The following article continues to be of interest because the 1983 Conference was the one in which the current Human Sexuality paper was adopted. It also reflects continuing concerns about Conference.
Editorial
September/ October, 1983
Volume 18, Number 5
As Bro. Samuel Cassel indicates in the article which follows this editorial, BRF is not “taking over the Church of the Brethren.” But Brethren Revival Fellowship may be having an increased influence in the Church. Those who have attended Annual Conference each year for the past 15 or more years may have noticed the more irenic mood at the 1983 Conference. There were not as many offensive and “far out” things happening at Baltimore.
The atmosphere at Baltimore was friendly, the spirit was good, the moderator was fair. The facilities were adequate – except that the main arena would have served its purpose better if there had been raised seats. The business items were important. The Conference adopted the position paper on human sexuality after one important amendment was passed. It accepted a paper on the office of deacon with a re-defining of some terms. Delegates appointed a committee to study leadership development in the Church, and they quickly decided not to re-study the matter of affiliation with the NCC/WCC.
There are some positive statements to make about the events which transpired at Baltimore, and there are some negative observations.
POSITIVE:
1) The Friday night message given by Bro. David Rittenhouse was an example of preaching the truth in a way that should characterize more of our evening sessions at Annual Conference.
2) The human sexuality paper was strengthened by an amendment which in effect says that homosexual practices even within an agreed covenant relationship “are not acceptable.”
3) Business sessions were interspersed with Bible studies and some of the morning and evening Bible studies were well attended.
4) The Moderator was firm in his refusal to allow clapping when speeches were made for or against a particular issue.
5) Many were delighted when the name of James F. Myer was announced as the new Moderator- Elect.
NEGATIVE:
1) There were frequent attempts to call for equality in administrative roles for women and for men. Masculine Bible pronouns were sometimes switched in gender.
2) One of the delegates declared at the microphone that he was a homosexual, a pastor in the Church of the Brethren, and that his congregation sent him to Annual Conference as their official delegate.
3) One of the Bible study leaders declared that Paul was inspired of God when he wrote I Corinthians 13, but that Paul surely made many mistakes in his other writings.
4) The number of men and women wearing shorts while attending Conference continues to mark a lack of concern about modesty in attire.
5) The audience applauded the speech on Thursday night with a standing ovation. In the judgment of many, it was not a spiritual message, but mere dramatic oratory. People applaud a performance, not a sermon!
6) Nothing was done about membership in the NCC/ WCC (except to affirm our membership), in a year when there have been deep concerns about the directions of these organizations.
The Conference once again indicated its “political expertise” by adopting a Resolution on Nicaragua. Many of us believe that the deteriorating moral climate in our nation (along with the increase in crime) is largely due to the church’s lack of emphasis on individual character training, because it is increasingly trying to influence politics and social structures.
You will glean additional insights about the 1983 Annual Conference by reading the following commentary prepared by the BRF Chairman.
–H. S. M.
A Commentary on the
1983 Annual Conference
By Samuel M. Cassel
Each year when the delegates return home from Annual Conference, they give their congregations a personal evaluation of the Conference proceedings. The delegates take time to report on the results of the unfinished and the new business items. They give an evaluation of the reports, the inspirational services, the insight sessions, and every other event that they feel might be of interest to the members of the local congregation. As one who has given such reports to the home congregation on a number of occasions, I usually have had to sum up my feelings as follows: “We are trying to let a witness in the Church of the Brethren. We speak out when we feel strongly on issues. But it appears the Brethren basically are more concerned with what happens to be the popular current religious issue, and then jumping on the bandwagon, than Brethren are with what the Bible says on the issues. For many, there seem to be very few absolutes, and it seems like every person wants to do ‘that which is right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25).” But, praise God, this year there is some reason to hope that the trend is changing for the better!
BRF PATIENCE
In the past we have been bombarded with questions like: “How long can we continue on the course which allows each person to do what is right in his own eyes?” “How long shall we continue in a denomination which no longer gives priority to using the Bible as a road map?” “is the Church of the Brethren being torn apart as we seem to go in all directions?” “is the BRF really having any impact on the Brotherhood?” “is working for change worth all the effort being put into it?”
Up until this Conference, the best we often could say (to questions like those listed above) was to quote Jude 3, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write and exhort you that you earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” and then follow with the statement: “Let’s hang in there! Let’s count the cost! Let’s consider the options! We can still practice and live the New Testament teachings in the Church of the Brethren, and we can designate where our giving is to go.” Many times we encouraged people with these kinds of statements.
Some say, “But Alexander Mack separated from the state church and started a group of his own.” But all of us must remember that Alexander Mack had no church to join which would have granted him the desire to live his convictions concerning trine immersion baptism, the full lovefeast (including the supper and feetwashing), the anointing service, nonresistance toward enemies, nonconformity to the world, and other doctrines of the New Testament which the Brethren have historically believed and practiced. In the Church of the Brethren, each congregation has had the freedom to teach and uphold the doctrines just named, and now, in light of recent events at Baltimore, many of us feel more confident that maybe – instead of many Brethren looking with disapproval at the efforts of the BRF, and speaking of the Movement as a troublesome subgroup perhaps in 1983 a small minority in the Church of the Brethren has come to appreciate BRF efforts (and the work of some other subgroups) to try and get the Church of the Brethren on a more Biblical course.
HOPEFUL TREND
During the past few years, we have noticed a slowing down of the trend away from simple loyalty to God’s Word. It seems more Brethren are reaching the conclusion that there is a limit to the ways we can interpret and/or misinterpret the Bible to please our human tendencies. Many may be seeing the truth that the grace of God reaches us where we are, but then the Lord calls us to accountability for our actions. Some are seeing that the Bible can not and will not be rewritten to console us in our sins. Instead, God’s Word points to the power of the Holy Spirit (who is available to those who trust and repent and obey) to help us rise above our selfish desires and to be a light to the world and a salt to the earth. The change in life of many people who have really met the Lord, is irrefutable, and the Bible does not say that it is only for a few, but for whosoever will.
The 1983 Annual Conference in Baltimore could well have been our spiritual “Gettysburg,” testing whether the Church of the Brethren or any denomination can long endure and claim to be followers of Christ Jesus, and yet at the same time take no definite stand on that which is clearly Biblical. The saying is true that if we stand for nothing we are prone to fall for anything! We approached the 1983 Annual Conference with more prayer and more concern than ever before. BRF Committee members joined with the Holy Spirit Renewal Group and persons in leadership positions for a day of intercessory prayer on June 28 to pray that we might be open to the direction of the Spirit of the Living God. Our God is not dead, but is “alive and well” on Planet Earth. He goes to and fro looking for people willing to be His instruments of righteousness, though such dedicated followers may be few in number. History and the Bible (Matthew 7:14) show that committed people of God never have been a majority. But if God be for us who can be against us?
Those of us who were delegates noticed this year a lessening of some of the radical trends of the past, and a softening of sharp statements pro and con on issues, and a faintly visible shift back to the Bible as being a trustworthy guide for faith and practice. Someone asked me the question, “Is BRF taking over the Church of the Brethren?” (This was likely asked because of the results of the elections and the outcome of the human sexuality paper). My reply was, “No, but BRF may be having increased influence.” BRF realizes too the need to be more willing to work with other subgroups where there are similar concerns and goals.
HUMAN SEXUALITY
Certainly, for us, the biggest issue was the Human Sexuality Paper. We appreciated the sensitivity of Moderator Hoffman during the deliberations on this issue (as well as throughout the business sessions). Hoffman was especially gracious when the matter had been settled by a very large majority, and then there was some pressure to reopen the issue, but such an action was ruled out of order. We believe as the paper now stands, we have basically a good statement that holds high God’s ideal and that would be well for all Brethren to read. Some may try to label us as anti-homosexual. Others would say that the majority of Annual Conference delegates who passed the paper suffer from homophobia. But this is not so. We are not unsympathetic to lesbians and gay men. We have love for all people but at the same time we cannot twist God’s Word to condone something the Scripture declares is wrong just to be people-pleasers. We must point people to God’s standard for living. John 8:11 does not say only, “Neither do I condemn thee,” but it also says, “Go and sin no more.”
We must also ask the question, “is it more restrictive or more unreasonable to call a person with homosexual tendencies to a life of celibacy, than to call a single heterosexual person (who would desire a partner, but God has not provided a partner for one reason or another) to a life of celibacy?” We believe that in both cases God can give grace to live a pure life before Him. And although some may cringe when we mention it, I do raise the question, “is there any parallel between AIDS as a possible mark of God’s displeasure on practicing homosexuals, and venereal diseases as a possible mark of God’s displeasure with any immorality (see Proverbs 5:11 LB)?”
After the human sexuality paper was passed, someone sitting close by was expressing joy over the outcome, but my reply was that “For us, yes, it was great; but for others it was painful.” Let us not gloat over a victory, but rather remember we are here to reach and to try and help gay men and women come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and a commitment to live up to God’s ideal.
ELECTED OFFICES
As for the results of the elections, it was a rewarding moment to see Jim Myer elected the moderator of the 1985 Annual Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. One delegate told me that this would have been impossible five years ago. Also we were pleased that Harold Martin was elected as a two-year member of the Church of the Brethren General Board. It cheered us to know that the delegate body was willing to put confidence in these long-time BRFers, thus showing respect for our viewpoints and letting us help in the decision-making process of the Church. We recognize that one or two voices among many voices cannot achieve earthshaking changes, but we can be assured that Brethren with an evangelical faith will be more fully represented than they have been in recent years.
RANDOM OBSERVATIONS
There were many other things that we appreciated this year. Not only were there many Bible studies available, but many of the Brethren attended the Bible studies. There was not a scarcity of many worthwhile Insight Sessions. My only regret was that I could not attend more of them. We appreciated also the renewed interest in the Bible office of deacon. Many Brethren have never set aside or minimized the work of the deacon. We are glad for the emphasis on qualified deacons who should be examples to others, and trust that all congregations will find deacons who will be a stabilizing influence in their midst.
We rejoiced in the added enthusiasm for starting new churches, and found the General Board’s slide presentation on these endeavors a worthwhile source of information telling what is being done in the area of new church planting. We are glad the Committee on Interchurch Relations is looking into exploration of a closer working relationship with the National Association of Evangelicals, for it is no secret that some of us would be much more comfortable with indentities in this direction, rather than associations with the NCC/WCC group. It is also noteworthy that Annual Conference decided to spend time and thought on future leadership development. Training skilled leaders is extremely important lest we become sheep without faithful shepherds.
SERIOUS CONCERNS
But then, there are a few concerns that need to be raised from our viewpoint. One is a major concern about the political issues and resolutions which we as delegates are asked to pass. As I recall, our denomination has passed a statement opposing prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, on the grounds of separation of church and state, and that the state should not be involved in such matters. And I have unofficially heard that some of our churchmen think the Moral Majority Movement violates separation of church and state because of its involvement in political issues. And then we turn around and try as a Church to tell the state what to do[ Would it not be better to use our citizen rights as individuals to register approval or disapproval of certain political actions, and not tack on a denomination-name, especially when there are two sides to many of the issues (as we witnessed it on the Conference floor)? Also, it seems unfair to spring resolutions on to the Conference floor when delegates have had little time to get the facts (see Proverbs 18:13). Sure we should have a concern for human rights, and the needs of others, be it poor housing, refugees, starvation, ravishes of war, etc. But hindsight is always better than foresight. What would the Church leaders in Germany (during the 1930s) say now if they could say it over? Or would we say anything different now about Southeast Asia if we could say it again? Are we being too quick to pass resolutions now concerning Latin America? Are we not in a much better position when we appeal to authority rather than tell authorities what to do? Daniel appealed (because of his convictions) and stated what he could not do, and the authorities responded (Daniel 1:12-13). We Brethren appealed in the past concerning alternative service instead of serving in the Armed Forces, and the authorities listened. We Brethren appealed for the needs of post-war Germans via the Heifer Project and the world took note. I believe a powerful way to make an impression about war taxes would be to live by the standards of the Sermon on the Mount (especially Matthew 6:25-34), living simply and giving generously so that we have very few taxes to pay. We can thank the Lord that our U.S. Government does not tell us who we must make our contributions to.
Let us do what we can for the needy at home. Let us ask the government how we can personally help the needy of Latin America, or how they will allow us collectively to give aid to people who are hurting in other countries. I believe also that we ought to have a concern about possible nuclear war and the awful misery such a war could bring, but there is a tremendous need to warn people of a far more serious misery that is eternal in consequence – if one rejects Jesus Christ as Saviour and refuses to repent of his rebellion and sin. Jesus himself speaks of future punishment many times especially in the Gospels (Matthew 10:28; Mark 9:42-50). Why does the Church say so little about this teaching of Jesus? This is no political issue. This is an individual matter that we all can do something about. And all of us have moral obligations to warn others that they should flee the wrath to come, by pledging allegiance to Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
All of us should be eager to pray for our beloved Brotherhood and its leadership. We know that there are very few simple answers to the complex problems of our day. But we can look to Jesus as the Author and the Finisher of our faith. In this 275th Anniversary Year of the founding of the Church of the Brethren, let us count the cost remembering that “Only one life will soon be past, and it is what is done for Christ that will last.”