by Steve | Nov 14, 2017 | Front Page News, In the News
Bishop Karen OIiveto during opening service of Council of Bishops. Photo: Council of Bishops.
According to reporting from Heather Hahn (UMNS), United Methodist bishops find themselves “off the map” as they try to navigate a way forward through the church’s impasse over homosexuality, said Bishop Bruce R. Ough of the Dakotas-Minnesota area. “There is currently no larger or intractable barrier to the mission, unity and vitality of The United Methodist Church than the matter of homosexuality,” the Council of Bishops president said November 6, in his fall address to 127 of his episcopal colleagues.
From our vantage point, it is noteworthy, but not surprising, that the Council of Bishops addressed this “intractable barrier” by inviting Bishop Karen Oliveto, the controversial episcopal leader of the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area, to preach one of the opening sermons before their gathering. Oliveto, of course, is married to another woman and has been publicly forthcoming about performing more than 50 same-sex weddings prior to becoming a bishop last year. It remains a mystery how this preaching invitation helps create unity or strengthen the mission, unity and vitality of the denomination.
To read Heather Hahn’s news story about the challenge before the Council of Bishops, click HERE.
by Steve | Oct 30, 2017 | Front Page News, In the News
– By Donald W. Haynes
The 21st century infighting about marriage, sexuality, and the Christian faith are obviating the relatively unrelated mistakes of the 20th century. That is the century when we lost membership and attendance inside the institutional church, and muscle at the “table of the public square.” Either cobbling together some modicum of ecclesiastical unity or separating into two denominations will be a sheer travesty. We have been down both roads before — division and unification. Neither option made us stronger in the past nor will it in the future.
Because some spoke German and some spoke English, we divided over language at the inception of “the people called Methodist” in America. We voted to divide over polity in 1792 and 1828, resulting in The Christian Church and The Methodist Protestant Church. We voted to divide over racial issues in 1816, 1820, 1843, and 1867, resulting in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal, Zion Church, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and the Colored Methodist Church (re-named “Christian” in 1954). We split over doctrine in 1894, and around 1900 resulting in the Nazarene Church, the Assemblies of God, and the Church of God of Anderson, Indiana.
The Price of Ecumenism
The magnificent obsession of the 20th century for Methodist was ecumenism. The “evil” of that Christian generation was denominationalism. The mood was “unification or bust”! This tunnel vision either caused or allowed Methodism to ignore the infamous “Fundamentalist-Modernist” controversy that raged in the 1920s. We ignored the rise of the Bible College movement. We had a condescending posture toward Fundamentalism that come home to haunt us when they took the campuses by storm in the late 20th century with the result that we lost thousands of “our children” who went to college and never came “home again.”
Seminary homiletics prior to 1968 taught topical preaching rather than biblical sermons. So much of their content was what Dr. William Abraham has called “doctrinal pablum or moralistic platitudes.” He also coined the term “doctrinal amnesia” which made the Methodist delegation embarrassed at the negotiations for EUB-Methodist merger. We had long ignored Wesley’s sermons and the “consensus Fidelium” of early Methodism. The holiness doctrine and perfecting grace were virtually embarrassing to denominational leadership after the “come out” and “put out” controversies of the late 19th century that resulted in the formation of the Nazarene Church. The Article on “Sanctification” was salvaged only by the Methodist Protestant Church in the unification of 1939. Article XI of the EUB “Confession of Faith” also articulated the “experimental divinity” of sanctification. We even neglected our social justice obligation in the Great Depressions because most of Methodist passion was for unifying three churches to form, in 1939, The Methodist Church.
In late 18th century Pennsylvania an evangelical and Arminian revival was taking place. When Martin Boehm, a Mennonite, heard Philip Otterbein’s testimony, he ran to him, embraced him and said, “Wir sind brudert” (We are brethren). That was 1767. By 1800 they had become The United Brethren in Christ. Meanwhile, by 1816 in central Pennsylvania, Jacob Albright, Lutheran heritage, was starting another church of the German Pietist movement called the Evangelical Association. They were all “one in the Spirit” with the Methodists. In 1884, the United Brethren split over polity. In 1946, the United Brethren and Evangelical Association became the Evangelical United Brethren church (EUB) and had 738,000 members.
In the 1950’s and especially in the turbulent 1960’s the Evangelical United Brethren and The Methodist Church engaged little in the social revolution occurring in United States society. They were deeply involved in merging their churches. This was accomplished in 1968, but with the EUB conferences, the merger was approved with only a 3 percent margin over the required 2/3rds. The Methodists had 10.2 million members, fourteen times more than the EUB’s. With the new name, The United Methodist Church, some towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana had two churches of the same denomination across the street from one another. Some sociological studies have revealed that the driving force behind both religious bodies was the conviction among their leaders that denominationalism was a sin!
There was no discussion of theology in the EUB-Methodist merger! They were obsessed with ecumenism. The EUB people lost the most sense of “brand.” The United Methodist Church has lost members every year of its existence. Some wag has written, rather accurately, that The United Methodist Church is “a mile wide and an inch deep.” The new church has been “vanilla.” By the 21st century, almost no United Methodist could engender in their children what they believed! Therefore history will record that the price of ecumenism was high — the loss of identity.
The Loss of Churches of Small Membership
The genius of Methodism was its following of English speaking people movements. The United Brethren and Evangelicals did much the same as Germans moved west. Rural churches became the center of communities as people named their roads, and often their “one room schoolhouses” or post offices. Many were served by clergy who pastored several churches in different communities, linked only by their denominational names.
Historically, Methodist, United Brethren and Evangelical preachers were appointed to a “territory” to be evangelized rather than a congregation to be belittled. The rural parishes were seen in most seminary classrooms as cultural “back eddys.” By the pre-World War II years, the “Town and Country Movement” recognized the chasm between the seminary classroom and the rural parish. Unfortunately, the result of their prodigious effort was the seminary appointments of faculty whose doctorates were in Rural Sociology. They had keen insights about the plight of rural America, but offered little help in effective evangelism, education, missions, and worship! Rather than identifying with their communities, seminary graduates saw the rural church as a stepping stone to a more theologically sophisticated “city church.”
In 1961, Gibson Winters wrote an important book that suffered benign neglect, The Suburban Captivity of the Church. Not only did we lose our influence in the “country,” but also in the blue collar mill and coal mine villages, but also in the inner cities near the behemoths of industries such as automobiles and steel. Once these were the seedbed communities in the legacy of Wesleyanism, but with every passing decade, our presence and witness dwindled. Our pastors did not stay long enough to effect social justice systemic change.
The Religious Education Curriculum
A book that should be re-read in every generation is Faith and Nurture, written in 1941 by Dr. H. Shelton Smith, Professor of American Protestant Thought at Duke Divinity School. He traces the history of Christian Education as the emergent priority of liberal Christianity, replacing both evangelism per se and missions with any modicum of evangelical content. Smith wrote, “From the standpoint of popular interest, religious education eclipsed every other project of the churches.”
Then, as a voice crying in the wilderness, Smith dismantles the theological premises of what was pointedly called “religious education,” not “Christian education.” A quote from the prestigious and widely read periodical, Religious Education, in a 1928 article was only one of many documentations Smith provided regarding the “takeover” of religious education from previous mainstream Protestant agendas: “Perhaps nowhere else than in religious education can we see more clearly the direction in which religious thinking is moving.”
George A Coe, a Methodist, was a disciple of John Dewey, the father of philosophical progressivism, and the “godfather” of public school education. The emerging professional on large church staffs was not a “D.C.E.” (Director of Christian Education) but a “D.R.E.” (Director of Religious Education). The shapers of the church’s nurturing ministries deliberately removed the word “Christian” from staff titles. All too few people noted the difference as important, but it was! Indeed he, and several generations after him, chucked the term “Sunday School” and created the term, “Church School.” This meant that “Vacation Bible School” became “Vacation Church School” and the “Sunday School Superintendent” became the “Church School Superintendent” and finally, in 1968, was relegated to an optional position and called “Superintendent of Study.” The person who had been the “backbone” of small membership churches on circuits was moved from the “sidlelines to offline.”
Reflecting on the quote, “We are making religion anew … as Jesus made it,” Smith opined, “In this view, the value of the Bible lies chiefly in its power to stimulate a religious quest that will result in the creation of spiritual norms that transcend those embodied in the Bible.” Coe was vehemently opposed to the concept of sudden conversion, the gateway to discipleship that characterized the Second Great Awakening and the phenomenal growth of the United Brethren, the Evangelical Association, and the several branches of Methodism. Dewey made no claim to being a Christian, but Coe, reflecting Dewey’s philosophy, “sharply dissented from traditional theologies of sin and evil” (The Religion of A Mature Mind, by George A. Coe, 1902). He successfully influence editors of Church School literature to deleted any references to the doctrine of original sin, any references to the atonement, and any references, in Sunday School literature, to these basic premises of historic Christian thought.
We cannot devote more space here to the negative effect that “religious education” concepts had on the rise and fall of the Sunday school. George Coe’s philosophy of religion influenced all students majoring in religious education for well over half a century. It was the 1960s before the term “DRE” finally was archived and the term “DCE” came into vogue. As Shailer Matthews put it though, “a faith on the defensive is confessedly senile.” Shelton Smith said it this way: “There is little hope that liberal nurture in its present form can keep religion prophetically alive in our culture.” Using the term “Christian Education,” churches built elaborate and spacious “Educational Buildings” when Sunday school attendance as double that of worship in almost every Protestant Church in America. Culture was a friend of the Sunday school in that most people married young and had three or four children, all of whom were brought to Sunday school every Lord’s Day. As the revival was quietly laid to rest and before confirmation became the norm for joining the church, most churches received most or all sixth or seventh graders into membership. In 1955, seven of eight new members in The Methodist Church came through the Sunday school. Again to quote Smith: “Liberal nurture is feeble because it is rooted in a sub-Christian gospel. Educational evangelism has no adequate evangel.”
A cover story of LOOK magazine in 1957 exposed the faultline of liberal religious nurture in a long story entitled, “Sunday School — most wasted hour of the week?” The Church School editorial boards, literature writers, and most clergy went ballistic! The article, however, was based on the raw data from hundreds of interviews in several mainline denominations. To a simple battery of questions about biblical content or doctrinal beliefs, people who had been to Sunday school for decades were found to be biblically and doctrinally illiterate. Conversations were already underway to merge The Evangelical United Brethren and The Methodist Churches, but the bombshell of the LOOK cover story and its aftermath apparently set off no alarm bells in the merger talks! By 1968, when The United Methodist Church was “born,” the Sunday school decline had become an irreversible trend — a trend that evolved into a virtual stampede. Now thousands of churches have less that 20 percent of the Sunday school attendance they had in the 1950s.
The once popular comic strip “Pogo” had a line whose wisdom could not, and cannot, be denied: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Or as Shakespeare had Caesar to say, “Men at some time are masters of their fates; the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars.” God’s word is clear: “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and the rest is small stuff.
Donald W. Haynes is a retired United Methodist clergyperson from the Western North Carolina Annual Conference, author, and adjunct professor of United Methodist Studies at Hood Theological Seminary.
by Steve | Feb 25, 2013 | Front Page News
February 19, 2013
Wayne Brock, Chief Scout Executive Boys Scouts of America
P.O. Box 152079
Irving, TX 75015-2079
Gil Hanke. UMNS photo by Mike DuBose
Dear Mr. Brock and the voting Delegates to the BSA Annual Meeting,
For decades, General Commission on United Methodist Men (GCUMM) has had as a primary goal, a core value, to expand scouting ministries throughout the UMC. For many youth the UMC is the entry point for an exciting journey to discipleship. There is no argument within the UMC that scouting as a ministry is a mark of vitality.
Since BSA announced a possible change in their membership policy dealing with homosexuality, our office has received many phone calls and emails. We realize in the United Methodist Church there are people who have differing opinions on this issue. There are many questions of legal implications, and questions about how this new rule would be managed in our local churches. Many see this change to be in conflict with their understanding of Scripture. Many have stated they will terminate their relationship with BSA, as a leader and as donors. Many have expressed anger that our church was not brought into this discussion as this change was being considered. A few have told us they support this proposed change by BSA; however, overall, the responses have been overwhelmingly against the proposed change.
This potential shift from BSA places GCUMM s primary goal, our core value- expansion and retention- at risk. If approved, scouting programs would decrease, and new programs would be harder to begin due to the uncertainty this proposal has generated. There has not been adequate time for GCUMM or individual church/charter organizations to fully explore the legal and spiritual consequences of these proposed changes. For these reasons, on this date, the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the GCUMM affirmed unanimously these two requests of BSA:
1. We would ask that these new membership proposals being considered at the May, 2013 Annual Meeting of BSA not be implemented at this time. More time is needed for the 50 United Methodist Annual Conferences and the thousands of United Methodist churches to research in a thoughtful and prayerful manner exactly what this change might mean.
2. We would further ask that this be the beginning of a new relationship between BSA and the faith communities that provide over 70% of the units and 62% of the membership in BSA. Ongoing work must grow from this experience as BSA and their ministry partners seek ways to implement a new, strengthened, faith-filled response to the Scout Oath and Scout Law.
Mr. Brock, please forward this letter to all voting members of the upcoming Annual Meeting. Feel free to contact our Nashville office if you have questions. In His service,
Bishop James E. Swanson, Sr. Gilbert C. Hanke
President, GCUMM General Secretary, GCUMM
1000 17th Ave S ı Nashville, TN 37212
Phone: 615.340.7145 ı Toll Free: 866.297.4312 ı Fax: 615.340.1770 ı E-mail: gcumm@gcumm.org
by Steve | Feb 21, 2013 | Front Page News, Uncategorized
By Rob Renfroe and Thomas Lambrecht
In a recent column in The Washington Post, the Rev. Adam Hamilton, pastor of Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas (the largest United Methodist congregation in the U.S.), stated that Bible verses that prohibit same-sex intimacy “capture the cultural understandings and practices of sexuality in biblical times, but do not reflect God’s will for gay and lesbian people.” This is not a new position for Rev. Hamilton to take. He came to the same conclusion in his 2010 book, When Christians Get It Wrong. (Links are provided at the conclusion of this article.)
Adam Hamilton, UMNS photo by Mike DuBose
Good News has great respect for the ministry and leadership of Adam Hamilton. His ministry is biblically based and effective. His written resources for congregational study have helped hundreds of churches engage Scripture and grow spiritually. We consider Hamilton to be an orthodox believer who affirms United Methodist doctrine—a brother in Christ. On this issue, however, we believe that it is the Rev. Hamilton who gets it wrong.
Not all interpretations of Scripture have equal validity. It is important to examine the supporting evidence for a particular interpretation of Scriptural teaching. Hamilton’s question, “Are the Biblical passages forbidding same-sex intimacy culturally bound and thus not applicable to us today,” is a fair and valid question. The biblical evidence, however, does not support his answer.
The Rev. Hamilton compares the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality to the teaching on slavery. He maintains that the Bible’s teaching that “tacitly approved” slavery was culturally conditioned, even though at times in church history those same teachings were used to justify the practice of slavery, which we now believe to be unjust and immoral. In the same way, he says, it is possible to read the Bible’s teaching on same-sex intimacy as reflecting the cultural conditions of Bible times and not representative of God’s will for today.
Rob Renfroe
However, the comparison between the Bible’s teaching on slavery and on same-sex intimacy breaks down. The Bible never commands the practice of slavery, but regulates (in the Old Testament) a practice that was already embedded in the culture. As a matter of fact, the most memorable image in the Old Testament is Moses standing before Pharaoh on behalf of the enslaved Israelite nation, announcing God’s demand, “Let my people go!”
In the New Testament, the apostles advised slaves how to live as Christians in a circumstance that they could not change. But the most compelling image in the New Testament is Jesus speaking in the Nazareth synagogue proclaiming “freedom for the prisoners” and “release to the oppressed.”
By contrast, the Bible’s teaching clearly forbids same-sex intimacy. It is not simply acknowledging a practice in existence, but actually commanding Christians not to engage in it. There is no ambivalence about this teaching throughout Scripture. That makes it less likely to be culturally bound.
Thomas Lambrecht
The Bible’s teaching on slavery contains within it the seeds of slavery’s demise. The Old Testament regulations of slavery made the institution more humane than the ways it was practiced in surrounding cultures. In the New Testament, Paul encourages slaves who have the opportunity to become free to take that opportunity (I Corinthians 7:21). Paul also subtly encourages Philemon to free his newly-converted slave Onesimus (Philemon 15-16). Most importantly, the New Testament asserts that in Christ all are equal—there is no slave or free (Galatians 3:28). Paul reminds masters that they are subject to a Master in heaven, who will not regard them more favorably than their slaves (Ephesians 6:8-9). The reason for the apostles’ advice that slaves should serve their masters “with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ,” is to maintain a winsome Christian witness—“so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (Titus 2:10, also I Timothy 6:1-2).
All these qualifications and tempering of the Christian view of slavery show it to be culturally conditioned, and these qualifications eventually led to the ethical conclusion that slavery is immoral, not in keeping with the timeless will of God. There are no such qualifications or softening of biblical teaching regarding same-sex intimacy. Therefore, it is far less likely that such teaching is culturally conditioned.
In his book, the Rev. Hamilton uses an interpretive lens to determine which Scriptures are applicable to today: love for God and love for neighbor. Hamilton believes any Biblical teaching that is inconsistent with those two commands is not currently binding upon us. We do not agree with the approach of taking one passage of Scripture as a filter by which to evaluate all the rest of Scripture. Instead, it is best to take each passage in its own historical and theological context. However, even using Hamilton’s approach does not necessarily yield a definitive answer on this question.
Is it loving to use gay slurs or “jokes,” hateful language, or even violence against gays and lesbians? Of course not, and we condemn such hateful behavior in the strongest terms. Is it loving for the church to place its stamp of approval on any behavior that people feel attracted to, as long as it doesn’t “hurt” another person? That is a weak definition of love, inadequate for our calling to “transform the world.” Is it loving for the church to condone what God has forbidden? John describes love this way, “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands” (I John 5:2-3).
The Rev. Hamilton mentions “a handful of Scriptures (five or eight depending upon how one counts) that specifically speak of same-sex intimacy as unacceptable to God.” But we believe the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality and God’s intention is based on far more than a few isolated verses. The thread of heterosexual monogamy runs throughout Scripture. (We recognize the presence of polygamy in Scripture as an aberration from the New Testament norm and God’s ideal.)
God created male and female for each other (Genesis 1 and 2), resulting in the two becoming “one flesh” and representing the image of God in their complementary maleness and femaleness. Jesus reaffirmed God’s original intention (contrary to the law of Moses’ accommodation to the people’s hardness of heart) in defining marriage as the exclusive permanent union of a man and a woman (Matthew 19:1-12). God designed the union of man and woman in marriage to symbolize for us the union of Christ and his church (Ephesians 5:21-33). The culmination of God’s plan is pictured as the great “wedding supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:9).
This constant thread of heterosexual monogamy throughout Scripture, along with the specific prohibitions of certain sexual behavior (adultery, prostitution, promiscuity, same-sex intimacy) give us the basis for determining God’s timeless will for expressing our human sexuality. New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright puts it this way, “When you look at the grand narrative about male and female, from Genesis right through to Revelation, this isn’t just one or two arbitrary rules about how to behave with bits of your body. This is about something woven into the deep structure of what it means to be created in the image of God, what it means to be citizens of this God-given world. And until we learn to see ethics in that way, we haven’t actually got to first base.”
There are only a couple verses in the New Testament that explicitly criticize polygamy, which is otherwise “tacitly approved” in the rest of Scripture. Yet, based on the thread of heterosexual monogamy, along with some of the adverse consequences also recorded in Scripture, the church has come to see polygamy as contrary to the timeless will of God.
There are only a few passages in Scripture that explicitly address sex before marriage (rather than adultery or promiscuity). Yet, based on the thread of heterosexual monogamy and on religious traditions carried over from biblical times, the church has consistently affirmed that sexual relations ought to be reserved for marriage alone.
In our current culture, it is tempting to want to lower the bar of Christian expectations. Recent surveys have shown that 63 percent of young adults believe same-sex intimacy should be accepted by society. This is part of an overall trend in which another recent survey found that 44 percent of single women and 63 percent of single men have had one-night stands and that 42 percent of single adults would not date a virgin.
Good News believes that it is the wrong course for the church to abandon its teaching on sexuality in the face of the rapidly declining moral standards of our society under the guise of attempting to make the Gospel message “more attractive.” The Gospel message and the ministry of Jesus Christ will only be attractive to the extent that they demonstrate the power to transform lives and elevate human behavior to the original intention of our Creator.
Eminent theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg summarizes Good News’ perspective: “The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly directing our behavior. This is the real problem; and it is here that we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not only for homosexual, but for any sexual activity that does not intend the goal of marriage between man and wife, [including] particularly adultery.
“The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as in others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that departs from that norm.”
We understand the pastoral dilemma that causes Adam Hamilton to wrestle with the Scriptures over this contentious issue. Many of us have wrestled with the need to be pastoral, while also being faithful to Scripture, in leading people to the most important reality: a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. We are ultimately unconvinced that surrendering God’s ideal for human sexuality in the face of cultural pressure will result in faithful, world-changing disciples of Jesus Christ. Presented with love, understanding, and compassion, we believe Christ’s call to holiness of heart and life is the way to invite a fallen world to follow the “Author and Perfecter of our faith.”
Good News hopes that, as we continue to discuss the crucial constellation of issues around sexual morality, Scripture, and the church’s teachings, we will do so with grace and respect for each other. We encourage clergy and laity alike to delve more deeply into the interpretation of Scripture, including resources available on our website and others, so that we can move toward a common understanding of the church’s proper ministry in this age of sexual chaos.
The Rev. Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News. The Rev. Thomas Lambrecht is the vice president of Good News.
Links
• “On homosexuality, many Christians get the Bible wrong,” by the Rev. Adam Hamilton in The Washington Post
• Chapter 5 of “When Christians Get It Wrong” dealing with homosexuality
• Adam Hamilton’s sermon on “The Bible and Sexuality”
by Steve | Jan 31, 2013 | Front Page News, Uncategorized
By George Mitrovich
Good News, May/June 2005
Jackie Robinson, who broke baseball’s color barrier in 1947 with the Brooklyn Dodgers, recently received posthumously the Congressional Gold Medal, the nation’s highest civilian honor. The presentation of the Gold Medal to Rachel Robinson, Jackie’s widow, took place at a 90-minute ceremony on March 2, 2005 in the great rotunda of the United States Capitol.
President Bush, House Speaker Denny Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House and Senate Democratic Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the Gold Medal legislation’s principal co-sponsors, Senator John Kerry and Representative Richard Neal of Massachusetts participated in the moving and memorable ceremony, as did the Reverend Jessie Jackson.
Jackie Robinson was a baseball player and a Hall of Fame player. But the Gold Medal isn’t given for athletic achievement—Robinson was a four-sports star at UCLA, and some believe baseball was not his best sport—but in recognition of one’s achievements as a human being. Mark this down, and keep it always in mind—Jack Roosevelt Robinson was, by any measure, a very special human being.
In becoming the first black man to play in the major leagues, Robinson encountered racism in its vilest manifestations—racial taunts and slurs, insults on the playing field and off, character assassination, death threats, and anything else the wicked among us in mid-twentieth century America could throw at him. But despite the evil of such provocations he somehow found a way to rise above his tormentors, to literally turn the other cheek and demonstrate that however great his athletic skills, his qualities as a human being were infinitely greater.
In this story is another story—not about a baseball player, but a story about a man and his faith. It is a story seldom mentioned in the secular press. This is that story:
When the time approached for Branch Rickey, the general manager of the Dodgers to sign Robinson, he had several difficult decisions to make. First, should he sign a black player? And if he did, what were the consequences? Second, did Robinson have the talent to play in the big leagues? But it was the last decision that was the most important, as it concerned Robinson’s personal qualities. Was he tough enough in the best sense to confront the certain racial turmoil he would face?
Rickey was a man of exceptional intelligence and ability. He was known throughout baseball as “the Mahatma” for his great wisdom (more than any other person he was responsible for creating baseball’s farm system, key factors in his success with the St. Louis Cardinals and later with the Dodgers in Brooklyn).
The assurance Rickey sought as to Robinson’s character was found in Jackie’s boyhood, growing up in Pasadena, California (he was born in Cairo, Georgia, the son of share croppers, and the grandson of slaves). In his youth Jackie came under the influence of a young minister in Pasadena. His name was Karl Everitt Downs, the 25-year old pastor at Scott Methodist Church where Jackie’s mother, Mallie, worshipped.
The story of Downs and Robinson is brilliantly told in Arnold Rampersad’s biography Jackie Robinson (Alfred A. Knopf, 1997).
Rampersad, dean of the humanities department at Stanford University, writes that Downs went looking for Robinson. He found a group of Jackie’s friends loitering on a street corner. He asked for Robinson, but no one answered. He left a message, “Tell him I want to see him at junior church.” Sometime later, Rampersad writes, “Jack delivered himself to the church and began a relationship that lasted only a few years, but changed the course of his life.”
Rampersad continues the story: “To Downs, Robinson evidently was someone special who had to be rescued from himself (Jackie had had some run-ins with the Pasadena police) and the traps of Jim Crow.” One of Jackie’s friends said, “I’m not sure what would have happened to Jack if he had never met Reverend Downs.”
“Downs led Jack back to Christ,” the author writes. “Under the minister’s influence, Jack not only returned to church, but also saw its true significance for the first time; he started to teach Sunday school. After punishing football games on Saturday, Jack admitted, he yearned to sleep late: ‘But no matter how terrible I felt, I had to get up. It was impossible to shirk duty when Karl Downs was involved….Karl Downs had the ability to communicate with you spiritually,’ Jack declared, ‘and at the same time he was fun to be with. He participated with us in our sports. Most importantly, he knew how to listen. Often when I was deeply concerned about personal crises, I went to him.’
“Downs became a conduit through which Mallie’s message of religion and hope finally flowed into Jack’s consciousness and was fully accepted there….Faith in God then began to register in him as both a mysterious force, beyond his comprehension, and as a pragmatic way to negotiate the world. A measure of emotional and spiritual poise such as he had never known at last entered his life.”
Robinson himself would say, “I had a lot of faith in God….There’s nothing like faith in God to help a fellow who gets booted around once in a while.”
The influence of his mother, Mallie, and his pastor, Karl Downs, would forever affect the way Jackie Robinson lived his life, how he saw other people, and how he coped with discrimination. He had been taught that he was a child of God, and no one and no challenge, however brutal and dehumanizing, could take that away from him.
Why did Rickey find those experiences of the young Jackie so persuasive? Branch Rickey was also a Methodist. Not just a Methodist, but, according to Rampersad, “a dedicated, Bible-loving Christian who refused to attend games on Sunday.” His full name was Wesley Branch Rickey. He was a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University—and the influence of the Methodist Church was a great factor in his life.
In Rampersad’s chapter on Jackie’s signing with the Dodgers—“A Monarch in the Negro Leagues (1944-1946)”—he tells the dramatic story of a meeting that took place in the late summer of 1945. The meeting was held on the fourth floor of an office building at 215 Montague Street in Brooklyn. In that meeting were Branch Rickey and a Dodger scout by the name of Clyde Sukeforth, who had been following Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro Leagues.
This is what Rampersad wrote: “Rickey made clear that Jack’s ability to run, throw, and hit was only one part of the challenge. Could he stand up to the physical, verbal, and psychological abuse that was bound to come? ‘I know you’re a good ball player,’ Rickey barked. ‘What I don’t know is whether you have the guts?’
“Jack started to answer hotly in defense of his manhood, when Rickey explained, ‘I’m looking for a ball player with guts enough not to fight back.’
“Caught up now in the drama, Rickey stripped off his coat and enacted out a variety of parts that portrayed examples of an offended Jim Crow. Now he was a white hotel clerk rudely refusing Jack accommodations; now a supercilious white waiter in a restaurant; now a brutish railroad conductor, he became a foul-mouthed opponent, Jack recalled, talking about ‘my race, my parents, in language that was almost unendurable.’ Now he was a vengeful base runner, vindictive spikes flashing in the sun, sliding into Jack’s black flesh—‘How do you like that, nigger boy?’ At one point he swung his pudgy fist at Jack’s head. Above all, he insisted, Jack could not strike back. He could not explode in righteous indignation; only then would this experiment be likely to succeed, and other black men would follow in Robinson’s footsteps.
“Turning the other cheek, Rickey would have him remember, was not proverbial wisdom, but the law of the New Testament. As one Methodist believer to another, Rickey offered Jack an English translation of Giovanni Papini’s Life of Christ and pointed to a passage quoting the words of Jesus—what Papini called ‘the most stupefying of His revolutionary teachings’: ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also. And if a man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.’”
Many years later the Houston Chronicle told its readers a wonderful story about the two men fated to change baseball and race relations in America:
“Before Rickey’s death in 1965 at age 83, he sent a telegram to Robinson, who by that time was retired from baseball and involved in the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King Jr.
“Wheelchair bound and suffering from a heart condition, Rickey apologized to Robinson for not joining him at the march on Selma, Alabama.
“Robinson responded with a letter that read, in part: ‘Mr. Rickey, things have been very rewarding for me. But had it not been for you, nothing would be possible. Even though I don’t write to you much, you are always on my mind. We feel so very close to you and I am sure you know our love and admiration is sincere and dedicated. Please take care of yourself.’”
Through his on-the-field skills as a player and his off-the-field personal attributes, Jackie Robinson became an enduring symbol to black men and women across America—creating hope, raising their expectations, giving them faith that maybe, just maybe, the promise of American democracy that all men are created equal might become something more than words on a historic document. Eloquent words, yes; lovely words, yes; ennobling words, yes; but absent their reality that in the everyday lives of black Americans, they would remain that and nothing more—mere words.
And thus the presentation of the Gold Medal was given to remind all Americans of the significance of Jackie Robinson, to affirm his place as an individual who changed, not just a sport, the game of baseball, but more importantly the social and political dynamic of our nation’s life—and change it for the better. Indeed, with the exception of Martin Luther King Jr., Jackie Robinson was probably the most important black man in twentieth century America.
No one has made this point more convincingly than Buck O’Neil, chairman of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City. O’Neil, whose own story as a black player has brought him national acclaim—he was the star of Ken Burns’ award winning baseball series on PBS—has pointed out that before President Truman desegregated the military, before the bus boycott in Birmingham, before the civil rights marches in the South, before Rosa Parks, before Brown v. Board of Education, and before anyone had ever heard of Martin Luther King Jr., there was Jackie Robinson.
Dr. King himself eloquently said of Jackie, “Back in the days when integration wasn’t fashionable, he understood the trauma and humiliation and the loneliness which comes with being a pilgrim walking the lonesome byways toward the high road of Freedom. He was a sit-inner before sit-ins, a freedom rider before freedom rides.”
“The word for Jackie Robinson is ‘unconquerable,’” Red Smith, the great sports writer would say. “He would not be defeated. Not by the other team and not by life.”
But the story of Robinson and the Congressional Gold Medal is incomplete and woefully inadequate absent the following fact: There is no small irony that the Gold Medal honor began, not in the legislative halls of Congress in Washington, but at 4 Yawkey Way in Boston, at Fenway Park, the legendary home of the Red Sox.
Why the Red Sox? A very good question, one that has puzzled many people, since the Red Sox did not sign their first black player until 1959, twelve years after Robinson broke into the major leagues. Moreover, in 1945, the franchise failed to sign Robinson following a tryout at Fenway (a tryout Robinson later deemed a sham). The team also took a pass on Willie Mays. After watching Willie play ball in Alabama, one Red Sox scout actually wrote that Mays “couldn’t hit a curve ball.” The great Mays would total 3,283 hits and 660 home runs in his major league career. Not bad for a guy who “couldn’t hit a curve ball.” Roger Kahn, who wrote arguably the best book ever about sports, The Boys of Summer, the story of the Dodgers in Brooklyn, has said that had the Red Sox signed Robinson and Mays no one would ever have heard of the “Curse of the Bambino.” And Kahn might have added, there would not have been an 86-year wait between World Championship teams for diehard Red Sox fans (a redundancy if ever there was one).
The answer as to why the Red Sox is found in the team’s new ownership — principal owner John Henry, chairman Tom Werner, and president Larry Luechino. Wanting to change the culture of an organization perceived by many as racist, the ownership group, under Dr. Charles Steinberg, the team’s vice president for public affairs, decided to do two things: first, institute an annual birthday tribute to Jackie Robinson at Fenway Park and, second, ask Senator Kerry and Representative Neal to introduce the Gold Medal legislation. For a professional sports team to own up to its troubled past where blacks and issues of race are concerned, as the Red Sox have, is a rare occurrence—and for that courageous act of contrition and public penitence the organization is due the nation’s thanks.
The first Congressional Gold Medal was given to George Washington. Now one belongs to Jackie Robinson. One of these men was the father of our country, the other an athlete who tore down signs that read, “Whites only.” You can’t explain our history as a nation without understanding something about George Washington; neither can you explain it now without understanding something about Jackie Robinson. In a land that strives to exemplify both freedom and equality, they are forever bound as equals—recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal.
Thirty-three years after Jackie died, the Gold Medal ceremony took place in the Capitol of the United States; in a place some have called, “The Cathedral of Democracy.” It was a lovely day for America. The dream lives on.
George Mitrovich, a member of First United Methodist Church in San Diego and active in Wesleyan renewal efforts, is president of The City Club of San Diego and The Denver Forum, two leading American public forums. For more than two years he played a key role in working with the Boston Red Sox, Congress, and the White House to obtain for Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal. The Family of Jackie Robinson has thanked him for his efforts and for having initiated the process that led to the presentation of the honor.
by Steve | Jan 29, 2013 | Front Page News, Uncategorized
NEWS RELEASE
Good News, an orthodox renewal and reform ministry within The United Methodist Church, is expanding its work in the area of church revitalization.
The Rev. Dr. John Southwick has become the new Director of Research, Networking, and Resources for Good News. Dr. Southwick brings with him a background in research and pastoral ministry that will enhance his work in helping to foster renewal in United Methodist congregations.
“We are excited to have John Southwick join our staff at this pivotal moment in our church’s history,” said the Rev. Rob Renfroe, president and publisher of Good News. “His work will enable us to make an even greater positive contribution to the spiritual renewal of our denomination.”
Prior to his joining Good News, Dr. Southwick was the Director of Research at the General Board of Global Ministries for the last 14 years. In that capacity, he analyzed trends in culture, ministry, demographics, and ministry practices to help lead United Methodist churches toward renewal and revitalization. He will continue this work with Good News.
Southwick will make his research services available through monthly reports disseminated broadly to the church. He will also be available to work with individual congregations, districts, and annual conferences that would like to have his analysis applied specifically to their situation.
In addition to regular reports on trends and analysis, Southwick will head up a new Wesley21 web ministry that will serve as a clearinghouse of recommended resources for local church use, such as sermons, books, articles, and programs that are consistent with historic United Methodist doctrine and are proven effective in local church ministry settings.
“We believe most small and middle-sized United Methodist congregations do not have the means to create their own programs like large churches do,” observes the Rev. Thomas A. Lambrecht, vice president of Good News. “They are looking for resources that are effective in helping churches and individuals grow spiritually — resources they can trust. John Southwick’s leadership in this area will help us meet this need.”
The Wesley21 web site is expected to become operational in February.
Southwick is a graduate of Iliff School of Theology and received his doctor of ministry degree from Fuller Seminary. He is a member of the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference. Prior to joining the General Board of Global Ministries, he served for ten years in full-time pastoral ministry. Southwick continues to pastor part-time at a small congregation near his home near Spokane, Washington. John and his wife, Patricia, are the parents of three grown children and two grandchildren.
Since 1967, Good News has been the leading advocate for biblical orthodoxy and evangelical faith within The United Methodist Church. Its mission is to lead all people within The United Methodist Church to the faithful and vibrant practice of orthodox Wesleyan Christianity. Good News’ office is located in The Woodlands, Texas.
