by Steve | Jul 8, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Charles Keysor Leaves UM Church
By James V. Heidinger II, Editor, Good News Magazine
Dr. Charles W. Keysor, founding editor of Good News magazine, transferred his ordination June 1 to the Evangelical Covenant Church of America. Dr. Keysor was formerly an elder in the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. He indicated in an interview with the United Methodist Reporter that his decision had been reached after a gradual process.
Rev. Mike Walker, Chairman of the Good News Board of Directors, said, “Evangelicals in the UM Church are very grateful for the courageous initiatives and prophetic churchmanship of Charles Keysor in his 15 years with the Good News movement.
“We trust that in the future,” he continued, “the denomination will be more appreciative of and open to evangelicals, so the exodus from the UM church will stop.”
Good News leaders stressed their continued commitment to renewal within the UM Church. Rev. Walker stated, “Those of us who remain in the church continue to work to see Dr. Keysor’s original dream for a renewed church come to reality.” Dr. James V. Heidinger, II, Editor /Executive Secretary of Good News, commented, “We are deeply indebted to Dr. Keysor for his courageous leadership, though we remain firmly committed to working for renewal within the United Methodist Church.”
Dr. Keysor resigned as Executive Secretary of Good News in January, 1981.
by Steve | Jul 7, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Bishop Wheatley Stirs Contention
by James Robb
A Western Jurisdiction investigative committee meeting in Los Angeles May 20-21 cleared Bishop Melvin Wheatley on charges that he had spread false doctrine. But the committee’s action only added fuel to the raging controversy that began last year when the bishop reappointed a self-avowed, practicing homosexual to a United Methodist Church.
The investigative committee was called when charges were received against Bishop Wheatley by three small churches in Georgia, pastored by Rev. Dr. David Hendrix. The churches accused the bishop of disseminating doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of the church with his statement, “… I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin.”
Bishop Wheatley made that statement in a November 20, 1981 letter to all the ministers in his Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, explaining why he had appointed Rev. Julian Rush to a Denver church. Almost immediately, the letter was circulated throughout the denomination. Charges were filed by the Georgia churches, which stated that Wheatley’s letter had undermined “the authority of Holy Scripture.” Tyler Street United Methodist Church in Dallas soon filed an identical set of charges.
A group of United Methodist laymen in Boulder, Colorado, also filed charges against the bishop, accusing him of gross misconduct and maladministration in his handling of last year’s appointment of Julian Rush after Rush had revealed himself as homosexual.
The investigative committee acted as a church grand jury, deciding whether the charges against the bishop merited a full church trial. The seven-member committee said in its final report that it found no “reasonable grounds” for accusing the bishop. While admitting that there are “Biblical statements condemning homosexual activity” the investigative committee countered, “It is debatable what perspective on homosexuality and homosexual activity emerges when Biblical witness as a whole is brought into interaction with tradition, experience and reason.”
By taking the position that clear passages of Scripture can be overruled by the supposed overall message of the Bible, together with tradition, reason, and experience, the committee echoed the argument of the bishop himself. Bishop Wheatley denied that his actions had undermined Scripture. On the contrary, he said, “I may have well precipitated more Bible study than all bishops combined.” He said what he was talking about is doing “more Bible study,” implying that a more intense study of Scripture would support his case.
The Rev. Donald Sanders, the bishop’s counselor, had his own idea about the root cause of the charges: “The real issue is not Bishop Wheatley’s conduct but homophobia. It has permeated the air,” he stated. “Is there a doctrine of sin in the United Methodist Church today? Yes. Denying people the right to be fully human is probably the best definition of sin in the church today.”
The committee hearing lasted over six hours, followed by eight hours of deliberations. At the end, committee chairperson Rev. William Ritchey said he hoped the committee’s report would “lead to talks about the issue [of homosexuality and ordaining homosexuals].” He said he hoped an atmosphere would now exist where “we as a church can get our heads together on this.”
The conclusions of the committee were not totally surprising. Two members of the investigative committee, Rev. James Lawson and Rev. Barbara Troxell, were already on record as opposing the statement in the Discipline that homosexuality is not a Christian lifestyle. At the 1980 General Conference in Indianapolis, both of them had signed a minority report asking that the statement in the Social Principles be removed that reads, “We do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Good News quickly expressed its disappointment with the results of the hearing. Dr. James V. Heidinger, II, Editor/Executive Secretary of Good News, said that the 1980 General Conference had clearly intended to rule out homosexuality as a valid Christian lifestyle. “Our church’s inability to affirm that intent, in recent months,” he stated, “has caused the denomination the loss of both pastors and laypersons. This is tragic and unnecessary.” He noted that other mainline Protestant churches have spoken clearly on the issue of homosexuality in recent years, and United Methodists are “disillusioned and embarrassed that their church is unable to be clear.”
Good News Board Chairman Rev. Mike Walker said, “It appears that our doctrinal indifferentism is leading us to moral indifferentism.”
During the hearing Bishop Wheatley related that one of his family members is homosexual. In a news release to the media, Good News suggested that this fact might seriously impair his objectivity on the issue. The news release also stated, “the lingering questions from this hearing only reinforce the need for specific prohibitive legislation to be brought before our 1984 General Conference concerning the ordination and appointment of practicing homosexuals.”
Meanwhile the committee’s findings were being challenged, beginning at Bishop Wheatley’s home base, the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, meeting the second week in June in Denver. Several resolutions barring the ordination of practicing homosexuals were presented. But all were either tabled or referred to committee for study. The young man whose appointment last year started the controversy, Julian Rush, had decided to go to school this year, preventing any challenge to his appointment. But not all measures proposed by conference members holding orthodox views on ordination were deflected. One minister gained the floor and asked Bishop Wheatley to rule on an abstract question: whether a probationary member of the annual conference who is a self-avowed, practicing homosexual could, in his opinion, be ordained an elder. When the bishop answered in the affirmative, the minister immediately asked for a vote to refer the bishop’s ruling to the Judicial Council, to test the ruling’s legality. More than the necessary 20 percent of the conference members voted for the referral, which indicated discomfort with Bishop Wheatley’s pro-ordination stance right in his own conference.
But although the minority position on the question of homosexuality had triumphed for the moment in the Western Jurisdiction, elsewhere around the church the views of the majority were being clearly voiced.
A number of annual conferences, meeting in the first weeks of June, passed strong resolutions in support of the church’s present stand against the practice of homosexuality. Several conferences passed resolutions calling for stronger language in the Discipline on the issue.
The Kentucky Annual Conference passed nearly unanimously what is probably the first petition to the 1984 General Conference. The petition asked the General Conference to add a paragraph to each section of the Discipline which discusses moral qualifications of persons eligible for ordination, stating that no self-avowed homosexual “shall be eligible for candidacy, ordination, appointment, or reappointment by a Bishop or Superintendent in the United Methodist Church.”
The Missouri West Annual Conference overrode a committee in adopting a resolution which asks that the 1984 General Conference alter the Discipline to bar “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” from the ministry.
Two Pennsylvania conferences acted. The Central Pennsylvania Annual Conference formally asked the Council of Bishops to rule on whether Bishop Wheatley, in ordaining a homosexual, was acting on his own or whether he speaks for the whole council. The conference affirmed that homosexuality is an expression of original sin found in humanity.
The Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference passed a resolution stating, “the annual conference instructs [the bodies charged with approving candidates for ordination] … to not knowingly approve the candidacy, except for conference membership, or ordain a practicing homosexual.”
The Northwest Texas Annual Conference, after listening to an episcopal address by Bishop Louis Schowengerdt in which he said, “It is wrong to ordain a homosexual or appoint a homosexual as a pastor of a local United Methodist Church,” passed a resolution affirming the present language in the Social Principles. The resolution stated that the language is clear and ought to be obeyed. The conference also passed a resolution calling on all general agencies not to rent office space to homosexual groups.
The South Georgia Annual Conference stated in a resolution that homosexuals “have no place in the spiritual leadership ” of the church. The resolution affirmed the rights of annual conferences, but only within the context of the Discipline. The conference said the issue of homosexuality must be dealt with uniformly.
Bishop Joel McDavid of the Atlanta Area, writing in his conference newspaper, said, “It is clear that the church would disapprove the ordination of any known homosexual.” The bishop stated, “It matters not what any United Methodist minister or lay person, church leader or follower may say or claim, the position of the church is clear.”
The East Ohio Annual Conference passed a resolution strongly affirming the present Social Principles, and passed another one opposing the candidacy and ordination of practicing homosexuals and recommending the termination of present pastors who are practicing homosexuals.
One annual conference, Northern New Jersey, passed a resolution supportive of Bishop Wheatley’s position. It asked the 1984 General Conference to delete the sentence from the Social Principles which states, “… though we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. ”
But every one of the other seven annual conferences that took action did so clearly in opposition to Bishop Wheatley’s unorthodox stance on homosexuality.
So now many thoughtful United Methodists are asking with a hopeful voice: After a struggle lasting more than a decade, is the writing finally on the wall concerning the ordination of practicing homosexuals into the United Methodist ministry?
by Steve | Jul 5, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Remaining United Methodist
By James V. Heidinger II, Editor, Good News
Each week word comes of persons who have decided to leave the United Methodist Church. There’s no use not talking about it. It’s happening too frequently across the church.
Sadly, many who leave have been lifetime (United) Methodists. They have served, given, prayed, attended, struggled, endured, become discouraged, and finally given up. With heavy hearts they leave the church their parents and grandparents attended in order to seek a fellowship more compatible with their understanding of the Christian faith.
With full awareness of the various controversies and conditions we face within the church, we would still encourage United Methodists to reject the urge to leave.
Ultimately, of course, that decision must be made by each person individually, in the context of his/her own personal struggle. (See Epps’ story.) We are also aware that the United Methodist Church may not be for everyone. But we are convinced there are compelling reasons for United Methodist evangelicals to remain and labor faithfully in their church.
First, though we acknowledge serious problems in our denomination, we must also recognize, in fairness, that in thousands of United Methodist churches, persons are finding Christ as Lord and Savior, are being grounded in His Word, and nourished in Christian fellowship. We fail to see the picture adequately unless we acknowledge that at altars of prayer, in counseling rooms, church school classes, Bible study groups, and in the pews, thousands of United Methodists are hearing the Word and responding to it in faith. Lest we be unfair in our analysis, we must admit that numerous United Methodist churches are doing many things right. As evangelicals within the denomination we have a responsibility to help strengthen, establish, and preserve the fruit of such ministries. When evangelicals leave, they weaken the Body in its nurturing function.
Second, to pastors the responsibility has been given to “Tend the flock of God that is your charge …” (I Peter 5:2). They are charged with the task of overseeing the flock, to be shepherds willing to lay down their lives for the flock. But when evangelical pastors, grounded in the Word of God, leave the denomination, it diminishes the general spiritual well-being of 9½ million United Methodists. In addition, upon leaving, many find a new set of problems in their new church and discover that all communions of Christ’s Church have their struggles and disagreements. (See the Borchers’ story.)
The Wesleyan contribution
Third, the Wesleyan branch of Protestant theology has made a major contribution to Christendom. United Methodists are the largest group in a world Methodist community of over 50 million members. And it is the evangelicals within United Methodism who are excited about Christian doctrine and committed to the Wesleyan theological tradition. (See Bennett’s story.) The great Wesleyan distinctives of prevenient grace, original sin, justification by faith, assurance, sanctification, and perfect love must not be relegated to the theological archives. We can be sure that today’s liberals will not maintain our rich Wesleyan tradition. Only the evangelicals will do that.
Fourth, the United Methodist Church remains a strategic opportunity for the proclamation of the Gospel and the renewal of the nation. Through a vast connectional system, this church reaches into villages, towns, and cities the length and breadth of the land. There are more local United Methodist churches today than there are post offices in America! We have a chance to be God’ s vessel for spiritual and evangelical renewal all across the nation. If we think this is not possible, let us remember that “… with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
Contending for the faith
Fifth, we must be willing to contend for the faith. Jude wrote: “Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We must “contend” for the faith without becoming contentious in spirit. In spite of being misunderstood or misrepresented, it is imperative that in our contending, we exhibit the love of God and the very fragrance of Christ. If we don’t, we find ourselves in the contradictory posture of contending for the Gospel which brings holiness of heart and life, but doing so in an unholy manner.
The early church soon and continually encountered doctrinal controversy. Paul confronted Peter when he compromised with the Judaizers. Paul did not just affirm that they had diversity. Rather, Paul “withstood” or “opposed” Peter “to his face” (Galatians 2:11). Peter, who walked with Christ, was literally rebuked by Paul, the apostle born out of season. Why? Because Paul knew that a vital theological principle was at stake. He would accept no deviation from the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith. To do so would have destroyed the Gospel. What significant “contending” that was on behalf of the integrity of the Gospel!
Many pastors and lay persons have talked with me about how much they dislike controversy. I share those feelings. I would much rather focus on reconciliation. But I am alarmed that many choose to avoid controversy totally. To follow that course may mean never standing firmly and publicly for anything.
The major temptation for United Methodist clergy may be just that–to become so amiable that they stand firmly for nothing. To assume such a posture means one has settled down and become comfortable with some things that should arouse anger and opposition. The One who called us into ministry said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). I t was the Prince of Peace who said our peace might be disturbed because of the Gospel.
United Methodist clergy would do well to remember periodically that we were asked when ordained if we would “… give faithful diligence duly to minister the doctrine of Christ, the Sacraments, and the discipline of the Church, and in the Spirit of Christ to defend the Church against all doctrine contrary to God’s Word?” We answered, “I will do so, by the help of the Lord.” Not to defend against contrary doctrine is an abdication of our responsibility as ordained ministers. Our charge is to “contend,” not leave.
Enabling bold leadership
Finally, by remaining and bearing faithful witness, United Methodist evangelicals will encourage other leaders to be bold in their stand. A United Methodist bishop once re marked, “Some bishops a re really evangelical, but to be very honest, we don’t want to risk the scorn of some fellow bishops who identify conservatism as not being intellectually respectable.” The spector of intimidation among evangelicals in the church is a sad reality. Many are silenced or compromised by such intimidation. Laity know of it too, so let none of us underestimate the power of intimidation. To feel the scorn of one’s colleagues can bring fear to even the strongest.
An encouraging sign is that an increasing number of laity, clergy, and church leaders are voicing their convictions. The re-emergence of the homosexual issue has brought numerous petitions and resolutions to annual conferences this spring. New voices have been raised and will continue until the 1984 General Conference.
At this writing, several United Methodist bishops have spoken to this issue forcefully. Bishop Joel D. McDavid wrote in the Georgia Wesleyan Advocate, “From the above (references from Discipline), it is clear that the United Methodist Church respects the rights of all people, but does not approve homosexuality as an acceptable Christian lifestyle. It matters not what any United Methodist minister or layperson, church leader or follower may say or claim, the position of the church is clear. This official action has been taken at three successive General Conferences and thus should clear our thinking and aid us in knowledge of the stand of the church on this question. … It is clear that the church would disapprove the ordination of any known homosexual. This, too, is without question in its meaning” (June 2, 1982, p.2).
Another indication of this trend comes from the 1982 Kentucky Annual Conference. At that session, a petition dealing with the homosexuality issue was presented by David A. Seamands. It was unanimously passed by the Committee on Resolutions, adopted by the Board of Church and Society of the conference, and passed almost unanimously by the annual conference. It resolved that: ”The Kentucky Conference petition the 1984 General Conference to amend the Discipline by adding to all those sections which pertain to the moral qualifications and character of those persons eligible for the ordained ministry, the following paragraph: ‘No person who is a self-avowed practicing homosexual shall be eligible for candidacy, ordination, appointment, or reappointment by a Bishop or Superintendent in the United Methodist Church. ‘ ”
By remaining in the church and continuing to bear faithful witness, United Methodist evangelicals will give encouragement and support to United Methodist leaders to speak their mind boldly as they ought.
Renewal within the United Methodist Church will continue as the Holy Spirit helps us restore church discipline and accountability within the community of believers. He will enable us to confront one another in love. Bonhoeffer’s words from Life Together have never been more timely: “Where defection from God’s Word in doctrine of life imperile the family fellowship and with it the whole congregation, the word of admonition and rebuke must be ventured.”
Good News has been and remains committed to working for renewal within the United Methodist Church. We believe there are compelling reasons for such a commitment. We urge United Methodists to remain within the church, working and praying fervently for the Lord to do in and through us that which He wills.
by Steve | Jul 4, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: A Former Homosexual Testifies to the Gospel of the Grace of God
By Jeff Painter, Musical Evangelist, Fairmont , West Virginia
My name is Jeff. I am in full-time ministry as a Christian pianist and evangelist. This is done with the approval and recommendation of the Evangelism Committee of the Western Pennsylvania Conference of the UM Church.
But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24, NAS).
I accepted Christ as my Savior in the eleventh grade. But, as many of you know, that doesn’t automatically take care of all the troublesome areas of one’s life.
When I was a piano major at West Virginia University, I had a singing group that ministered in churches on weekends. The group sang and testified to the power and love of God.
However, my week days were anything but a testimony to God’s love and power. At best they were a testimony of serving two masters: love of God and the love of being gratified in the form of homosexuality.
To be honest with you, I don’t know how I ended up the way I did, and I don’t believe anyone else knows either. Even then I knew that I couldn’t equate the purity and holiness of Christ with the gay life in which I was floundering. There was always a lustful undertone, no matter how lovely the experience was meant to be.
Quite frankly, it got to the place where I didn’t want to live anymore. I had never heard a preacher talk of how the Lord could either heal or deliver you successfully from such a lifestyle. I didn’t feel I could turn to my college friends, and I didn’t want to have to confront my parents without some ray of hope. So finally I cried out in prayer, “Father, Help! If You can’t help, then I guess I’ll just have to be through with this life.”
To make a long story short, I just happened to see Oral Roberts on television, and I decided to write him for help. I received a letter back within a few weeks saying that he had prayed for me and that God would begin to answer my prayer in three days. I laughed and threw the letter away.
Three days later I was in a Christian broadcasting station in Morgantown, West Virginia, waiting to provide music for a television program when I overheard a conversation between two ladies. One was telling the other of a former minister, Don Fitzwater, who had shared his testimony the week before. He’s married, has two kids, and had come out of a homosexual lifestyle. I got Don’s address from one of the ladies. That was exactly three days from when I had received Oral Roberts’ letter.
I went for counseling at the Jesus Outreach Christian Center in Fairmont, West Virginia.[1] There I met Don and a woman counselor, Joyce, and that was the beginning of the Lord’s healing in my life. That day I claimed the Scripture of Revelation 12:11 for myself: “And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death.” For a year it was quite a battle for me to claim that whole Scripture because my reputation was probably more important to me than Christ.
But praise God—when I began sharing and living that Scripture in all its fullness, God started to work in a fabulous way. I’ve been out of the gay life now for five years. My testimony is a public testimony. It’s even mentioned on the back of my first record album. Since coming out of the homosexual lifestyle, I’ve had the blessed privilege of helping teen-agers and young adults do the same. That is one of the major ministries of the Jesus Outreach Church of Living Waters.
From a personal standpoint, I had come to accept with equal joy whether I was to remain single or be married. Being in the center of His will was more important. Last November, 1981, on Friday the 13th, I was married to Lisa Kay. I praise God for a wonderful wife. The Lord has done sufficient healing in my life. This does not mean there is never any temptation, but it does mean that the Lord has given me the capacity to love and care for a woman for the first time in my life.
I hope you see that the reason I have such a deep joy in my life is not because of the healing He has done in my life; it’s not the people to whom I’m privileged to minister in concerts and individually; it doesn’t even come from the satisfaction of making theological statements to support what I believe and know to be true; but it’s because of the intimacy and loveliness of my relationship to Father God.
Like St. Paul, I heard my Father in Heaven say, “Jeff, My grace is sufficient for you. ” I praise God that the uncontrollable area of my life became a vehicle through which I was compelled to let God be my strength, my desire, and my sufficiency. Though it’s been five years since my last homosexual encounter, the greatest healing that has taken place in my life is the relationship to my Heavenly Father. That relationship is being healed to such an extent that my Father God has allowed the fruit of that relationship to overflow in healing family relationships. My family is now being challenged to a deeper reliance on Jesus Christ in their daily lives. God is also using me to reach out in concerts to minister, to be an instrument in the healing of relationships of many other families. Once I thought the only thing that God wanted was to heal me from my old lifestyle! I was really self-centered!
My Heavenly Father spoke to me, “Jeff, are you willing to be My living sacrifice and not some cause’s living sacrifice? Are you willing to believe you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you? Even if I allowed you to be blind in one area of your life, are you willing to believe that I would never forsake you or leave you, that in the fullness of My time I would be glorified by your complete healing? Are you willing to follow Me even if I decide not to deliver you out of the fiery furnace of temptation like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Will you get to the point where you will not bow your knee to anyone except Me, no matter what? If by faith you will, I promise that I’ll walk with you and there will never be a fire that will be able to consume you. ” Hallelujah!
In my opinion, if gay ministers ever came to the point of saying, “Father, take this consuming fire of temptation out of my life … but if You don’t, let it be known that Your relationship to me and my fellowship with You is so sacred and precious I will never bow the knee to other gods such as lust, self–centeredness, or man’s theology,” whatever success they’ve had as a minister of God will be multiplied at least five times. And, in the fulness of His time, they would be healed. (I say this because God has done both in my life, and He is no respector of persons.)
I would have made a terrible mistake if I had succeeded in working out a suitable theology which would have allowed me to practice homosexuality while proclaiming Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If this would have happened I would have died spiritually instead of being spiritually deepened. My family would have been destroyed instead of being healed. My music and words would never have been effective in reaching out as God’s vehicle of healing to other families and individuals. God’s anointing could never be on my music if I were not playing with clean hands and my words were not spoken from a pure heart.
We need to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and freedom for those who are downtrodden.
Since homosexuals have the third highest suicide rate in the country, they need desperately to know the love and forgiveness that comes when they meet the Savior Jesus Christ. They also desperately need a church which is willing to show through words and lifestyles (individual and collective), compassion, hope, and resurrection power how to be an overcomer in Christ.
We, the Church, are to be the voice of God to a world of confusion, grey areas, indecision, doubts, and hopelessness. No church should vote to ordain practicing homosexuals. To do so would deny the sovereignty of God’s Word. It would also create more confusion, grey areas, and doubts in that person’s individual life and in the church.
Jesus Christ is pure love. Anything in my life that doesn’t come from His pure love ends up in confusion anyway. My indecision and my doubts began to be erased when He answered my prayer of desperation exactly as the letter I received said He would—in three days!
He showed me in Jeremiah 29, that He has a plan of welfare for me—not calamity—to give me a future and a hope, if I am willing to see Jesus Christ and Him crucified in my life. I believe God’s Word that He is faithful to finish what He has started. If He didn’t and couldn’t, I wouldn’t be alive today. I’m free in Jesus. “It’s no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me ” (Galatians 2:20).
[1] Now called Jesus Outreach Church of Living Waters, 704 Country Club Rd., Fairmont, WV 26554. If anyone wants counsel or guidance, please contact Jeff Painter and this ministry. Jeff is also available for music evangelism and/or seminars on counseling the homosexual.
by Steve | Jul 3, 1982 | Archive - 1982
We talk about worship, but why do we worship and how?
Archive: In Quest of Worthwhile Worship
by Ben Patterson, Reprinted from The Wittenburg Door[1]
The Word of God has fallen on bad times. That statement is hardly news to anyone who, over the last decade, has cared about the subject. Nor should it be particularly surprising to those who, although not consciously occupied with it, have found themselves yawning through Sunday service after Sunday service, sensing something was wrong but hard pressed to say just what.
In most Protestant churches, the quality of preaching provides the most convenient scapegoat. One critic has described the church as a group of conventional people gathering each week to be addressed by a conventional little man who seeks to persuade them to be more conventional. That may be true, but I no longer believe that analysis is sufficient to explain why Christian worship has deteriorated.
A better clue to what has gone wrong with worship can be found, ironically, in the volume of materials that have come forth in the last decade to revitalize worship. In the vast majority of these, the effort has been directed toward making worship more contemporary and spontaneous, more focused on the experience of the worshiper. And the effect has been that of putting a cardiac patient on a high cholesterol, high salt diet. What caused the sickness in the first place is being prescribed as a cure. Tragically, at every point where Christian worship has ceased to be Biblical, we have offered non-biblical solutions.
But let me back up a bit and ask the question: what do we do when we worship God? Answer: we do essentially the same thing I did when I watched on television … a replay of the University of Southern California’s great 1974 victory over Notre Dame.
“But,” you protest, ”you knew everything that was going to happen!”
That is precisely the point. watch that game over and over again because I know what will happen. You do the same thing whenever you again tune in to your favorite television program. The outcome is never in doubt on Columbo or the Waltons. What you watch is the dramatization, in story form, of certain values about life and its meanings, its problems, and solutions. These programs are what some social analysts call ritual dramas. They reaffirm what we believe by telling a story.
Christian worship is ritual drama. The story of God’s mighty saving acts in Jesus Christ is once again retold in one way or another; our values and beliefs are held up and we respond by offering our thanks, our praise, and our obedience.
This scenario can be seen spectacularly reproduced in capsule form when John reports to us his vision of the heavenly worship in Revelation 5. The Lamb of God stands upon the throne of God surrounded by the 24 elders and “myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands” of angels. The apostle tells us he hears them singing a new song:
Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for Thou wast slain and by the blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth (Revelation 5:9,10).
Then everyone shouts praise with a loud voice:
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing! To Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever! (Revelation 5:12,13).
It’s all there: the story of what He has done, is doing, and will do; His atoning death and resurrection, His creation of the Church and His promised final victory over sin and death. It’s drama and praise, a story and accompanying thanksgiving.
And notice one fundamental reality of this heavenly worship. Who is putting on the drama? The Lamb or the congregation of elders and angels?
It is not the lamb, but rather the congregation. And this is the point that must be hammered home if we are to recover the meaning and vitality of Christian worship. Soren Kierkegaard saw it clearly when he said that on earth, as in heaven, God is the spectator, the audience, so to speak, and we are the performers, the players, the actors. Those who lead in worship are the prompters or directors. Together with the congregation, they retell the story, proclaim the message and offer their thanks, their praise, and their obedience.
Three great implications flow out of this text and this understanding of worship. The first has to do with the historical nature of worship.
God is a God of history. He is the one “who was and is and is to come” (Revelation 4:8). For this reason, truly Biblical worship must be an act of remembrance. Anamnesis is the Greek word translated “remembrance” in the New Testament text concerning the lord’s Supper. It means much more than a memorial, a jogging of the memory. It means to re-tell and re-present the story, to look back in present tense and give past realities present existence.
One of the great conceits of this generation is that it has little or no regard for history. The “now generation” sees the past as hopelessly archaic and as obsolete as it sees its elderly. The religious version of this attitude is the notion that God did nothing between the end of the first century and 1978.
So-called worship renewal efforts regularly capitulate to this aspect of the Zeitgeist[2] by ignoring the need to sensitize Christians to the fact that our God of history was alive and active in 417, 1143, and 1841 as well as now. To be Biblical, Christian worship must never tear itself from the great hymns and confessions of all the times and places of the church. To see worship renewal so overwhelmingly in terms of contemporaneity is to give it more of what made it sick.
The second implication has to do with preparation. If indeed we are the performers in worship, then we should come to worship prepared.
Imagine your chagrin if you paid $20.00 to hear Vladimir Horowitz play a piano concerto, and you arrived at the concert hall only to have him show up late and apologizing that he had not practiced much that week due to other pressures in his schedule, and expressing the hope that perhaps the relaxed spontaneity of an unrehearsed concert would be enjoyable to you.
How much more should Christ, who ransomed us with His blood, expect us not only to show up on time for our performance, but to have thought through carefully what we are going to do together? Again, so much current literature on the renewal of worship betrays a captivity to the myth of spontaneity, another article of faith for our generation. The myth is that if we could just dismantle structure, conventions, and traditions, we would be free, spontaneous, direct, and truly ourselves.
I must confess that, for me, this myth has great appeal. But it runs contrary to everything else we know in human experience. Ask the great achievers of history—the Platos, the Bachs, the Albert Einsteins—if their achievements had anything to do with spontaneity. They will answer that hard work, discipline, and self-denial had everything to do with it; spontaneity very little.
Not much that is worthwhile and substantial proceeds from mere spontaneity. Anyone who has thrilled to watch Nadia Comaneci perform on the parallel bars and the balance beam must admit this. The freedom and apparent spontaneity of her movement is the result of endless hours of austere discipline, both physical and emotional. Should it be any less so for the worship of God?
The technical word for the ceremonies and rituals that take place in the worship of a gathered religious community is “cult.” It comes from the Latin colo, which means to cultivate. What a rich image! The cultivation of soil and plants is to an exquisite Japanese garden what a quality cult is to a healthy Christian life. In both, hard work and much thought and discipline are the key, not mere spontaneity. …
The third implication has to do with the focus of worship. Christ stands at the center, not the congregation. The language of worship renewal belies the fact that it has missed this fundamental truth, too often referring to what happens on Sunday morning as a “worship experience.” The experience referred to is not how Christ has experienced our praise and thanksgiving, but how we, the so-called worshipers, have.
The question every Christian worshiper should ask on the way out to the parking lot each Sunday morning is not, “What did I get out of it?” but, “How did I do? ” We are the performers; God is the audience. Revelation 5:10 tells us that Christ has made us “priests to our God.” Priests perform tasks. Worship is a task.
But again, much of worship renewal has bowed to the spirit of the age and allowed itself to get trapped into a consumer approach to worship. The narcissism of our times has left its stamp on the church and many Christians come to worship drastically out of focus. There to “get religion” rather than to give adoration. But God is not there for our enjoyment, but for our obedience. Enjoyment comes later.
Solidly Christian worship will never come from a people who have the expectations of a consumer oriented, narcissistic, amorphously spontaneous “now generation.” The answer of our dead worship is not to try to worship God in the ways that have killed His worship. Rather, we must seek renewed minds as to why it is we worship, and what it is we do when we worship in the first place. Repentance and a renewed mind are what we need, not capitulation and a bastardized faith.
[1] used with permission from the April/May 1978 issue of the Wittenburg Door, San Diego, California. Ben Patterson was at that time a contributing editor of the publication.
[2] Spirit of the age in which we live.
by Steve | Jul 2, 1982 | Archive - 1982
Archive: Why I Stay within the UM Church
by Marti Bennett, Homemaker and UM Layperson Durham, North Carolina
As I considered joining the million or so Methodists who have exited before me, I began visiting (early service!) another denomination. This other denomination does not pulpit-pound hell-fire and damnation, but it does proclaim with profound certainty and dignity that there is sin, that I am afflicted with it, that I cannot avoid repentance by denying sin’s existence, that I am accountable—and whether or not I like it is entirely beside the point. Always balancing this proclamation is the equally profound and clear reassurance of a Redeemer who is worthy of the name.
In short, I have come face to face with a proclamation—without apology—of Law and Gospel. This seemed wistfully reminiscent. I re-read Romans and then I re-read John Wesley and then Albert Outler. To my amazement—I am a Methodist! However, I do have a problem: the United Methodist Church is not Methodist!
It seems John Wesley had a few ideas on sin himself. In fact, he went so far as to say that sin is the fundamental point which “differences Heathenism from Christianity” and that if you denied it “you were but a Heathen still.” Wesley went on to say that it was absurd to “offer a Physician to them that are whole—or at least imagine themselves to be … you are first to convince them that they are sick.”
Amazing to me that the Methodist clergy have not picked up on that! It seems to me we are getting more and more of the gospel that is no-gospel as stated by Richard Niebuhr: “A God without wrath who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” Can’t be done. But we seem to have a bunch of people trying!
Also, Outler is saying that the UM Church has moved so far to the “I’m O.K., You’re O.K. syndrome,” that we are dangerously close to, or have already embraced, the Pelagian heresy.[1] There seems to be more concern about this among the laity than among the clergy.
I have tried to figure out why this should be and then concluded that the liberal minister has a lot going for him. He does not rock the proverbial boat. The minister himself is in a tight political bind. (The layman is no fool—he understands that the minister knows a steady boat looks best on the records.) The liberal minister also tries to keep us comfortable. So we hear: “There is no real sin to worry about.” Or at least if there is, we’ll get it all out of the way in the Prayer of Confession. “There is no hell—so don’t worry about it.” We are all O.K., just different opinions. We do not have to take the Law seriously and can thereby avoid any radical change or commitment in our lives. We can be made whole by self-acceptance and self-realization through meaningful encounters and peak experiences. If we run into any trouble, be assured there are workshops and self-help kits available, complete with sub-numbers and sub-letters “ad nauseam. “It is all O.K. as long as we are comfortable,” says the liberal minister.
That is nice, but it just doesn’t work. As Outler says, there is just enough truth in that to make it a formidable lie.
It does not work because I am not O.K.; many of my friends are not O.K.; The United Methodist Church, in my opinion, is not O.K.! It is like trying to cure pneumonia with talcum powder. We are comforted for a while, but then the fever will win out. If we continue to insist on comfort and talc, then we die. We need radical treatment, unpleasant though it may be. For us to be truly O.K., the sinner must be called upon to repent. It is at this point, and only at this point, that the Gospel can work with its freedom and joy and vitality and assurance! It can’t and won’t work the other way around. Oh well–I have to be honest–I believe that Wesley did say that it just might work “one time out of a thousand—maybe.”
We have tension all right: between the liberals and the fundamentalists, between Good News and Methodist Federation for Social Action, and between the Biblicists and the form critics. However, the tension is in the wrong place. There must always be tension to effect change. If I recall my theology correctly, the tension should come between the Law and the Gospel. This is next to impossible these days since Law is being preached in very few places. No wonder anxiety exists. We are denying the fact that we are desperately ill and then wonder why we don’t get well. The church is trying to make us feel better without first making us well. Redemption cannot work without repentance.
I am called negative or judgmental when I mention the reality of sin. I am countered with: “Oh, but we must smile and be positive. Oh, you take yourself too seriously. Oh, we have to try new things. Oh, but we must do it this way—it works!” So does castor oil.
I cannot sit quietly watching millions leave the United Methodist Church, then hearing our leaders say, “O.K., let’s spend another few thousand for new brochures, new kits, new quadrennium slogans, more workshops, and see if we can’t find a solution to this thing.” We have the solution. The solution is Christ! We need to affirm Him, but the Gospel must be presented in the context of the problem He came to deal with—sin.
The UM Church is ready for what Outler calls the Third Great Awakening. I wonder if it must come from the laity rather than the clergy. I used to look askance at the congregation which always stirred up trouble with the district superintendent and the bishop asking for a “good preacher” who could meet their needs. Could this not be the way it must begin? The layman is beginning to be aware of his deep and desperate sickness—and this whether or not the clergy is brave enough to call it by its real name—sin. The layman is awakening to the knowledge that his health and his cure and his life depend upon a legitimate understanding of the disease—sin.
More and more we are uncomfortable with the “comfort” gospel of the liberals. I think that it is time to raise a holy indignation until we are sent clergy with the courage to preach the Gospel. If this pressure from the laity drives district superintendents and bishops and deans of seminaries crazy—so be it.
The alternative is infinitely and eternally worse. Even if the clergy do not believe in hell—I do. To paraphrase John Donne (he was no slack preacher himself!) hundreds of years ago: “When ye die and hills melt and flames lick at ye—what will ye then? Repent? Too late! Too late!” I was going to slip quietly away with the other million or so ex-Methodists, but I have discovered that I am a Methodist. I love the Wesleyan tradition of theology and evangelism, but I am disheartened at not finding much of it in the United Methodist system. I dream with Outler of a Third Great Awakening led by a courageous clergy. The laymen are waiting—but not too patiently
[1] Pelagian, a 4th century British monk, denied the doctrine of original sin. The free will of man, he maintained, was the same as Adams before the fall, capable of choosing good or evil. Wesley, on the other hand, stated that since the fall, the moral image of God in man had been marred, carried down through all mankind, for all were in the loins of Adam when he sinned. In his writings, Wesley characterized the transmission of original sin as a disease. His emphasis was on the fact that this is true and not on how this is true; it is a matter of faith about a doctrine discerned from Biblical evidence. Thus, man is only “free” to do evil, not good; man is not even able to will good on his own, only by the grace of God (prevenient grace) available to all.
