by Steve | May 4, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: UM Structure Squelches Black Church Growth
By Joseph L. Harris
If trends continue we can expect black Methodism to become an invisible force in United Methodism in the near future.
Before the “Letters to the Editor” column fills up with reactions to the following ideas, let me say that I realize what I am proposing is a radical step. However, urgent needs require radical ideas. Old formulas and solutions have to be discarded in times of crisis. The following ideas are meant to provide creative ideas to meet the crisis of which I speak.
There is a crisis in Methodism far more serious to United Methodists than the farm crisis, far more serious to Methodists than the unemployment figures, far more serious than the loss or 1.9 million Methodists during the last 20 years. This crisis strikes at the very soul of Methodism.
The crisis is the demise of the black United Methodist constituency. If trends continue we can expect black Methodism to become an invisible force in United Methodism in the near future. The only viable solution is to begin new black congregations and revitalize old ones. Sounds simple, yet our present structure may well be our biggest obstacle to beginning new churches and revitalizing old congregations.
Over-qualified Clergy
Our educational requirements for clergy are the main problem, as I perceive it. That is, our main problem is our demand that all fully ordained preachers must obtain a master of divinity degree or pursue a long course or study. (There is an exception clause in the Discipline #416.2, but this is rarely used.)
In effect, this strict requirement has made many black clergy over-qualified for their job. The average black person sitting in the pews today has obtained only a high school diploma, yet we require black preachers to be considerably more educated than most of the people they will serve. Otherwise, if black ministers choose not to seek seminary education, we relegate them to second-class citizenry by giving them limited rights compared to our “fully” ordained pastors. For blacks who have been righting the second-class citizen syndrome all our lives, this is but another insult.
Limited Future
Blacks who do pursue the seminary M. Div. degree often do not want to go to a low-member, low-paying charge with a limited future—especially when their white peers have a variety of options, both now and in the future. What many blacks do is seek additional education to create more career choices—a general board or conference job, or they may eventually move to another career or denomination rather than trying to revitalize a dying congregation or start a new one. How can we stem this tide? Perhaps, with a radical idea.
I propose a two-fold solution. First, when a black man or woman is called of God to preach we need to respect that. We need to recognize, too, that seminary may be neither vital nor appropriate for all persons called of God. Yet the call must be acknowledged as equal to the call of those who are currently ordained. If that person is called of God to pastor in the inner-city, the necessity of three years of graduate school may well do more to diminish readiness for this type of ministry than to help. Certainly some basic educational requirements could be determined, but seminary is neither the end nor the beginning of ministry. The call of God should be recognized as such.
Second, our seminaries should begin to provide full three-year scholarships to black men and women who desire a seminary education—that’s right, a free educational ride through seminary. Provided the student agree ahead of time to commit four to five years of his/her ministry to starting a new black church, revitalizing an old church or working on a mission field, either domestic or foreign. (This is no different than a hospital paying a medical student’s educational bills on the condition that the student agrees to practice medicine in that hospital for a specific number of years.) A student who chose to break the agreement would be required to simply pay what the seminary tuition would have been.
Lest you think these ideas show preferential treatment for blacks, I think similar plans would be helpful for white clergy serving in rural America. My main concern, though, is for black Methodists. Black Methodists help make Methodism a rich and vital denomination. It’s time we get radical before it’s too late.
Joseph L. Harris is associate pastor of Asbury United Methodist church in Tulsa, Okla., and a Good News board member.
by Steve | Mar 13, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: What a Renewed Methodism could mean
By Dennis Kinlaw
March/April 1987
THE PROGRESS OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD in human history has seldom been uniform or unilinear. It has been more a matter of starts and stops. The history of Israel in the Old Testament illustrates this. So does the long story of the Church since Pentecost.
Some eras have seen the light of the Gospel burn brightly and effectively. Others have seen that light almost extinguished. At times it has appeared that the light might even go out and darkness would prevail. But then the fire of God has broken out afresh, and the light has shined brightly again.
Little wonder that believers in a day and a culture like ours look back with nostalgia to the periods when the fire of the Spirit seemed to burn more vigorously. They are like the Psalmist who found himself crying out, “Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?” (Psalms 85:6, KJV). The psalmist longed to see God show His glory again.
There is a yearning like that in our day. A significant host of people are praying for the renewing flame of the Spirit to blaze again among God’s people. One friend of mine is aggressively seeking 1,000 men in his state who will commit themselves to pray from five to seven a.m. every day. His concern is revival in his part of our great land.
Many United Methodists are among those in the larger body of Christ who feel this burden. They look at their church’s tragic loss of membership over these last few years. They lament even more the impotence of that church at its inability to renew itself, to say nothing of its inability to renew the nation. They look back upon our history and the earlier glories of Methodism, and they find themselves praying: “Do it again, Lord! You did it among us in the 18th-century when we were born. You did it those robust days of our 19th-century youth. Do it now in the days of our maturity. Without it we die. Lord, do it again!”
That yearning is strong because of the greatness of our need. It is augmented though by some other factors. There are positive elements with the other major traditions within historic Christianity, elements in our situation that make United Methodists feel that their church, now wallowing like a great, beached whale that cannot find the waters again, has a potential to make it a special instrument in the hands of the Spirit of Christ. The devout Methodist sees a strategic agent in Methodism that makes its present sickness seem demonic. It is as if its problems were the result of an infection cleverly inflicted to neutralize a significant threat to the kingdom of evil.
But there are some factors still present in United Methodism that could make it an especially suitable renewal base for the Spirit. These are of such a nature and have such implications for the larger body of Christ that true revival within Methodism could have a very broad impact beyond its own boundaries. It is as if a special dispensation of the Gospel had been committed to us, a dispensation which we are now allowing to dissipate.
What are these factors? Let me mention just a few.
The first is the geographical spread of the Methodist church. It is not a regional church. It is almost omnipresent in our society. This is part of the priceless heritage left to us as a result of the evangelistic passion of the early circuit riders. They had a commission with a universal character. They felt they were “to publish the gospel in the face of the sun.” They almost did. The result is that Methodist churches are about as ubiquitous as the United States Postal Service. If real revival came to United Methodism, few areas in this country would be left untouched.
A second factor is sociological. The United Methodist Church is such an American church. There is a social centrism about it that the Spirit could use. Many of Methodism’s sister denominations, because of special factors in their histories, tend to be identified with particular regions, their own national, ethnic, racial or class origins. These are inhibiting factors that, on occasion, limit evangelistic outreach. Methodism does not have these particular limiting characteristics. A little knowledge of our history puts this in perspective.
When the Revolutionary War erupted in this country, American Methodism was very English. The preachers were Britishers whom John Wesley had sent to America. The Methodists were clearly associated with the Anglican Church. When the war broke out, all the English preachers except for Francis Asbury returned to their homeland. He, at some personal danger, cast his lot with the colonists. When they became an independent nation, he identified with that new nation, not his motherland. In 1784, he led American Methodists in the break with their brothers and sisters in Britain. Methodism became an American church. In that sense, it was the first truly American church, a character and a position from which it was to benefit greatly in the future.
Other elements must be cited here. Think of the passion for evangelism that seemed to consume the early Methodist preachers and the theology that informed that passion. Their goal was not renewal of their Anglican church. It was the conversion of the North American continent to Christ. Their concern for souls forced them to appeal across ethnic, racial, class and territorial lines. Their burden was as broad as they believed the love of God to be. Wherever any person could be found, he or she was fair game for conversion. Their great success made Methodism a part of almost all of American life.
The result was that in the 19th-century Methodism had a broader acceptance than any other denomination in this country. That is why historians like C. C. Goen and Winthrop F. Hudson could speak of this country in the 19th century as “the Methodist age in America.”* We, their descendants, have dissipated much of this heritage. Still, enough remains that the United Methodist Church could be a unique instrument to influence this nation if it were really quickened by the Spirit.
A third factor is theological. Methodist theology and its historical development in Wesley has common elements with the other major traditions within historic Christianity. This gives Methodism a unique potential as a base for true ecumenicity. When the Spirit moves in power, He always breaks across our barriers and brings people together. Revival is no more compatible with theological imperialism than is the Holy Spirit with theological indifference. That is why the roots of ecumenism are really in revival, sometimes to the embarrassment of some ecumenists. Consider then, several points Methodism has in common with very divergent theological traditions.
Methodists share with the Reformed churches their strong emphasis upon human sinfulness and the necessity for divine grace. We are at home with Calvin and Luther on original sin and sola gratia (grace only). Salvation is God’s work. Confidence in any human activity is misplaced. Predestination is another matter. The universal love of God for every person and the accountability of every man for his own character and destiny condition us here. Wesley was as firm as the Reformers and modern evangelicals about the necessity of justification by faith. But he saw that as a beginning, not an end. The end is conformity to the image of Christ, that holiness without which no one can see the Lord. Personal holiness is not just to be a passion. It must be a possibility. So Wesley is linked at one end with the Reformers and at the other with mystics and pietists of Catholic and Eastern origins.
Methodism has an emphasis on the sacraments that differentiates it from the Anabaptist, and the Free Church tradition. Its links here are with that apostolic line that includes the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Yet the Methodist emphasis upon the necessity of personal regeneration makes the Baptist, the Quaker and the Salvation Army believer know that the true Methodist is a genuine Christian brother or sister.
In Wesley’s writings there is the emphasis upon church tradition, as well as the apostolic faith. Wesley was sensitive to what God had done through the ages and wanted to identify with that. Yet, as he put it, he was “a man of one Book.” Here we find a clear and authentic tie with the fundamentalist and the inerrantist, who hold so strongly to the normative role of the Scripture for the church.
The Holy Spirit’s work in quickening, renewing, cleansing and empowering was at the heart of Wesley’s theology. Wesley’s emphasis upon the Spirit is a key factor in the emergence of the modern charismatic movement. Wesley would certainly have been as uncomfortable with some of what he would have called “enthusiasm” in this movement, as many in it would be with his high-churchmanship. Yet there is a significant commonality here.
There is even a tie in Wesley with modern theological liberalism in its concern for social reform. No one can ignore Wesley if he is looking for a model of passion for social justice. Wesley’s concern for “social holiness” theology.
The case could be extended. It is enough to say that there is a base in Methodist theology with a unique potential. It has points of contact with every segment of the body of Christ. It could be that it is theoretically God’s best base for revival. But will it come?
Recently a friend of mine was discussing the possibility of Methodist renewal with one of America’s most knowledgeable observers of the religious scene. His conclusions were negative. He sees little interest in genuine renewal at the leadership level. What he sees is concern to fund pension programs, subsidize small churches and maintain the structure. The future for Methodism? He envisions a continuation of the steady flight of the more devout from the church of their ancestors. “History,” he says, “is not on the side of seeing top-heavy bureaucracies change.”
My first reaction to this was heartache. Then memory began to work.
Has revival ever been dependent upon or initiated by the religious structures? In Israel, it was not from the priests and the temple that the authentic word came. It was from the outside, from the prophets. In 38 A.D. the hope of the world was not in the Sanhedrin. The Church began in an Upper Room, not the temple courts. And in our own history, it was in the fields, not in Wesley’s beloved Anglican churches, that the awakening came. The primary human factors, Wesley’s “veterans,” were laymen, not priests of the apostolic succession.
But even here, we must be careful. The one who led those “veterans” was a loyal son of the church and valiantly refused to leave it. That was traumatic for Wesley. But there is an important lesson for us. It was the very thing that kept him from breaking with the church and his past that shaped Methodism into the unique vessel that it has been and is. Revival may not come from the structures. but it must, if it is to be more than short-lived, have long and clear roots.
*C. C. Goen, “The ‘Methodist Age’ in American History,” Religion in Life, XXIV (1964-65), pp. 562-72, and Winthrop F. Hudson, “The ‘Methodist Age’ in America.” American History, XII (1974), pp. 3-17.
Dennis F. Kinlaw, a United Methodist elder, now retired from the Kentucky Conference, is President in ASbury College in Wilmore, KY. He has a Ph.D. in Mediterranean Studies from Brandeis University and is a senior editor for Christianity Today.
by Steve | Mar 6, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: They Chart Our Course
Good News board members direct renewal strategies and give leadership at every level of the church
By Sara L. Anderson
Riley B. Case
Anybody who would dash out of bed at 5 a.m. to run four miles in sub-freezing weather must be (a) training for the Chicago marathon, (b) hard driven or (c) just plain nuts.
In Riley’s case, the answer might be (d) none of the above, although you’ve got to be a little bit crazy to write award-winning parables and satires of church life. He’s an inveterate bird-watcher and sometime sports columnist. And those are only his hobbies.
Riley Case’s job title reads, “District Superintendent, Marion District, North Indiana Annual Conference.” An unofficial description would refer to him as a highly respected spokesman for evangelical views in the church.
As a pastor concerned with youth ministry and disturbed by what he read in United Methodist curriculum material, Case began writing letters to the Sunday school curriculum people in Nashville. The correspondence led to a five-year stint on the Curriculum Resources Committee for the Board of Discipleship. As Case and others influenced denominational materials, he also developed the highly successful We Believe confirmation materials for Good News.
Case has also been a delegate to General Conference and provides a voice for evangelical concerns as a consultant to the Hymnal Revision committee and as a member of two important subcommittees: one on language guidelines and theology, the other on Wesley consultation.
With his broad range of activities and personal disciplines, you might expect Case to be a high-powered, run-over-your-grandmother executive. But in his tweed suit and sweater vest he looks more like a college professor, and an absent-minded one at that. Like Ronald Reagan, he’s been known to doze off during committee meetings (that’s what he gets for jogging at 5 a.m.), only to awaken and offer significant contributions on critical issues. And when he speaks, the church knows it’s hearing one of United Methodism’s outstanding evangelical theoreticians.
Helen Rhea Coppedge
Meet Helen Rhea Coppedge for the first time and you’d be struck by her charm and genuine friendliness. Get to know her better, and you would realize that she is one of Good News’ most fearless partisans.
Now beginning her third year as Good News chairperson, Coppedge guides the board meetings and the organization with grace and firmness developed as a businesswoman and homemaker.
A member of the General Board of Global Ministries, a place where most evangelicals would fear to tread, Coppedge expresses opinions based on the strength of her convictions. Her credibility as a United Methodist is well established; her Ft. Valley, Ga. family has been active in the Methodist church for 200 years, so it seemed natural that she participate in the life of the church on the local, conference and national levels.
Now a nearly full-time activist for the evangelical faith in the church, Coppedge’s agenda hasn’t been hard to figure out. “Many lay people are evangelical and that viewpoint is not represented in the same degree at the national level,” she says. “We [United Methodists] have been so issue-oriented for so long that we have allowed people to become spiritually hungry.” And if you know Helen Rhea, you understand she’ll do her best to see those conditions changed.
Michael Walker
It has been said that there are two types of Texans, the boisterous, back-slapping genre and the strong, silent version. Mike Walker fits the second, self-confident, yet self-effacing variety. ‘I’m not a very spectacular person,” he’ll say; but in a firm and quiet way Walker has left his imprint on Good News.
Although he has been involved with conference activities, most of Walker’s ministry centers around the local church and Good News. Spurred to action by Charles Keysor’s pivotal 1966 article, “Methodism’s Silent Minority,” Walker wrote Keysor supporting the latter’s call for more evangelical expression in the church. When Good News was formed shortly thereafter, Walker became a charter board member.
Walker would again downplay the influence he’s exercised, but it’s obvious in more ways than one. First, there have been his local congregations, including his current appointment at the 3000-member Tyler Street United Methodist Church in Dallas. “I don’t know that my ministry is too different from others,” he says with a subtle drawl. “My emphasis has been on discipling those folks in the church and leading others to Christ.”
A second area involves the editorship of Catalyst, a newsletter for seminary students with the purpose “to try to acquaint them with evangelical options in their scholarship.” After guiding the publication for 12 years, Walker has passed the red pen on to another editor, but is still pleased with its impact. “I think many seminary students have been encouraged to see another voice that speaks more to where they are theologically,” he says.
Walker’s third area of influence came through his efforts in putting together the early Good News convocations because, he believes, “The convocation has been a tool of encouraging, training and mobilizing Methodist lay people to be agents of reform within the denomination, as well as ministering to them personally.”
But perhaps most significant is the strong leadership he gave the Good News board for four years, presiding at a time when the movement’s quiet, but pervasive presence reminded the 1984 General Conference that evangelicals constituted a formidable movement within the church.
Paul A. Mickey
Over the years as evangelicals have bewailed the illness of liberal United Methodist seminary education, Dr. Paul Mickey has been an outstanding example of evangelical leadership in denominational academics.
As Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology at Duke University’s Divinity School, the Ohio native possesses degrees from such bastions of educational prestige as Harvard and Princeton.
Far from being stuffy or arrogant, Mickey’s warmth, humor and collegiate-casual dress make him highly approachable. For students seeking advice or counseling, the doctor is in. “I have seen my role as a faculty member, as a teacher, as informal confidant,” he says.
Besides communicating sound doctrine to future pastors, Mickey, a former Evangelical United Brethren pastor, has helped give the evangelical branch of the church direction. “In the early years Good News had not defined what it meant to be an evangelical,” he says.
As head of the Good News theological task force, Mickey helped draft the Junaluska Affirmation, the statement of faith still used by Good News. And in 1980 a commentary he wrote based on that document, Essentials of Wesleyan Theology, was published.
Ever energetic, Mickey combined writing ability and counseling skills to produce a book, Tough Marriage, published last year by a prestigious New York company.
A former Good News board chairman, Mickey believes evangelical piety enjoys more respect today.
Randolph L. Jones
With its tidy white-frame structure, Faith United Methodist Church looks like a little bit of Iowa nestled in the middle of Philadelphia. But Rev. Randolph (Randy) Jones’ congregation does not consist of farmers and Midwestern matrons. Faith is not surrounded by corn rows, but by the Passayunk housing project, a field fertile with crime, violence, drug abuse and prostitution.
With the average per capita income running about $5,000, Passayunk is “a microcosm of the problems facing urban America,” Jones says. He estimates that 98 percent of his congregation lives in the project. The area’s transitory nature leads to an unstable membership list (attendance has run anywhere from 10 to 75).
It was an appointment most pastors would dread, but Jones’ experience uniquely qualified him for the job. Son of an evangelical Methodist pastor active in the struggle for civil rights, Jones grew up with compassion for the downtrodden and a passion for social justice. In college he had an encounter with the Holy Spirit that reinforced those convictions. “I’ve always said that the upper room of ecstasy had to be related to the outer room of responsibility,” he explains, reciting what he calls with a chuckle, “one of my patented phrases.”
Appointed to Bethsaida United Methodist Church in 1969, Jones also began working with former gang leaders and drug addicts in that region of Philadelphia. This led to his founding of Southside Center, sandwiched between the Black Panthers and Black Muslims. An intimidating situation, even for Jones, but, “I had a strong evangelical witness there,” he says.
He even coined another slogan for the situation. “Authentic witnessing has to be prefaced by authentic listening and living.” So, the center’s activities included voter registration, distributing food and addressing international issues such as the civil war in Zimbabwe (then white-ruled Rhodesia). Still, Jones differed from the liberal approach to social change by stressing that transformation begins as people encounter Christ.
The Southside interdenominational Christian ministry’s effectiveness led to Jones’ official appointment to Southside Center from 1972-1983. During that time he trained lay people to carry on the work of evangelism and discipleship. In 1983 Jones was appointed to Faith. He still serves as Southside’s board chairman.
In the middle of all that activity he has taken time to serve on the Good News Board because, “I have always been committed to the evangelical position.” He has worked hard to introduce black United Methodist leaders to Good News, and at the same time has encouraged evangelicals to discover the “outer room of responsibility.” Jones counters those who say that the evangelical position leaves no room for social justice. “I do not see evangelicalism as a reaction against social justice,” he says, “but an impetus for it, within the context of a personal commitment to Christ.”
by Steve | Mar 5, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: Blueprints for Renewal
Church leaders and ministry specialists make plans for church revitalization
Bishop Cannon
The first step the United Methodist Church must take if it is to renew its vitality and fulfill its historic (and I believe, providential) mission “to reform the nation and spread scriptural holiness over the land” is to reclaim its Wesleyan theological heritage. To take pride in being a pluralistic church, in which a person can believe anything and still be a United Methodist, is to revert to the latitudinarianism of the eighteenth century. This theological indifference almost wrecked the Church of England. John Wesley railed against it; the Wesleyan revival dissipated and in the end destroyed it. The theological pluralism that is rampant in our denomination today is a repudiation of the Gospel, a profane denial of our heritage and the obliteration of our identity and special place in the wide economy of God’s grace.
Our Wesleyan beliefs must become once again burning convictions. All of our people must be taught from the pulpit and in church school that sin is indigenous to human nature and that we cannot save ourselves. Yet even in sin we are not deprived entirely of divine grace, for God is omnipresent and his prevenient grace enables us to apperceive value, to know the difference between right and wrong and to be able to respond to God’s justifying grace in Christ when we hear it proclaimed.
We must teach that a person must be converted, that is, give control of his or her life to the controlling power of almighty God. Not only must we teach that Christ died for us, but also that the Holy Spirit lives in us. Once converted we have power through grace to resist sin and to live godly and righteous lives. We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, and we seek Christian perfection, where the single motive of unselfish love dominates our whole life.
Concern for the welfare of others and the betterment of society for all God’s people is the necessary accompaniment of personal holiness, but it is by no means a substitute for it. Social concern will not get us into heaven. If we succeed in providing every person on the face of the earth with a job and means for material happiness, we still will hardly have begun the fulfillment of our mission as a church. That mission is to demonstrate the reality of the living God in our personal lives and thereby to commend our Savior to others. The perennial business of the church is to make sinners into saints.
The basic strategy of the church over the next 20 years is evangelism. By constant teaching and example we must strive to develop, with the grace of God, all our congregations into companies of righteous and godly persons. Then, and only then, can each person become an evangelist. Successful evangelism requires each lay person—as well as each minister—to seek to know, to help and to win every uncommitted person in his or her range of influence to Jesus Christ.
We must respect people of other faiths, work with them in common humanitarian causes and enter into serious dialogue with them. But we cannot afford to assume that it is presumptuous to recommend Christianity to people of other faiths and ideologies. If the apostles had made this assumption, Christianity would never have gotten started.
The only witness which we and the United Methodist Church can make and be faithful to the Gospel is: Jesus Christ, and He alone, is our Savior; and He can be your Savior as well. For God’s intention is for Him to be the Savior of the whole world. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, KJV).
Retired Bishop William R. Cannon is also a former dean of Candler School of Theology. A faculty member there for 24 years, his specialties were church history and Wesleyan theology. Bishop Cannon Is highly respected as a scholar among his peers.
Julian Goddard
A nervous young lady arose to share in a service, “You Methodists are so on fire! I have never seen or experienced anything like this in my denomination.”
A Baptist minister visiting a Methodist camp saw 250 out of 275 persons respond to an altar call for repentance, renewal and commitment. With amazement he reported, “Seldom, if ever, have I seen such hunger for God.”
Such experiences of spiritual renewal now taking place in evangelical United Methodist youth ministry are examples of United Methodist Youth Fellowships that are committed to evangelism, discipleship, caring outreach and leadership development.
I am personally acquainted with 50-75 evangelical UM youth ministries. In most of these groups conversions are the norm rather than the exception. One-to-one meetings and small group discipleship teams are encouraged. The young people are involved in dynamic outreach to their schools and community; consequently, the youth groups have grown. Through leadership development, these ministries have produced exceptional quality and effectiveness in the lives of their youth. I am convinced that these can well serve as a microcosm of what can happen to the greater church should discipleship-oriented youth ministry be given proper attention and support.
A new breed of Methodist youth with an experience of, and a passion for, vital worship, serious discipleship and world-changing outreach are filling both the pew and pulpit of the United Methodist Church. These youth are our surest hope for revival.
Thus, the pivotal question is, “What can we do to implement this kind of discipleship-oriented youth ministry in the United Methodist Church?” Allow me to make a few basic suggestions:
1. Catch the vision of just how plentiful and strategic the youth ministry harvest could be for the UM Church.
Realize that 589,687 youth presently attend UM Sunday schools. We have one-half million teens with whom to work, without going outside of the church.
2. Commit to take action.
Assess the state of youth ministry in your parish. How many youth are on the rolls? How many actually attend? What programs/activities are being offered to your teens? Who is in charge of youth ministry in your church? How much financial support is being provided? Create a support group of people in the church who are committed to youth ministry. Provide vital discipleship-oriented leadership. Adequately finance and strongly encourage your youth ministry leaders. Encourage them to attend training events.
Start with the youth you have. Discover and minister to their interests and needs by building relationships between adult leaders and youth.
Establish a program based on Biblical guidelines, the youth’s spiritual maturity and on your financial and personnel resources. Usually, this should include some “ports of entry” (Come Level) events, activities aimed at drawing youth to your church and presenting the Gospel in a winsome manner. Couple these with events dedicated to nurturing Christian growth and teaching the great principles of God’s Word that are relevant to the youth culture (Grow Level).
Initiate one-on-one and small group discipleship (Disciple Level).
Train young, but established, disciples to discover and develop their gifts, graces and abilities for Christian service (Leadership Development Level).
3. Help release the ties that bind youth ministry in your church. The laity and clergy tend to view the youth minister as a probationer on his way to becoming a “real” minister and to view youth ministry as a second-class stepping-stone. This can be corrected by helping our local churches to see youth ministry as vital and necessary to a healthy, growing church, and by involving youth in worship, visitation and teaching. This will help the congregation realize that youth ministry is not only an investment in the future, but a sound investment in new energy and vitality for the present church.
Julian Goddard, youth minister at Wilmore, Kentucky, United Methodist Church, has been Involved In youth ministry for nearly 15 years. Now in graduate studies at Albury Theological seminary, he earned a bachelor’s degree at Oral Roberts University.
June Goldman
In my years of involvement on the general church level, I have seen some breakthroughs within our United Methodist Church. Yet I am concerned that the very point upon which we have prided ourselves—pluralism—could also become the thing that destroys us. We have become too all-embracing; we seem to have gone through a phase in which we require little of anybody.
In the years ahead we need to find ways in which the church once again becomes very exciting—not only in our social involvement and social disciplines, but also in our spiritual disciplines. I don’t think spiritual emphasis or social action is an either-or situation for the church; it is something that can be resolved. Yet we have fallen into the pitfall of defining liberals as those who have a deep commitment to social action and conservatives as those who are concerned only with the spiritual. That is a false premise. When we establish such sharp delineations, we fool ourselves into thinking differences divide us.
So one strategy for renewal within our church may be to more boldly address the need for healing between the so-called liberals and the so-called conservatives. There are so many points at which our beliefs and attitudes intersect. We need to celebrate those points and then dialogue lovingly on those about which we disagree. If we cannot do this within the church, what hope have we of resolving differences in international and political arenas?
Practically speaking, I feel very strongly that we need to establish what I call the ministry of converging paths. In other words, on the local and district levels we should arrange for persons who consider themselves liberal, persons who consider themselves conservative and persons who consider themselves middle-of-the-road to talk honestly and openly with one another. I think we would find that we have far more in common than we thought. Such dialogue is essential for renewal to come to our church.
I propose that healing might come to our church by looking more positively at the rift created by the negative aspect of pluralism. Inclusiveness demands little from anyone. Furthermore, our society has encouraged us to slough off any sense of guilt. We keep passing the buck—on the national church level, the local church level and in every arena of our lives, whether secular or religious.
“How can we present the Gospel to people who increasingly fail to acknowledge their guilt?” was a question Dr. Albert Outler raised in his lectures at Southern Methodist University in 1974. Within our church we seem to be trying to embrace as many persons as possible and offend as few as possible.
Steve Harper, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, has written a paper entitled “Gospel for the Guiltless,” which, in my opinion, is right on target. “Accommodationism,” he writes, “will not accomplish our goals. A gospel for the guiltless challenges the church and its leaders to communicate God’s revelations which can lead people out of their particular Egypt—by whatever name—into the Promised Land. A gospel for the guiltless will accept people where they are, and communicate to people where they are, but it will not leave them where they are. ” As a church we must be less timid about challenging.
I am hopeful about the renewal of our United Methodist Church. If we are led by the love of God and the spirit of Christ, we can’t even despair that the situation in our United Methodist Church is hopeless. The heart of the Gospel is a message of hope. We would be reneging on our faith if we gave into the temptation to say “What’s the use?”
An Iowa layperson, June Goldman has been a delegate to the last three General Conferences, served on the General Board of Church and Society and held jurisdictional office. She also served on the Commission on Religion and Race.
Dennis M. Campbell
The future of the United Methodist Church will depend on theological renewal. Methodism is not a tradition in which theology has received front-burner attention. The Anglican Church provided, through its articles, creeds and liturgy, the theological and ecclesiastical foundation for the British Methodist evangelical revival of the 18th century. American Methodism lacked the Anglican context and emphasized preaching and evangelism. It assumed evangelical theology but, in the 19th century, abandoned other aspects of Wesleyan theology, especially regarding the nature and purpose of the church. This led to a decline in the place of the sacraments and a lack of concern for doctrinal articulation.
The absence of a doctrinal tradition allowed 20th century Methodism to become characterized by “theological pluralism.” The positive aspects were that Methodism became open, inclusive and free. On the negative side we developed a stance of “anything goes” because we didn’t have the internal theological resources to make judgments. We lacked consensus about whether there is any limit to diversity within the Wesleyan-Methodist tradition.
The results of this can be seen in several examples. First, when hard questions of theological substance arise, we do not have the intellectual resources to deal with them, so we turn them into political questions. An illustration is the debate about inclusive language and the doctrine of the Trinity. When questions of sexism are raised about the names of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), the terms of the debate turn to issues of “discrimination,” “rights,” “justice” or “fairness” instead of theology.
Often we resort to pluralism, suggesting that “personal preference” and “human sensitivities” should be respected. Discussion of the basic theological and philosophical issues concerning the way the church talks about God and whether there is such a thing as Christian truth, get lost. We lack the tools of theological debate and have no consensus about our theological tradition which allows us to make judgments.
Second, the conception of ordained ministry as a teaching office is lost. United Methodist pastors, for the most part, have absorbed the social and intellectual climate of modern American liberalism. We do not view ourselves as the embodiment of Christian teachings as articulated in the Wesleyan Methodism. Individualism dominates the ministry. The connectionalism of Methodism stands for episcopal appointment, itinerancy, local church financial obligation and general church decision making. But worship, preaching and teaching is left to the individual pastor and church. Curiously, our polity of connectionalism cares for everything except theological teaching.
Renewal of Methodism will depend on learning that the major reason for an ordained ministry is the continuity of Christian teaching through Word, sacrament and order. Theological students must realize their responsibility to teach not their own ideas and opinions, but the message of the church.
Third, we lack the capacity to think theologically about our polity. We need to evaluate our procedures for surfacing leadership, particularly episcopal leadership. We must ask hard questions about our institutional machinery and understand that such matters are, finally, theological.
Most of all, theological renewal will involve clarity about our mission. Early Methodism believed that it had a clear purpose in this world. This clarity motivated men and women because they were convinced that the ministry of the church had ultimate significance. It does; we need to understand that and proclaim it.
Dennis M. Campbell la Dean of the Divinity School and Professor of Theology at Duke University. An elder In the North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, Dr. Campbell was educated at Duke and Yale Universities.
by Steve | Mar 4, 1987 | Archive - 1987
Archive: 20 Years at a Glance
By Sara L. Anderson and James V. Heidinger II
PUBLICATIONS
In the days of high-speed, high-tech printing with computerized labeling and subscription lists, the thought of producing a national magazine in a small print shop and assembling it in the editor’s garage with a volunteer youth group affixing hand-typed mailing labels seems an impossible task.
But although the 6,300 digest-sized issues of Good News emerged from humble beginnings, their content struck a nerve. An Auburn, Ala., reader charged, “Your magazine is JUNK!” On the other side, Carl F.H. Henry, then-editor of Christianity Today, wrote, “A mighty fine beginning—congratulations!”
Obviously, not all recipients of a magazine directed to the overlooked evangelical portion of the Methodist Church rejoiced, but to those who felt isolated in an increasingly liberal denomination, Good News was as welcome as a seltzer in the Sahara.
In 1966 journalist-turned-pastor Dr. Charles Keysor wrote an article for the Methodist ministers’ magazine, the Christian Advocate, explaining the convictions of evangelical Christians. The responses to “Methodism’s Silent Minority” conveyed two themes: “I thought I was the only one left in the church who believes these things” and “I feel so alone—so cut off from leadership and organization of my church.”
In response to the apparent need and after much prayer, Keysor, pastor of a church in Elgin, Ill., decided to begin a magazine which would be a “Forum for Scriptural Christianity” within the denomination. At the suggestion of his wife, Marge, he called it Good News.
As interest grew, Keysor chose 12 people as board members and Good News became a full-fledged organization with the group’s first meeting in May, 1967.
Like any 20-year-old, Good News has grown, matured and survived many transitions.
The magazine switched from digest to full-sized magazine format with the January/February 1985 issue, and circulation has grown to more than 20,000. The Good News Board has expanded as well to 40 pastors and lay people from around the country. The staff, from two, is now 20. The organization is developing a modest book-publishing enterprise as well, with the release of Basic United Methodist Beliefs, a compilation of evangelical Wesleyan doctrine, and The Problem of Pluralism by Jerry Walls.
But those facts provide only the skeleton for Good News activities, its triumphs and setbacks, in the last two decades.
For many Methodists earnestly seeking a breath of spiritual renewal for the denomination, Good News became a rallying point. Pastors and lay people began organizing sympathetic annual conference renewal groups. Over the years these have become the grass-roots network for the movement, and currently about 65 percent of annual conferences have some kind of renewal fellowship.
STAFF
Still, the Good News Board felt a larger gathering would be unifying and inspiring. Organizers prayed and planned, unsure what size crowd they’d attract. To their amazement, “The Convocation of United Methodists for Evangelical Christianity” drew a whopping 1,600 people to Dallas in August, 1970. It offered a new hope for renewal to evangelicals feeling alienated from their denomination.
The convocation became an annual event, changing location every year, and thousands of United Methodists have come from great distance to be encouraged by the fellowship and instruction. Current Good News Executive Director Jim Heidinger recalls a couple who told him after the 1986 Convo, “When we came here we were so discouraged, we were planning to leave the church. But our hearts have been renewed and we’re going back to our church with new hope.”
Convo-goers have also benefited from programs introduced there, such as Marriage Enrichment, Trinity Bible Studies and Faith Promise Support for second-mile missions giving.
Another early Good News concern focused on Sunday school curriculum. Evangelicals had long complained that church-published material often lacked a strong Biblical base and even departed from historic Methodist doctrines. In 1969 Good News leaders met to discuss the issues with the church’s curriculum editors and officials. The discussion was generally frustrating, but these dialogues continued, and gradually the Publishing House has become more responsive to evangelical concerns.
Then in 1975 Good News published the We Believe junior high confirmation material in response to United Methodist pastors who were dissatisfied with the materials. We Believe has gone through 11 printings and is currently being updated. In 1979 a senior high/adult version was published.
In 1983 and 1986 Good News released volumes one and two of the Let Your Light So Shine program books for United Methodist Women’s groups.
Probably the most significant area of Good News concern is the struggle against doctrinal compromise. When the movement began the church struggled with theological confusion. Some lay people grew discouraged by pastors who pooh-poohed historic Christian doctrines such as the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the authority of Scripture.
Meanwhile, at the 1972 General Conference, the church adopted theological pluralism as the guiding principle for theological formation. Though never defined, it was an attempt to accept the wide variety of theological views found in United Methodism. However, evangelicals felt this stance would lead to a lack of doctrinal clarity and to doctrinal error.
Their fears were well founded. When one young pastor challenged a United Methodist seminary professor for denying the bodily resurrection of Christ, his district superintendent reproved him, saying, “You must remember that you are in a church that embraces theological pluralism.”
Concerned that their evangelical faith be articulated clearly, Good News leaders authorized the formation of a “Theology and Doctrine Task Force” in 1974. Headed by Dr. Paul Mickey, Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology at Duke University’s Divinity School, the goal was to prepare a clear statement of “Scriptural Christianity” faithful to the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren traditions. The “Junaluska Affirmation,” which presented statements on the Trinity, Humanity, the Scriptures, Salvation, the Church, and Ethics, was adopted by the Good News Board in 1975.
Then the 1984 General Conference authorized a task force to prepare and present a new doctrinal statement for approval at the 1988 General Conference. Many Good News leaders feel this was partially a result of their persistent efforts at doctrinal reform.
With concern for theological issues, Good News has also approached the problem of United Methodism’s 13 theological seminaries, all of which have been dominated by liberal thought. In 1975, United Methodist evangelist Ed Robb blasted the denomination’s theological education in an address at the Good News Convocation. His desire to bring Wesleyan thought back to the United Methodist seminaries led to a friendship with Dr. Albert Outler, the esteemed Wesleyan scholar. Together, and with the help of others, they formed A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE).
Although AFTE is not a Good News program, it draws heavy support from its constituency. So far 45 evangelical scholars, called John Wesley Fellows, have participated in the Ph. D. scholarship program. AFTE leaders hope to see many of these men and women teaching in the United Methodist colleges and seminaries.
Many Good News emphases make public appearances at the annual convocations. Missions were no exception. In 1973 Dr. David Seamands, Good News board member and former missionary to India, told the convocation that the church missionary force was shrinking greatly. He also noted that the General Board of Global Ministries seemed more concerned about social reform than about matters of faith, conversion or church planting.
Then, in 1974, 72 United Methodist evangelicals from 23 states met in Dallas to discuss the church’s mission program. They established an Evangelical Missions Council (EMC) and authorized an executive committee to begin a dialogue with GBGM leaders to establish “a clear and trustworthy channel for evangelical missions within the church’s mission board.”
CONVOCATIONS
The dialogues proved less than productive and in 1976 the EMC became a Good News task force. Rather than just talking with leaders of the GBGM, EMC decided to get local churches enthused about world missions. Virgil Maybray was hired as full-time executive secretary and spent most of his time encouraging local churches to expand their missions giving, especially through second-mile faith promises.
During eight years with EMC, Maybray saw several million dollars raised for missions, at least one million of which was channeled through GBGM’s Advance Special program to support official United Methodist programs and personnel.
However, dialogue between the two agencies appeared fruitless as the United Methodist missions force became increasingly committed to radical liberation theology. A concerned group of large-church pastors and missions professors met in St. Louis in 1983. Out of that came a new supplemental missions agency, the Mission Society for United Methodists. While not officially related to the new society, Good News decided to phase out its EMC ministry and merge its resources with the new organization, while continuing to encourage GBGM to be faithful to its mandate to evangelize the world.
Another major emphasis for Good News is the church’s political process, specifically the General Conference. In 1972 for the first time, Good News staff prepared and distributed ten petitions and four resolutions, urging evangelicals across the church to send them in individually or from their local churches. On the conference floor Good News board members produced newsletters giving the Good News perspective on issues and contacted sympathetic delegates.
Still, the 1972 General Conference was a huge disappointment. It approved abortion and proponents of the homosexual issue gained strength. Delegates made theological pluralism official.
By 1976 Good News was better organized, with a team of 25 to observe the legislative committees and lobby for evangelical concerns. It was the first time evangelicals had been an organized presence at General Conference.
At that Portland, Ore. meeting the push to accept homosexuality gained the most notice. But the delegates rejected efforts to remove the key Social Principles statement, ” … we do not condone the practice of homosexuality…” Good News was a valuable asset in the defeat of this measure.
By 1980 the Good News effort was better organized and outfitted than ever—with a budget of more than $60,000 and a team of 65 in Indianapolis. More than 50,000 United Methodists participated in a prayer chain to support the effort.
GENERAL CONFERENCES
The movement sent out more than 14,000 petition packets with detailed instructions on writing petitions, with model petitions on 17 topics including designated giving, abortion, homosexuality, the family and strengthening the church’s theological statement. Also, Good News sent letters in advance to all delegates giving the Good News rationale for its stands.
The major victory for evangelicals came through the efforts of layman David Jessup who authored a petition on board and agency accountability after investigation of their spending habits. As a result, General Conference passed legislation requiring each general agency to report cash grants given to “organizations, individuals, coalitions, consultations, programs and entities not formally part of the church.”
Good News used a similar strategy for the 1984 General Conference in Baltimore. The results indicated it was the best year yet for evangelicals. Of twelve Good News petitions, seven were passed in one form or another. One bishop remarked that in 26 years of attending General Conferences, he could not remember sensing as much emphasis on prayer and spiritual concerns.
While Good News proved persuasive, it did not resort to highly visible strategies. Following one important vote, someone approached board member Virginia Shell and said, “I’ve been wondering just where Good News has been the past few days. But when that last vote was taken and they announced the results, I knew.”
Legislation was passed banning the ordination and appointment of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. The conference authorized a task force to prepare a new doctrinal statement and expressed some consternation about the policies of the GBGM.
In a footnote to these recent activities, it should be noted that Good News founder, Charles Keysor, stepped down from Good News in 1981. Friends of the ministry were saddened when he died of cancer late in 1985.
James V. Heidinger II, a former chairman of the Good News Board has directed the work since then. He believes that renewal can come and is pleased by gains made in 1984. In all the effort expended toward reform, Heidinger says, “We have demonstrated a dogged desire to remain a part of the church and have shown we are willing to work for change within the system. However, we see critical problems that the church must be willing to face.”
by Steve | Jan 4, 1987 | Archive - 1987, Archive - 1994
Archive: What Are We To Make of Jesus Christ?
By C.S. Lewis
What are we to make of Jesus Christ? This is a question which has, in a sense, a frantically comic side. For the real question is not what are we to make of Christ, but what is He to make of us. The picture of a fly sitting deciding what it is going to make of an elephant has comic elements about it. But perhaps the questioner meant what are we to make of Him in the sense of “How are we to solve the historical problem set us by the recorded sayings and acts of this man?”
This problem is to reconcile two things. On the one hand you have got the almost generally admitted depth and sanity of His moral teaching, which is not very seriously questioned, even by those who are opposed to Christianity. In fact, I find when I am arguing with very anti-God people that they rather make a point of saying, “I am entirely in favour of the moral teaching of Christianity”—and there seems to be a general agreement that in the teaching of this Man and of His immediate followers, moral truth is exhibited at its purest and best. It is not sloppy idealism, it is full of wisdom and shrewdness. The whole thing is realistic, fresh to the highest degree, the product of a sane mind. That is one phenomenon.
The other phenomenon is the quite appalling nature of this Man’s theological remarks. You all know what I mean, and I want rather to stress the point that the appalling claim which this Man seems to be making is not merely made at one moment of His career.
There is, of course, the one moment which led to His execution. The moment at which the High Priest said to Him, “Who are you?” “I am the Anointed, the Son of the uncreated God, and you shall see Me appearing at the end of all history as the judge of the Universe.”
But that claim, in fact, does not rest on this one dramatic moment. When you look into His conversation you will find this sort of claim running through the whole thing. For instance, He went about saying to people, “I forgive your sins.” Now it is quite natural for a man to forgive something you do to him. Thus if somebody cheats me out of £5 it is quite possible and reasonable for me to say, “Well, I forgive him, we will say no more about it.” What on earth would you say if somebody had done you out of £5 and I said, “That is all right, I forgive him”?
Then there is a curious thing which seems to slip out almost by accident. On one occasion this Man is sitting looking down on Jerusalem from the hill above it and suddenly in comes an extraordinary remark—I keep on sending you prophets and wise men.” Nobody comments on it. And yet, quite suddenly, almost incidentally, He is claiming to be the power that all through the centuries is sending wise men and leaders into the world.
Here is another curious remark. In almost every religion there are unpleasant observances like fasting. This Man suddenly remarks one day, “No one need fast while I am here.” Who is this Man who remarks that His mere presence suspends all normal rules? Who is the person who can suddenly tell the school they can have a half-holiday?
Sometimes the statements put forward the assumption that He, the Speaker, is completely without sin or fault. This is always the attitude. “You, to whom I am talking, are all sinners,” and He never remotely suggests that this same reproach can be brought against Him. He says again, “I am begotten of the One God, before Abraham was, I am,” and remember what the words “I am” were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter.
Well, that is the other side. On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men.
Without a parallel
There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him ” Are you the son of Bramah?” he would have said, “My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.” If you had gone to Socrates and asked, “Are you Zeus?” he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, “Are you Allah?” he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, ” Are you Heaven?” I think he would have probably replied, “Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.”
The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you.
We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere teacher, He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects—Hatred—Terror—Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.
What are we to do about reconciling the two contradictory phenomena? One attempt consists in saying that the Man did not really say these things, but that His followers exaggerated the story, and so the legend grew up that He had said them.
This is difficult because His follower were all Jews; that is, they belonged to that Nation which of all others was most convinced that there was only one God—that there could not possibly be another. It is very odd that this horrible invention about a religious leader should grow up among the one people in the whole earth least likely to make such a mistake. On the contrary we get the impression that none of His immediate followers or even of the New Testament writers embraced the doctrine at all easily.
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly.
Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence .
In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it.
Then we come to the strangest story of all, the story of the Resurrection. It is very necessary to get the story clear. I heard a man say, “The importance of the Resurrection is that it gives evidence of survival, evidence that the human personality survives death.” On that view what happened to Christ would be what had always happened to all men, the difference being that in Christ’s case we were privileged to see it happening.
Not a ghost
This is certainly not what the earliest Christian writers thought. Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the very first time been forced open. This is something quite distinct from mere ghost-survival. I don’t mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. On the contrary, they believed in it so firmly that, on more than one occasion, Christ had had to assure them that He was not a ghost. The point is that while believing in survival they yet regarded the Resurrection as something totally different and new.
The Resurrection narratives are not a picture of survival after death; they record how a totally new mode of being has arisen in the Universe. Something new had appeared in the Universe: as new as the first coming of organic life. This Man, after death, does not get divided into “ghost” and “corpse.” A new mode of being has arisen. That is the story. What are we going to make of it?
The question is, I suppose, whether any hypothesis covers the facts so well as the Christian hypothesis. That hypothesis is that God has come down into the created universe, down to manhood—and come up again, pulling it up with Him. The alternative hypothesis is not legend, nor exaggeration, nor the apparitions of a ghost. It is either lunacy or lies. Unless one can take the second alternative (and I can’t) one turns to the Christian theory.
No question
“What are we to make of Christ?” There is no question of what we can make of Him, it is entirely a question of what He intends to make of us. You must accept or reject the story.
The things He says are very different from what any other teacher has said. Others say, “This is the truth about the Universe. This is the way you ought to go,” but He says, “I am the Truth, and the Way. and the Life.” He say , “No man can reach absolute reality, except through Me.”
“Try to retain your own life and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved.” He says, “If you are ashamed of Me, if, when you hear this call, you turn the other way, I also will look the other way when I come again as God without disguise. If anything whatever is keeping you from God and from Me, whatever it is, throw it away. If it is your eye, pull it out. If it is your hand, cut it off. If you put yourself first you will be last. Come to Me everyone who is carrying a heavy load, and I will set that right. Your sins, all of them, are wiped out, I can do that.
“I am Rebirth, I am Life. Eat Me, drink Me, I am your Food. And finally, do not be afraid, I have overcome the whole Universe.” That is the issue.
“What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?” from God in the Dock, copyright ©1970 by C.S. Lewis, Pte Limited. Reproduced by permission of Curtis Brown Limited, London.
