idea in reconciliation is that of making up after a quarrel. If people get on well at a first meeting, we do not say they have been reconciled. It is when they have been at enmity and have come to be of one mind again that we speak of reconciliation. The word means a process of making peace between those who have been in a state of strife.
In the Biblical view, there is a fundamental hostility between God and sinful man. This is the great problem to be faced by all religions: How can a good God be at peace with sinful man?
The Bible does not pull its punches when it speaks of the hostility between unregenerate men and God. “Do you not know,” asks James, “that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (James 4:4). Paul speaks of unregenerate men as “estranged and hostile in mind” (Colossians 1:21), and simply as “enemies” (Romans 5:10). But we scarcely need to quote specific texts. The whole thrust of the Bible is toward the fact that sin creates a barrier between man and God. It also creates barriers between man and man, but in the Bible the primary thing is the enmity it arouses between God and His creatures.
Sometimes today this is taken to mean that man, because he is a sinner, has taken up a stance in opposition to God. He is hostile to God. God, on the other hand, is seen looking on man with unwavering love. The state of enmity is thus. considered to be on one side only. This makes reconciliation simple. It requires only that man realize how far he has strayed from the right path, and return. Peace will follow immediately.
There is some truth in this, of course. It is true that man is far from God. It is true that if he realizes this and repents, reconciliation will take place. But it is not true that this is the whole story. It leaves out the Cross.
And the Cross is central. We cannot understand the New Testament unless we see the centrality of the Cross. For it was through the Cross that God worked out man’s salvation. Specifically, it was through the Cross that man’s reconciliation was effected. Christ died that He might “reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end” (Ephesians 2:16).
The point we must grasp if we are to understand the Biblical teaching is that it is God’s attitude to the sin of man, not man’s, that is decisive. Man is usually not particularly worried by the fact that he has done wrong. If it can be brought to his attention that he is a sinner, he is usually content to let bygones be bygones. And he cannot see why God should not do the same.
But the Bible makes it clear that God will not do the same. The reason for the enmity between God and man is not that sinful man is actively and consciously hostile to God. He is not. It is rather that a holy God will not tolerate sin in those He loves. God’s demand on man and man’s failure to meet it constitute the problem. If God regarded sin as of no account, there would be no enmity and no problem. But God never condones evil. He never countenances wrong.
Now we are quite familiar with the process of reconciliation in human affairs. We know that when two people are at loggerheads, the way to bring about reconciliation is to take the cause of the quarrel out of the way. If harsh words have been spoken, they are withdrawn with an apology. If money has not been paid, it is paid. If a letter has not been written, it is written. Whatever is the root cause of the trouble must be identified and dealt with. If this is not done we will have at best an uneasy truce; we will not have a genuine reconciliation.
So also in relations between God and man. Sin is the cause of the trouble, and if there is to be reconciliation, the sin must be dealt with and taken out of the way. It is important to be clear on this, for man cannot remove his sin. He was able to erect a barrier that separated him from God, but he was not able to pull it down. When he repents and turns over a new leaf, that is fine for the future. But what of the past? “God seeks what has been driven away,” or as the King James Version puts it, “God requireth that which is past” (Ecclesiastes 3:15).
In our own affairs we never doubt that the past is important. When a student fails his exams, he cannot laugh it off and proceed to the next unit of his course as though nothing had happened. When the businessman finds his debts pressing, he cannot write them off and start afresh as though nothing had happened. In every area of life we recognize that our actions have consequences and that we are responsible. We cannot cut ourselves adrift from the past.
C. S. Lewis has some wise words here:
“We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. I have heard others, and I have heard myself, recounting cruelties and falsehoods committed in boyhood as if they were no concern of the present speakers, and even with laughter. But mere time does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin. The guilt is washed out not by time but by repentance and the blood of Christ (The Problem of Pain, London, 1943).
It is the place of “the blood of Christ” that is critically important. We may or may not be able to say how this puts away sin. The important thing is that it does. “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation” (Romans 5:10,11). Notice that Paul speaks of the reconciliation as something that can be “received”; i.e., it in some sense exists before we receive it. In other words, reconciliation is not something in which we have the decisive part. It is worked out by Christ, and we enter into it by our repentance and our faith. But it is His work first and foremost. This is the main thrust of New Testament teaching on reconciliation.
But the Bible does have something to say, as well, about the reconciliation of man with his neighbor. The most important passage is the one· in Ephesians that deals with the bitterest enmity in the ancient world, that between Jew and Gentile. There we read that Christ “is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14). Reconciliation is effected, not by man’s effort, but by Christ’s.
Nor should we think that this is a vague, general result of His setting us a good example so that we try to live in peace with others. If we are his, we do so try. But the effective making of peace is due, not to these efforts of ours, but to the work of God in Christ. Paul goes on to explain that the breaking down of the wall of hostility was done “by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end” (Eph. 2:15).
This is not a more or less accidental by-product of man’s salvation. It is an integral part of it. If we are truly reconciled with God, we will certainly seek to be at peace with our fellows. It is part of the living out of the implications of our reconciliation. But we should be sure that we get our priorities right. In the New Testament it is our relation to God that is of primary importance. Once that is put right, our relation to man must follow. Without a right relation to God it is difficult to see how there can be a right relation to man.
All this means that for the Biblically instructed Christian there will always be an emphasis on reconciliation with God. He will not sit loose to the obligation of doing all he can to reconcile men with men. But he will see this as effectively done only when they are first reconciled to God. In short, he will see his task as essentially one of persuading men to be reconciled to God. As Paul put it (II Corinthians 5:20): “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
