A 1970 column by Good News magazine editor Charles Keysor quoted from a United Methodist Sunday school resource for teachers of first and second grade students that cited belief in Jesus’s bodily resurrection as “supernatural claptrap:”
The drama of Jesus would be far stronger and make a far greater appeal to this post-Christian age without all this supernatural claptrap bought in at the end with a dead man suddenly brought back to life again. Wouldn’t the story of Jesus of Nazareth be more powerful and truer to itself in being less self-centered, if his life had ended in death?
Recently the quote was included in an article submitted to me for publication by my friend Riley Case, and I tweeted the quote. The quote was in Riley’s 2004 book Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History, published by United Methodism’s Abingdon Press. The quote was also in my friend Jim Heidinger’s 2017 book The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism. Jim sourced the quote to Riley’s book. The quote also appears in Jim’s 2022 Firebrand article.
But the quote is not what it seems. The 1969 Sunday school resource reprinted a 1965 Union Seminary journal article by Lutheran cleric Edmund Steimle, who offered the quote as an assertion by some but not his view. He responded to it:
It’s an understandable reaction, this mood which rejects the Resurrection stories as pious fiction. The only trouble with it, apart from the fact that it denies the sum and substance of the earliest Christian records we have, is that it disregards entirely this strange reaction in the Easter narratives. When they experienced Christ alive they didn’t go walking off hand in hand into the sunset with a choir of angels singing softly in the wings, “There is a happy land…” On the contrary, “They were terrified…dumbfounded… ran away beside themselves with terror.”
But Keysor thought Steimle’s article was “another example of the poor taste and bad theology which is forcing many loyal United Methodists to stop using official curriculum materials.”
Evidently Keysor got complaints about his use of the “supernatural claptrap” quote. So he responded in a subsequent column:
We feel that this was not an unfair use of the quoted material. Rather, we feel it was a serious oversight on our part. We erred in not fully explaining the significance of this quotation. We should have said that good scholarship – as well as Christian integrity – require equal presentation of opposing views. This is especially true when Christian teaching materials are involved. The only fair and safe way to present so strong a negative view of Christ’s resurrection would have been to offer an equally powerful statement reflecting the unquestionable certitude of I Corinthians 15:17, “And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is a delusion and you are still lost in your sins.” Or Romans 10:9, “If you declare with your lips, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
No such clear-cut statements either precede or immediately follow the statement we quoted. The virulent anti-resurrection sentiments are not refuted; instead they stand virtually unchallenged. They thus establish a context of unbelief for the article as a whole.
The curriculum article questions the integrity of Scripture by teaching as fact what are actually theories held by some Biblical critics:
“…. I know it is always a ticklish business to attempt to get back of the Easter message itself. ‘That Christ died … that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day … .’ and attempt to discover what actually happened through a study of the Resurrection narratives.
“It’s ticklish because even the least scholarly among us can recognize through the most casual reading of the narratives in the four Gospels that they do not agree as to the details as to how this experience of Christ alive first came, or even as to where.
“Furthermore, it is generally acknowledged that the narratives which describe the Resurrection appearances are considerably later than the record of the content of the message itself. And, as scholars suggest, the narratives may well be embroidered by legendary additions….”
Thus the curriculum writer first cuts the tap root of Scriptural authority. Then he appeals to the same Scriptural record which he had earlier impugned with subtle suggestions of unreliability!
Who in his right mind would pay any serious attention to what Scripture says if he believes it “may well be embroidered by legendary additions?”
And what might these legendary additions be? Most people who use this kind of terminology include the raising of Jesus from the dead as a “legendary addition.” The writer of the curriculum does not say this. But it is certainly implied by the fact that attention is shifted from the resurrection of Jesus to rationalistic explanations for the disciples’ reactions of fear, terror and astonishment on Easter morning. Why does not the curriculum writer make the obvious point that the terror was caused by seeing Jesus, who had been a corpse, walking and talking again? This is certainly the most obvious explanation. And the one most logical – if you take the resurrection as having literally happened, as the Scriptures report.
Stressing human reactions is one way of avoiding the basic issue of Christ’s actual resurrection. The curriculum article deftly avoids any categorical statement that the resurrection is literally true. Instead, we find such evasive phrases as these
• “this is its [Easter’s] dominant mood: the joyful celebration of victory over the suffering, death and darkness of Good Friday.” (no direct mention of Christ rising from death).
• “But it’s a strange circumstance that in the narrative accounts of the Resurrection joy was not the initial reaction.” (Christ’s resurrection is not specified; believers automatically read this in; unbelievers do not).
• “the immediate impact of the experience of Christ alive” (does not say that the disciples saw Jesus living again. An “experience” can be hallucination as well as reality).
• “This lack of embarrassment and surprise [referring to modern observation of Easter] is fed by the old Platonic notion of the immortality of the soul.”
• “Death cannot be the end, Easter or no Easter” (not Easter, but Christ resurrected, brings believers knowledge that death isn’t the end).
Curriculum Editor Henry Bullock calls the controversial article by Edmund A. Steimle “a reverent affirmation of the resurrection.” We disagree. We think it is, instead, a subtle perversion of New Testament faith. We think this sort of thing misleads many and turns the Resurrection keystone of Christian faith into man-centered psychological speculation.
We are sorry for neglecting to mention these things in the original editorial.
So Keysor didn’t back down. But his using the “supernatural claptrap” quote out of context undermined his argument. Steimle never specifically affirmed the bodily resurrection but he strongly implied his belief:
For all the honesty evident in the refusal to accept the miraculous, the supernatural here at the end of Christ’s life, is there not imbedded in that honest reluctance a trace at least of the pride of the creature who insists on determining life’s ultimate destiny rather than leaving the issue to God? I will trust God in life here and now, give myself wholly to his will of love here and now, even grant him the power to bring about a new life–a “new being” here and now, but I will not grant him power over my death.
Still, it was a somewhat odd commentary to publish as a resource for Sunday school teachers of first and second graders, who don’t need lots of ambiguity. Keysor and Good News were distressed in the 1960s and 1970s by the prevalence of modernism in contemporary Methodism. This prevalence meant the supernatural and traditional Christian doctrine were often deemphasized while historic Methodist teaching about salvation, sanctification and holiness were omitted altogether. I grew up in United Methodist Sunday school in the 1970s, and I recall the resources were often nice but vague.
That vagueness resulted from disagreement within Methodism about the meaning of Christian teaching. A 1965 poll of 7441 Protestant clergy by sociologist Jeffrey Haden, published in the July 1967 issue of Trans-Action, found that most Methodist pastors rejected a literal virgin birth and bodily resurrection for Jesus. Only 40 percent affirmed the virgin birth as a “biological miracle.” Only 49 percent affirmed the resurrection as “objective historical fact.” By comparison, Episcopal clergy affirmed the Virgin birth by 56 percent and the bodily resurrection by 70 percent. Presbyterians and American Baptists were in between, while Lutherans were much higher.
Redbook Magazine in August 1961 published its Louis Harris poll of Protestant seminarians, one third of whom were Methodist, similarly showing majorities rejected Jesus’s virgin birth and bodily ascension into heaven. It quoted one Methodist seminarian: “Christ never intended to make religion a matter of picayune doctrine. The Golden Rule, that’s it.”
The Lutheran author of the 1969 Sunday school lesson thought Jesus’s bodily resurrection was considerably more than “supernatural claptrap.” But many Methodist & other Mainline Protestant clergy at that time did not, with implications for today.
Comment by Colin Ross on March 11, 2023 at 6:13 pm
Claptrap is too nice a word for the nonsense the Bible teaches. How is it this awful religion gets any respect from anyone with half a brain is beyond me.
Comment by Jeffrey Walton on March 13, 2023 at 10:23 am
Mr. Ross, you have the freedom to walk away. Yet, here you comment on a Christian blog that you sought out. Whether or not you profess respect for biblical teachings, your action here indicates that biblical truth claims are living rent free in your mind rather than waved off with polite dismissal. I’d press into why that might be.
Comment by J. Clark on March 11, 2023 at 8:26 pm
I have previously held that there were many reasons never to affiliate with the Methodist church, most notably women in positions of pastoral authority which eventually culminated in men dressed like women in the pulpits, as well as the affirmation of homosexual behavior. The bodily resurrection of Christ is an absolute Gospel issue (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), and the belief in, and acceptance of, the resurrection is necessary for salvation. So, I would conclude that there are many Methodists who are not Christians at all, and are bound for eternal destruction. I just wonder how many of them are coming over from the UMC to the GMN because of the homosexuality issue.
Comment by Mikeb on March 11, 2023 at 10:28 pm
@colin
It is a stumbling block to you no surprise. Paul noted this.
Comment by Jeff on March 11, 2023 at 11:38 pm
“Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
How is it with your soul, Colin Ross? Are you waiting for Jesus to appear the second time, or are you ready and expectant for the judgment? I pray that it is the former.
Comment by David on March 12, 2023 at 10:36 am
“As a cloud fades away and vanishes, so the one who goes down to Sheol will never rise again.” (Job 7:9)
Even at the time of Jesus, there was considerable debate about whether or not there was a resurrection or an afterlife. The traditional view was that there was none based on scriptures such as that above. The biblical authorities of the time, the priests and the scribes, are described:
“They denied any resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18–27; Acts 23:8). Due to this belief, the Sadducees strongly resisted the apostles’ preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead. They denied the afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death and therefore denying any penalty or reward after the earthly life. They denied the existence of a spiritual world, i.e., angels and demons (Acts 23:8).”
“Greek and Persian culture influenced Jewish sects to believe in an afterlife between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE”
“In the late Second Temple period, the Pharisees believed in resurrection, while Essenes and Sadducees did not. During the Rabbinic period, beginning in the late first century and carrying on to the present, the works of Daniel were included into the Hebrew Bible, signaling the adoption of Jewish resurrection into the officially sacred texts.”
The afterlife is also found in the popular Roman era mystery cults whose chief characteristics have been described as “life after death for members only and a ceremonial meal.”
Comment by The Clapper on March 12, 2023 at 11:01 am
How is it with your soul, Colin Ross? Are you waiting for Jesus to appear the second time, or are you ready and expectant for the judgment? I pray that it is the former.
I don’t think Colin is waiting with bated breath. Jesus is the Hide and Seek Champion for 2000 years and running. He, of course, predicted a return within the lifetime of the Apostles, despite all apologist’s mental gymnastics to try and deny it. Supernatural claptrap, indeed.
Comment by John Kenyon on March 12, 2023 at 12:13 pm
Pro Collin Ross, against Jeff and David. Why do you attack disbelievers? The disciples themselves did not believe it until they saw him and one demanded to touch his wounds. The rationale question for the unbelievers is how do you know that you know it was impossible for God to raise Jesus from the dead?
Comment by The Clapper on March 12, 2023 at 1:02 pm
How do you know that it was impossible for Mohammed to split the moon in half or ride a winged horse? How do you know it was impossible for him to be the prophet of Allah? How do you know that Joseph Smith didn’t receive the Golden Plates from the angel Moroni? Do you believe these things? If not, why not? Have you heard of the Mormon Eyewitnesses, who swore in writing they saw the Golden Plates? Why do you disregard eyewitness testimony?
>The disciples themselves did not believe it until they saw him and one demanded to touch his wounds.
Right, and they supposedly knew the guy personally. They supposedly saw him put to death and entombed and then when he showed up again, they still didn’t believe him. Supposedly Jesus felt they wouldn’t believe without evidence. Why would I be expected to believe it without seeing evidence?
Comment by Van on March 12, 2023 at 10:34 pm
It always astonishes me when ordained ministers deny the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. If you don’t believe the accounts in the New Testament, why are you a pastor and why are you leading a congregation?
Find another vocation, and quit leading your sheep astray!
Comment by Palamas on March 13, 2023 at 4:18 pm
Interesting that a trio of atheists show up to get on their high horses about the fiction of Christianity. Why read a Christian blog at all? Why bother to comment? Do you really think your puerile condescension and inane questions are going to make the slightest difference to Christians? Or does it simply make you feel superior to waste your time this way?
Comment by The Clapper on March 13, 2023 at 7:00 pm
Or does it simply make you feel superior to waste your time this way?
Yes, very much so
Comment by David on March 14, 2023 at 8:22 am
Everything has a history including religious beliefs.
Comment by brother Jim on March 14, 2023 at 9:08 am
“The…Cross [and resurrection of the dead] is foolishness to those who are perishing.” (1Cor.1:18)
And sadly so.
To such, the facets of self- justification must suffice, in order that some semblance (as opposed to Jesus’ Peace) of peace of mind be apprehended, be eked out. (Ironically, the same being behind the sacrifice of animals and people by ancient civilizations.)
Whether by solely intellectual reasoning by the cosmopolitan, sophisticated mind; by self-righteous so-called good works; by the oohs and aahs of the poor regarding the wealthy, and validation thereof experienced by the latter;….
The enemy of man has many tricks in his bag to placate.
Hence, why needed is the miraculous Grace of the Fruit of the Spirit of Faith, both preveniently and ongoing.
Ultimately, so “that no flesh shall glory in His Preaence.” (v.29)
Comment by P. Adams on March 14, 2023 at 10:02 am
Methodists have always been Progressives, rejecting basic Christian doctrine, just not everyone knew it.
Comment by Jon Wilson on March 14, 2023 at 10:20 am
Sadly, I grew to my youth in the 60’s. And yes, one pastor greeted us at Christmas with “you can believe this baby is God, but I don’t. It’s not possible, and makes no sense.” My father huffed and put his head down. On Easter Sunday , same type of comments denying a physically risen Christ. My dad turned to my brother and me, stating, “boys you don’t have to go to church anymore.” The year before that Easter I had walked the aisle at a Holy Week revival and was baptized on a profession of faith (no confirmation in those days). Tried to pray and understand Scripture. Classes at church taught doubt.
I became a little atheist. Thank God, the local Baptist Church preached Christ and I responded and had a supernatural encounter. The old church could not co-exist with faith and unbelief, it’s finally clear to many. (In adulthood I pastored UMC churches, another story). God bless my fellow evangelicals as they seek freedom in and for Christ, for the world!
Comment by David Willard on March 14, 2023 at 11:54 am
I was raised in a small town in the sixties and seventies with a United Methodist church across the street. We attended Sunday school and services, even something called Tuesday school, getting out of public school for an hour or two. (Catholics went to their catechism). Protestants went to our church. Baptists, Serbian Orthodox, Presbyterians etc. We were taught the triune God, resurrection, pray to Jesus, God And the Holy Ghost.
One of my Sunday school teachers and her husband left the church in the late 60’s and ended up Mennonites. They were STRONG believers, backbones of the faith.
I went to college and after a few years of agnosticism I tried the Methodist church in Minneapolis. All kinds of Bush hate, abortion talk and politics were preached. I tried out suburban Methodist church services, Presbyterian, ELCA, all very unsatisfying. My eyes were opening. United Methodists always taught a socially responsible faith. It’s a fine line, though, easy to cross into one hundred percent social liberalism and loss of biblical truth.
I studied Wesley. He wasn’t teaching this.
Looking back, the Sunday school teacher and her husband saw the writing on the wall. I love the United Methodist faith. It’s a slow road to unbelief tho.
Comment by The Clapper on March 16, 2023 at 8:31 am
>I love the United Methodist faith. It’s a slow road to unbelief tho.
Is there any way we can speed it up?
>Whether by solely intellectual reasoning by the cosmopolitan, sophisticated mind
Yeah, thinking is bad.
Comment by Paul Morelli on March 16, 2023 at 10:36 pm
What amazes me most is not that people don’t believe in the virgin birth, the atoning death and the resurrection, but that they would spend huge amounts of money to gain at least a masters degree (if not a doctorate) in order to enter the pastorate in a religion that they flatly deny. I somehow miss the motivation to walk into a religion with the intent to tear down its major tenets and deny even the possibility of life after death in some instances!… why not get a degree in accounting or engineering or business management … but Christian Ministry? … Somehow that makes me look at their motivation in a very skeptical way. It hints that it is almost a strategy. And why would anyone want to spend time and energy to tear down “true Christianity” whose true believers should be the most humble caring truthful and hard working citizens and people in general. Why would anyone want to destroy their faith even if those pastors dont believe it?
Comment by The Clapper on March 17, 2023 at 3:17 pm
I think what happens is they end up losing their faith, and then they’re stuck in a ‘career’ with no other prospects and they can’t do anything else. it wouldn’t be the first time somebody lost their faith from actually reading the Bible.
Comment by Dan on March 18, 2023 at 5:15 pm
A sad commentary on the majority of UMC clergy. By their own mouths they deny the truths of the 3 ancient creeds thereby self identifying as non-Christians. While chair of the taff-parish relations committee in my UMC parish we had a woman pastor who was one of these and to this day I regret not going to my district superintendent and asking for a pastoral change with the requirement that this time we get a pastor who is a Christian.