Denomination
I recently wrote in a comment "Is their a future for our denomination? Probably not as it currently stands."
Obviously that was a grand statement with no explanation. Sorry. It was too strong and lacked any context. The question is "What is a denomination?"
I love our denomination. I really do. I love the doctrinal stance. I love the leaders who have invested in me. I love the followers who truly do long to be effective for God (which I do believe is most of them). And I even love those who don't always have a clue about effectiveness. I'm sure I don't appreciate enough the churches and their leaders who I have a relationship for the simple reason we are one denomination. For that I am really grateful.
I am committed to our denomination and hope to keep it vital and strong and prepared to minister in the 21st century with a strong voice. It is easy to complain. That is the last thing I want to do.
Here are some keys for moving forward:
1. Establish clearly what we love about the denomination. Clearly communicate that we don't want to irradicate the current culture, but we respect and regard what has come before us. In fact, celebrate and highlight these ideals. The foundations must stand.
2. Create some steps for people to take, in planting, in missions, in renewal, in leadership, ... Try some on regional levels, see what is fruitful and try it nationally.
3. Inspire, inspire, inspire. There are a lot of fantastic stories that aren't being told.
These are not keys:
1. Emerging theology -- though the Gospel is more about fruit than just heaven.
2. New kinds of worship -- it is more about authenticity than style
3. Defending ... -- God did not call us to defend Him or anything else. He called us to love even our enemy and that is what brings about change.
I think we are a lot closer to all being on the same page than we think, and I hope that my lack of clear communication doesn't create more of a divide.
posted by Brian at 9:16 AM
5 Comments:
I've been really busy and am still not able to think too clearly, but just wanted to say I think the "keys" and "not keys" that Brian pointed out are excellent. One of the things I have always loved about the cggc is the lack of a need to overly define or prescribe preferred styles and forms.
I echo Brian's love of our denomination. What do some others of you love/like about our denomination?
why do you think emerging theology is not a key? because you think its wrong? because you think its too hard for the denom to accept? just curious.
"why do you think emerging theology is not a key?"
Good question, Julie. That comment has been swimming through my mind too.
Brian, would you be willing to flesh that out a little for us?
I've been thinking about this and it is hard to answer briefly. But I will try.
"Do I think emerging theology is wrong?" No. But I would hesitate to say it is right. Theologies are never pure. There are always entwined with culture. We see some of this in the lack of diversity seen among the emergent leadership. It isn't just that emergent leadership should be more diverse. It is that theologies are usually tied to a cultural identity.
"Do I think it is too hard for the denomination?" No.
I believe it is culture that influences theology more than the other way around. Therefore if I were to bring keys to transforming a denomination, I would put most of my energy into transforming the culture, which as I reread the three keys I wrote, I would consider those cultural change agents.
1. You have to start where people are.
2. You have to give them some clear direction of where to go. They need to trust the leadership.
3. You have to keep them moving in that direction when it gets tough.
For instance, I think the book to change the course of the denomination would be a book like The Present Future as opposed to Generous Orthodoxy.
Presenting emerging theology as a key would make much of the denomination dig in their heels.
NOTE: This is all my humble opinion. I've been toying with the ideas of culture. I am no expert.
In my opinion if we are honest about our denomination, our theological development is a little lacking. In a modern age where many churches looked the same, this could have been a major downside where full agreement was expected. But in our current postmodern moment I think a minimalist theological position has a huge advantage over those with vast "Books of Discipline", etc.
While I do not believe we should be naive about what we believe, I think our denomination can be more nimble and has the ability to respond more quickly to a changing culture BECAUSE our theological development is not as advanced as some others.
In my opinion, all theological understanding should emerge out of the interplay between Scripture and one's particular context or culture.
The day of one universal understanding of everything is over.
I think the CGGC is positioned well for our current historical moment.
Post a Comment
<< Home