by Steve | Jan 12, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Archive: Methodism’s Silent Minority
The following article by the Rev. Dr. Charles W. Keysor was published in the Christian Advocate, July 14, 1966. Keysor’s essay galvanized evangelicals in the then Methodist Church. Within months of its publication the Good News movement was launched in 1967.
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 Rev. Charles Keysor passed away on October 22, 1985. He became the founding editor of Good News. Photo: Good News archives.
Reprinted from Christian Advocate, July 14, 1966. Copyright (C) 1966 by The Methodist Publishing House.
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 | Aug 11, 1996 | Uncategorized
Forward to Our Methodist Heritage (By Charles Keysor)
By Bishop Earl G. Hunt
1996
AFTER DR. JAMES S. STEWART of Edinburgh had preached a few years ago to a large audience of United Methodist ministers and their wives in Charlotte, North Carolina, a young minister (suffering, I fear, from creedal poverty in his own mind and life) said with devastating honesty, “We were embarrassed by the immensity of his faith!”
This candid comment serves to remind us that the Christian community has come dangerously close to losing its gospel in recent years. The reasons are too complex for easy analysis, and are related to the secularization and the affluence of contemporary life as well as to philosophy and theology. In many instances we clothed what amounted to a fundamentally humanistic perspective in the historic vestments of the Church and its ministry. Diminishing church attendance and waning effectiveness in evangelism undeniably are traceable to this grave malady of diluted conviction. In fact, the total problem of the contemporary Church, in my opinion, is the various manifestations of Christian agnosticism that have confronted believers in the last few decades .
But, praise God, there are startling and encouraging evidences of a renaissance of faith around the world today. We seem to be engaged deliberately in the gradual recovery of those cardinal beliefs that compose our faith. The days of creedal drought are surely in twilight. This is an obvious return to our Wesleyan position, for the little Oxford don to whose insights we owe our sectarian origin was never in doubt about what he believed regarding God, Christ, sin, forgiveness, prayer, and the holy life! His theology, always firmly based in the Scriptures, was doxology, and his trumpet never gave an uncertain sound.
It has been my observation that significant and lasting social action by the Christian community always and forever rests upon deep and authentic conviction about the great doctrines of the gospel. There is a historic sequence of idea and deed, conviction and mission, faith and action. Before the imperative of the Great Commission came the indicative of God at work through Jesus Christ in his incarnation, his death on the cross, and his resurrection.
But this has been, in recent decades, the lost movement of the symphony. Now, at long last, we seem about to hear again, in all of its surging power, the whole score of the gospel’s music. If this prognosis is correct, it constitutes the best authentic hope from an earthly standpoint for the survival of the Church.
This renaissance of evangelical Christianity has many faces in our time, but the movement itself is far broader and larger than any one of them. It has already permeated the grass roots of the Church around the earth and is now invading all but the most reluctant of ecclesiastical leadership levels. The Good News movement in the United Methodist Church is one aspect of this development and has articulated effectively its emphasis to our entire denomination. As one who is himself wholly committed to the historical evangelical doctrines of our faith, with appropriate and courageous social implementation, I am pleased to write this brief foreword for Dr. Keysor’s little volume. His skill as a writer and his deep dedication as a United Methodist Christian are everywhere apparent in the pages that follow. I confidently pray that the message of Our Methodist Heritage may find lodging in many lives, and may result, through God’s Spirit, in an awakened interest in the basic truths of our holy religion.
EARL G. HUNT, JR.
Presiding Bishop Nashville (Tenn.) Episcopal Area
United Methodist Church
by Steve | Nov 21, 1976 | Archive - 1976
A Death to Contemplate
Editorial by Charles Keysor
November/December 1976
Death often leads us to ponder … to reflect upon the earthly life and labors of one now departed. We remember what he or she has accomplished between the terminal points of birth and death. We consider how the world may be different because of this one particular life. On July 30 this year, Rudolf Karl Bultmann died in Marburg, West Germany. He was 71 years old.
Probably Bultmann was the greatest theological giant of our times. Alongside him in the pantheon of the central 20th century theology, would be Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and Reinhold Neibuhr. But Bultmann’s influence was surely the greatest. There is little doubt it will be the longest-lasting, for the disciples of Rudolf Bultmann permeated theological education in the Western World. They transmitted Bultmann’s thinking to several generations of highly influential church leaders preachers, teachers in colleges and seminaries, writers, editors, bureaucrats, and bishops.
Rudolf Bultmann was deep and complex, to say the least. That he was a great mind, none can question. But what matters is not so much his massive intellect as the presuppositions he held concerning ultimate realities.
“It is no longer possible for anyone seriously to hold the New Testament view of the world,” Bultmann declared. “In fact, there is no one who does.”
Christianity Today, in an editorial commenting on his death, offered this cogent summary: “His presuppositions began with a conscious rejection of theological orthodoxy. [He] did not allow for the presence of a personal, transcendent God who acts decisively and historically to redeem His people and who speaks in an intelligible manner to reveal Himself and His ways to men and women. He excluded the supernatural by definition from his system, as also any real intervention of the living God into the affairs of the world. Therefore [for Bultmann] the concept of miracle was ruled out, including the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ …”
“Wedding his theology to the existentialist philosophy of the early Martin Heidegger, Bultmann assumed the most radical tradition of Biblical criticism. He denied the historicity of all but a few basics of the life of Jesus (the “thatness”) and essentially dismissed the Old Testament and all Jewish elements in the Bible as irrelevant for Christian theology.”
This statement is accurate. It correctly describes Bultmann’s philosophical life-blood, and so it helps us to understand better his powerful influence on three generations of seminary professors and students.
“The tragedy of his influence and the painful burden it bequeathed to us stems from a good intention and a much-needed corrective gone amiss,” explains the Rev. Dr. Paul Mickey, Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology, Duke Divinity School, and Chairman of the Good News Task Force on Theology. “His was a concern for the sola fides principle, salvation by faith alone. This was nobly lifted up by Martin Luther during the Protestant reformation.
“As a Lutheran himself, Bultmann was eager to reaffirm this principle in opposition to 19th century liberalism. He correctly perceived the need to reaffirm that salvation is sola fides, by faith alone. But he went too far. He jumped on a ‘faith bandwagon’ and rode off into existential psychologism, away from history.”
Here is where heresy enters Bultmann’s work, the Duke professor said. “For Bultmann, atonement li.e., the death of Christ on the cross in payment for our sins) was reduced to ‘self-understanding’ and history was pushed aside. The same principles which whisked away the historicity of the Bible also made history irrelevant for the modern believer.”
What is our faith apart from its history? A cross that may have happened, if you choose to believe this. A tomb that was really empty only to those who make it so by believing that “He lives!” A record of early church growth and witness which may be only propaganda that was concocted to sell Christianity as a miracle religion.
If the Bible record of events is not reliable, then those who trust it are really fools and simpletons – as Bultmannians sometimes suggest.
Time Magazine for October 19, 1976, reported a major archaeological find at ancient Ebla in Syria – a large number of clay tablets dating between 2400 and 2250 B.C. Describing the first discovery, Time reflected the wide spread assumption that Biblical events and places are really not historical: “… it [the discovery] also provides the best evidence to date that some of the people described in the Old Testament actually existed ….
“The Biblical connections appear to be numerous. The tablets contain accounts of the creation and the flood, which are strikingly similar to those found in both the Old Testament and Babylonian literature. They refer to a place called Urusalima, which scholars say is clearly Ebla’s name for Jerusalem. (If so, it is unquestionably the earliest known reference to the Holy City, predating others by hundreds of years.)
“We always thought of ancestors like Eber as symbolic,” says [ David Noel Freedman, a University of Michigan archaeologist who worked in the excavations], “at least until these tablets were found. Fundamentalists could have a field day with this one.”
Such is the common assumption: Biblical places, people, and events probably did not actually exist. Bultmann has done more than any other, in our time, to increase this distrust in the Bible’s historicity.
“If history is at best irrelevant theologically,” Dr. Mickey observed, “if not untrue, then the atonement, the idea of God as Creator and the notion that we have social responsibilities in obedience to God – all these are lost and gone forever! Bultmann’s heresy was not his affirmation of sola fides, but his exclusivism which rejected history and good works.”
Everything was reduced to subjectivism, or to purely personal judgment and opinion, Dr. Mickey said. Under Bultmann’s thinking, there was “no need or power for good works and a lively social witness. Without history there is no social order.
“Thus the epithet, ‘Faith without history and good works is dead heresy’ may be the final judgment of Christian history on Professor Bultmann.”
Rudolf Bultmann tore the very heart out of Biblical Christianity, and this same characteristic is widely evident in our church today. Shortly after Bultmann’s death, a tribute was given by Dr. F. Thomas Trotter, staff executive for the UM Board of Higher Education and Ministry (in charge of our colleges and seminaries). UM Communications circulated a story about this tribute. It reported that Dr. Trotter had said that the church, if it is to survive and compel the attention of modern persons, will need theologians like Bultmann. Why? To keep the church thinking about its mission and its gospel, Dr. Trotter declared. He also observed that Bultmann’s legacy to the church is his care for the authority of the Word of God, spoken in modern situations and in speech direct enough that the personal meaning will not be missed.
“Such scholar-prophets [as Bultmann] will have their detractors and they will risk our displeasure,” Trotter confessed. “But what they have to say to us is this: if our language is archaic, our response to the Gospel is merely formal, and our preaching is vacuous, then the power of God’s possibilities for men and women will be absent from the world.”
“The world does not require so much to be informed as reminded,” Hannah Smith once said.
The church is reminded, upon the death of Rudolf Bultmann, that men die in a few swift years, but the truth of God survives. In Eternity, when a final accounting is made, belief will be judged more enduring than doubt. That is why Paul wrote to young Timothy: “The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching cars they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (II Timothy 4:3, 4).
by Steve | Sep 3, 1975 | Archive - 1975
Archive: Come, Let Us Reason Together
By Charles W. Keysor, Editor
Late this summer we were saddened by an ugly accusation.
An editorial published in the September issue of the Interpreter, official United Methodist program journal, accused Good News of plotting to form a separate church.
If this is true, then Good News deserves to be condemned, for we have lied about our intentions. But if the ugly accusation is false, then Dr. Roger Burgess, author of the editorial, has come close to slandering tens of thousands of United Methodists.
This is not the first time we have heard this accusation. It has floated vaguely in the background, and some United Methodists have used it as an excuse to avoid taking seriously Good News’ concerns about the church.
But now the ugly accusation is in print. Publication in an official journal of the church has caused some people to suppose that Good News has been officially condemned by the United Methodist Church. This is not true. But the wells have been poisoned; suspicions have been planted across the church as to our motives.
For this reason it seems necessary to comment on eight specific indictments made in this editorial. “Come let us reason together,” as Isaiah said.
Since Good News began in 1966, we have tried to make our motives clear. Our corporate title is, “A Forum for Scriptural Christianity WITHIN the United Methodist Church.” We have said many times that we desire to work within the denomination. We have urged countless discouraged people not to quit, but to stay in the UM Church. Often we have been successful in this effort.
Nevertheless, we stand accused of plotting schism.
Indictment #1: Good News has criticized “the established church as weak and sick, thereby undermining confidence.” We have been critics and we shall continue to criticize, as directed by reason and conviction. We have not been perfect, but is criticism necessarily wrong? What about Dr. Burgess’ underlying assumption that criticism of an institution “undermines confidence?” Should loyalty be a matter of unquestioning acceptance? Has blind conformity become the highest United Methodist virtue? If so, we have come a long, long way from Otterbein and Wesley who differed boldly, powerfully and persistently with the church in their day.
Good News is not the first to describe the church as “weak and sick.” Among the guilty are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nathan; Micah, Paul, Savonarola, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley and Otterbein. Jesus Christ was a stronger critic than all the rest. We are not ashamed to be included in this company.
History records that the institutional church often has been “weak and sick.” That is why the heavenly Father sent prophets, and why the prophetic spirit is needed afresh in each generation. To exempt the church from criticism is not justified by Scripture, reason, experience or tradition.
Other United Methodists freely criticize the church, why is Good News alone condemned? What about the flamboyant criticisms of the Rev. Cecil Williams, pastor of Glide Memorial UM Church San Francisco? What about Dr. Burgess himself, the author of this editorial? He vigorously criticized the church after the 1972 General Conference merged his Board of Health Education and Welfare into the Board of Global ministries.
We doubt that our criticisms have “undermined confidence” in the church. If the church was not very weak and very sick, our criticisms would roll off like water shed from a duck’s back. Good News has expressed openly the shattered and crumbling confidence of multitudes. We have made public the frustration and heartbreak of many loyal United Methodists. Good News speaks for them; many are afraid to express themselves. These criticisms need to be said.
Indictment #2: Good News has established a “statement of doctrine as a rallying point and [plans to] issue a study book.” The 1972 General Conference urged all United Methodists to “accept the challenge of responsible theological reflection.” This appears on page 79 of the current UM Discipline.
We had supposed we were fulfilling this challenge when our Good News Task Force on Doctrine and Theology spent more than one year preparing the “Junaluska Affirmation, pages 22-28. Is it schismatic to follow the Discipline? Or does Dr. Burgess really mean that the General Conference has stimulated schism by encouraging United Methodists to “do theology?” Is he saying that our theological statement is irresponsible? Read it and judge it for yourself.
Will the “Junaluska Affirmation” become the theological rallying point for a new church? This seems to frighten Dr. Burgess.
Since the time of Wesley, doctrine has not been a major cause of division among us. Other issues divided our forefathers: slavery, episcopal power, rental of church pews and religious formalism. But doctrine is not the major reason why Methodists have split off to form new denominations. And today, no statement of doctrine has enough appeal to attract many United Methodists into a new denomination. Only radical dishonoring of UM doctrinal standards and their Biblical base could change this. Are Dr. Burgess and others moving in this direction? For example, if the UM Church should relax its present opposition to homosexuality, then hundreds of thousands will be driven out. Should this happen (and we pray that it won’t) a new church might be formed. The “Junaluska Affirmation” could help provide its doctrinal foundation.
A glance at history may be helpful.
Back in the 15th century, a Roman Catholic theologian named Martin Luther nailed a document containing 95 theses or propositions to a church door in Germany. He did this in order to open theological debate. He wanted to clarify theological contradictions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Scriptures. He succeeded! His 95 theses set in motion a chain of events which resulted in the Protestant Reformation. Luther did not choose to leave his church: he was kicked out. Why? Because he dared to differ with the hierarchy and because his convictions, based on Biblical theology, were not subject to crippling compromise.
Could history repeat itself?
Things have changed since Luther’s day. Expulsion of any group seems unlikely in a pluralistic church. But the accusations of Dr. Burgess conjure up fears of church division. This may be like tossing a lighted match ir.to a haystack. There is deep discouragement abroad in the church, and our leaders must be cautious about prophecies which could become self-fulfilling. Hundreds of thousands have already quit United Methodism, and exodus continues unabated as our leaders pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Ugly accusations against evangelicals can turn the already alarming exodus into a torrent. If members vanish, who then will keep the church institution running?
Indictment #3: Good News is preparing its own “training and confirmation materials for membership.” In 1976, we will make available materials to help pastors train junior high school students in Biblical faith before they join the church. The denomination ought to make such materials available, but it does not. Our efforts to secure the needed materials met with a closed door in Nashville.
A survey of 1,200 pastors (500 responding) showed 85% dissatisfied with denominational confirmation resources. Therefore many are forced to improvise (one pastor reported using the novel, Bridge Over the River Kwai as a confirmation resource for his junior high youth). We choose to fill the vacuum, and believe the United Methodist Church will be stronger as a result.
Is the church at the mercy of insensitive bureaucrats? Or is there a time when the bureaucrats must be bypassed in order that Biblical. teaching resources may become available to those who desire them?
Indictment #4: Good News is proposing to develop its own theological schools. Many United Methodists agree with Dr. Ed Robb’s diagnosis of our UM seminaries, page 32. There is no need to elaborate here on the points which he has made so clearly. Since there has been much controversy about Dr. Robb’s address, we urge you to read it yourself and judge its validity.
If people choose to see schismatic implications in Dr. Robb’s message, there is an easy solution. Let the denomination make adequate provision for orthodoxy in the theological education of our church. This could be done in either of two ways.
Several seminaries could be designated as orthodox. These could be staffed, administered and financed by UM evangelicals. This would still leave the majority of UM seminary facilities and faculties dedicated to secular humanism, naturalism, existentialism, or even a stronger Biblical viewpoint. So our proposal ought not to be threatening-especially in a church which prides itself on encouraging different opinions. … the validity of varying views.
A second way would be to have in each UM seminary some professors who present the traditional view of Scriptural Christianity in theology, church history, Christian ethics, evangelism, devotional life, preaching and church administration. This would require adding qualified professors and library resources at every UM seminary. It would require that the Biblical evangelical position enjoy the same academic freedom presently being accorded to non-evangelical and fragmented Biblical viewpoints in our seminary faculties, libraries and student bodies.
Indictment #5: Good News is talking about its own missions program. In the center of this Good News magazine is a supplement about the work of the Evangelical Missions Council, created by Good News in 1974 as a means of dealing with the crisis in UM world missions. EMC and Good News are usually linked together; actions of EMC credited to Good News, as well as the other way around.
As has been often stated, we are seeking a clear channel by which we can faithfully fulfill the Great Commission as United Methodists. Our first choice is to do this through our Board of Global ministries. But here we encounter a serious difficulty. Contrary to Discipline’s good statement on missions, the Board of Global Ministries has substituted unofficially a radical, secular concept of missions. (You can see this in any issue of New World Outlook, the board’s official magazine). Instead of welcoming us as brothers and sisters … instead of including us at the level of policymaking and program-planning, board leaders have patronized us with dialogue and effectively excluded us from the decision-making process.
We think that our dollars and our missionary candidates should be invested in an aggressive, creative outreach to win billions of lost people to Christ. To the extent we can do this through the Board of Global Ministries, we will. But we insist on the right, as United Methodists, to be ecumenical. The Kingdom of God is larger than any one denomination, including our own. The call to world evangelization is certainly bigger than one mission board. We intend to fulfill the Great Commission wherever God allows. We shall not turn down opportunities to cooperate with the Board of Global Ministries-this is a part of our responsibility. Nor should we refuse to become involved when calls for help come to us directly from autonomous Unite Methodist bodies and their leaders overseas-nor when United Methodists are doing missionary work in other evangelical organizations.
The United Methodist Church practices liberal ecumenism through heavy support for the National and World Councils of Churches. Good News would like to extend UM ecumenicity into orthodox areas also, thus fulfilling the “catholic spirit” of our heritage. If this frightens anyone it may reveal they have too narrow a vision of Christ’s Universal Church.
Indictment #6: Good News publishes its own general periodical. We have done so since 1967. Why? Because our denomination has provided no publication where evangelical viewpoints can be expressed extensively, and where our theological thrust can be made. It has seemed only right that we finance and create our own publication, not diverting funds from the treasury of the church for our purposes. We should be pleased to discontinue our own publication if the denomination should provide a comparable communication opportunity for us.
The United Methodist Church has a poor track record with general periodicals. For nearly 20 years Together, New Christian Advocate and, more recently, United Methodists Today floundered and died (see Summer ’75 Good News, p. 79). Had Good News been published by the UM Church, chances are we would be dead and buried along with other official magazines mentioned above. We sense that the denomination is embarrassed by a maverick publication which grows, while official publications die. Are we being criticized for paying all our own bills, instead of adding to the deficit of $6,260,000 paid by the UM Church to subsidize general periodicals over the last 18 years?
Indictment #7: Good News conducts regional and national meetings. In an effort to meet people’s needs, we have held six national convocations. Next year, by God’s grace, we shall hold one in each jurisdiction. In addition, there have been many regional meetings held by Good News people.
What’s so dangerous about meetings? Ours are paid for by Good News people, so no financial drain on the church results from our gatherings.
Perhaps the fear is caused by our independence: Good News meetings are planned, financed and controlled by Good News people. We should think churchmen would rejoice when a group of United Methodist is able to fly on its own, rather than remain dependent on denominational staff and finances.
We have not heard Dr. Burgess express fear because many other UM groups also meet on their own. Women. Ordained women. Blacks. Asians. Youth. Young adults. Indians. Chicanos. Charismatics. Methodist Federation for Social Action. The list is endless.
For United Methodists, going to meetings is as natural as breathing. So by our frequent meeting we bear witness to the fact that we are true United Methodists.
We mean to threaten nobody. We seek commonality in Christ, and to share together in the Biblical faith of the Universal Church. That is why we meet.
Indictment #8: Good News is discussing establishment of its own organization to elect its own bishops. Of all Dr. Burgess’ charges, this is the most surprising. Every other UM group is up to its ears in the politics of electing bishops … everybody except Good News, that is. We are not promoting anybody for bishop. We never have.
At our most recent convocation, an idea was offered during the closing minutes of a major address. This was enough to set off the alarm bells of those who fear evangelical resurgence. Is it wrong for only evangelicals to talk of electing bishops? Is this the much-advertised pluralism?
Dr. Burgess says that Good News. ought to follow the example of United Methodist Women and Black Methodists for Church Renewal. They have been successful in impacting the denomination, Dr. Burgess says, and Good News would be also if we copied them.
One thing makes this impossible: Good News is primarily a theological movement. What motivates us is a desire for Biblical theology to be practiced in and by the UM Church. This is a much different motive than the caucuses. They are primarily political, with theology incidental. No caucus has produced a statement such as the “Junaluska Affirmation.” For the caucuses, theology is the tail rather than the dog. But for Good News, politics is the tail and theology the dog.
This explains why the caucuses operate as they do. Given their first priority as church money and church power, nobody can question their effectiveness. They do have denominational “clout”; Good News does not. But political power is less important to us than theological integrity. This comes first on our agenda. This explains why Good News alone has developed a major theological statement. Why Good News alone talks about the issues of seminaries and world missions. Why Good News alone among the special-interest caucuses publishes its magazine and is preparing materials for confirmation and youth membership training. The driving force behind all we do is transcendent theological concern. This dimension of church renewal is unique to Good News.
Where lies the real danger of dividing the UM Church? With Good News and its primarily theological concern? Or with those who cause large numbers of United Methodists to lose confidence in the church by promoting causes which are contrary to Scripture and repugnant to the feelings of ordinary people?
Is it possible that the only schismatics in the United Methodist Church today are the people who take seriously the teachings of our denominational forefathers? If so, this indicates how far the church has departed from its Biblical foundations.