by Steve | Nov 10, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Why the Church has Declined
The diagnosis is grim, but there’s hope for recovery
By Ken Kinghorn
A story is making the rounds in Moscow. It’s about two workmen with shovels, one of whom stops every 20 feet to dig a hole, his companion fills it up, and they repeat the process.
“Comrade,” shouts an observer. “What are you doing? You dig a hole, then the other fellow fills it. You accomplish nothing. We’re wasting money paying you!”
“You don’t understand,” one of the workers replies. “Usually we work with a third fellow, Mikhail, but he’s home drunk today. I dig the hole, Mikhail sticks in a tree and Dimitri here puts the dirt back in the hole. Just because Mikhail is drunk doesn’t mean that Dimitri and I have to stop working!”
Success in any venture requires properly focused objectives. Athletic teams know they cannot win games unless they move in the right direction, coordinate their efforts—and regularly score points. Without a proper objective firmly in our minds, our work will not lead to worthwhile results.
Christian work uniquely involves spiritual objectives. Christ mandated the church’s primary mission—winning persons to Christ and nurturing them in Christian discipleship (Matt. 28:19, 20). And the unique nature of this mission requires the church to rely on divine assistance. Jesus stated, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).
Decline does not have its roots in outer circumstances, such as unfavorable sociological or demographical trends. Decline in the church results from substituting human plans for divine direction and enabling. When Christian organizations neglect their God-given objectives and fail to rely on divine empowering, they eventually decline—first spiritually, then institutionally. However, the process of decline seldom happens instantly. It unfolds incrementally in the following stages.
1. A failure to seek God’s direction results in the silence of God. A Quaker woman once asked a young man, “Hast thou heard God speak lately?” “No,” replied the young man, “I have not.” The woman commented, “Thee must have forgotten to be still and listen.” When we do not ask for God’s direction, we do not receive it. And if persons or organizations persistently fail to seek divine guidance, they miss the Lord’s way (I Sam. 16:14; 28:6; Ps. 81:11,12; Isa. 59:2; Ezek. 39:21-24; Hos. 10:13).
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, theological liberalism sought to develop new wineskins for communicating Christianity to secular culture. Liberal theologians wanted to mediate “abiding values through changing categories.”[1] This quest was legitimate, because, in the period after the Civil War, fresh statements of the Gospel were needed. However, in its extensive reconstruction of Christian doctrine, theological liberalism embraced many of the secular views of the very culture it wanted to address.
Near the end of his career, Henry Van Dusen, himself a champion of liberal theology, admitted that the fundamental flaw of liberalism was an uncritical deference to modern culture:
In seeking to save religious belief from annihilation by the accepted thoughtforms of the secular world, [liberalism] has become a pallid reflection of the secular philosophy.[2]
In his study of liberal theology, Kenneth Cauthen came to a similar conclusion:
In its enthusiasm for modern modes of thought, liberalism lost sight of much that was of permanent validity in the historic tradition. Liberal thinking was too greatly influenced by a cultural faith centering around an exaggerated confidence in the goodness of [humankind] and in the redemptive nature of history.[3]
Liberalism’s anthropological starting point did not take the Biblical revelation seriously enough. Any gains of theological liberalism were offset by its failure to recognize the limitations of human nature and the need for divine intervention in the world.[4]
Theological liberalism shifted the basis of theological inquiry from divine revelation to human reason and experience.[5] And when natural intellect replaced Biblical revelation, the church began to stray from its mission as set forth in Scripture. Human nature being what it is, all too easily and quickly we get into the habit of trusting our own reasoning powers.
In Christ’s day, many religious leaders boasted of their faithfulness to Yahweh. Yet, in practice, they placed their own traditions ahead of God’s commandments (Matt. 15:3). Jesus denounced them as blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 23:29-38). Characteristically, these sightless guides did not recognize their own spiritual inadequacy. Substituting human ideas for divine revelation is always a telltale sign of spiritual poverty.
2. The silence of God results in spiritual confusion. The failure to receive divine guidance leads to a loss of direction. Without a sure word from the Lord we drift from our course and dissipate our energies in a variety of zealous activities. Churches do not decline so much because of inactivity, but because they fail to work toward the right things.
Repeatedly, Israel fell into confusion and deception because the leaders neglected to seek guidance from God. The writer of Joshua observes:
The men of Israel … did not inquire of the Lord (Josh. 9:14).
Israel’s leaders became muddled because they trusted in their own wisdom. Jesus warned that if the light within becomes darkness, the darkness is great-and spiritual confusion surrounds us (Matt. 6:23).
Several of the old line denominations boast of theological pluralism; and pluralism, carried to an extreme, minimizes all claims to absolute authority. Jerry Walls points to the confused state which comes from rejecting authority:
Ironically … when authority breaks down, claims to authority increase rather than decrease. So there is today no shortage of theological pronouncements coming from every quarter. The contemporary scene can be aptly described as a cacophony of voices vying for attention and allegiance.[6]
Invariably, when individuals or groups cease hearing from the Lord, substitute voices and influences move into the vacuum, shaping objectives, priorities and actions. H. G. Wells once lamented, “For many, the voice of the neighbor sounds louder than the voice of God.”
When persons or institutions do not accept the unique authority of Scripture they enter into doctrinal indifference or they begin the zealous advocacy of personal ideologies. Religious gatherings illustrate this inner division, when conference participants devote more time to political maneuvering than to celebration, worship and prayer. In such a context we easily confuse human aims with divine mission, and we seek to determine our direction by majority vote.
A substantial amount of contemporary religion functions apart from Biblical revelation and seeks to work out human problems in secular ways.[7] This compromised Christianity builds on human reason, allies itself with secular methods, noticeably neglects the power of the Holy Spirit, and denies the reality of a future divine judgment.
Human efforts will not change the world; only Christ can. Albert Outler offers a healthy reminder of the Wesleyan heritage:
Wesley was as vitally concerned as ever the humanists were about the quality and dignity of human life—only he knew, as they did not, that life’s highest quality and dignity cannot be gained, but must be given, that life’s enduring meanings and values are all dividends of grace.[8]
All theological and institutional schemes which place more faith in human systems than in God’s power will certainly fail. Such nonbiblical religion lacks spiritual power, and it cannot bring lost persons to faith in Christ.
Spiritual confusion always blurs the distinction between truth and error. And, historically, error creeps in as a consequence of an inner moral failure. In a classic study of theological shifts within an oldline denomination, Robert E. Chiles observed:
The compromises of orthodoxy are serious … because they tend to betray the prior depletion of viable redemptive reality.[9]
Theologies which contradict Scripture usually have their source in an unwillingness to accept divine authority and providence. These moral failures lead to elevating human opinions and objectives above plain Biblical teaching. And such religious mayhem inexorably leads to ever more serious deviations from Scripture, common sense, and historic orthodoxy.
3. Spiritual confusion leads to institutional decline. Spiritual health, by definition, includes growth; and fruit-bearing constitutes the unmistakable norm of vital Christianity (Matt.13:23; John 15:5, 8, 16; cf. Acts 2:47). Jesus stated that when His word falls on unreceptive hearts it cannot grow or multiply (Matt. 13:18). But when God’s Word enters receptive hearts, it will grow and reproduce abundantly (Matt. I 3:23).
Lacking a clear sense of God’s guidance, confused office holders give their energies mostly to maintaining organizational structures, enforcing “correct procedures” and defending current trends. William Willimon and Robert Wilson observe:
A declining organization falls into the hands of managers. In fact, it is more comfortable with managers than leaders, with people who write and interpret rules, persons who protect the institutional status quo … and defend conventional values against maverick critics or reformers.[10]
Of course, there are exceptions to every generalization; the church has produced some exceptionally fine leaders. However, some church structures are bloated with custodians who “manage decline,” “administer maintenance plans” and continue to produce and defend ineffective programs. These managers tinker with organizational and institutional matters, while ignoring the fundamental mission of the church.
Peter Drucker, the dean of American Management Consultants, remarked:
There are few things less pleasing to the Lord, and less productive, than an engineering department that rapidly turns out beautiful blueprints for the wrong product.[11]
To put the matter another way, we sometimes become more concerned about “doing things right” than in “doing the right things.”
All the while, spiritually starved persons look to the church to satisfy their spiritual hunger. Not finding spiritual bread, they cease visiting worship services, and they never join the church. At the same time, creative and vital church members complain that the boards and agencies of the church have abandoned Biblical mandates for fads and political agendas. Disappointed and angered, these potentially productive members of the church quietly leave. And the church declines.
Confused people concentrate on meeting their own needs, not the needs of others. George Hunter reminds us of two Detroit companies in the 1920s—the Ace Buggy Whip Company and the Ford Transportation Company:
Each company, at the time, manufactured buggy whips, but the two companies saw their main business differently. Ace saw their business as selling buggy whips; Ford saw their business as providing personal transportation for people …. Ace tried harder and harder, in vain, to sell buggy whips to people, who now wanted cars, while Ford was leading the automobile revolution in the middle-class market.[12]
One company looked for the public to meet its needs; the other company sought to meet the needs of the public. One company was drowning in confusion; the other company had a mission. Those churches which fail to meet the needs of people will and should decline.
The setting aside of Scriptural guidelines eventually leads to condoning ideas and practices clearly forbidden in the Bible. Some even label those who speak against Scripturally forbidden practices as narrow-minded, lacking compassion or failing to love others. In Galatians, Paul specified a number of unacceptable attitudes and actions. He declared, “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (see Gal. 5:16-21). I recently heard a professor of theology comment on that passage of Scripture: “Paul’s outdated morality smacks of legalism. Paul’s views must be replaced with the doctrine that God unconditionally accepts all people, regardless of religion or lifestyle.”
The Bible constitutes our ultimate guideline for knowing God’s will and God expects our obedience. The truth of Samuel’s declaration echoes into our own day:
Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry (I Sam.15:22, 23).
No religious ministry will enjoy the Lord’s favor unless the ministry conforms to God’s Word and relies on God’s power. Without God’s direction and empowering we cannot bear fruit. And, typically, those who do not bear fruit spend much energy criticizing the methods of those who do.
4. Spiritual decline eventually leads to a death wish. Not uncommonly, some people prefer to see their organization die rather than to lose control over it. Often the death wish festers unconsciously, but examples of a death wish appear regularly in the churches.
Richard G. Hutcheson Jr. tells the story of King College, a small church-related college in Tennessee. By the mid-1970s this school had lost most of its students. Mounting debt had brought the college to the point of bankruptcy. Denominational officials were powerless to save the school, and they agreed to merge the venerable institution with a state-supported university.
In the meantime, a group of concerned clergypersons and laypersons raised enough money to save the school. They established a budget, recruited new students and rescued the college from certain extinction. The faculty made plans for a new semester. Together, the rescue committee and the faculty committed themselves to return King College to its original mission, as outlined in the school’s charter. Morale on the campus skyrocketed, and the campus came alive with new hope.[13] Enrollment began to rise. The new leaders promised faithfully to continue the school as a denominational college. They proposed to reorganize the Board of Trustees and to replace the outgoing president with an experienced administrator from Wheaton College.
But, surprisingly, fierce opposition surfaced. Says Hutcheson:
The denomination power establishment now rose up in arms. The synod, which had made no concerted effort to rescue the college financially in the preceding years, now mounted a major effort to stop the “takeover.” Lawyers were retained for court action. All funds currently in the synod’s hands, which had been given by churches and designated for King [College], were placed in a special account to pay legal fees. … One of the denomination’s leaders in the field of higher education wrote an editorial … maintaining that it would be preferable to close the college rather than let this new group … assume control.[14]
Why this objection to the denomination’s own members saving the college and vowing to keep it within the denomination? Why this death wish? The reason is simple: The entrenched leaders, who showed neither the will nor the ability to save the college, preferred to preside over the death of King College rather than to relinquish their control.
These, then, are the steps that lead to decline: First, a failure to seek God’s direction results in the silence of God. Second, the silence of God results in spiritual confusion. Third, spiritual confusion leads to institutional decline. And, fourth, spiritual decline eventually leads to a death wish. These steps follow each other inexorably. A fundamental law of God is that we reap exactly what we have sown. We are free to make our choices, but we are not free to escape the consequences of those choices.
Dean M. Kelly, a staff member of the National Council of Churches, makes the following statement about declining institutions:
Having once succumbed to debility, a church is unlikely to recover, not because measures leading to recovery could not be prescribed and instituted … but because the persons who now occupy positions [of control] will not find them congenial and will not want to institute them. They prefer a church which is not too strenuous or demanding—a church, in fact, which is dying.[15]
From a human perspective, Kelly may be correct about the slim chances for renewing a declining religious organization. But the Church is more than a human institution. The Church belongs to Christ, and the Church is divine. Certainly we must not abandon hope for a new day. I believe we can see church renewal and the reversal of institutional decline.
Fresh start.
The Biblical formula for renewal remains clear: renewal comes through repentance and obedience. The Biblical prescription for renewal does not begin with spending more money, reorganizing structures, maintaining the status quo or sacrificially giving oneself for organized religion. We need the forgiveness which follows repentance and the rekindled fellowship with God which results from obedience to His Word.
Jesus’ declaration remains prophetic for our own time:
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. … Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father. … Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (Matt. 7: 15-27).
Regression and decline are not inevitable. Hearty repentance and faithful obedience to God can bring us a fresh start.
Harry Emerson Fosdick once issued a challenge that bears repeating:
[One] is an excellent cook who knows how to make a good dinner out of the left-overs, and hardly a more invigorating truth is taught by history than that most of the finest banquets spread for the delectation of the race have been prepared by [those] who made them out of the leavings of disappointed hopes.[16]
Ezekiel insisted that dry bones can live again. We can see renewal in our time.
But renewal must come on God’s terms, not ours. When we obey God’s Word and rely on God’s power we will experience spiritual revival and institutional growth. As we respond to Christ’s call, the Holy Spirit will give us His wisdom, favor and anointing. And then-we shall reverse decline and glorify the Father.
Dr. Kenneth Kinghorn is vice-president at large of Asbury Theological Seminary. He is co-author of Discovering and Using Your Spiritual Gifts, new from Bristol Books.
[1] A fair presentation of theological liberalism at its best is L. Harold DeWolf. A Case For Theology In Liberal Perspective. The Westminster Press. 1959.
[2] Henry P. Von Dusen. The Vindication Of Liberal Theology. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1963. p. 56.
[3] Kenneth Cauthen. The Impact of American Religious Liberalism. Second Edition. University Press of America, 1983, p. 215.
[4] Liberalism generally regarded sin more as a defect or as ignorance than as a spiritual disease. Often liberalism focused on the social sources of evil rather than on the corruption of the human heart.
[5] Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) substituted human experience for scripture as the primary source for religious knowledge. His writings exerted a profound influence on Protestant thought.
[6] Jerry Walls. The Problem Of Pluralism: Recovering United Methodist Identity. Good News Books, 1986. p. 77.
[7] Peter Gay and Richard Lovelace hove compellingly demonstrated that heterodox theologies reach bock to the materialistic philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome. Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation: The Rise of Modern Paganism. Alfred A. Knopf. 1966. pp. 111-419: Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life. InterVarsity Press. 1979. pp. 416-419.
[8] Albert C. Outler, Evangelism In The Wesleyan Spirit. Tidings, 1971. p. 106.
[9] Robert E. Chiles. Theological Transition in American Methodism. Abingdon Press. 1965. p. 16.
[10] William H. Willimon and Robert L. Wilson. ”The Present Crisis: The Impact of the Membership Decline in the Mainline churches.”” Quarterly Review. VII. #3, Fall. 1987. pp. 76, 77.
[11] Peter Drucker. The Effective Executive. Harper & Row, Publishers. 1967. p. 4.
[12] George G. Hunter III. To Spread The Power: Church Growth In The Wesleyan Spirit. Abingdon Press. 1987. p. 139.
[13] Two religion professors on campus were exceptions. They opposed the plan for renewing the college.
[14] Richard G. Hutcheson Jr., Mainline Churches And The Evangelicals. John Knox Press. 1981. pp. 16, 17.
[15] Dean M. Kelly. Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. A Study In The Sociology Of Religion. Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977, p. xviii.
[16] Harry Emerson Fosdick. The Meaning Of Being A Christian. Association Press. 1964. p.108.
by Steve | Nov 6, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Concentrating On Conversions
By Sara L. Anderson
One of the most recognizable faces in the National Football League stares out at the gridiron from under his trademark hat. So intense is his concentration, so unchanging his expression, that writers have compared his visage to one etched in granite. What many people do not realize is that Dallas Cowboys’ head coach Tom Landry, a United Methodist, directs equal intensity toward encouraging people to put their faith in Jesus Christ.
“I’m really kind of an evangelist—most people think I’m a Baptist,” the third winningest coach in the NFL says with a chuckle. But Landry takes seriously the role he feels evangelism should play in the denomination. “I think we neglect this a great deal,” he says of United Methodists.
Personal Conversion
The issue may be of extra importance to Landry because he discovered his need for a personal relationship with Christ somewhere other than through his denomination. Thomas Wade Landry was born September 11, 1924 to Ray and Ruth Landry in the Rio Grande Valley town of Mission. The Landry family lived a half-block from the Methodist Church. Ray Landry was Sunday school superintendent, and the family made it to church every Sunday.
“We didn’t study the Bible as a family; we prayed over meals when we had company. My parents’ view was that we were Christians,” Tom explains. “I was taught good principles by my family, but I never knew what the Gospel of Jesus Christ was all about,” he recalls. “I never really heard it, although I’m sure many ministers preached it from the pulpit. But my ears were closed and my eyes were shut, as the Scripture says.”
So Landry continued to attend church and considered himself a Christian. After a stint in the Air Force, he married Alicia, played football at the University of Texas and developed his football career as a player and coach for the New York Giants. He had everything that would make a yuppie of today grin with satisfaction. But Landry still looked for that illusive, missing “something.”
The Landrys had moved to Dallas, and in 1958, Tom, who read the Bible from time to time, was invited to a prayer breakfast and Bible study.
“I had never studied the Bible before and I was 33 years old at the time,” he says. “When I started studying the Bible, God opened my eyes to what the Gospel was all about. I became a Christian.”
Tom and Alicia, members of Highland Park United Methodist Church, remained faithful Methodists after their conversions. But they weren’t always comfortable with the direction the church was taking.
Frustration nearly led Landry to leave the denomination in the early 1960’s. “It was all social gospel, even in our church, even in Perkins Seminary at SMU,” he recalls. “We had a Sunday school teacher at that time who said the 10 Commandments were out of date.”
Then Landry decided he wanted to start a Thursday morning Bible study/breakfast for the men of his church. He wasn’t sure how to go about it, and he had trouble finding anyone in the church who would help him arrange it. “Finally, one assistant minister helped me, and I started it,” he says.
“I was going to move out, but for some reason God kept me in the Methodist Church,” Landry says. His perseverance was rewarded. Leighton Farrell, who had worked with Landry during the 1972 Billy Graham Greater Southwest Crusade in Dallas became the Highland Park pastor. “When he came into the pulpit it was revitalized because he believes in the Word of God,” the coach says, adding that Highland Park now has five services every Sunday.
Landry attends the early morning service when he’s home, even when the Cowboys are scheduled to play only hours later. In the past he’s held church office and taught Sunday school. But with the obviously heavy demands on his time, Landry limits his outside-football activities to those he considers best suited to his gifts and most significant.
Of utmost importance to Landry is the role he feels evangelism should play in the church. Because of this he is participating in the United Methodist Foundation For Evangelism’s plan to raise money to establish chairs of evangelism at all UM seminaries. Part of the strategy involves promoting the sale of fine art lithographs, reproductions of the Kenneth Wyatt paintings of “The Twelve (Apostles)” and “Offer them Christ.” Proceeds from the sales would help to endow the chairs of evangelism.
“I became concerned with the areas of Scripture and evangelism because I believe in the inerrant Word of God,” Landry explains. “Unfortunately, some of our Methodist churches do not believe this.
“A church needs to be Spirit-driven to be a really flourishing church,” he adds. “John Wesley was one of the great evangelists of our time, and we’ve gotten away from that in our church. But that’s what the Methodist Church needs.”
Conversion Of Priorities
Landry is not one to merely talk about evangelism; he quietly and consistently lives his relationship with Christ—before the city of Dallas, the press and his players. His life aims are not what you would expect from a coach whose team has won two Super Bowls and 20 playoff games.
In fact, the first thing Landry noticed after his conversion was that his priorities fell short of the Scriptural goal. “What you consider most real and valuable in your life is [really] your religion. Football was my religion,” the coach says. While going through high school and college Landry thought that if a person was successful in football, “then that was what life was all about.” He says he began to discover the fallacy of such thinking after being part of the New York Giants world championship team.
“I was searching at the time a friend got me into that Bible study. Once I accepted Christ, my priorities changed,” he says. “God was first, my family second and football was number three.”
The coach has not kept those convictions a secret, much to the chagrin of some of his players. The Cowboys’ great defensive lineman, Bob Lilly, recently told the Waco, Tex., Tribune-Herald, about hearing the priority speech when he was a rookie. “He said he wanted us to know how he had his priorities arranged …. I remembered after he had left, we rookies agreed we’d never win because he had his priorities all out of order. But 27 years later, I believe he was right,” Lilly says.
Landry is not one to be reticent about his relationship with Christ, but at the same time he is not abrasive. He wants to be a witness in his organization through example. He has initiated chapel services and Bible studies with players and their wives held on Thursday nights. “To me this is the way I influence our organization. It’s good to see the number of players that eventually accept Christ,” Tom says.
While Cowboys party animals have been known to chafe under such a straight-laced coach, others have been deeply influenced by his walk with God. Denver Broncos’ head coach Dan Reeves and Chicago Bears’ head coach Mike Ditka are among them, not to mention Lilly, who after his retirement from football, also trusted Christ.
Landry has also been criticized for maintaining a bit of aloofness from his players because he feels they would not respect a buddy as a leader. Yet Tom can let his guard down at appropriate times. He made a brief appearance on the team’s music video, submitted to being tossed in a swimming pool during the 1978 Super Bowl victory celebration and donned a real-live Cowboys outfit for a credit card commercial. Besides, the granite-faced stereotype is definitely broken when Landry isn’t concentrating on screen plays and roll outs.
Landry’s Christian activities go beyond his team and the church. He has given much time to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, at one time serving as national chairperson. He’s a board member of Dallas Theological Seminary and has given testimony to God’s faithfulness at evangelistic crusades sponsored by Bill Glass and James Robison, as well as Billy Graham. He’s been involved with prayer breakfasts sponsored by city and state officials, and a form of that Bible study he started through the church 20 years ago still exists.
While his commitment to the UMC is evident, Landry is ambivalent when asked for his impressions of the current state of Methodism. “Encouraged and yet not encouraged,” is the answer. “So many of the Methodist churches are too liberal—for me,” he says. “I just can’t accept that. But I think the church is still of Jesus Christ, wherever it is. Our only hope is in Jesus Christ and the church.”
If a Cowboys’ offensive strategy isn’t working, you can be sure Coach Landry will work on improving it. He feels the same way about the problems of the denomination. “It’s our job as lay people to try our best [to bring about reform],” he says.
Part of “doing our best” for Landry involves not hand wringing, but fervent prayer. “If we’ve got enough people praying, there won’t be any question that [the United Methodist Church] will turn around. That’s the problem we have. We need to get more of our members concerned about the problem and praying that God will change it.”
Sara L. Anderson is associate editor of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 5, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Why Not Cooperate With Billy Graham?
by J.L. Penfold
The report of the Billy Graham Crusade held July 17-26 at Mile High Stadium in Denver, Colorado, fairly glows with balanced, holistic ministry. It exceeded every expectation. Following years of planning, the crusade consisted of 10 days of evangelism and social outreach. The challenge was laid down that this outreach continue. One could easily be reminded in those crusade days of John Wesley and his followers changing a nation and sweeping a new continent with just such a total Gospel message.
My wife and I attended the Billy Graham School of Evangelism held in conjunction with the crusade. On the second day of that event a clergywoman from our annual conference approached us and asked, “Where are the United Methodists? They are missing a great week.” Indeed they were. Of 1,200 persons enrolled for the school, eight were United Methodists from the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference.
Further evidence of United Methodist coolness toward the Graham crusade was seen in an analysis of group delegation attendance. Of major denominations, the United Methodists had the fewest churches active in the crusade. When approached about this, Rev. Richard Gilbert, assistant to Denver United Methodist Bishop Roy Sano, responded, “Billy Graham is a fine evangelist, but he’s not specifically United Methodist, so the conference office has not endorsed (the crusade). The churches, however, are free to become involved” (Rocky Mountain News, Monday, July 27).
There are a number of ironies in the tepidness of the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference toward the Billy Graham Crusade. We think of ourselves as avant garde in such matters as ecumenicity. For example, in 1986 we employed the leadership of Jewish Rabbi Stephen Foster, an annual conference preacher. Obviously Rabbi Foster is not a United Methodist, or even a Christian, and would probably be insulted to be mistaken for either. But in the name of ecumenicity we gave him the power of the annual conference pulpit. How strange that we should then turn around and say we will not endorse the Graham crusade since Billy is not a United Methodist.
The second irony is that leaders in our annual conference have recently been speaking much more about evangelism. It seems a proper emphasis in a conference that has lost more than 20,000 members in the past two decades. But when the Graham crusade team came to the Denver area and began to train persons in the practical skills of one-to-one evangelism, United Methodists kept them and the whole event at arm’s length in most cases.
The third irony is perhaps the saddest, for it makes personal the statistics that record United Methodist decline. The chairman of the Rocky Mountain Billy Graham Crusade, Howard Kast, worshiped in a local United Methodist Church until recently. Howard Kast was a lifelong Methodist. In 1965 Billy Graham led an earlier crusade in Denver. One of those who responded to Billy’s invitational to receive Christ at that crusade was Howard Kast. Howard, chairman of his Methodist church’s administrative board and a new Christian, went home to share his new vision for the church.
Many of his fellow laity caught Howard’s excitement, but his pastor was stand-offish and threatened. After years of seeking renewal in their local church and finding little support from the pastoral leadership, the Kasts began to worship in another denomination. In the early 80s they felt God was leading them back to their United Methodist Church. In 1985 when the Graham crusade was being planned, the Kasts were seriously considering rejoining that United Methodist Church. Meanwhile, Howard had been offered and had accepted the chairmanship of the crusade. In that capacity he sought the United Methodist pastor’s support in the crusade effort. The results were much the same as those 20 years earlier. The pastoral leadership offered no encouragement or assistance, and the Kasts now worship in another denomination. It is almost humorous that our denomination was the least involved in the crusade while the crusade chairman was, until recently, a lifelong Methodist.
What lies ahead for an annual conference that operates in this manner in a denomination in decline in almost every quarter? It seems clear that God has not yet given up on the people called United Methodists. He is coming to us so obviously in modern day prophets with names like Wilke and Willimon and Wilson. If we will put words into action, then United Methodism could play a key role in the national revival many believe God is poised to bring.
But if we do not, then the mainstream will pass us by and leave us on a side eddy. Our Lord Himself spoke of what happens to fig trees that bear no fruit and to branches that abide not in the true Vine. Wesley said, “Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God and I’ll take England.” Among Wesley’s descendants, do one hundred like that remain?
Rev. J. L. Penfold is pastor of Alger Memorial United Methodist Church in Eaton, Colorado, and he serves on the Good News Board.
by Steve | Sep 10, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Maintenance An Obsession, Hunter Charges
by Sara L. Anderson in Upland, Indiana
“Most churches would grow if they spent even half the time and energy on outreach that they spend on maintenance,” George Hunter, dean and professor of church growth at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky., told United Methodists gathered for the annual Good News convocation.
Speaking to a group of 600 at Taylor University in Upland, Ind., Hunter said that United Methodist membership is declining partly because ineffective church leaders do not deploy their people effectively.
“A pastor visiting unchurched people in the community will attract more people into the faith than will a pastor spending priority time and energy on meetings, judicatory matters and ecclesiastical chores.” he said. “Hire a new staff person for counseling members. Deploy volunteers in outreach and you will grow; deploy them in maintenance and ‘good church work’ and you will decline.”
But the problem is much deeper than the operation of the local church. Hunter charged that the denomination continues to use an archaic geographic pattern of placing ministers instead of sending them to potential growth areas. Early Methodism “had a goal of placing a church in every county in the U.S.A.,” he said. “And we substantially succeeded, but at that success we declared the victory ‘won,’ and the church planting era to be past—at the very same time that the population shift to the cities called for a new strategy of planting churches and deploying clergy in great numbers across our cities.” While the population of the U.S. by the year 2000 will be 80% urban and 20% rural. Hunter added, 80% of UM churches are located in rural areas and 20% in the urban areas as they were in 1900 when the country was predominantly rural.
Hunter also revealed some startling statistics from a study he’d done of North American denominations and their mission forces. Of the 30 denominations studied, United Methodism ranks 28 in per capita overseas missionaries. While the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church heads the list with a ratio of one missionary for every 139 members, the United Methodist Church supports one missionary for every 18,206 members.
This indicates, Hunter said, that the UMC is not serious about a world agenda. He also stated that the missionary ratio correlates with growth or decline. The denominations increasing their mission forces are growing in general. “Do you suppose the Lord blesses the churches that obey the Great Commission?” he asked.
Rousing applause followed UM evangelist Ed Robb’s statement later during the convocation that “We need a new generation of leaders—bold, strong, faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” And, he added, “We have not been called by God to preside over the decline of the United Methodist Church!”
Robb listed a number of things evangelicals within the church must say “no” to:
- changing God language,
- the politicalization of the church,
- proclaiming sociology as orthodoxy
- vast bureaucracies unresponsive to the vast majority of members,
- a Council of Bishops “that refuses to give leadership when an annual conference defies church law and the expressed will of General Conference, but insists on speaking prophetically to the church on subjects on which they have no expertise.”
But he also concluded with a big “yes” to renewal within the United Methodist Church. “Time and time again God has renewed His church,” Robb said. “My commitment is not tentative.” he added. “If anyone is going to leave. let the liberals leave. We will be faithful. Revival shall come!”
An unusual twist to this year’s meeting was the presence of Public Broadcasting System television cameras filming for a special on religion in America. As part of that program, which may be aired this winter. PBS correspondent Bill Moyers interviewed Ed Robb, and other reporters talked with conferees.
In another special event, Riley B. Case. Good News board member and district superintendent for the Marion, Indiana district, was awarded a doctor of divinity degree from Taylor University, his alma mater.
Bill Hinson, pastor of First United Methodist in Houston, the largest UM church in America, offered three addresses. Preaching on Daniel’s conflicts with Nebuchadnezzar, Hinson said that taking heat and experiencing tribulation was a part of life. “Where do we come off believing everybody ought to like us?” he asked. “We are followers of Christ who suffered.”
In addition to Hinson, pastor of the largest UM church in the U.S., Dr. Sundo Kim, pastor of the largest Methodist Church in the world, was in attendance at the convocation. Though not on the program, Dr. Kim, senior minister of the Kwang Lim Methodist Church in Seoul, Korea, a church of more than 23,000 members, brought brief greetings to the convocation.
Jack Williams, pastor of Stockwell United Methodist Church. Stockwell, Ind., did the morning Bible studies in the book of James, and UM evangelist Barbara Brokhoff cautioned against double-mindedness in the Christian life. “You can’t have it both ways,” she admonished. “You cannot live like the devil and have people think you’re like Christ.”
Retired Bishop Roy Nichols, who is currently assigned to a church-wide project for local church revitalization, said the church may look successful with job security, educated clergy and other benefits, but “we have produced great thunderclouds with little rain.” The bishop pointed to a lack of humility, antinomianism and poorly defined pluralism as reasons for the denomination’s difficulty. To succeed, the bishop said, the UMC must make children’s and youth ministries a priority and be a church that cares for its people.
Music for the three-day convocation was provided by Bill Mann, “the golden voice of Methodism,” and Albin Whitworth, associate professor of church music and organist for Asbury Theological Seminary. Patty Heinlein directed the children’s program and youth ministers Jorge Acevedo and Hule Goddard led the youth program.
by Steve | Sep 8, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: A Look At The People’s Bishop
By Randy Petersen
In a United Methodist church in the heart of Pennsylvania, Bishop Felton May knelt in a prayer of repentance. He had invited his people to join him on this Ash Wednesday at Beaver Memorial Church in Lewisburg, and more than 400 did. Thousands of others throughout the Central Pennsylvania and Wyoming Conferences took part in prayer vigils and services in their own churches.
The bishop issued a 10-point call to repentance for the occasion (see below), confessing shortcoming such as “failure to grieve over the loss of members” and “failure to allow our daughters and sons to hear and answer the call of God to ministry.” At the top of the list was “being an unconverted church trying to convert an unconverted world.”
He doesn’t mince words. In just three years as bishop, May has gained a reputation as a man of action, a strong leader who inspires his people to do more than they had thought possible.
“He expects the best from himself and brings out the best in those around him,” says Gerald Wagner, who directs communications for the Central Pennsylvania Conference. “You walk away from a meeting with him, knowing he’s asked you to do something impossible, but you also know you’ll do it and do it well.”
In his first year as bishop, 1984-85, May gave himself the challenges of visiting every pastor in the two conferences he administers and sitting down with the people in each charge for a brief give-and-take session. The 13 districts in Central Pennsylvania and the neighboring Wyoming Valley include more than 1,200 churches with a combined membership of more than a quarter million. Throughout that first year, the bishop conducted his whirlwind tour, stopping for 15 minutes at a time in the various churches.
At each site, he would ask three questions: (1) If I were a new person in this community, how would you describe your church to me? (2) Does your church have a future, and what are you doing to ensure this future? (3) What questions do you have for me?
Anywhere from five to seventy showed up at the different locations. The tall black bishop would fire his questions and lean forward to listen to the answers, peering attentively through his wire-framed glasses. It was a leadership style he would become known for: being a listener. “He’s good at allowing people to speak, and then directing that,” says one pastor. “He is open and fair, but he won’t let himself be walked on. He will hear all sides and then set a course.”
What did the bishop learn from his first-year scouting expedition? “I learned that the local church is healthier than I first believed. In spite of what is generally thought, local churches are indeed in ministry in the name of Christ in their communities. That’s a broad statement, but this experience gave me a sense of hope which I would not have had if I hadn’t seen things for myself. There are mission and ministry efforts going on, and hundreds of thousands of instances where the name of Jesus is named and a cup of cold water is given.”
But there were needs that became apparent too. “I also learned that there were unchurched people in the community, and I began to discern why local churches are not reaching them,” the bishop explained. “People feel vulnerable in sharing their faith stories. We as an annual conference have not moved programmatically to strengthen them in this regard. People are reticent to be Christ’s models in the community; they are not willing to be different.”
The strengthening of the laity has become one of May’s major themes. The year after his own massive visitation, he challenged his pastors with a similar task—visiting every member of their congregations within the following year. His seven-point plan also included establishing new church school classes and conducting religious surveys in their communities. Three-quarters of the pastors completed the assignment. They came back with success stories. Their personal contact with church people had helped them discover and deal with some problems they hadn’t known about, such as acute loneliness or alcoholism. In some cases, people who had not attended church for a while were wooed back.
But May also got some resistance to his plan. A number of pastors said they just didn’t have time. Meeting in cluster groups with some of his pastors, the bishop reminded them that this was in essence what they had pledged to do when they were ordained and appointed in their parishes. He was merely asking them to be pastors. But the visitation still seemed to be a burden. As May looked into this further, he spotted some new problems. “Some pastors are enslaved. The expectations of some of our congregations are unrealistic. One pastor was required to be in his office every day from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. That was what church leaders saw the pastor’s role to be. They also expected the pastor to attend every meeting.”
Therefore May’s message to local churches is simply this: “Free your pastor to do ministry. I believe very firmly in the ministry of all believers. Perhaps that is one of the tools to revitalize our congregations, to remind them that they are not just spectators, but participants.” He urges lay people to discover things they can do—office work or hospital visitation, perhaps—that can augment the pastor’s work and release him or her for creative ministry.
“At every point in history where the church has taken a quantum leap forward, it has been because lay people have returned to a creative study of Scripture and have developed a sufficient will to act out what they have learned.” Bishop May has high hopes for the “Disciple” program, and considers the forming of covenant groups “the order of the day.”
As lay people get more involved in the work of the church, pastors must adapt. “The pastor is going to have to become a teacher, a trainer, a nurturer of small groups, one who is not afraid to energize lay persons,” May says. He encourages pastors to utilize the many lay speakers available—he counts 2,000 competent lay speakers in his conferences alone. These persons could become the “front-line troops” in the task of extending the church’s outreach.
Lay Retreats
To help energize the laity, the bishop participates in annual lay retreats for study. nurture and action. In addition, he hopes to conduct conferences for people in different vocation groups. This September in Carlisle the first such conference—for lawyers—will convene. That may be followed by a gathering of health-care professionals next year. May also leads annual confirmation rallies and a strong follow-up program, so that young people realize they are not just graduating from some educational course, but becoming active. integral members of their churches. The bishop hopes to point some toward full-time Christian service.
In a way, Felton May was cut out for Christian service since childhood. When he was baptized at age nine, his pastor asked him what he would do with his life for God. “What you’re doing,” young Felton replied. The Lord confirmed his call to ministry when Felton was 16, and in the following decade—which included college, a two-year Army stint, and seminary classes—the young man got to work closely with several fine ministers.
In 1963, Felton and Phyllis May launched the Maple Park UMC in a semi-suburban area of Chicago. He was pastor; she was director of religious education. Five years later they had a thriving ministry, but Felton was invited to Wilmington, Delaware, to work with the Methodist Action Program. “I had no intention of going, but the socioeconomic conditions there just broke my heart.” He was strongly advised against taking the job, but he felt God clearly leading him eastward.
May spent seven years in Wilmington, two as associate executive director of the Methodist Action Program and five as pastor of the Ezion-Mt. Carmel UMC. He had been active in the civil rights movement previously, but those years in Wilmington kindled a fire in his heart for social ministry that still burns.
Traditional People
In 1975 May became the first black district superintendent in Easton, Maryland. Later he directed the Council on Ministries of the Peninsula Conference. In 1984 he moved to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, following his election as a bishop.
The people in the Harrisburg area are a traditional sort, mostly farmers and blue-collar workers. The national economy has not been kind to them in recent years. Unemployment is high, and income is on the decline. Yet the people give generously to the church. Gerald Wagner points out that Central Pennsylvania is among the leading conferences nationwide in percentage of churches paying their apportionments in full. But for these people, that’s nothing special. It’s merely what’s expected. They follow through on their promises, even in hard times.
Bishop May carries that sense of responsibility into the church’s spiritual life as well. “We are the people of the Good News—we should behave like it. We must become models for the presence of Christ in the world. Everybody talks about it, but we have to put up or shut up. Either Christ is Lord, or He is not. If He is, then act like it.”
Evangelism rides high on Bishop May’s agenda. Harrisburg pastor Charles Shearer cites the bishop’s help in planning an evangelistic crusade in his area for next spring. “He’s very sympathetic to matters of evangelism and church growth,” Shearer says. May has set up a task force on evangelism to determine what specifically is hindering the proclamation of the Gospel by United Methodists and what can be done to promote it.
But mention the idea that evangelism and social ministry might be in conflict, and Bishop May will vehemently disagree. “The dichotomy between proclaiming the Good News and doing social action is demonic. I do what I do because I know that I am a child of God. I have no choice. I am compelled by the authority of the Holy Spirit to be in ministry in every way that I can. Make no mistake about it; our deeds of lovingkindness are done in the name of Christ.”
He recalls a story he heard as a boy of four or five in a Bible school in Chicago run by missionaries from Moody Bible Institute. It seems a missionary once gave a sweater to a shivering boy. But the boy still did not seem happy. The missionary asked, “Why are you still unhappy? Don’t you like the sweater?” The boy answered, “I don’t like the way you looked at me when you gave me the sweater.”
As a skilled teacher, Bishop May extracts a lesson from the story. “We need to be ministering not only in the giving, but also in the looking. We should be projecting the presence of Christ.”
This attitude gives May what one pastor calls a “broad perspective” on the issues of the church. He can enthusiastically affirm the social ministry agenda of the denomination while also emphasizing the need for evangelism. For him, it’s merely a matter of practicing what you preach, living out what you claim to believe. “All of the ‘isms’—ageism, racism, sexism—would be wiped out tomorrow, if we would only act like the people of God.”
Racism has touched the bishop personally. He has walked into churches to visit pastors and had custodians treat him rudely. He has had people walk out as he rose to preach. Even in the face of such mistreatment, he looks for “teachable moments,” when he can help someone grow closer to Christ. “The problem is that people do not really believe the Gospel story. If they did, they would not—they could not—be racist.”
What does Bishop May see as the major problem facing the United Methodist Church? “We’ve lost our will to be the people of God.” He’s back to his theme of doing and saying. People know how to obey God, but will they?
Still, Felton May is no nay-sayer. He rejoices in the spiritual depth of United Methodist leaders. “It has not been reported,” he says, “that when the bishops gather, we circle our chairs for prayer.” He applauds his colleagues for issuing the pastoral letter.” In Defense of Creation,” as well as the recent emphases from UM boards on making disciples and evangelizing communities. He advises critics to put away stereotypes. ” Begin to celebrate that we are in missions and ministry around the world. We must appropriate for ourselves the same mind as that of Christ Jesus.”
Randy Peterson is a free-lance writer from Westville, New Jersey.
A Call to Repentance
On Ash Wednesday of this year Bishop Felton May issued the following 10-point call to repentance. It is characteristic of his firm, yet compassionate style of leadership.
- Being “an unconverted church trying to convert an unconverted world”
- Failure to grieve over the loss of members and our failure to rejoice over those who join our church by profession of faith and transfer from other denominations
- Failure to communicate the love of God to persons in need, without condoning their lifestyles
- Pointing the finger of blame at the denomination or others, without pointing at ourselves
- Failure to allow our daughters and sons to hear and answer the call of God to ministry
- Failure to recruit new persons in mission to supplement those already at work under the General Board of Global Ministries
- Being willing to cry for peace, justice and mercy without taking appropriate steps to be peacemakers, justice bearers and dispensers of mercy
- Failure to eliminate racism and sexism from every part of society
- Being silent while others cheapen life through pornography, violence, crime and even “disinformation” in government
- My lack of faith in the power of Christ to overcome the evils of the world and my unwillingness to be an instrument for His ultimate victory
by Steve | Sep 6, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Unofficial Hymns
by Riley B. Case
Many Methodist favorites were once barred from the Hymnal
Methodism was not many years in the New World before it became apparent that the Gospel’s best chance in America was to make itself relevant for the situation (“contextualization,” for those who like the word). A great awakening was not likely to be launched with black gowns, white neck bands, or even Wesley’s “Sunday Service.”
What was relevant for American Methodism and the ensuing Great Awakening was straight Wesleyan preaching and discipline in the setting of American-style revivals and camp meetings. Music was an important part of the Awakening, but the music was more than just British hymn-singing imported. As one early writer explained:
“At the commencement of the revival these familiar hymns (Wesley’s), known in all our orthodox congregations, were used; but it was soon felt that they gave but imperfect expression to the ardent feelings of the worshippers. The deficiency was principally supplied by the preachers. Hymns, or ‘spiritual songs,’ as they were more frequently called, to the cultured ear rude and bold in expression, rugged in meter and imperfect in rhyme, often improvised in the preaching stand, were at once accepted as more suited to their wants. These were quickly committed to memory, and to a considerable extent usurped the place of the older and more worthy hymns.”[1]
Thus was born the camp meeting “spiritual songs,” the forerunner of revival tunes, Sunday school songs, gospel, black gospel, charismatic choruses, and most of what is heard in evangelical churches today.
Some have called these camp meeting spirituals, both white and black, true American folk music. At the time, however, the songs were often referred to as “Methodist music,” and they soon found their way into print. One early collection, Pilgrim’s Songster (1810), featured the songs of two Methodists, John Granada and Caleb Taylor, and sold more than 10,000 copies. One of Francis Asbury’s oft-quoted admonitions indicates that these publishing efforts were not always appreciated by “official” Methodism: “We must therefore earnestly entreat you, if you have any respect for the authority of the Conference, or of us, or any regard for the prosperity of the Connection, to purchase no Hymn-Books, but what are signed with the names of your bishops.”
What the bishops put their signature to was not American fervor but English respectability. If there was an American revival it was not noticed in the official hymnal. Not a single American author was included in any official hymnal up to the time of the Civil War.
The story was quite different, however, for unofficial books. Between 1811 and 1897 at least 42 Methodist-related songbooks were issued. The most famous of these, The Revivalist(1868), was thoroughly American. Both Wesley and Watts were put to American tunes, and joined by American camp meeting spirituals, Sunday school songs, revival tunes, and choruses. Names associated with texts and tunes—Lewis Hartsough, Joseph Hillman, William Hunter, William Fischer, Phoebe Palmer—represented a who’s who among Methodist preachers and evangelists of the day. It was endorsed by Philip Phillips, music editor of the Methodist Book Concern, and sold 150,000 copies.
But Methodist enthusiasm was also an embarrassment for many. The 1878 Methodist Episcopal hymnal basically ignored indigenous American Methodist music. Ninety-two percent of its hymns were of British or European origin, and, outside of Wesley, there were more hymns by Unitarians than by Methodists. Only four of its 1,170 hymn carried a refrain (one sign of a gospel song) and fewer than five hymns in the whole book were associated with anyone west of Philadelphia or south of Washington.
Given the tremendous theological, cultural and musical gap between official and unofficial Methodism, it is no wonder there was a populist and Holiness revolt in the period 1880-1910. Music was a factor in that revolt, since the people who cried for spiritual pastors and spiritual churches also cried for spiritual songs. The formation of a dozen or so Holiness and Pentecostal groups, both white and black, during this period meant Methodism lost many of its “enthusiasts,” most of whom were poor and unsophisticated, the very kind of people that had flocked to Methodism in its earliest days.
This is not to suggest that Methodists were not still the major contributors in the growing popularity and influence of gospel music. The Methodist Fanny Crosby wrote 8,000 hymns, many of which are still popular today. The Methodist Ira Sankey became known throughout America and England and his Gospel Songs sold 50 million copies of the various editions. The Methodist Henry Gate founded the Hope Publishing Company, known at that time for the series of songbooks known as Pentecostal Hymns.
None of this seemed to matter much to the committee which compiled the 1905 hymnal, a joint effort of the M.E. Church and the M.E. Church, South. The editor of that hymnal, while commenting on the gospel song and the spiritual song, wrote that, while all Methodists believe in enthusiasm, Methodism “should never, we all agree, encourage a poor sinner or feeble saint to base enthusiasm on a bubble, a rattle, or a jingle.”
About 30 of the bubbles, rattles and jingles, however, were added to the book as a compromise, representing the first significant inclusion of revival music in any official Methodist book. The rest of the collection, besides Wesley (whose stock was falling with each new hymnal); leaned heavily on Anglican divines and Unitarian poets. Eighty-two percent of the hymns were of British or European origin (as if that was the place to find true religion), and besides the heavy infiltration of the Unitarians, there were more Congregational and Presbyterian and Episcopalian authors than authors of the M.E. Church, South, and almost as many as from the M.E. Church, North. Fewer than 10 of the hymns were associated with anyone west of Philadelphia or south of Washington.
But for bishops and the professor-types, that was “official” Methodism. So that there could be no mistake about how the bishops felt about the kind of music that was so popular among common people, the signed statement in the preface of the 1905 hymnal suggested that with the publishing of the new hymnal, any unauthorized books, “Which often teach what organized Methodism does not hold, and which, by excluding the nobler music of the earlier and later days, prevent the growth of a true musical taste” should be supplanted.
The bishops, besides showing their cultural elitism, were also naive. Gospel music, and other music associated with common people, instead of dying out, flourished even more. The Methodist Charles Tindley wove black folk music and revival gospel in a new genre which later became known as black gospel. Authors like the Methodist preacher George Bennard wrote hymns like “The Old Rugged Cross,” which became instant favorites. The Methodist Homer Rodeheavor made popular hymns like “He Lives,” and “In the Garden.”
The 1935 hymnal was not impressed with the likes of Tindley, Bennard, or Rodeheavor. The liberalism of official Methodism was on a roll and spoke of a new age, and hymns needed to reflect that new age. It was generally agreed that the culture and theology that produced gospel music was dying, and that the future was with peace, brotherhood, activity, zeal and service. The number of Wesley hymns in the 1935 hymnal were nearly halved, sections in previous hymnals on sin and judgment were wiped out, and, in a decision fraught with symbolic significance, hallelujahs were generally changed to alleluias (as in “Christ the Lord is Risen Today”). Anything that was left over from the revival was given a choir robe to wear.
The present (1964) Methodist hymnal is the first to have to stand up to statistical analysis. The “church-usage survey” gives a different view of United Methodism than the image of the sophisticated church given in liberal seminary classrooms. Of the nearly 150 hymns new to the 1964 hymnal, 50 (mostly contemporary hymns for a new age that were quickly dated) never made the first cut and will not be carried over into the 1988 hymnal. Another 50 (everything left, except Wesley songs, spirituals, and gospel) will be carried over to the new hymnal, but presumably without a lot of enthusiasm, since as a group the hymns average only 20 percent usage in the churches according to the church-usage study.
On the other hand, 20 spiritual and gospel hymns introduced in the 1964 hymnal carry a church-usage average of 77 percent. One of those (“How Great Thou Art”) is now the favorite hymn of United Methodists. At the same time it can be argued there is not a single contemporary hymn from the mainline (or liberal) Protestant tradition written in the last 50 years that is a popular favorite among United Methodists. The five poorest-ranked spirituals and gospel hymns new to the 1964 hymnal still rank higher on the church usage list than the five best-ranked of everything else introduced in that hymnal.
Who really are the United Methodists? What do they believe? What do they sing? The present hymnal committee is to be commended for its sensitivity to Methodism’s evangelical and gospel heritage and its willingness to affirm that heritage with the inclusion of more gospel, black gospel, spirituals, and choruses in the new hymnal. We will be a stronger church because of it.
Riley B. Case is a consultant to the Hymnal Revision committee and serves on two hymnal revision subcommittees.
[1] “The Early Camp Meeting Song Writers.” The Methodist Quarterly Review. 1859. p. 401.