Archive: The Joy of Serving Others

by Steve | Nov 15, 1993 | Archive - 1993

Archive: The Joy of Serving Others

By Boyce A. Bowdon

About 2:30 in the morning on December 14, 1989, a car driven by Dale Bowser veered off the road, knocked down a gas meter, hit a tree, crashed into a cement culvert, and finally came to rest in a ditch.

Fortunately, Dale lived to tell what happened.

“My belly was full of booze,” he told the 1993 session of the Oklahoma Conference of the United Methodist Church. “I had passed out at the wheel again. When I came to, I heard gas spewing from the severed pipes. My car couldn’t move, and neither could I. I saw lights pop on at houses in the neighborhood. Pretty soon the police came and took me to jail.”

He paused to regain his composure. “When I started sobering up, I felt lonely, scared, lost. Somehow, though, I knew this night was going to be different from all the rest. And it was. A few hours later, in a chemical dependency unit for alcoholics, I got down on my knees and asked Jesus to save me. And he has saved me.

“I thank God every day for the love and prayers of my family. They were the earthly intercessors for my salvation. I thank God for Amy, my wife. She loved me and never left me or gave up on our marriage.”

Dale is aware that God has used many people to help him. He is especially grateful to the owner of the auto repair shop in Tulsa where he was working at the time of his near fatal accident.

“My boss really wanted to see me get my life straightened out,” Dale said. “He suggested that I go to First United Methodist Church and hear the pastor, Jim Buskirk, preach. Jim was one of our customers. He was always friendly and cheerful when he came to our shop.”

The next Sunday, Dale went to the church. He recalls leaving the worship service filled with hope. He and his family began attending regularly.

“Members of the congregation opened their arms to me,” he said. “Because of their warmth and support, I became more aware that God loves me and is at work in my life. Before long, I was on my way to recovery.”

During the worship service one Sunday in the fall of 1990, Dale listened to Jessica Moffatt, minister of community ministries, tell about ministries that lay people of the church provide for individuals and families who desperately need help.

“Jessica encouraged us to think of how God could use our skills and strengths in his service. There was a sheet of paper in the pews listing our various ministries, and there was a place to sign up for any ministry we wanted to serve in,” recalls Dale.

“I felt so compelled. What better way was there for me to express my gratitude for what God was doing in my life than by helping others? When I looked down the list, the used-car ministry caught my eye. I had no idea what it was, but since I was in the automotive industry, I thought I might have something to offer. I knew I wanted to give, so I signed up.”

Dale did have something to offer the used car ministry. He quickly became a key member of the team, and now directs it.

“We take cars our members have donated, fix them up the best we can with the money and talent we have available, and give them to people who have a serious transportation problem,” he explains.

The ministry donated 30 cars last year. Applicants are carefully screened to confirm their need for an automobile and their ability to pay for insurance, license, and the title transfer.

“We try to make sure a car is mechanically sound so it’s not likely to be a burden. After all, we want to help a family get out of the transportation bondage they are in, not get them into deeper trouble. And we have helped a lot of folks. Some have been out of work because they couldn’t get a job or keep a job without a car. Having a dependable vehicle has helped them get into a position to earn a decent income.”

Dale and his crew also do minor auto repairs for persons in financial crisis. “We don’t want to end up being a free repair shop for the city of Tulsa, but when we can, we want to help people who are in a bind.”

He now dreams of helping the church establish a bicycle ministry. “We will ask members to donate bikes they no longer use. Then we will repair them and give them to needy children. Besides making some kids happy, our team will get a lot of satisfaction out of it.”

What satisfaction will they receive?

“Being kind to others is the best way I know of to praise God for the kindness and mercy he has shown me,” Dale replies.

Dale is one of more than 800 members of First United Methodist Church in Tulsa who serve in community ministries. Males and females—teenagers to senior adults—participate. Regardless of skills and interests, there’s a task for anyone who feels led to serve.

Here are some of the more than two dozen ministries the church provides:

• Card Ministry: Creates and distributes about one hundred personalized cards each week to persons who have special joys or concerns.
• Transportation Ministry: Takes persons to and from church, medical clinics, or shopping centers.
• Aviation Ministry: Transports by private planes those who have emergencies such as out-of-state surgeries or funerals.
• Moving Ministry: Helps persons who can neither move themselves nor hire a mover.
• Prison Ministry: Visits those in jails and prisons.
• Unemployment Ministry: Works with job hunters—matches skills with openings, prepares resumes, helps set up appointments, gives tips on how to make good impressions during job interviews.

Attorneys, accountants, doctors, dentists, teachers, and other professionals also volunteer regularly, offering consultation and care without charge to persons in crisis.

To avoid duplicating services, the church works closely with other providers of care in the community. For example, after it was suggested that the church open a home for unwed mothers, a team explored the need and found that Tulsa had enough homes for unwed mothers. However, several homes reported that they needed maternity clothes for clients. So the church ministry team focused on helping provide clothing.

“We asked every woman who had ever had a baby to look in her closet and pull out all her maternity clothes and give them to the church,” Jessica says. “There was a great response, and we set up a wonderful closet. When the homes refer an unwed mother to us, we give her several nice outfits; and then spend time with her, talking about babies, developing relationships, quietly sharing God’s love.”

First UM Church in Tulsa became intentional about developing community ministries in the mid-1980s, under the leadership of Jim Buskirk, the senior pastor. In 1985, Jessica Moffatt joined the staff as the first director of community ministries.

The Community Ministries program at First UMC in Tulsa is based on a model developed at Candler School of Theology. It was done as a three-day-weekend program in local churches from 1968 through 1984. During the first half of that period, it was a field component of the Department of Evangelism under Dr. Buskirk, who was then professor of evangelism at Candler.

When Buskirk was appointed to the Tulsa church, he continued to do missions in local churches. Jessica Moffatt, along with other associates on his staff, accompanied him as Candler students had earlier to other local churches. “Principles that were developed at many sites have been employed at our church under Jessica Moffatt’s effective direction,” says Buskirk.

Jessica explains that Motivation for Ministry has three basic thrusts: Christian commitment, enrichment of Christian fellowship, and the ministries of lay persons within and beyond the walls of the church. Lay persons are imaged as ministers; clergy, teachers, and leaders are imaged as enablers and equippers of lay persons for their ministries.

During a weekend in the fall of 1985, the church launched its first community ministries event with small group meetings and colorful worship services. Members were asked, “What needs do you see in the city of Tulsa to which you wish members of our church were ministering? ” They were invited to write answers on cards that were placed in the pews.

“We received nearly 1,600 suggestions for ministries,” recalls Jessica. “When we sorted them, they fell into 49 ministry categories. During our worship service on the last night of our event, we distributed a list of the ministries with room numbers beside each ministry. At the close of the service, we invited members to go to the room of the ministry that interested them most. That night we began 39 ministries!”

Every six months, participants have an opportunity to change ministries, create new ministries, or take a break from this form of ministry altogether. However, they don’t have to wait until six months is up. They can stop any time. And there’s no limit to the length of time they can serve in the same ministry. They can continue for years if that’s what they want to do.

“What you want to do is what matters,” Jessica reminds those who are thinking about serving in community ministries. “Volunteer for a ministry because you want to do it. And quit when you no longer want to do it. ”

To keep everyone informed about needs and opportunities, a Community Ministries Network meets monthly. Representatives from ministry groups and adult Sunday school classes attend. The network also helps organize two community ministries events each year. At these events, community needs are reviewed and brainstorming gets underway.

“Actually, we never stop brainstorming,” says Jessica. “All year long, all of us look for needs; and ways to develop ministries that will address them.”

Jessica and others on the church staff make sincere efforts to avoid manipulating members into ministering; and they also try to protect the dignity of all who receive help. Their objective is to help people break free from dependency as quickly as possible.

What does it take for a church to establish community ministries? First UM Church in Tulsa has approximately 7,200 members, 7 appointed ministers, and an extensive support team; but Jessica says you don’t have to have a huge membership and a big staff to begin ministering to the community. You must, however, have two components:

• A group of lay people sensitive to the needs of individuals and families, eager to do what Jesus taught his followers to do–wash feet, feed the hungry, and nurse the wounded.
• A supportive pastor who is enthusiastic and able to motivate and equip lay people to do what they believe God is calling them to do.

Jessica sees convincing evidence that community ministries benefit those who receive services. And she’s convinced that lay people who minister also benefit. “Serving helps them keep spiritually fit and growing as Christians,” she says. Dale Bowser and hundreds of other volunteers at First UM Church in Tulsa agree. They also know that serving is the best way to thank God.

Boyce A. Bowdon is the director of communication for the Oklahoma Conference of the UM Church. He is also the author of Selling Your Church in the ’90s: A Public Relations Guide for Clergy and Laity (Koinonia).

Archive: Matching Our Walk with Our Talk

by Steve | Nov 14, 1993 | Archive - 1993

Archive: Matching Our Walk with Our Talk

By Kenneth Cain Kinghorn

Kenneth Cain Kinghorn recently received a letter from a bishop of the United Methodist Church in which the bishop lamented the inconsistent lives of professing Christians. He invited Dr. Kinghorn—vice president-at-large of Asbury Theological Seminary—to respond to the theory that theological beliefs do not make much difference in peoples ethics and conduct. What follows is Dr. Kinghorn’s response to the bishop.

Your letter raises the important question of the relationship between one’s theology and one’s behavior. Ideally, of course, orthodoxy and holiness go hand in hand. But as you pointed out, the links between theology and ethics are not always consistent. You wrote that you had “about concluded that all our theological posturing about who is and who is not correct seems to have very little impact on personal holiness.” I certainly understand your disappointment.

I agree that some who make high claims of holiness do not always show honesty and integrity in their lives. In fairness, however, we must say that the theological left also produces its share of ethical disappointments. The lack of common courtesy surfaces all across the theological spectrum. (I am reminded of John Dryden’s evaluation of Jeremy Collier: “I will not say ‘The zeal of God’s house has eaten him up’; but I am sure it has devoured some part of his good manners and civility.”) We are saddened when moral and ethical inconsistencies appear in the church.

Theological imbalance may be part of the problem. Some sincere people contend that the best theology consists of the most narrow or the most broad position. In my thinking, the narrowest or the broadest theological position is seldom biblical. For instance, the narrowest theological stance that one could take regarding sanctification is to insist that God extracts original sin, as a dentist removes a rotten tooth, and the sanctified never sin. I knew one who held this view, and he objected to praying the Prayer of Confession in the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper. He said in my hearing, “I haven’t sinned in 17 years!”

The broadest interpretation of God’s grace, on the other hand, leads to universalism. I know those who interpret God’s love so expansively that they deny that Jesus Christ provides our only means of salvation. Consider a different example: The strongest position that one can take on God’s sovereignty would lead to a denial of free will and a belief in double predestination, either to salvation or damnation. Let me reiterate: the most extreme view on any theological issue is seldom correct, whether conservative or liberal, the most narrow or most broad. Theological extremes usually distort the truth.

I was interested in your comment, “I was never able to make much connection between personal holiness and where a person happened to be on the theological continuum.” In my view, we sometimes measure sanctity by the wrong canons. I am sure that you would agree that good manners, intellectual achievement, and tolerance—while admirable qualities—do not spell Christian holiness. Some of the most tolerant church leaders that I know hold views repeatedly rejected by the ancient creeds and councils of Christendom. Recently I heard one of your colleagues say that it is “not loving” for Christians to pronounce Buddhism wrong or to seek the conversion of a Muslim to Christianity. I regard the notion of unlimited tolerance as not loving—if Jesus was who he claimed to be and if Scripture is trustworthy in what it teaches. We cannot confuse tolerance with holiness.

C.S. Lewis contended, in his Reflections on the Psalms, that tolerance often stems from a lack of profound convictions about religion. Some within our church have a greater interest in what seems “lovingly inclusive” than in what Scripture clearly teaches. As I see it, a homosexual, whose disclosed behavior creates scandal, harms the Christian cause less than a seminary professor or prominent church leader who lobbies for United Methodism to accept homosexual behavior as a valid expression of sexual love.

Some in the church confuse holiness with good manners and intellectual acumen. Many 19th-century American church members praised the lectures of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and some clergy invited him into their pulpits, although most confessed that they could not understand much of what he said. With winsomeness and compelling intellect, he spread his mystical idealism throughout the churches. Of course, he uttered some truisms. Yet his religion of transcendentalism contradicted Christianity at every vital point. There are some who excel in tolerance, wit, and intellect, whose theology is pernicious and destructive.

As you point out, there are those who hold unorthodox theological opinions and yet who live more sacrificially than their orthodox critics. I think, for example, of Albert Schweitzer who left careers in medicine and music to do charitable work in Africa. I contend that, despite his sacrificial labors, his Christology was completely unacceptable. His ministry does not erase his defective Christology and poverty of Christian doctrine. His was a ministry of practical deeds, devoid of theological specifics. Christianity could not long survive on that sort of fare.

Over the years, I have observed a theological herd instinct that causes some to praise currently popular theologians, even when their views supplant the doctrinal standards of the church to which they subscribed at their ordination. One can always find a parade of admirers lined up behind theologians who introduce doctrinal and ethical innovations. It is not uncommon to meet people who seem to think that the more difficult it is to understand a theologian, the more profound the theologian must be. Others are impressed with theological innovation. Apparently some regard the most outlandish view as the most “courageous.” I hold to the time-honored truism articulated by Princeton’s Charles Hodge: If a doctrine is new it isn’t true, and if its true it isn’t new.

You mentioned Paul Tillich. He said in his Systematic Theology (Vol. I, 205) “God does not exist. … To argue that God exists is to deny him.” I can’t make sense out of that view, any more than I can understand someone saying, “To argue that my wife exists is to deny her,” a formula Tillich applied to God. How could Abraham Lincoln have being if he did not exist? Of course, Tillich said some interesting things, and he said them with phrase-making elegance. Nevertheless, I cannot accept any theology as being Christian when it rejects Christ’s resurrection and the doctrines of heaven and hell—to say nothing of denying God’s existence. Not every theologian who attracts a train of admirers writes Christian theology.

The principle point of your letter was that some orthodox Christians do not live up to their theology. This reality continues to perplex and grieve us both. Martin Luther, too, agonized over certain religious leaders whose morals failed to square with what they taught. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because the theologically orthodox Pharisees placed their self-serving agendas before the love or service of God. Never mind their high claims of holiness—primarily, they loved cash and control.

To this day, some people use theological orthodoxy as a means by which to gain material assets and acquire power. I suspect that those you mentioned belong in this category. They lusted for money and power. They may not have started their Christian journey as double-minded disciples; yet somewhere along the line, secular tares choked the good seed.

A variation of this theme surfaces in the lives of some who give unconditional allegiance to an institution. Some folks permit religious organizations to take precedence over everything—even truth, people, ministry, and God. I would argue that the best church members put Jesus Christ ahead of all else, including the religious system with which they have affiliated. It seems, however, that some who are not serious about holiness of heart and life enjoy being around those who are. They find it gratifying to associate with committed Christians who genuinely put the needs of neighbors ahead of personal needs. These camp followers give a bad name to the good people in whose territory they lodge.

Despite exceptions to the contrary, it has been my observation that balanced Christian orthodoxy produces the best examples of Christian character. I know several Christian saints. They all hold orthodox theological views. I contend that orthodoxy also produces the lion’s share of enduring Christian ministry. Personally, I do not know any “secular saints” or “holy heretics.”

I recently spoke with a friend who had just returned from a meeting of the Christian Management Institute (CMI). This organization consists of 3,300 Christian organizations, all holding orthodox theological views. The CMI includes some of the most respected and effective ministries in the world. My friend reported that he was surprised at the vast number of ministries to the homeless carried on by the member groups. They say little about their social work, but their ministries to soul and body are astonishingly impressive. It’s important to recognize that orthodox religion at its best does more than talk about the need for ministry. Orthodox congregations and organizations can and do carry on remarkable social ministries.

The inconsistent correlation between people’s theologies and their moral lives remains a conundrum to me. God alone will unravel the mystery in his own good time. Yet, I think we can make some headway in our efforts to change things for the better. The formula has not altered since apostolic days: we must unite right thinking and right living. Nothing substitutes for a long obedience in the same direction, provided the Bible informs the way. Your letter encourages me to strive to stay close to Scripture and, as Bishop Stephen Neil would have said it, “to live Christianly.”

Kenneth Cain Kinghorn is vice president-at-large of Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is an ordained UM minister and an author of numerous books, the most recent being The Gospel of Grace (Abingdon, 1992).

Archive: The Touch of God

by Steve | Oct 13, 1993 | Archive - 1993

Archive: The Touch of God

Hungering after the presence of God will bring the church back to Life.

By Sandy S. Kirk

“I felt like the dead sent to raise the dead,” groaned John Wesley after fruitless attempts to convert the lost. Yet isn’t this the cry of the United Methodist Church today? In the midst of a dying world, sadly we must admit: We feel like the dead sent to raise the dead! “We are wasting away like a leukemia victim when the blood transfusions no longer work,” laments Bishop Richard Wilke in his book, And Are We Yet Alive? (Abingdon). Former church history professor, Gerald Anderson, reports that at the rate we are losing members, by the year 2045, the number of United Methodists left in this nation will be a whopping—two!

John Wesley, however, refused to be complacent about his own spiritual deadness. He was hungry for a witness of the Spirit, the assurance of his salvation, a touch from God in his heart. A healthy spiritual appetite urged him onward in his search for God.

What about us? Do we have a healthy spiritual hunger for the presence of God? If not, perhaps this is one reason for the dryness in the church today.

In his book A Thirst for God, Sherwood Wirt explains this sad but profound truth: “When we are physically hungry and miss a meal, our appetite becomes ravenous. But if time passes and we receive no spiritual food, we may lose our appetite for it. … Malnutrition sets in and we cease to care. ”

Could malnutrition be destroying the United Methodist Church today and we have ceased to care? If so, how can a robust spiritual hunger be restored? Augustine gave the answer: “I tasted and it made me hunger and thirst: You touched me, and I burned to know Your peace.”

You see, in physical hunger, we eat and our hunger is satisfied. But in spiritual hunger, we taste and our hunger becomes voracious. The more we eat, the hungrier we become. As St. Bernard said, “We taste of Thee, the Living Bread, and long to feast upon Thee still: We drink of Thee, the Fountainhead, and thirst our souls from Thee to fill.”

This was the kind of hunger that drove John Wesley. The presence of God was missing from the church of his day, most of all from his own life, and he was panting after God with all his heart. His throat was parched for the living water, and he knew—the same God who creates the thirst will quench it with himself.

One can feel the aching dryness of his soul as he cries, “I felt like the dead sent to raise the dead, a Judas sent to cast out devils, a lion in a den of Daniels. I could only pray in my despair: ‘Oh, thou Savior of men, save me from trusting in any thing but Thee! Draw me after Thee! Let me be emptied of myself, and then fill me with all peace and joy in believing.”‘

Charles Wesley’s Search for God

John was not alone in this questing after God; his brother Charles also had an insatiable thirst for God’s presence. Like John, Charles had returned from a disappointing trip to America, and he too was desperately hungry for God.

On Pentecost Sunday, May 21, 1738, Charles awoke with a sense of great expectancy bubbling within him. With all his might he prayed, “Oh, Jesus, You have said, ‘I will come to you.’ You have said, ‘I will send him, the Comforter, unto you.’ You have said, ‘My Father and I will make our abode with you.’ You are God, who cannot lie. I wholly rely upon your most true promise. …”

And this is the secret.

Charles was not asking for wealth or healing or power or gifts or anointing. He was asking for Christ himself. Later he wrote, “In me a quenchless thirst inspire, a longing, infinite desire; and fill my craving heart. Less than Thyself O do not give; in might Thyself within me live; come all Thou hast and art. ”

Indeed, this was the highest kind of prayer. He was asking God for God. With a yearning heart, he was knocking on the door of heaven, asking continually for the promise of the Father, the blessed Holy Spirit.

This is the prayer God waits to hear, for on that same night something amazing happened to Charles, who had been deathly ill and was staying in the home of a godly mechanic and his sister.

On the same day he had prayed so fervently for the Holy Spirit, the mechanic’s sister received a dream from the Lord, and was commanded to tell Charles he would recover in body and soul. For two days she struggled with the message as it surged and burned in her spirit. Finally, after her brother’s prodding, she went to Charles’ room and thundered, “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise and thou shalt be healed of thine infirmities!”

When Charles realized these words were from Christ himself, though spoken through a human vessel, he reached out to Jesus with his whole heart and took hold of the promise. Like a bucket scooped down into a fathomless well, he dipped into the wells of salvation and drank deeply of the heavenly waters. And in that one divine moment, Charles Wesley was born again.

The next day the power of God came upon Charles and led him into deep intercessory prayer for his brother John. As he prayed, the Lord’s presence was so strong, he said, “I almost believed the Holy Spirit was coming upon him.”

And indeed he was! Within 48 hours of this earnest intercession, the power of God fell mightily upon John. May 24, 1738, John Wesley entered that obscure little room on Aldersgate Street in London, and as the powerful words of Martin Luther were being read, the Holy Spirit fell upon him and ignited the flame of Christ within his heart forever.

The Holy Spirit is Our Wesleyan Heritage

God touched John and Charles Wesley with his Spirit, and their lives burst into flames that eventually spread throughout all of England. We need that touch today. It is our heritage.

Without the literal presence of the Holy Spirit in the church, like faith without works, we are dead. Charles Spurgeon explained, “Without the Spirit of God we can do nothing. We are as ships without wind or chariots without steeds. Like branches without sap, we are withered. Like coals without fire, we are useless. As an offering without the sacrificial flame, we are unaccepted.”

Yes, we need to seek the fullness of God’s spirit, like John and Charles Wesley, until we find Him. Wrote Bishop Wilke, “The wind of the Spirit, ah, that is what we need most. … We cannot baptize only with water or we die. We must baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.”

“He Touched Me”

I sat in a meeting with a group of Methodists one night 20 years ago. I had been earnestly seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit for months. That day a deep, cleansing wave of repentance had swept through my heart and prepared me for what was getting ready to happen.

As the people joined in the hymn, “He Touched Me,” I was silently and desperately praying, ” O Come, Lord Jesus! Come, Lord Jesus. … ”

I didn’t realize at the time that this is the prayer God waits to hear. But suddenly, the Holy Spirit came upon me and flooded my spirit. I felt as though every fiber of my being had been awakened and filled with God’s presence. Waves of his love coursed through my heart, and desire for God’s word ignited in an instant.

That touch from God changed my life forever, but I made a terrible mistake. Fifteen years passed before I learned the importance of asking continually to be refilled with God’s Spirit. Said Dwight L. Moody, “A great many think that because they have been filled once, they are going to be full for all time. But oh, we are leaky vessels! We have to be kept under the fountain all the time in order to stay full.”

Let’s End the Debate and Pray!

It’s time to be done with the divisive debate over “when ” we are filled with the Holy Spirit. The question is: are we being filled now?

We need to invite the Holy Spirit to come and fill us afresh every day. Then we need to invite God to come to our bone-dry and languishing churches. Like John and Charles Wesley, we need to pray,” Breathe, O breathe Thy loving Spirit into every troubled breast!”

If the heavens seem shut, if rains of revival are not falling upon the church, we need to do just what God said to do in times like this:

“When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain … if My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land ” (II Chronicles 7:13-14).

This is not a time to pack our bags and abandon ship. It’s a time to humble ourselves at the wounded feet of Christ; to seek his presence in prayer; to repent of our loss of spiritual appetite, and ask the Lord to open heaven and rain the spirit of revival upon the church. Said Charles Spurgeon, “Death and condemnation is preferable to a church that is not yearning after the Spirit, crying and groaning until the Spirit has worked mightily in her midst.”

Won’t you join with Methodists all over this world to pray, “O come Holy Spirit! Breathe upon our malnourished hearts until we can feast once again on the presence of God in the church. Then at last we will be like a church—risen from the dead, bursting with God’s life, and bringing that living bread to a hungry, dying world.”

Sandy S. Kirk is a freelance writer and contributing editor to Good News. She is a Bible teacher and the wife of R.L. Kirk, pastor of St. Luke’s UM Church in Lubbock, Texas.

Archive: Playing Skillfully

by Steve | Sep 21, 1993 | Archive - 1993

Archive: Playing Skillfully

By Marilyn N. Anderes

Politically correct. We hear it everywhere. The media exalts what the establishment dictates. The problem is that our morally deficient establishment elevates tolerance over truth. Samuel confronted a similar culture. The surrounding nations had kings, but for Israel to impose a monarchy, the people had to depose God as King.

Samuel pleaded, “You don’t really want a king. He will tax and spend, he’ll demand your sons for his battlefield, and he’ll expect you to serve him.” But change was demanded just as it was in November, 1992, in the United States. And just as the Israelites put their hope in men, so it is with Americans. Samuel asked the question we must ask: How do I best serve the interests of my God in the midst of wayward people?

God gave directions for just such a time in his psalm to the nations. “Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy” (Psalms 33:3). Samuel’s life demonstrates eight ways to play skillfully in post-Christian times. Follow along in I Samuel 12.

1. Listen (verse 1). Samuel heard what the people said. He listened with his ears and his heart. We would do well to be alert to the heart pleas of our acquaintances. Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk once said: “One of the best ways to persuade others is by listening to them.”

2. Reaffirm your life message (verse 2). The prophet Samuel proclaimed, I am a faithful leader under God. We, too, can recommit to Christ’s lordship and ask anew how he would be pleased to use us now.

3. Maintain personal purity (verses 3-5). Purity was maintained by Samuel in his own conscience, in the people’s eyes, and from God’s perspective. We need to examine our hearts before God and man. If we’ve slandered our leaders more than we’ve prayed for them, we need to ask God’s forgiveness. To be honorable vessels of use in times of moral decay, we’ll need to examine and cleanse decay in our own lives first.

4. Confront with the evidence (verses 6-13 and 16-18). Samuel’s challenge was, “Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence.” He reminded the people of God’s acts in their behalf and he revealed the people’s foolishness. Then “the people stood in awe of the Lord and of Samuel.” Do our neighbors stand in wonder of God because of our lifestyles?

In The Knowledge of the Holy, A. W. Tozer wrote, “the heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until it is once more worthy of Him.” When the Church reveals the true God, people watching will stand in awe of his majesty and prefer his ways to anything labeled “politically correct.”

5. Offer directions for success (verses 14-15). It would be cruel to show what’s wrong without offering directions for returning to what’s right. Samuel offered four steps for success. Fear God, serve God, obey God, and follow God. Run the checklist. Am I reverencing God? How am I serving him? Am I obeying him; even in the littlest of things? Am I walking ahead of him or following him? Godly living will speak louder than empty preaching.

6. Motivate wholeheartedness (verses 20-25). Samuel reassured the people, “Do not be afraid.” He upheld the name of the Lord and underscored the fact that God would not reject his people. Then he warned them, “Do not turn away.” We must not turn disgusted backs on policies or policy makers. Playing skillfully involves keeping up with the issues, writing editorials, chairing politically-active boards, calling Congress, and running for office ourselves.

7. Intercede with urgency (verses 19, 23a). The peoples’ request of Samuel? “Pray to the Lord your God.” Samuel’s reply? “Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by failing to pray for you.” If God’s people won’t pray, who will stand in the moral gap and intercede?

8. Be bold with gentleness (verse 25). Samuel picked no bones. “If you persist in doing evil, both you and your king will be swept away.” We must assert God’s truth, remembering that the only thing that separates spiritual boldness from ‘bullyness’ is humility. We once plugged our ears to God’s call on our lives, too.

Will you join me in the following prayer? “Far be it from us, O Lord that we should sin against you by failing to pray for our country, and we will teach our neighbors by example your good and right way. Help us!” (Paraphrase of I Samuel 12:23)

This is the second article in a three-part series.

Archive: Unravelling Modern Theology

by Steve | Sep 20, 1993 | Archive - 1993

Archive: Unravelling Modern Theology

By Dwight Sullivan

Recently I attended a lecture that was both striking and disturbing. The speaker was Dr. Eta Linnemann, an eminent New Testament scholar who studied under the famous Rudolf Bultmann, a giant of the “Historical Criticism” of the Bible. Well into her own eminent career, Dr. Linnemann—according to her own account—came to know and accept Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. Her outlook has changed on the Historical-Critical Approach to biblical interpretation. Once its champion, Dr. Linnemann has now become its challenger and presents her case in Historical Criticism of the Bible—Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical (Baker Book, 1991).

Dr. Linnemann’s new thinking represents a critical challenge for our United Methodist Church. The average United Methodist may not be aware that the Historical-Critical Approach shapes much of our UM theological outlook. Our UM seminaries teach it. Its results are accepted as scholarly fact (often with the attitude that there is no other viewpoint except those espoused by the ignorant, unenlightened, or simple-minded.) Our modern theology is shaped by it; our Sunday school material inspired by it; our faith based on it.

What is Historical-Critical Methodology? Conceived over 250 years ago, it is an approach which claims to be scientific. It begins by treating the Bible, for the purpose of inquiry, as any other writing. Its aim is not devotion, but dissection. Rather than give a biblical passage the benefit of the doubt, it doubts the words until they can be “proven” or “confirmed.” It subjects every biblical passage to the scrutiny of human thought to find “truth,” which then directs interpretation.

Dwight Sullivan

Now this bedrock of our theology is being challenged by one with the name and knowledge to do it. This methodology, which has brought forth numerous theories of unseen writers of the Bible (such as “J”, “E”, “P”, “D”, in the Old Testament and “Q” in the New Testament), is now being cross-examined as suspect.

Dr. Linnemann states that the Historical-Critical Approach:

• claims to be both “scientific” and “objective” but is neither,
• has made idols of science and reason,
• relativizes the Scriptures,
• believes “what the biblical text clearly states can by no means be true,”
• tries to open the Word of God using methods that function as though there is no God,
• and uses “pseudo-morphosis,” which is using the right Christian words while switching their meanings.

When I heard Dr. Linnemann, something inside me went “click!” To earn my doctorate I was pickled in the Historical-Critical Methodology for five years of school, and it seemed quite kosher. But after nearly 19 years as a pastor in the real church, I have increasingly profound doubts. I must be honest. What this method of biblical interpretation results in does not seem to be the same Christianity as that which swayed the Roman Empire (or for that matter, 18th Century England through John Wesley).

Given our United Methodist adherence to the Historical-Critical Methodology, would Dr. Linnemann’s expose explain why:

• those who believe the Bible as really true—such as evangelicals or charismatics—seem faintly welcomed in our denomination, and tend to be discouraged from the clergy, screened out from our seminary faculties, and “frozen out” from places of leadership?
• during annual conference floor debates, there seems often to be light regard for the Scriptures as being the authoritative Word of God?
• biblical words seem to be used differently now? Is this how, for example, “sin” has had its biblical meaning of “idolatry” replaced for some by “discrimination” or “homophobia”?
• our membership is declining?

If Dr. Linnemann is right, might this not mean we need to re-examine our theological education? Have “mainline” biblical scholars become like a school of fish blindly heading into the belly of a whale? Have they become so busy reading each other’s writings that they miss reading the Handwriting on the Wall? Are the local churches actually funding the paganization of their own church? In the name of the “honesty,” “modernity,” and “objectivity” that is claimed by the faithful of this approach, are we ending with a “different Gospel”?

Dr. Linnemann raises for me troubling questions about the cornerstone of our UM Church, the Critical-Historical Methodology. How we deal with her honest and probing questions will be crucial for our future.

Dwight Sullivan is the pastor of Whittier Evangelical United Methodist Church in Whittier, California.