"If the conclusion of an argument cancels either the premises or the consequences of the gospel, something is wrong with the argument."

The above quote comes from Dr. Albert Outler, who was commenting on a piece that John Wesley wrote in response to a dissertation by Lord Kames’ titled “Essay on Liberty and Necessity”. Kames concluded that man’s sense of freedom is a delusion. Wesley observed that Kames implied “the noblest creature in the visible world is only a piece of clockwork”.

Wesley was right you know! We United Methodists, in our attempts to be ecumenically sensitive and politically correct have often times argued conclusions that do indeed cancel both the premises and consequences of the gospel.

Our bent toward conclusions that meet the current situation (i.e. situational ethics) have often led us into murky waters.

In the emotional issues that confront us we have entered into Conference Journals - - reports, actions and resolutions that spoke more to our “raw feelings” than they did to the Gospel.

How often are we willing to “go along - - to get along”? Our spiritual ancestors did not fare much better. Old Testament prophets and Torah writers inform us that human nature will always find ways to circumvent God’s perfect plan.

While Moses was up on the mountain with God - - God’s chosen got impatient and built an idol and began to worship it. When Moses challenged Aaron about it - - Aaron’s reply was “well it just appeared”! Isn't that the way sin always happens - - it just appears.

Truth of the matter the Israelites wanted a “quick and easy” God - - not one with rules for living - - and they wanted their “god” right now.

Well, what is wrong with our argument?

Are we building our own “golden calves”?

Ah, the gospel, the Good News, the Living Word of God. We United Methodists say that we are not a “creedal” church - - but are we a “Gospel” church?

The gospel mandate is quite clear - - go, tell, show the Good News!

When we gather as a people of God at the 2004 General Conference will we deal with the same old “golden calves” or will we attempt something new for God - - and find ways of taking the Good News to a hungry and thirsty world?

Is something wrong with our argument?



A Jim Lane Commentary
December 22, 2003