logo

Letters
Cheers and Jeers

Revivalism and orthodoxy
The problem with American revivalism, said Gabriel Vahanian many decades ago, is that with each revival less and less is revived. That makes me wonder if Alpha theology will transform society as George Gallup Jr. contends in his article "Alpha and the Transformation of Society" (November/December 2003). And what an insult to older clergy to say ".that most younger clergy are more orthodox, so as older clergy die off the age factor alone will be significant." Does that mean our witness to Christ was of no account in his eyes? Or that we did not love the church or know the grace of God, whatever our theology might have been? Or, that only ministers with an "orthodox theology" can gather the church and make it grow?

Let me give a little history lesson. The Great Revival of the eighteenth- century was a highly theological dispute between predestinarians and Arminians (the "liberals" of their day), who believed God's grace could be resisted. It was not a pelagian argument whether humans had an autonomous free will. In spite of the high theological tone and the brilliance of Jonathan Edwards on the Calvinist side, who is a predestinarian today? A few football coaches in Nebraska.

The second revival on the nineteenth century frontier was more about technique in manipulating people to the "mourners bench" and down the "sawdust trail." Theology was a trivial concern at the camp meetings and proved impotent in challenging the fissiparous individualism of American culture or the bureaucratization of the church. Despite that, there was a strong social concern in the evangelical Christianity of the period, especially in combating slavery. Timothy Smith documents this in Revivalism and Social Reform.

The socially reforming impulse of evangelical Christianity of that period carried over into the liberal-evangelical "social gospel," but "orthodox" evangelicals today hardly know their heritage. Sojourners magazine has tried to remind them, but most evangelicals ignore it. With so much of that rich tradition forgotten, it seems that "orthodox Christianity" will do little to transform the individualistic culture we live in, but rather, reinforce it by its own form of cultural captivity to purely private religion. Evangelicals will call for more strict sexual mores, but do little to challenge, for example, the defunding of social programs or cheap sweatshop labor. From my point of view, to be "orthodox" means, in part, to be either socially naive and willfully ignorant or unconcerned about people who suffer under a system of social domination. Enlighten me, if it is otherwise.

For almost fifteen years, I have been on our conference Board of Ordained Ministry. It doesn't matter whether candidates call themselves "orthodox" or "liberal," they have one thing in common: they all believe that humans have a free will. Indeed, the theory of Methodist theological history put forth by Robert Chiles is that Methodism has undergone a theological transformation from "free grace" to "free will" over the centuries, which checks out when interviewing candidates of all theological persuasions. The result has been a very moralistic faith, which stresses will power, something American culture believes in implicitly and uncritically ("Just do it!" "Take charge of your life," "Be all that you can be," etc.)

This flies in the face of Wesley's own gospel, no matter what label you hang on the preacher. When I recently spoke to our Board about this issue, I pointed out question 23 in the "Large Minutes" that says Methodists come to the "very edge of Calvinism" by "denying all natural free will." No one, either evangelical or liberal, knew what to make out of that, much less, how to teach it or interpret it in our churches. It made for a very good discussion about the hermeneutics (interpreting the abnormal language) of historical theology.

I believe that "free grace," seen as transforming power available to all, goes to the very heart of Wesley's joyful evangel, but is it anything more than just old doctrine and words to most evangelicals or liberals? Are we stirring up grace so that God will give us more grace, as Wesley told us to do? I would hope free grace becomes experience in the lives of United Methodists when we revive the teaching of it. Whether you label me "liberal" or "orthodox," in Wesley's sense, I am a traditional Methodist.

Maybe that should be the starting point for discussion between us rather than casting stones at those you call apostates.

David McCreary
Chadron UM Church
Chadron, Nebraska

Inadequate answer
In his editorial "The Affectation of Unity" (November/December, 2003), James Heidinger raises a good question with regard to the quest for unity among Christians. Unfortunately, he provides an inadequate answer. Acknowledging that Christians must never be content with division within the body of Christ, he goes on to state that "evangelicals have always held something as more important than Christian Unity-faithfulness to apostolic doctrines and moral teachings." He makes this statement as though "evangelicals" have a position different from other Christians. On this I disagree.

A primary focus of contemporary ecumenism is honoring the efforts of persons who sought to be faithful to the gospel, even at the expense of an "affectation of unity." Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the Wesleys, gathered around themselves followers who struggled with the state of the body of Christ in their lifetimes. Each of them had a vision of a Church truly catholic, apostolic, and reformed. Denominational division ultimately resulted from their reforms. Any modern ecumenical impetus needs to take seriously the insights of these reformers, and not merely sweep them under the rug for the sake of an appearance of unity.

Contemporary ecumenism does not seek denominational merger. In the first half of the twentieth-century, organic unity was proposed, but this has been replaced by a movement toward understanding and cooperation. The question today might be stated this way: "Can unity be achieved, while recognizing and respecting denominational distinctives?" In this ecumenical climate, Presbyterians are free to be Presbyterian; Lutherans, Lutheran; United Methodists, United Methodist, etc. What we seek is agreement in the essentials of the faith, not in peripheral matters such as church governance. Sometimes these are called "Full Communion" agreements, meaning that the denominations involved share doctrines that are sufficiently similar to permit recognition of each other's sacraments and ministries (ordained and lay).

Unfortunately, this explanation does not put the matter finally to rest. History has demonstrated that the list of which issues are considered essential and which peripheral is quite fluid. It would be a disservice to truth to claim that there are not potentially "church-dividing" issues facing the body of Christ today. These are considered "essential matters of faith" to those who hold positions about them. Apostolic Succession has, for example, been an obstacle to unity within Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC). Women in ordained ministry is a divisive issue in some quarters, as is the celibate priesthood. The most recent, although not necessarily the most divisive, threat to unity is the issue of homosexuality.

Perhaps an "affectation of unity" is a greater scandal than division. However, James Heidinger's history lesson has limited relevance for today, because of its implication that this "affectation of unity" is the goal of contemporary ecumenism. This is simply not the case. Far from ignoring theological or doctrinal differences, today's ecumenism is taking them seriously-looking not for compromise but for integrity. We seek to define and understand the things that separate us, so we can work together to achieve the unity for which Christ prayed.

O. French Ball
First United Methodist Church
Oberlin, Ohio

Ask the questions
The article, "By what authority?" by George Mitrovich in the November/December 2003 issue, is right on target. His belief that "United Methodist ministers should tell us what they believe" is necessary if our church is to survive.

I think it is time for the Pastor Parish Committee at the time of the introductory meeting to start asking some very pointed questions of the pastor that the cabinet has chosen to be appointed to their church.

I am a second or third career pastor, who is in my fourth appointment and never have I been questioned about what I believe. My introductory meetings have been a time of pleasant smiling, sharing family information, sipping on coffee, eating delicious homemade cookies, and shaking hands to seal our bond of friendship.

Just once at the introductory time I would like to be asked questions that are open-ended, not questions that can be answered yes or no. Such as: What do you believe about the virgin birth? Tell us what you believe about Jesus as Savior, the Son of God, etc. Why was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross at Calvary? I think you get the idea.

Churches, when are you going to start taking authority on who your pastor will be? You can tell the district superintendent that the pastor the cabinet proposes to send to your church is not a match and request them to try again.

Maybe you won't have a pastor ready to move in when the current one leaves, but what is worse, no pastor or one who is teaching you wrong doctrine?

Harlan Nonhof
Clay Center, Kansas
Associate Member/Deacon
Kansas West Annual Conference

Caught my eye
I must first tell you that in recent months, I have generally tossed your magazine after looking at a few of the headlines. In the past I had generally found your magazine to be one-sided and representing a much more conservative view of the Christian faith than my own. This one-sidedness caused me to become unwilling to read much of anything written in those pages.

But this issue certainly caught my eye; the cover is an interesting eye-catcher. In recent times I have become fascinated with the woman named Mary, the Mother of God. Many do not understand at all our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters when they speak of the "Holy Mother" in this way. But if Jesus Christ truly was God in the flesh, and Mary was his mother, she was and is the mother of God. It is powerful to take time and think about this woman even briefly during this season and throughout the church year. Thanks for the article.

I enjoyed reading that article, but that is not what really got me excited and caused me to write. It was when I found the article entitled "Should We Support Gay Marriage? Yes or No."

Being a graduate of Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri, I recognized the name Tex Sample. I must confess, I was really surprised that your editors printed both sides of this issue, let alone included some of Tex's writings in your magazine. I must commend your editors for sharing both sides. I also commend my friend and colleague Tex for his efforts and his ability to write and share his beliefs on this very controversial subject. It is another reminder that Tex has never shied away from stating where he stands on the issues of equal rights for all persons.

I must confess I was not familiar with Wolfhart Pannenberg before reading this article. Although I do not adhere to the same interpretation as he, I did find it well written and I commend him for his thoughts on this timely subject.

Other articles that I did read in their entirety were these: "The Man Came Around: Johnny Cash" by Steve Beard and the "Film Focus" article. Again I confess, I do not agree with the ultra conservative theology that your magazine promotes, but I am glad I did not toss the November/December issue and I did enjoy reading several articles in it.

I hope we will continue to see you choosing to include other articles that share both sides of the many questions facing the United Methodist Church and all Christendom in this exciting time in which we live.

Michael Davis
Atkinson and Amelia United Methodist Church
Nebraska Annual Conference



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine