The Good News Movement: A Job Well Done (Part I)

Good News, the United Methodist movement of evangelicals, is phasing out of existence. In the fast-changing religious scene, most of the Good News leaders and many of its followers are now identifying with the newly formed Global Methodist Church (GMC). Since the GMC is committed to historic Methodist faith and practice there is much less need for a “renewal” group like Good News.

So, as Good News prepares to clean out the desks and lock the doors and say, “Goodbye,” we want to say, thank you, Good News, for a job well done. And—we believe a few parting thoughts are in order.

I am privileged to have been part of this story ever since I responded to Chuck Keysor’s original article in the Christian Advocate July 14, 1966. The article, entitled, “Methodism’s Silent Minority,” written at a time when theological liberalism and institutional conservatism had dominated Methodist practice for nearly 50 years, spoke of the large number of evangelical Methodists who still held to the essentials of the faith, supported their local churches, and basically were the face of Methodism in local communities.

The article generated more written response than any other article in the long history of Christian Advocate. In the main the responders were “the little people,” that is, not pastors of big churches or seminary professors or bishops, but common, ordinary Methodists, many of whom, in addition to their commitment to historic Methodism, were also being influenced by a growing evangelical presence in American society. This presence was reflected in the popularity of Billy Graham and parachurch groups such as Youth for Christ and Campus Crusade, and also by the rising influence of such seminaries as Asbury, Fuller, Trinity (in Illinois) and Gorden Conwell.

From these supporters Keysor gathered a group which formed the first Good News Board. In Spring of 1967 Vol. 1, No. 1 of the Good News magazine was published.

The magazine, and an evangelical voice in the church, were well-timed. The 1960s brought to the American religious scene the “Death of God” movement, the secularization of American culture as well expressed in Harvey Cox’s book The Secular City, growing racial unrest, the controversial Vietnam war, political turmoil illustrated by the disruptions of the 1968 Democratic convention, and student rebellion against the established order. Liberal seminaries, reflecting the culture of the day, were committed to “relevance,” academic freedom (which would disallow any confessional approach to theological training), and social change. Traditional studies were giving way to training in social action. Disruption, sit-ins, and demonstrations became the strategy to bring in this new social order. All of this came to a head at the 1968 General Conference, the time of the forming of the United Methodist Church by the merger of the Methodist Church and Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) Church. The merger came at the exact right moment for the institutional and liberal leaders of the church to reshape the church for the revolutionary “new day.”

The conference and the subsequent conferences in 1970 and 1972, were disasters from an evangelical point of view. The new United Methodist Church approved a new doctrinal statement, a new Social Principles statement, and established a top-heavy institutional structure featuring four superboards that for all practical purposes were not accountable to any group in the church. The conference also set up extensive quota systems for church agencies, lifted the ban against clergy use of tobacco and alcohol, launched a youth agency which operated separately from any adult involvement, and established the Ministerial Education Fund, which served basically to subsidize (bail out) ailing United Methodist (liberal) seminaries.

From that point on Good News would work for the cause of evangelical renewal in the United Methodist Church. Has it been successful? The following are some ways that Good News has had a positive effect on United Methodism (this article will address two areas–subsequent articles will address additional areas).

1) Encouragement. Many hundreds (thousands?) people have indicated they have remained United Methodist because of Good News. By the 1960s despite the entrenched liberalism of institutional Methodism and the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) Church, a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of Methodists were basically evangelical in their everyday lives. But it was a discouraged group. The launching of Good News brought enthusiasm and excitement. The first Good News Convocation in 1970 registered 1,600 persons and felt almost like a revival meeting. It was a new day for Methodism.

Perhaps some of the greatest encouragement came from persons not directly associated with Good News. Bishop Gerald Kennedy (featured on a Time magazine cover in 1964) gave personal encouragement to Charles Keysor, wrote an article for the first issue of the magazine, and spoke at Good News first convocation. Spurgeon Dunham, editor of Texas Methodist, which in its heyday was the highest circulated religious newspaper in the nation, editorialized that while the church had many liberal voices, it was time for a more conservative voice. One of the most encouraging voices was that of Bishop Roy Nichols who at the time he chaired the World Division of the Board of Global Ministries. Nichols spent three hours with the Good News board in a non-publicized meeting and communicated a message which might be summarized as “keep on keeping on.”

2) A new doctrinal statement in 1988. Perhaps this was the most significant accomplishment of Good News in its 57 year history. From the evangelical perspective the greatest disaster of the 1972 General Conference was the doctrinal statement for the new United Methodist Church. It was a sign of the times that the statement, prepared by a task force under the leadership of Dr. Albert Outler, took less than 20 minutes to be presented and approved by the 1972 General Conference, suggesting doctrine was not all that important for the new church. It introduced the idea of “pluralism,” (within a central core of beliefs anything goes). Outler did not want to define the “core” lest the church be accused of fundamentalism. So, people could define it however they wished. The statement then introduced the idea of the “quadrilateral,” which spoke of our discerning of truth by four equal principles: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This new concept in reality undercut the full authority of Scripture. The statement then referred to the conciliar principle (evolving new truths are codified by “conference” actions thus opening the gate to assigning “conferences” final authority in doctrinal matters). The statement asserted that the doctrines of the church were not to be asserted “juridically” (heresy trial will not be allowed because church trials would be ruled out).

There were, of course, no evangelicals on the doctrinal task force. Good News was still so new to the institutional scene that it did not realize right away how terrible the statement was. When the reality hit as to how far afield the doctrinal statement had gone, it took Good News some time to form a response.

Meanwhile, the liberal institution was having a field day with the new statement. One book from Nashville spoke of the four central “truths” of Methodism: Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Seminary professors were overjoyed by being able to justify liberal affirmations by arguing that reason (as they understood it) and experience (as they understood it) together could override Scripture. Arguments for the acceptability of homosexual practice also pitted reason and experience against Scripture). Other religions were valid ways to God.

In 1976 Good News sent petitions to the General Conference asking for a new committee, or at least someone with authority, to define “the core of doctrine” within which “pluralism” was encouraged to function. Those petitions went nowhere. In 1980 Good sent petitions asking for a new doctrinal committee. The head of the Faith and Order legislative group, before the petitions were even considered, declared the present statement was fine. The petitions failed overwhelmingly.

In 1984 Good News tried an entirely different strategy. More than 500 petitions were sent to the conference, almost all of them from persons related to Good News. Over 350 of the petitions were part of a new strategy. These were sent by persons whose names would not necessarily be connected with Good News. These petitions referenced specific phrases or paragraphs in the statement. The idea was to revise the doctrinal statement with incremental changes. After two days of debate in which some petitions were approved and some not, the comment was made that the committee was not qualified to make so many changes and what was really needed was a new task force to deal with doctrinal matters. A petition was passed to such effect. Even Good News was surprised by how successful the strategy had worked. It led to a new task force, the very thing Good News had wanted.

While Good News (naturally) would not be represented on such a task force, a sympathetic chair, Bishop Earl Hunt, was appointed and a well-known evangelical, Ken Kinghorn from Asbury Seminary, who later penned most of the new statement, was also appointed. Good News was able to present papers before the task force.

At the 1988 General Conference, after much debate and many amendments, the new statement was approved. The word “pluralism” was excised; the “quadrilateral” was unmentioned, the idea of the conciliar principle was dropped as was any mention of “not to be understood juridically.”

The church would live to see another day.

The next article, (part II), on “Good News, a Job Well Done” will address Good News and Sunday school material, Good News and Human Sexuality, Good News and the Spawning of new renewal groups, and Good News and missions.