Archive: Four Corners for Jesus

Archive: Four Corners for Jesus

Archive: Four Corners for Jesus

By Lorena Lynch

November/December 1993

I was not born into a Christian family. In fact, in the 1940s less than five percent of my people were Christian; so my story is similar to that of many others who grew up on the reservation in Arizona, New Mexico, or Utah.

Navajos have much of which to be proud – we know how to survive. Like myself, most of my generation grew up herding sheep. I still speak the Navajo language, weave Navajo rugs, wear traditional dress with moccasins and Indian jewelry, and love my large, extended family. And now I am a Christian, which makes me a better Navajo.

I first went to government boarding school at the age of 12 to begin the first grade. Although I did not know English, I tried to learn it as quickly as possible to keep from being punished. One day I didn’t have lunch money, so some of my friends said, “Go with us to this church at noon and they will give you something to eat.” I met two women who told us Bible stories and fed us cookies and kool-aid for lunch.

Some time later, when our home burned down, I stayed with the two women while it was being rebuilt. They asked me to be their interpreter. It was during this time that I gave my life to the Lord. I left high school during the 11th grade, got married, and moved away. I drifted away from the Lord, but when times were bad, I still remembered to pray. When we moved to Shiprock and my oldest daughter got into mischief with bad friends, I decided to send her to a church school. Yet I asked myself, “Why should I send my child to a church school when I am not even going to church?” So I attended the United Methodist Church in July of 1975 – it was on the same Sunday in which we were introduced to our new missionary pastor, Paul West, and his wife, Dorcas.

During the fall of that same year, Fred Yazzie, our only fully-ordained Navajo minister, was preaching a revival. It seemed that everything he said was meant for me. This is when I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. The next day seemed so different – I began noticing God’s creation, and saw the trees around my house as though for the first time. I liked my new life, but before long I was faced with many situations in which I had to either reconfirm my decision for the Lord, or go another way.

My first trial was in having all of my jewelry stolen. It was not so much the monetary loss ($4,000) as it was the emotional attachment which had made the jewelry very special to me. Some Navajos believe that turquoise is sacred and protects them from evil spirits and accidents. I simply felt loss and hurt. Our Navajo pastor, Henry C. Begay, prayed for me. My husband insisted that only the medicine man could find my jewelry, so I went with him, but was totally disappointed. From that time on, I trusted only God and he has taken care of me. Jesus is all I need.

In 1977, the Shiprock Church began the Four Corners Native American Ministry as a means of reaching Navajos for Jesus. The reservation is very large (about the size of West Virginia), but our pastor said we could do it: “If we will start and trust the Lord, it will be like a stone dropped into the water. The ripples will expand until the whole lake is covered.” Stella Lee, our first chairperson, explained this to be a prophecy of what God would do if we would but trust him.

We bought a canvas tent; and Pastor Henry preached, many times until one or two o’clock in the morning. He would then drive over 100 miles to return home, sleep a couple of hours, and go to work at the uranium mine. About this same time, work groups helped us build a two-story shelter for abused women and children in Shiprock. We also built a counseling center for alcoholics and a thrift shop. In 1992, we added a day care school. The Four Corners Ministry was growing in several directions, all at the same time.

Many people think Navajos are poor. But everything cannot be measured by money. Navajos are rich. They are rich in traditions, and as more Navajos are becoming Christians, they are becoming rich in faith. As the Four Corners Ministry has grown, we have seen what faith can do. We simply believe God for miracles, pray, and trust him with all of our hearts. We want to move forward, depending on the Lord. Jesus means everything to us and we want to serve him only.

The ministry evolved as Navajo families attended tent revivals, accepted Jesus, and began house meetings to win their relatives to Christ. The house would get too small and they would pool their money to build small, simple fiberboard buildings. After a few years the family would realize that they didn’t know much about running a church; or they would become burdened by their isolation and loneliness, or overwhelmed by church maintenance problems. When they discovered Four Corners Ministry, they found they liked the Christian fellowship, the Bible study, and the instruction on how to build up a congregation, administer a church, and develop their lay leadership. Perhaps most of all, they sensed that they were part of a people who would listen and support them in their ministry.

After 16 years, the Four Corners Ministry has 17 churches. Many of them are 100 to 150 miles away from Shiprock, but each has its own Navajo preacher, a heartfelt joy, and the desire to reach all of our people for Jesus. Today, there are over 220,000 Navajos, and approximately 25 percent are Christian. Over half of our population is 19  years old and under. We have much work to do and more programs to develop – especially for the youth.

The United Methodist Church is still new to us on the reservation. We have one fully-ordained Navajo pastor, one student in seminary. And one student in college headed for ministry. The rest are lay-preachers. Often, Navajo people think all churches are alike and they don’t understand denominations. We thank God for that, but we also know that our church family is United Methodist.

I have learned a lot through the Four Corners Ministry. I used to avoid traveling off the reservation because I was afraid white people would not accept me. But when I was asked to speak at churches in other states, I was surprised and happy to learn that I was accepted. I discovered that we Navajos have much to share, and that people off the reservation are not prejudiced.

I believe we can win our reservation for Christ and even reach out to other tribes by loving the people. We can also be the kind of people who will cause those around us to ask questions about the difference in our lives. We can tell them, “I act like I do because I have Jesus as my personal Savior.”

For years now we have been trying to tell people that we are a “third world’’ country, with our own culture, language, and national sovereignty. We need missionaries to work with us since we are very new to the Christian faith. No one heard us until the Mission Society for United Methodists came out and saw for themselves the problems we face. Immediately, they offered to help, working through the New Mexico Conference and our Four Corners Board.

Navajo Worship

Our people love to praise the Lord. They enjoy clapping their hands; and as they sing you can hear shouts of “Amen” and “Thank you, Jesus.” When Navajos become Christians they want to be in church. Their services go on for two to five hours. If a Navajo preached for only 20 minutes, the people would throw him out. My people want to get filled up. They don’t want to leave church feeling empty.

When our people first enter the church, they go to the altar. It gives me such a good feeling to enter a Navajo church and see the seats empty and the altar full.

Allow me to paint scenes of a recent church service for you. I see an old grandmother with her squaw skirt spread out over her tennis shoes and she is crying out to God. The altar is strange to her, so she prefers to kneel on the hard floor with her face to the ground. When she gets up, I see tears on her face. I don’t know what she prayed for, but I can see she is happy and ready for the service to begin.

The service should have started 30 minutes ago but no one is concerned. The musicians start tuning up their electric guitars. As the altar clears, they begin an old gospel tune. The preacher gets behind the drum set and lets it rip.

After several songs, it’s testimony time. My heart is touched as I listen to a mother who weeps as she speaks about her alcoholic son. There were so many nights she had no idea where he was. But she kept praying for him until he was delivered from that bondage. Now he comes to church with her. An elderly former medicine man tells how he was so sick the doctor sent him home to die, but the church people came and prayed for him and he was healed. Now he wants to praise the only true God, so he volunteers to give a sheep or goat every time the church has a dinner. Others tell of family problems, fear of owls, or loneliness after the death of a relative, and how God has given victory. A shout of “Praise God’’ goes up from different parts of the congregation.

Navajo Christians believe in miracles. In fact, the problems on the reservation are often so bad that only a miracle could help! Another song, and the preacher gets up. He reads the Scripture in Navajo and those who have Bibles follow along with their fingers, often repeating the words after him. The preacher goes verse-by-verse and explains the meaning. By using a lot of home-grown illustrations and by acting out stories, he has the people laughing, shouting, and crying.

Whatever the preacher says, he always emphasizes the power of God. He will mention sin, but there is no need to hammer away at it. His people are already depressed with all that has gone wrong in their lives. They are aware of their sickness of body, heart, and soul; and they have a sense that they are out of harmony with others, with nature, and with God.

God really works in our culture, but you would have to understand my people and see their special need before you could see how God’s grace is present for us. The fear or witchcraft, owls, and dead things are big issues for us.

Even after we become Christians we have to deal with some of these fears, but Navajo preachers understand us. They tell us, “God is good. He cares for you and loves you. He will always be with you and never leave you. When we feel hopeless the preacher tells us, “call out to God and he will save you!” We have trusted God and he has always been faithful to lift us again. On this day we know that God is good to us!

 

You can find out more about the Four Corners Native American Ministry HERE

Archive: Four Corners for Jesus

Archive: Playing Skillfully

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: Four Corners for Jesus

Archive: Unravelling Modern Theology

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.

Archive: Four Corners for Jesus

Archive: Good News Convo Hears From UM Evangelism Professors

Archive: Good News Convo Hears From UM Evangelism Professors

by Jean Caffey Lyles

An increasing number of evangelism professors at UM seminaries is evidence that the work of concerned evangelicals is bearing fruit in the denomination. That point was made during the mid-July Good News Convocation at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina. Speaking to some 550 registrants were two of the professors from UM-related seminaries not noted for their evangelical leanings.

Featured were the Rev. Seth Asare, a native of Ghana, West Africa, who serves as E. Stanley Jones professor of evangelism at Boston University School of Theology, and the Rev. Billy Abraham, a native of Ireland and McCreless professor of evangelism and professor of philosophy at Southern Methodist University’s Perkins School of Theology in Dallas.

Good News officials say they cannot claim credit for the growing number of endowed chairs of evangelism at church-related seminaries, but they praised the work of the Foundation for Evangelism as largely responsible for the trend.

The foundation, an affiliate of the UM Board of Discipleship, has endowed evangelism professorships at Boston University, Wesley Seminary in Washington and Garrett-Evangelical Seminary in Evanston, Illinois—all UM-related schools. It will begin funding evangelism chairs at two more UM seminaries (St. Paul’s and Duke) soon.

Asare criticized any “Christian who does not share the good news, one who says religion is ‘private.’ We need people … to speak the word of Jesus Christ courageously.”

Asare cautioned listeners against assuming that “because we are saved by grace we can do whatever we want.” Growth in Christian maturity requires responsibility along with “righteousness in Christ,” he said.

Abraham, who spoke on church renewal, emphasized the need to nurture new converts, a task he deemed “impossible without the help of the Holy Spirit. You’ll have a double hernia and a heart attack if you try it.”

New Christians, Abraham said, do not have “half a chance of surviving in the world” without basic grounding and initiation in the church. “People need help in articulating how God is at work in their lives.”

Abraham, who worked with an annual conference in writing a handbook of evangelism, remarked on how “a lot of people at first didn’t want to use the ‘E-word.’” So far, 50 churches have used the handbook, which focuses on teaching fundamental beliefs, issues of faith, and spiritual disciplines both to “seekers” and church members.

“Renewal is hard work,” Abraham said. “You can’t just put it in the microwave.” Churches can’t afford to leave new Christians “to be initiated by Oprah Winfrey, to be taught the basics of the faith by Shirley MacLaine,” he said.

Abraham and the Rev. Dr. David Brazelton, former head of the Evangelism Section of the Board of Discipleship, both taught continuing education seminars drawing more than 40 participants during the week.

Another major speaker, Jay Kesler, former Youth for Christ leader and now president of Taylor University, Upland, Indiana, also addressed the convocation theme, “Nurturing the Family of God.”

Kesler said rapid social change—including growing divorce rates, a rise in child abuse, and a high percentage of births out of wedlock—means that “we’re getting used to things we’ve got no business getting used to.”

The family is the most consistent illustration used in the Bible, Kesler said, and many biblical nuances cannot be understood without an understanding of the traditional family.

Kesler recalled camping experiences with groups of troubled youngsters during his years with Youth for Christ. “We’d say, ‘God loves you; God is your heavenly Father,’ and they’d look [blank-faced] like they were painted on the chairs.”

“We finally figured out that these biblical [images] were reversing our engines” with youth who knew “father” as a person who came home drunk, and slapped the family around.

Kesler suggested that the church should provide “surrogate grandparents, fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers” to guide and befriend young people who lack fathers or other family members, giving them a positive experience of family.

Evangelicals Must Monitor GBGM Site Committee

In his report to the Convocation, James V. Heidinger II, executive secretary of Good News, urged evangelical United Methodists to keep a sharp eye on the task force seeking a new headquarters city for the denomination’s General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM). He reminded the group of the 1992 General Conference mandate to find a city for GBGM other than New York.

“I’m afraid the site-selection task force may decide that New York is a wonderful place after all,” Heidinger said. Critics of GBGM have contended that the Global Ministries agency would save money, attract employees with more moderate views, and increase its accountability if it were located in a city closer to United Methodist population centers.

Heidinger also urged Good News supporters to persevere in fighting “the insidious, continued push for acceptance of the practice of homosexuality.” The church must confront annual conferences that are ignoring a ban on promoting gay and lesbian life styles, he said.

Heidinger reported that an appeal is on its way to the Judicial Council, the church’s supreme court, to interpret the word “status” in a constitutional amendment voted on by annual conferences this year. While proposers said the intent was to add “marital status” to the list of circumstances that may not be used to bar people from church membership, Heidinger noted that the term could be construed to mean “homosexual orientation.”

The convocation included a half-dozen plenary speakers, inspirational preaching and singing, sacred music concerts, Bible study, practical workshops, and informal fellowship.

Of the 550 participants, the largest representations came from Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina and Indiana. Next year’s convocation will be held in Dallas, Texas.

Adapted from United Methodist News Service

Archive: Four Corners for Jesus

Archive: Contempt of Court

Archive: Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court’s Lawless Law Invites Lawlessness

By Richard John Neuhaus

The following is excerpted from an address delivered in late June to the National Right to Life convention in Milwaukee.

I want to spend some time revisiting the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, not only because it supports and expands the lethal logic of Roe v. Wade but because it so clearly exemplifies the nature of the crisis that is upon us. I am struck by the fact that, since Casey, some very careful and thoughtful people are raising questions about the moral legitimacy of our constitutional order. Perhaps that is not surprising, for the five justices in the majority claim that their decision must be followed if the legitimacy of the court, and of law itself, is to be maintained. Similarly, the four justices dissenting recognize the ominous character the question engages, comparing the decision with the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 that tried to write human slavery into the Constitution.

The questions raised by Casey are every bit as solemn as those pondered by Lincoln at Gettysburg. If the interpretation of the present court majority finally prevails, it may well be that thoughtful citizens will conclude that this constitutional order is an illegitimate regime, and that they are absolved from obedience to its laws. Perhaps this grand political experiment—what the Founders called a novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages—has turned out to be a failed experiment. Experiments do fail, empires do collapse, republics do decay, and democracies, too, can bring about their own ruin.

Nonetheless, I believe that we—as individuals and as a movement—should do our best to resist the conclusion that it is all over with the American experiment. Our purpose is to recall America to its constituting truths. We must persist in believing, so long as it is believable, that the lethal logic of Roe v. Wade is an aberration; that it is neither a true account of the Constitution nor of the people that we have become. And yet, as hopeful as we must be, we cannot deny the solemnity of the questions that have been raised.

The Casey decision is a decision which comes down on one side of the culture wars in America. More than for politics, for law, for economics—the great battle is for the culture. What do we mean by the culture?

For some time now we have been engaged in a war over the culture, which is nothing less than a war over what kind of nation, what kind of people, we will be. It is not a war of our choosing. The war was declared—it is daily and exultantly redeclared—by the proponents of myriad revolutions who presume to know better than we how we ought to live; and they do not hesitate to employ the power of the state to enforce conformity to their designs. For some time now we have been two nations: one concentrating on rights and laws, the other on rights and wrongs; one radically individualistic and dedicated to the actualized self, the other communal and invoking the common good; one viewing law as the instrument of the will to power and license, the other affirming an objective moral order by which we are obliged; one given to private satisfaction, the other to familial responsibility; one typically secular, the other typically religious; one elitist, the other respectful of the common sense of common people.

Of course that description is drawn with broad strokes, but it roughly describes the lines of the culture war in which we are engaged. The reality is evident enough to anyone who attends to the increasingly ugly rancor that dominates and debases our public life. And, of course, for many Americans the lines of the culture war run through their own hearts. As the Casey decision makes evident, the lines also run through the Supreme Court. But the five justices who made up the Casey majority leave no doubt about where they stand. The decision is a clear declaration of belligerency on one side of the culture wars.

The decision endorses the radically individualistic notion of the self-constituted self. The abortion liberty is necessary, we are told, in order “to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” I am told that among constitutional lawyers this is called “the mystery passage” of the decision. The justices wax theological about the mystery of human life in total disregard of precisely that: the mystery of human life. For the court, the mystery of human life is to be defined by the individual; for most of us, the mystery of human life is discovered as a gift. For the court, authentic personhood requires freedom from any encumbering community; for most of us, to be a person is to be a person in community.

When I said that the court waxed theological, I did not mean it simply as a figure of speech. Although the three authors of the majority opinion—Kennedy, O’Connor, and Souter—seem to be blithely unaware of it, they are proposing the establishment of what might be called a state religion. Religion is commonly defined as that activity which deals with “ultimate concerns.” It is hard to get more ultimate than the “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In most religions—Judaism and Christianity, for instance—the self is understood in relationship to other realities—in relationship to community, normative truth, and even to revelation. The court, however, recognizes no other reality than the isolated individual defining his or her reality.

Permit me to be entirely candid: The Supreme Court’s depiction of the self, of community, and of what is meant by ultimate meaning is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and every tradition that espouses normative truth. Not incidentally, it is also incompatible with the actual experience of almost everybody on earth. In effect, although not in name, the Supreme Court is proposing a religion. For those of us who already have a religion, it is obviously a false religion. As distressing as this state of affairs may be, we should not be entirely surprised by it.

It has been said that if you can justify abortion, you can justify anything. There is a deep truth in that. If you set out to justify the attack on something so primordial, so given, so foundational to human community as a mother’s love and responsibility for her child; you have to come up with a new explanation of fundamental reality, a new worldview, and finally a new religion. The Supreme Court of the United States has come up with the Religion of the Sovereign Self.

To be sure, it is not really a new religion. It is the belief to which human beings have been prone since the disastrous afternoon in the garden, when humanity began its long and bloody march through history singing, “I did it my way.” The creed of the autonomous self was promulgated by the radical secularists of the Enlightenment, and is still preached by their disciples today. Against that creed, the founders of this nation declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In one of the most stunning passages of a stunning decision, an imperial court argues that, since it has chosen sides in the culture wars, the American people are obliged to submit to its decision. Listen to the court: “Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe … its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”

Let it be clear beyond doubt that we, together with millions of other Americans, do not accept the so-called mandate of this court. Neither do the four dissenting justices accept it. They call it an “Orwellian” decision and invite a comparison with Nazism in which our court, as Fuhrer, demands the obedience of the Volk. The court says that citizens will be “tested by following” its decision. Suddenly it is not the court, but the American people who are on trial. Perhaps it is even contempt of court to hold this decision in the contempt that it deserves. If that is the case, let the record show that we are in contempt of court.

We as a country have been this way before. Remember that at the time of Dred Scott, all three branches of government were in the hands of the pro-slavery forces. (And it is perhaps encouraging to remember that James Buchanan was a one-term president.) Before and after he became president, Lincoln strove for the overturn of Dred Scott. He failed, and war came. There will not be a civil war like the last one, but the destructive effects of alienation and anger are already evident in our society as a result of law that is divorced from constitutional text, moral argument, and democratic process. The ever fragile bonds of civility are unravelling. Lawless law invites lawlessness.

The four justices dissenting from Casey are not alarmists, but they are raising an alarm. Those who refuse to listen bear responsibility for the consequences. The justices wrote: “Against [this decision] are the twin facts that the American people are not fools.” It is in large part up to those of us who are assembled here to make sure that the American people will not forever, will not for long, be denied democracy or treated like fools.

Richard John Neuhaus is the editor-in-chief of First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life (156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400, New York, NY 10010), and the author of several books including The Naked Public Square and Freedom for Ministry.

Archive: Four Corners for Jesus

Archive: The Heart of Evangelism

Archive: The Heart of Evangelism

By Edward L. Tullis

“I am bringing you good news of great joy for all people; to you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior” (Luke 2:10-11, NRSV).

We hear much today of the need for “renewal” or “revitalization” of the church. This discussion usually centers around the numerical decline and decreasing financial support for the mission of the church. It is not a concern for United Methodists alone, but for nearly all of the so-called mainline churches.

Perhaps the most serious problem we face is that we deal largely with symptoms, and do not get to the profound spiritual crisis that confronts us as a church. As we seek to understand what the renewal of the church really means, we become increasingly polarized in our views.

Several years ago when the General Conference decided that evangelism should be one of the missional priorities of our church, I was serving as the president of the Division of Evangelism, Worship and Stewardship of the General Board of Discipleship. Harry Denman, life-long evangelism leader in United Methodism, sent me a telegram. It simply said: “Ed, don’t let the church spend a quadrennium defining evangelism.” I was not sure what he meant, but I soon found out. United Methodism has no consensus on what evangelism is, or what renewal really means.

Spiritual renewal will not come to United Methodism if we simply rearrange the furniture in the church. We will not be renewed by the friendly fellowship of a pale spiritual community which lacks the life-sustaining energy of the Holy Spirit. Our renewal will not even come from the advocates of “church growth.” Church membership growth is a legitimate function and must be a continuing concern; however, we cannot simply seek to find those who are as much like we are as possible, recruit them for membership, and expect the church to be changed.

At the expense of being misunderstood, I further contend that an agenda of benevolent activity will not in itself renew the church. It is critical that we feed the hungry, but while continuing to do that, a vital church must ask why these people are hungry. It can be dangerous to begin probing into the reasons we have so much hunger in an otherwise prosperous community, but such a quest is a part of evangelism. And evangelism is at the heart of a vital church.

Defining evangelism is not simple, but I would describe it as the faithful proclamation in word and deed of the saving power of God in Christ Jesus. It is God calling us to wholeness, then exhorting us to make known the good news of Jesus Christ to those inside, outside, and beyond the church. It is allowing this evangel (or truth) to shape the message and lifestyle of the church, its mission, and its very being.

I am aware of the inadequacy of such a definition, but it is one that arises out of 35 years as a local pastor, 12 years as a General Superintendent, followed by 8 years of again being an active part of a local church.

Evangelism is superbly illustrated in our text: “I am bringing you good news of great joy for all people; to you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior.”

Good News of Great Joy

In his Yale Lectures, Bishop Gerald Kennedy tells about an inquiry made of a Methodist bishop regarding a preacher in his area. “He is supernaturally dull,” said the bishop. ”No man could be as dull as he is without divine aid.”

How can this be, when the very nature of the gospel message calls for it to be proclaimed with a sense of excitement? The song of the angel at the first Christmas was not a dull, monotonous droning of a trivial word. It was headline stuff, blaring forth good news about one who offered a way that brought answers, and brought us in touch with the reality of God.

Much of the ineffectiveness of the church today lies in the fact that we dish out good advice, but do not proclaim good news.

The pastor during my high school days, George Traynor, was not a well educated man. Even a high school boy could point out numerous mistakes in his grammatical construction, but he impressed us as being one who had “good news” for us. At that young age I said to myself, “If Christ can do this for Brother George, he can do it for me.” And he did!

Newscope carried the word recently of the death of Walter Towner. That name probably meant little to most who read it, but for my generation, even the mention of that name had brought joy and excitement. In a dreary time of a continuing depression during the 1930s, Walter Towner influenced a dynamic youth movement in Methodism that produced two generations of strong leadership for our church. His sharp mind, his flashing smile, his vibrant personality called our youth to put “Christ above all.”

When dark days loomed around us, Christ spoke through Walter Towner with a commanding graciousness that changed the direction of life for many. That spirit never left him. During my days as resident bishop in Nashville he was on the Scarritt campus. Then well into his eighties, he was serving as curator of a museum. The great good news still so dominated his life that even students of that generation gravitated to him.

The gospel means good news. It is not a recitation of laws. It is not an announcement of a burden to be borne. It is the good news of a lifting of every encumbrance of life.

We are bearers of good tidings of great joy. This world hungers for good news. Let’s not go door-to-door peddling home remedies. Let’s stand on the street corners and in the pulpits of our daily relationships proclaiming God’s love illuminated in Jesus Christ—the real remedy for the grave illness of our time.

More Than Shouting Hallelujah

The gospel is a word of salvation centered in Jesus Christ, God’s Savior of—and for—the world. “To you is born a Savior.”

Recently I have been reading the sermons and speeches in the New Testament, giving special attention to the book of Acts and the Epistles. It is evident that one person dominates the life of the New Testament Church. The theme is one—”Jesus Christ is Lord.” It is clear that Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God, and that Jesus’ vicarious suffering and death on the cross is the means God used to redeem the world. The message is that faith in this crucified one, who is now our living Lord, is the means whereby we enter into God’s salvation.

The message is repeated over and over again:

“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

“If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come!” (II Corinthians 5:17).

“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ. . . And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation” (II Corinthians 5:19).

We receive one over-all impression as we read these sermons and speeches: We cannot be tentative or ambivalent about Jesus.

I recognize that such statements as these are unacceptable to many, even in our UM Church. There is a growing universalism in our denomination which wants to leave an open door to the possibility of finding God apart from Jesus. Jesus is not seen as the unique Son of God, but is considered one of several persons who has revealed God to the human race.

One hindrance to developing a vital church is our mixed signals about what is essential in the Christian faith. The one absolutely essential doctrine which cannot be compromised is that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, and that we are justified before God through faith in him. This seems to me to be the main point of the Bible. To deny this role of Jesus, for me, takes the urgency out of our message and the edge off evangelism.

We have lost our power and effectiveness. But a return to certainty about Christ will give us a new sense of being a vital part of the family of God through Christ. We will say with Paul: “We are Christ’s ambassadors as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God” (II Corinthians 5:20).

We cannot afford to be indecisive about Jesus. It is through him that we gain our understanding of God. It may seem harsh and disconcerting making such statements in a pluralistic society. Is it not enough to declare “God is Love”? Without Jesus that word is a wishful thought, for it is through Jesus that we understand love as the redeeming purpose of God.

Jesus Christ is the indispensable disclosure of God. That seems to me to be the gospel, and we must declare this truth with certainity.

Christ is For All

Earliest Christianity was a genuinely Christo-centered faith. And the study of this faith makes it clear to me that God’s intention, wrought through Jesus Christ, was to extend salvation to humanity on a universal scale. The angelic message was that this good news of great joy was “for all people.”

It is at this point that outreach becomes mandatory to the community of faith. It is important that we communicate the authenticity of the gathered body. It is important that we teach God’s call to his church to be pure. But many of our pastors see themselves as chaplains to a membership of perhaps 350 people; they do not see themselves as a leader of 350 witnesses called to move out into the community in transforming ways. If I understand the New Testament, we are called as an authentic church to take seriously the making of disciples, in other words, outreach.

We often see the evangelistic outreach of the church as something someone else does—someone especially gifted for the task. Or we see it as the role of some other church down the street. It may be their ”thing,” not especially ours.

I am not so sure that many of us urgently feel that all people need to hear the message of Jesus Christ. We do not carry with us the same conviction expressed in I John 5:12: “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

If God is to renew the church, and only God can, then we must allow the power of God in us to be expressed in faithful discipleship; and a sine quo non of discipleship is outreach. Only those churches which make disciples are alive; all others die.

We must not neglect any potential believers in our communities. There are so many and they are so varied. May I stress just one group that has been called by some “the no-longer Christians.” As we go through the seemingly unending process of what we call “cleaning the membership rolls,” we mark off hosts of people who were once an active, committed, and vital part of the Christian community. These “no-longer” Christians are often those who are uninspired, disillusioned, bored, and convinced that the local church is no longer pertinent and vital. I believe this is a large group—one that is “not far from the kingdom.”

If the church can give even the faintest sound of being alive, develop concerned outreach, and proclaim the truth, we may yet find our way back to the koinonia that once nourished and sustained us. This is a critical issue. Vital mission comes from a vital church that is being renewed in its inner life.  Our witness to the world, if it is to be effective, must spring from fervor within our own church.

A vibrant congregation of faithful disciples will be a seeking, finding, sharing, and growing fellowship. This is actually happening in some of our churches, and it can yet be a part of the life of your local fellowship.

The final word of the good news is resurrection. Resurrection for Jesus did not mean an escape from the earth and all its problems to another more pleasant realm. For him it was a victory that meant a return to power, in and through his church. Such resurrection power can yet give life to the work and witness of God’s church.

The testimony of the New Testament is that things went right when the disciples stayed in the presence of Jesus. The difficulties began when they wandered off and left his influence.

My prayer is that each of us will stay in the presence of our Lord until his resurrection power renews us, guiding us to once again become a Resurrection Society—an Easter People.

Edward L Tullis is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church. As bishop, he served in the Columbia, South Carolina and the Nashville, Tennessee Areas. Reprinted by permission of Forward: An Evangelism Journal for the United Methodist Church, published by the Foundation for Evangelism, 366 Lakeshore Drive, P.O. Box 985, Lake Junaluska, NC 28745-0985.