Drifted Astray

Ira Gallaway (1923-2015)

March/April 1983

 

The Confusion of Pluralism. One of the real confusions of our denomination today is a misunderstanding and a misapplication of the concept of “theological pluralism” as both an acceptable and desirable characteristic of what it means to be a Christian within the Methodist tradition. This concept has been fostered as a doctrine – serving as an umbrella – which is purported in spirit at least to allow a United Methodist Christian to believe almost anything about God or Jesus Christ, while remaining  true to the faith …. The very term “theological pluralism” is used to allow or condone almost any theological or ethical position – provided that position is within the psychological framework of a liberal and humanistic interpretation of faith and life.

It is apparent that John Wesley believed both in a “catholic spirit” and in the “essential doctrines” of the Christian faith. When it comes to matters of faith which have to do with our salvation, let us not talk about any silly and dangerous doctrine of pluralism. Using the Scripture as primary within our tradition and applying our reason along with our own Christian experience, let us be hesitant indeed to tamper with Christian orthodoxy – in doctrine or practice.

What About Homosexuality? It is the clear teaching of both the Old and the New Testaments that the practice of homosexuality is forbidden in the Judea-Christian tradition.

One of the clearest teachings against homosexual practice is to be found in Romans. Paul speaks plainly about homosexuality as a sin that naturally follows when the creature or humanity is put at the center of things, and God is not obeyed and worshiped as God.

While Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality, He clearly affirmed marriage as the divinely directed relationship between man and woman. A man is not directed to leave his father and mother to be joined to another man, but to be joined “to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matthew 19:5-6).

Some would counter with the theology that Jesus Christ accepts us just as we are and affirms our humanity …. Jesus Christ does accept us as we are when we turn to him; but, in that acceptance, if we accept it, we find ourselves changed.

He never leaves us where we are, and he does not approve of aberrations in our behavior whether they be social, racial, or sexual in nature. Surely homosexuality is an aberration of God’s intended order of things, is opposed by the teaching of Scripture, and is therefore, not to be sanctioned by the Christian church.

What About Abortion? Yes, abortion is legal; but, is it morally right and ethically responsible in the light of the teaching of the Scripture and the providence of God for our lives? … Obviously, from a genetic standpoint that which is conceived is potentially complete toward humanness from the point of conception …

Ultimately, what “abortion on demand” signifies is the lessening of reverence for all life. It is but a short step from a permissive and affirming attitude toward abortion – the taking of an unborn life – to the elimination of the handicapped or retarded, and to euthanasia – the killing of the senile and “unproductive” aged.

In all of our rightful concern today about human rights, especially of the poor and oppressed, who is to speak to the defenseless unborn child?

Surely our culture and church, insofar as we have given approval to the aborting of the unborn, come under the judgment of God.

Self-Centered Living. It has been relatively easy for Christians to agree with condemnation of sexual sins, such as adultery and homosexuality as recorded in Scripture. It has not been so easy though, to accept the fact that the same Scripture lists greed and self-centered pleasure-seeking as sins equally condemned by God. It should not be that difficult, however, for any of us to understand that when we put self and our own desires at the center of our lives, the result will inevitably be sin, in both a personal and social sense.

It is my deep conviction that the affluence and ease-centered mode of most of our lives in the established church today is one of the greatest barriers to liberation for witness and ministry. We are so busy taking care of our “wants,” not just our “needs,” that we do not have the time even the inclination to be more than casually concerned about other people and their needs. Least of all do we evidence our concern for the poor and the oppressed.

Need for Leadership. We do not need more liberal bishops or more conservative bishops. We need bishops who radically committed as servant-leaders of our Lord Jesus Christ. We do not need leaders will protect the institution or try to save the church. We do not leaders who are always in the middle of the road, or sitting on the fence.

Heresy of Institutional Loyalty. If I were to list the prerequisites for approval and success in the United Methodist Church today, I would list loyalty to the system and obedience to the hierarchy. It is almost as if the number-one sin of a United Methodist pastor is to question something the church as a whole is doing.

This attitude toward institutional loyalty, as if the institution were God, is in itself a heresy, and is a negative influence on ministry in the church. It has caused many pastors to give in to the system, to settle into a lackluster career and forget the high calling of God which brought them into the ordained ministry.

Political Bias of GBGM. Does the basic leadership of the General Board of Global Ministries, and including especially the Women’s Division, have a holistic approach to the Gospel which enables a balanced witness and ministry inclusive of personal salvation as well as social change and witness?

I for one do not believe that the boards and agencies referred to above have promoted a balanced and whole Gospel and have not, therefore, been authentically representative of the Biblical faith. I am also convinced that there is a political and economic bias, represented in staff and program. which is basically in support of the collectivist state as the answer to the betterment society.

The real question is, Do the national and staff leaders of our church have the right to hold and foster a view favoring some form of collectist economic order as being the Christian answer? Further, it an act of disloyalty for member of the church to raise questions, particularly when the view held has no specific sanction in Scripture and is probably in contradiction to the view and will of a sisal majority of the church? There is some indication that national church leadership looks on all questions raised and on alternative directions in policy or mission program as be subversive, disloyal, and counterproductive to the life mission of the church.

Reflection on the Future. For over 25 years now have had the privilege to as a minister of the Gospel Jesus Christ within the United Methodist Church. It is here that I hope to serve my Lord so long as I am physically spiritually able to be an effective pastor-teacher within faith. It is my conviction the wind of the Spirit is blowing across the church these days, and there has never a time of greater opportunity to reach others for Jesus and build up the church witness and ministry.

Dr. Ira Gallaway is in his ninth year as senior pastor of First UM Church in Peoria, Illinois. He is a former general secretary of the General Board of Evangelism, and he now serves as a member of the executive committee of the World Methodist Council.

 

Interview with Ira Gallaway

GN: Dr. Galloway, why did you write the book Drifted Astray?
The purpose of the book to help bring renewal to United Methodist Church which I love very much. The book is intended to be in the Reformation tradition. I write as a member of the family, and my concerns have to do with bringing healing and reconciliation – that the church might truly be liberated for witness and ministry

GN: Is our church open to a prophetic word?
Laymen are hungry for it. Yet there is a real question if our church leadership is open to the prophetic word. At the same time I say this, I am encouraged that the Southeastern Jurisdictional College of Bishops has recently been quite prophetic in their opposition  to  the ordination and appointment of homosexuals.

 GN:  Does the UM Church need a stronger statement on abortion in our Book of Discipline?
IG: It’s my opinion that the stance of the UM Church on abortion is basically wrong. Abortion is a very difficult problem, especially in areas of rape and incest. But for the church to take a position that that indicates support of abortion on demand under the guise of a woman’s body belongs to herself is to misunderstand Scripture and creation.

A woman’s body belongs to God and not to herself alone.

Somehow, we must stop the abortion holocaust and the permissive sexual revolution which it encourages.

GN: Why is the church preoccupied with structure and process?
IG: Sociologists tell us that any institution that spends more time on structure and process than on purpose is seeing the evidence of decay and death. In my opinion, we are spending time on administration and structure while avoiding the time on witness and ministry. That is true of clergy and laity.

Many administrative personnel on the conference and general church level are more like church structure mechanics than ministers in mission. They thrive on going to meetings to talk about the church and to reshuffle the structure rather than on giving their lives to ministry

 GN: What kind of leadership do we need from our bishops today?
IG: I agree with Dr. Albert Outler that we have a constitutional crisis in the church:

“One of the causes of this creeping malaise is the generally unrecognized (or unacknowledged)  fact that our current Book of Discipline is cross-eyed and has been since 1972. Part I, The Constitution looks toward an episcopal polity, organized around our historic conference system. Part IV, Chapter Seven, Administrative Order reflects and looks toward a curial polity, conglomerated as a complex bureaucracy” (“Facing UMC’s Accountability Crisis” by Albert C. Outler, The Circuit Rider, Nov/Dec 79).

Our bishops, it seems to me, need to take the risk and challenge the structure where they feel it is wrong. Not to do so under the guise of hurting the church is to misunderstand the prophetic word.

GN: Why does our system tend to neutralize leadership ability and conviction among pastors?
IG: Alan Waltz has said we are one of the last patronage systems left in the world. Uniformly, patronage systems are efficient to a point. But they lack vision-the willingness to dare to be true to the faith at the risk of the future. Many ministers have settled for a career to the detriment of their calling.

 GN: Has the UM Church been suffering in the past from a lack of Biblical authority?

IG: The church has suffered from a lack of Biblical authority because we have been Biblically illiterate. Seminaries don’t significantly train and teach Scripture. Therefore, most pastors are not Biblical preachers. Why? We have so demythologized the Scripture that we have taken away the cutting edge of the faith. The result is a watered down expression of the faith. Laypersons and ministers are not about to risk their lives in discipleship because they have not understood the radical, risking love of God.

 GN: In your book, you add the bias of GBGM toward collectivist or socialist state systems. What can we do about this bias?
IG: I give credit to the staff of GBGM for their concern for the poor and oppressed. Second, I give credit to the staff of the board who hold the position with integrity.

Having said that, I am convinced that they are, without question, wrong. They have and still advocate, in many cases, forms of state collectivism as the answer for the poor and oppressed in Third World countries. This has to be changed. Ultimately the only resource that will stand the test and bring long-range social change is the Biblical faith.

 GN: What signs of hope today encourage you about renewal within the UM Church?
IG: In many local churches, renewal is happening. It’s happening in my own congregation and in many others. Keeping in mind the historical perspective, renewal has never started at the top. For those who are discouraged and don’t see any hope, the alternatives are not all that good. The future of the independent church or the narrow denominations are not appealing to me. I plan to stay in the UM Church-to be loyal to the Lord of the Church and to work for renewal.