Good News, the United Methodist renewal group, 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). As a part of celebrating Good News’ rich 57-history it is good to recall some of Good News’ contributions to Methodism. In this article we consider the Sunday school and curriculum.
It was frustration over Sunday school material, more than any other concern, that launched Good News as a movement. Ordinary Methodists, who were for the most part in the 1960s quite conservative in matters of religion, and who had no firsthand knowledge of Motive magazine (a left-leaning Methodist magazine for college youth) or liberalism in the seminaries or alcohol abuse at Methodist colleges or liberation theology in the Board of Missions, were confronted weekly by Sunday school materials that seemed at odds with their own understandings of Christian faith.
Loyal Sunday school teachers and parents were convinced something was wrong, although they weren’t always sure what it was. The material was too hard to teach; the material did not have enough Bible; the material did not speak of the plan of salvation.
When Good News mentioned that one of the first items on its reformist agenda was curriculum, the response was overwhelming. At last someone understood and was willing to listen. Within the first ten issues of the magazine, twenty pages were given to curriculum matters.
A review of the importance of Sunday schools in the first half of the 20th century tells us why curriculum was important. Methodist Sunday schools, especially those in small towns and circuits, were the center of religious life for many churches in those days. Many circuit churches did not have preaching every Sunday. Pastors were often appointed every two or three years, and there was not that much continuity in the pastoral leadership.
Sunday schools very often drew a larger attendance than “worship.” The Sunday school superintendent was often a more important person than the lay leader. Sunday school associations, made up of churches from different denominations, thrived. In Sunday schools students learned memory verses and were taught Bible stories. When theological modernism was first introduced in Methodism in the early 1900s, it saw one of its first tasks: the make-over of the Sunday school. Memory verses and many Bible stories which might be understood literally and catechism were out, to be replaced by the discovery of new ideas through life experiences.
This was well documented by E.B. Chappell, editor of church school material for the M.C. Church South, in his 1935 book, Recent Development of Religious Education in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. According to Chappell, earlier leaders “lacking in scholarly equipment” taught “erroneous opinions” inherited from Calvinism and Augustinian. These ideas included ideas of total depravity, blood atonement, the necessity of radical conversion and de-emphasis on moral responsibility associated with free will. There was a need for new thinking based on the presuppositions of the psychology of religion and other scientific approaches to human nature.
To correct matters, (1) Wesley would need reconstruction. The new thinking would emphasize that Wesley, captive to his age, sometimes taught that children needed to be converted. He did not understand that persons were free agents endowed with goodness that could be developed by proper educational process.
(2) Uniform lessons would be out, even though Methodists had been instrumental in their establishment in 1872. These lessons assumed the purpose of the Sunday school was to fill the minds of students with Bible knowledge. Modern education stresses vital experiences, not dead facts. Furthermore, the International Sunday school union was in the hands of untrained laymen. It was content centered and not child centered.
All of this was accompanied by what can best be described as denominational centralization and control. In 1924 the General Conference of the M.E. Church consolidated all under control of a new agency, the Board of Education. The new philosophy of the board was to coordinate all educational efforts under “one comprehensive program of Christian education.” This meant that only curriculum materials approved by the Curriculum Committee of the General Board of Education could be used. There was no talk of diversity in those days. One size fit all—urban or rural, conservative or liberal, white or black, educated or uneducated.
I still recall Sunday school in my Indiana county-seat Methodist Church in the 1940s. I have the impression years later that there were a lot of cheery robins and friendly postmen in our lessons. I also remember on several different occasions when my Mennonite cousins visited that they wondered why we didn’t talk about the Bible in my Sunday school.
In high school, college, seminary, and then in my first churches all of these things were matters for debate. Often the conversations had to do with the pressure applied by church leaders that only officially approved literature was to be used in Sunday school. The first question I was asked by my conference board of Ministerial Training when seeking deacon’s orders was, what did I think about Methodist Sunday school material. When I interviewed with the cabinet of another conference which came to seminary to recruit pastors again the first question was what I thought of the Methodist Sunday school material. They remarked that, in their conference, 100 percent of the churches used the material. This was amusing because I had friends serving in that conference that told a different story. Of the first eight churches I served, seven did not use Methodist material.
This helps to explain why, when Chuck Keysor wrote the article “Methodism’s Silent Minority” that led to the launching of Good News, the line that was more controversial than anything else was his claim that “ten thousand churches” were using something other than official Methodist material. How could Keysor know? Why would he spread such a lie? Keysor’s figure was no exaggerated guess. Keysor had worked for David C. Cook, independent publisher and biggest rival of Methodist materials. “Ten thousand churches” was a projection based on Cooks’ circulation records.
The Good News argument for Sunday school material that could be used by more conservative churches and teachers was based on paragraph 1134 of the 1968 Discipline, which stated that “one complete system of literature” was to “be of such type and variety as to meet the needs of all groups of our people.” So, evangelicals were a group in the church and their needs were not being met. Specifically, there was a “wide and unbridgeable gulf” between the theology of the literature and their own understanding of the faith.
This argument was first put forth in a meeting between a team from the first Good News board and Henry Bullock, editor of the church school materials, and several other editors, in January 1969 at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. The meeting did not go well. Editors questioned the ten thousand churches figure, argued that they and all their writers were evangelical, defended the material as biblical and supported by a overwhelming majority of Methodist leaders, and backed by high circulation figures. Henry Bullock later reported that Methodist literature would not be influenced by persons wanting to return to outdated “fundamentalism.”
At this point Good News formed a Curriculum Task Force seeking to engage curriculum people in further dialogue. I was a part of this and have files with many letters. I am pleased to say that in almost every case letters were answered and serious dialogue took place. Then a letter came in which an editor remarked that while he disagreed with me he liked my writing and would I consider writing material. I realized that most editors were not concerned primarily about theology but just wanted persons who could write and meet deadlines. As a result, a number of Good News people became connected with the Curriculum Resources Committee and some did writing. The Curriculum Resources Committee formed a task force on “Pluralism.” This meant trips to Nashville and some ensuing friendships. The Good News position was that it wanted to be loyal Methodists but wanted the denomination to be sensitive to its concerns. Some members of the committee were sympathetic to the idea that some churches might be better served by independent publishers.
Confirmation materials, however, were a special problem. When the confirmation for the new denomination was first circulated it became apparent that it was so far afield theologically it could not be used in good conscience by evangelicals. It was as if Original Sin, the Atonement and the necessity for the New Birth was never a part of Methodism.
In this case, independent publishers were not an option. Leaders in Nashville pointed out that the materials were a product not just of the Curriculum Resources Committee but of a task force made up of all the major agencies. The response was that the material was excellent, it was the standard for United Methodism and there would be no revision. At that point Good News made the decision that if we wanted usable material we would have to prepare it ourselves. And so we did. “We Believe” was written originally for my own confirmation class. We then presented this in Nashville and asked it be approved as supplemental material. When this was refused we organized Bristol Books and published it ourselves. It would soon garner about 20 percent of the market. It was revised and had a run of about 20 years.
There is more to be said about Good News and its influence on United Methodist Sunday school curriculum, but, major concern about Sunday schools began to diminish because other changes took place with mainline Protestantism starting in the 1970s and 80s. For one, mainline churches, and especially the United Methodist Church, were refocusing. Instead of strong emphasis on nurturing, education, and character building, increasing interest was being directed toward matters of social justice. Racism, sexism, homophobia (and all kinds of other “phobias”), and all kinds of “oppressive structures” were to be resisted and these concerns were factored into the new structure. “Youth” demonstrations at the 1968 and 1970 General Conferences were critical not only of evangelicals in the church, but also of institutional liberalism.
I remember demonstrators talking about youth ministry as it had been practiced as “mickey mouse.” In the days of Vietnam protests, the Sunday school was increasingly seen as irrelevant. A new philosophy of children’s and youth ministry was developing in which youth were not to be given answers, but tools so they could find answers themselves. The result? In the new structure of the United Methodist Church, youth ministry was given independent status. A new major board, The Board of Church and Society, was given equal institutional status with Global Ministries, Discipleship, and Higher Education and Ministry. Evangelism and Education, once major boards in themselves, became only sections of the Board of Discipleship. In the 1960 Discipline of the Methodist Church, there are 88 listings under the entry “Church school.” In the 1972 Discipline of the UM Church there is but one listing with references to seven other agencies.
Were the results positive? No and yes. From 1967 to 1976 the circulation figures for youth curriculum materials decreased from 1,200,000 pieces of material per quarter to 400,000. Camping statistics were down. Sunday school attendance began its long period of decline. On the positive side, thanks in part to the influence of groups like Good News, there was less pressure to use only officially sanctioned literature and programs. Independent publishers began to thrive as well as para-church ministries. But this is another chapter.
So, thank you Good News for a job well-done.
Comment by Wilson R. on November 4, 2024 at 1:07 pm
What is described here is so different from my experience that it sounds like it’s from another planet.
In the ’80s and ’90s I taught Sunday School for middle- and high-schoolers in what I would describe as an increasingly liberal congregation. We bought and used the material from the UM Publishing House. The lessons were all straight out of the Bible, accompanied by texts, and there was nothing that I can imagine that any conservative evangelical could find objectionable. The lessons didn’t involve “feelings” over facts, as the author suggests. There was nothing “woke” about them. There were no hidden agendas being pushed.
Then, as a layperson working on a freelance basis, I wrote and edited youth materials for the UM Publishing House for more than a decade beginning in 2001. Beginning the week after 9/11, I wrote the first issue of a youth Sunday School resource called LinC, and contributed one issue per month as part of a team of writers. Again, these were all biblically rooted (3-4 different passages for study, as I recall), and nothing in there could have been described as “woke” except by a lunatic. In fact, the guidelines were very strict about remaining scrupulously neutral on political and hot-button social issues. It was rare that hot-button social issues were even mentioned, for fear that they might be seen as divisive.
I wrote and edited other resources for both youth and adults over the next 20 years. Among these assignments, I edited a number of Adam Hamilton’s sermons into a form that could be used in Sunday School studies. Nothing you’d call “woke” or un-biblical in those either.
Before the pandemic, I also taught a class of older adults who continued to use the traditional Sunday School materials from the UM Publishing House. And, again, it was all straight out of the Bible and pretty much the opposite of “woke.”
My major complaint with the traditional materials: If anything, they underplayed Wesleyan theology and were more in line with material that might have been used in other Protestant denominations, even in Southern Baptist churches. I’ve learned in teaching older adults just how little most of them have been exposed to what makes Wesley distinctive from, say, Baptist evangelicals.
One other thing that rang false about this article was the description of the Methodist circuits. My father was a “country” Methodist preacher from the mid-1950s through his retirement. (And, of course, Methodist preachers never really retire; they still get called on to fill in as “supply pastors” for vacancies that occur before the appointment season at annual conference.) In all of the small towns where I grew up, there were two and occasionally even three churches in the charge. My father preached in all of them every single Sunday–none of the occasional preaching as in the circuit rider days that the author describes as typical. He’d travel out to one little town and preach at 9:30, and then he’d jump in the car to drive 10-15 miles to be back to the “larger” church for 11 a.m.
I don’t know what the author is basing his claims on, other than a 1935 study he cites (1935? Seriously?). But what he describes about Indiana in the 1940s has zero resemblance to my experience with Methodist churches and Sunday Schools from the 1960s on.
And, by the way, I’d say our experiences with the “Good News” movement differ, too. My experience mainly revolved around a district superintendent who was part of that movement in the 1990s, when I chaired our congregation’s staff-parish committee and would interact with him during the appointment process. He seemed to view our pastor with suspicion because she was a woman. He was always asking me, in a way that came across like a Catholic Inquisitor, whether she preached out of the Bible. I affirmed that she did; in fact, her sermons were almost entirely about the lectionary text — which he would have known had he ever bothered to attend one of our services. And especially I remember he’d want to know whether we had gay people attending our church (if we did, they weren’t open about their identity). But it was like an obsession with this DS. So my experience with the Good News movement was that it was anti-gay and anti-women in leadership. Your results may differ.
Comment by David on November 4, 2024 at 2:04 pm
The Methodist Sunday School I was sent to in the 1950s used the Scripture Press materials. There was no mention of anything beyond the biblical text. John Wesley was a fuzzy figure known to have founded the church but otherwise went unmentioned. Denominational politics were likewise ignored. The District Superintendent showed up once a year for Pledge Sunday. Beyond that, everything was local. This was the third oldest Methodist congregation in the US. This lost its membership to white flight, eventually closed, and then restarted as a minority congregation.
Comment by Tim Ware on November 4, 2024 at 5:43 pm
Years ago in seminary, in an education class, each of us was supposed to develop a statement of what we thought should be taught in Christian Education. My statement was that, first of all, people need to know what the Bible actually says, not 15 or 20 favored passages, not someone’s take on what the Bible says, and not 2 or 3 pulled-out verses carefully interpreted to lead to a certain, preconceived conclusion. From the reaction that got, you would have thought I had just landed from Mars.
Comment by Douglas E Ehrhardt on November 5, 2024 at 7:22 am
Churchianity, definitely not the Kingdom. Perfect for people who don’t really follow Jesus. A social club for virtue signalers. There really isn’t such a thing as liberal Christians. Or gay Christians. Just people that are deceived.
Comment by Skipper on November 5, 2024 at 9:25 am
I believe Good News started well, but got lost. They wouldn’t let you say homosexuality is evil for example, which the Bible plainly says. It says those in that lifestyle will not be part of the Kingdom of God. They refused to approve comments that were truly Biblical, even quotations of the Bible. They (Good News) wanted to keep the peace so bad, they became part of the problem. So the offending gay ministers and Bishops were able to remain part of United Methodism, rather than being cut out as John Wesley would have done in an instant. It’s too bad they wanted peace more than correcting a wayward UMC.
Comment by Wilson R. on November 5, 2024 at 11:06 am
Was Jesus’ rebuke about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel among the scriptures that the Good News people cut out?
Or the one about ignoring the weightier matters or the law, justice and mercy?
Comment by Skipper on November 5, 2024 at 8:08 pm
Wilson,
A person can choose an immoral or perverted lifestyle if one wants too. God gives each of us that choice. Just remember that “if you want a good relationship with God, you need to follow the rules,” as Michael McPherson of the Rock Church in San Diego said. He went on to say “If you don’t want a good relationship with God, don’t worry about the rules.”
Comment by Wilson R. on November 6, 2024 at 12:01 pm
Justice and mercy are at the core of the rules. Or at least that’s what Jesus said.
Interesting how I never seem to hear that message from the “Good News” types. But, boy, they can cite you some rules about LGBTQ.
Comment by Different Steve on November 6, 2024 at 5:04 pm
I missed the part where Jesus said that. But I do recall him saying this:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Comment by Skipper on November 7, 2024 at 8:27 am
Jesus told of a wide and easy road that leads to destruction. He said many would take that road. You meet someone that has taken this road. What is the loving thing to do?
a. Do nothing at all, so you won’t be involved.
b. Do not warn them, but tell them “you will surely die.”
c. Warn then in a respectful manner.
Comment by Skipper on November 7, 2024 at 1:05 pm
Now to get back on the subject, which is the job done by Good News. Although they weren’t there when we needed them most (before the UMC reached to point of no return to Christian principles and doctrine), after the the split they were very helpful. Thanks for their help with the new replacement denomination, Global Methodist. Now they can phase out with respect and many thanks.
Comment by Wilson R on November 7, 2024 at 3:57 pm
Different Steve:
Here’s where Jesus said it: Matthew 23.
Justice and mercy are dimensions of love, and of course loving God and neighbor are the two commandments that sum up the entire law.
Comment by Skipper on November 8, 2024 at 8:54 am
Wilson,
You said “Interesting how I never seem to hear that message from the “Good News” types. But, boy, they can cite you some rules about LGBTQ.” Groups like the Good News didn’t write the Bible, God did. We are all sinners and can be forgiven when we turn from sin (repent) and put our faith in Christ. Let’s all consider respecting God by living the way the Bible teaches and Christ taught. This will surely give us a good relationship with God.
Comment by Different Steve on November 8, 2024 at 4:30 pm
All kinds of things could be claimed to be a dimension of love. Instead of shoehorning justice and mercy into what Jesus had to say about love, I think its better to stick with whatever Jesus had to say about justice and mercy, especially any concrete examples he may have given, and make logical connections between that and whatever the issue at hand may be. It doesn’t demonstrate much to claim that one’s side of an issue is the just and merciful one. Peoples, cultures and eras ideas of what is just and merciful vary considerably.
Comment by Wilson R. on November 11, 2024 at 4:35 pm
Skipper: My point is that the Good News people seem highly selective about which Bible rules they care to enforce.
Comment by Skipper on November 12, 2024 at 8:51 am
Wilson,
I understand your point about highly selective enforement. That is true. However that (LGBTQ living) is the subject of the whole split in the United Methodist Church and where the spotlight has been. If you were to ask them (Good News) if it is within God’s way of living to be a pimp, prostitue, car theif, adulterer or murderer I think they would say no to those too.
Comment by Skipper on November 12, 2024 at 10:07 am
Wilson,
I understand your point about highly selective enforcement. That is true. However that (LGBTQ living) is the subject of the whole split in the United Methodist Church and where the spotlight has been. If you were to ask them (Good News) if it is within God’s way of living to be a pimp, prostitute, car thief, adulterer or murderer I think they would say no to those too.
I can see why this is confusing to the LGBTQ people, when you have the United Methodism telling people its within God’s way of living to have same-sex marriages, gay clergy, even gay bishops. They don’t care what happens to people. Read the Bible. They are chocker-block full of False Teachers. In my old church, a UMC one, the minister would not let Romans or I Corinthians be read on homosexuality, even in a Bible Study. He said “we only talk about that in small groups.” Someone said “This is a small group.” The UMC doesn’t care enough to tell the truth. Read the Bible and stick with the truth. You will receive God’s protection.
Comment by Wilson R. on November 12, 2024 at 2:01 pm
Skipper, let me ask you this question in all sincerity:
Are you sure that Romans and 1 Corinthians say what you believe they say about homosexuality? Are you absolutely sure, when you look at the context of homosexual practice in the Greco-Roman world that Paul inhabited? If that context is significantly different from the context of loving, monogamous same-sex relationships today, should that make a difference in how we interpret Paul’s words?
Let me also ask you about the role of women. How does the Good News movement interpret Paul’s words on that subject? There is the explicit statement in 1 Corinthians that women should be silent in church. There is an even more explicit statement in 1 Timothy that women are permitted no authority over men; nor are they to teach men; nor are they to remain anything but quiet in religious assemblies. Seems like those statements are at least as emphatic as what Paul says about same-sex behavior. How do you read them? Do they require interpretation (as United Methodists believe), or do they speak for themselves (as Southern Baptists and Churches of Christ apply them)?
Comment by Tim Ware on November 13, 2024 at 12:18 am
WilsonR,
Since you live a homosexual lifestyle, I’m sure you are desperate to find something in the Bible to justify the lifestyle you have chosen. It’s also important to you to vilify those who don’t “affirm” your lifestyle choice. But do you really think it’s fair to reduce the entire Gospel to the litmus test of whether people accept those who choose homosexual lifestyles…and at the same time say that the Gospel encourages us to hate all those who don’t?
Isn’t it wrong to reduce the Gospel to nothimg more than acceptance of homosexual lifestyle? After all, from your posts here, it’s clear that the only people you don’t hate are the ones who see the Gospel exclusively through homosexual eyes.
Comment by Skipper on November 13, 2024 at 8:51 am
Wilson,
First, I am not here defending Good News, so I can’t speak to their view of women.
Yes, I am absolutely sure. That’s because I believe in the authority of scripture. What the Bible says, I believe. No consideration of Paul’s world – that notion came from False Teachers who don’t care about you. I didn’t write the Bible, God did. We can believe what it says, or do what we think is right, which gets us into big trouble with God. I believe the Bible outright when it says things like adultery and homosexuality are very sinful. When the Bible says “No” we need to respect God’s wishes.
Romans 6:7 tells us how our old sinful nature doesn’t have to dominate our lives anymore. Christ died for us and our old nature was buried with Him. Now you don’t have to obey it. “He that is dead is freed from sin”. Now you have the Spirit of God inside that is stronger than this old nature. God now sees us through this new nature, the perfect Lord Jesus. You need to count on the Lord Jesus to give you the strength to walk in the new nature. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ (lives) in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Galatians 2:20
Comment by Wilson R. on November 13, 2024 at 12:47 pm
Skipper:
Thanks for your answer. I acknowledge that you don’t speak for the Good News Movement. So let me ask about your own views about the authority of scripture as it pertains to women. How do you view those passages from Paul about women speaking/teaching/leading? Do they have the same authority as the passages on homosexual behavior? If not, why not?
Comment by Wilson R. on November 13, 2024 at 1:17 pm
@Tim Ware:
I just noticed your post. Since you raised the issue, I’ll just mention that I have heard my wife describe me as the most heterosexual man she knows. We’re both on our first marriage. It has lasted 43 years so far.
But your claim that I “live in a homosexual lifestyle” is both sadly revealing and, sadly, all too typical of a certain form of argumentation that I’ve seen on this site. The claim falls somewhere north of a baseless and reckless assumption and just a little south of out-and-out false witness.
This sentence of yours is also interesting: “It’s clear that the only people you don’t hate are the ones who see the Gospel exclusively through homosexual eyes.” You seem to equate disagreement with hate. I won’t make assumptions about what’s behind that, but this isn’t the first time you’ve written something like this.
Comment by Skipper on November 19, 2024 at 7:51 am
Wilson,
You keep playing around trying to make sin not sin. You can abide in God or abide in sin. You made me thing of an old country song “What part of ‘No’ don’t ya understand?”