by Steve | Sep 6, 1977 | Archive - 1977
Archive: Special Report from Kansas City
by Kevin LaGree, United Methodist Attorney, Shawnee Mission, Kansas
About 1,000 United Methodist charismatics met in Kansas City July 21-24, with nearly 49,000 others, as part of the ecumenical Conference on Charismatic Renewal in the Christian churches. The United Methodists gathered every morning for worship, teaching, singing, and praise.
Each worship session featured a special speaker, but preceding the message, Rev. Bob Stamps, chaplain at Oral Roberts University, led an hour of singing, prayer, and praise.
At the first session, those gathered reveled in a freedom of worship they obviously did not enjoy regularly in their home churches. After the first rousing, toe-tapping, handclapping chorus—which featured Rev. Bob Stamps, Rev. Ross Whetstone, and Rev. Tommy Tyson forming an impromptu chorus line and dancing a jig across the stage Rev. Stamps told the joyous audience, “I just told Brother Ross that this sure isn’t like General Conference!”
The audience erupted in laughter as Rev. Stamps went on, “But I thank the Lord—it’s a lot more fun!”
Rev. Tommy Tyson, a United Methodist evangelist from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, set the tone of the United Methodist meetings with the keynote speech.
“There is no such thing as a Christian who is not charismatic,” he began, striking a note of Christian unity that was repeated throughout the conference.
“You cannot have the Spirit of Christ without having the gifts of grace, the charisma,” Rev. Tyson explained.
“That means,” he continued, “that all true Christians are charismatic since all carry the indwelling Holy Spirit in them. “That means you’re one and didn’t know it! But since you are one now you can enjoy it. You don’t have to be afraid anymore!”
Speaking both to the charismatics before him and to those in the United Methodist Church who do not count themselves in that group, Rev. Tyson urged all United Methodists” … to reproduce Jesus in the realm where you are threatened.
“Life in the Spirit is not imitating Jesus but rather responding to His love. Ministry is learning to respond to Jesus in the presence of each other,” he said.
“Remember one thing I’ve said to you today if you remember nothing else: Jesus will never send you to anyone who doesn’t need you and whom you don’t need.”
In the second United Methodist meeting, Dr. Bill Thomas, pastor of the 4,000-member First UM Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, spoke to the audience at the invitation of Dr. Bob Tuttle, professor of Wesleyan studies and evangelism at Fuller Theological Seminary (the featured speaker). Both men are members of the Good News Board of Directors. “There’s a new wind blowing in The United Methodist Church,” Dr. Thomas told the crowd. “Renewal must come from the local church level.
“I learned early in my ministry that the pastor’s job was merely to create an atmosphere of faith so that the Holy Spirit can minister in the church. What has happened at our church can happen in any church, if the Holy Spirit is allowed to move freely in the church.”
Mentioning that he was leaving Kansas City to speak at the Good News Convocation, Dr. Thomas shared a part of what he planned to tell those assembled in Anderson, Indiana. He issued a call for evangelicals and charismatics in The UM Church to overlook those issues which separate them and to join together to renew the church.
“All the charismatics want the evangelicals to say is that tongues is a legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit today. The evangelicals can say that: it’s Scriptural. All the evangelicals want the charismatics to say is that not everyone must speak in tongues. And the charismatics can say that: it’s also Scriptural. It’s time to come together to renew The United Methodist Church,” Dr. Thomas concluded to loud and sustained applause.
Dr. Bob Tuttle’s message, “The United Methodist Church: Pentecost or Holocaust,” picked up on the same message. He said he saw God creating a church ” … where we are so secure in our own experience that we can allow the experience of others to work.
“It will take a lot of different kinds of leaven to renew The UM Church,” he said, “and we must remember that our security and our source must be in Him.”
After Dr. Tuttle’s remarks, a panel of discussion began that became the focus of the UM conference. Rev. Ross Whetstone, chairman of the evangelism department at Scarritt College and coordinator of the United Methodist Charismatic Conference, told the audience that several participants had asked him whether the United Methodist charismatics would organize themselves within the church.
“A number of us have discussed this question, and it is our view that there is no need for an organization at this time,” Rev. Whetstone said. He then asked the various members of the panel to speak to the question.
Dr. Tuttle predicted that the organization of the charismatic renewal would mark the beginning of its death.
“We’re not concerned about being charismatic,” Dr. Tuttle stated, “we’re concerned about being Christians.”
Dr. Bill Thomas cautioned that organizing another group would fragment the evangelical wing of the church. He emphasized that an organization already exists within the church which deals with issues important to charismatics—Good News. And he urged charismatics and evangelicals to work together through Good News.
Dr. Thomas also expressed his concern that the charismatic renewal remain local.
“We can only renew The United Methodist Church from the ground up,” he warned.
Dr. William Wilson, professor of psychiatry at Duke Medical Center, also a Good News board member, echoed the concern Dr. Thomas had that the renewal remain unstructured and local.
However, it soon became obvious that a number of participants believed some organization was necessary. Rev. Larry Eisenberg, Marlow, Oklahoma, told the audience that he was ” … coming out of the woodwork when I get home.
“You may not organize, but I’m going to try something when I get back home. I’ve never joined Good News because I thought it was too controversial, but I see now that I’m here because of some of the battles they’ve fought,” he said.
Other participants expressed their views on both sides of the organization question at a microphone provided for questions. On the whole, they seemed to agree that an organization would weaken and perhaps kill the charismatic renewal, but they also gave voice to the painful isolation and loneliness they experience in their local churches.
“You guys travel all over and see this renewal happening, and you can be confident about it,” one man said. “But we don’t know what’s happening. I didn’t believe there were this many charismatic United Methodists in the world, let alone the U.S.”
“I agree that institutionalization will destroy the renewal,” one woman told the panel. “But it would be such a comfort just to know what was going on. I don’t know about any of you,” she said, turning to the crowd. “But I didn’t hear about this meeting through any Methodist publication.”
After the Thursday UM discussion, Revs. Whetstone, Tuttle, Tyson, Stamps, Thomas, and Dr. Wilson met with those who felt strongly that some sort of organization should be set up. They lunched together and worked out an interim solution that was revealed to the participants the following day.
Rev. Whetstone asked for six weeks in which to work out what he termed, “an idea we came up with yesterday.”
“I can’t tell you all the details, because we have to talk with some other people,” he told the participants, “but I’m asking you to trust us for six weeks. You can call me if you don’t hear anything in that time.”
He bravely gave his telephone number as well as his address. Most participants agreed to the six week grace period, and most took down Rev. Whetstone’s phone number.
by Steve | Sep 5, 1977 | Archive - 1977
Archive: Good News and Charismatics
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine
I should like to reflect publicly and personally about a very important matter. At the Conference on Charismatic Renewal of Christian Churches in Kansas City, Missouri (see page 41), and at this summer’s Good News Convocation in Anderson, Indiana, people asked: What is the relationship between Good News and the charismatic movement? DOES Good News encourage speaking in tongues?
Actually, these are not new questions. They were first asked back in 1972, following our third convocation in St. Louis. There, for the first time, we began to face the reality of the charismatic movement. We scheduled a workshop titled The Evangelical and the Charismatic Movement, “a frank and open discussion giving two different perspectives on the charismatic movement as it relates to the evangelical.” One speaker was a United Methodist who sometimes speaks in tongues privately; the other a United Methodist who does not. Each spoke and then they interacted graciously with each other and the audience. As a result, two distinct viewpoints were clearly presented. Perhaps more important, a demonstration was made that all evangelical United Methodist Christians are not identical twins in spiritual experience!
This workshop, plus a sprinkling of raised hands in the worship services at St. Louis (and sometimes since then) caused some to say, “Good News has gone charismatic.”
We have sought no identification except with the historic Biblical faith, so we felt it necessary to clarify the Good News position with an editorial, “Tongues-Speaking: Good or Bad?” Thousands of reprints have been distributed since it was published early in 1973.
What Good News believes concerning the Holy Spirit was stated more recently in the Junaluska Affirmation, adopted in 1975 as our summary of Biblical faith, in the Wesley-Otterbein tradition:
Scriptural Christianity affirms that the third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, was active from the beginning in creation, revelation, and redemption. It was through His anointing that prophets received the Word of God, priests became intermediaries between God and His people, and kings were given ruling authority. The Spirit’s presence and power, measured in the Old Testament, were found without measure in Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed. The Spirit convicts and woos the lost, gives new birth to the penitent, and abides in the believer, perfecting holiness, and empowering the Church to carry out Christ’s mission in the world. He came to indwell His Church at Pentecost, enabling believers to yield fruit, and endowing them with spiritual gifts according to His will. He bears witness to Christ and guides God’s people into His truth. He inspired the Holy Scriptures, God’s written Word, and continues to illuminate His people concerning His will and truth. His guidance is always in harmony with Christ and the truth as given in the Holy Scriptures.
Looking back over more than 10 years of Good News history, it may be helpful to further comment upon our position. When we say “charismatic,” we use the word on the basis of its root meaning: having to do with the various charisma (Greek for a gift of grace) which God, through the Holy Spirit, gives according to His will for the good of all (I Corinthians 12:4-11). We acknowledge any and all Scripturally specified gifts when these are received and exercised in harmony with the Bible’s plain teaching. And we urge every Christian to seek the fullness of all that God, through His Spirit, has to offer. Above all, we must seek after the gift of perfect love, that crown jewel of Christian character (John 15:12; I Corinthians 13).
Concerning the charismatic question, Good News has resisted pressures from two extremes. Some loyal supporters have urged us to acknowledge that speaking in tongues is the “pearl of great price” in Christian experience. We have not found this opinion justified by the full weight of Scripture. Other loyal supporters have urged us to condemn tongues-speaking, but we have not found clear Scriptural warrant for such an exclusion. Therefore, we have said that speaking in tongues can be a legitimate gift of the Spirit.
We have sought the fine balance found in God’s revealed Word. This has led us to find unacceptable the tendency of many liberals who find themselves uncomfortable with the supernatural and therefore minimize the vibrant dimensions of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we have disagreed with those who avoid or suppress the Holy Spirit because He often sets people on fire with zeal for Jesus Christ, the Bible, salvation of lost sinners, and much needed reform in the church. (One Good News leader has said that our church needs to become as comfortable with the spiritually alive as it is now with the spiritually dead.)
Our desire for Biblical balance leads us to avoid regarding Acts as the true heart of the New Testament. And, we have not wanted to emphasize disproportionally the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Giver, we believe, deserves more attention than the gifts.
The fulcrum of Biblical balance, is found in Jesus Christ. His coming to earth as the God-man. His teachings. His lifestyle. His atoning death for sinners on the cross of Calvary. His glorious resurrection from among the dead. His heavenly ministry now as our Intercessor with the Father. And, finally, His cosmic coming again at the close of this age. Jesus Christ, in all His majestic power—He is the full Gospel! Christ, as predicted in the Old Testament, documented and taught in the New Testament. He has been the cutting edge of real Christianity in every generation.
Where ought “the action ” spiritually to be? Not in education. Not in our feelings or personal experiences. Not in our particular church. Not in our philosophy, culture, or in social reform. We should not ignore them, but neither should we allow them to occupy the central place in our thinking, our witness, our programs, our giving of time and money.
The central place belongs, after all, to Jesus Christ only! When anything usurps His rightful place, that is, at best, a serious mistake; at worst it is heresy.
Good News desires Christian unity centered upon Jesus Christ as we meet Him through Scripture quickened by the Holy Spirit. No other common ground is possible or adequate for authentic Christian unity. If we are united in our understanding of who Jesus Christ is and what He has done for us, then we can abide in love despite occasional variances.
We don’t all have to worship the same way … but we must all adore Christ! We don’t have to agree on everything the church does or does not do … but we must gladly acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Church’s Supreme Head!
The proper ground of Christian unity is this: “I have been put to death with Christ on His cross, so that it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. This life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave His life for me.” (Galatians 2:10, Good News)
If tongues speaking or non-tongues-speaking should become the basis of fellowship (or of separation), then something else would be put in the central place that belongs only to Jesus Christ. God forbid!
The final word is best spoken by John Wesley. Once he said, “I desire a league offensive and defensive with every soldier of Christ.” That is where we stand concerning the charismatic movement. We are eager to work and worship with all who will unite in Jesus Christ, regardless of how we may differ in things not essential to our salvation.
by Steve | Sep 4, 1977 | Archive - 1977
Without the Bible to guide us in the Christian life and the church, we are like an airplane without a compass … a ship without a rudder. That is why it is vitally important to consider
Archive: The Authority of Scripture
by G. W. Bromily, M.A., Ph.D., D.Litt.
Rector, St. Thomas’ English Episcopal Church, Edinburg, Scotland
Condensed from the New Bible Dictionary
Published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Used by permission
The second of two articles
The first portion, dealing with Roman Catholicism, is omitted for reasons of space.
An unorthodox teaching is that that of liberal Protestantism. This is a modern movement in every sense, for, though there are historical parallels, its development has been largely during the post-Reformation period. It has provided a view of the Bible which, allowing for varieties of presentation, is still that of many Protestant theologians, ministers, and laymen. Rome weakens the authority of the Bible, not by denying its divine origin and unique position, but by adding to it other authorities which rob it of its power. Historical Liberalism knows nothing of these subtle methods of peaceful penetration. It attacks the Bible frontally, denying the absoluteness or divine nature of its authority, willing to grant it authority—a limited and relative authority—only on the human level.
A full analysis of this complex liberal movement, in which so many different forms of thought coalesced, is unfortunately quite impossible in this context. All that can be done is to outline the various thought forms and to indicate the points at which they come into conflict with the orthodox doctrine. Five main movements combined generally speaking, to produce this modern view of the Bible:
- Rationalism, which at its best as with the German Neology, sought to reduce revealed Christianity to the level of a religion of reason. And at its worst, as with Voltaire [it] sought to laugh Christianity out of court as contrary to reason.
- Empiricism, or Historicism which had as its main aim the stud; of Christianity and all its phenomena along the strict lines of historical observation.
- Poeticism, which, as with Herder and many of the early critics, approached the Bible as a primitive poetry book, in which religious truths-partly emotional, partly religious truths—partly emotional, partly rational—are set out in aesthetic forms.
- Emotional Pietism, the special and most important contribution of Schleiermacher, by which the doctrines of Christianity (including that of Holy Scripture) are reinterpreted in terms, not now of reason or history, or poetry, but of emotional religious experience.
- Philosophical Idealism, which, in its final form in Hegel, gave a new rational interpretation upon a different philosophical basis: a basis which has as its starting point the individual thinking ego.
It is not to be supposed, of course, that there are not opposing tendencies in these movements, or that all of them are necessarily present, or present in equal proportions, in every liberal theologian. But generally speaking-and making full allowance for the many points of divergence—these are the movements which together constitute the liberal and humanistic challenge to the orthodox doctrine of Bible authority.
In what does that challenge consist? It consists first in the rejection of a transcendent Deity and of supernatural acts of God. This means that the Bible has to be explained as reason, or history, or poetry, or religion, but not as the Word of God. The Bible is reduced to the level of a human book, outstanding perhaps of its kind, but not above all other books. The Bible has to be studied comparatively, with other books of religion, poetry, history, or rational truth. It is inspired, but only in the same way as all other books are inspired, i.e. by the God immanent in all things. It is liable to error, because it is human, and all things human are equally liable to error. Thus the Bible ceases to be studied as a divine message, a Word of salvation.
Instead it comes to be studied as a product of human spirit. In its investigation, questions of authorship, date, circumstances, style, and development of thought replace the first and fundamental question, the question as to the content of the revelation of the Creator—Lord and Saviour.
The challenge of liberal Humanism to the orthodox view of the Bible consists also in the comprehension of the Bible within a world-scheme of human progress, although this scheme is, in actual fact, quite contrary to the teaching of the Bible itself … According to this doctrine, the thought of the Bible, the history which it records and the culture which it represents, are all approached from the human standpoint and forced into the universal humanistic scheme.
At two points this has serious consequences. First, it means that the sequence of the Bible history, as the Bible gives it, has to be rejected, because unfortunately it does not fit the evolutionary interpretation. The facts have to be sifted from the so-called additions of religious fancy and worked up into a new scheme. Second, it means that the message of the Bible has similarly to be treated and amended in order that a neat progression of religious thought may be observed. Even if it is granted that in the teaching of Jesus Christ the highest point of all religious thinking is reached, this teaching is still part of the development of the religious instincts and faculties of the race. The Bible has no superior authority as such, only the authority of the highest human achievement in religion thus far. …
The challenge of liberal Humanism consists again in the individualistic subjectivism[1] which it opposes to the objectivism[2] of the orthodox doctrine of the Word of God. Outward authority is cast off and is replaced by the inward authority of the individual thought or experience. Reason here, emotion there, usurps the place of God. The thought or experience is valid and valuable, not because it accords with an external standard of divine truth, but because it is individual, a single manifestation of the divine spirit immanent in and working through all things. The thoughts and feelings of the great Biblical figures have of course the same validity and value, possibly even the highest value—but only as similar manifestations of the same spirit. This means not only that the basic authority of the Bible is rejected, not only that all religion is approached comparatively and judged relatively, but that every individual becomes a law unto himself in religious matters. God is dethroned, humanity reigns, and in practice humanity means little more than individual man, the thinking or feeling self.
Some specific instances of Old Testament and New Testament criticism might serve as illustrations. In the Old Testament the first and most persistent theme was that Moses could not have been the author of the Pentateuch[3] or the founder (under God) of the institutions and practices recorded therein. Instead, a theory of gradual literary and religious development was propounded which, instituted by Eichhorn, finally took shape in the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis of the later 19th century.
The heart of this view is that Old Testament religion comes by evolution from below rather than by revelation from above. The documents are analyzed, dissected, regrouped and redated (J, E, D, and P in the Pentateuch) to provide the historical sequence of evidence for this view. More recently the documentary hypothesis has had to be considerably modified, but it has been replaced by similar concepts.
In the New Testament field the triadic,[4] Hegelian concept of historical development, which regarded conflict as the mark of authenticity and harmony as the sign of a postapostolic age, produced the wild excesses of the Tubingen school, so that only a few Epistles remained to Paul. Strauss’s Life of Jesus, with its attempt to sift the genuinely biographical material from legendary accretions, brought a first wave of demythologizing.
Not unrelated was the Jesus-of-History school, which might lead on the one side to Harnack’s reduction of the Gospel to divine fatherhood and human brotherhood, and on the other side to Reitzenstein’s derivation of Paul’s Christology, not from revelation, but from Hellenistic[5] myth and mystery.
Sweitzer made an important contribution early in the 20th century with his appreciation of the eschatological[6] character of Jesus’ teaching, though he himself, regarding it as mistaken, substituted a not very Biblical mysticism, while others, such as Dodd, evaded the issue by putting all the emphasis on realized eschatology.
The impasse reached in synoptic source-criticism[7] combined with other factors to produce the form-critical theory that the Gospels are made up of oral traditions[8] which evolved in the church according to set patterns and on the basis of widely-varying authenticity.
An even more developed historical skepticism reappears in Bultmann’s demythologizing, which presupposes a mythological form for an essentially existential kerygma.[9] Linguistic statistics might seem to bring back a refreshing objectivity on questions of authorship. Unfortunately, however, the use of computers is no safeguard against controlling presuppositions, at least in the New Testament field. Nor can findings based on implicit rejection of Biblical authority be expected to prove anything about this authority either one way or the other. The ultimate problem lies, not in the data, but in the positive or negative response to the self-understanding which is in its way a primary datum.
This, then, is the liberal Protestant challenge to the authority of Holy Scripture. Apart from the detailed work which it necessitates in Biblical theology and religion, and in relation to the individual writings, it also raises fundamental issues on which careful thought, definition, and statement are demanded. The whole question of an absolute and authoritative revelation has to be considered, the question of that revelation in its relation to history, to Israel, to Jesus Christ, to the Bible itself as a literary product; the question of that revelation in its relation to the world religions, or to so-called natural religion. Again, there is the question of the inspiration of the Bible; the question of that inspiration in its relation to the ordinary poetic inspiration of which literature speaks; the question of special working of the Holy Spirit of God in its relation to the general working in those activities which can be considered as products of common grace.
These matters have been dealt with in the past, but the new challenge carries with it a call, not for the abandonment of the old doctrine, not for its amendment, but for a new, careful, and solidly-grounded statement of it. In one respect, too, it may be asked whether there is not something to be learned from liberal Protestantism even though its presuppositions are unhesitatingly rejected. … The Bible is first of all God’s book, as Jesus Christ is first of all Son of God; but it is a human book too, God’s book in the world, as Jesus is the Son of man, the Word made flesh. Naturally, no one who truly accepts the Bible’s authority as the Word of God will wish to study the historical setting at the expense of the revealed message. But may he not wish to investigate the historical setting as the means to a better understanding of that message?
Another unorthodox teaching, which has grown up in recent years, largely as a reaction against contemporary Humanism, is that associated with the theology of Karl Barth, or at any rate with the development which that theology has undergone at the hands of many of his looser disciples. It is not easy to make definite pronouncements with regard to this movement, for Barth himself in his definitive Church Dogmatics both disowns much of his dialectical stage and also differs plainly from what has commonly come to be called Neo-orthodoxy. Indeed, his discussion of the precise question of the authority of Scripture brings him very close to Biblical and Reformed teaching. Hence the wisest course will be to take a broad view of the Neo-orthodox movement and to discuss the tendencies within it which are obvious deviations from the orthodox doctrine of Holy Scripture.
These deviations fall into two distinct classes: the one relating to the form of Scriptural revelation, the Bible as a book; the other to the content of Scriptural revelation, the Bible as the Word of God.
As concerns the form, Neo-orthodoxy is at pains to emphasize that the Bible is, outwardly considered, one human book among others. This means that the principle of errancy is accepted. If some theologians, such as Barth, hesitate to list specific errors, others, such as Bultmann, regard the whole scientific and historical side of Scripture as unreliable. God is not the Author of Scripture in the sense that He bears responsibility for its detailed words and phrases or backs its information. The Bible is truth in so far as God works through it in self-revelation. It is not truth, however, in the sense that all its statements are true. If God works only through the Bible, as some among the Neo-orthodox allow, it is by the sovereign choice of God, not because there is anything different about the Bible itself. If God uses a fallible book as the agent of revealing grace, this is no contradiction; it is the putting of divine treasure in earthen vessels, the mystery of divine grace, which forces us, as Bultmann puts it, to believe even though we cannot see. Lawful mystery is thus replaced by sheer irrationality, for while it is no doubt a mystery that eternal truth is revealed in temporal events and presented in human words, it is sheer unreason to say that this truth is revealed in and through that which is erroneous.
The second deviation relates to the content of Scriptural revelation, the Bible as Word of God. The essential point of Neo-orthodoxy is that the Bible becomes God’s Word as the Holy Spirit illumines and applies it to the individual soul. Inspiration is thus identified with what the Reformers call illumination. The authority of the Bible is the authority, not of the abiding text, but of the living voice of Scripture in the here and now of a given situation. Revelation in or through the Bible is revelation as the act of God, God’s present revealing of Himself, not the given objective reality of what God has already said and done.
It is along these lines that Barth makes an important distinction between revelation or inspiration as an active present on the one side and revealedness or inspiredness as a past passive on the other side. The former is endorsed as the genuine Biblical and Reformed view, whereas the latter is rejected. It is interesting that Barth, as distinct from the majority of the Neo-orthodox, displays an awareness that the objective historical reality of the Bible’s testimony must be given its due and proper weight. Nevertheless, he does not withdraw the fundamental distinction.
Now within the limits that there can be no objective Word of God without also the application to individual souls, there is truth in this distinction. But beyond those limits it leads in a dangerous direction. Pressed too far it means that the Bible can be authoritative, not as an outward word, but only as the Bible in the individual ego, as an inward experience. Thus, even with insistence upon the fact that Christianity rests upon unique historical events, even with stress upon the transcendence of God, in the last analysis we may easily be left with a faith which depends upon a subjective experience, and with the substantial autonomy of the individual ego. It is only a step from the anthropocentricity [human-centeredness] of Schleiermacher to the existentialism of Bultmann which is the complement of his demythologizing.
The questions raised by this theology are, of course, the central questions of all thinking upon the authority of Holy Scripture. They bring us to the very heart of the problem. Neo-orthodoxy has at least performed a service by showing that the categories of a dead (as opposed to a living) orthodoxy simply will not do.
Ought we to think that the Bible is trustworthy merely because we can demonstrate its historical accuracy? Ought we to think it authoritative merely because we have come to know the truth of its message through the Holy Spirit, and irrespective of its historical reliability? Ought we not to seek the authority of the Bible in the balanced relationship of the history (the objective Word) and the preaching (the Word applied subjectively by the Holy Ghost)—the history as that which is preached, the preaching as the application of this history?
It may be suggested, in closing, that a true doctrine of history and revelation in the Bible will be formulated only when the problem is studied in the light of the similar problem of the incarnation.[10] Christ, the Word revealed, is both God and man, the eternal Son historically incarnate, two natures, one Person. Neither if one denies the deity nor if one ignores the humanity is the true Christ perceived and believed. The man Jesus, very man, is known, confessed, and obeyed as the Lord Christ, very God. As there is no incongruity in the Person, for He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, so there is no irrationality in the confession, for it is made in and by the Holy Spirit. This Man has the authority of the Lord.
Similarly Holy Scripture, the Word written, which bears witness to Christ, is both divine revelation and human record, the divine message historically written, of twofold origin, yet one book. To ignore either the divine or the human authorship is to miss the true reality of the Bible and the full profit of its teaching and direction.
The parallel must not be pressed too far. For Jesus Christ is Himself God, the Creator, Lord, Revealer, and Reconciler, whereas Holy Scripture, even though what is read therein may be read with full persuasion of its authenticity and truth, is still the creature and instrument of God. Nevertheless, the incarnational analogy, properly apprehended and developed as such, may well be the best guide to an understanding which is fully Biblical and orthodox and which safeguards the authority and integrity of Scripture both as message and also history.
[1] Individual subjectivism: the tendency to see everything only, or largely, in terms of one’s own experience, thoughts, and feelings, with little or no attention paid to truth that lies beyond one’s experience.
[2] Objectivism: emphasis on truth/reality which exists outside of one’s personal experience or perception.
[3] Pentateuch: first five books of the Old Testament.
[4] Triadic: a trinity of three closely related persons or entities. Here it refers to the Hegelian principles of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
[5] Hellenistic: relating to Greek history, culture, or art after Alexander the Great.
[6] Eschatological: concerning the final events in human history.
[7] Synoptic source-criticism: seeking to learn about the various literary sources supposedly comprising the synoptic, or first three, Gospels of the New Testament.
[8] Oral tradition: wisdom passed orally from one generation to the next. Some critics believe some Scriptures were written from oral traditions rather than by the authors identified in Scripture itself.
[9] Kerygma: the essence of the Gospel as preached in the early Church—Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture and has risen from the dead to reign in glory.
[10] Incarnation: the eternal Son of God coming to earth as a human being, fully human but at the same time fully God.
by Steve | Sep 2, 1977 | Archive - 1977
Archive: Confessions of a Methodist Minister
Reflecting on 47 years Confessions of a Methodist Minister
by Harry M. Savacool Binghamton, New York Retired, Wyoming Annual Conference
Confession is never easy. This is especially so when it is confession to failure for which there was no excuse. Only the conviction that my experience may help some pastor avoid the same failure (and aid laymen in selecting their pastor) has driven me to offer this confession.
I am retired from the ministry of the United Methodist Church after 47 years of service. I was brought up in the church. I was received into church membership at about 12 years of age, without any question about conversion or any evidence of it. No one steered me into the ministry. I felt that I had a Divine Call. I was granted a local preacher’s license while in high school and completed my education at one of the noted theological seminaries of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
When I was appointed to my first three-point circuit I was a thorough-going modernist. The churches there and in my next appointment of six and one-half years grew in attendance and membership. I got along well with the people. But during these nine years I grew more and more disillusioned with modernism. Not a single person had a real conversion experience under my pastorates. I talked to many people about “joining the church” but not about being born again (it was only a phrase to me).
Then I read Karl Barth’s, The Word of God and the Word of Man.” His utter demolition of modernism left me stunned. For a while I thought I was a Barthian, but I could not take his Calvinism. One thing was sure—I was no longer a modernist. I hardly knew what I was. I tried to be middle-of-the-road in theology and stressed religious education, social service and reform.
Through the influence of good friends I was promoted. Then at the beginning of World War II I was assigned to the Methodist Church in a county-seat town. After a few years a great industry moved in and built a huge plant. Everything boomed. My church grew from 500 to 1200 members, mainly by the way of transfers.
For a total of 27 years I served as pastor of that church, made up of splendid people who were very tolerant of my many shortcomings. I worked fairly hard at visiting my people, calling on prospects, and promoting the church as an ecclesiastical institution. For the last 10 years, I regarded myself as an evangelical conservative (but not fundamentalist). I made the complete surrender and had the Witness of the Spirit that I was saved. Still, I never did meet the requirements of receiving the Holy Spirit and naturally there were still no conversions.
Now, in retirement, I feel that I have failed in the one great thing in which every pastor should succeed—leading folks to Christ, and leading Christians to sanctification. Although disabled physically, I pray, write, and mail letters and tracts. Perhaps even yet God may grant me a little fruit in Christ.
Looking back I am convinced that the one great qualification for the pastorate should be conversion and at least a sincere and continuous seeking for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Every young person entering the ministry should be sure that he has these qualifications. If a church does not win souls it is not really a church.
by Steve | Sep 1, 1977 | Archive - 1977
Archive: Communion with Christ
a thoughtful look at the Lord’s Supper, one of the precious mysteries of our faith.
by Francis Wesley Warne, 1854-1932 Bishop, Methodist Episcopal Church (Condensed from his book The Lord’s Supper, © 1924)
The Lord’s Supper Instituted
“The Lord’s Supper ” was early chosen as a name for the memorial of Christ’s death because it was instituted while the Lord Himself ate His last supper with His disciples. The account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is found in three of the Gospels and in the report of Christ’s revelation to Paul; herein is found our Scriptural authority for its perpetual celebration in the Church.
That Christ had a vital interest in it is expressed in “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” (Luke 22:15) This yearning desire was because He was inaugurating according to His own idea a universal memorial of His everlasting love.
One of the elements in the strength of Mohammedanism is that from all Mohammedan lands large numbers visit Mecca, and return with the stories of the prophet and his life. Jesus knew there was, in human nature, this need of personal attachment. Therefore, in infinite wisdom He instituted a perpetual memorial of Himself that meets this deep-seated need of centering our affection on a Personality in a much more vital and faith-inspiring manner than a visit to Mecca. Jesus did this not only for a select few who can travel. But, without respect to races, for all His people, in all lands and throughout all time, He in infinite love instituted the Lord’s Supper. It is not, like baptism, to stand at the threshold of the Church and be administered only once, but is placed in the most holy place in His Church, that it might bring all individual believers of all ages and lands at regular intervals throughout the life of each into a loving, vital realization of “His precious death until His coming again.” The command for its observance is among His last commands: “This do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:20) Note that it is a command.
The four Scriptural accounts of the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of which Christ said, “This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood …” are Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; I Corinthians 11:23-26.
… The features in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that are common to all the four Scriptural accounts of its institution are: The taking and breaking of the bread; blessing it or giving thanks; the taking of the cup and giving thanks; and giving it to the disciples that all should partake of both the bread and the “fruit of the vine. ” In two of the accounts it is added, “And when they had sung a hymn they went out.”
The New Covenant Enriched
Let us search for Christ’s own conception and purpose in instituting the “New Covenant in my blood.”
The Old Covenant was a great covenant, given first to Abraham and solemnly enlarged and accepted by the Jews at the foot of Mount Sinai. One is impressed with God’s estimate of the Old Covenant by the fact that every enlargement and renewal was made a great national event (Exodus 24; Joshua 24; 2 Chronicles 15; 2 Kings 11). In each case there was a spectacular ceremonial and national display, and each time the nation covenanted to forsake other gods and to obey cheerfully the commands of the Lord.
Notwithstanding the great emphasis laid on it on all these great occasions, the Old Covenant was but preparatory to the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. … The Old was written on tables of stone, the New in the hearts of God’s people. It promises … forgiveness of sin, heart purity, lifelong companionship with Christ, and eternal life. The New Covenant is better than the Old in many ways, but particularly in that it has “a better priesthood “—Christ in heaven instead of Aaron in an earthly tabernacle. “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” (Hebrews 9:24)
It is well to recognize that both covenants were included in the first great covenant given to Abraham, which was, “In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 22: 18) The Old Covenant was first with a family-Abraham, then with a nation; but the New was given to all nations. Here, then, is the order of development: at first to one family, next to one nation, then the New for all nations.
At the time of the inauguration of the New Covenant … changes were made from the terrifying and spectacular—such as “thunderings and lightnings “—to that which is gentle, tender, and full of love. Circumcision was changed to a simple water baptism. Contrast the “devouring fire” on the top of Mount Sinai with the love and tenderness of the Upper Room, the Lord washing the disciples’ feet showing forth divine love and service.
Notwithstanding these changes from the spectacular to that which is gentle and simple, the taking of the New Covenant vows, in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, should be as impressive and binding as was the obligation taken in the inauguration of the Old Covenant.
Therefore at each celebration, the Lord’s Supper, to each individual, has the combined ideas of a memorial of the Christ, a Eucharist, the making and taking of a covenant with the Lord Himself, a spiritual communion with Christ, and the most blessed means of grace in the Church of our Lord Jesus. In this order let us now pass on to consider what Christ Himself purposed that the Lord’s Supper should mean to each communicant and at each communion. …
The Lord’s Supper: A Memorial
Jesus knew human nature well enough to know that man soon forgets. Even His chosen disciples, who witnessed the heartrending scene of His being nailed to the cross and His sacrificial sufferings on the cross, would soon, in part, forget His agonizing, atoning death. How much more the unnumbered millions, who, through the story, were to become His disciples from all lands in the coming centuries!
He, therefore, in infinite wisdom and all-penetrating love, instituted this memorial, in order that all His beloved people in all time might be brought face to face with His sacrificial death, as symbolized in the emblems of His broken body and spilt blood.
The Master’s infinite wisdom, divine tenderness, and His all-inclusive love are revealed in the fact that in choosing the elements for His own memorial, he rejected gold and granite, and everything chosen by the great of earth for their memorials. He chose only the common bread that must be renewed from day to day. In this choice we see the breaking of His body symbolized in the way the wheat is ground in every mill. He chose a symbol of suffering understood by all because bread is baked and eaten alike in every cottage and palace by the women and children of all nations, and throughout all ages.
This is the sacred, suggestive, universal memorial symbol chosen by the King of kings and the Lord of lords. It excludes neither prince nor peasant, bond nor free, wise nor unwise. It tells us that as all people need bread so all people need love; and our blessed Lord, to symbolize His all-inclusive love, chose in matchless wisdom that which is within the reach of all.
When, therefore, He says, ‘This is my body, given for you,” teaching that as we need bread for physical life we also need Christ’s love for our spiritual life, it can be understood by all. Such wisdom and love thus symbolized and remembered in the Lord’s Supper reveals the secret of Christ’s growing power through the centuries over an ever-increasing number of nations.
The command of Jesus, “This do in remembrance of me,” does not confine the communicant to remembering Christ’s sacrificial death only. “Remember me” includes all His pre-existence, His incarnation, the purity of His earthly life, His teachings and His miracles. …
We can remember His crucifixion, burial, resurrection, appearances, and teachings during the 40 days, His ascension, reigning in glory, and His promise, ” I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:3)
Each communicant can remember that Christianity is on a sound historical basis, with Jesus Christ as the great central Personality. He can remember Christ’s death was not a calamity; it was a triumph, a victory. Each one can remember for the strengthening of his faith that from the apostolic age down through the intervening centuries and by countless millions this commemoration has been kept by the various branches of the Christian Church. Since its institution, many generations have passed; nations have been born, flourished, and disappeared, but this ordinance continues.
What for? First, to commemorate the great historical fact of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and reigning in glory of the Founder of the Christian religion. Further, as Christ revealed to Paul that it was also to proclaim Christ’s death “till He come again.” Through this ordinance, midst passing centuries, dying nations, changing systems, there has been a steady showing forth by unnumbered millions, according to Christ’s own provision, of the great hope of the Church that Christ will come again and receive His people unto Himself.
Therefore, the Lord’s Supper, in addition to its spiritual comfort, gives intellectual food sufficient to satisfy the hungering of the mightiest intellect of the ages.
The Lord’s Supper: a Eucharist
“Eucharist ” means thanksgiving and praise. And thanksgiving and praise predominate in the primitive celebration of the Lord’s Supper to such an extent that early in church history it was called “The Eucharist.” “Eucharist” is a Greek word written into English. It is made of two Greek words, meaning, “full of rejoicing,” “overflowing with thanksgiving.”
Thanksgiving should always have a large place in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In this, Jesus Himself is our example, for it is written, “The Lord Jesus in the same night in which he was betrayed … gave thanks.” (I Corinthians 11:23)
Jesus, the chief Sufferer in the darkest hour of history, “gave thanks ” at the very hour in which He, the Innocent One, was betrayed into the hands of cruel murderers. Since our Lord gave thanks when He was preparing to die for us, with what thanksgiving should we commemorate that sacrificial death! I think that thanksgiving made His sufferings lighter.
In sharp contrast with such thanksgiving [is] the sin of ingratitude in God’s sight. … It was the absence of thanksgiving and the persistence in murmuring among the Children of Israel at the very time when God was feeding them with abundant bread rained down from heavenly bakeries, that caused God to say, “Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all … of you … from twenty years old and upward, … shall not come into the land, …save Caleb … and Joshua, ” (Numbers 14:29-30) and they “because they were men of another spirit. ” But your “little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. ” (Numbers 14:31) The 40 years of wanderings [in the wilderness] was a revelation of the wrath of God against the sin of ingratitude.
“The Lord Jesus in the same night in which he was betrayed” … gave thanks ”
The foregoing paragraph should be meditated upon by all those good people whose temperaments cause them habitually to so dwell upon their sorrows, burdens, and difficulties, and the dark side of life as to lose sight of the bright side.
One can hold a dirty pice (a small Indian coin) so close to one’s eye that it shuts out the starry heavens and all the marvelous glories of God’s infinite universe. So one can hold little passing troubles (how small they are when compared to the circumstances under which Christ gave thanks!) so close to his heart and keep them so constantly in his mind that all the rich and blessed eternal inheritance of being in covenant relationship with Jesus become as nothing. …
At this feast of praise it is the communicant’s privilege, on the one hand, to cease to carry and worry over his burdens, and on the other to see by faith the suffering Christ, infinite in power and love, with matchless purposes of grace, making “All things work together for good to them that love God.” (Romans 8:28) Here the heart bearing the heaviest burdens can and should break forth in hymns of praise. The Lord’s Supper is not a funeral; it is a feast. It is your Father’s table, and your Father is God. Let your every Communion service be to you a Eucharist.
And as an outcome let your whole life become Eucharistic” full of thanksgiving …. ”
What a transformation would come over Methodism should such a Eucharistic Spirit take permanent possession of all our people and our church should become strongest at the very points where it is now the weakest! Do not stop short of having the Eucharistic spirit permeate your whole life. It still is “A good thing to give thanks unto the Lord.” (Psalm 92:1)
The Lord’s Supper: A Covenant
The one and only definition of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper given by Jesus Himself is, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. …”
Why a New Covenant? The need of a New Covenant is found in the incompleteness of the Old. The Old Covenant was insufficient because it was conditioned on man’s obedience: “If you will obey my voice and keep my commandment, ye shall be unto me a holy nation;” (Exodus 19:5) or “Obey my voice and I will be your God.” (Jeremiah 7:23) Man failed in his part, and the covenant proved insufficient. So in God’s goodness, in “the fullness of time” Christ came to be “The Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)
In God’s making a covenant with man there are always two purposes. First, God’s covenant always contains a revelation of His purposes in definite promises of what He is willing to work in and for all those who are willing to enter into covenant relations with Him. Second, the covenant contains a security and guarantee that what God had promised will indeed be brought to pass. And so the purpose of the covenant was above all to give man a hold upon God as a covenant-keeping God; that is, to so link man to God as to make God the portion and strength of his soul.
One of the various striking contrasts between the Old and the New Covenants is God’s recognition of the cause of the failure of the Old and His undertaking in the New Covenant to perform not only His own part, but to so come into, cleanse, and strengthen the heart of man to perform his part of the New Covenant!
The model upon which Christ purposed that the New Covenant should work is the story of Pentecost (Acts 2). He had given His life unreservedly for three years to make His disciples. When about to leave them He said, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me. … ” (Acts 1:8) Peter had just failed ignobly. All the disciples had forsaken Him and fled (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50). He knew they could not in their own strength keep their part. Therefore He said, “Tarry … until ye be endued with power from on high.” (Luke 24:49) They tarried, and the matchless story of the Acts of the Apostles is, according to the New Covenant, God through His indwelling Spirit empowering man to perform man’s part of the New Covenant. Oh that the whole church would appreciate such a heaven-given endowed inheritance!
… In the Old [Covenant] God by miracles and wonders tried to show forth His love and to make the people trust and obey Him. That method failed. In the New Covenant the great contrast is that to prove His love, Christ died; Jesus shed His own blood, and said, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (John 12:32)
Christ on the cross is the core of the New Covenant; the core of the Old was Law. The New has at its very center the Peerless Personality of the crucified, risen, and reigning Christ, who through the revelations of everlasting love lives in the hearts of men. Christ’s covenant of love is to endure and grow, not for a year, century, or millennium, but forever.
When Pilate asked with a sneer, “Art thou a king then?” there were only 11 men and a few women prepared at all to call Jesus King, and they were not sure. Were Pilate to ask that question now, because of the love revealed on the cross, 500,000,000 would rise up and sing with a volume that would encircle the planet:
All Hail the power of Jesus name!
Let angels prostrate fall;
Bring forth the royal diadem,
And crown Him Lord of all.
Methodism maintains that there are but two covenants, because only in the Lord’s Supper and Baptism (which is administered only once) is a covenant made. We cannot go to the Communion as we go to hear a sermon or to a prayer meeting, for we, in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, take a sacred oath that we will keep our part of the covenant.
The origin of the word “sacrament” was in the sacred oath taken by a Roman when he became a soldier. Look at a free young Roman, doing in al I particulars as he pleases, but one day he takes the sacred oath which makes him a member of the army. From then on where he lives, what he eats, what he wears, even the disposal of his life, are directed by the army.
In taking the Communion we declare ourselves as soldiers, coworkers with Jesus Christ. Oh the glory of it!
by Steve | Jul 9, 1977 | Archive - 1977
Archive: You Ought to Know…
News of special importance, interpreted in the light of Scriptural Christianity
GOODBYE TO WORLD MISSIONS
Alan Walker, prominent United Methodist from Australia, has been named Director of the World Evangelism Committee for the World Methodist Council. In an interview published in the May 27, 1977 Texas Methodist/UM Reporter, Walker said:
… We must rediscover the power of conversion and then change the way we view “world mission.” The missionary era—that glamorous business of sending someone across the world—is over. Yet world mission is just being born, in the sense that our world is everywhere: in the next house, or on the next street. Nor can there any longer be “sending” countries and “receiving” countries. There are just all of us sharing what we have. …”
Thus a prominent church leader dispenses with the idea of world m1ss1ons outreach aria boldly declares invalid the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, which begins with these words: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” (Matthew 28:19a)! Such thinking, prevalent within the World Council of Churches, has greatly influenced our United Methodist world missions policy over the past decade—during which our world missionary force has declined to less than 650.
How strange for an “evangelist” to announce no more need for missionary outreach at a time when billions of people around the world have not heard the name of Jesus Christ and are therefore perishing! Many United Methodists believe that this is a time for every Christian community to be sending MORE missionaries out into the world.
HELP IN PLANNING FOR YOUR CHURCH
Ever feel like your church needs a better sense of direction? Ever think, “we ought to plan for the future?” The UM Board of Global Ministries has designed a kit to help. Materials include 68-page workbook, cassette tape, work sheets, wall charts, etc.
You begin by looking at what your church is doing now, and what it has done. Then needs of the community are examined, priorities, goals, and programs are set.
The kit does affirm the importance of Biblical goals and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However it is theologically neutral, so UM evangelicals will find it adaptable.
Cost is $20.00. Order from: Service Center, Board of Global Ministries, Attn.: Mrs. Robert Owens, 7820 Reading Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45237.
SOCIAL ACTION MAGAZINE DIES
Later this year, the UM Board of Church and Society will suspend publication of engage/social action. “The magazine was reported to have failed in a recent effort to raise its circulation substantially above the 6,000 level,” reported UM Communications. The magazine has been ecumenical, co-sponsored by UM Church, United Church of Christ, and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) social agencies.
22 UM SCHOOLS IN DEEP TROUBLE
Without daring to list specific names, a 15-member National Commission on UM Higher Education has announced that almost one-fourth of the 107 colleges and universities related to The UM Church are “in serious financial difficulty.”
It is not known whether the commission report made reference to the disappointment expressed by many United Methodists that church-related schools often lack evident Christian distinctives, both in doctrine and lifestyle.
Recently a professor at one UM-related colleges known to be in trouble, told Good News that in 11 years the college had not had one chaplain who stressed the importance of knowing Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
HOW RICH THOU ART!
Denominational boards and agencies have a large source of income which is not affected by fluctuations in giving from local churches. The following investments were accumulated mostly from gifts left by United Methodists in the past, wanting to perpetuate the work of the church. In an exclusive story, the Texas Methodist/UM Reporter for May 20, 1977 reported the following investments:
$520,000 – Board of Discipleship. ($50,000 unrestricted).
$410,000 – General Council on Ministries (unrestricted).
$995,000 – Board of Church and Society.
$1,860,000 – Church and Society Building Endowment Fund.
$1,145,000 – World Service Permanent Fund.
$3,625,000 – Board of Trustees Funds.
$25,000,000 – Board of Higher Education and Ministry.
$107,000,000 – Board of Global Ministries.
$500,000,000 – Board of Pensions.
“Earnings from investments are important parts of the operating budgets of most agencies,” said TM/UMR. “The Board of Church and Society, for example, depends on earnings for nearly half of its budget.”
These investments provide some UM agencies, especially Global Ministries and Church and Society, with leverage to use in protesting policies of companies in which the church holds investments. Such investments also provide bureaucrats with a hedge against accountability, for income from these sources is not affected by fluctuations in giving from local churches. Protected from protest with its secure investments, an agency can run roughshod over the feelings and wishes of annual conferences and local churches, without fearing a decline in giving resulting from abrasive advocacy of causes alien to the people.
NORTH DAKOTANS PROTEST ERA BOYCOTT
Speaking out against the pro ERA position taken by the United Methodist Women, some North Dakota United Methodists have petitioned their annual conference:
WHEREAS, The United Methodist Church adopted the theme: “Committed to Christ-Called to Change,” and
WHEREAS, The Church exists to make Christ known and bring Christ’s message of love and forgiveness, Justice and mercy to all people, and
WHEREAS, the 74 directors of the Women’s Division of The United Methodist Church did vote contrary to this at their semi-annual meeting in Atlantic City on April 22-25, to ban national meetings in states that have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, and urged the Board of Global Ministries to do the same, and
WHEREAS, The above directors did encourage their 1.2 million members of the United Methodist Women to avoid taking vacations in or making trips to states opposing ERA, further deciding to send word of this ban (boycott) to governors, mayors and state legislators in the offending states, (United Methodist Newscope, April 29, 1977) and
WHEREAS, a ban or boycott Is not a tool to be used by any church to force people to vote against their conscience, and WHEREAS. Some states have rescinded their prior ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as the dire consequences of the proposed amendment have become better understood, and many other states are considering rescinding, while some State Legislatures ratified by one vote under pressure from the White House, and
WHEREAS, This action is contrary to Methodist tradition and to the Gospel and will bring untold harm to The United Methodist Church, not only in the states involved but throughout the entire church,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the North Dakota Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church at Grand Forks, North Dakota, May 26-29, 1977, do protest this action of the 74 directors of the Women’s Division of The United Methodist Church to boycott all states who have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, and are using the name of The United Methodist Church to do so.
Both the UM Boards of Church and Society and Global Ministries now advocate boycotting those states which have not approved the Equal Rights Amendment.
GOOD NEWS MAGAZINE WINS FOUR AWARDS
There were 338 editors and writers and publishers at the 29th annual convention of the Evangelical Press Association. On award night, Good News received these citations:
- First Award of Merit, general category.
- Second place photo story, “With Christ in the Rockies.”
- Fourth place editorial, “Hiding in the Church.”
- Fifth place reporting, coverage of 1976 General Conference.
The competition involved a variety of evangelical publications from many groups and denominations.
NEED A NEW MINISTER?
A church in Utah suggests a novel way to get a new minister—use a chain letter! The dissatisfied church board should send a chain letter “to six other churches also tired of their ministers. Then bundle up your minister and send him (or her) to the church at the top of the list in the chain letter. Add the name of your church at the bottom of the letter. Within a week you will receive 16,435 ministers, and one of them should be a dandy.”
THE CULTS: COMING ON STRONG
“Churches throughout the western world are not prepared for facing the problems raised by a new wave of cults, ” said delegates at a recent conference held at the Belgian Bible Institute by Evangelical Alliance. “There are an estimated 3,000,000 Americans, mostly in their late teens, who are involved in up to 1,000 new religious cults such as the Divine Light Mission, the Children of God, Hare Krishna, or the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon.”
A reliable resource concerning cults is: Spiritual Counterfeits Project, P.O. Box 4308, Berkeley, CA 94704. Phone (415) 548-7947. An outgrowth of the “Jesus Revolution,” SCP is countering cults, using Christians converted out of them. Their newsletter for May 1977 contains a helpful listing of books that analyze Transcendental Meditation (TM) from a Biblical perspective. They especially recommend these three: TM Wants You by David Haddon & Vail Hamilton. Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976; The Case Against TM in the Public Schools by John E. Patton. Baker, 1976; The Transcendental Explosion by John Weldon and Zola Levitt. Harvest House, Irvine, CA.
