by Steve | May 1, 1981 | Archive - 1981
Archive: “Turn off the cartoons, Mom…here comes the Bible Bowl!”
Irrepressible evangelist Jack Gray has discovered a way to bring the Gospel into the hearts and minds of children.
by Jay Gaines, Carrollton, Texas
Nearly eleven years ago, evangelist Jack Gray was conducting a revival in a small town in East Texas. He was staying in the pastor’s home. One evening, the pastor’s 12-year-old son invited Jack up to his room to see his model airplane collection. Upon entering the room, Jack could not believe his eyes. There were airplanes everywhere: beautifully scaled models hanging from the ceiling, mounted to the walls, and resting on every available square inch of dresser and desk space. Jack was told, rather proudly, by the young man, “I have 119 of them.”
The pastor’s son then began to explain to Jack every bit of information imaginable about each of the 119 aircraft. He knew the year each plane had been introduced, who manufactured the aircraft, the horsepower, how fast and far each could fly, how many bombs each could carry, and how and where each was used in a combat situation. The boy was literally “a walking encyclopedia on airplanes.”
On impulse, Jack decided to test the young man’s knowledge in another area. Reaching into his pocket, Jack pulled out a crisp $1.00 bill and told the small aeronautical expert that if he could name the 12 disciples of Jesus, he could have the dollar bill as a reward. Amazingly, the boy could not name all 12. In fact, to Jack’ sorrow, the boy did not even know the Ten Commandments, Fruits of the Holy Spirit, Books of the Bible, the Beatitudes, or any of the basic Bible passages every Christian should know.
That evening at church, Jack again tried to give his dollar bill away and again he had no success—not one child could answer any of his questions. A few days later, a very disturbed Jack Gray left the small community, still puzzled over the inability of the small children to answer even the most basic of Bible questions.
As Jack traveled across the country in the following months conducting revivals, the amazement he had experienced in the small Texas town turned to deep concern as he came to realize that few children really knew much about the Bible. “In almost every church and community I visited, I found that the same condition existed—children did not know and love the Word of God.” Jack’s heart cried out over the dilemma, “Lord, what can I do? What can I do?”
He realized that there was one thing he could do and he began working with children wherever he preached. “The Lord taught me three things about children,” says Jack. “He taught me that children can learn anything if they are motivated. They love games that are exciting and fun, and they love competition.”
Based on these three premises, Jack began to develop into his crusades a daily routine of working solely with children in a specially designed, action-packed, competitive game dealing exclusively with the Bible. He called the new game Bible Bowl.
From the very beginning kids loved it and, as Jack observed, “Attendance of children at my revivals doubled, even tripled.” Jack began to develop materials for Bible Bowl and soon Bible Bowlers had such things as the Bible Bowl Memory Book (with rainbow memory cards containing Bible passages every Christian should know) and the Bible Bowl Quiz Book (with 36 Biblical categories). There were also membership cards, T-shirts, Bible Boy and Gospel Girl buttons, pins, and balloons, and there was “B.B. the Robot” (Beebee), a popular favorite among the kids. Bible Bowl became a very important part of Jack’s ministry.
Churches across the country began hearing about Bible Bowl and they began to use the program as a vehicle for teaching children in their congregations. Soon, there were Bible Bowl Vacation Church Schools, Bible Bowl Sunday Schools, Bible Bowl Seminars and, finally, a Bible Bowl Summer Camp where boys and girls spent five days in a Christian atmosphere.
The turning point in Bible Bowl’s growth occurred one day while Jack was in a Tulsa church. A man walked up to him and said, “Jack, I’ve never seen my grandkids get so excited about the Bible. This program needs to be on television.” He then handed Jack a check for $1,000.
Bible Bowl TV was born. On October 29, 1978, Bible Bowl went on the air in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Dallas, Texas. We have often heard Billy Graham say, “There are over 40,000,000 children in America who do not regularly attend Sunday school and church, but almost every one of those children have access to a television set.” Jack Gray says, “We are trying to reach these 40,000,000 children and excite them to want to learn the Bible.”
Exactly what is Bible Bowl? It is an exciting and colorful television and in-church ministry that is reaching children (and adults) all across the country. Bible Bowl teaches the Bible to these little ones while making the learning experience a fun-filled and excitement-packed educational event. It is 100 boys and girls, wearing T-shirts, buttons and badges, and armed with pompons, noisemakers and foghorns, erupting in a cacophony of cheers. Bible Bowl is highspeed, spontaneous excitement, fringed with suspense as two teams (boys vs. girls) compete for cash and points in an effort to win the grand prize—”The Glory Bowl” which is a nine-gallon banana split topped with sparklers.
The program, on television and in church, is divided into four quarters. Whistle-tooting, Bible-quizzing “Coach Jack” leads the youngsters through various segments of the game such as “Bleacher Battles,” “Giant Question Mark,” “Paddle Battles,” “Quiz Kids,” “Quote Votes,” “Tic-Tac-Toes,” “Bible Baseball,” and songs. It is the Gospel Girls and the Bible Boys using their knowledge of the Scripture in a competitive situation. Jack says, “We call it Bible Bowl because it is bigger than the Super Bowl—it deals with eternal life.”
Dr. Kenneth Carter, Pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Carrollton, Texas says, “The Bible Bowl ministry is the most exciting outreach ministry in America today … no one else is doing anything comparable.” Dr. Carter and his congregation believe so strongly in Bible Bowl that they recently donated $15,000 to the program.
Bob Stamps, Campus Chaplain at Oral Roberts University, suggests that Bible Bowl does more than just “turn kids on.” He says, “[Jack] shows adults what a man of God can do with kids to excite them about the Word, then he challenges the parents to be as excited and as creative in their working with kids. That, I think, is Bible Bowl’s strongest point.”
Jack would probably agree because when asked to justify Bible Bowl’s ministry, he points to the last verse of the Old Testament:
He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.
Jack goes on to say, “Our land is under a curse because the fathers are not turned to the children, therefore the children are not turned to the fathers. They’re not turned to the Father God. Fathers represent God in America or any other nation. So the fathers must turn to the children if the children are to get interested in God.”
It would appear that Bible Bowl is getting children and adults interested in God and His Word. To date, over 2,000 churches have displayed interest and enthusiasm for Bible Bowl. The program is now on CBN (Christian Broadcast Network), PTL (People That Love), and in Pittsburgh and Los Angeles every week. Many churches have not only conducted Bible Bowl for their own congregations but have also contributed substantially to the ministry. Churches from Reading, Massachusetts, to Billings, Montana, to Abilene, Texas, to Jennings, Louisiana, to Mobile, Alabama, now mail regular offerings to Bible Bowl.
“But,” according to Jack, “there just never seems to be enough money.” In 1980 alone, over $90,000 will be spent just to handle the mailing of free books to children who request them. Another $80,000 will be spent for the continuing operation of Bible Bowl, and plans now call for nearly $5,000,000 for the establishment of a permanent National Bible Bowl Headquarters, Camp, Children’s Ministry Center, and Nationwide Bible Bowl Contest.
Bible Bowl is produced by Jack Gray Ministries of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Jack is, of course, well-known not only for his evangelism crusades, but for having led the children’s programs at past Good News Convocations. (He will be leading the 1981 Convocation also.)
The need to reach children is obvious and Bible Bowl is meeting that need. If one should doubt the desperate need to reach the churched and un-churched children of this country, one would only have to sift through the hundreds of letters received at the offices of Jack Gray Ministries every week. One letter, in particular, seems to epitomize the urgent need for this outreach ministry. An eight-year-old in Mesquite, Texas wrote, “…I try to go to church, but my parents are asleep. They really sleep late. I just discovered your show and it’s fun to watch.”
Jack and his supporters know there are millions more just like the Mesquite child, and it is Bible Bowl’s goal to reach these millions. It is their prayer that soon, all across the land, children will be heard to say, “Turn off the cartoons, Mom. It’s time for Bible Bowl.” That time may be soon.
by Steve | Mar 2, 1981 | Archive - 1981
Archive: Confrontation at the Prayer Cave
Would Gideon-like faith and enthusiasm for Jesus lead the Indian Christians into a violent conflict with the Hindu idol worshipers?
by Ruth Seamands, Methodist missionary to India for 20 years
Peace exploded on a mission compound in India one memorable Sunday morning in March 1924. The missionary, Rev. E.A. Seamands (my father-in-law), was preparing for worship service when suddenly a young man from Mirzapur village pounded on the door and breathlessly cried, “Sir! A Hindu priest and his wife are in our Prayer Cave! They have buried their idol in the floor! They have written the name of the god Vitoba on the wall encircling the idol! What shall we do? They are trying to steal our holy place and make it a Vitoba temple! We are going to gather an army of our Christian students, attack the two in the cave and throw out the idol! They cannot have our Prayer Cave!”
Since their baptism in 1896, this cave had been a sacred meeting place for the Mirzapur Christians – the very first Christians in the area. As new generations came on, a great love for the Prayer Cave permeated the whole area. It became a historic show place – all visitors would be led to this holy spot to hear its story. The cave was cut back about twenty feet into a rocky red-laterite cliff above the village of Kanarese Mirzapur. In front of the cave was a natural stone platform where several thousands could gather for worship. It was under the supervision of the young Christians of Mirzapur village, a hundred yards away in the valley. In turn they visited the cave every morning, saw that it was always clean, whitewashed, and that a Bible and hymnbook were kept inside. Now their place was in jeopardy.
The missionary was greatly concerned at this news. But he cautioned, “Go slowly. You know it is a serious offense to ‘molest the deity’ of another’s religion. Come, worship here now, hold steady, and we will pray for God’s wisdom in this matter.”
But there was great turmoil on the compound all day. The young people were ready to fight—and die, if necessary—for their Lord. By the end of the day, their strategy had changed. They announced to Tata (an honorific term of respect) Seamands, “Sir, all of us young people, and all the school children are going to assemble right in the mouth of the cave and we are going to SING and PRAY until God runs the priest and his wife out! Then we will repossess our cave. God will give us victory!” They dashed off.
The missionary followed them, climbing the hill to the mouth of the cave. He heard the singing, clapping, and shouting of “Jaya Christ!” (victory to Christ!) long before he reached the place. He stood and marveled at the robust enthusiasm of several hundred children and young people crowding before the cave. The face of the cliff became a loud speaker, broadcasting the clangor far down into the Manjra River valley. Thrilled with their boldness, soon he, too, joined in singing Christian songs and shouting, “Jaya Christ!” Some older Christians were also there, their presence giving comfort and strength. For hours the victory songs echoed from the summit, assaulting the ears of the two in the cave.
Suddenly there was a commotion at the mouth of the cave. The Hindu priest and his wife peeked fearfully out the door, looking for a path through the Lord’s host of exuberant Christians. With great glee, the regiment stood back and made a path for the two. Down the hill to their village the couple sprinted, as if a hundred demons were chasing them.
The singers milled about—not sure what to do next. Suddenly, with a victorious cry, a Christian carpenter from Mirzapur appeared, cradling a crowbar! Within seconds, the dethroned idol, Vitoba, imbedded in a round, grinding-stone-like base, was hauled out the cave door. Again the battalion speedily parted, and god and grindstone rolled down the incline. Then with triumphant clamor, the “army of the Lord” romped down the hill past the helpless god and bivouacked in their village.
But Monday was another faith-testing day. Overnight the priest and his followers had rescued the impotent idol and had reinstated it in the cave floor, the priest beside it. The priest’s wife was absent that day, but there were enough of his henchmen gathered nearby to challenge the Christians.
Father Seamands knew he must stand with the young people – who were already gathering before he heard of it. As he left the house, he grabbed up his old-fashioned camera, thinking to get visible proof of whatever happened. As he approached the cave, the possibility of a big battle was clearly evident. The Lord’s army was again in command at the mouth of the cave, singing and shouting. The army of the god of stone stood nearby, muttering angrily. Just as the missionary arrived at the edge of the crowd, several boys entered the cave, brandishing the crowbar. The terrified priest plunged out to join his group.
Dad Seamands called to his boys, “Wait! I want to photograph the idol!”
Seconds later, poor old Vitoba was again kicked down the slope.
At this the priest’s hit-men started up, and Dad Seamands turned around to get their pictures. His old camera was a very large one—it took huge, postcard size pictures. As he aimed the camera at the guerrillas, they suddenly froze in the Indian sun. They had never seen a weapon like that! Thinking the big black box must be some kind of new artillery, they panicked and abandoned Vitoba.
Once again the valley rang with a victory celebration!
Later, the “idol group” filed a case in court against the Christians, suing to get “their” cave back. But everyone knew the cave first belonged to the Christians, so the judge threw the case out of court. The judge was a Muslim – and Muslims abhor idols.
So to the Christians in the Bidar area of the Methodist South India Conference, Easter is an extra-special day. It’s Resurrection, Thanksgiving, and a Hallelujah day—because the Prayer Cave is theirs!
Let the hills and the caves rejoice … JAYA CHRIST!
by Steve | Mar 1, 1981 | Archive - 1981
Archive: Son-Rise
An Easter morning experience
By Barbara Mary Johnson Chatsworth, CA
Bright red caught my eye through the gray morning haze. As I bicycled past the duck pond, the road turned due east, and in the space between mountain and foothill appeared a startling, pulsating wedge of red. What was it?
Quickly my mind reviewed the possibilities: a red van, a firetruck, a flying saucer. The fact that I was pedaling to the Easter Sunrise Service should have given me a clue. Yet I didn’t know—at least right away—that, yes, it was the sun. The sun was peeking over the horizon.
I laughed to myself as I coasted down the little slope in the road toward the dawn. The excitement of the glorious sunrise overcame the numbness of my cold fingers and any sleepy regrets about leaving my warm bed so early. “Christ is risen,” my heart sang as I inhaled the awakening breeze of daybreak. I wanted to shout to the world, “Christ is risen!” but there was no one around. I yearned for someone to answer, “He is, indeed.”
In earlier days Christians didn’t wish each other “Happy Easter.” Instead Christians greeted one another with, “Christ is risen,” and were answered, “He is, indeed.” What a meaningful custom, I thought, as I turned past a horse ranch and looked for people to greet. But there were none, even the horses were in their sheds. As my route passed a residential area, I saw a woman walking her dog. I wanted to shout to her the great truth of the day: “Christ is risen!” But she and her black Scotty turned into their driveway before I could reach them.
I came to a deserted intersection and waited at the traffic light as one car approached. The fogged-up windows made it hard to see the faces of the people inside. I pedaled to the rhythm of my Easter greeting: “Christ is risen. He is, indeed.”
The last few blocks of my ride were crowded with cars slowing down, turning and parking. Soon I was in the midst of fellow worshipers carrying lap robes and blankets to the outdoor service. “Christ· is risen,” I said to a man getting out of his car.
“What?” he answered.
As I locked my bike, I spoke to a child examining my helmet and rearview mirror, “Christ is risen.”
“Yeah,” he said and shyly turned away.
The usher gave me a bulletin. “Christ is risen,” I said. He nodded and replied, “Good morning.”
By now the sun was completely visible, not as startling as it had seemed earlier. But my mind kept repeating the Easter message as the service began. Following the printed program, the minister said, “Christ is risen.”
“He is, indeed,” was the satisfying answer from the worshipers.
Knowing that Christ is risen, I thought, is something like knowing that the sun will rise every day. We are no longer surprised by the resurrection, not any more than we are by the morning light. We know that Christ is risen. We’ve read it in the Bible, heard sermons and songs about it, and viewed the resurrection scene in all forms of art. We also know the sun will appear; the newspapers even tell us exactly what time each day. We don’t always have to be told about Christ’s resurrection. We know that Christ is risen.
But what a surprise when the reality hits us. “What is it?” we ask, just as I did when I was startled by the actuality of the rising sun. What is it? Christ’s resurrection catches us up in its mystery and wonder to make every day Easter.
Yet some people don’t understand our message and reply, “What?” Others misinterpret, like the usher who blandly answered, “Good morning.” The child who turned away wasn’t ready. Perhaps we all live in a deserted world resembling the quiet landscape I had pedaled through earlier in the morning. Maybe people turn off, literally and figuratively, before we can reach them, just as the woman did who was walking her dog. Sometimes we’re greeted with fogged-up eyes and minds, like car windows through which we cannot see.
This Easter sing it out: “He is risen!” He is, indeed!
by Steve | Jan 10, 1981 | Archive - 1981
Archive: The Influence of Two Persons
by James V. Heidinger II, Chairman Good News Board of Directors
By now, most of you reading this know of the announced resignation of Dr. Charles W. Keysor, the Founder of Good News, and our Editor and Executive Secretary. Dr. Keysor will be devoting himself full-time to teaching journalism at Asbury College, where he has been teaching part-time since September of 1972.
History can often be traced accurately by noting great ideas and/or movements—both of which are usually embodied in a person. It is my personal conviction that church historians will cite Good News as the most significant movement of this century within the United Methodist Church. To Charles and Marg Keysor, who have embodied this vision for renewal within the United Methodist Church, we give thanks to God. Some fourteen years ago, they launched Good News out of their parsonage in Elgin, Illinois. Chuck provided prophetic leadership as Founding Editor of the magazine and head of the movement while Marg gave faithful and untiring service in many behind-the-scenes tasks. To Chuck and Marg we owe a profound debt of gratitude.
What has impressed me as I have reflected on the leadership Chuck and Marg have given Good News is the magnitude of influence of two persons. There are literally thousands of you reading these pages who have remained within the United Methodist Church because of what Chuck and Marg Keysor have done. Hosts of discouraged and disillusioned United Methodists have found reason to hope for renewal and revival within United Methodism because of Good News. Countless hundreds of pastors across the church who have been intimidated by alien theological positions have found courage to open their mouths “boldly to proclaim the mystery of the Gospel.” Many of us have found help in better articulating our points of disagreement with the predominant liberalism of mainstream United Methodism. Good News has provided the needed “Forum” for an alternative voice in the denomination. As one board member reflected the day Chuck announced his resignation, “Just what would the United Methodist Church have been like these past 14 years without Good News?” The battle has not been won, but an alternative standard has been raised.
A small expression of the indebtedness and gratitude that so many of us feel was made tangible at the October board meeting when the Board of Directors voted unanimously to elect Chuck to a lifetime membership on the board.
The future ministry to which Chuck goes is one of awesome and exciting potential—that of training young committed Christians in journalism. Already, from Chuck’s part-time teaching, there are a number of effective, growing journalists making an impact for the Kingdom of God. A notable example is Gregg Lewis, now Editor of CAMPUS LIFE Magazine, out of Wheaton, Illinois.
So to one who has been and remains so many things to so many of us—prophet, theologian, visionary, counselor, historian, author, editor, and friend—we say, “Thank you, Chuck, for your faithfulness and obedience to the heavenly vision.”
by Steve | Jan 6, 1981 | Archive - 1981
Archive: A Response from Mr. Jessup
David Jessup sent the following reply to Bishop Roy Nichols in response to the special bulletin prepared by UM Communications containing Bishop Nichols’ statement and other criticism of the original Jessup document. We have printed this straightforward response word for word below, in hopes of bringing greater understanding to the issue.
I welcome Bishop Nichols’ call for a churchwide discussion of the theological premises that guide United Methodist support for political causes. Indeed, the Bishop seems to confirm my basic point when he acknowledges that the church “sometimes becomes involved with people whose blend of Marxist interpretation and Christian theology may be different from our own.” Unfortunately, that involvement goes well beyond intellectual inquiry and an exchange of views. In reviewing the theological rationale officially presented for such involvement, several questions come to mind:
- While the ministry of Christ must be a ministry to all people in all countries, does it follow that our ministry “transcends the question of whether the political system is totalitarian or democratic”? Doesn’t our tradition of supporting the freedom of believers to build their own communities of worship require us to oppose those who seek to repress religion or transform it into an instrument of the state, be that state facist or Communist?
- Because we are committed to the poor, does it follow that we must yield to those who, wrapping themselves in the robes of economic justice, seek to deny freedom of religion along with other basic human rights? And if we so yield, are we not acting like those false prophets who “attempted to justify evil and cover up inequity with religious ceremony.”?
- Hasn’t the fashionable illusion of Communist concern for the economic and social well-being of its subjects been dispelled by the remarkable testimony of the millions of refugees who continue to flee these supposedly benevolent states?
- Are we not forsaking our mission to the poor and the powerless when we fail to provide church resources to such efforts as a campaign to halt Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, a speaking tour for persecuted Cuban religious dissidents, or an international commission to investigate reports of Vietnamese-sponsored poison gas attacks in Laos, while instead giving money to groups that are uncritical of, or even sympathetic to, such regimes as these?
It is precisely my concern for the universality of our commitment to the oppressed that motivated my Preliminary Inquiry. Unfortunately, the official reply fails to demonstrate that my concern is unfounded. Instead it offers as “facts” a few generalized assertions that for the most part do not contradict my more detailed analysis of the actions and literature of each group receiving United Methodist funds.
For example, the Cuba Resource Center is said to “provide religious communication with an accurate description of the Cuban Revolution.” My paper analyzes the literature of the organization in order to show what the “communication” actually consists of:
Center coordinator Mary Lou Suhor praises the “new dignity” and “more human existence” of the Cuban people under Communism. She notes appreciation for the help of the Soviet Union, without which “Cuba could not have grown in domestic stability or international prestige. The island nation has been adopted as a symbol of revolutionary hope and courage by the third world, and has the long term support of a country [the USSR] which does not seek economic domination in the form of trade agreements.”
In 1973 the Cuba Resource Center charged that Church World Service was serving as “an instrument of U.S. foreign policy” because, among other things it “permitted and encouraged Cuban exiles to tell their side of the story in local churches, in the press, and so forth,” thereby creating a negative public view of the Cuban Revolution.
People who suspect that these extraordinary quotes are taken out of context need only read the literature of the Cuba Resource Center to discover for themselves the truly startling views contained therein.
It is far more important to build wider understanding of this subject among members of our church than it is to cut off a contribution to any particular organization or cause. For this reason I am requesting that Bishop Nichols send an updated version of my paper to the same people who have received the official reply. United Methodists can then compare the alternative interpretations and make up their own minds about whether the present pattern of political involvement is one they wish to continue. I would hope that those who take some satisfaction in “sometimes becoming involved with people whose blend of Marxist interpretation and Christian theology may be different from our own,” will permit Church resources to be used to bring about the constructive dialogue we all seek on the problems raised in my paper.
On the question of full disclosure, I am grateful for the official statement of policy that all agency expenditures and financial records are open to scrutiny and are available on request to any individual or congregation, particularly since that position was so vigorously opposed at the General Conference. Perhaps the five or six agencies that have never provided my local church with a detailed list of their financial contributions will now be willing to do so.
To those who argue that the proportion of church money going to political causes is insignificant, I would point out that the $442,000 represented the direct grants of only two of the agencies I contacted (the Women’s Division and the World Division), and that the potentially much greater amounts of in-kind contributions described in my paper, such as staff assistance to groups, as well as the costs of church-directed political programs, remain to be analyzed. A small proportion of a very large total still amounts to a significant sum of money, especially in the small but influential world of issue organizations. Besides, the moral question is whether any funds are warranted: would we justify a grant to the Ku Klux Klan on the grounds that the grant is small?
With the exception of grants to organizations that deny the legitimacy of the state of Israel, I have not disputed the lengthy arguments in the official reply purporting to show that the other grants in question meet the broad policy guidelines which are supposed to govern church contributions. What this suggests, however, is not that the organizations under discussion deserve our support, but that our guidelines and policy resolutions may be flawed, or too vague to be useful. If the debate over the grants helps generate a real debate over these policy resolutions and the world view they imply, my preliminary inquiry will have succeeded beyond all expectations.
In pursuing this debate, we all should heed the call to avoid extremist tactics. Such tactics include innuendoes that those of us seeking to reorient church political involvement are “right-wing extremists,” “McCarthyites,” or people without compassion or a vision of the future. For too long the fear of being labeled a “reactionary” has intimidated many church liberals and moderates who have been troubled by what they have seen. It is time to reassert that the idea of freedom is a core value of both the liberal and conservative traditions in our society; its compelling vision continues to inspire people the world over; its preservation and its growth are essential to the struggle for economic justice, racial equality, and to the elevation of spiritual life embodied in Christ’s mission.
by Steve | Jan 5, 1981 | Archive - 1981
Archive: Touching a Tender Nerve
by Charles W. Keysor, Editor, Good News Magazine
In the Sept/Oct 1980 issue (p. 26-39), we reported on the effort of Mr. David Jessup, a UM layman, to question grants of money made by our denomination to various political groups. Some interesting things have happened as a result of the so-called “Jessup Report.”
- Newscope, the denomination’s official newsletter, devoted over four pages of its Sept. 19, 1980, issue to listing Jessup’s “charges,” together with responses from denominational officials and / or spokespersons for some of the organizations named by Mr. Jessup. Newscope also published follow-up stories on Oct. 10, 1980, and Oct. 24, 1980.
- The influential Texas Methodist/ UM Reporter published articles in its issues of Sept. 26, 1980, and Oct. 31, 1980.
- Council of Bishops’ President Roy Nichols, Rye, NY, issued an official statement.
- The Associated Press syndicated nationwide a short news story.
- UM Communications prepared and mailed a six-page “white paper” to all UM clergy. (A copy may be obtained from your pastor, or by writing UM Communications, 601 W. Riverview Avenue, Dayton, OH 45406.)
- The Reader’s Digest is reported to be working on an article.
Why all the fuss?
Obviously, Mr. Jessup has touched a tender ecclesiastical nerve. He has brought to the surface some surprising specifics. These tend to confirm a widening suspicion: that some of the money put into local church’s and UM Women’s offering plates is being given to various groups whose purposes are political, with a strong tilt toward the Left. (See also “Our Washington Connection,” Good News July/Aug. 1978, p. 41.)
The Jessup allegations take on further significance in light of the 1980 General Conference twice refusing to forbid the spending of UM money for Marxist/totalitarian causes. (See Good News, May/June 1980, p. I-45 – I-46.)
High denominational officials have reacted with surprising defensiveness to Mr. Jessup’s report. The “white paper” has been sent at church expense to all ordained UM clergy. Meanwhile, thoughtful United Methodists need to look carefully at the official response to Mr. Jessup.
1. There is no denial that the money was given to organizations named by Mr. Jessup. Thus, the basic accuracy of his most important claim has not been challenged.
2. The grants named by Mr. Jessup are defended as harmonizing with policies set or affirmed by General Conference. This justification seems largely correct. It points to the great and growing gap between opposite understandings of the nature and mission of the church. Those who don’t accept the “white paper’s” reasoning are inferenced as being disloyal, blind to world realities, and dangerous extremists of the Frankensteinian New Right.
Many UMs believe there is an authority even higher than General Conference and the UM Discipline. It is the fully-reliable Word of God. Many such United Methodists insist that this higher authority does not justify giving large amounts of church money to political pressure groups, either of the Left or the Right.
Then how did those holding one political viewpoint (the Left) gain control of the denomination’s political process, including even General Conference? How have they imposed their view upon the whole church? By means of superior political skill and long-term effort. They have gained privileged positions within the church bureaucracy and thus they control the UM “system,” using it adroitly to promulgate their particular understanding of Christianity, to the virtual exclusion of other understandings.
A case in point is the resolutions adopted by General Conference. (You can find them in the 1980 Book of Resolutions, available from the UM Publishing House.) Most of these resolutions are subject to many different interpretations. Church bureaucrats make their own interpretation, then use their power to freeze these as THE policy of our church. They claim they are simply implementing the expressed will of General Conference, and imply that anyone who disagrees is disloyal to the church.
In light of this longstanding practice, General Conference should stop passing so many vague resolutions. Why continue providing our bureaucratic elite with carte blanche to manipulate the church?
But among Christians, might does not necessarily make right. Within an admittedly pluralistic church, the sheer possession of political power does not necessarily justify its use to spend church money for purposes alien to the faith and feelings of many church members. Christian charity, let alone common sense, argue against making these political grants because: 1) there is no clear, explicit mandate in Scripture to require this and 2) such grants are divisive in the extreme, making more difficult unity and harmony within the Body of Christ.
The “white paper” conveys the impression that the official viewpoint is the only correct one. To disagree with our boards and agencies, the paper strongly suggests, is to conform to the world, to turn away from the hard demands of the Gospel (as they interpret it).
Here is the all-important point. Does the official rationale for making political grants of church money square with the self-evident truths of Scripture, particularly the New Testament record? If so, they are right. If not, they, not their challengers, have neglected to declare the “whole Gospel.”
3. The basic theological assumptions used to justify those political grants dangerously distort the Gospel. Rather than drawing a theology out of what Scripture plainly says, the “white paper” imposes its own prior agenda. Scripture is interpreted questionably to support the political grants. This, of course, is the familiar distortion of “liberation theology” in its various manifestations. (See Good News for March/ April 1980, p. 18-30.)
A typical example appears on the opening page of the UM Communications document: “… the prophets (and Jesus) did not hesitate to confront the rich and powerful with the demands of social justice. …” This seems to be the underlying premise by which political funding is officially justified.
Some hard questions must be asked at this point. Exactly where in the New Testament do we see Jesus doing or advocating this? Does it happen often enough and clearly enough to justify this as first priority for followers of Jesus Christ?
It is up to those who accept the suppositions of the UMC “white paper” to prove their theory from the Gospel record of Jesus’ words and deeds. Where, exactly, does Jesus teach that His Church should expend its energy, its time, and its money correcting the ills of society by political activism?
Both Jesus and the Old Testament prophets regard fairness and justice as evidences that God’s will is being lived out in the world. People who “act justly,” “love mercy,” and “walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8) are the ones who have correctly heard and heeded God’s true message. And they have authentic faith, which leads them to conform their lives to the requirements of a holy and just God. Thus social justice, as the Bible sees it, is a symptom and consequence of authentic faith, not an end in itself. Scripture’s overall balance will not allow social justice—or any other single aspect of the Gospel—to become the predominate, single Christian emphasis. To do this is to confuse the part with the whole.
Let it be emphatically said and understood that social justice is an indispensable part of the Gospel. I am only arguing against the current tendency to give social justice disproportionate importance for Christians and the church.
Why has our church, at official levels especially, swallowed the lopsided view that Christianity consists primarily of political activism? In part, it is a reaction to the failure of many evangelicals, past and present, to adequately appreciate and emphasize the social justice dimension of the Gospel. As a corrective, the Social Gospel movement arose in the latter 1800s. It has floated on a deepening tide of liberalism and humanism for most of this present century. And now we are plagued by the so-called “liberation theology,” which carries the earlier forms of un-Biblical emphasis to their logical conclusion: total secularization. Self-evident Biblical values and priorities are ignored or remolded selectively to constitute religious justification for naked political activity. People who think this way regard giving church money to political advocacy groups as natural as water running downhill. If you accept this basic assumption, then the UM Communications “white paper,” of course, makes sense.
On the other hand, however, if you reject this assumption, as do many United Methodists, then the granting of church money to political groups is NOT acceptable.
4. The grants named by Mr. Jessup are considered a trivial amount. The UM Communications “white paper” says on page 5, “… The amount expended for the alleged ‘Marxist’ organizations is .0036 of the total—about one-third of one percent. … ”
The inference is that a mere $442,000 is really nothing to be upset about! Few local churches would think in these terms. It reminds me of the attitude of a famous US Senator who, when asked about heavy government spending, remarked, “Well, a billion here and a billion there pretty soon adds up to big money.”
Imagine what your church might do with even a small portion of that $442,000. What if it could be invested for Christ in ways designated by your Administrative Board?
5. Church leaders circulated only their rebuttal. They did not provide UM pastors an opportunity to see also Mr. Jessup’s document. If the matter was important enough to merit sending a special message to all pastors, it would seem only fair to have included the Jessup Report itself, or perhaps the summary that appeared in Good News. At least pastors should have been informed where they could obtain a copy of Mr. Jessup’s complete document.
Can anyone intelligently evaluate what Mr. Jessup is saying without seeing his paper? Mailing out only the rebuttal leaves the impression that church leaders don’t really trust pastors to think for themselves.
6. It is strongly claimed that denominational financial procedures are in the open.
Mr. Jessup has not claimed otherwise. His concern, rather, is with the kind of organizations that have received church money.
Bishop Nichols, in his defense of the church agencies, says, ” … at every point there is full accountability …. ” (p. 6). The bishop is encouraging us to trust the UM system. If anyone should experience less than “full accountability” the thing to do is inform Bishop Nichols (United Methodist Center, 210 Boston Post Road Rye, NY 10580). He will want to know if his confidence has been misplaced.
7. The “white paper” attempts to smear those who disagree. Pages 2 and 5 suggest that any who doubt the wisdom of these grants are McCarthyistic reactionaries … out of touch with the modern world … dangerously conformed to capitalistic western culture … and wanting to turn the clock back to simpler, happier days of yore.
Here is a clear revelation of arrogant elitism. Our boards and agencies tend to view themselves as “the cutting edge,” while the rest of us are regarded as reactionaries. We are intelligent enough to write checks. But otherwise, our backward attitudes seriously impede the progress of the Great Society which is, for the secularist, a substitute for the City of God.
8. A subtle but important qualification made by Bishop Nichols has been largely ignored. Stating the need for Christians to “… risk association with those labeled ‘sinners’…,” he makes the very important point that the church should do this “… in order to convince and convert...” (emphasis added).
This, of course, is what Jesus did. He associated freely with sinners to convince them of their need to repent and to convert them to the Kingdom of God. Such convincing and converting is the real reason for the Church to exist.
However, the question must be asked: Are the political grants reported by Mr. Jessup given with the purpose of “convincing and converting” to a Christian point of view? Or, is the purpose of these gifts to strengthen these groups and support them in what they are doing?
Few would object to any grants given by the church if the real purpose was “to convince and convert” people to saving faith in Jesus Christ. But honesty compels the observation that this likelihood is remote. Judge for yourself. How much salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ is evident in the official publications: engage/social action (Church & Society); New World Outlook (Global Ministries) or response (UM Women)? I hope you will obtain and study a copy of the UM Church “white paper.”
I hope you will also obtain and study a copy of the Jessup Report. Compare these carefully. Then take your Bible. See whether it sustains the idea that church money should be given to secular political groups and causes of the kind identified by Mr. Jessup and admitted by the official church.
