CGGC General Conference Sessions 2007
So... is anyone attending the CGGC General Conference sessions June 18-20? There is some basic info HERE. And according the the CGGC web site you must be registered by May 25. It is free and you can download a registration form HERE. It would be nice to meet some of you. I will likely be wearing a shirt, pants, and shoes - so say 'hi' if you see me.
posted by dan at 10:18 AM
51 Comments:
As the Four Tops sang, "I'll be there."
I'll see you, too. You really should consider wearing a tie, Dan. (With shorts you'll look like Angus!)
Well apparently the three of us will be the only ones 'emerging' from this blog at conference. So I'm sorry Ben, but that will probably lead to enough ridicule in itself. Sporting an AC/DC look might be a bit much. Though I can almost envision a chorus of "Highway To Hell" spontaneously erupting :)
See ya there!
Hmmm. Interesting visual on the delegates bursting into a spontaneous chorus. Given that momentary lapse of reason (another musical allusion?), I won't be at the sessions, but I will be down the road at another Winebrenner class being held at a retreat center in Fremont. Classes are back at Winebrenner the next week so if y'all rock out, make sure you leave everything intact for me ....
What would John Say?
How is it that the majority of the CGGC are caucasian while John Winebrenner was a leader in the anti-slavery movement? It seems to me that there is inconsistency in the doctrinal statement of the CGGC where foot washing is an ordinance but a majority of the CGGC is of the same color. Does this imply that "I'll wash your feet only if they're white?"
Also, can the CGGC truly be emergent if the leadership is all caucasian?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Re: JW's "How is it that the majority of the CGGC are caucasian while John Winebrenner was a leader in the anti-slavery movement? It seems to me that there is inconsistency in the doctrinal statement of the CGGC where foot washing is an ordinance but a majority of the CGGC is of the same color. Does this imply that "I'll wash your feet only if they're white?""
Yikes, J! The discourse here is normally much more temperate than this.
What are you angry about?
I guess we could introduce some facts.
It would not be accurate to say that Winebrenner was a 'leader' in the abolitionist movement. He certainly was passionately committed to it and used the influence he did to have to promote it. But a 'leader?' You'd have to be using a pretty diluted definition of leadership to place Winebrenner there.
In case you've not noticed, the majority of Americans are causasian. If they weren't and CGGCers were excluding noncausasians you'd have a point. I'm not aware that people are excluded from our ordinance services based on race or ethnicity. I'd love to hear about it if you know of such an instance. I suspect that all of us who participate here would like to know the particulars.
I also suspect that you know that in recent years the Eastern Region has received an African American congregation and a Hispanic congregation into its membership. We don't have separate but equal ordinance services for them at our Conference Sessions.
And, as far as "Does this imply that "I'll wash your feet only if they're white" is concerned:
Huh?
Bill,
My apologies for not keeping the comments light. I thought that the blog was for discussion of the emerging church movement. If I misunderstood, my apologies. However, how can discussion be bad?
Perhaps I should reframe the issue of Winebrenner being a leader in the antislavery movement. He was vocal in this area and clearly saw that slavery was contra scripture and was criticized for his position along with reaching out to the "unloveable" for Christ's sake. As a paradigmatic consideration, how would he respond to the CGGC being overwhelmingly caucasian?
While I appreciate your recognition of American Culture being influenced by the majority caucasian culture, have you considered the facts of the immigration statistics and the cultural change in the american landscape?
Praise God that an african american congregation and hispanic congregation have joined the conference. As far as facts, how many congregations are there total in the CGGC? If I am to understand your argument correctly, you believe that the CGGC is reflective of the population as a whole and adequately represents the demographics of the culture. If so, what are the stats of the CGGC's congregational makeup by ethnicity? I would guess that if your assertion is correct, that the general membership of the CGGC reflects the changing demographics of American Culture.
I look forward to the facts. And, no I'm not angry. How can discussion be bad?
Regarding the foot washing issue. I was alluding to group pride which goes against the whole act of foot washing. It was an anthropological discussion based upon the recognition of human depravity.
Sorry that I wasn't clear.
God Bless.
Hi JW,
You're discussion is welcome. We do have a policy that we don't allow anonymous posts. Could you please post your name?
Thanks,
Brian Miller
Brian,
Do you have any thoughts about this concern? As a pastor, what is your neighborhood like?
How do you consider the CGGC as being primarily caucasian from a biblical perspective?
Is this what God intends for the CGGC?
Bill,
I eagerly anticipate your research of the facts. Do you know where can others acquire the CGGC ethnicity statistics?
God Bless,
Jien Woo.
Jien,
Our neighborhood (Mattoon, IL) is predominantly white but there is a growing Hispanic population. We have one Hispanic couple in our congregation and I am in the process of adding him to our Vision Team and am encouraging him to help us reach out to this growing Hispanic population. The interesting thing is the diversity of the Hispanic population. It isn't at all "one group." They don't communicate among themselves. Adrian (our Hispanic leader)has told me the Hispanics won't come to our church. The service will need to be in spanish and led by an Hispanic. So it isn't our lack of openness that is the problem.
As far as the CGGC, for years, we had a black conference in Arkansas/Oklahoma. Many of these pastors are in the Western Region and I believe are on that region's administrative board.
Haiti was taken in as a conference of the CGGC with national leadership involvement.
We are hoping to add a Haitian congregation located in the Chicago area to our Midwestern Region.
Basically, I have found an openness to diversity in the CGGC. If there is an underlying racism, I have never seen it.
Jien,
Discussion can't ever be bad. As Mike often reminds us, the Emerging Church is itself a conversation.
I, perhaps wrongly, picked up an accusatory tone in your original post. And, I merely pointed out that on this blog our conversations are normally characterized by a generosity of spirit, even toward those with whom we disagree.
You say about me, "If I am to understand your argument correctly, you believe that the CGGC is reflective of the population as a whole and adequately represents the demographics of the culture."
No.
I make no such claim.
The CGGC is, based on my anecdotal encounters of its various regions over the years, predominantly white and middle to lower middle class.
I am saying that I see no evidence that we are exclusionary. The members of the Eastern Region were absolutely thrilled to welcome the African American and Hispanic congregations to become a part of our ministry.
As far as the changing demographics of the population are concerned, I can guarantee you that I have no interest in becoming your Research Assistant. But, if you want to become mine, feel free.
The reality, Jien, is that our congregations are generally rural or are located in very small communities. And, they are not encountering the dramatic demographic changes that some border area urban centers are. I think you may be coming down a little too harshly on our brothers and sisters in the many rural communities in which a significant number of our congregations are located.
bill
Now, to answer Jien's punch line question:
"Also, can the CGGC truly be emergent if the leadership is all caucasian?"
I suppose it could be. But, of course, it is not emergent, nor is it even 'emerg-ing,' for those of you who make the distinction between Emergent and Emerging.
One could not characterize us a being either. Only a very small minority of us seem even to be interested.
And, Jien, the situation is even more bleak than you make it out to be: the leadership isn't only all causasian. It also all caucasian and almost exclusively male.
Bill,
I certainly understand that the rural churches do not have similar responsibilities as churches located in ethnically diverse communities. However, with the demographic changes being what they are is it not wise to consider how to change our mindset to be inclusionary instead of "not exclusionary"?
I guess the issue is whether the discussion entails active involvement or passivity which the emerging church brings to the discussion.
The minority report issued by the US census bureau in 2000 reports that by the year 2060, there will no longer be a majority population. What type of research do you do?
What does scripture direct as far as the status of the CGGC as majority white and without concern?
JW
Brian,
Sounds like an inclusive ministry. Why won't Hispanics come to your church? What specifically does Adrian think is the barrier(s)?
It sounds like language and white leadership creates a barrier. (Which is natural considering sociological norms) Is that an accurate assessment?
In your experience do you think there is a difference between being non-exclusionary versus inclusionary?
JW
Bill,
Why the apathy regarding the emerging/emergent church within the conference? Your Thoughts? Is there a plan within the conference to address diversity issues and the emerging church movement in an honest way. Do you think the conference willing to think outside the box and challenge what is working and what is not?
JW
Jien,
Re: "I guess the issue is whether the discussion entails active involvement or passivity which the emerging church brings to the discussion."
If that's the issue, I agree with you on it. Entirely.
Re: "What type of research do you do?"
My training is in history.
Re: "What does scripture direct as far as the status of the CGGC as majority white and without concern?"
For starters: "Therefore go to ALL NATIONS..."
Jien,
"Why the apathy regarding the emerging/emergent church within the conference? Your Thoughts? Is there a plan within the conference to address diversity issues and the emerging church movement in an honest way. Do you think the conference willing to think outside the box and challenge what is working and what is not?"
Good questions. There isn't a single answer.
There is, indeed, some apathy. There is also some fear, I believe, of emergence. There is lack of understanding. And, for some, there is the outright conviction that emergence is rejection of Truth and, therefore, heresy.
There is no plan that I know of at the Conference level. I can't see that there will be one soon unless these issues are presented--within our Conference--with passion by people other than me.
Apparently, I am known by some in the Conference for my concern about these issues. Perhaps that's because I participate on the blog and they lurk, but don't participate here. Perhaps it's because they know that Brian and I facilitated the Emerging Break Out Sessions at IMPACT last year. I sense that many find me to be a bit of an oddity. And, well, ask the others who post here. No doubt I am--not only as far as my interest in emergence is concerned,
Jien,
I will comment here. I am one person in the CGGC that is circumspect concerning the emerging/emergent church movement. I am concerned with a pattern of thinking that I sense among those in the emerging church movment that de-emphasizes matters of truth and holy living. However, I do think the emerging church has some good points that we as a denomination need to embrace. Diversity in leadership and in the pews is defintely one goal for which we need to aspire. Missional living among all of our people is another. To use terminology from a post last fall, I sense that the emerging church is rightly emphasizing orthopraxy while wrongly de-emphasizing orthodoxy. Should we not, as the Church of Jesus Christ, have both? Therefore, I cannot, with a good conscience, encourage our denom. to go "100% emerging church." Therefore, my attitude towards this whole emerging/emergent movement as it relates to the CGGC (as I have said before on this blog) is "Chew the whole thing up, swallow the meat, and spit out the bones." I will work towards seeing the CGGC adopt those emerging principles which are good, godly princples (and admittedly, lacking in our denom). But I will fight against any attempts to minimize the doctrines of the Churches of God or to de-emphasize personal and corporate piety and the pursuit of holy living. Thank you, however, for holding up a "mirror" to us in regards to some of the issues in regards to diversity. You raise some good points. Blessings.
-Pastor George Jensen
Enola First Church of God
George,
Re: "To use terminology from a post last fall, I sense that the emerging church is rightly emphasizing orthopraxy while wrongly de-emphasizing orthodoxy. Should we not, as the Church of Jesus Christ, have both?"
I do agree we should have both. However, the emerging church has brought to light problems with our orthodoxy, places where the orthodoxy has overstepped or misstepped. I believe we have a poor theology of heaven which distorts our understanding of the Kingdom. I believe that our bent toward dooms day end times has damaged our desire to pray "Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven."
Re: "Therefore, my attitude towards this whole emerging/emergent movement as it relates to the CGGC (as I have said before on this blog) is "Chew the whole thing up, swallow the meat, and spit out the bones." I will work towards seeing the CGGC adopt those emerging principles which are good, godly princples (and admittedly, lacking in our denom). But I will fight against any attempts to minimize the doctrines of the Churches of God or to de-emphasize personal and corporate piety and the pursuit of holy living."
I believe that would bring tremendous health to the denomination George.
Jien,
The barriers in our area with Hispanics are trust. Many are illegal. Many don't trust even other Hispanics.
We hope to start some bridging ministries such as English as Second Language classes.
My dream would be for Adrian to start an Hispanic church.
George and others,
I'm with Brian when he says, "the emerging church has brought to light problems with our orthodoxy, places where the orthodoxy has overstepped or misstepped..."
There are very important ways that the Fundamentalist reaction to modernism has produced a skewed notion of orthodox belief. One way to explain the Emerging Church is that it is itself a reaction to the excesses of 20th century conservative attempts to reclaim orthodoxy.
The orthodoxy that some defend against the Emerging Church is not as orthodox as they assume.
Is anyone here familiar with the (I'd guess you'd call 'movement') known as Radical Orthodoxy? It is an attempt to reclaim the orthodoxy that predates attempts to know God through reason. It stresses the importantance of revelation over reason.
Does anyone recall that Dan Kimball wrote a comment on this blog some time ago in which he said that his theology is rooted in the Nicene Creed? What could be more orthodox than that?
Bill,
It's all well and good that Kimball subscribes to the Nicene Creed. But what are we supposed to do when other "emerging church" folks advocate doctrines that are clearly outside of the bounds of Christian orthodoxy? Am I to assume, for example that in the name of holding to a "generous orthodoxy" that we as the Church of Jesus Christ must now be overly-"generous" and declare that doctrines like "eternal regression" (referring to the LDS concept of God) are now acceptable? I cannot do that with a good conscience. Furthermore, are we as the CGGC now supposed to be so "generous" that we must declare that doctrines like Universalism are now acceptable in the CGGC? During my ordination, I made a vow before God and the ERC that in regards to CGGC doctrine, "I am willing to subscribe to these doctrines, to teach them to defend them against every attempt to minimize their value."
Believe it or not, I do understand that many doctrines that 20th century fundamentalists declared as "orthodox" were actually declared by them to be both "orthodox" AND "absolute essentials to the faith" (like cessationism, premillenialism, etc.). I certainly know better than that. Personally, I would say that these kinds of doctrines are accceptable under the umbrella of "orthodoxy," yet "NOT absolute essentials to the faith." However, there ARE some doctrines that are both orthodox AND essential to the Christian faith. Furthermore, there are some doctrines that are both orthodox AND essential to the CGGC.
Perhaps I am too circumspect, but I just have a gut feeling that some in the emerging church would be WAY too "generous" and declare truly unorthodox doctrines to be orthodox. I won't stand for that. It's "sloppy agape."
-George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
Bill,
In your studies, has adherence to orthodoxy prevented ethnic diversity within the CGGC? I am amazed when researching scholarly journals during the tumultuous years of the civil rights era how silent the leaders and scholars of a majority of the Church (Big C) were.
I agree that there is an inherent tension to the discussion of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Usually it seems that within the tension comes growth. It seems that complacency is usually born out of comfort and conformity.
Brian,
I appreciate your assessment and honesty. Do you think that Winebrenner would recognize the financial realities of minority seminary students and readily receive Adrian, should he require more training? Statistically I believe that most minority pastors are bivocational by necessity.
My assumption is that if there is apathy regarding diversity and no desire for diversity within the leadership structure, that the issues and barriers which prevent minorities from acheiving leadership positions are not considered which would promote a continuing lack of qualified minority individuals...and so on...
Regarding "meat and bones"
"meat" = sola scriptura.
bones = everything else
JW
Bill,
I will be praying that you find the strength to speak out strongly and loudly at the conference and that others who are quiet will no longer remain so.
The blog is nice, but it's like singing to the choir.
JW
George,
"However, there ARE some doctrines that are both orthodox AND essential to the Christian faith. Furthermore, there are some doctrines that are both orthodox AND essential to the CGGC."
What do you see as the differences between the doctrines essential to the Christian faith and doctrines essential to the CGGC?
JW
George,
You said, “I am concerned with a pattern of thinking that I sense among those in the emerging church movment that de-emphasizes matters of truth and holy living.”
I’m sure you have that concern. I am painfully aware that many others share both the concern and the perception that it is built on. But, I disagree.
Emerging Church people do anything but de-emphasize truth. While I won’t characterize everyone within the movement as being cut from the same cloth, my sense is that Emerging Church people generally emphasize truth more than most of the people who oppose them.
They, for instance, go to the trouble of reaching the conclusion that there are serious deficiencies in some of the doctrinal positions held by run of the mill Christians who hold the modern mindset with its understanding of what Truth is. Even Brian McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy, which you might conclude de-emphasizes truth, actually emphasizes truth. The reality is that it articulates a truth vastly different from the Truth you and I embrace, but make no mistake about it, it emphasizes Truth. That’s what is so annoying to those of us who disagree with it. You and me both.
What you see as a de-emphasis of truth is, I believe, more accurately described as a different understanding of the nature of Truth.
(Because I know you well and know that there is not an arrogant bone in your body, what I say now I don’t say to you personally.) There is an arrogance among many who criticize the Emerging Church for its de-emphasis of truth. The arrogance is in the assumption that the modern—scientific—definition of Truth which predominates in the church today is identical to the biblical understanding of Truth. It isn’t.
Jesus and the Apostles were not proponents of the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment. And, let’s be honest. Fundamentalism and Neo-Evangelicalism bring the scientific worldview to their study of the Word. Emerging Church people simply understand the nature of Truth differently than you ‘modernists.’ We, at least, are more aware of the fact that our understanding of truth is colored by our context. We bristle when people who accuse us de-emphasizing Truth don’t realize that their own understanding of Truth is colored by their culture and time. (It must kill you to see the term ‘modernist’ applied to you, eh? But, in terms of this discussion that is the position you are defending.)
You ask, “But what are we supposed to do when other "emerging church" folks advocate doctrines that are clearly outside of the bounds of Christian orthodoxy?”
Oppose them. But, don’t suppose that we all agree with them. This movement is chaotic and extremely diverse. I hated it when I was a teen when adults would assume that everyone under the age of 30 was a dope-smokin’ hippy. (Guess I just dated myself, eh?) You have absolutely no reason to oppose the Emerging Church as a whole because of what some radicals attached to the movement write or say or do. I’m sure that you know that the two of us agree more than I agree with Brian McLaren.
Well, the reality is, I am convinced that the Emerging Church’s critique of modern Christianity is valid and that if the people of our generations don’t take it to heart we will have failed to reach the unsaved world around us with the Gospel of God’s grace and mercy. I am convinced that when we choose to hold on modern notions of truth we simply set ourselves up to answer questions that unsaved postmoderns are not asking. And, we will never reach them. The church is becoming increasingly irrelevant to our culture. We have no choice but to engage it as it is.
Jesus told us to go to the world and make disciples. We have to go to it, not demand that it come to us. It is emerging out of modernism. Like it or not, we have to go to it. Certainly, we can't leave Jesus in doing that. But, our task in the Great Commission is to go to the world. We can't can demand that the world de-emerge and return to the modernism that is comfortable to us--and isn't biblical anyway.
So, yeah! Oppose heresy. Feel free to oppose the postmodern heresy of the whackos in the Emerging Church. But, don’t be any more ‘generous' toward the abuses of orthodoxy within your own modernist circle.
I will be at General Conference. Save me a seat Bill.
JW, you said "meat = sola scriptura" and bones = everything else. I disagree. You must have a creed to stand on, which surprises me that CGGC doesn't officially. Theological understandings of the trinity for example are creedal and not spelled out directly in the Scripture, yet I believe it and believe it is essential. It is interesting that George points to the Nicene Creed as a possible navigation point.
JW, yes I believe Winebrenner Seminary would bend over backwards to bring in a guy like Adrian. They have shown this before with other minorities, and I know for a fact that Winebrenner has focused concerted effort to make itself more accessible to African American students.
I'm not sure though that it would be the best course of action for Adrian. In the future, I believe planters will be trained more in the field.
Jien, would you be willing to tell us more about your situation and how we might be able to help you?
Bill, thanks for the words on truth. I personally love the Bible and hold it as The Word of God. My respect for it is so great that I take great care in reading it for it's depth and that means understanding the powerful nature of metaphor while preserving the authenticity of the history.
Bill,
Please don't misunderstand what I said. Let me quote myself: "Perhaps I am too circumspect, but I just have a gut feeling that some in the emerging church would be WAY too "generous" and declare truly unorthodox doctrines to be orthodox." Please take the word "some" and capitalize it, underline it, highlight it, and do anything else to make that word stick out like a sore thumb. I'm not lumping you into the group of "emerging people" and making a declaration that all emerging folk are dumbing down the truth. Again, I can't emphasize enough the word "SOME." By the way, I'm not even lumping Kimball in with the people with whom I am concerned. By the way, I know you well enough that you have a good grasp on the truth or to use Sloatian terminology, "Truth River." The people I am concerned with are the emerging folks who were hanging out with Brian McLaren (not Brian himself, his associates) who gave Jim Keiser "the finger" when he asked to borrow a chair from them at a restaurant (I'm not kidding! Call Jim and find out for yourself!). I am concerned about the students at Central Bible College in Springfield, MO (the Assemblies of God college) who made a VOW before going to that school to abstain from alcohol while at school, yet now go into bars and get "tipsy" for the purpose of engaging the culture to reach to present the Gospel. These people identify with the emerging church. The issue isn't alcohol, the issue is they made a VOW and see nothing wrong with breaking it in order to be "emerging." This is not a rare occurrence, it is a systemic problem for the folks at Springfield. Don't believe me? Call Pastor Tim Halbfoerster at the River of God Church (AOG) here in Enola. I am concerned with some comments on a post at "emerging women" that deal with the subject of "pomosexuality." (I gave you a copy of that post). If I understand some of the sentiments in that post, there is criticism from some "emerging" Christians that traditional Christians have been too rigid in drawing lines in the sand regarding what sexual practices are acceptable and what are not. My reply is, "Really? We aren't allowed to say 'Thus saith the Lord' about this or that sexual practice? What about pedophilia? What about cats and dogs? (sorry for being so grotesque, but it illlustrates my point).
Bill, those are the folks with whom I am concerned. Call me modern, call me whatever you want, but truth is truth. 2+2 will never = 5.
Bill, you also said, "You have absolutely no reason to oppose the Emerging Church as a whole because of what some radicals attached to the movement write or say or do." When did I say that I oppose the whole movement? When I initially posted on here, I said that my philosophy is to "chew the whole thing up, swallow the meat, and spit out the bones." Yes, I believe there are bones, but I also believe there's MEAT! If I opposed the whole movement, I'd be saying that I have nothing but a mouthful of bones. I make no such claims. I also stated in my comment my appreciation for the emerging church making folks like myself understand how important orthopraxy is (like missional living). Your inference that I am opposing the emerging church as a whole does not represent my thinking.
By the way, I am kind of surprised by your reaction to all of this. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be responding like someone who was just stung by a bee. I sure hope you can relax and we can talk about this, otherwise our trip out to Findlay may turn out to be a huge hornets' nest and we're both going to have to become dope-smoking hippies just to get through the Conference (that was meant to be humorous).
Jien,
Infant baptism/believers' baptism is one example. Infant baptism is certainly orthodox and practiced in many denominations, but it is not practiced in the CGGC. Therefore, "believer's baptism" is orthodox and essential to the CGGC (yet not essential in other Christian traditions). I think I am right on that one; those of you who are in official leadership at the CGGC: please correct me if I am wrong.
Blessings,
George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
Hey Brian (or anyone else),
Do you know anything about the technicallities of blogging? Every I post here, I need to sign up again for an identity. In other words, when each time I post, I have to go to the identity sign up page and re-enter "cggcconservative" and a password and e-mail, etc. Am I doing something wrong to prevent my blogger name from being "permanent?" Any help would be appreciated.
-Pastor George Jensen
Enola First Church of God
Dan Kimball actually has an interesting post up right now about "core & non-core beliefs". You can click on that, or cut and paste this: http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/06/what_to_use_for.html
Also, in lieu of recent comments, I have decided to forego wearing a shirt, pants and shoes to conference. I will be the naked guy smoking dope. Perhaps we can pass a peace pipe. :)
Uh, maybe not in 'lieu'... but in light of.
George,
Stung by a bee? Ouch.
Sorry. Perhaps I have over-reacted.
I tried to make it clear that much of what I wrote was for general consumption, not addressed to you personally.
The truth (No pun intended) is that I am tired of being tainted by some because of the books that Brian McLaren writes. But, I'm not suggesting that YOU do that to ME personally.
I can tell where the 'stung by a bee' chip on my shoulder came from. I met with a long time friend who is an elder in fairly large 'evangelical' church this past week. He brought last Sunday's sermon outline. Half the sermon was a tirade against the Emerging Church based on the fact that it rejects absolute truth. My friend is sympathetic to the Emerging Church to the degree that he accepts its critique of theolgically conservative modernist Protestantism. He was fuming!
We're not guilty! My friend is not. I'm not! With few exceptions, if any, those who blog here are not! We believe in Truth. But, to too many people, to be emerging is to reject Truth. I'm weary of being Strawmanized! I'm tired of being associated with what I oppose.
Here's how you stumbled into trouble:
You said, "I am one person in the CGGC that is circumspect concerning the emerging/emergent church movement. I am concerned with a pattern of thinking that I sense among those in the emerging church movment that de-emphasizes matters of truth and holy living."
Get it? You are circumspect concerning the whole movement? You sense in the whole movement a "pattern of thinking?"
I believe you are over-reaching when you achieve that sensation.
I'm sorry that I came across as being personally angry with you. You couldn't make me angry if you tried. I know you too well.
My guess is that our four days of General Conference will not be boring for either of us.
FYI for the rest of you: George and I are traveling to and rooming together for General Conference.
Dan,
I really appreciate the link to Kimball's site about core and non-core beliefs. I totally agree with his diagram/chart.
By the way, where does your philosophy of clothing attire at denominational meetings fall on Kimball's chart? Hmm???? (That was meant to be funny, by the way).
Bill,
Should we invite this guy (Dan H.) to room with us? I suppose one's answer would be based on what are core versus non-core beliefs regarding the donning of shirts, pants, and shoes at denominational meetings (That also was meant to be funny).
-G.C. Jensen
East Pennsboro Twp., PA
Brian,
I'm glad you decided to attend. I'll save the seat.
Perhaps the bloggers who are there will be able to grab a lunch or two at the same table and continue the conversation face to face.
I believe the fact that, according to my count, at least five of us will be there will be a good thing for us--and for the CGGC.
Brian,
"Jien, would you be willing to tell us more about your situation and how we might be able to help you?"
I don't think that I need help with anything, just wanted to engage in an emerging church issue. Thanks for your kind consideration and tolerance for the discussion of the concerns of a person of color.
My situation is an acknowledgement of the primarily caucasian membership of the CGGC and inquiry as to if others see this as contra scripture.
Perhaps the best way that you can help is to search the scripture and find out for yourself if God intended for the CGGC to be monoracial. If after study and consideration, you find that the scriptures require something else, maybe you can facilitate change in your local congregation and the conference as a person of influence. If after your study of scripture, you believe that God intends for the CGGC to be monoracial, I would love to hear the rationale.
I appreciate your tolerance of this emerging issue. Maybe you can help, but as always, let the spirit and scripture be your guide in discernment and decision making, not the wisdom of men.
Change is always difficult.
JW
Bill,
I appreciate your identification and recognition of the "cultural presuppositions" that we all carry. Isn't it then even more imperative that racial diversity (within the body of believers)be part of the equation?
Doesn't the "missional living" mindset of the emerging church appropriately reprioritize the "missio dei" and necessitate an answer to the question of who we choose to minister to and why?
Who we choose to minister to and share the good news of JC should no doubt influence the monoracial church communities which make up the CGGC.
Re: Jesus and the Apostles?
Are you referencing second temple hermeneutics? If so, can you be more specific? Does not a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture assist in guarding against cultural presuppositions? Acquisition of Truth via experience is a frightening proposition but pervades the church today. Instead of answering the question "what does the scripture say?" most are expected to answer of "what does the scripture say to you?" Experiential hermeneutics is simply dangerous. If we choose to elevate experience as equal to scripture in the acquisition of the knowledge of God, we are on dangerous grounds.
JW
Bill, you briefly mentioned the Radical Orthodoxy movement. I just wanted to chime in to say that a lot of my emerging church friends here in the Chicago area are into that movement and help moderate the Church & Pomo blog which is heavily influenced by the RO movement. It can get pretty thick and academic at times though. Even as a philosophy major who has studied Derrida, Marion, etc. it can sometimes tend to be over my head.
Oh, and one of my former professors, Bruce Benson from Wheaton College, is trying to start a Radical Evangelicalism movement as kind of a parallel to Radical Orthodoxy (as RO tends to be a more mainline/post-liberal thing).
Jien,
Re: "Isn't it then even more imperative that racial diversity (within the body of believers)be part of the equation?"
Inclusiveness in presenting the Gospel is extremely important. I'll admit that my perspective is culturally bound and apologize for the weakness of my understanding of the issue because I'm a prisoner of my culture and time.
Having said that, I have difficulty with the notion that we should think of people in terms of their racial identity. Because of that, I have never made racial diversity itself a priority.
That is true to so great an extent that when you introduced the issue, I actually had to go through the normal places in our meeting place where people sit in my mind's eye to visualize if our congregation is monoracial or not. And, it turns out that it is not.
We have several younger attenders of mixed race whose mothers attend and who are European Americans and whose fathers are African Americans. But, I never, ever think of these people in terms of their racial identity.
So, yeah! We absolutely must be inclusive in presenting the Gospel. But, should we think in racial terms?
You know, I think the New Testament is extremely explicit in teaching that the answer to that question is, NO. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile neither slave nor free neither male nor female.
Now, as I suggest, that's easy for me to say. And, I fully acknowledge that my take on the issue to closely bound to my cultural perspective.
Mike,
Regarding Radical Orthodoxy, you are right. It is deep stuff, but useful, I think.
Recently a bunch of pastors from the Eastern Region got Crystal Downing, author of HOW POSTMODERNISM SERVES (my) FAITH, to sit down for an informal chat. One thing she mentioned to us is her frustration over how difficult the RO writings are even for scholars to read.
The movement is important, if for no other reason, because it is a vivid illustration that postmodern Christians and Emerging Church people do have a passion for Truth.
Jien,
Re: "Does not a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture assist in guarding against cultural presuppositions?"
Just curious. Can you give me a little biographical info? How did you come to know the term, "historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture?"
One is either a lifelong learner of the first order or has some schooling under their belt to get to that one.
Interestingly, I've been thinking about hermeneutics on my own for about the last year. And, my thinking is still in progress. I do think that the historical-grammatical reading of Scripture is an important tool. But, I'm also beginning to suspect that one of the things that separates modern Christians from postmodern Christians is the question of hermeneutics. And, that postmoderns--especially postmodern unbelievers--need answers to questions that the historical-grammatical method can't provide.
I've spend a lot of time meditating on 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." And, I'm in the midst of sorting out the question, "How can the historical-grammatical method engage a text that contains the breath of God.
Certainly, a subjective reading of Scripture is not what is called for. That's too self-centered--too prone to the weakness of the sinful human nature.
So, I'm still working on this one. You raise an excellent question.
So, yeah, the historical-grammatical method can be a useful tool in guarding against cultural presuppositions. But, at the same time, it refuses to acknowledge the divine nature of Scripture's essence. We lose as much with it as we gain from it.
A point of tension between moderns and postmoderns--one that moderns don't seem to get--is that postmodern believers tend to hold a reverence for Scripture that is hard to explain. Brian talks about his reverence for Scripture frequently. And, I get what he's saying. But, I sense a lot of moderns don't get it. A little more than a century ago mModerns made the decision to defend the text of Scripture. They began to emphasize concepts such as inerrancy. They are agog over the text itself.
But, postmoderns are enamored with this amazing notion of inspiration--that Scripture is actually quite literally the Word of God! It is as much more than text as the lump of flesh and bone was different from man when God breathed into man the breath of life and the man became a living being.
All that to say that the historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture is a method useful in dealing with a text that is thought of in modern terms. But, I have trouble seeing its usefulness when one embraces a text which one truly believes has the breath of God within it.
Bill,
I guess that a lifelong learner is an appropriate description. The study of scripture and revelation tie in with your concerns and observations.
I do question the premise that since the word of God is pneumos that it is unknowable. If one offers that argument against objective methodology such as the grammatical-historical method, then does not one argue against the nature of inspiration and linguistic study altogether? In essence, is the nature of scripture such that "what it says is what it means?" Barring discussion over cultural presuppositions and historical study,if one adds to the text a meaning that is not intended by the author doesn't that risk an allegorical method yielding subjective truth? It is the nature of communication and linguistic study which validates that the biblical authors had a specific meanings in mind when they were inspired to write scripture and God's revelation was through that means. To argue against this seems dangerous and elevates personal opinion over authorial intention. This ultimately places man over the text as opposed to under the text where we all should be.
I appreciate the question and hope this makes sense.
JW
Bill,
"A little more than a century ago mModerns made the decision to defend the text of Scripture. They began to emphasize concepts such as inerrancy. They are agog over the text itself."
Does not the CGGC hold to the inerrancy of scripture?
JW
Bill,
"I've spend a lot of time meditating on 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." And, I'm in the midst of sorting out the question, "How can the historical-grammatical method engage a text that contains the breath of God."
The rest of the verse should answer your question...
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The context of the passage as well as completion of the verse should answers your question.
JW
Jien,
"Does not the CGGC hold to the inerrancy of scripture?"
You are about to open a nasty can of worms, my new friend. Because...
...I suspect that most CGGCers aren't aware that, according to WE BELIEVE, the answer to your question is...
NO.
That's right, gang. Read it. You will not find inerrancy there!
Jien,
"The context of the passage as well as completion of the verse should answers your question."
I understand the context, the rest of the verse and the next verse and even the first few verses of the next chapter. But, no. Those don't resolve my concerns about the adequacy of the historical-grammatical method in engaging a text that is theopneustos-ed, i.e., god-breathed/inspired by God.
I am so overwhelmed by the notion that a text in human language could also contain the essence of life that a reading of the text based on a contextual and gammacatical method of interpretation simply runs the risk of putting God is a humanly constructed box.
Let me repeat what I've already said. I'm working on this. I'm searching for truth. I have no set answers right now--only a series of questions that are fully engaging me.
Bill,
You are about to open a nasty can of worms, my new friend. Because...
...I suspect that most CGGCers aren't aware that, according to WE BELIEVE, the answer to your question is...
NO.
That's right, gang. Read it. You will not find inerrancy there!
"?????????????????????...gasp...???????????"
What does the CGGC believe about the nature of scripture then?
"Even in the original text?"
JW
I certainly wouldn't have guessed that a question about who was attending the General Conference would generate such lively discussion. Maybe this discussion will continue in Findlay. Unfortunately I will miss it. I have another obligation, Keep me posted. Drink a cup of Decaf for me.
The week after Conference my wife and I will be in Ohio for a week of rest and renewal at at Pastors' Retreat Center. I have been battling forces of darkness for two years and I need a break. I'll let you know about the week away when I return.
Grace and peace...
One thing we are doing in Sweden is working with the concept of integrating the church and not segregating it. With the high immigration in Sweden there is difficulty integrating the immigrants into Swedish culture which causes many problems. I believe that we as a church have a responsibility to bring the nations, races and culture together in the Kingdom of God. We should not have a Spanish speaking Church and a English Speaking Church but find ways to bring the two together.
In Sweden we are working with a Church out of Stockholm that works with this concept. All their meetings are bi-lingual, Swedish-English. The Church has being doing it this way for 14 years they have 40 different nationalities and 70% of the church is Swedish as well as the majority are under 35. We are working to do the same in Gothenburg. www.newlife .nu
Lew,
I will add you to my prayer list.
It was good to see some of the emerging gang at General Conference Sessions.
I really enjoyed Rick Rusow.
Ben, did I miss you or were you not there?
I'm with Bill... It was nice seeing some familiar faces at conference, and getting to meet George too. But I had the advantage of just being a visitor, so I excused myself during business discussions. :)
I also enjoyed Rick Rusow. So much so that I bought his book. That was perhaps the high point for me (other than mingling in the hall, and supper with Eddy & Lowell).
Best line I heard at conference - from Dave Draper, in the hallway - "If you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much space." (He denied coming up with this, but he couldn't remember who did).
I was hoping Brian might start a new conference thread with the pics he took (hint, hint).
Post a Comment
<< Home