by Steve | May 22, 2013 | Features, Top 10
By Rob Renfroe
The Apostle John introduces us to the beautiful life of Jesus with words that are at the same time simple and profound: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Later in chapter one, he writes: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Not one instead of the other; not one more than the other; but both together. That’s what we see in the beautiful life of Jesus and that’s what he expects to see in us.
Our United Methodist Church has always excelled at grace. “Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors.” That’s our motto and it’s all about grace. And that’s a good thing—unless we forget that just as much as they need grace, people also need truth. That’s what the life and the ministry and the words of Jesus tell us. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”
If we fail to give people both grace and truth, we will fail to be like Jesus, and we will fail to be the church.
Jesus said that we need the truth to be “set free” of the lies and the misconceptions and the sins that entangle us. When I look back on my life, I am grateful for the people who graciously showed me grace and acceptance. But I am just as grateful for the persons who had the courage to speak truth into my life when it was not easy for them to speak it or pleasant for me to hear it.
And in the name of grace, the church must never fail to proclaim the truth that people need to hear—even when it’s easier not to speak it. Why? Because Jesus said it’s the truth that sets us free to experience abundant life in this world and eternal life in the world to come.
There are ways of truth-telling that do not set people free, bring life, or allow for the Spirit’s blessing. We have all seen harmful examples. That kind of truth-telling is not what we see in Jesus. And it’s not what people should see in us.
Still, we need the grace of truth. We need the truth about our sin and our desperate condition without Christ. And we need the truth that Jesus is the Savior and that his blood can make us whole.
In other words, people need what Wesley would call scriptural Christianity. Proclaim it and live it, and the church will prosper. Change it, make it acceptable to the spirit of the age, take away the “offense” of the gospel that all have sinned and that Jesus Christ is the name by which we must be saved, and the church will lose its power and fail to thrive.
For over a century now, this is what liberal theology has been doing to The United Methodist Church—in the name of grace, removing the “offense of the gospel”—and the results have been disastrous.
By liberal, I don’t mean people who see things a little differently than I do. I don’t mean people who have a slightly different understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.
I’m referring to views that are unorthodox on matters that John Wesley would say “strike at the root”: The Trinity, the uniqueness of Christ, the physical resurrection, salvation by grace alone, the need for and the possibility of sanctifying grace transforming our lives, and the continuing validity of the witness of the Scriptures for matters of faith and practice.
When radical liberal theology comes to dominate a denomination or a geographical region within a denomination, it is destructive. How could it not be?
Failure to reproduce
What makes us effective as the church of Jesus Christ is not how clever we are, or how sincere we are, or even how hard we work. What makes us effective is the power and the anointing of God. And how can God grant his power or his anointing to those who proclaim a gospel “which is no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:7)?
I know correlation does not imply causation, but I’m not naïve either. There is no doubt that as United Methodism drifted further from orthodoxy, we lost the power to have an impact upon our culture and to make disciples for Jesus Christ. Nearly half of our United Methodist churches in any given year do not receive a single member by profession of faith. Since our merger in 1968 we have lost the numerical equivalent of the entire Evangelical United Brethren Church.
In 38 of the 50 United States, United Methodism has seen a decline in membership during the past 40 years. During this time the country’s population has increased by 100 million. That’s a 56 percent increase, but our membership has suffered a 21 percent decrease.
In 1940, the average Methodist was 30 years old. Today, the average member is almost 60 years old. Since 1985, the number of elders under the age of 35 has dropped from 3,219 to less than 1,000. Today, less than seven percent of our elders are under 35.
Is it any wonder that we cannot attract young people to the ministry? What young person wants to spend his or her life trying to save a church on life support when they know that the church is supposed to save the world?
The premise of Children of Men, P.D. James’s novel that was adapted into a film by the same name, was that the human race has lost the power to reproduce itself. As the human race grew older and watched itself perish, people became cynical and hopeless—and they cherished their memories of how things had once been. We as a church are approaching that reality. We have lost the ability to reproduce ourselves at a healthy rate.
Our denominational DNA has become defective and we are not reproducing ourselves in the form of converts or young leaders who see something in The United Methodist Church that speaks to their passionate hearts and says, “Give up lucrative careers and exciting futures, and join us because we are about things that really matter. We are changing the world in ways that business and government and even education cannot.”
And the statistics clearly show that our decline in attendance, our inability to add new members, and our failure to cultivate young leaders is worst where the church is most liberal.
Divided and disturbed
“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America,” wrote Wesley. “But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power.”
While knowing full well there is such a thing as dead orthodoxy—being right in your beliefs but wrong in your spirit—it is still necessary to ask what will happen to the UM Church if we fail to keep the church orthodox and true to the grace God has given to us to impart to the world.
We could easily become a dying sect where the ministers still dress up and play church on Sundays, but where the Spirit of God is absent, and the power to transform lives, much less a society, is gone. The church—its health, its witness, its ability to make disciples: that’s part of what is at stake here.
There is one other element that is at stake if we fail to speak the truth in love: our own spiritual integrity. “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy,” as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said.
Contending for the apostolic faith within United Methodism these days is not for the faint of heart. We are stewards of this most magnificent treasure that we call Wesleyan orthodoxy. God gave us this gift of grace and you and I are its trustees. If we fail to fight for it, we have failed our trust.
Our response
Although there are many different ways to work for the renewal and reform of the UM Church, we all must do our part. If you believe in the faith once and for all delivered to the saints and believe it is the hope of the world, you must be willing to stand up and fight for it.
We need to ask what will make the United Methodist family whole, and what we can do.
First, we must be connected and engaged. When the opportunity arises within our denomination, listen to opposing opinions with sincerity and with a desire to learn. Dialogue with openness and honesty. But be sure to listen for the issues beneath the issues and dialogue about the matters that matter—the deeper issues that truly divide us.
For example, there is a widely-held misconception that homosexuality is the issue that divides our denomination. If it were, that would be enough of a challenge. However, it is only the presenting issue. As I pointed out in the last issue of Good News, the deeper issues deal with the nature of moral truth, the authority of the Scriptures, the revelatory work of the Holy Spirit, and the uniqueness of Christ. These are not small matters that can be ignored or denied for the sake of unity. They must be addressed or true unity will be impossible.
In the midst of dialogue, some United Methodists have been told that they take the Bible too seriously to be considered Wesleyan. How could this be? Wesley said he was “a man of one book.” After all, it was Wesley who said “the people called Methodists…have but one point in view: to be altogether Christians, scriptural, rational Christians, for which we well know, not only the world, but the almost Christians, will never forgive us.”
Of course, people can disagree with us and not be “almost” Christians or nonchristians. But Wesley was attacked by those outside of the church and inside the church when he promoted and defended scriptural Christianity. He came to expect it. And so should we.
In the midst of denominational dialogue sessions, some United Methodists have been told that their position was mean-spirited. Let me be very clear about this. As Christians, we do not believe in speaking ill of anyone because of ethnicity or gender or sexual practice. We do not believe that any one sin is worse than any other. We stand firm on the belief that all persons are of sacred worth because each one is created in the image of God and Christ died for all.
In the midst of dialogue, some United Methodists have been told their perspective was radical, right-wing, or part of the fringe. But since when is it right-wing to believe that the Bible is God’s Word? When was it declared radical to affirm the United Methodist Book of Discipline? When did it become extreme to want our covenant to be honored and upheld? When did fidelity and faithfulness to the Scriptures become anything but mainstream Wesleyan?
Second, pray. This is a wonderful moment in the United Methodist Church.
There is a new breeze of the Holy Spirit blowing. There are new bishops who display moral courage and are open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Pray that they will continue to change what it means to be a bishop in the United Methodist Church, and that being a bishop in the United Methodist Church will not change them.
Pray for the members of the Judicial Council, that they will continue to interpret the Discipline fairly.
Pray for faithful souls to be encouraged. Pray that God will not let them walk away or give up.
Pray that those who lead renewal and reform movements will be worthy of those who look to us for leadership.
Most importantly, pray that God will revive and unite the Body of Christ.
Third, we must proclaim the truth. In what you say, in what you do, and in how you say and do it, proclaim the truth. There is power in the grace of the truth. There is power to convert the lost. And there is power to change the minds of those who deny the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the uniqueness of Christ. So proclaim the truth humbly but confidently, winsomely but boldly.
In his book Jesus Rediscovered, Malcolm Muggeridge states that with every great book even while you are learning something new, your heart is telling you that you already knew this to be true.
There are people dying to learn that God is who they always suspected he was—a God of love and acceptance and a God of power and transformation. Tell them the truth. Show them the truth. Be not ashamed, “it is the power of God unto salvation.”
Fourth, we must be part of the change. I know politics (secular and ecclesiastical) can be a dirty business, but it shouldn’t be, and it doesn’t have to be. Politics can be just the process by which people organize themselves and agree upon their priorities. General Conferences are critically important in determining the direction of our denomination. And we elect a Judicial Council that will interpret and enforce what we have agreed upon. We must get involved, learn how the system works, and use it to make a difference for the cause of the gospel.
Finally, we must be willing to pay a price. During the era of apartheid, one noted South African clergyman wrote that the final judgment will be different than we imagine. He wrote that when we stand before God, he will ask us, “Where are your scars?” And we will look at ourselves and then back at God, and we will tell him, “We have no scars.” And God will ask us, “Was there nothing worth fighting for?”
It’s not our place to scar others. But we must be willing to be scarred.
We’re not concerned with trivialities, but about the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. It is our time to be faithful and, if necessary, to pay a price. Our Lord Jesus could not fulfill his mission without being scarred. In fact, after his resurrection, the only part of himself he insisted that others view were his scars.
When Methodism began in the New World, it began with heroes who were willing to be scarred. Of the first 700 Methodists to die in the colonies and then in the newly formed United States—facing pestilence and disease, the elements, the rigors of the open road, and physical attacks—nearly one-half of them died before the age of 30 and nearly two-thirds died before they had served 12 years.
Every year they would gather at Annual Conference and sing the words we take for granted, “And are we yet alive and see each other’s face….” And they would look around the room to see who was yet alive and who that year had given their lives in the service of God. They were heroes. And they expected to pay a price and to be wounded and scarred in their service to Christ.
In the last century as the church drifted further from its biblical core and Wesleyan heritage, there were those such as Chuck Keyser, David Jessup, Ed Robb, Diane Knippers, and Bill Hinson who joined the ranks of departed heroes, faithful in getting the ship back on course. And now it’s our turn.
Although the Holy Spirit does not need us to do his work, for some reason God has chosen to work through people like us—if only we are willing. And if you are faithful and if you are scarred, be grateful and count it your greatest privilege. This is how the work of grace and truth has always been served and we can expect nothing else in our time.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News.
by Steve | May 22, 2013 | Features, Top 10
Archive: Methodism’s Silent Minority
By Charles W. Keysor, Founding editor of Good News
Within The Methodist Church in the United States is a silent minority group. It is not represented in the higher councils of the church. Its members seem to have little influence in Nashville, Evanston, or on Riverside Drive. Its concepts are often abhorrent to Methodist officialdom at annual conference and national levels.
I speak of those Methodists who are variously called “evangelicals” or “conservatives” or “fundamentalists.” A more accurate description is “orthodox,” for these brethren hold a traditional understanding of the Christian faith.
Orthodox Methodists come in theologically assorted shapes, sizes, and colors. But, unfortunately, the richness and subtlety of orthodox thought are often overlooked and/or misunderstood. There lurks in many a Methodist mind a deep intolerance toward the silent minority who are orthodox. This is something of a paradox, because this unbrotherly spirit abounds at a time when Methodism is talking much about ecumenicity—which means openness toward those whose beliefs and traditions may differ.
Yet it seems almost an intellectual reflex action to regard the orthodox brother as one who is ipso facto, narrow-minded, naive, contentious, and potentially schismatic.
This familiar stereotype contains only a shadow of truth. Orthodoxy is more complex and more profound than its many critics seem to realize. Intellectual honesty—let alone Christian charity—demands more objectivity than the church now accords to its silent minority.
Webster’s Dictionary tells us that orthodox means “conforming to the Christian faith as formulated in the church creeds and confessions.” These are Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist, which means that orthodoxy is the ultimate in ecumenicity. But what is orthodoxy?
Actually, there is no mystique. We who are orthodox believe that the Christian faith is comprehensively declared in Holy Scripture and is succinctly summarized in the Apostle’s Creed. Here, we feel, is faith’s essence, doctrinally speaking.
Orthodoxy in America has developed a theological epicenter known as the “five fundamentals.” These are by no means the whole of orthodox doctrine, as many people mistakenly suppose. Instead, these five points constitute a common ground for all who are truly orthodox. But beyond this common ground lies an enormous area of Christian truth where orthodox Christians disagree vigorously.
Despite the broadness of orthodoxy’s doctrinal scope, one must examine the five fundamentals in order to understand orthodoxy’s Point of view.
1. Inspiration of Scripture. Orthodoxy believes with a passion that the whole Bible is God’s eternal, unfailing truth. Some portions of this truth are more important than others (Isaiah 5 towers above Esther, for example), but everything in the Scriptures has sacred significance. A thing is not true because it happens to be included in the Bible; we believe it is in the Bible because the thing itself is true. Orthodoxy believes that God has expressed scriptural truth through human personality, by the agency of God’s Holy Spirit. Perverted orthodoxy limits inspiration to the King James Version, as though God had somehow lowered it from heaven on a string back in 1611. Another unfortunate mutation of orthodox doctrine is the idea of mechanic dictation: that human beings were nothing more than stenographers, recording mechanically every jot and tittle that was dictated from above.
True orthodoxy shuns these mistaken views of inspiration. Instead, historic orthodoxy regards inspiration of Scripture as a dynamic, continuing activity of the Holy Spirit:
First—God’s Spirit inspired the original authors, causing them to perceive and record God’s truth in their own God-given literary styles. (Hence the difference between James and Ezekiel.)
Second—Acting through translators, redactors, and canonizing bodies, the Spirit has preserved Scripture from significant effort during the long and torturous process of transmission, right down to the present moment.
Third—The Spirit enables believers to get God’s intended meaning from Scripture. To properly understand Scripture without the Spirit’s illuminating inspiration is no more possible than for an airplane to fly without wings and engine! This is why pure orthodoxy considers invalid any hermeneutic which disregards or minimizes the Spirit’s threefold work of dynamic inspiration.
2. The virgin birth of Christ. We believe that our Lord was, literally, “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.” This must be true, or it would not have been written and transmitted in Holy Scripture. Naive? If so, we who are orthodox accept the label—along with such naive men of faith as the authors of Matthew and Luke, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and our own John Wesley.
We do not believe in Jesus because of the unusual circumstances surrounding his entry into the world via Incarnation. On the contrary, our experience of Christ’s lordship teaches us empirically what Scripture tells—that the entire realm of nature is subject to His sovereign authority. Therefore, Christ is not subject to known limitations of “natural law.” Order and unity and coherence for the entire cosmos center in Christ. Believing this about him, we logically believe that our Lord could be virgin born—just as the Bible reports.
3. The substitutionary Atonement of Christ. What happened on Calvary is a mystery which can never be adequately explained by theories and/or analogies. Scripture seems to justify several explanations of the Atonement. In trying to fathom this mystery of mysteries, the theologian is something like an engineer trying to locate the main channel of the Mississippi River at flood stage. The river is two miles wide, but careful examination reveals what undoubtedly is the main channel of the river.
Orthodoxy believes that the main channel of Atonement truth lies in the area of substitution: that somehow Christ on the cross paid the price of transgression which a righteous and holy God properly requires. We do recognize certain validity in “moral influence” and other such theories. But orthodoxy believes it is more correct to say that our Lord, “for a world of lost sinners was slain.”
4. The physical Resurrection of Christ. We think that Christianity is a hoax unless Christ rose bodily from the grave—as the Scriptures report. We do not believe that the Bible would make such a central emphasis on His being raised from death bodily if this were not true. Frankly, we are tired of ingenious theories which charge the Resurrection up to the wishful thinking of primitive Christians. More convincing to us is the Spirit of our risen Lord, bearing witness with our spirits that “He lives!”
5. The return of Christ. Orthodox Christians hold various views of the Parousia’s place in the order of last things. But all truly orthodox believers agree that Jesus Christ will return physically to “judge the (living) and the dead.” We do not regard the Great Assize passage (Matthew 25: 31-46) as parabolic teaching; instead, we believe it is a literal foretelling of the future judgment which Christ will execute when He comes again.
Perverted orthodoxy has made an illusory religion out of millennial speculation. This clearly ignores Jesus’ teaching that the time of His appearing is known only to the mind of God. Jesus did not intend for His disciples to dawdle with date-setting. We are not to waste time peering into the sky waiting for a homecoming Hero to solve the world’s problems!
Instead we are to let our Christian light shine in a dark world. Our calling is to be redeeming the time for the days are evil. This precludes two extremes: (1) setting dates for His return; (2) Pointing negatively to the fact that early Christian expectations have not been fulfilled according to man’s time scale. To both, orthodoxy says, “Be ready! But as you wait in confidence, be a Christ to your neighbor.”
Orthodoxy clings with joy to the “blessed hope” of Christ’s physical return. This expectation strengthens us for the living of these days. One of the most pronounced characteristics about authentic orthodoxy is its vibrant sense of eschatological expectancy. This is God’s gift to those, who cling to the “blessed hope” as we live in the eschatological twilight zone, between promise and fulfillment.
How many orthodox believers are there among the people called Methodist?
Probably there are quite a few. The evidence is elusive, but several clues bear examination. For one thing, more than 10,000 Methodist churches are using some Christian education materials based on orthodox theology. These materials do not come out of Nashville but from Elgin and Wheaton, Ill., and Glendale, Calif.
Theology is not the only reason why the wide-scale defection exists (price, service rendered by the publishers, and educational methodology are all significant factors). But theology cannot be dismissed by thoughtful Methodists who ponder the matter. The tenacity with which so many Methodists cling to non-Methodist literature strongly suggests the existence of an orthodox stratum down at Methodism’s grass roots.
Another clue was unearthed during preparations for our new Methodist Hymnal. Surveys of musical tastes showed a powerful desire for those “good old” gospel songs. Of course there are various reasons for this. One of the most important is that gospel music emphasizes strongly the five fundamentals, which the Gospel likewise emphasizes. One reason for the persistence of gospel music is the people’s persistent interest in the Gospel.
What is orthodoxy’s future within The Methodist Church? Persecution is not impossible, for just recently a high official in Nashville was heard to declare, “We are going to stamp out the last vestiges of fundamentalism from The Methodist Church!” Within the author’s lifetime, a Methodist bishop threatened to drive from his conference any man who affirmed from the pulpit Christ’s Second Coming.
More likely, however, is the objective prediction made by Dr. Paul Hessert, professor of historical theology at Garrett Theological Seminary. He foresees a continuing eclipse of orthodox influence within the seminary trained Methodist ministry. He also predicts that orthodoxy will continue among the laity—and, therefore, will remain strong among supply preachers.
As to the hierarchy of the church, Dr. Hessert believes that the present liberal influence will gradually give way to the newer theologies, which represent an evolution of old-fashioned liberalism. Neo-orthodoxy will have a lessening influence, be believes. The reason is that neo-orthodoxy is essentially a compromise position, and its adherents tend to slide away—mostly toward the newer liberalism.
Orthodoxy seems destined to remain as Methodism’s silent minority. Here lies the challenge: We who are orthodox must become the un-silent minority! Orthodoxy must shed its “poor cousin” inferiority complex and enter forthrightly into the current theological debate. We who are orthodox must boldly declare our understanding of Christian truth, as God has given these convictions to us. We must speak in love and with prophetic fearlessness, and must be prepared to suffer.
But regardless of the consequences, we must be heard in Nashville, in Evanston, and on Riverside Drive. Most of all, we must be heard in thousands of pulpits, for the people called Methodist will not cease to hunger for the good news of Jesus Christ, incarnate, crucified, risen, and coming again.
We must not speak as right-wing fanatics, intending to subvert the “establishment” and remake it in our own orthodox age. Instead, we must speak to our Christian brothers as Christian brothers, trusting that God will direct and prosper our witness to the truth as we see it in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The late Charles Keysor was the founding editor of Good News. Reprinted from Christian Advocate, July 14, 1966. Copyright (C) 1966 by The Methodist Publishing House.
by Steve | May 22, 2013 | Features, Top 10
By Rob Renfroe
Whenever a therapist listens to a hurting family, there are always presenting issues and the deeper issues. Fourteen-year-old Timmy is cutting class and piercing body parts, and sixteen-year-old Suzy is not coming home at night and when she does, there’s alcohol on her breath.
The parents say to the counselor, “Timmy’s the problem; fix him, and everything will be okay again.” Or, “Suzy’s drinking is tearing our family apart, help her to stop and we’ll be whole again.”
But the therapist knows those behaviors are only symptomatic—the presenting issues. The presenting issues must be separated from the deeper issues in order to help the family deal with them openly and honestly. Quite simply, the deeper issues cannot be ignored.
It’s the same in the hurting family that we love called The United Methodist Church. For example, there is a widely-held misconception that homosexuality is the issue that divides our denomination. If it were, that would be enough of a challenge. However, it is only the presenting issue.
I have been part of numerous dialogue sessions within the Texas Annual Conference in regard to the denomination’s stance on homosexuality. I have listened and I have been heard. During these dialogues, I heard the deeper issues beneath the presenting issue of homosexuality. They are the same issues I have heard at recent General Conferences. In reality, there are four issues dividing our church that cut to the very heart of what it means to be a church family. They deal with truth, Scripture, revelation, and Jesus Christ.
1. The Nature of Moral Truth.
Is moral truth determined by the unchanging character of God? Or is it determined by the ever-changing experiences of human beings? Does the character of God determine what is right and wrong? Or do we conduct surveys and decide that a particular behavior is to be celebrated if a certain percentage of persons in a given culture engage in it?
This is compounded when the people engaging in such conduct are good people, people who go to church and care about justice. Some of them may be people that we love, maybe even our brothers and sisters or our sons and daughters. Are those reasons enough for us to change our views of what’s right and wrong?
This is exactly what our African brothers and sisters were told on the floor of General Conference several years ago after one of their delegates spoke in favor of the denomination’s position on homosexuality as found in The Book of Discipline. An American delegate rose and dismissively stated: “Obviously homosexuality is more of a problem in some cultures than it is in others.” The implication, of course, was that the practice of homosexuality is not the same kind of problem for those of us who are more enlightened. And one day it won’t be a problem for the Africans when they have progressed and matured the way we in the West have.
Let me be clear. The historic faith of Christianity has always held that moral truth is determined by who God is and what he has done, not by who we as fallen human beings are or by what we do. And because we are fallen in our actions and in our thinking, we do not believe that we will discern moral truth using nothing more than our reason, experiences, and traditions. As the Scriptures say, “There is a way that seems right, but in the end it leads to death.” It is possible to believe sincerely that something is right and good; but, in reality, it leads us away from the God of life and truth. We believe God determines what is true. And for us to know that truth, it must be revealed.
2. The Authority of the Scriptures.
Do they speak truth to all people in all cultures at all times? Or were they wrong when they were written, culturally determined in their declarations, and hopelessly out of date for persons enlightened by the truth contained in the latest sociological surveys?
At General Conference in 1988 a United Methodist pastor from Iowa spoke in favor of changing the current language regarding homosexuality in the Discipline. In a moment of honesty, he explained why he felt comfortable with his position by stating, “We don’t go back to the Bible for the last word on anything.”
Though few are so open about their willingness to dismiss the authority of Scripture for faith and practice, this pastor is not alone.
In 1995, the Rev. Tom Griffith, a pastor of a Reconciling congregation, wrote an article, titled “Give a Cheer for our Evangelical Brothers and Sisters,” in the now-defunct Open Hands. “Now it is our turn to get honest. Although the creeds of our denomination pay lip service to the idea that scripture is ‘authoritative’ and ‘sufficient for faith and practice,’ many of us have moved far beyond that notion in our own theological thinking,” he wrote. “We are only deceiving ourselves—and lying to our evangelical brothers and sisters—when we deny the shift we have made….We have moved far beyond the idea that the Bible is exclusively normative and literally authoritative for our faith. To my thinking, that is good! What is bad is that we have tried to con ourselves and others by saying, ‘we haven’t changed our position.’”
Though I differ with him, I say: Hooray for Tom Griffith’s honesty and willingness to talk about the deep issues that must be resolved if unity is to be a possibility for our church.
In 2004, the Rev. J. Richard Peck wrote a particularly helpful and insightful article, titled “Church Should Examine the Reason for its Differences,” for the United Methodist News Service. He is a retired clergy member of the New York Annual Conference and a former editor of Circuit Rider and Newscope.
Peck correctly stated that before we can understand our differences on homosexuality, we must understand our differing attitudes toward Scripture. “Conservatives view Scripture as a single entity,” he wrote. “They believe every book in the Bible is the inspired Word of God. They quote Leviticus and the letters of Paul with equal certainty; they are likely to assert: ‘The Bible says….’”
Later in his article he states: “Nearly all conservatives say the Word of God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. No scientific claim and no change in social standards can alter the fact that there is no passage in Scripture that supports homosexual practice, and every mention of homosexuality within that holy book is negative.”
He then describes how liberals (his term) view the Scriptures: “Liberals, on the other hand, view the Bible as a library of books with different levels of inspiration and truth. A quote from Leviticus carries almost no weight with liberals. Liberals are not as quick to dismiss the letters of Paul. They well know that Paul wrote some of the most insightful and inspirational passages in all of Scripture. At the same time, they know that he was a product of his times.”
When I read statements like that I always wonder if liberals ever stop to think that maybe they believe what they believe because they are a product of their times—a time and a culture that is highly secularized and overly sexualized; a time where theology, as one of our bishops has said, goes little deeper than “God is nice and we should be, too.” In our contemporary culture, the highest virtue for liberals is tolerance, except when it comes to tolerating views that disagree with what their hearts tell them is right.
“Liberals place Paul’s teachings about homosexuality into the context of a time when lifelong committed homosexual relations were unknown,” continues Peck. “While liberals value the words of Jesus above all other teachings, even here they will distinguish between the early writings of Mark and the later and more theological writings of John. If there were teachings by Jesus in any of the Gospels about homosexuality, liberals would find these compelling and debate might be ended.”
“Debate might be ended”—if Jesus had said what they have determined Jesus would have and should have said. In other words, Jesus must be the Jesus they want him to be and his words must agree with their desires if he is to be valued as a source of truth. It reminds me a bit of the statement, “In the beginning God made man in his image, and ever since we have tried to return the favor.”
Amazing, isn’t it, that 21st-century liberal theologians look back 2,000 years and discover that a first century apocalyptic Jew named Jesus was actually a 21st-century liberal theologian who had the same views they possess.
Traditionalists and evangelicals know that there are parts of Scripture that are difficult to interpret. We do not claim infallibility in our understanding of the Bible. And we humbly and gladly admit that we need the counsel of the entire Body of Christ rightly to divide the Word of Truth. We need the witness of the historic Church and we need the insights of our contemporaries, those who agree with us and those who do not.
However, we do not believe that the Scriptures point to the Word of God. We do not believe that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. We believe they are the Word of God. We believe the Scriptures are more than the witness of godly men and women to God. We believe they are God’s witness to us.
That means if the Bible contains it, it’s not our job to correct it. If the Bible teaches it, it’s not our prerogative to twist it. And if the Bible states it clearly and consistently, we don’t need this month’s copy of Psychology Today or the latest Gallup Poll or some self-appointed pontificator of political properness to tell us why the Bible got it wrong and how enlightened folk, the new Gnostics, now got it right.
We choose to stand under the authority of the Bible, not over it. And we will not sacrifice truth for the sake of unity; because we know that if we do, we will end up with neither.
3. The Revelatory Work of the Holy Spirit.
Is it always in accordance with the Scriptures? Or can it amend and even contradict the Scriptures?
Let me quote again from Richard Peck’s article. “Liberals may agree with conservatives that God’s Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” he observes. “However, they believe the Word of God is contained in the words of the Old and New Testaments and one must use reason, tradition, and experience to find that Word within the words. Liberals also believe that a living Christ offers new insights into God’s Word.”
Peck’s article is well-written, seemingly well-intended, objective, and honest. However, I take exception with the last statement. It is a little unfair to state that liberals believe in the value of interpreting Scripture using reason, tradition, and experience without indicating that most conservatives do, as well.
But my real concern is with the statement that “liberals also believe that a living Christ offers new insights into God’s Word.” Everyone believes that. The most conservative Christians believe that it is the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit to illumine the Scriptures, reveal more of their meaning, and show us how to apply the eternal Word of God to the issues of our contemporary time and culture.
But liberals, at least the more radical liberals, go much further than that. They believe that the living Christ not only offers new insights into the Scriptures but that he also corrects, amends, and even contradicts the Scriptures. And it is the church’s right and responsibility to recognize and codify these new revelations.
As one retired minister in my annual conference said to me, “The church created the Scriptures so we can re-create them.”
This is where the battle will be fought in the coming years. Did the church create the Scriptures and therefore now has every right to recreate the Word of God? Evangelicals do not believe that the church created the Scriptures. We believe the church received the Scriptures. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, (and yes, it was a messy process) the church recognized what God gave to his people to be the canon, the measuring stick by which all claims of spiritual and moral truth are to be tested and judged. And we believe God is consistent. He is true to his nature and he is true to his Word. And we believe he got it right the first time.
We do not believe that when God revealed his Word in the Old Testament, he was in his spiritual infancy. Nor do we believe that when he revealed his Word in the New Testament, he was in his spiritual adolescence. And we most certainly do not believe that God—2000 years later, now that he’s all grown up and mature—has finally determined what he really believes and is ready to amend his former writings.
Yes, God does new things. Of course, the Holy Spirit has new insights for the people of God. But they will always be consistent with what he has revealed in the past.
4. Uniqueness of Christ.
Do we confess him as the only-begotten Son of God, the unique Savior of the world, and the supreme Lord of the universe? Or can he be particularized to our experiences, relativized for a Western culture, and trivialized into just one of many ways to God?
To confess “Jesus is Lord” is to affirm nothing less than the absolute uniqueness of our Christ in a world which is full of cosmic competitors.
In the South Central Jurisdiction, we interview Episcopal candidates. Candidates respond in writing to our questions, we review their responses, and then we have an hour of dialogue with each one. When one candidate was asked about the importance of witnessing, he responded that some of his students did not feel comfortable telling others about their faith. He stated they feel that to do so is “religious and cultural imperialism.”
He continued, “But I tell them that they can tell others about their faith; simply because a man says to his wife, ‘You are my sunshine, my only sunshine,’ it does not mean that other wives are not sunshine for their husbands.”
I looked around the room and some delegation members were nodding their heads. I raised my hand and asked, “Are you saying that in the same way Jesus brings light and truth into our lives, other religious leaders do the same for others?”
“Yes,” he answered. I pressed him, “So when I say that Jesus is the Savior of the world, really I’m saying that he is the Savior of my world?” Again the answer was affirmative. And then he said: “God is wholesale. Jesus is retail.”
Let me translate for you. God is Tommy Hilfiger. And you can get Tommy God at Jesus JCPenney’s or Buddha Bloomingdale’s or Mohammed Macy’s. It doesn’t matter where you get Tommy Hilfiger, it’s still Tommy. And it doesn’t matter where you get God, any retail outlet in the mall of universal truth will do—it’s still God.
The good news is that this candidate was not elected to the Episcopacy. The bad news is that he is a professor at one of our United Methodist seminaries, teaching men and women how to preach the gospel and save the lost.
Is Jesus just one of many—one of many guides, one of many lights, one of many teachers—to be considered as we determine the truth about God, the nature of reality, and morality?
When you talk about Jesus, you are talking about the one who suffered thirty-nine lashes, his back torn apart with a cat o’ nine tails studded with bone and glass and metal, and then nailed to a cross to die the most painful and shameful death the Roman Empire could devise.
And he did this so our sins could be forgiven and so our hearts could be changed. He did this so the curtain would be torn in two and we could walk into the presence of God, washed in his blood and appearing holy in the Father’s sight. When you talk about Jesus, you are talking about our Lord and our love and our life.
There is no treasure, no threat, no promise, nor power that can cause us to deny a single word that the Scriptures teach about who he is or what he has done for us. He is not one of many guides. He is not one of many voices. He is not one of many teachers. He is not my sunshine. He is the sunshine. He is the way. He is the truth. He is the life. He is the one who reconciles a sinful world and my sinful soul to God. Jesus Christ is not one of many. He is the one and only.
Not Small Matters
The nature of moral truth, the authority of the Scriptures, the revelatory work of the Holy Spirit, and the uniqueness of Christ are the deeper issues—the real issues that divide and disturb the United Methodist family. These are not small matters that can be ignored or denied for the sake of unity. They must be addressed or true unity will be impossible.
We will not be made whole by singing “Blessed Be the Tie that Binds” every four years on the last day of General Conference. I wish that would work, but it won’t.
We won’t be made whole by denying our differences with nearly unanimous votes at General Conference that proclaim our unity of mission when sizable segments of the church are committed to breaking the covenant that holds us together. Such votes, like a couple of aspirin, may make us feel better for the moment, but they do not bring long-term health and wholeness.
We won’t be made whole by people misquoting and misusing Wesley’s sermon on the “Catholic Spirit” to buttress their belief that beliefs don’t matter.
We will not be made whole by institutional responses by company men and women, regardless if they are called bishop, district superintendent, or pastor, because what we are facing is more than an institutional problem.
Furthermore, we won’t be made whole by getting the language right in the Discipline, because what we are facing is more than a language problem.
Neither will we be made whole by getting the right judicial decisions, because what we are facing is not a judicial problem.
As important as the Discipline and the Judicial Council are, getting them right will not be enough to make us whole. The people called Methodist are facing a spiritual problem and we need our leaders to provide spiritual solutions. We are facing the most important doctrinal issues that any church can face and we need our leaders to guard the faith and give doctrinal answers. The problem we are facing is a question of faithfulness, and we need our leaders to give a response that worries less about being inclusive of every view and worries more about being faithful to the Scriptures.
In the past, some of our leaders have acted as if they are charged with accommodating the faith instead of contending for the faith. We have had leaders who accept every view no matter how radical.
Some of our leaders seem to believe that they cannot take a stand or speak out on the controversial issues of the day because they represent “the whole church.” Some of our bishops have intoned the mantra that they must represent all views because they are bishops of the whole church. But for that very reason they must speak and they must speak the message of the church.
They do represent the church—the whole church. They represent the church in Africa that has told us that if we change the traditional morality of the Scriptures we will eviscerate their ability to speak to a continent that is being courted and intimidated by the ideology of Islam.
If they represent the whole church, surely they know this means they represent the historic church with its 2000 years of teaching and tradition. They stand in the line of the apostles and have been given the charge and granted the authority to guard the apostolic faith.
You never save a troubled institution by refusing to talk about what’s wrong. You save an institution by doing what’s right. You don’t save a hurting institution by maintaining the status quo. You save an institution by changing its present dysfunctional reality. And as important as it is, you don’t make a divided church whole simply by engaging in dialogues. You must at some point provide courageous and, if need be, costly leadership that others will follow.
Like a good counselor, the one thing our leaders must not do is to ignore our deepest issues or act as if they do not matter. They must lead us to those issues and they must speak truth to the Church so that, with a unified voice, we will speak truth to the culture, that the world may believe.
Where are we? We are in a place where band-aid solutions, denial, and institutional responses will not save us. We are in a place where we need leaders to lead and we need people of biblical faith to be people of courage and character.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News.
by Steve | May 22, 2013 | Features, Top 10
Good News has been an independent, evangelical voice within The United Methodist Church since 1967. From the outset, we have been a community of believers who have a passion to see our denomination renewed. As a movement, Good News has been a beacon of hope to traditional United Methodists by urging the church to be faithful to the biblically-based principles of its historic Wesleyan heritage.
In other words, we want to see The United Methodist Church centered on Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we want to see our church engaged in vital ministry, growing disciples of Jesus Christ, and transforming the world.
The Good News magazine and website have always been bold, informative, and inspirational forums for evangelical and traditional United Methodists. Maintaining a Wesleyan vision, we publish for both the head and the heart. We keep a sharp eye on the complex issues facing our church and we place a high priority on edifying and inspirational stories.
Good News has always been a ministry within United Methodism with a consistent voice to reflect our evangelical convictions. Whether we are speaking with bishops or local congregations, general agencies or the General Conference, the United Methodist News Service or the Associated Press, Good News has been both measured and passionate about conveying vibrant orthodoxy.
Good News believes that prayer makes a difference. Furthermore, we believe intentional, directed prayer is the most effective catalyst for renewal within The United Methodist Church. We invite United Methodists to pray for the vitality, growth, faithfulness, and outreach of our denomination.
Since the 1980 General Conference, Good News has made a well-organized and serious attempt to renew and reform The United Methodist Church through the legislative system. Good News has a trained team present for the 10-day period of General Conference to monitor legislative sessions and floor activities with our Renewal and Reform Coalition partners. Good News and the Coalition assist local renewal groups in getting delegates elected to General and Jurisdictional Conferences in order to bring change and renewal through the official structures of our church.
These are just some of the ways Good News has worked faithfully for spiritual renewal and organizational reform. Our mission is to lead all people within The United Methodist Church to the faithful and vibrant practice of orthodox, Wesleyan Christianity.
A 23-member Board of Directors, both clergy and lay people, give policy leadership and financial guidance to Good News. We receive no funding from the denomination. Our support comes from grassroots United Methodists like you who believe in what we are doing. Local congregations also support Good News through their missions budget or special offerings.
We place a high value on accountability and trust. We are firmly committed to good stewardship of the funds entrusted to us by our friends and donors. For that reason we are a charter member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA).
We have published this Top 10 Good News article collection in order for you to get a good sense of why we exist, what we believe, and the vision for a faithful future that we have for The United Methodist Church.
