by Steve | Nov 11, 1983 | archive - 1983
Wesley’s take on Scripture
By Bishop Mack B. Stokes (1911-2011)
November/December 1983
Good News
For Methodism’s founder, the basis for Christian belief and practice was –first, last, and always – the Holy Bible. John Wesley was steeped in Scripture from childhood. He studied the Bible in depth as a student at Oxford. His preaching was based on the Bible. And his guidance to the people called Methodists was derived from the Bible.
Wesley urged his preachers to read not only the Bible but also other books. Yet at the same time, he said the final authority for belief and practice is the Bible. As Wesley put it: “All faith is founded upon divine authority, so there is now no divine authority but the Scriptures …” (John Wesley, Works, Vol. X, p. 91 ). He wrote in his journal: “My ground is the Bible…. I follow it in all things great and small” (June 5, 1766).
Back of Wesley’s commitment to Scripture was his conviction that it shows the way of salvation. “I want to know one thing,” said Wesley, “– the way to heaven; how to land safe on that happy shore. God Himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end He came from heaven. He has written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God!” (John Wesley, Sermons, Vol. 1, pp. 31-32).
Wesley was determined that his followers should live by the Bible. This was so important to him that he included his views on the authority of Scripture in “The General Rules of Our Society.” These principles guided the beliefs of early Methodists. Here Wesley said the Bible is “the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both for our faith and practice.”
Wesley flatly stated that the Bible stands above church tradition. Yet he believed that the great traditions of the church are important for interpreting the Bible. He stated also that the Bible stands above Christian experience. Wesley believed Christian experience backs up the truth of Scripture. He also believed that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of Christian experience – but that Christian experience does not carry equal weight to Scripture. The Bible, not Christian experience, is the final basis for Christian doctrine.
Wesley was well aware that the Bible has to be interpreted. In fact, he knew that no one can read Scripture without bringing to it something of his own interpretation. That’s why Wesley taught that tradition, Christian experience, and reason are all helpful in interpreting the Bible.
He realized there would be differences in interpretation among even the most sincere and informed Christians. But most differences among Christians, Wesley believed, usually concern matters that are not essential to salvation and practical Christian living.
Wesley’s own interpretation of Scripture dealt primarily with three basic areas of Biblical truth: 1) the Bible’s teaching about salvation, 2) its teachings about responsible Christian living and evangelistic outreach, and 3) God’s promises and blessings.
Salvation. Wesley regarded the Biblical teachings on justification and the New Birth as the two most important Christian doctrines (Sermons, Vol. 11, pp. 226-227). Justification, he said, is God’s mighty action through Jesus Christ crucified, whereby our sins are blotted out and the slate is wiped dean. This is God’s act for us. The New Birth is God’s gracious act in us whereby we are recreated, born anew, and set on our course toward heaven and toward right living on earth. The New Birth is the beginning of sanctification.
A crucial teaching. Many people today either ignore Wesley’s emphasis on the New Birth or they water it down. But for Wesley, this Biblical teaching was crucial.
The New Birth, he said, “Is the great change which God works in the soul when he brings it into life; when he raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is a change wrought in the whole soul by the Almighty Spirit of God when it is created anew in Christ Jesus; when it is renewed after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness; when the love of the world is changed into the love of God; pride into humility; passion into meekness; hatred, envy, malice, into a sincere, tender, disinterested love for all mankind” (Sermons, Vol. II, p. 234).
It’s important to remember that, according to Wesley, both justification and the New Birth are realities only by grace through faith. And he understood the whole process of salvation to involve the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.
Wesley taught that God’s great work of salvation is often done suddenly, but it is also a process of spiritual growth. That’s why Wesley believed that every Christian must be regular in reading Scripture, in prayer, in public worship, and in service.
When Wesley spoke of being saved by faith alone, he didn’t confine this merely to one event or experience. In his essay on “The Character of a Methodist,” he said that salvation means holiness of heart and life. And this, said Wesley, springs from true faith alone.
Responsible Christian living and evangelistic outreach. This brings us to the second emphasis that John Wesley made in his use of Scripture. It has to do with the connection between the New Birth and its outward expression. Wesley insisted that “inward holiness” requires “outward holiness.” To our understanding of this area of Biblical truth, Wesley made a distinctive contribution.
Many people have stressed the inner life. And many others have called attention to the ethical and evangelistic demands of the Gospel. But Wesley brought these together with a fresh, new emphasis.
His teaching on the power of the Holy Spirit within us takes us back to the apostles. His teaching on the Christian action which flows from that supernatural source takes us back to a correct interpretation of law and grace.
God’s law, taught Wesley, not only makes us aware of our sin; it is to be obeyed. As for grace, vast resources that enable us to obey God by manifesting his love in our daily lives.
Today, many recognize the importance of the inner spiritual life. But they don’t focus enough on the life-changing presence of the Holy Spirit. Others stress the social gospel and the duties of the Christian for world outreach. But they fail to lift up the power of the Holy Spirit who alone can provide the dynamic for effective social action and evangelism. Wesley kept these elements in unique balance.
God’s promises and blessings. A third emphasis in Wesley’s interpretation of Scripture concerns the promises and blessings God gives his children when they open their lives to him in faith and obedience. One of the most important of these is assurance, or the witness of the Spirit.
Wesley’s idea on this matter, based on Romans 8:15-16 and Galatians 4:6-7, is simply that the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are God’s children. And every Christian, said Wesley, is entitled to experience this blessed assurance that he or she is a child of God. Wesley regarded the witness of the Spirit as “one grand part of the testimony which God has given [Methodists] to bear to all mankind.”
Wesley also emphasized the many other blessings which God has for his children: victory over sin, joy, the peace of God.
The sole rule. For Wesley, one of the greatest blessings possible is a soul filled with the love of Jesus Christ. This blessing is so great because it enables us to overcome hostility, resentment, and an unforgiving spirit. The greatest of all blessings, Wesley believed, is to know we have passed from death into life, that we are indeed the children of God.
In all that Wesley taught, he pointed to the Bible as the basis for his beliefs. He never got away from the authority of Scripture. Late in life he reemphasized this conviction when he said about the people called Methodists: “What is their fundamental doctrine? That the Bible is the whole and sole rule of Christian faith and practice” (Works, Vol. XIII, p. 258).
Bishop Mack B. Stokes (1911-2011) was United Methodist bishop. In his retirement, he became Associate Dean for Doctoral Studies at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This article appeared in the November/December 1983 issue of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 2, 1983 | archive - 1983
How God used a motley crew to give us His Son
Archive: Those Wretched Genealogies!
by Joel B. Green
“We’ll never be able to buy a house, not with these interest rates!”
“No one can get along with him. He’s impossible.”
“Our church is past the point of no return; it will never change.”
Have you ever been confronted with life’s impossibilities? Have you ever told yourself, “It can’t happen”?
As the Christmas season approaches and we turn with renewed interest to the accounts of Jesus’ birth, we find ourselves confronted by yet another impossibility.
Thousands of years ago God made a promise, what Genesis 17:7 calls an “everlasting covenant,” to Abraham. God promised that the relationship between Himself and His people would be restored; the walls of separation would be pulled down. God said, “I will … be God to you and to your descendants after you.”
I would suggest that, by most standards, God made a promise He could not keep. He bit off more than He could chew. And Matthew 1:1-17 proves my point!
Biblical genealogies, like the one presented here in the first chapter of Matthew, are often shunned as “boring,” “meaningless,” “just a bunch of ‘begats’ that make reading the Bible more difficult.” But this introduction to Matthew’s Gospel contains some amazing facts. It provides four reasons why what God promised to Abraham was a major impossibility.
1. The people through whom God wanted to work were too sinful. In general terms, genealogies were for giving one’s roots and for proving that those roots were pure. The bloodline was traced through the fathers, not through the mothers. In fact, to be called the “son of your mother” was a slap in the face. However, in the genealogy provided in Matthew we note the inclusion of four women. And, as if that were not enough to spoil a lineage, these women had pedigrees that were anything but pure.
In verse three Tamar is listed. In Jewish tradition she is a Canaanite, not an Israelite. Further, Tamar’s reputation was that of an adulteress. In verse five Matthew mentions Rah ab, the harlot who aided Israel in the destruction of Jericho. She also was a foreigner, not an Israelite. In verse five is recorded the name of Ruth, a Moabite and a proselyte to the faith of Israel. The mother of Solomon is mentioned in verse six. This woman, whom we know as Bathsheba, was also non-Israelite. The world remembers her as the woman who committed adultery with King David.
“R” rated ancestry
Strange, is it not, that in a list which was designed to prove one’s pure ancestry as an Israelite, we find four women, all of whom were Gentiles, three of whom were known for their sexual misdeeds? The people through whom God wanted to work, so it might seem, were too sinful!
Lest we think the obstacles to God’s purpose were women only, we might note a few male sinners on the list. Jacob schemed his way into his father’s inheritance. David, whose sexual misconduct we have already mentioned, was also a murderer. Solomon, who had enough wives to populate a small town, was persuaded to compromise his faith. And less well-known but equally valid to our point are the infamous exploits of Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon.
Our conclusion can only be that the ancestry of Jesus is made up of a sin-full bunch. Many of their lives would be rated “R” (or worse) even by today’s standards. They compose a motley crew, not the sort of people we would expect God to use to bring about His great purpose.
Isn’t that what we often say about ourselves? “My sin is too great.” “My testimony is blotched forever.” The genealogy of Christ is evidence that God can and does use the humbled, the despised, the sinful to accomplish His purpose. By our standards we would look at this lineup and say, “God doesn’t have a chance! There’s no way! It’s a lost cause! It’s impossible! ” Yet, even through these sinful people, God worked.
2. The people through whom God wanted to work were in the wrong place. Everyone knows it’s important to be in the right place at the right time. Most everybody has known someone who got a good break because he happened to be in the right place. So we find ourselves wishing: If only I had grown up there instead of here … If only I had gone to that church instead of this one … If only I had her boss instead of my own … If only …
For Israel the promise given to Abraham was very much connected to the Promised Land. But in the latter part of the genealogical record in Matthew we see that the Israelites were spending less and less time there. In exile (verses 11 and 12) the Israelites were separated from their land, their home, and—many of them thought—from their God. God’s people were “out of pocket,” in the wrong place. This was a formidable obstacle, but not as great as the next.
3. It was going to take too long to get the job done. From Abraham to Jesus were 42 generations—14 to David, 14 to the Exile, and 14 to Jesus (verse 17). Suppose we were given a great promise and then told, “It’ll be yours in just 42 generations!” What would we think?
The thought of waiting some 2000 years for the promise to be fulfilled would hardly bring us to a state of excited anticipation. It would be almost like saying to a 14-year-old, “When you graduate from medical school, I’II buy you a car.” The response would likely be, “That’ll take forever!”
Much of our generation suffers from a convenience-store mentality: “Get what you want when you want it.” We often label “impossible ” anything which will take a long, long time. After waiting a few weeks or months we so easily allow our hope to fade. “It’ll never happen!”
Is there time for God to do His thing? Many of us would have discounted God’s promise to Abraham because it would take too long.
Surely a God who can do anything could just wave a finger—Zap!—and it’s done. Why use sinners to do so important a task? After all, it’s illogical. Why use people who were in the wrong place? Why waste so much time?
But there is more.
4. The way God wanted to work included an impossible birth. In verse 16 we have a clear picture of Jesus being born in a special way, without a normal biological father. As if these other obstacles didn’t render God’s plan impossible, now there’s the problem of this birth by an impossible process. It betrays all of the laws in our textbooks. It is not written up in the medical journals. It is not logical. God’s promise had to be impossible, because He wanted to accomplish it in an illogical manner.
Of course we live on this side of the life of Jesus—His birth, life, death, and resurrection. And we know that what seemed impossible, God has done. We know that in Jesus Christ God did what He said He would do.
But do we believe that God still works that way? How do we respond when faced with the impossible? How do we respond when facing overpowering obstacles—financial, marital, vocational? Do we allow our faith to falter at the first sign of hurdles which seem too high to leap?
Are we willing to think big about what God might do? Or are we tied to our ideas of what is possible? We are (or he is, or she is) too sinful. … God cannot work here. … It will take too much time. … It is illogical.
As is evident in Matthew’s genealogy, so it may be said of our own contemporary situations. It was impossible, but God did it anyway. And He still does.
by Steve | Nov 1, 1983 | archive - 1983
Archive: The Bible…Good Book or God’s Book?
By John N. Oswalt, President of Asbury College, Wilmore, KY
Contributing Editor, Good News
The basic difference among United Methodists today is what we believe about Scripture. Is the Bible the inspired Word of God, unique in the world? Or is it one more religious book, valuable to us merely because it describes our particular religious history”?
If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it provides clear, divine guidance for the Church. If it is not God’s Word, then anything goes. There is no standard to guide our beliefs and practices. So society determines our values and behavior.
Reflection will show that nearly all our differences stem from differing views of the Bible. The virgin birth? Is Scripture an accurate report of God’s self-revelation or just a collection of religious legends? Ordination of homosexuals? Is the Bible the report of the Creator’s principles or the record of a people’s prejudices?
What this means is that any genuine reformation of our denomination will require, sooner or later, a widespread reevaluation of the Bible as God’s Word. Personally, I question whether it is possible to bring about that change before spiritual revival occurs. Typically the head follows the heart.
When a person has experienced the reality of God at work in his heart, it is less difficult to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. But unless that revived heart is immediately grounded in inspired Scripture, all kinds of aberrations may result. Not the least of these is loss of the ground gained and then a hardening spiritually.
So it is critical for evangelicals to know their own position and present a united front. One of the potentially divisive areas today is the discussion of the inerrancy versus the infallibility of Scripture. Here the Enemy seeks to exploit a situation where essentially the same views are held. His tactic is to make our words rallying cries by which we exclude one another.
That doesn’t mean words are unimportant. Words are our only means of communicating ideas and opinions.
The problem comes when we use words as convenient labels by which to make snap decisions. Political labels are a good case in point. Words must be vehicles for thought, not substitutes.
In discussing the inspiration of Scripture, words are very important. The issue of the Bible has never been more crucial to evangelicals. Since the evangelical surge of the last decade, everyone wants to be called evangelical.
But just because people claim a personal relationship with Christ, that doesn’t make them evangelicals. Neither does a concern for the lost. Both of these are critical, but they are not bed rock.
Biblical truth is bedrock. Apart from its teachings, personal relationships with Christ degenerate into subjective mysticism. And concern for the lost becomes mere do-goodism.
Liberal or Neo-orthodox
What is unique about the evangelicals’ view of Scripture? It’s the conviction that the Bible is the revelation of God.
Older liberal theology denied this altogether. For liberals, the Bible was just one of many expressions of the divine Spirit which has appeared in the development of human thought. But two world wars treated harshly the optimistic notions of human progress at the core of liberalism.
During this period in history a movement back toward orthodoxy began. This movement was fueled by two European theologians, Karl Barth and Emil Bruner. They saw again that God was other than humanity, and that if humanity was to be saved from itself, God must reveal Himself to us. But they did not believe that God reveals Himself in the Bible, only through it. So the movement they fathered came to be called neo-orthodoxy (or the New Orthodoxy), similar to but not the same as true orthodoxy.
How much difference can two little words in and through, make? As it turns out, a great deal. If God only reveals himself through the Bible, then the Bible itself is not factually true. God may reveal a truth through the account of Adam and Eve, for example, even though the account itself may be false.
In other words, this approach allows us to separate truth from facts. This enables a person who cannot believe the factual statements of the Bible to believe the truths of the Bible.
Here’s the great drawback of this point of view: If the truth of the Bible is unrelated to its facts, who is to say that it is the truth at all? If I say I am the smartest man in the world, but cannot add two and two, you are quite justified in saying I don’t tell the truth.
Thus the neo-orthodox movement did not last very long. Most scholars who agreed that the Bible was factually unreliable took the next logical step. They denied that it was any more truthful than any other merely human book.
In the middle and late 70s several evangelical scholars began to rediscover neo-orthodoxy. Either through childhood training or a conversion experience, they were inclined to accept the theological truth of Scripture. But they had become convinced during graduate training that the facts out of which the Hebrew and Christian people had learned their faith were false.
Barth’s and Bruner’s teachings were a god-send to these new followers of neo-orthodoxy. But, in fact, they are caught in a logical fallacy which cannot stand. As history has already shown, their position carries the seeds of its own destruction. Either the Bible’s theology is true because the facts are true, or its theology is false because the facts are false. There is no middle position.
It is crucial to understand that because the Bible is a reliable record of God’s revelation to His people then, He is able to reveal Himself to us now. The neo-orthodox position says we only know what the Biblical writers thought God was doing and saying. We don’t know what He actually did and said. This is not the historic position of the Church, nor that of the evangelical movement as it has developed over the last 60-70 years.
What evangelicals believe
Evangelicals believe the Bible is the Word of God in which God directly reveals Himself and His truth to us. To be sure, it comes to us through the medium of specific times and places. It comes through human writers who had their own styles and cultures. But this does not mean that the truth is obscured. It only means that we have to understand how the culture, style, and locale affected the presentation of the truth. This is not easy, but neither is it as hard as many would have us believe.
Some may ask why God bothered to use particular cultures and styles and locales. Why didn’t he just give us a list of statements and rules and truths? The answer is that we need a setting to help us understand a plain truth. Most of us understand stories much better than statements.
Plain statements which were quite sensible to the Jews are meaningless to us. We have to see them in their settings before we can say, “Oh, so that’s what it means.” In the same way, if God had given the Jews plain statements designed for us to understand, those people would have been completely mystified.
Granted, the matters of culture, style, and locale create some problems. First of all, when we say the Bible is factually true, we must take into account the purpose of the statements and their setting. For instance, Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Mark 4:31). If His purpose were to give a botanically precise statement, then this statement would be incorrect. There are many other seeds smaller than the mustard seed. But that was not His purpose. He was making a general statement in support of his teaching about the relativity of greatness. In that context, His statement is perfectly true.
Of much more weight is whether Jesus made such a statement at all. Here would be a watershed between the evangelical and the non-evangelical. The Bible asserts in the plainest of terms that Jesus made such a statement. If in fact He did not, then the Bible has perpetrated a lie and its reliability is in question.
Here is another example of the importance of understanding the purpose of facts recorded in the Bible. About 90 percent of the information in Matthew’s Gospel is also included in Mark and Luke. However, beyond a general agreement over the order of some of the major events of Jesus’ life, each book arranges the information quite differently.
If the purpose of the Gospels were to give a biography in the modern sense, then one of them (at the most) would be true, and the other two false. But it is evident that each of the Gospel writers has arranged the facts in order to highlight certain aspects of Jesus’ ministry.
These examples explain why some who are genuinely evangelical are uneasy with such a statement as, “The Bible is inerrant.” No, the Bible is not absolutely free from any error, when judged by an absolute standard. Nor could it be. Those who use this word are aware of this, and so they carefully qualify what they don’t mean by inerrant.
Still, evangelicals who have a concern over the appropriateness of the word inerrant are often more comfortable with such a word as infallible. They feel it lays its stress at a better point: the Bible’s function. In this sense they declare that the Bible will, without fail, lead to a true understanding of the nature of God, man, and the world.
But more important than terms is the way a person uses the Bible. Historically, evangelicals have held certain basic convictions. These include belief in the deity of Christ, a literal resurrection, and the necessity of conversion.
In addition, evangelicals have held certain convictions about Scripture:
- Though it must be rightly understood and interpreted, the Bible’s report of facts is correct and reliable.
- Direct claims of authorship and composition should be accepted at face value.
- Each of the 66 canonical books have some degree of authority over the Christian.
- Biblical statements which seem to contradict each other could be harmonized if all the facts were known.
- Biblical principles for behavior are binding for all times except where the Bible gives clear reason to believe otherwise.
- The Bible should have a prominent place in the lives of all Christians. It is ours to read and study with devotion, diligence, and delight.
Stark contrast
Though evangelicals may disagree over fine points of interpretation, their view of the Bible stands in stark contrast to liberal and neo-orthodox views. Sadly, both liberal and neo-orthodox traditions have given the Church a less-than-inspired Bible. They leave readers to pick. and choose· what seems meaningful.
Such views would have been unbelievable to John Wesley. He enjoyed calling himself “a man of one book.” Of course, this does not mean he read only one book. In fact he read hundreds, if not thousands, of others. But he did seek to base all his thinking and behavior on the Bible and to judge everything else by it. Let’s pray for a rebirth of such an attitude among United Methodists today.
by Steve | Jun 20, 1983 | archive - 1983
Rebuilding the Tower of Babel
By Helmet Thielicke (1908-1986)
July/August 1983
Originally the world “had one language” (Genesis 11:1). What bound people together was once stronger than what separated them. And this is what God intended the world to be when he created it. When we hear those words “one language,” it is as if for a few seconds the harmony of the original creation salutes our sundered world and tries to tell it how it was when men and beasts and clouds and stars still possessed a binding center and were still turned in common praise, in the music of the spheres, to him who called them into being.
But now, suddenly, a new and alien note is struck in God’s creation. Now man proposes to be his own master. Did not God himself summon him to dominion?
”I am not going to go on stumbling over the prohibitions of this allegedly higher being,” says man. “I am free, and therefore I can do what I will, and therefore I can experiment and see how far I can go. I have reason and intellect and therefore I’m not going to be tied to standards and stipulations which I can’t verify for myself and accept in freedom. With my intellectual equipment, it is utterly impossible to expect me to believe in something that is invisible and commit myself to these alleged commands of God. Am I not autonomous, am I not Homo sapiens?”
God’s judgment today. And immediately we ask, Does not God finally intervene like a thunderbolt and confuse their tongues, disperse and scatter them to the four quarters of the earth? (Genesis 11:9). Where do we see any such spectacular judgments taking place today? This, after all, seems to be our trouble; we are expected to believe contrary to all appearances and contrary to our experience.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think of God’s judgment upon Babel as something like a miraculous thunderbolt from the Beyond. … The judgments of God are very often quite different in style: He just lets men go on as they are in order that they may see where it brings them. He let experiment of the Third Reich run its course to the bitter end and not one of the seven or eleven attempts on Hitler’s life was able to interrupt the experiment; nobody was permitted to prevent or anticipate His coming judgments. And so it is here.
How then are we to envisage this dispersion, this explosion of rebellious mankind?
Perhaps some of you have already noted a passage that crops up, somewhat hiddenly and enigmatically, at the very beginning of our story: “Let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens … lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” Hence, long before the judgment of dispersion fell upon them, men already had a premonition, a dim fear that they might break apart and that even their languages might be confused. They sensed the hidden presence of centrifugal, dispersive forces.
This arises from the fact that they have suffered something that might be called the “loss of a center” and that now that they have banished God from their midst they no longer have anything that binds them to each other. Always the trend is the same: wherever God has been deposed, some substitute point has to be created to bind men together in some fashion or other.
You start a war, perhaps, in order to divert attention from internal political dissensions and thus create a new solidarity by making people feel that they are facing a common threat. Or you build a tower of Babel in order to concentrate people’s attention upon a new center by rallying them to united and enthusiastic effort and this way pull together the dispersive elements. Or you whip together by terror those who will not stay together voluntarily. Or you utilize the powers of suggestion, “propaganda” and “ideology,” in order to generate the feeling of community by means of psychological tricks and thus make people want precisely what you want them to want.
Now, what has gone wrong here? And to answer this, we need to make clear the following. Suppose I have a colleague or a business partner who believes in nothing, for whom there is no authority whatsoever, to say nothing of commandments of God, a man in whom I cannot find anything that looks like an inner sanction. I would be on guard against such a man. I would distrust him. Perhaps I would even be afraid of him.
Why? Simply because he is completely unpredictable and probably capable of doing almost anything. On the other hand, when I know that someone is bound to God and that his conscience has a secure orientation, then I can “predict,” as it were, how he will act in such and such a situation: ‘that he will feel bound, for example, to keep contracts and promises, that he will not perpetrate crooked acts or that at least he will have a bad conscience if he does.
Of someone else, who does not have these ties, I do not know this. In other words, if he is no longer subject to God, then he is under the domination of his instincts, his opportunism, his ambition, his will to power. The day may come when he will stick at nothing if it seems opportune to him. For every one of us has some kind of a lord, we are all driven by something – if not God, then an idol, if not from above, then from below. That’s why I am afraid of a man who has no ties and am on my guard against him.
Mortal enemies. And that’s the way it is. When a man stands in humbleness before God and his conscience is firmly bound to the promises and commandments of the Lord, he radiates confidence, he becomes a neighbor to his brother, and then his brother knows what his intentions toward him are. Then bridges are built from person to person and the security of community comes into being.
But the opposite is equally true. When I know that a person has lost the center of his life I must reckon with the fact that he will be aimlessly and arbitrarily carried away by his instinct and by his own egoism.
For a time I may get along fine with him, that is, as long as common economic interests or political expediencies bind us together. But the moment this specific interest ceases to bind us together he loses his interest in me. Then he doesn’t give a hang for me; it is as if he never knew me. Or it may be even worse: he regards me as his mortal enemy because I am his competitor or because he wants my job.
In a society which has lost its center and consists of not much more than interest groups, employers’ associations and labor unions, tenants’ and home-owners’ associations – we call it a “pluralistic society,” without realizing the fateful Babylonian curse that lies behind this pluralism! – in such a society fear and distrust prevail, precisely the centrifugal forces which exploded with a vengeance at the tower of Babel.
A tiny oasis. When the first words which come to a man are no longer those which he speaks to his God, when there is no more prayer, language itself ultimately breaks down. How, for example, can one have any common understanding of what freedom means without God, without Him who makes us free?
When the center, when God the Lord disappears from our circle, language too sinks into the grave; we begin to talk at cross purposes with one another and the result is a real Babylonian confusion of tongues. Indeed, the result is that perverse state of affairs in which language becomes an instrument of cloaking and veiling, rather than of communication and confession ….
The counterpart of the story of the tower of Babel is the event of Pentecost which is recounted in the New Testament. Here the common language is suddenly present again, and Parthians, Medes, and Elamites understand one another. Here the spell is broken and all the confusion banished. When Jesus Christ becomes the Lord of our life, then there is healing of hearts, of bodies, and even of language.
God’s kingdom begins with tiny seeds and little particles of leaven. When my heart and your heart find their way home to the peace of the Father’s house a little light is kindled in the great world’s night and there is a tiny oasis in the desert.
He who allows this to be bestowed upon him finds that the evil virus has no power over him. And not only the bad, but also the good is infectious! Because this salt is present, the earth cannot go utterly bad. Only ten righteous men in Sodom and Gomorrah stay the judgment. For their sake all the promises remain in force. The question is whether you and I are among these ten. All our destiny lies in this question.
Reprinted by permission from How the World Began (1961) by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986), with permission from Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA, and James Clarke & Co. Ltd., Cambridge, England.
by Steve | May 2, 1983 | archive - 1983
Archive: The Wesleyan Quadrilateral—Not Equilateral
Putting Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience into focus
by Robert G. Tuttle, Jr.
Associate Professor, Historical Theology, Oral Roberts University School of Theology
Contributing editor, Good News Board of Directors
United Methodists for many years have appealed to Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. We have called this the Wesley quadrilateral, the source of “our present existing and established standards of doctrine.”[1] In 1972 the Wesley quadrilateral first appeared, along with considerable definition, in the doctrinal statement in our Book of Discipline. United Methodists refer to it regularly to support a broad swath of Christian teaching.
Unfortunately, we have too frequently understood quadrilateral to mean equilateral, as though there is no principal source on which faith depends. The results have been conflict and inconsistency.
At some points, however, our people deserve a United Methodist response to our troubled times to provide direction for the church. We have the right to expect enough compatibility in the understanding of our doctrinal essentials that we do not raise more questions than we answer. If we are ever to be United Methodist, we must realize that quadrilateral does not mean equilateral.
Wesley appealed to Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience when attempting to document and support his own position.[2] But his quadrilateral had a dominant side—Scripture. He fully intended that Scripture take precedent. He wrote in the preface to his standard sermons: “God himself has condescended to teach the way: For this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book.” He then exclaims, “O, give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri” (a man of one book).[3]
The Primacy of Scripture
If Wesley was truly a man of one Book (which some have difficulty believing since he used so many different sources), the place to begin is with his view of Scripture.
Wesley insisted that Scripture is the principal authority—the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. In his reply to a Roman catechism he writes: “The Scripture, therefore, is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired at once delivered to the world; and so neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition” (Works, Vol. X, p. 90).
In 1755 he writes to a friend, Samuel Furly, a general rule for interpreting Scripture: “The literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts; but in that case, the obscured text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly” (Letters, Telford ed., Vol. III, p. 129). Here we see not only a reverence for the Word of God, but a healthy guideline for interpretation as well.
The point should be well taken. Any measure for truth must begin with Scripture. Without this focus it is every man for himself; there is no unity of the faith. We are “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). We can reach only so high. If we are to know the truth, then God must stoop to reveal it to us. This brings us to the rest of the quadrilateral. Although Scripture takes precedence, Wesley also clearly appeals to reason, tradition, and experience in support of Scripture.
Reason, Tradition, Experience
Though Scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion, Wesley writes: “Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles!” (Works, Vol. VI, p. 354). He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, in this instance however, is not mere human intelligence. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God.
Wesley’s appreciation for reason not only preceded but extended far beyond Aldersgate. In 1741 he writes of Luther: “How does he decry reason, right or wrong, as an irreconcilable enemy to the Gospel of Christ! Whereas, what is reason (the faculty so called) but the power of apprehending, judging, and discoursing? Which power is no more to be condemned in the gross than seeing, hearing, or feeling” (Works, Vol. 1, p. 3 15).
Yet, in spite of Wesley’s profound respect for reason, he was clear as to what reason could and could not do. He knew, for example, that if people were left to themselves they would not reason their way to Heaven, but to hell. Ultimately, reason in and of itself falls short; it is a rope of sand.
In his sermon, “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered,” Wesley sought to demonstrate the complete inability of reason to produce faith. He stated: “Although it is always consistent with reason, yet reason cannot produce faith, in the scriptural sense of the word. Faith, according to Scripture, is ‘an evidence,’ or conviction, ‘of things not seen.’ It is a divine evidence bringing a full conviction of an invisible, eternal world” (Works, Vol. VI, p. 355). Reason, even in its highest state of improvement, could never produce a firm conviction in anyone’s mind.
Although Wesley persisted in his own appreciation for reason throughout his life, he insisted that God be on the throne of grace as the one who takes the initiative in the drama of rescue. Reason can do much with regard to both the foundation and the superstructure of religion. Ultimately, however, reason can produce neither faith, hope, nor love. These are gifts of God.
As for tradition, Wesley writes that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time. Of necessity it passes through many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insists: “I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree” (Works, Vol. X, p. 75).
Wesley objected to the Catholic view that tradition is absolute truth. However, he does admit that men of strong and clear understanding should be aware of the full force of tradition. Like reason, tradition must not be given equal weight with Scripture. Wesley does emphasize the link tradition supplies through 1700 years of history with Jesus and the Apostles. It is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in His glory and might.
Experience (apart from Scripture) is the strongest proof of Christianity. Wesley quotes, “‘What the Scripture promises, I enjoy. Come and see what Christianity has done here …’ ” (Works, Vol. X, p. 79). He insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. “What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised, is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all these promises” (Works, Vol. X, p. 75).
Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: “One thing I do know, that whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). Tradition establishes the evidence a long way off; experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of Christian doctrine, Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of “holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit; a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life” (Works, Vol. X, p. 75).
The Proper Perspective
We either begin with Scripture which is then served by reason, tradition, and experience; or we begin with reason, tradition, and experience as served by Scripture. Can we reach God out of our own humanity or, ultimately, must He stoop to reveal Himself to us? Wesley believed that God must stoop to reveal Himself to us.
If our United Methodist interpretation of the Wesley quadrilateral is to be true to Wesley then we, too, must begin with Scripture. Again, quadrilateral does not imply equal emphasis even in a pluralistic church. A clear understanding of just how we arrive at doctrine is most important.
Of course, we will not agree on all things. But concerning matters which strike at the root of Christianity we must have some agreement lest we scatter our United Methodist constituents abroad without the common cord to keep them in fellowship one with another. Sometimes there is not a great distance between grinding the ax and burying the hatchet. I hope that this is interpreted as the latter. Surely we owe United Methodists (if not Wesley himself) that much and more.
[1] The Book of Discipline, 1980. Page 78.
[2] John Wesley, Works. 3rd edition. Volume X, pages 75-79.
[3] Works, Vol. V, p. 3.
by Steve | May 1, 1983 | archive - 1983
Archive: Martin Boehm: One of the Brethren
By Joanne Wilson, McClure, Pennsylvania
A short, bearded man reined his horse at the end of the furrow. He knelt to pray. At the end of every furrow he knelt to pray.
“Lost! Lost!” were the words that haunted him.
Finally in the middle of the field he sank to his knees behind the plow. “Lord, save me. I’m lost!”
He ran from the field and into the kitchen where his wife was churning butter. “Eve, a stream of joy was poured over me!” he shouted.
He could hardly wait to tell the folks on Sunday. In times past he had never looked forward to Sunday. Martin Boehm was a Mennonite preacher, yet he had nothing to preach. Now he had something!
As he stood in the little Mennonite church that Sunday morning he told of his experience in the field.
“Oh Martin, we are indeed lost,” a man cried. “Yes, man is lost,” Martin agreed. “Christ will never find us till we know we are lost.”
The preacher’s wife, Eve, was the next person to find the joy and peace of salvation.
This was the beginning of Martin Boehm’s evangelical preaching. He could not keep quiet about his conversion, which would later become a source of contention between him and his church.
Martin Boehm was born seven miles south of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on November 30, 1725. At the age of 31 he became a preacher. But it was not until his experience in the field that his ministry began to have any results.
He held “great meetings,” as they were called, in many German-speaking towns, traveling as far south as the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. His words seemed to come directly from God. People were made to feel they needed a Savior.
Boots and spurs
On one occasion Boehm was preaching, “Sinners are going to hell with boots and spurs.”
In the crowd sat Dr. Peter Senseny who looked down at his large pair of riding boots and spurs. The words echoed in his heart. He found no rest until he made his peace with God. He became an honored preacher of the Gospel.
Some people became very disturbed with the effects of Martin Boehm’s ministry. Such was the case of B. Carper while Rev. Boehm was preaching in Conewago, Pennsylvania.
“I will kill him,” Carper threatened. “He is a false prophet and a deceiver. He bewitching power over the people.”
Carper went to the meeting and waited at the door for the service to close. As he listened he felt sure Martin Boehm was preaching directly at him and he began to tremble and shake. The more he heard the more he shook. Finally he ran home. Wherever he went he saw in his mind a little man with a large beard. He had no rest until he became a new creature in Christ Jesus.
Those who did not serve Christ hated and feared Martin Boehm. Those who served God were moved to praise the Lord.
On Pentecost Day, 1767, Boehm was scheduled to preach a service in Isaac Long’s 180-foot barn. The crowd was so large that they moved to the orchard.
After Boehm’s sermon Philip William Otterbein, a Dutch Reformed minister, ran up to him and threw his arms around Boehm. “Wir sind brüder,” he cried. (We are brethren.)
The EUB Church
From that first meeting they became close friends. They preached and worked together and ultimately formed the United Brethren in Christ. In 1946 this church joined with the Evangelical Church making the Evangelical United Brethren Church.
Boehm kept his ties with the Mennonite Church until 1777, when a formal break occurred. The church censured him on three counts: doctrine, manner of preaching, and associating with men of other denominations. Francis Asbury was among his preaching associates. They frequently shared in each other’s services. Boehm’s son, Henry, became an itinerant preacher with the Methodist Episcopal Church, covering circuits in Maryland and Virginia, as well as Pennsylvania. At the request of Asbury, Henry supervised the German translation of the 1805 Methodist Discipline.
A group of Methodists formed a class in Martin Boehm’s home around 1775, and his wife was one of the first to join. About seven years later Martin himself joined the M.E. Church. The particular local church was established on land donated by the Boehm family. When Martin decided to devote full time to traveling and preaching he turned over his farm to his son, Jacob, who, in turn, gave a portion of ground “to a Society of Christians calling themselves Methodists.” On this land, Boehm’s Chapel, the first Methodist Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was built in 1791.
Boehm’s Chapel is a landmark in American Methodism. Long before the merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968, ties between these two churches and their founders were close.
Martin Boehm faithfully preached the Gospel for 55 years. He died at his home on March 23, 1812, at the age of 87. A few days after the burial in the cemetery at Boehm’s Chapel, Henry Boehm and Bishop Asbury arrived at Martin’s home. The following Sunday, Asbury preached a fitting sermon in tribute to his friend who was “greatly beloved in life, and deeply lamented in death.”