by Steve | Nov 16, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: Virgin Birth: Fact or Fairy Tale
A Debate On History’s Most Persistent Paternity Question
The Virgin Birth has long been considered central to the Christian faith. In the last century, however, that doctrine has been criticized. In 1924 at Carnegie Hall, Charles Francis Potter, a debater during the fundamentalist/modernist controversy, delivered a searing speech dismissing the importance of the Virgin Birth. His views are representative of many in the mainline Protestant churches today.
In the following pages, Dr. Steven O’ Malley, professor of church history and historical theology at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky., responds to Potter’s speech.
FAIRYTALE
By Charles Potter
From the early days there have been different opinions as to the source of Jesus’ greatness. Most Christians agree that Jesus was what He was because the Spirit of God was in Him. I would agree upon that point, I think. And I am content to let the matter rest right there, but Christians want to go further. They insist that the spirit of God entered Jesus in a particular way, in a miraculous way. And they teach that belief in this miracle is an essential Christian doctrine; that is, that unless you believe in it you are not a Christian!
It seems it doesn’t matter whether or not we agree that Jesus was what He was because the Spirit of God was in Him. Unless we agree as to the particular way in which Jesus became divine, we will have rejected what is considered an essential Christian doctrine.
In order that I believe I must be persuaded, in the first place, that the miraculous Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ is a fact and in the second place, that it is an essential Christian doctrine.
Is The Virgin Birth A Fact?
To be considered fact the Virgin Birth must be proven to be more than a scientific possibility; it must be proven to be an actual historical occurrence. I shall not attempt to prove that the Virgin Birth is scientifically impossible. It will be sufficient to show how very rarely, if ever, virgin births of humans occur.
The scientific name for virgin birth is “parthenogenesis,” from “parthenos,” virgin, and “genesis,” birth. Parthenogenesis would be the development of an unfertilized egg cell. The best known instance of parthenogenesis is the case of the common aphis, or plant louse. It has been known also to occur among mites, beetles, bark lice, etc.
That is far from proving the possibility of virgin birth among human beings.
What Does the New Testament Say?
The evidence must be very convincing indeed to make us believe that any child was ever born of one parent alone.
Let us examine the evidence. The New Testament includes it all.
What does Paul have to say about the Virgin Birth? What do we find? Absolutely no mention of the Virgin Birth in all the 13 letters ascribed to Paul, and Paul was the greatest missionary preacher of the early Christian Church. Not only do we find no affirmation of the Virgin Birth, but we find the direct opposite stated. In Romans 1:3, Paul says that Jesus was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Now it was Joseph, not Mary, who was of the seed of David. Mary was of the house of Levi, for she was the kinswoman of Elizabeth, who was of the house of Levi. In Galatians 4:4 Paul says “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” Now anyone who believed that the Holy Spirit was the father of Jesus would not write in that fashion. Paul believed that Jesus was really human and based his whole plan of salvation on that fact
The earliest gospel is Mark’s, which begins, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” and goes on to tell of His baptism by John. There is absolutely no mention of the Virgin Birth at all throughout the entire gospel of Mark, regarded by scholars as the oldest account of the life of Jesus and the most trustworthy. And remember that it was written more than 30 years after Jesus’ death.
We come next to Matthew, and there we have one verse, chapter 1, verse 18, which states the Virgin Birth. Other verses in Matthew and Luke refer to its prediction, but this is the only verse which states the Virgin Birth as an historical fact The verse reads: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child by the Holy Spirit”
Upon this verse and in spite of numerous verses which state the contrary, the whole doctrine of the Virgin Birth is based. The significant thing is that in this same chapter it is stated that Jesus was the Son of Joseph.
Now since it is stated in the first verse that Jesus was the Son of David, that is, his descendant, it is very plain that He must have been the Son of Joseph, otherwise there is no sense to the genealogy at all.
I submit then that the only verse stating the Virgin Birth cannot be submitted as testimony because in the same chapter the fact is distinctly denied. We find Matthew a flatly contradictory witness.
But let us go further. In Matthew 13:55 the neighbors of Jesus say, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” and Jesus does not contradict them.
Luke comes next chronologically, and Luke 4:22 repeats this last incident, phrasing the question, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” and again Jesus does not deny His parenthood.
Luke in his first chapter has something to say about the Virgin Birth, but he does not say that it actually occurred. He says that the angel Gabriel told Mary that it would occur. Not once does Luke say plainly and directly that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit of God without a human father. How much value can we place on Luke’s story that an angel told Mary that it would occur?
Let us be generous to the other side, however, and say that perhaps Luke intended his readers to think that the Virgin Birth was a fact even if he doesn’t say so outright. Then why does he flatly deny it in the third chapter with another of those dangerous genealogies? He goes Matthew one better and traces Jesus’ genealogy way back to Adam and God, and he traces the line not through Mary but through Joseph, just as Matthew did. Here again is contradictory evidence, and the witness is a poor one to prove a miracle by, to say the least.
Read the rest of Luke after the first chapter and there is no mention of the Virgin Birth. You would think it had never been mentioned. Why, in the second chapter, verse 33, after old Simeon had made a prophecy about the child Jesus, do we read that His father and mother (note that it doesn’t say Joseph and his mother) marveled at the things which were spoken of Him. Why should they marvel if the angel had told them more wonderful things only a little while before?
And in the third chapter, verse 22, we read that when Jesus was baptized “the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, ‘Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.'” There were two explanations in the early Church—one that divinity entered Jesus when Mary conceived Him, and one that it entered Him at His baptism. A person could accept either explanation and be an equally good Christian. Neither theory was an essential Christian doctrine.
As for the remaining books of the New Testament, there is no testimony to the Virgin Birth in them. That includes the fourth gospel, John. Even Dr. Jefferson of New York, who says he believes the Virgin Birth, although (evidently) he does not consider it an essential Christian doctrine, admits the scant evidence for it in the Bible, saying, “John of all disciples must have known about the Virgin Birth, but he never mentions it”
Summary Of New Testament Evidence
To summarize the evidence for the Virgin Birth—the New Testament evidence, which is all there is—what have we? There is no evidence in any part of the New Testament save in Matthew and possibly Luke, while there is much against it in many places, including Matthew and Luke.
Any attempt to prove from the New Testament that the Virgin Birth was a fact has on its side only one document, the first part of the gospel according to Matthew, and only one verse of the first chapter. Luke’s statement has to be ruled out as direct evidence; it can only be considered secondary in the light of its being a prophecy by an angel rather than a direct statement.
Furthermore, to get at the facts before us, the only document of importance as evidence in the case is an unsigned, contradictory statement, made by one who was not an eyewitness. Is that good evidence? Even if you admit Luke as evidence, remember that his book is unsigned, self-contradictory, that he was not an eyewitness and that he wrote even later than Matthew.
Is The Virgin Birth an Essential Christian Doctrine?
We come now to the second part of the debate, as to whether or not this doctrine is an essential Christian doctrine.
Immediately the question rises whether any doctrine can be essential to Christianity which is not a fact. The second part of the resolution depends upon the first. It is certainly time that mistaken persons stop making the Virgin Birth a test of a Christian’s faith. No doctrine based on such a flimsy foundation ought to be a test-question for young people entering the Christian ministry.
It Has Always Been In Dispute
The matter of the Virgin Birth bas always created a great deal of discussion in Christianity. But it is not a part of all the great creeds. The Athanasian creed, the longest and most carefully detailed of the ecumenical creeds of Christendom, did not contain it, nor did the earliest form of the Nicene creed have it.
It is when we get back to the origins of Christianity that we find the relative unimportance of the Virgin Birth indicated by its absence from the theology of the founders of Christianity. Paul, Peter, Mark and John did not consider it important enough to mention.
Search as you will in the recorded sayings of Jesus, you will not find the Virgin Birth mentioned. When people came to Him and asked Him the source of His power, then was the time for Him to point to His miraculous Virgin Birth, as the fundamentalists do. Yet the records say that He pointed rather to the good works which He was doing, healing the sick and helping poor people. Are modem Christians wrong when they follow Jesus in finding the evidence for His own divinity in His life of useful service to His fellow men? I ask again the question, can any doctrine be essential to Christianity which is never mentioned in Jesus’ own teachings?
FACT
By Steven O’Malley
From the beginning of Christianity one of the most sacred and essential Christian beliefs has been the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The holy season of Advent is a fitting time for us to reexamine the significance of the Virgin Birth for our faith. However, according to Potter, the Virgin Birth is a troublesome and poorly-founded appendage to Christian faith that distracts Christians from the real message of Christ. He argues from the standpoint of the New Testament and the creeds of the Church. Just how persuasive are his arguments? Let us consider them.
The Witness of Scripture
In asking whether the Virgin Birth is a fact, Potter tries to show that the doctrine ought not be regarded as an essential part of the gospel by challenging what he considers to be the sole verse that explicitly teaches the doctrine: Matthew 1:18. He regards this verse as a contradiction of Matthew’s prior assertion that Jesus was the Son of Joseph (Matt 1:16). This supposed contradiction leads him to conclude that the testimony of Matthew is invalid, preferring instead the apparently earlier account of Mark, whose gospel begins with Jesus’ baptism rather than His birth.
We should point out to our critic that, in his search for factual evidence, he has overlooked the most telling evidence on the matter in question. It is Matthew’s intention throughout this chapter to assert the Virgin Birth of our Lord. In 1:16 Matthew avoids saying that Jesus is the Son of Joseph. Instead he refers to “Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born” (RSV). Further, in 1:18 the passive form is used again with “had been betrothed” and “was found,” strongly communicating the thought that Jesus was not conceived by Joseph, His legal father, but by the Holy Spirit.[1] Hence, in 1:18-25 Matthew is seeking to clarify how Jesus can be both Son of David through His adoption by Joseph and Son of God by His divine origin.[2]
The variant reading that Potter cites is regarded by the great consensus of scholars as a questionable reading that is to be rejected.[3]
The important point to note is that not just one verse but rather the whole force of Matthew’s gospel supports the mystery of the Virgin Birth. Matthew even tells us that after their marriage Mary and Joseph had no sexual relationship until after the child was born (1:25), thus further heightening the importance of Christ’s Virgin Birth. The later chapters speak much of His perfect obedience, but the point is that the Virgin Birth is unmistakably prominent in chapter one, and thereby it forms the basis for all of Jesus’ subsequent obedient words and acts as the Messiah. There is no contradiction, as Potter charges, between asking “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” (Matt 13:55) and saying He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18).
Potter also asks us to consider the witness of Luke’s gospel that, he says, only alludes to the Virgin Birth without explicitly affirming it. The angel Gabriel simply promises Mary that it would occur (Luke 1:26-36). However, in Luke an angelic message is always seen as a message from God Himself that always finds fulfillment. It would therefore be unnecessary for Luke to add that it did occur as prophesied. He invites the reader to assume that it did take place. This is the way Luke intends for us to read the gospel!
There is this important difference between the Virgin Birth accounts in Matthew and in Luke: the former speaks after the fact of Jesus’ birth, while the latter speaks prophetically before the fact of His birth.
It is true, as Potter reminds us, that Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back through Joseph to Adam and to God (3:38). But this is hardly an attempt to deny His Virgin Birth. On the contrary, Luke, more than Matthew, would have us to know that Jesus is not the Son of Joseph in any specific sense. Luke helps us to see that Jesus’ humanity does not rest on any biological relationship to Joseph but rather upon His identity with the human race as a whole, as climaxed in 3:38. That is, His humanity is that of the ideal man, the Son of God, whereas Matthew regarded Jesus as the ideal Son of Abraham, or the ideal Israelite.[4]
Paul is also cited by Potter as failing to mention the Virgin Birth in his letters. However, Paul was surely not compelled to identify all the tenets of Christology.
The same curious argument from silence is made in reference to Mark, which is often called the earliest gospel. However, Mark also omits the Resurrection account, and it can hardly be claimed that he disbelieved this!
As for the gospel of John, it can scarcely be believed that he “did not consider it important enough to mention.” On the contrary, the clear implication of John 1:14, “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” is that Jesus was the Incarnate Word from the inception of His human life.
The consensus among reputable New Testament scholars[5] is that the Virgin Birth accounts that are explicitly taught in Matthew and Luke are independently reported and are based on a tradition that is earlier than both. Yet, even if it is argued that the Virgin Birth of our Lord was not taught in the early Church until Matthew and Luke were written, this still means that we have two canonical accounts that teach the doctrine plainly. The question that comes then is, how seriously do we take the canon of holy Scripture as God’s Word (see 2 Tim. 3:16)? This question brings us to another point for consideration, namely:
The Witness To The Virgin Birth In The History Of The Church
The biblical canon is our foundation for what we confess as the creed of the Church. The creeds, especially the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, bear witness to God’s Word in the community of faith. The link between the two is inseparable.
Potter carries his criticism of the Virgin Birth into the history of the Church, alleging that the Nicene Creed, in its first edition, omits the Virgin Birth, as well as does the Athanasian Creed. He is strangely silent about the Apostles’ Creed, the most authoritative of all, where the Virgin Birth is clearly taught. A closer examination will reveal that these other authoritative (ecumenical) creeds are in no way intending to diminish belief in our Lord’s supernatural nativity. On the contrary, those who denied this truth were clearly identified by the early Church as the adherents of one form of heresy known as “Ebionism.”[6] These deviant Jewish believers limited the Messiah to being merely a human, prophetic figure. For them, He was anointed by God the Father only at His baptism, and from this comes the term “adoptionism.” The witness of the Apostles’ Creed and all principal Church fathers was as opposed to this deviation as it was to the opposite error of those who saw Jesus as only a spiritual being, devoid of manhood (the “Docetists”).
A major concern of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), which Potter wants to use in his negative argument, was that the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of Mary, is one and the same Lord and Son of God. The Nicene fathers were seeking to counteract the suggestion of Arius that God the Son was not coequal with God the Father. Further, in its definitive edition this creed does affirm that Christ was “incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.”[7]
This witness to Christ’s holy birth had earlier been forcefully advocated by Irenaeus, the greatest Church father of the second century. Although Potter cites the Athanasian Creed for its failure to state the Virgin Birth, the doctrine is unmistakably to be inferred from the statement that we worship Christ who is both God and man in one person, “by taking of the manhood into God.”[8]
Athanasius (d. 373), for whom the later Athanasian Creed was named, also bears witness to the doctrine in a manner similar to Irenaeus: Mankind was perishing in sin. What was God to do? He could not “falsify” Himself by ignoring our sin. However, due to the severity of our transgression, the incorporeal Word of God Himself had to enter our world. He did so by taking our body,
and not only so, but He took it from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father … He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt.[9]
How unfortunate that Potter stumbles on the Virgin Birth also because he does not know of any scientific precedent for parthenogenesis among mammals. However, the list of Church fathers who knew that divine mystery transcends natural reason is impressive. Anselm (d. 1109) sought to adore the mystery from the standpoint of sanctified reason[10]: “If it was a virgin that brought all evil upon the human race, it is much more appropriate that a virgin should be the occasion for all good.”[11]
Conclusion
The witness of Scripture and of the Church abundantly supports the converse of Potter’s position. The view that Joseph was the real father of Jesus may not “claim for it more extensive scriptural authority” than the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of our Lord. There is no basis for concluding that the doctrine is to be relegated only to a later written document that is not “a record of facts.” We have seen that this mystery that we discover in Advent is not only central to the witness of the Gospels, but it is also at the heart of some of the most profound and consecrated theological reflection in the history of the Church.
The debate over the Virgin Birth has continued since Potter wrote in the 1920s. In her recent work, The Illegitimacy of Jesus, feminist theologian Jane Schaberg has shown the radical extreme to which Potter’s negative argument can lead. She is not content with merely trying to discount this biblical doctrine. To her mind, the Virgin Birth is to defer to a preposterous theory that our Lord was the product of either an act of adultery or rape—she is not yet certain which it was. That such blasphemy is being taken seriously in quarters of United Methodism[12] is surely evidence that the converse of Potter’s prophecy has become the real concern. Christianity in our day is being threatened not by the advocacy of the doctrine in question but by its perversion.
As our response to these critics, are we not being prompted to prepare our hearts, as never before, with unspeakable joy and thanksgiving before God, and with vigilance amid this world, for His gracious gift to us in Advent 1988?
FOOTNOTES
[1] This is grammatically known as the “passive of divine-circumlocution.”
[2] See the discussion of this issue in Krister Stendahl, “Quix et Unde,” in G. Stanton, ed., The Interpretation of Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 56-66.
[3] According to Dr. David Bauer, associate professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary. I am indebted to my colleague Professor Bauer for many of the textual comments made in this article. See also Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Society, 1971), 3rd ed., pp. 2-7.
[4] Surely the two gospels do not conflict at this point. They present two perspectives on Jesus’ humanity—one that He is the ideal Israelite and the other that, even more, He is the ideal man in the generic sense.
[5] As noted by Bauer, supra.
[6] See Reinhold Seeberg, A History of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1964), Vol. I, p. 89.
[7] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (N.Y., Harper & Bros., 1932), Vol. II, pp. 62-63.
[8] See Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, pp. 66-70. Schaff noted that it is in “essential agreement” with the Creed of Chalcedon, where the Virgin Birth is explicitly affirmed to counter the errors stemming from the Nestorians and Eutychians. Op. cit. Vol. I, p. 39.
[9] Athanasius, The Incarnation of the Word of God, (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1946), pp. 32-35.
[10] We will recall that reason is one of the factors in confirming biblical truth in the Wesleyan tradition.
[11] St Anselm, Cur Densttomo? in S. N. Deane (tr.), St. Anselm: Basic Writings (Chicago: Open Court Pub. Co., 1962), pp. 244-51.
[12] I refer to the publication of Jane Schaberg’s “Rethinking the Birth of Jesus” in The International Christian Digest (September 1988), pp. 16-19, a publication of the United Methodist Church. Her book is entitled The Illegitimacy of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
by Steve | Sep 17, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: Best Book Yet on UM Episcopacy
SET APART TO SERVE: THE ROLE OF THE EPISCOPACY IN THE WESLEYAN TRADITION
by James K. Matthews (Abingdon, $13.95)
Although this book received many favorable reviews just after its publication three years ago, it is most appropriate that it should be reviewed at this time, following the election of a sizeable number of bishops. I know of no other book comparable to this one that will for years be of help to delegates in understanding the episcopal office and in making the best selection among the various persons being considered for this position in the leadership of our church.
Election to the episcopacy should not be a popularity contest Neither should it be achieved by the exchange of votes among a number of annual conferences, so that each gets its favorite son or daughter into office. The most competent persons in the ministry should be identified and sought after to fill this unique office of servant leadership in our church. This book clearly delineates the qualities a person ought to have to serve successfully as a bishop of the United Methodist Church.
Set Apart to Serve is much more than a Methodist concept of the episcopacy. It is a delineation of the concept of episcopacy in Christendom. The first two chapters set the Methodist episcopacy in historical context. The book begins where it should—with Scripture. Although, like Wesley, Mathews does not think that any one particular form of church government is mandated by Scripture (so that ecclesiastical policy can vary with circumstance and human preference), he believes that episcopacy was the prevalent, if not exclusive, form in the New Testament. He feels that in the New Testament the episcopacy and presbyterate were synonymous and originated at the level of the local congregation. Only gradually did episcopacy take on a larger dimension in scope and function so that the bishop came to preside over an area, while the presbyter remained localized as the chief pastor of one congregation.
This was basically Wesley’s position as well. It was not Bishop Asbury’s position, however. He thought the episcopacy was the continuation of the apostolate, and he said he could prove this right out of the New Testament.
Certainly this view of bishops as successors to the apostles prevailed in the post-apostolic era, and it has been the dominant concept in Christendom ever since (as Bishop Mathews shows us in his remarkable survey of Christian history in the second chapter).
The third and longest chapter shows the development of the episcopacy in American Methodism. I found it fascinating reading. There is in my mind—though presumably not in Bishop Mathews’—a contradiction in Wesley’s understanding of episcopacy. He insisted bishops are of the same order as elders, but more than anybody I know of in modern history (except the Pope), he acted as if they were separate and distinct orders. He ordained Coke to the general superintendency; he did not consecrate him. This means that he did not install him in an office; he ordained him to an order. The reason Wesley claimed that elder and bishop were of the same order was to give himself, a mere presbyter, the right to make bishops. And he ransacked church history to justify his action. That is why Anglicans and Roman Catholics made fun of Wesley’s two American bishops by calling them lay bishops.
The last three chapters of the book are practical. They show how the episcopacy in the United Methodist Church really works today. One of the chapters deals with the general duties of a bishop in the governance of the entire denomination. If one studies this chapter carefully, he or she will see how foolish and even detrimental it is for one episcopal area over which a bishop presides to claim all of its bishop’s time and energy. Another chapter shows how the Council of Bishops functions. No one is more knowledgeable in this regard than Bishop Mathews, for he served in a remarkable capacity as its secretary. A third chapter shows how a bishop should operate in his or her own episcopal area.
The final chapter, “The Road Ahead,” is in a sense the author’s testamentary. Here Bishop Mathews unburdens his own heart. He sees the future of our denomination in terms of ecumenism and mission. Mission, of course, is much broader than missions. It is inclusive of missions, and without missions it is unfulfilled.
Prior to his episcopacy Mathews was a foreign missionary and a bureaucrat in the Board of Missions. As a bishop he has been an outstanding ecumenist. The material in all four of these chapters is the reflection of a man on his own episcopal career. It is the distillation of broad experience and profound wisdom.
This book is without rival in its field. It could only have been written by a bishop. Fortunately it was written by one of the ablest of our episcopal leaders.
Reviewed by Bishop William Cannon
WEALTH AND WISDOM
by Jake Barnett (NavPress, $7.95)
How refreshing it is to find a reliable book on the often controversial and sometimes aggravating subject of money. Jake Barnett establishes his credibility in a number of ways. The book is based on personal and business experience in practicing the principles he explains. He evenhandedly interprets Scripture contextually without distorting or exaggerating to make his point. Finally he judiciously agrees and disagrees with those in the Christian community who write on the same subject.
Barnett has much to teach us through his integrated view of the world (in which we live materially) and the kingdom of God (of which we are members by adoption). The first part of the book is an extensive investigation of the relationship of material possessions to Christian maturity, the biblical principles relating to God’s economic order and the difficulties of applying God’s order in daily affairs.
The second major section considers the Christian as an individual within the community, with special attention given to possessions. The issues of wealth, capital, giving, receiving, character formation and tithing are thoroughly developed on a biblical foundation with sometimes surprising results.
While none of this book is impractical, the final section on practical application is the most interesting. The chapter on creative giving is full of useful suggestions for multiplying the impact of gifts. The author’s discussion of money management is familiar, but it is better rooted in biblical principles than other similar discussions. The final chapter, while not essential to the heart of the book, relates to cross-cultural applications of biblical principles in oppressive economic systems.
This is a practical and thoughtful contribution on stewardship that will be read and reread. It is a book that can be given to friends.
Reviewed by Ivan L. Zabilka, Ph.D.
A TIME FOR REMEMBERING: THE RUTH BELL GRAHAM STORY
by Patricia Daniels Cornwell (Harper & Row, $5.95)
I remember well the day when, as a teenager, I met Billy Graham and Cliff Barrows. Now through her book, Patricia Cornwell has introduced me to Ruth Bell Graham.
Some of what I learned was no surprise; Ruth is a gracious lady, a student of the Word, a wife and mother devoted to her husband and children, a reflective person and a poet. But I observed some unexpected character traits—a quick wit, a daring spirit, a determined will and a passion for souls that would equal her husband’s. Cornwell writes, “Like the partially-read books scattered throughout her house, her life was full of projects and ‘unfinished’ people.”
This love for people fills her days with activity and purpose. Her involvement in others’ lives is her most distinctive and endearing characteristic. In Ruth’s younger days she dreamed of being a “pioneer missionary alone.” This vision turned into raising five children virtually alone while Billy traveled around the world in the role of an evangelist
Ruth gladly took up her task, managing the house, budget and children, determined to have an orderly, disciplined family. This sometimes resulted in battles between Ruth and her offspring (as well as between Ruth and herself). She relaxed the rules, though, when Billy came home. He enjoyed his family, often to the point of indulging them.
Some of the funniest episodes revolve around tourists trying to get a peek at the Grahams in their mountain home: one of the girls decided to take advantage of the opportunity and sell admission; on the spur of the moment Billy invited passersby to join the family for a cookout; fiercely loyal neighbors diverted tourists with a variety of tricks.
Two threads intertwine regarding Ruth and the children: a deep concern for their personal relationship with Christ and a spirit of play and adventure. The former kept her on her knees while the latter led her on one occasion to ride her son’s motorcycle. Both threads make fascinating reading.
Ruth’s world of evangelism did not stop with her children, for she never tired of helping others. The recipients of her helpfulness included the workers who built the Graham’s home in Piney Cove, the mountain-folk neighbors, a regular Sunday school class for college students and a young girl in London who had a warped view of the God of the Old Testament.
As you read this book you’ll learn about Billy Graham and his evangelistic efforts, about the people who knew and worked with the Grahams and about the five Graham children. But most of all you will read the story of Ruth Bell Graham. You will learn to love her and to love her Lord more.
When Ruth first met Billy she wrote of him in her journal, “No reserve. Just [giving]. Desiring only to be well-pleasing to Him.” The same can be said about Ruth.
Reviewed by Ann Coker
by Steve | Sep 16, 1988 | Archive - 1988
In this first of a two-part series on sanctification, Robert Coleman, professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, says Calvinists and Wesleyans can agree on the essential character of the holy life
Archive: What Does it Mean To Be Sanctified?
Off the coast of Scotland there is a little island where Christianity first took root in the nation. To accommodate the many tourists who want to make the trip across the bay to visit the historic site, there is a rental shop where transportation can be obtained. Over the door of the small building, emblazoned in bold letters, is the signboard: “VISIT THE HOLY ISLE.” Then, more to the point, underneath are the words: “WE CAN TAKE YOU.”
In a much more profound sense those last words express what the church should be doing—taking people where the saints have trod. In practical terms this means bringing men and women into the deeper and ever-expanding dimensions of holiness.
Such ministry does not for a moment minimize the necessity of conversion, for the kingdom life cannot be entered until one is born of the Spirit. But the mandate of Christ is not to make converts but to “make disciples”—followers of Jesus—persons who will develop in the likeness of the Master (Matt. 28:19-20). Herein is the genius of His plan of world evangelization. For disciples of Christ grow in the character of their Lord and thereby become involved in His mission. Mature disciples thus become disciplers of others, and as they in turn make disciples through the process of reproduction, a church someday will be gathered from every tongue and tribe and nation.
John Wesley focused this strategy of the Great Commission in his charge to the preachers, not only to bring sinners to repentance, but “to build them up in that holiness without which they cannot see the Lord.”[1] To him evangelism always consummates in building saints.
Echoing this basic tenet of the Wesleyan revival, John McClintock, who was to become the first president of Drew Theological Seminary, fervently declared in a Methodist centenary service in 1867,
Our work is a moral work; that is to say, the work of making men holy. Our preaching is for that, our church agencies are for that, our schools, colleges, universities and theological seminaries are for that. There is our mission—there is our glory—there is our power, and there shall be the ground of our triumph. God keep us true.[2]
HOLINESS IN MISSION
We would hope that what is affirmed in these words is not the triumphalism of a church asserting her superior piety, as has been sometimes alleged. Rather it is the announcement of persons overwhelmed with the knowledge of redeeming grace that the Lord Almighty, of purer eyes than to behold evil, wants to make a people to display His own glory: “‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Peter 1:16; cf.Lev.11:45). If there is any boasting it cannot be by virtue of any righteousness inherent in the saints, but only in that they belong to Him who loved them and died for their sin.
This sense of divine ownership through the blood of Christ lies at the heart of holiness. The terms “saint” and “sanctify” come from the same root, meaning to set apart or to be God’s possession.
Certainly this state cannot be claimed as the exclusive property of Methodism or any other favored body of believers. Holiness, as the reflection of the divine nature, is the fabric of all Christian experience, by whatever name it is called.
The manifestation of this character has been the basis of God’s program to reach the world. The commission came into bold announcement when Abraham was called to leave the old haunts of sin and go out with his Lord by faith (Gen. 12:1-3; cf. Heb. 11:8-10). To this end Israel was chosen to be His witness among the nations, that people beholding their holy manner of life would want to follow their God (Zech. 8:23; Isa. 55:4-5; Jer. 10:7; Ps. 2:8, 46:10). When the Jews succumbed to the sensate culture about them, the Lord sent His Messiah-Son to raise up a new Israel, a holy nation, of which His life was witness (Isa. 49:6, 53:11-12; Gen. 49:10; Zech. 9:10; Dan. 7:13-14). The Spirit now is fashioning the Church in that image in order to show the glory of God to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8; cf., Rev. 5:9-10; 7:9).
TO BE LIKE CHRIST
It is this likeness of Christ in the saints that makes holiness beautiful. Worldlings can see that persons who bear His name are different. There is a graciousness about their lifestyle, a humility of servanthood that finds expression in deeds of love. Precept and example blend together in authentic witness. Obedience is joyful. Even amid sufferings, when ridiculed and oppressed, the bitterness of the world does not keep the saints from praising God from whom all blessings flow. Such a life creates a mystery; it is so utterly uncharacteristic of a fallen race, and those who are most observing, just like the Church-watchers of the apostolic era, have to admit that His disciples “have been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). The print of His character is upon them.
That is what sanctification is all about It transforms disciples of Christ into His image, “from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18). This is no outward show of good works, least of all some kind of legalistic code of religious behavior. Nor can it be equated with any manifestation of a particular spiritual gift. The focus of holiness is always Jesus Christ; He is the Word made flesh, whom the Spirit glorifies (John 16:5-16). The only holiness we can know is in relationship to His.
This character does not make one immune to the beguiling enticements of Satan, nor does it cause one to escape the persecutions that come for righteousness’ sake. Indeed by following Christ we may expect to encounter some difficulties in our pagan environment that might otherwise be avoided. Let no one imagine that sanctity preempts humanity from having to face the realities of this fallen age.
PURITY OF DESIRE
Moreover, unlike the Lord who had no inherent sin, saints have to contend all through life with their own depraved minds. Though education can correct some consequences of a darkened intelligence, holy people are going to make decisions unbecoming to the nature of Christ. That is part of our human situation. Notwithstanding these limitations, however, a holy desire to please the Lord can still shine through the life of His saints.
An experience with my son many years ago illustrates what I mean. It was a hot day at the end of the harvest season. Jim, who was then no more than three or four years old, saw me working, and it occurred to him that I might be thirsty. So he pulled a chair up to the kitchen sink, found a dirty glass and filled it with water from the hydrant. The next thing I knew my name was being called. As I turned around, I saw my son coming across the garden holding that smudgy glass of warm water and saying, “Daddy, I thought you were thirsty, so I brought you a drink.” And as he held up the glass a smile stretched across his face from one ear to the other.
You might think, “Couldn’t he do better than that? Why, that is not cool water; that’s not even pure water.” And you would be right. But when you looked at his face, you would have to say that it was pure love. He was doing the best he knew to please his daddy.
In some similar way that is how every Christian can live in this world. Though we continually make errors in judgment and fall woefully short of our desire to be like Christ, still in our hearts we can do the best we know to please Him.
PERFECT LOVE
Herein is the essence of what Wesley called “Christian perfection.” It is not a maturity in knowledge or in attainment but a “purity of intention,” so that “one desire and design” rules the affections.[3] To the question, “How shall we avoid setting perfection too high or low?” he answered,
By keeping to the Bible, and setting it just as high as the Scripture does. It is nothing higher and nothing lower than this,—the pure love of God and man; the loving God with all our heart and soul, and our neighbor as ourselves. It is love governing the heart and life, running through all our tempers, words, and actions.[4]
In this expectation he was only echoing the Great Commandment (Matt. 22:37-40), which becomes the constraining force of the Great Commission (2 Cor. 5: 14). Such love is holy because it is of God—His own nature infused in the heart of His people by the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 5:5; 1 John 4:7-8, 16).
Firmly convinced that this was the substance of every moral obligation of Scripture, John Wesley did not hesitate to make it the “grand depositum” of his teaching.[5] Having seen love in its “own shape,” he asked, “Who will fight against it?” Indeed, “it must be disguised before it can be opposed.”[6] Then in the words of the prayer so often heard in church, he affirmed,
Yea, we do believe, that [God] will in this world “so cleanse the thoughts of our hearts, by the inspirations of his Holy Spirit, that we shall perfectly love Him and worthily magnify His holy Name”[7]
SIN UNDERSTOOD AS CONTINUING
The question might be asked, though, is this devotion the common experience of everyone at the time he or she is born of the Spirit, or is it a commitment disciples come to in the process of sanctification? At this point different answers are forthcoming depending upon the theological system in which holiness is cast. Unfortunately most of us tend to view sainthood so much through the glasses of our own tradition that we fail to appreciate how others see it using different colored lenses. Basically these variances of perspective settle along the lines of Calvinism on the one side and Arminianism on the other—positions which solidify in the churches they represent
Much of the contention could be resolved in a better understanding of terms, particularly the way sin is defined. In the Reformed tradition, of which Calvin would be chief spokesman, sin is seen as any deviation from the absolute holiness of God, whether it is realized or not. No allowance is made for human infirmities over which we have little control, such as ignorance, a weak physical body, hereditary handicaps, psychological quirks going back to childhood and many other involuntary human traits. From this perspective everyone comes short of the standard of righteousness in Christ, whatever the person’s state of grace. To do otherwise would require perfect knowledge and no residue of human depravity. So far as any experience of absolute holiness on this earth is concerned, it would be blasphemy to speak of being free of sin. The only sense in which this could be allowed is from the vantage point of heaven, where, because of identity with the Son by faith, God imputes to saints the righteousness of Christ. Complete experiential sanctification, however, must await the day when believers are delivered from a corrupted body in glorification.
By keeping clear the infinite perfection of the Lord, this position makes us ever mindful of our human failing in the flesh, even as it points us to the endless possibilities of improvement. As an unrelenting judge of superficiality in Christian experience, this perspective should also help us with humility. John Wesley appreciated this viewpoint and, taking a cue from the Westminster Catechism, made it a practice to confess continually those unconscious sins committed against the divine Majesty in “thought, word, and deed,” a custom still followed by Methodists every time we take holy communion.
HOLINESS IN A SINLESS PERSPECTIVE
But in terms of transgression of the known will of God, Wesley, reflecting an Arminian perspective, believed that it was possible by grace to live blamelessly in this present life. He could make this claim because of his differentiation between sins of intent and sins of ignorance or mistakes. A sin of intent is a wrong choice issuing from an unholy motive. A mistake is a wrong choice issuing from a holy motive. This does not make the mistaken action any less short of God’s perfection, nor does it absolve the sinner from the consequence resulting from the transgression, but it does allow that the heart is condemned only for willful disobedience.[8]
Within this framework Wesley also made a distinction between traits of the fallen human nature and the willful, carnal nature of self-centeredness. Since after regeneration human infirmities remain in the physical body, at best fleshly characteristics can only be restrained or counter-balanced. But that selfish carnal disposition sapping spiritual vitality need not be endured, since it exists by our permission. When recognized, like any volitional perversion, it can be confessed and cleansed.
Admittedly this delicate distinction between the involuntary and deliberate aspects of sin may be difficult to apply in practice. After all, can one ever be sure that he or she has utilized every privilege of grace to know the mind of Christ? In this regard slothfulness in seeking the truth can be very deceptive. No wonder Calvinists look askance at our claims. But in theory, at least, the Wesleyan perspective offers an expedient for believing that an obedient disciple, in standing before God as well as in personal experience, can be free of conscious condemnation.
When this basic difference in the definition of sin is understood, there is no reason why Calvinists and Wesleyans cannot agree on the essential character of the holy life.[9] Of necessity our terminology explaining justification and sanctification will differ, but we can embrace the same reality.
Perhaps in divine providence, both of these foundational evangelical systems of thought are given support in Scripture to make all of us more sensitive to our own finite inability to comprehend “with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge. …” (Eph. 3:18-19). I suspect that in the end we will discover that God does not value our definitions of theology nearly as much as He does a broken and contrite spirit.
ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that the condition for full salvation is simple faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. In terms of consciousness, this means offering all that we know of ourselves to all that we know of Him. Such commitment begins at conversion and continues throughout life as we “do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4).
What is sometimes called “entire sanctification,” as the compound word in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 may be translated, is a term that points to a particular moment in the developing life of grace when carnality is confronted. While it involves a definite confrontation of truth in relation to the self-life, it is only a part of the ongoing sanctifying process. However, because the nature of this point in Christian obedience requires the deepest commitment of the will, the decision it forces for many stands out as a monumental crisis. With others the decision may come so gradually, interwoven with so many other things, that knowledge of its reality may only be the quiet assurance that it is settled. What matters is not the manner of the submission, nor any accompanying sign, but the release it brings from the bondage to self.
For Wesleyans who interpret this experience as the cleansing of the carnal mind, distinguishing it from the ever-present human nature, it is sometimes referred to as a “second work of grace.”
The expression is not meant to depreciate the grace already received but rather to say that when a saint comes to see the conflict caused by self-centeredness and is willing to surrender the problem to God, the Spirit already working in the life can also meet this deeper need.
CONTINUAL GROWTH
There will be many other problems to face in the growing experience of holiness. Some of these issues will occasion very real spiritual battles, but in meeting them the saint can draw upon the strength of a heart fully yielded to the will of God. It is a commitment which must be continually renewed, for everything that comes up—in the family, at school, on the job—involves holiness. For this reason it would be better not to think of cleansing as a crisis but as a life. The life is made up of a constant series of decisions, and how each one is made will determine the blessedness of holiness.
Surely endless corrections will be called for as persons being sanctified seek to follow the Lord. Renouncing our own rights and taking up His cross have implications in prayer and service which we may only faintly comprehend now, but the Spirit will be faithful to bring them to our attention as we seek His guidance. As moral failure is perceived, we must confess the sin and align our will with the sanctifying Word.
Thanks be to God, there is never a foreclosure on progress. No matter what has been experienced thus far, there is more to learn. As the character of the life in Christ is more fully understood and faith enlarges to embrace it, there will be unceasing expansion in the Spirit’s fullness, even as life lengthens into the timeless dimensions of eternity.
The goal is nothing less than the very perfection of our Savior. While it remains ever a vision infinitely beyond our experience, it is nevertheless a glorious incentive to press on to higher ground, reaching always “toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). If we are growing in faith the closer we get to the heavenly city, the more our soul will long to see His face. And though it does not yet appear what we shall be, we know that when He appears at last we shall be “like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is” (1 John 3:2).
Dr. Robert E. Coleman is director of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School of World Mission and Evangelism in Deerfield. Illinois.
FOOTNOTES
[1] John Wesley, Minutes of Several Conversations, The Works of John Wesley, ed. by T. Jackson, VIl (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 310.
[2] Quoted by Timothy Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1957), p. 137.
[3] John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Works, XI op. cit., p. 444
[4] Ibid., p. 397.
[5] John Wesley, Lener to Robert Carr Brackenbury, Sept. 15, 1790, The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, ed. by John Telford, VIl (London: The Epworth Press, 1931), p. 238.
[6] John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Works, XI, op. cit., p. 445.
[7] Ibid., pp. 445-446.
[8] The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechism, in The Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States Together with the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964), pp. 330,428. cf. Prayer of General Confession in the Order for the Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, The United Methodist Church. It should be noted that since Wesley believed there is not perfection in this life which excludes involuntary transgressions, he said “sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself.” John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Works, XI, op. cit., p. 396.
[9] It should not be assumed from this position that persons who have never heard the gospel are excused from the consequences of rejecting Christ. For Wesley, in classical evangelical reasoning, insisted that sufficient direction came through natural revelation to make everyone accountable. Those who have not had opportunity to sit under the preaching of the Word, thus, still must answer for their chosen way of iniquity.
by Steve | Jul 16, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: “Even If You Wish It, We Won’t Kill You!”
This Romanian preacher tells of bringing Christ to his people while under the Stalin regime
By Josef Tson
It was Stalin’s time—the peak of the communist terror. Romania succumbed to communist rule in 1948. The program was to convert the country to atheism. Communists purged the libraries of Christian books, and printing Christian literature was forbidden. One could read only what the Communists permitted. In that atmosphere of terror, persecution and restriction I became a Christian.
A few months later I went to a university to study literature, linguistics and languages. My main passion was books, but it was nearly impossible to find any Christian literature. When I finally found a man who had some Christian books he told me it would be too dangerous for me to borrow them. (If the communists learned that he had given them to me, he would be thrown in jail.) So he allowed me to come to his house to read them.
In a couple of months I had read all the books that he had. So I asked him, “Brother, I want to grow as a Christian. What can I do?” He told me there were two English libraries in Bucharest left by former American missionaries. He could arrange for me to get access to them if I knew English.
I immediately enrolled in an English course. Only four students in the whole university dared take that course, and everyone looked at us dubiously because we wanted to learn the language of the capitalists. In six months I was able to read English.
I got in touch with that man, and one of the first English books he gave me was The Christ On The Mount, a working philosophy of life by E. Stanley Jones. It talked about discussing Christianity with the intellectuals of India; it was a great revelation to me. Communist teachers had been telling me that only ignorant people believed in God, that science had proven that there is no God and that educated people did not believe in Him. I learned from reading Dr. Jones’ books, though, that it is possible to think about Christianity in an intellectual way.
When I finished at the university in 1955, I felt called to Christian ministry, so I went to the Baptist seminary in Bucharest. Two years later somebody gave me another book written by a Methodist. That book condemned all Christian faith in the Atonement. I wasn’t prepared for this encounter with liberal theology, and through this experience and a few other encounters with liberal theology I lost my faith.
I left the seminary and went through a spiritual darkness for a few years. But the Lord took care of me. As I read more, another author helped me understand the biblical concepts of atonement, substitution and redemption through Jesus Christ.
One day the Lord opened a way for me to escape from Romania and go to England. There I received a scholarship to study at Oxford University, where I earned my bachelor’s and master’s degrees in theology. During my three years at Oxford I discovered that I was able to defend my evangelical position with the highest academic documentation available. I learned that I didn’t have to commit intellectual suicide in order to be a biblical theologian, thinker and preacher.
Something else happened in Oxford; I was called to go back to my own country.
I met with the leaders of the evangelical groups at Oxford, and they wanted to know exactly why I wanted to go back to Romania. I explained that in communist countries the people were disappointed with communism and were searching for alternatives. They were ready for the Gospel. I wanted to give it to them, and I hoped to train a new generation of preachers. A skeptical student asked, “Josef, it all sounds marvelous, but what chances of success do you have?”
I smiled to myself and thought, “Here is a typical western way of thinking—chances of success.” In Romania you don’t come to Christ to have success. You come to Christ to go the narrow way with few other people. You are despised, harassed and discriminated against. You lose everything and learn to live victoriously with Christ in poverty. That’s the call of the Gospel there. And this man was asking about success!
I didn’t know what to do with that question, so, as usual, I prayed. “Lord,” I asked, “what if I ask You that question? What chances of success do You give me when I go to Romania?” My Lord was quick. He said, “Josef, my answer is in Matthew 10:16, ‘I send you out as [a] sheep in the midst of wolves.’” I immediately saw a kind of vision. I saw a circle of wolves and a sheep in the center of the circle. And the Lord said, “Josef, do you see that image? That’s the most hopeless situation you can conceive. Tell me what chance that sheep has of staying alive for five minutes, let alone of converting the wolves. That’s how I send you, Josef. Totally hopeless. No chance of success. Totally vulnerable. Josef, if you will go to Romania as I send you, with no guarantees of success, go.”
I considered this the most crucial experience in my intellectual and theological pilgrimage. I went immediately to the Bible to ask the question, “Why does God send me so hopelessly out there?” The answer came quickly. Jesus said, “As my father sent Me, so send I you. My father sent Me to be the Lamb of God. I send you as a lamb to wolves.”
To put it in other words, I already knew what the cross of Christ had achieved. But Christ said to me, “You pick up your cross, Josef, and do the same.” I came to see that when the wolves would jump on me to tear me to pieces I could say, “I love you, and if you kill me, I’ll actually die for you. Because if you kill me you will see the love of Christ in action.” And at least some of those wolves would begin to shudder and change, and they would become lambs. The only way those wolves could understand what a lamb is would be by killing it. For two thousand years this has been God’s way of conquering the world. So with that I went back to Romania.
I had decided to put my life on the altar, and I came to understand that martyrdom was part of my job. As I told my dear wife, “I want to see in this land a generation of people who don’t hide their faith. I hate the notion of underground Christianity. I want people who will stand up and pay for what they believe. As Christ said, ‘If you won’t give witness of Me before this wicked generation, I can’t bring witness of you before My Father.’ You cannot be a secret Christian knowing this.”
But how could I make others stand up if I wouldn’t do it? So I returned to Romania and courageously preached the Gospel. If the communists had killed me, it would have been the supreme example I could have given. Only then would others have stood up in the same way. I even wrote in one of the papers about the sin of survival: “If you want to survive, you have to compromise. There are times when Christ doesn’t expect you to survive. He wants you to be a martyr. He wants you to preach the Gospel, pay for it with your life and conquer by your dying.”
On the fourth of October 1974, the government had had enough of me. (I had been preaching for two years.) On that day seven policemen came to my door. They searched my house for eight hours, confiscated all of my library, placed me under house arrest for the next six months and forced me to go to police headquarters for interrogation almost every day.
I was the pastor of a church at that time, and I still had to preach on Friday nights and Sundays. Fortunately the police had left two books with me. (They were too torn to bother with.) One of them was written by a German author who had dared to stand up against Hitler and consequently had gone through harsh interrogations and treatments. The other book was Abundant Living by E. Stanley Jones, which I just left in my study. But I read the other one every night at bedtime to give me courage for the next day’s interrogation.
The purpose of the interrogations was to break me physically, mentally and spiritually. Sometimes there were 10 hours of interrogation in a day, and I would come home almost broken physically. I was scared all of the time. I never knew how they would treat me or when I would answer with something that would aggravate my situation. After about six weeks of interrogations, I began to break down. I was tired, and I no longer knew why I was going through these things. I only knew that I was desperate and that I wanted to get out of there.
Late one afternoon as I returned from interrogation I went into my study, fell flat on my face and started to cry. In my desperation I heard a voice saying, “Stand up, take that book and read!” The book by Dr. Jones was the only one there, so I couldn’t have made a mistake. I opened it to a page on which E. Stanley Jones discussed Christ and His cross. He said that at the time Jesus came to earth the cross was considered an instrument of torture; it was a symbol of the cruelest death. But Jesus didn’t just bear His cross stoically. He transformed it into an instrument of salvation. “You too,” said Dr. Jones, “you have to do the same with your cross! Don’t just bear it, for your cross can impinge on somebody else’s life. Instead look around at what bearing your cross can do for others. Transform your suffering into something meaningful for other people.” I felt that God was speaking directly to me.
Every Sunday people came with tape recorders to record the messages of a man who was, all week, in interrogations, and whatever I preached went all across the country. One of the greatest sermons I preached at the time was on joy. (“The joy of the Lord is your strength” Nehemiah 8:10.) At the end of that day, somebody said, “Josef, it’s incredible. I came this morning expecting to see a wreck, and there you were beaming with joy. I said to myself, ‘If Josef can preach about joy, it’s real!'” So I came to see how my cross was becoming something very important for others.
That book by E. Stanley Jones had redirected my thinking at a crucial moment in my life. I immediately decided to translate it into Romanian. Every morning I would get up much earlier than necessary and would translate a page in Romanian. After the day’s interrogation I would translate another one. On the weekend I would translate another page. By the end of my six months of house arrest and interrogations I had translated the entire book.
Christian books cannot be printed in Romania, so I made six carbon copies by hand. Somebody who had binding equipment bound them for me. I gave the copies to a few friends, and they paid professional typists to retype the book. It spread like fire.
Toward the end of the six months of interrogations, one of the police officers got fed up with me and threatened to kill me. I told him this: “Sir, your supreme weapon is killing. My supreme weapon is dying. You know that my sermons are on tapes all over the country. When you kill me, you will sprinkle those sermons with my blood. Everybody who has these tapes will say, ‘I’d better listen because that preacher really meant it. He paid with his life for it.’ Sir, my preaching will speak 10 times louder if you kill me. I will actually win the victory in this land if you choose to kill me.”
The officer sent me home.
One of his colleagues told one of my friends, “We know that Mr. Tson would love to be a martyr, but we are not foolish enough to fulfill his wish.” When I learned that even if I wished it they wouldn’t kill me, I began to think of the implications. For so many years I was afraid of dying, and because of that I had kept quiet about my faith. And I wasted my life in inactivity. But when I realized the value of dying and said, “Lord, that would be the supreme honor—the crowning glory of my ministry—so, Lord, here I am,” the officers said, “Even if you wish it, we won’t kill you.” Now I could go across the country and preach whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, wherever I wanted, because they wouldn’t kill me even if I begged them to.
As long as I had wanted to save my life, I was losing it. When I put it on the altar, I discovered I was completely free to witness in my country. The Lord started a revival through this. A new generation of young people was ready to stand up for the Lord with new courage. They were ready to die for what they preached.
God’s strategy is to conquer the world through people who put their lives completely on the altar. This world would be conquered in no time if every Christian would say, “I am sold out. Lord, send me wherever You want. And I know that the supreme way that You would conquer through me would be to illustrate Your love by my literally dying for You.”
That is what it takes.
Dr. Josef Tson is president of the Wheaton, Illinois-based Romanian Missionary Society. He has received an honorary doctorate from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
by Steve | Jul 16, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: David Seamands and Mark Rutland on the Church’s Integrity Crisis
Does the Church have an integrity crisis? If so, is there hope that this trend of immorality will reverse? Here, Good News interviews David Seamands and Marie Rutland about the Church’s present and future conditions. David Seamands is a well-known author. His most recent book, God’s Blueprint For Living, was published in June by Bristol Books. Mark Rutland is a contributing editor to Good News, a UM conference-approved evangelist and author of Launch Out Into The Deep. Mark’s second book, The Finger of God, is being released in July by Bristol Books.
Good News: Do we have an integrity crisis in the church? (And I’m talking about the whole Church, not just the United Methodist Church.)
Seamands: Yes, and I think because of the media it’s a crisis like we’ve never seen before. Jesus’ words have literally become true in that that which is done in secret is now broadcast from the top of the roof (meaning the TV and radio aerials) and sent around the world. This exacerbates the crisis. Maybe we’ve always had this much moral decay, but we’ve never had the media to make it worldwide news within a matter of minutes.
Good News: Mark, how do you account for the fact that some of these leaders of reform, of conservative biblical living, are some of the ones we find in the headlines guilty of moral faults? Isn’t that incongruous?
Rutland: The incongruity is startling. However, that’s the human condition—what we say and what we do don’t always go together. To me the problem is the big television bucks, the high profile and the hugeness of ministry actually seed the most base and carnal appetites in the people that are involved in it.
Seamands: I agree. One of the words that’s come to me in the midst of all this is a Greek word for pride—hubris. Hubris is a special form of pride which means a person overreaches his ability. He wants something he has no business wanting.
For example, all through Greek mythology the gods got jealous when they discovered a human being who wanted to become like they were, and they always saw that he was put in his place.
In Hindu mythology a man could get too powerful by being too good. He’d pile up merit and thereby earn his salvation. The gods would say to each other, “This guy will soon want to be one of us. So they would destroy the man by appealing to his sexual desires. They would send a beautiful, voluptuous woman to bathe in the river. She would get a little careless with her sari, and the man would fall morally.
Similarly, some of our TV evangelists never know when to quit. They’ve got to build one more building. They’re over-reaching their grasp. I think there is a sense of non-accountability that naturally accompanies this overreaching, and that results in a moral collapse. These things are always linked together in some way.
Good News: It’s interesting that when you start talking about sexual immorality the conversation tends to work its way to pride. At least that’s happening here.
Rutland: I think it’s the same hubris principle at work that causes young married couples to get in debt. They don’t have any patience; they won’t wait on God; they won’t go through any suffering. They’ve got to overreach. They have to have that new couch and the new car and the new condominium—and they’ve got to have it now.
They run up a bill they can’t pay because they’re too proud to live with a broken-down couch and to drive a beat-up car for a while. So their pride is really more compelling than their materialism.
Good News: Why are the people who seem to be the most against vice the ones who are falling? Or is that only an illusion?
Rutland: I think it is an illusion myself. It’s the man-bites-dog thing. If you have a homosexual in the gutters of Houston there’s no press coverage. But when a Methodist bishop dies of AIDS you’ve got a front-page story. However, there is the other part of it; maybe God is pruning the tree a bit.
Seamands: Maybe this press attention is actually a backhanded compliment to the Gospel. I don’t see anybody writing articles on the failure of the leaders of Hinduism. I don’t see anybody saying the Islamic priests have let us down. I don’t see anybody saying the Buddhists have done this to us, that they’re failing. Why such a hullabaloo about Christian failure? The answer is, obviously, because people expected more.
Rutland: That’s right. When you start talking about real Christianity an ambiance of holiness is implied no matter what your particular theology of sanctification is. There is something concomitant between the Christian message and holiness of life.
Good News: We’ve talked about pride. We’ve talked about sex. How about materialism? Some of these moral scandals in the Church have nothing to do with sex; they have to do with money.
Have we in the American Church run after wealth, position, buildings and salaries, and has that begun to wear on our integrity?
Rutland: I saw a bumper sticker the other day that was one of the most flagrant expressions of the connection between materialism and pride that I’ve ever seen. It said, “He who dies with the most toys wins.” In other words a Mercedes Benz may not necessarily be a better car than a brand new Chevrolet, but having a Mercedes indicates that you are ahead of the other guy. And if you die with a Mercedes, and he dies with a Chevrolet, you’ve won.
Good News: David, do you think we’ve got too much money in the Church?
Seamands: I just read an article about Jimmy Swaggart. It said long before he fell morally he had already committed his great sin, and that was that Jimmy Swaggart made money from preaching the Gospel. When you choose to make money from preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ you’re going to fall somewhere. There is always a connection, I think, between money, sex and power.
I remember hearing Jim Bakker preach a sermon on the rich young ruler. Bakker said, “Now this guy was a millionaire. Jesus told him to give all that up, give to the poor, take up his cross and follow Him.” And Bakker said, “The rich young ruler went away sadly and he never came back. What a fool he was! He didn’t realize that if he’d have done that, Jesus would have made him a billionaire.”
I almost fell right out of my easy chair. I said to my wife, “Helen, did I hear—did he really say that?”
You can’t emasculate the Gospel that way and turn the whole system upside down without ultimately turning the moral system upside down.
Rutland: I was preaching in a huge church in Australia—the second or third largest church in the nation—an independent church. My spirit and the spirit of the staff there just seemed to jangle. After only the second worship service the pastor called me aside. He paid me and said, “Let’s finish this now. You’re just not going where we’re going.”
I said, “It’s up to you, but what’s the problem?”
And he said (to give you an example of the kind of spiritual confusion we’re living in), “You have the spirit of Jesus, and we have the Holy Spirit.”
I said, “I don’t make a distinction between those theologically. What distinction do you make?
And he said, “I had the spirit of Jesus when I first got saved. I wanted to preach on the street corners and win people to Jesus and do good. The spirit of Jesus tells people to give their car away. The Holy Spirit tells them how to have a better car.”
I didn’t even know what to say to him. I was so flabbergasted, I just stared in his face!
This kind of confusion, to me, is not only the breeding ground of theological error but also of moral excesses. When you’re confused spiritually the result is going to be outward sin.
Good News: Another thing that occurs to me is that it’s not just theological liberalism that makes people fall. You may believe all the right things, but if there is something wrong in your spirit sin will overtake you. Isn’t that true?
Seamands: It’s very true. We get all excited about the first chapter of Romans where Paul speaks to the homosexual issue, but that’s the tail end of the chapter. The first part of it tells how past generations substituted God with a false god. The creature took the place of the Creator. Irrational thinking followed. The people started believing lies, then they slipped morally. That was the tail end.
It all begins by getting off-center; God becomes no longer your god. Then you begin thinking upside down. Finally, you become morally perverted. It’s in that order. Immorality doesn’t come first; it’s the ultimate consequence.
Good News: It seems as evangelicals we’ve been able to isolate our belief systems from our lives. We don’t even realize that we’re really secular creatures because we’ve got orthodox beliefs. How do we undo that?
Rutland: I don’t know. I comfort myself by believing that in every time of moral and spiritual decline God will bring revival. And if the revival is genuine it brings a fresh longing for righteousness on the part of the people. The priests repent; the people repent; everybody turns. You can’t have an enduring revival based only on power. You’ve got to have holiness.
Good News: That’s the theme of your new book.
Rutland: I’m so happy you said that. My wife and I talk about this all the time. The wealthy TV evangelists didn’t start in a two-million-dollar house. How does one gradually rationalize living in such luxury? I always look at myself and ask, “Am I gradually going to drift to the place where I can feel comfortable in a two-million-dollar house?” God forbid!
Seamands: And how do I work into my theology that God only wants me to have the best? That’s what I’m hearing preached—that prosperity is proof of God’s blessing. I saw an evangelist once on TV actually use the illustration of God as a vending machine. He said that prayer was like putting in a quarter and getting a candy bar out. Prayer becomes like room service with God as a celestial butler saying, “What do you want? Tell me, and I’ll supply it for you.”
Rutland: I was at a meeting where some college people were praying about a certain need. I felt that the prayer had reached an arrogant level. Suddenly a young girl stood up and said, “I feel the lord is saying, ‘Am I a hound, that I come when you call?'” She sat down. The whole meeting was stopped dead in its tracks.
I really feel that somebody’s got to say that kind of a prophetic word to this entire evangelical movement.
Good News: So you think it gets back to theology again?
Rutland: I know that theology never brings revival. But I also know that bad theology sure won’t bring one.
Seamands: And you can’t think wrongly and live rightly, according to Scripture. This health, wealth and prosperity theology is bound to result in immoral (in a broad sense of the word) living. It has to do that.
Rutland: The problem in all this is, of course, balance. I don’t want to be a part of this conspiracy that we had in the latter part of the 19th century that said there is something particularly holy about being broke all the time. But I don’t know how to teach balance. For example, when I go to India I sleep on a reed mat on a dirt floor, and then I come home to my $120 thousand house. I don’t feel that I need to build a stick hut and sleep on a reed mat in the dirt here in the states, but there’s got to be some way that we keep a reasonable check on ourselves.
Good News: That’s something the whole Church needs to concentrate on. Is there a note that we’ve left unsounded?
Seamands: Well, let me say this. Billy Graham wrote an article 15 or 20 years ago on the theme, “Can we evangelicals stand success?” He was afraid that now that we were becoming sort of popular and powerful we’d eventually self-destruct.
Before the Reformation the Church was undergoing a similar thing, and people were pointing this out. An ancient saint said, “God allows these times so that we’ll get our eyes totally off of instruments and get them back on Jesus.”
It’s time we stop elevating human instruments and fix our eyes on Christ. He’s the only one that can withstand such publicity and praise. We can give Him all the honor and glory that’s possible, and we can’t overdo it. It’s not going to go to His head.
by Steve | May 16, 1988 | Archive - 1988
Archive: Thousands Endorse ‘Declaration’
By James V. Heidinger II
Nearly 9,500 United Methodist clergy, about 25 percent of the church’s total, have indicated their support of the “Houston Declaration.” That was the report in mid-April from the office of Dr. William H. Hinson, pastor of Houston’s First United Methodist Church. Responses to the initial mailing (sent to 55,000 persons including all pastors and local church lay leaders) had totaled 16,603 with 87 percent expressing support, the Houston office said.
Hinson served as chairman of the December 14-15 meeting in Houston which brought 48 pastors from some of United Methodism’s largest churches to express their concern over several issues facing the church. On December 15 the pastors released a carefully-prepared statement, now known as the “Houston Declaration,” which affirmed their support of three central issues before the church: the primacy of Scripture; the traditional language of the Holy Trinity as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”; and the ban against the ordination of persons practicing homosexuality.
Of the clergy responding 86 percent were supportive of the declaration, 13 percent were negative and 1 percent indicated no opinion. Among the local church lay leaders, however, 94 percent were supportive with only 3 percent negative, and 3 percent offered no opinion. Among 850 pastors in the “appointment beyond the local church” category, 602 expressed support, while 220 were nonsupportive.
As a result of the Houston meeting, a group of laity met in Chicago in late February and produced “A Call To Action,” a statement in support of the “Houston Declaration.” The convenors placed an ad in the United Methodist Reporter in March urging persons to express their support. As of mid-May, June Goldman, who attended the Chicago meeting, reported the group has received more than 58,000 responses of which only 87 were negative.
Gus Gustafson, General Conference delegate from Griffin, Ga., and one of the convenors of the Chicago meeting, reported that from the mailing of “A Call To Action” to all General Conference delegates, 210 had responded with more than 91 percent being supportive. Gustafson said, “The ‘Houston Declaration’ has given courage to a lot of people who have been waiting on something to voice their opinions.”
The largest negative response came in a paid advertisement in the April issue of the Circuit Rider, the denominational journal sent to all United Methodist clergy.
In this full-page statement entitled “Perfect Love Casts Our Fear” a group of pastors centered mainly in the Los Angeles area were critical of the signers of the “Houston Declaration,” saying they present “truths as Wesleyan which are anathema to the spirit of Wesley and Methodism. They do not speak for us. They do not speak for women. They do not speak for persons of color. They do not speak for Wesley. We pray that they do not speak for the General Conference.”
Addressing the controversial homosexual issue the “Perfect Love” statement said: “As to the ‘Houston Declaration’s’ emphatic rejection of homosexuals [in the ordained ministry], we dissent The Bible does not have a great deal to say about homosexuality. … We believe that no matter how many declarations issue from Houston or, for that matter, St Louis, homosexual persons in the ministry and the laity will continue serving us more faithfully than we have served them.”
In addition to the twelve pastors who signed the “Perfect Love” advertisement, a full list of signers was noted as available upon request.
A further protest to the “Houston Declaration” came in mid-April from 16 clergymen and clergywomen in the Seattle area. Their statement, the “Pacific Confession,” validates the use of metaphors and descriptive language for deity other than the traditionally male words and rebukes a proposed official theological statement for the church that “elevates Scripture to a status of exclusive truth.”
The statement, affirmed by 60 other lay people, also challenges current church law banning homosexual persons from ministry: “We reject categorical exclusion of persons from Christian ministry and leadership based solely upon sexual orientation and practice. We acknowledge the gifts of many homosexual pastors and laypersons in our midst, whose ministry and service bear fruit for Christ.”
The Reverend Scott Cochrane, pastor of First United Methodist Church, Seattle, convened the gathering that produced the “Pacific Confession.”
