Editorial
May/June 1996
Volume 31, Number 3
“Crucial issues” are those which lie at the heart of a matter, and those upon which the future depends. The Church of the Brethren is facing crucial issues today. No longer are we debating denominational distinctives. Instead, the issues discussed now are the ones central to the very existence of the Christian faith, and to the propagation of that faith to the ends of the earth. Ultimately these issues are the ones which distinguish the Christian from the non-Christian, the true from the false, and orthodoxy from heresy.
We have come to the point where the church is being spiritually corrupted. This is not to say that the leadership is self-serving, but that the church has permitted the gangrene of unbelief and heresy to eat away at its vital organs. Here and there one finds vibrant congregations, pastors, and staff persons; yet taken as a whole, we find little life. To be sure, there is a kind of “manufactured” life–an artificial life support if you will–that appears as part of a new program or emphasis. But where is the real spiritual vigor that characterizes the work of the Holy Spirit? Where is the firm evangelical commitment to the Word of God? Where is the missionary zeal that God poured out on previous generations of Brethren? Where is the warm orthodoxy which Brethren sought to cultivate in years past?
It appears that portions of the Church of the Brethren’s denominational church life are out of control. Sometimes staff members seem only accountable to themselves, not to the elected officers of the church. Messenger magazine appears more as a liberally biased observer, than the official organ of the denomination. Candidates for licensing and ordination to the ministry in several districts are questioned more about their institutional loyalty than their doctrinal fidelity. Instead of the New Testament as our only creed, a new “noncreedal” approach teaches that the Brethren have no established doctrines and practices, not even concerning the uniqueness of Christ.
In this issue of the WITNESS, Harold Martin tackles five issues that will affect the Church of the Brethren as it approaches its fourth century of existence. The Church of the Brethren today would be unrecognizable as the same church begun by Alexander Mack, maintained by Christopher Sauer II and John Kline, and promoted by I.N.H. Beahm. Will it be that the Church of the Brethren will be unrecognizable to us a few short years ahead? The BRF sincerely hopes that reform, revival, and renewal will be granted by God should the Lord Jesus delay His coming.
Crucial Issues Which Brethren Face
By Harold S. Martin
The current findings of the restructure committee in the Church of the Brethren indicate a general dissatisfaction with the present state of the Church. The General Board’s Redesign Steering Committee (RSC) in its first report released on January 29, 1996 found “a clear lack of confidence” in “the denominational leadership system.” It appears that there are going to be some major changes ahead for the Church of the Brethren.
A chief goal of the Brethren Revival Fellowship has been to participate in what we hope will be God’s revitalization of the Church. Working for revival involves more than winning debates at Annual Conference. Revival will require more than finding political ways of keeping a diverse church glued together. Revival is the work of the Spirit of God within the hearts of individual believing Christians whereby the spiritual blessings once possessed (but later neglected) are once again restored.
There are several outstanding issues which loom before us as we approach Annual Conference at Cincinnati in 1996. The following items will likely prove most crucial.
1. THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS CHRIST
Is Jesus only one of many ways to God, or is He the only way to God? The words of Jesus still speak clearly, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi, and within sight of all the pagan Canaanite gods, said to them, “But who do you say that am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Jesus did not rebuke Peter for that answer, but rather declared that the response was divinely given (Matthew 16:17). Today Jesus is asking the same question, and many times the answer is not coming through very clearly.
One of the primary reasons why individuals and entire congregations are exiting from the Church of the Brethren is that they are dismayed to learn that some in the denomination (including active pastors) no longer believe that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and some are promoting the idea that the Christian faith is only one of several valid means of becoming reconciled with God.
Multitudes are assuming that all religions are much the same, and that all religions lead to God, just as all the spokes of a wheel lead to the hub. It makes no difference which spoke you follow; they all arrive at the center. The assumption is that Calvary provides one way of salvation, but there are plenty of other ways. Promoters of pluralism say that Jesus just could not have claimed to be the only way to God. Modern theologians view salvation through Jesus Christ alone as judgmental thinking, and they see the concept of “Jesus as the only way” as a Christianized form of bigotry. But to declare Jesus Christ as “the one and only Savior” is indeed what is taught in the Word of God.
Brethren delegates in 1995, at Charlotte, took a bold step and flatly declared that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. The statement passed at Charlotte says, “it is our understanding that not only all members of the church, but especially all those called to set apart ministry, should clearly affirm the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only divine Lord and Savior.” Since the 1995 Conference, there have been calls for rescinding the statement because of fears of creedalism. In fact, one of the new queries coming to the 1996 Conference at Cincinnati was largely precipitated by the action of the delegates on this issue in 1995.
BRF believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the only Savior of humanity, and the one Mediator between God and man. This truth lies at the heart of the Christian faith. We pray that the Church of the Brethren will continue to reaffirm the centrality of Jesus Christ, including belief in His incarnation, His deity, and His atoning death for sin. It is hardly fair to use the term “Christian” to describe who we are if we are not clear in affirming the preeminence of Jesus Christ.
2. THE RELIANCE ON POLITICS FOR ANSWERS
During this year of presidential elections there is once again a volume of effort (on the left and on the right) to press for the support of a particular political slant when voting.
Over the years, BRF has found fault with the oldline Protestants who seemed to equate the Gospel with liberal politics. They have viewed the church as an action group that is to speak out on political issues, and to lobby for legislative action in order to bring reform in society through the power of the state.
The political left lobbied for the Equal Rights Amendment, for unilateral world disarmament, against developing nuclear energy, for the rights of homosexuals, against United States policies in Central America, etc. And so the Church of the Brethren has a Washington office–a political “lobby” in our nation’s capital. BRF believes that it is fruitless to anchor our hopes for a better life on political reform. Suppose that the apostolic church had pinned its hopes for survival on legislation enacted by leaders in the Roman Empire! Where would the church be today?
Today the religious right has also turned to aggressive political lobbying. The “religious right” refers to a coalition of church-going people with conservative political views. They oppose abortion and special homosexual rights, and want public schools to stick to the three R’s. They promote policies that are intended to benefit families. The Christian Coalition (the right wing group founded in 1989 by Pat Robertson) aims to abolish the Department of Education, to protect parental rights, to provide tax relief for families, to restrict pornography, and to privatize the arts. BRF identifies with many values promoted by the Christian right, but their levels of patriotism and political involvement run counter to our understanding of biblical teaching, and of early church practice, and of Anabaptist principles.
The pagan Romans of Jesus’ day were committing the same sins as the pagan Americans of our day. Child abuse, homosexuality, infanticide, etc. were common practices in the Empire. Rome was a police state. Slavery was commonly accepted. There were foreign imposed taxes. There was violence at the state-controlled gladiatorial fights. Yet there is no biblical or historical evidence that Jesus engaged in any an-ti-Roman political activity. The attitude of Jesus toward politics was one of practical indifference, as was the attitude of the early church. Philip Schaff in his monumental History of the Christian Church, says, “Nothing was more alien to Christians than politics” (Volume 2, Page 345).
There is no special revelation in the New Testament which tells us how the state should solve its political and social and economic problems. As a result, Christians always have had, and always will have a variety of conflicting views on common social issues. In our day there is a rather heated conflict between the executives of the IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy) on the right and the NCC (National Council of Churches) on the left about support for Mr. Clinton. One religious group urges that we write our Senators and oppose a certain bill in Congress; another church group says we should support the very same bill. One of the new business items scheduled to come to Annual Conference at Cincinnati is a query asking “How should the Christian faith be expressed in the political process?” (The concern is that various groups in the name of Christianity take a variety of views on the social issues.) The problem is that there is no biblical revelation to help us out. Our task is to proclaim the historic Christian teachings, which require concern about both material needs and personal salvation. Those who sincerely respond to Christ’s offer of salvation become “new creatures” with an elevated moral conduct, and to that degree our nation’s social problems are alleviated.
The Religious Right is also beginning to use the weapon of boycott. There have been recent boycotts of the drug manufacturer that produces the RU486 birth control medication, and more recently there have been calls for standing against Disney for granting benefits to “domestic partners.” But who decides which firms to boycott? Apple Computer and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream companies also grant benefits to domestic partners. There is some evidence that, while protesting and boycotting may help some “offended Christians” get some anger off their chests–in doing so, they only harden the attitudes of business administrators, government officials, and media network executives. The problem with picketing the movies, and pressuring Senators to vote for a certain bill, and boycotting the products of certain companies–is that it easily leads to a kind of hatred for businesses and government in general.
Men and women will not all embrace the Gospel, and it will be impossible to “save society.” All we can do is try and influence and alter society, knowing that we cannot win the final battle. That belongs to the victorious Christ in His Second Coming. Even “voting good persons into political office” is not a panacea for all the evils of the world. Some Christians choose even to pray instead of to vote at the polls. Those who do vote should see the act as nothing more than a quiet way to exercise one’s best judgment for exerting good in national and local issues.
3. THE RISE OF EXTREME FEMINISM
During the past several decades, multitudes of women have been pushing for equality with men. Since 1963, when Betty Freidan published her book, The Feminine Mystique, the battle for women’s rights has touched virtually every aspect of our lives. One feminist leader says, “in the past, we women used our hands to rock the cradle; from now on, we are going to use our heads to rock the boat.” Donna Steichen says that as a result of moves on the part of the feminists, our churches are currently undergoing changes which rival the changes made during the Protestant Reformation in the days of Martin Luther (Time, November 23, 1992).
Jesus showed high regard for women during His earthly ministry. He spoke kindly but firmly to the woman of Samaria. He spent much time in the home of Mary and Martha. The account in Luke 8:1-3 speaks of some women whom Jesus had healed, who in turn ministered to Him “out of their resources.”
There is a difference between “radical feminism” and “feminism which calls for fairness.” No one should oppose the fair and equal treatment of women in church and in society. The U S News and World Report articles (March 21, 1994) on the inequities shown toward women, document some of the tremendous injustices which women on a worldwide scale are enduring. Sadly, some in the church have used isolated passages of Scripture to try and diminish the value and importance of women’s roles in society. Radical feminism, however, is seeking to construct a new religion and a new church. They view the Bible as a “patriarchal book” written and interpreted by men, for men in a patriarchal society.
The 1993 ReImagining Conference in Minneapolis opened the eyes of many to sense the radical extent to which extreme feminism can go. The leaders of the Conference led in prayer and conducted communion centered upon the Greek goddess, Sophia. They questioned the lordship of Christ. They named the doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement of Jesus as factors related to the oppression of women. They heard that when God allowed Jesus to die on the cross for the sins of humanity, He was practicing a form of child abuse. They celebrated lesbianism as a gift from God.
A group of more than twenty Church of the Brethren women attended the Minneapolis Conference, and in fact, publicly declared a name change for the denomination. The term Church of the Brethren offends their “feminese” and so they decided that the new name for the denomination is “The Church of Reconciliation.” This very small number of unconstrained feminists is not a threat to the stability of the Church, but the fact that this same group has become a “front” to support the homosexual movement in the church today is a cause for concern.
One bit of good news is seen in a recent development at Bethany Seminary. Bethany has appointed Daniel Ulrich as the Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies (starting in August, 1996). Brother Ulrich is described in the news release as one who has “an evangelical love for the Scriptures,” and he will serve as a teacher in the joint curriculum for Bethany and for Earlham. We do not know Professor Ulrich’s stand on all issues, but he is so solid in his understanding of Scripture that one of Earlham’s feminist professors resigned because (in her own written statement) she was “particularly disappointed with the Bethany appointment for the New Testament position that will (also) serve Earlham students.” We commend President Eugene Roop and Dean Rick Gardner for the choice.
4. THE INCREASING TOLERANCE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY
The most volatile issue facing the Church of the Brethren pertains to homosexuality. BRF supports the wording of the 1983 Annual Conference Human Sexuality paper which balances “extending Christlike comfort and grace to homosexual persons”-with the acknowledgment that even “the alternative of covenantal relations between homosexual persons…is not acceptable.”
There have been two recent developments which are shocking to many Brethren who hold to genuine convictions that practicing homosexuals should not be “welcomed at the table.”
One event is sponsored by the SCN (Supportive Congregations Network), which is a growing connection of Mennonite and Brethren congregations that “seek to support lesbian, gay, and bisexual members” in the two denominations. A Conference called “DANCING AT THE TABLE: ReImagining the Church” is planned for June 28-30, 1996, and will be held on the campus of Manchester College in North Manchester, Indiana. The workshops include a lecture on the subject, “What does the Bible REALLY say about same-sex relationships?” Another workshop is entitled, “is a Heterosexual Orientation Genetic or Learned?”
One of our respected church leaders said of the Conference: “This event is so marginal that it is really only a sideshow.” But not everyone is convinced that the Conference is only a sideshow. The Church of the Brethren Agenda reported in its January/February, 1996 edition that twelve Brethren and Mennonite churches are “supportive” congregations and that twenty-seven Brethren and Mennonite congregations are “accepting” congregations which publicly support “gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.”
The other stunning event is the approval given to the Brethren/Mennonite Gay Caucus to have a luncheon at Annual Conference in Cincinnati. For the first time ever at a Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, persons promoting acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle will have a luncheon at the Convention Center during Conference week. The luncheon has been arranged with the official approval of the Annual Conference Program and Arrangements Committee, even though Standing Committee in 1993 interpreted the 1983 Conference Statement on Human Sexuality as saying “that a homosexual lifestyle is unacceptable as a Christian option, and believes that the tone of the 1983 paper should be preserved.” Delegates to the 1993 Conference will remember that statement near the beginning of a blue sheet of paper handed to every delegate that year.
We view the Annual Conference Luncheon as the more troubling of the two meetings mentioned above. The “Dancing at the Table” conference is not an official event sponsored by the Church of the Brethren, but the BMC Luncheon has been approved by an official committee of the Brotherhood. Is that Committee (the Program and Arrangements Committee) trying to officially reverse the stance of the 1983 Human Sexuality paper which declares that the practice of homosexuality is unacceptable?
For nearly two decades now, our church publications have been saying favorable things about homosexuals. There really should have been a Brotherhood-wide outrage expressed toward most of the Brethren Life and Thought articles on homosexuality in the Winter, 1991 issue. Yet only a few whimpers were heard. The recent Agenda report gave information about the SCN without any editorial comment stating that the congregations are taking steps which violate an Annual Conference decision. Furthermore, perhaps it was done innocently, but the 1996 Annual Conference theme sets the stage for the kind of event that was approved by the Program and Arrangements Committee.
Brethren Revival Fellowship opposes the practice of homosexuality for the same reason that we oppose low-cut dresses on women, long hair on men, baptizing infants, and telling lies. These are practices which violate the principles of the New Testament, which is our rule of faith and practice.
Some are asking, in light of these developments, “How long does the Brethren Revival Fellowship intend to stay in the Church of the Brethren?” We have continually said that we are not a group of dissident people who are set on fragmenting the church. On the other hand, if the Annual Conference were to officially approve homosexual partnerships as a legitimate alternative to ‘heterosexual marriage, we would find it exceedingly difficult to stand by that oft-repeated commitment.
The Church of the Brethren must decide whether or not we will hold up a model of family life that is ordained of God and is beneficial to human society. The other option is for the church to give its blessing to any kinds of arrangements that individuals might choose to embrace. Our society urgently needs churches that will give a clear call to heterosexual marital fidelity, to lifelong marriage commitment, and to the importance of mothers and fathers in the lives of children.
5. THE GROWING APPEAL OF PLURALISM
“Theological Pluralism” is the term used to describe the attitude which says that one may believe anything (or nothing), and still be a member of a group in good standing. The word “pluralism” is used to designate the setting where there is room for any idea, any concept, any practice, any person. It speaks of broad doctrinal diversity.
Some Brethren seem to want the church to be a kind of ecclesiastical mall where most any doctrine is tolerated, where people can think whatever they want to think, and where any lifestyle is pretty well accepted. Under the huge umbrella of pluralism there is no definition and no condition; most anything is acceptable. Open-mindedness, noncommittal, and tolerance are considered the virtues of pluralism. Pluralism means that we are broad rather than narrow, inclusive rather than exclusive, and tolerant rather than intolerant. In pluralism, the concept of religious certainty–the “Here stand” sentence of Martin Luther–is often replaced by a noncommittal attitude toward spiritual realities. Dialogue is welcome, but to make decisions about truth is viewed as going too far. Pluralists say that there are absolutely no absolutes!
There is nothing wrong with pluralism if we keep the center clear. The center for Christians is commitment to the centrality of Jesus Christ and to the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible as the Word of God. Pluralism tends to destroy the Gospel message because it abandons the core of the Gospel. The Christian faith teaches that the Divine One comes to seek us out (Luke 19:10), burdens Himself with our wickedness in order to release us from it (1 Peter 2:24), and then offers to come and take up residence within us (Galatians 2:20). That message is unique to the Christian faith, and we only know that the message is true because of the reliable Word of God which teaches it.
BRF is calling upon sincere Brethren to be leukocytes in the body of Christ. Leukocytes are white corpuscles that fight infection in the blood. Illness in the Church of the Brethren has reached large proportions. Some persons in decision-making capacities have been mixing a little bit of Freud and Camus and Marx and Bultmann and Jesus into one massive pluralist blob. This philosophical mix is not filling the void in human hearts. People are seeking spiritual food elsewhere. Finances for the General Board are becoming more and more limited.
The life of the church is to be seen on the frontier–at Pleasant Valley and at White Oak and at Cherry Grove–not at the headquarters in Jerusalem or New York City or Elgin, Illinois. Brethren Revival Fellowship reminds the Church not to depart from our evangelical Anabaptist roots. May all of us sense anew the need for revival, renewal, repentance, and loyalty to the simple truths of the New Testament.