by Steve | Dec 2, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: What Did the Neighbors Think?
Were Nazareth’s backyard gossips abuzz about betrothed Mary’s pregnancy?
By Harold F. Greenlee
A young faculty member, my translator at a Bible seminary in Indonesia, was engaged to be married. I asked him when he planned to marry. He told me his fiancée was a medical school student, and they planned to wed in about a year when she completed her degree. I asked him about the ring he was wearing, which looked to me like a wedding ring.
As we talked, I learned he and his fiancée had signed the government marriage register; legally, they were married. At any time they could begin living together, and if either of them wanted to break the relationship it would require a legal divorce. They planned to have a church wedding and would not live together or consider themselves married until then, but that was by their choice and the custom of the Christian community. The fact remained that they were legally married and could not have been accused of immorality if they began living together—even without the Christian ceremony.
What does this have to do with the birth of Jesus? I believe Mary’s situation has too often been misunderstood because we have tried to apply our culture and customs to the relationship of Mary and Joseph.
Just recently I was reading a discussion about the visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. The writer stated that since Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral home, he doubtless had relatives there, but the relatives probably would not welcome Mary and Joseph because of the questions about the propriety of Mary’s pregnancy. In John 8:41 the Jews retorted, to Jesus, “We were not born of fornication.” William Hendriksen’s commentary, Edward Burton’s commentary (citing the ancient church father Origen), and the 1988 edition of International Standard Bible Encyclopedia suggest that the Jews mentioned may have been implying, “We weren’t born of fornication, but we’re not sure about you (Jesus).”
There has been an American cultural assumption that Mary was merely engaged to be married and wasn’t actually married until she was several months pregnant, and that she, her son Jesus, and (to some extent) her husband Joseph lived under a cloud of suspicion by people who did not believe the story of the virgin birth. I am confident these are totally mistaken views.
Let’s ask some obvious questions as we look at the biblical text.
First, what was Mary’s relationship to Joseph when the angel Gabriel visited her with his amazing announcement? Both Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1:27 say she was betrothed to Joseph, which has often been understood as merely engaged. (This “engagement,” I propose, is very similar to the “engagement” of my Indonesian friend.) Matthew adds, “before they came together” (Matt. 1:18), which in our culture would mean “before they were married,” but which actually means “before they began living together as husband and wife.”
Second, what was Mary’s initial response when the angel Gabriel told her that she would bear a Son? The RSV reads, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (Luke 1:34); the NIV reads, “… since I am a virgin.” The Greek text actually reads, “… since I do not know a man,” meaning, “since I do not have sexual relations with a man.” Mary’s comment does not indicate her legal status; it indicates only that she was not in a sexually-active relationship.
Even if Mary did not need to concern herself with what the neighbors might think, she did have some legitimate concerns. How could she expect Joseph to believe such an incredible story? It is a tribute to her trust in God that she was willing to reply to the angel, “May it be to me as you have said,” and to leave it to God to help Joseph understand.
Third, what was Joseph’s thought when he learned of Mary’s pregnancy? What the text does not say is that Joseph decided to break their engagement; rather, it says, “he decided to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19). A divorce would be necessary because they were bound in marriage.
Fourth, what was the angel’s comment of reassurance to Joseph? The NIV reads, “do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife” (Matt.1:20). This must not be interpreted that Mary was not already his wife; the Greek text does not include the word “as,” but corresponds to the RSV “do not fear to take Mary your wife.” Joseph’s response, according to the NIV, is that he “took Mary home as his wife.” Again, there is no “as” in the Greek text; it reads, as the RSV states, that he “took his wife.” There is no mention of an additional ceremony.
Alfred Adersheim, in his Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 148, says there was a distinction between betrothal and marriage. He immediately adds, however, that from the moment of betrothal the woman was treated as if she were married; that only divorce could dissolve the relationship; that she was guilty of adultery if she were unfaithful; and that her property belonged to her betrothed husband.
In other words, Mary and Joseph were legally married but had not yet begun living together as husband and wife when Mary as a virgin became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. When an angel informed Joseph in a dream of Mary’s condition, he believed the angel and took Mary to his home. If any of the neighbors noticed Mary was pregnant, they would not have suspected impropriety; they knew the couple had been married for some time. Mary’s condition wouldn’t have been too obvious to the community in any case because Mary soon went into the hill country for three months to visit her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-40,56).
Special feasts marking the beginning of a marriage are mentioned in the gospels: e.g., Matt.9:15 and parallels, Matt. 25:1-13, and John 2. There is, however, no mention of such a feast in the case of Mary and Joseph. I believe we can conclude that not all marriages were celebrated with a feast. If it is legitimate to look back so far, there is no record of any special ceremony for the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen.24:67), although there is perhaps one for Jacob’s unwitting marriage to Leah (Gen.29:22)—which, however, evidently served for his marriage to Rachel a week later as well (Gen.29:27-28).
It is important to understand that no slightest hint of impropriety—much less of immorality—could have been permitted in the carrying out of the birth of Christ, upon whose life, death, and resurrection the whole plan of redemption depended. Deut.23:2, for example, forbids participation in the Lord’s assembly by a person of illegitimate birth or by any of his descendants to the tenth generation. If there had been any such suspicion, Jesus would have had no possibility of being accepted by the common people. (See Mark 6:2-3 and John 7:46.)
After all, if God had wished Jesus to have no human father what were the possibilities? He could have chosen a virgin who was not betrothed, or a widow who would have been willing to have a baby and be known as a “single mother” (always insisting that her baby bad no human father). In both cases the baby would have been deprived of the important presence of a father in the home, and the mother would have been in danger of punishment under the Jewish law. As for the son, any claim he might make or any good he might do would be rejected as coming from a man of illegitimate birth.
God could have chosen a woman already married and living with her husband. It would not, then, have been a “virgin birth,” but it could have been a birth by the Holy Spirit without a human father. The nature of the birth, then, could have been kept secret (as in the case of Mary) until the appropriate time. But how could even the mother and her husband be sure that there was no earthly father for the baby?
The only other possibility, it would seem, was what God actually did: he chose a pure young woman, betrothed and legally married to a godly young man, but who had not yet had any sexual contact with her husband. In this situation the baby could be conceived by the Holy Spirit. The husband could receive his wife but have no sexual relations with her until her baby was born. Until the proper time to reveal the miraculous story, perhaps no one except the mother and her husband would have the slightest indication that there was anything unusual about the birth. There would be no cloud of suspicion on mother, husband, or child.
Who, then, knew about the virgin birth of Jesus? I am convinced that until years later no one knew or even suspected that there was anything unusual about the birth of Jesus except Joseph and Mary themselves.
Is it possible that Mary shared her secret with her cousin Elizabeth? Scripture seems to indicate that Elizabeth recognized through divine inspiration that Mary’s baby was someone special when, in Luke 1:43 she cried, “Why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Even so, how could Mary have possibly expected Elizabeth to believe this baby had been conceived before Mary and Joseph had had any intimate relationship? No, I do not believe even Elizabeth had any hint that this baby was anything other than the child of Joseph and Mary.
Did Jesus Himself know the secret of His birth? In His divine nature He could presumably know everything. In His human nature, however, Mary hardly could have expected even Him to believe such a remarkable story. Possibly she may have felt she should share the story with Him after she had seen His miracles and knew He was not a mere man.
When did the followers of Jesus learn about His miraculous birth? The only two gospels which refer to his birth refer to it as a birth from a virgin mother. The fact that the Apostle Paul makes no specific mention of the Virgin Birth—his comment that Jesus was “made from a woman,” as Gal.4:4 literally says may or may not hint at it—is of no special significance; its implications were not central to his arguments.
Perhaps Mary felt free to tell the disciples the miraculous story during the days of prayer and sharing in the Upper Room. By that time, it was clear that Jesus was truly the Son of God. The memory of His wonderful teachings, of the miracles He had performed, and of His supernatural resurrection were making their impact on His followers. Mary may have felt that only at this point could she be believed.
I do not know when Mary shared her remarkable story. We can see, though, to the Jewish community there was nothing unusual about the birth of Jesus.
So let us have done with the thought that Mary and Jesus lived under a cloud of suspicion by any of their contemporaries—believers or unbelievers. God fitted His miraculous plan for the birth of Jesus into a situation which would provoke no doubts concerning the integrity of Mary, Joseph, or Jesus. It would seem to our human reasoning that only in this way could God’s great plan have been implemented with no unnecessary or reasonable doubts.
Dr. J. Harold Greenlee is a missionary of OMS International on loan to Wycliffe Bible Translators. He is the author of several books, including A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, and Scribes, Scrolls and Scriptures.
by Steve | Sep 5, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: Convo Gives UMs New Hope
“I believe Jesus Christ is asking us to go to the young people of the world,” said keynote speaker Bishop Richard B. Wilke, Arkansas Area. “One-half of the population of the world is under 14 years of age, and they gulp for the air of abundant life.”
Wilke addressed nearly 1000 persons gathered in Louisville for the opening service of the Convocation on World Mission and Evangelism at the Galt House Hotel, July 9-12. The convo was sponsored jointly by Good News, the Mission Society for United Methodists, a Foundation for Theological Education and the National Association of United Methodist Evangelists.
“I’m weary with church growth; we don’t want members; we want life. We don’t need statistics; we need kids who are saved. Oh, if only we could help young people experience the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” Wilke said pleadingly to an enthusiastic audience which thundered its applause in appreciation.
With more than 830 full-time registrants from 38 states and two foreign countries, the convo featured twelve nationally-known plenary speakers who addressed aspects of the convo’s theme, “The World: Forever our Parish.”
A common note throughout the gathering was the uniqueness of Christ and the fact that salvation is to be found only in Him. Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright, professor of systematic theology at Duke Divinity School, sounded this note in his paper on a biblical theology of mission (read by Dr. H.T. Maclin in Dr. Wainwright’s absence), “The Lord who utters the Great Commission has the authority to do so. … He is the only Son of the Father, and in Him is the world’s salvation to be found. To waver from that belief would be to deviate from what has been Christian faith from its beginnings.”
A similar theme came from Nigerian Bishop Ayo Ladigbolu, who recounted his conversion from a royal Muslim family through the witness of British Methodist missionaries. He challenged UMs saying, “the church must not apologize for the fact that it wants all men to know Jesus Christ and to follow Him. Let me plead with you, my Methodist brethren in America, to recapture your old global vision of the Church’s total mission of soul-winning and outreach.”
Bishop William R. Cannon (retired) reflected on an imaginary conversation with John Wesley in his address entitled “John Wesley’s Message for His Church Today.” Wesley would not be happy with his church, Cannon noted. The bishop had Wesley saying, “Your chief sin is to maintain good relations with members of other religions and to carry on dialogue with them. You are afraid you might offend them to talk to them about Jesus Christ.”
Wesley would advise today’s bishops to be more “sparing in their pronouncements on political issues and international affairs and devote less time to Council of Bishops’ meetings and more to evangelization.”
Bishop Earl G. Hunt (retired) questioned the church’s silence on the New Age movement. And while expressing regret at the appearance of groups and organizations critical of the church, he added, “But I have realized again and again that these parties … have sought to call our attention to things terribly wrong within our structures and to lead us back into the kind of responsible operational integrity which can cure many of our ills. However, our strategy, time after time, has been to criticize our critics instead of listening to their words of counsel.”
Julia McLean Williams, executive vice president of the Mission Society for United Methodists, spoke as a layperson who had served as a UM missionary to Bolivia and then in organizing Volunteers in Mission in the North Carolina Annual Conference. She called on UM leaders to address the controlling influence of the Women’s Division in the overall program of the General Board of Global Ministries.
Dr. Gerald Anderson, executive director of Overseas Ministries Study Center in New Haven, Connecticut, chided the church’s 1984 General Conference goal to double its membership by 1992 as being an attempt at renewal without change. He also criticized UM leaders for their opposition to the unofficial Mission Society. (See related article, p. 21.)
The Rev. Wesley Putnam, president of the National Association of UM Evangelists (NAUME) and a member of the convo planning committee, said when the convo was ended, “I believe future United Methodists will look back on this as one of the historic meetings of the church, perhaps even a pivotal meeting giving us new reason to hope that God can turn this church around.”
Dr. Ira Gallaway, retired after 15 years as senior pastor of First UM Church in Peoria, Illinois, also a member of the convo planning committee, said following the convo, “Never before in one event has there been such a unity of message among all the speakers as at this convocation. Surely the Holy Spirit was guiding. … This convocation could well be pivotal to the future of United Methodism.”
James V. Heidinger II with wire services
by Steve | Sep 4, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: Who Will Evangelize the World in 2000 A.D.?
Church Historian Gerald H. Anderson says the effects of mainline’s decline will be more far-reaching than we realize.
The following is a condensation of an address given by Dr. Gerald H. Anderson at the 1990 Convocation on World Mission and Evangelism in Louisville, Kentucky.
We are in the twilight of the 20th century, on a countdown toward the year 2000. As Christians who are concerned about world mission we need to think and pray about some of the factors and forces, opportunities and obstacles, that face us in the Christian mission as we move toward the millennium.
The scope of missionary concern is the whole church with the whole Gospel for the whole person in the whole world. From the latest statistics available on the status of global mission (prepared by David B. Barrett for the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, January 1990), we learn that the percentage of Christians in the world population has actually decreased slightly, from 34 percent in 1900 to 33 percent in 1990. At the same time the percentage of world population that has been evangelized (meaning those who have heard the Gospel and had an opportunity to respond) has increased from 51 percent in 1900 to 77 percent in 1990. Barrett reports that the total of Christians in the world has grown from 558 million in 1900 to 1.7 billion in 1990.
Yet there are far more non-Christians in the world today than on the day when Jesus was crucified. In Jesus’ time the total population of the world was approximately 170 million (including 33 million in the Roman empire). So we can say there were about one-sixth billion non-Christians at that time. Today, in a total world population of 5.2 billion, two out of three persons—or 3.5 billion—are non-Christian.[1]
That is 20 times as many non-Christians as when Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount—and all this despite the heroic missionary effort of the church for nearly 2,000 years. These numbers have to raise our concern and renew our commitment to the unfinished task of world evangelization as we look to AD. 2000.
The Church’s Shift to The Third World
Another important factor in world mission today is that the center of ecclesiastical gravity in the world is shifting from the northern to the southern hemisphere. The noted Swiss Catholic missiologist, Walbert Bühlmann, in his book The Coming of the Third Church, points out that whereas at the beginning of this century 85 percent of all Christians lived in the West, there has been a shift in the church’s center of gravity so that by the year 2000 about 58 percent of all Christians and about 70 percent of all Catholics will be living in the Third World.
It is estimated that by A.D. 2000 the majority of Protestant missionaries in the world will be Third-World persons sent by Third-World mission agencies.[2]
This may be the single most important development or trend in the missionary enterprise at the turn-of-the-century. It symbolizes the vitality of the churches in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania. This does not mean, of course, that there is no longer a need or opportunity for Western missionaries to serve overseas.
In fact there are more Protestant missionaries from the United States serving overseas today than ever before in history—approximately 40,000 (not including 30,700 short-termers). Of this number only nine percent come from all the churches in the National Council of Churches (including 416 from the United Methodist Church[3]—down from 1,580 in 1960 when the Methodist board was the largest mission agency in the United States). What this means is that while the unfinished task of world evangelization is larger than ever before, the mainline denominations, such as United Methodists, are no longer able or willing to provide the resources proportionately for this task as they did in earlier times. The primary responsibility for world evangelization today is being undertaken by Roman Catholics and evangelicals in the West, together with churches in the Third World. It is no mere coincidence that these also happen to be the churches that are growing both in the West and overseas.
Mainline’s Decline
The decline of American mainline denominations is well-known and well documented. The mainline churches have become a minority religious movement on the American religious scene and are now more aptly described as oldline, sideline, or end-of-the-line churches.
The United Methodist Church has lost two million members since 1968. That is an average of 90,000 members per year or 245 members every day. Someone has calculated that if the decline continues at the current rate, by the year 2045 there will be only two Methodists left in the United States—one will be a bishop and the other will be the general secretary of the only official mission sending agency. All this in a country with 100 million unchurched people.
How do we account for what has happened? Many factors have contributed to the decline, but at the root of it all is a theological problem. Time magazine, in an article on the decline of the mainline churches, said, “Not only are the traditional denominations failing to get their message across; they are increasingly unsure just what that message is.”[4] James H. Burtness, an American Lutheran theologian, has observed that “the single most striking fact in the life of mainline U.S. churches over the last 20 years is the rapid erosion of concern about whether people believe in Jesus. The point,” he said, “is not that people no longer believe in Jesus. It is rather that those who do believe seem to care much less than they did 20 years ago about whether those who do not believe come to the place where they do. And this lack of care is no simple thoughtlessness. It is an energetic rejection of such care.”[5]
Another Lutheran theologian, Carl E. Braaten, has pointed to the theological problem in the seminaries: “Probably the major divinity schools are already into the abyss. They have gone over the line. They are probably irretrievable. Maybe that is too much of a generalization. But it is definitely true at the University of Chicago. There is a divinity school there, but it does not teach theology. It teaches about theology, but it does not teach theology. It teaches about everybody else’s theology, about systematic theology, about historical theology, but it does not teach theology. It is not a professing theology. The ‘Here I Stand,’ the apologetic statement of the truth, in which the professor is so involved that his own theology is on the line in class after class, is absent. … So we have to take responsibility for the truth of theology. Theology really has to find a different kind of model than the academic model.”[6]
Drifting Toward Radical Relativism
Let me turn now to the most serious source of our problem. It is the drift toward radical relativism in our theology of religions. This will be the theological issue in mission as we move toward A.D. 2000.
Voices of radical relativism abound today. One example is The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, a volume of essays edited by John Hick and Paul Knitter (Orbis Books, 1987). The authors of The Myth volume propose a shift in Christian belief of such magnitude that they describe it as “the crossing of a theological Rubicon.” Basically, they are proposing that Christians should abandon any beliefs or claims about the uniqueness of Christ and Christianity, or about having any definitive revelation, and accept instead that there is a plurality of revelations and a parity of religions, wherein Christianity is just one among many religions through which people may be saved.
Commenting on this in an editorial in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, we stated that “the Christian world mission cannot afford to cross the theological Rubicon proposed by the authors of The Myth volume. Rather, we need to affirm a gain that unique ‘Rubicon-crossing’ event of 20 centuries ago: the redemptive entering of the Creator into human history in the Person of Jesus Christ. Without the uniqueness of that person and that event, there is no Gospel and no mission.”[7] The fundamental theological point is that either all people need Jesus Christ or none do! Otherwise, we have only a tribal deity.
In the two most recent official United Methodist statements on mission theology, we see the drift toward relativism. These statements are the 1986 statement from the General Board of Global Ministries titled “Partnership in God’s Mission: A Theology of Mission Statement,” and the 1988 statement of the General Conference titled “Grace Upon Grace: God’s Mission and Ours.” Nowhere in either of these statements does it suggest that everyone needs Jesus Christ for salvation. Both statements claim to be based on the biblical witness and our Wesleyan tradition, but neither statement mentions that “there is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12) or Jesus’ statement, “No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).
These statements stand in sharp contrast to earlier statements, such as the Council of Bishops’ statement in 1960, “Christ and Our Mission,” that said, “The world mission of the Church is … to claim God as Father of the world and Jesus Christ as the universal Savior. … We must come again to him … whose kingdom is to grow more and more until every knee shall bend and every tongue confess that he is Lord.”
In ecumenical scholarship it is generally recognized that Christ is present and active among non-Christians, but the crucial question is whether Christ is present in non-Christian religions as such, and whether they may thereby be considered ways of salvation. It is one thing to recognize that Christ is present in other faiths; it is quite something else to say that this provides salvific efficacy to other faiths and that people of other faiths may be saved in their religions, or even through their religions, without knowledge of or faith in Jesus Christ.
I believe there is a direct correlation between the spread of radical relativism in the theology of religions during the period 1970-1990, and the increase in those who have rejected the gospel they have heard. After all, if we do not believe that people need the Gospel for salvation, we should not be surprised if they believe us!
Here we have to issue a challenge to evangelicals. It must be acknowledged that, with few exceptions, evangelical scholars in recent years have not made significant contributions in the theology of religions.[8] The field is filled with theological landmines, so evangelicals have tended to rely on views from the past. “It is indisputable,” says Grant Wacker, “that evangelicals have not yet proved that they are able to hold their hand against the hot flame of sustained, disciplined study of world religions—and keep their evangelical convictions.”[9]
How Renewal Can Come
We are engaged today in nothing less than a struggle for the soul and survival of the United Methodist Church. It is essentially a struggle about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the mission of the church. We are living off the spiritual reserves of past generations without adding to them. We are using up our spiritual capital inherited from the faith of our mothers and fathers. Our reserves are dwindling and unless the process is reversed, we are headed toward spiritual bankruptcy and ecclesial suicide.
This is what one (non-Methodist) mission scholar has described as “the Protestant predicament,” namely, the institutional process of a “church’s upward mobility and consequent loss of vitality,” from “charismatic community to fully structured institution.” The signs of such institutionalism, he says, “are self-sufficiency, authoritarianism, narcissism, self-justification, and dogmatism.” The results are “unbalanced priorities, community entropy, institutional defensiveness, and congenital paternalism.”[10] This same scholar suggests that, if our churches are to find renewal, “it is of the utmost urgency that we look back to our ecclesial roots, seeking to understand the dynamics of the grassroots movements whence many of our churches came.”
There is a problem, however. As a student of church history, I find that rarely, if ever, does renewal come from the ecclesial centers—the centers of power and authority in the church. Renewal comes from the ecclesial fringes—from small, peripheral, dissident, despised, innovative, untidy groups and movements in the church. Think about it. Where in church history can you find a movement for spiritual renewal that began in the center of the church’s power and authority structure? I can think of only one—Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. But even in the case of Pope John, he did not initiate the renewal; he simply allowed it or facilitated it with Vatican Council II.
The renewal was already “bubbling up” from the underside of the church—the worker priests in France, lay movements, individual scholars calling for renewed biblical studies, etc. So John XXIII did not cause the renewal, but he did not suppress it and instead allowed it to happen. And while the renewal set in motion by Vatican II has been embraced and affirmed at the roots and fringes of the church, it is increasingly being curtailed and controlled by the central authorities of the church.[11] The reason for this is that church authorities and bureaucrats—all rhetoric to the contrary—do not really welcome renewal, because renewal requires change. Therefore, renewal movements are seen as threatening by the institutional church and they are resisted.
This is why the decision of General Conference in 1984 to double the membership of the denomination to 20 million by 1992 was ludicrous, and also when the Council of Bishops resolved to show a net membership gain for the denomination in the United States of 50,000 in 1987 and 100,000 in 1988 (the actual net loss in those two years was about 160,000). These were resolutions for renewal without change; wanting growth while maintaining the status quo. Believe me, it will not happen this way.
Where will renewal come from—if it comes—in the United Methodist Church? From church history we know that renewal will not come from the centers of power and authority in the church. It will not come from the Council of Bishops or the General Conference or the general boards and agencies of the church. Renewal will come—if it is allowed to happen—from small, peripheral, dissident, despised, innovative, untidy groups and movements in the church. But if church authorities seek to curtail, control, and suppress these movements, renewal will not happen. Remember that the General Conference in 1984 which resolved to increase membership in the denomination by 10 million by 1992, is the same General Conference that took action to suppress the newly organized unofficial Mission Society for United Methodists. And note that membership in the denomination has not increased by one person since General Conference in 1984 (in fact, to tell the whole truth, membership in the denomination has not increased by one person since 1964).
The tragedy of this is that it should not be happening, and it need not happen. But the demise of Methodism will continue if there is no change that will allow renewal to happen. The attempted suppression of the unofficial Mission Society for United Methodists by the hierarchy of the church will go down in the history of American Methodism as the single greatest blunder of the church in the last half of the 20th century. It has all the signs of institutional “self-sufficiency, authoritarianism, narcissism, self-justification, and dogmatism,” that were discussed earlier.
It is said that United Methodism can have only one official mission sending agency because to have more than one would cause confusion and competition and would dissipate our resources and effort in mission. There is no evidence to support this view. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States today has 376 approved mission-sending organizations and is a growing church.[12]
Furthermore, the Mission Society never asked to be recognized as an official agency of the church, but the bishops have nevertheless made every effort to suppress it as a voluntary agency. This is the sad state in which we find ourselves; we are organizational fundamentalists—more concerned with defending the organization than in getting on with the mission.
There are some signs of hope, however. Bishop Emerson Colaw, in his Denman Lecture at the 1990 Congress on Evangelism in Pittsburgh, stated that—in his judgment— “one example of misplaced energy in our denomination has been the furor over the Mission Society. The Council of Bishops and the Board of Global Ministries have exhibited all sorts of paranoia. In the North Central Jurisdiction, we were asked as a College of Bishops to make a commitment that we would not appoint anyone to the Mission Society. And I asked how we could make such a promise in advance, when all appointments are to be evaluated in light of the particular requirements and opportunities? My feeling was and is that if somebody wants to send missionaries and they want to go, and there are responsible churches or groups ready to receive them, then why not?”
Why not, indeed? Bishop Emerson Colaw has articulated what missiologists have recognized as the organizational key in the history of mission, namely, that “the voluntary principle is essential to world mission.”[13] The problem, as described by R. Pierce Beaver, is that “mission has become a plant root-bound in the ecclesiastical pots to which it is now confined—denominational and ecumenical structures. These organizations frown upon spontaneous action and establishment of direct relationships which they do not initiate or administer.”[14]
In the final analysis, the greatest challenge and threat to the Christian mission today and tomorrow, as it has always been, is not from any external force or power, ideology or authoritarian government. Rather, it is internal; the danger of diluted faith and faltering faithfulness, of dubious disciples and timid prophets. The world is in the midst of a revolution. We cannot take up our cross and relax. This is no time for a token-mission or a mini-mission. The church is called to mission, not sub-mission. We are the church of the Great Commission, not the great omission. There is no greater commission than the Great Commission.
Gerald H. Anderson, former Methodist missionary in the Philippines and president of Scarritt College, is editor of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research and director of the Overseas Ministries Study Center, New Haven, Connecticut. He was president of the American Society of Missiology (1973-75) and president of the International Association for Mission Stud
FOOTNOTES
[1] Statistics compiled from information in David B. Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982), Global Table 29, p. 796; Barrett, Cosmos, Chaos, and Gospel: A Chronology of World Evangelization from Creation to New Creation (Birmingham, Alabama: New Hope, 1987), Appendix 1, p. 96; Barrett, “Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 1990,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 14, no. 1 (January 1990): 27.
[2] Statistics compiled from information in David B. Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982), Global Table 29, p. 796; Barrett, Cosmos, Chaos, and Gospel: A Chronology of World Evangelization from Creation to New Creation (Birmingham, Alabama: New Hope, 1987), Appendix 1, p. 96; Barrett, “Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 1990,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 14, no. 1 (January 1990): 27.
[3] W. Dayton Roberts and John A. Siewert, eds., Mission Handbook: Canada/USA Protestant Ministries Overseas, 14th ed. (Monrovia, Calif.: MARC/World Vision International, 1989), p. 232. The 1989 General Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the United Methodist Church lists 473 persons (not including associates and interns) as “Missionaries of the United Methodist Church assigned by the World Division of the Board of Global Ministries,” pp. 1139-1141.
[4] Time, May 22, 1989, p. 94.
[5] “Does Anyone Out There Care Anymore Whether People Believe in Jesus?” Dialogue, Summer 1982.
[6] Reported by Paul T. Stallsworth, “The Story of an Encounter,” in American Apostasy: The Triumph of “Other” Gospels, ed. Richard John Neuhaus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), p. 134.
[7] International Bulletin of Missionary Research 13, no. 2 (April 1989): 49.
[8] Some exceptions from evangelical scholars who are writing in this field are Clark H. Pinnock, “The Finality of Christ in a World of Religions,” in Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World, eds. Mark A. Noll and David F. Wells (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), pp. 152-68; Colin Chapman, “The Challenge of Other Religions, ” in Proclaim Christ Until He Comes: Calling the Whole Church to Take the Whole Gospel to the Whole World, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis, Minn: World Wide Publications, 1989), pp. 179-83; Michael Nazir-Ali, Islam: A Christian Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983); Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, eds., Sharing Jesus in the Two-Thirds World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983); and Phil Parshall, The Cross and the Crescent: Understanding the Muslim Mind and Heart (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1989).
[9] Grant Wacker, “Second Thoughts on the Great Commission: Liberal Protestants and Foreign Missions, 1890-1940,” in Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions, 1880-1980, eds. Joel A. Carpenter and Wilbert R. Shenk (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), p. 300.
[10] Guillermo Cook, “The Protestant Predicament: From Base Ecclesial Community to Established Church-A Brazilian Case Study,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 8, no. 3 (July 1984): 98.
[11] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has said that the era of Vatican II must be judged as a period “that was definitely unfavorable to the Catholic Church,” Newsweek, December 31, 1984, p. 63.
[12] This does not include 94 U.S. dioceses that send priests directly to overseas mission assignments, nor does it include Catholic Relief Services which has 900 Americans working overseas. Cf. Mission Handbook 1989-90 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Catholic Mission Association, 1989).
[13] R. Pierce Beaver, American Protestant Women in World Mission, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), p, 205.
[14] Ibid.
by Steve | Sep 3, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: What’s All the HOOPla at Union Chapel?
By Sara L. Anderson
Muncie’s Union Chapel UMC is growing because members take the court, not warm the bench.
This isn’t a story about basketball. It’s a story about a little brick church in the cornfield that grew so much it had to move to a former Ford dealership near the city. That, in a capsule, is the story of Union Chapel Ministries near Muncie, Indiana.
What causes a congregation in a stable population area to explode from an attendance of 80 to one of 950 in nine years? Such growth might not be surprising in a fast-growing suburban area. But Muncie’s population has remained stable.
As pastor Greg Parris recounts the story, Union Chapel’s blossoming first sprouted out of a “beautiful move of God’s Spirit” during a series of meetings held in October, 1981, shortly after Parris had been appointed to the charge. By the end of two years, the 140-seat little brick chapel had been outgrown and for the next four-and-a-half years the congregation met in a local high school auditorium. Two years ago, Union Chapel found a home in a former automobile dealership with 33,000 square feet of floor space and four-and-a-half acres of paved, lighted parking lot—a commodity many urban churches would give their new padded pews to possess.
Parris attributes their success (“as God counts success”) to a lively, more charismatic worship experience, and emphasis on prayer and an accepting spirit. “There’s a spirit we like to promote in the church which says that whoever walks in the doors of our church, that person is going to receive love and acceptance and forgiveness regardless of age, sex, ethnicity or dress code,” Parris says. As a result, on any given Sunday you might see a businessman with an expensive suit sitting next to a truck driver in jeans.
Many small groups meet in the church, at places of business or in homes for prayer, support, and discipleship. The Wednesday night service has been dedicating 90 percent of its time to corporate prayer, and the church this summer had a 40-day emphasis on prayer and fasting. The purpose, the pastor says, is to foster personal discipleship and a corporate sense of God’s vision and direction for Union Chapel’s future.
That vision involves a number of ministries at home and overseas.
While the church has a staff of 13, laity are expected to carry out much of Union Chapel’s ministry. “We’re a high-expectation, high demand congregation,” Parris explains. “Just to join our church you need to complete a seven-week membership training course.”
He notes the vows for UM church membership ask, “Will you be loyal to the church and uphold it by your prayers, your presence, your gifts and your service.” When people are asked to respond to those vows, the church leadership makes sure new members know what they’re promising to do. “We expect people to pray, to be here during worship services,” Parris says. “We expect our members to tithe. We expect people to serve. We say in our membership classes that if you’re not involved in a ministry, membership is not the right thing for you.” An unwritten expectation is that anyone holding leadership positions in the church must be involved in some kind of ministry there.
The ministry options are broad. Besides the usual church activities, Union Chapel hosts 12-step programs for those recovering from alcohol and drug abuse, a ministry to the handicapped and their families, counseling programs, a support group for divorced women, classes in signing for the hearing impaired, a group for overeaters.
Parris is excited about the campus ministry that began this fall. Union Chapel is within 10 minutes of the 18,000-strong Ball State University student body and less than a half-hour from Taylor University. The church already sends a bus to Taylor to bring students to church and will be doing the same at Ball State. (Attendance will reach 1,100 when the universities are in session.)
Parris notes that this fall’s college class is the first college class in this country to be born after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that opened the door to abortion-on-demand. “They are survivors,” he says of these young people who could have been legally aborted. “My hunch is that God has a special plan for this generation of young people as it relates to world evangelization and making the name of Christ known. We want to be a part of reaching those kids and equipping them for what God has for them.
Union Chapel Ministries is particularly interested in those groups of people who are yet unreached with the Gospel. In fact, the church is sending a team of laymen and pastors to Bombay, India, to see how the church could be involved in ministry there.
People seem to thrive on this high-commitment atmosphere. “We attempt to address relevant issues that help people in their day-to-day living. When real, felt needs are met, people will return,” Parris says. “They will be encouraged and excited enough about what God is doing in their lives to share that with loved ones and friends. That’s how the church grows.”
In fact, much of Union Chapel’s growth has come through word-of-mouth, not evangelism programs or advertising. In fact, the most significant thing Parris would like people to say about his church is that, “Jesus Christ has become real to them. While their problems may still exit, He has become their source of strength and hope. People are finding Jesus in a real, personal, experiential way.”
Sara L. Anderson is the associate editor of Good News
by Steve | Sep 2, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: Prayer for Busy People
An interview with Margaret Therkelson
“We busy people have to be patient with ourselves about our prayer lives and say, ‘Lord, I’m doing the best I can.’ He’s saying, ‘I know you are. Where you are is okay. Start where you are.’”
Good News: I’m a busy person and I’ve had a hard time developing a disciplined prayer life. I feel guilty about that, which seems to prevent me from getting started. What do I do?
Therkelsen: The guilt is a false guilt. The enemy wants us to feel that if we haven’t had our quiet time then we can’t tune in to God. That is not true. If we don’t have our quiet time, we can still open ourselves to God throughout the day by loving Him through praise, through confession, through repentance. The main thing He wants is for us to be with Him moment by moment.
The purpose of the quiet time is to stimulate us to tune in to God at any time. So practicing the presence of God is as valid an experience in prayer as any designated quiet time.
Good News: So if I go for several days without having a quiet time, can I still be practicing the presence of God throughout the day?
Therkelsen: Absolutely. During a time of deep fatigue recently, I sensed the Lord saying, “You need to rest. Don’t get up at 5:00; don’t get up at 6:00. But the minute you awaken, say, ‘Lord, here I am. My deepest desire is to be close to You.'”
During those days I did spend time in prayer, but later in the morning. We can be flexible about our spending time with God. If I’m fatigued, He understands that better than I do. Psalm 103 says He knows my frame. But we don’t know Him well enough to know how well He knows us. He’s not keeping score. We can just begin right where we are. The main thing He wants is my turning to Him. Any way I do that is legitimate.
Good News: When we’re busy, we sense all our anxiety. How do we sense God’s being with us?
Therkelsen: There’s where the quiet time comes in. As it is, our anxieties are saying the problem is bigger than God. But as we spend time with Him, we begin realizing our heavenly Father is bigger than any problem. Nothing is too hard for Him. Prayer is to teach us we need Him.
In our twenties and thirties and early forties it’s very difficult to realize how much we need God because we are so self-assured, so capable, so strong, so smart, so educated. We can go half on God’s strength and half on our own strength. I did for years. But we learn by falling on our faces that we can’t go through a work day and practice the presence unless we’re drawing on God. So the best pattern is having a daily quiet time and daily practicing the presence all through the day. They feed off of one another.
Good News: In our busyness, we want everything to shape up now, including our spiritual lives. How do we have patience with our spiritual progress?
Therkelsen: Our spiritual life is a journey with many different stages and seasons. The saddest thing in the Church universal is that we’ve taught about one or two experiences with God when, in reality, those early experiences are the headwaters of a marvelous river that goes on and on. We need to have 100,000 experiences with God. The Word says in I Peter 5:10, “Let your heart be established,” but the heart is only established over a long road of intentional growth.
We do want a cheap, quick spirituality. But there can be great periods of darkness and confusion; there are long periods of a form of godliness that have absolutely no power; there are great periods of God’s silence. But these are times we learn much about God and about ourselves.
It’s a long, rugged journey. But it is a glorious journey.
Good News: How do we keep from feeling defeated when we hear about the great saints who prayed three and four hours a day?
Therkelsen: I (and many people) stress begin by praying just 15 minutes a day. If you miss it just say, “Lord, I missed it. I’ll try tomorrow.” It’s okay.
We already have too much pressure. So when it comes to prayer we say, “God, I can’t pray. I have all the pain I can handle. If I come to You, I’m going to have more pain because I’m afraid You’re going to be rough with me for all my failures.”
We have to be patient with ourselves about our prayer lives and say, “Lord, I’m doing the best I can.” He’s saying, “I know you’re doing the best you can. It’s okay. Where you are is okay.”
Good News: Is there any hope that a young mother who has three children under the ages of seven can have a fruitful prayer life?
Therkelsen: Actually, she has a marvelous opportunity to be in constant prayer. The sweetest thing she can do is to pray while she’s changing the diapers of her babies, as she’s cooking for those babies, as she’s hugging and kissing those babies, as she’s washing those magnificent little bodies. Prayer can be mingled with everything she’s doing.
Some of the purest praying today is going on in the hearts of young mothers. They’re praying and loving and loving and praying.
Good News: How do you move into a more intimate relationship with God?
Therkelsen: First, we have to be willing to be different. Probably the biggest stigma in our Church universal is that we all want to be alike. So we have to say, “Lord I want to go on a journey. No matter what the experiences are, I want to walk with You.”
Second, we need to draw around us a network of people who are also on the journey and understand us. I believe the old need to be giving spiritual direction to young Christians. I don’t think we can do much growing without that. Timothy had Lois and Eunice; Paul had Gamaliel; Jesus had the Father and the Holy Ghost. We’re in grave danger because we’ve just left our young people to sink or swim, and they’re sinking because they’re not being taught. I truly believe the one-on-one ministry of Jesus is as significant as His large, corporate ministry to the masses. Today we desperately need to be ministered to—one-on-one.
Third, we need to be willing to give God time—maybe an hour a day—in prayer.
Good News: What are the consequences of a busy person not spending time with God?
Therkelsen: Eventually, the consequences will be devastating. That person will find out (1) I can’t do this on my own; (2) I’m not in touch enough with God to be a vessel (and there’s no greater joy than being a vessel for God); (3) nothing works for me because I’m in the flesh, not in the Spirit of God.
That person will live with the guilt of living in disobedience to the Bible’s constant admonishing to draw nigh to God and to Jesus’ example of drawing apart to do what He is doing now in Heaven—praying.
I think Thomas Merton was the one who said, “We have as much of God as we want.” And if we don’t want any more of God, that’s our choice.
So, I say to the busy people who are going on without God, “That’s your choice.” That’s probably what they need to do for a while, until they rediscover their great dependency on God. In time, they will come to the end of themselves.
I’ve been on this journey all my life, and I have gone down about every road there is. I had 15 pitiful years of just saying “forget the whole thing.” That was good for me because in those 15 years I found out I was on my own. That was terrifying. We have to come to the end of ourselves, and that often comes as we leave God’s company.
The amazing thing to me is that God in His wondrous Calvary love never gives up on us, but yearns over us all the days of our lives. No matter which road we take, God is going to be waiting at the end of the road for us. He is waiting for us to come to Him.
by Steve | Sep 1, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: Prayer That Helps You Love the Hard-to-Love
By Margaret Therkelson
“Wherever you have suffered deep disillusionment, know that it is not because God is not good. It’s that God is trying to lead you into a deeper understanding of his faithfulness,” says Margaret Therkelsen. In the past several years this tall, radiant, former music professor-turned-counselor has been one of the leading advocates of prayer in the United Methodist Church.
Margaret’s training in prayer began early. She learned much about prayer at home from godly parents who prayed. From ages 16 to 26 she was active in the Camps Farthest Out, an interdenominational camp which focused on the life of prayer. There, she was privileged to learn from some of the great Christian men and women of that time—Starr Daily, Frank Laubach, Glenn Clark, Agnes Sanford, and Louise Eggleston. At the age of 16, Margaret herself was leading small prayer groups in the Camps Farthest Out and in her local United Methodist church.
But when a Christian leader she greatly admired fell from the Lord, the disillusionment she felt capsized her into despondency and cynicism about spiritual things. She doesn’t mind using the word backslidden when she describes her next 15 years. Yet, even during that time her constant prayer was, ”Lord, don’t let me go.”
Meanwhile her career in music soared. She practiced 8-10 hours a day and performed extensively. One of the highlights of her music career was her performing Beethoven’s Fourth Piano Concerto with the Cincinnati Symphony.
It was in the hospital room where she watched her father, a United Methodist pastor of 40 years, pass away after seven years of suffering that she recommitted her life to the Lord. The next day she began making herself available to God again through a regular, seven-day-a-week morning time of prayer.
That was 12-½ years ago. Out of that daily encounter with God came a divine formula of prayer she calls, “The Love Exchange,” which has revolutionized her time with God. She is anxious to share about it with others.
With the message of the redemption and rejuvenation which comes from spending time with God, Margaret encourages the spiritually weary. Today she is heard daily on local radio discussing prayer. She travels extensively, drawing rapt attention from Christians gathered to learn more about prayer.
Seven years ago, Margaret felt called to focus wholly on prayer and spiritual direction. To support herself in this pursuit, she earned a Masters in Family Studies and began a private counseling practice in Lexington. Her book, The Love Exchange, from which the following has been excerpted, has just been released by Bristol Books.
The Editor
The persistent ring on our old alarm broke the silence of that spring morning eight years ago. I roused from sleep with tremendous expectation. Since returning to a daily, early-morning prayer time, 6:00 to 7:00, something drew me each morning to my place of prayer. I slipped out of bed and, with anticipation that Jesus would already be there, groped my way down the hall to our family room.
As I sat down, I immediately felt such love for Jesus. How good He was to me! He had been cleansing me of anger and resentment toward Him and myself. I was able to say with Joel that God truly was restoring the years the locust had eaten (Joel 2:25).
Early in my prayer time I had been speaking aloud words of love to Jesus, but now words failed. With uplifted hands I called out, “Lord, you know I love you with all my heart, all my soul, all my mind, and all my energies.”
At that moment I experienced His mighty love pouring down over me. He said, “I love you, Margaret, with an everlasting love. Though the mountains may be removed and the hills shake, My loving kindness will never be removed from you. I have you inscribed on the palm of My hand. You are precious in My sight. You are honored, and I love you.”
This almost-overwhelming experience had been the result of several years of taking five to eight minutes of my daily prayer time to pour out my love on God and receiving by faith His love for me by reading aloud the Scriptures that communicated His love for me. In other words, I would linger each morning in God’s presence, not only to love Him but to allow Him an opportunity to respond to me. By faith I believed God was giving me His love.
Something was happening to me. As I daily received God’s love by faith and declared my love for Him, there emerged stirrings in my heart of a deepening love for Him. The promise of 1 John 4:16—of how much He loves me—was starting to become a reality. “We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in Him.”
I came to refer to this giving and receiving of love as my “love exchange” with God. It became a vital and empowering part of my morning prayer time. Tugging at me was a growing urgency to abide in this “love exchange” all day.
Several years later as I continued in the love exchange, my love for God and His love for me remained so comforting. But I was sensing anger, jealousy, and envy toward three women. In my prayers for them, which were infrequent and shallow, I imposed demands on God to change them. (My mother calls this “being on God’s advisory board, or acting as general manager of the universe.”)
Soon God showed me I did not have good will toward these three, much less love. He showed me that divine love at its lowest level is goodwill toward everyone. I must want only what is good for each person and wish him or her no ill at all.
I was being selective in my love of others. On the inside my love was shut down, but on the outside I acted nice to those I did not like.
During our morning love exchange one day I felt God asking me if I were willing to allow His divine love to flow through me to these three women. I answered, “God, do whatever you need to do to cleanse me and let your love flow.”
At that point God led me to Matthew 5:43-48. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
The divine formula for learning to love my enemies was right there—so simple. The formula begins with honest prayer for those I find hard to love.
I felt I heard God say, “I want you to start praying with good will for these women. As you pray for them instead of yourself, I will begin to give you My divine love for them. As you begin to love them, your prayers for them will come from the heart.”
I answered honestly, “I cannot obey this right now. Maybe next year I will be more mature in Your love and can love them. I need to work my way up to Matthew 5:44.”
“No, you do not work your way up to loving as you should. While you obey and begin to pray, I will give you My love for these women now,” He said.
“All right, I’ll try. Lord, bless them,” I prayed.
“Is that all you are going to say?”
“Well, bless them a lot.”
“Yes, go on. Can you pray that with more feeling?”
“Well, bless their children,” I continued.
“Isn’t that rather general?”
“Well, bless them in unusual ways.”
“That is a little better, keep going.”
“Lord, I pray you will give every good and perfect gift to these three women.”
There was a little more feeling, but I was ashamed of how loveless I was in my praying for them. I was beginning to see that prayer reveals how we really feel toward others.
Finally, out of my heart and my will, I said, “Oh Lord, manifest Your presence in their lives, reveal Yourself to them more than to me.”
“That’s more like it. You’re on the right track. You’ll receive more and more of My love as you continue to confront your real feelings and be more specific in prayer for these three children of Mine.”
“Lord, it’s hard to pray where it’s hard to love. It’s difficult to pray even with good will when you don’t care. After all, these women have hurt me; they haven’t been nice.”
Then the Lord helped me to remember the time when I had not been nice to them and to others.
“Oh, Lord, I do want to do this, to please You. We’ll go at it again tomorrow. I love You.”
What an adventure that was—to seek to pray for these women. As the days and weeks went by, I began to see these women more as God saw them and to feel His compassion for them in me.
Three or four weeks later as I was lifting them in prayer one morning, a tremendous surge of real honest-to-God caring engulfed me. Caught up in the thrill of it all I heard myself exclaim, “Lord, You are so good, You are so precious, You are so wonderful! Matthew 5:44 really works just as You said. As I’ve prayed daily for them, You have given me Your love so that I now truly care. Your love is amazing! Prayer is an open door into Your heart of love.”
“I will pour out my love,” came God’s response, “because you’ve actually been praying more for them than yourself. I always answer prayer like that. You’re beginning to really care and forget about yourself a little.”
“Why Lord, now it’s easy to pray for them. It’s a pleasure. I really care. I feel your love and my love all mixed together.”
“Yes, I love that,” God answered, “You’ve prayed yourself into my love for them which causes you to love them too.”
The amazing thing was that his love for me was never sweeter or more real than during that prayer experiment. Nothing seems to please God more than when we take His commandments to love seriously.
God began giving me opportunities to spend time with each of these three women. I saw they were really quite wonderful.
At the beginning I was praying for God to change them. Naturally, I had assumed they were the ones who needed changing. But to my amazement, I felt a change in me. I could no longer judge them; I was investing too much in praying for them.
What rare changes prayer can make! Learning to love with His love as I prayed caused something glorious to happen—as I prayed, I also loved. When God is convinced of our intentions to pray for those whom we find difficult to love, He will impart to us His love for them.