Change # 1: New Name
Sometimes what we write doesn't fully communicate our intentions. The name of this blog is a prime example and it needs to change. The CGGC name was part of the title because the intention was for conversation among those associated with the CGGC. Is it possible to have an unofficial CGGC blog? Should we just drop the name to avoid confusion?
Emerging does not communicate my intentions either. It sounds like an Exodus.
Labels: blog
posted by Brian at 8:48 AM
25 Comments:
Brian,
Here's my two-cents:
The name is fine. You have clearly spelled out the purpose of the blog at the top of the page. The guidelines clearly explain who can and can't post. How is changing the name or the format going to eliminate any more confusion? All you can do is be clear about what this blog is and does - and then follow through and enforce it. You already do that.
Based upon your earlier comments, I see two options: Leave it alone or eliminate it completely.
Honestly, I don't care either way. But changing the name won't do a thing.
Brent
Brent:
I offer this for charity:
You told Brian-
Based upon your earlier comments, I see two options: Leave it alone or eliminate it completely.
I challenge that.
Brian really did get to the brunt of the matter with the question that he asked in leading off this thread:
Is it possible to have an "unofficial" CGGC blog?
There is an issue of integrity here! What is our denomination's position on the emerging movement? If in fact we would be inclined to accept such a thing, just what (if any) problems would we have with some of the theology that is espoused based on the various "conversations" that are afoot. Is it proper to just assume that everybody who reads this knows thie difference between "emerging/emergent," and how that applies to the CGGC? And even if they do, disclosure requires that they know just who any conversation that is taking place on this blog represents (seeing the letters CGGC in the title).
The fact is that not everybody (whether opposed or in agreement with emerging) participates here. And they are under no obligation to do so. It is also appropriate to realize that the idea of "emerging" is already a flashpoint. Brian himself acknowledges that. I myself see at least two areas of potential confusion that I've encountered here on this blog. I know that both of those areas could lead to huge amounts of controversy. What is said in this venue (at least in the form that I have seen) can not automatically be expected to be accepted by many of the Pastors (and laity) in this denomination.
"We believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice."
(We Believe, pg. 17)
"We believe we are justified by faith in Christ, not by works of the law, or by works of our own righteousness."
...The major emphasis in justification is that it is an act of God. We are not capable of doing it for ourselves.
(We Believe, pg. 26)
These are only two areas that I see potential problems as I look back over the posts on this blog (since Dec. 2005), and what I know would be construed as orthodox christian/CGGC teaching. And if by some chance I am just misunderstanding, nobody on this blog has bothered to take the time to allay my concerns. There could potentially be more that I have not given attention too. These are the two that are most apparent to me.
If this is associated with the CGGC, then everybody (CGGC speaking) should be welcome to post. Everybody ought to be able to say what they are led of the Holy Spirit to say without being afraid to be shut down. They ought to be able to speak their heart without being painted as just another "conservative."
The other part of my argument is this: I am not against the people on this blog having their own points of view and articulating them. I am not in the business of shutting anybody down or prohibiting them from believing or saying what they feel they must. God has given everybody the freedom to choose. I think that we must also. On the other hand, I do not believe it appropriate to force any theology down people's throats. Those that participate here regularly have the right to say and believe what they want, those of us who are not inclined to participate have the right that these ones here not be misconstrued as speaking for the entire population. Your proposal to Brian is basically this as far as I see it: "Let this blog alone and if there are any who object, then that is just something that they have to deal with." That is alright so long as the blog is not entitled "emerging cGgc", otherwise it is an unfair and unjust position. Either this blog speaks for all of us (i.e. emerging cGgc), or it speaks for none of us. If it speaks only for a couple of individuals (which at this point is what I see to be the case), then it should not be mistakenly made to misrepresent the whole CGGC.
If this blog did not have CGGC in the title, I would not participate here. The fact that it does though tells people that the ideology/theology that is represented here could be normative normative and even encouraged throughout our denomination. That is not correct, and I am here to dispute that. I would rather not however, I have no desire to argue emerging with anyone. There are other things in life that need to be done.
I am convinced that there are alot of people that are throughout this denomination that would have alot of problems with what is said here. If I didn't, then I would not be here. If I am wrong then show me. I have no desire to be any more distastful than I already am.
As far as you and Ben's theology of blogs, you raise many interesting points. That however is not the point that is at issue here. And ultimately we don't really need to discourage/encourage anybody from following their conscience in whatever way they feel that they are led to communicate. Who communicates on blogs and why is not my concern, and I do not stand in judgement on those that do. I am impressed with Brian's integrity in seeing the problem and wanting to do something about it. We don't need to be here any more putting on a show for the world at large. I believe that what he purposes to do is all that is needed to rectify the situation. I see this as an issue of fairness. Either make this to represent all, or shut it down as not truly reflecting the viewpoint of all.
"Either this blog speaks for all of us (i.e. emerging cGgc), or it speaks for none of us."
Look at the post on top of the page that Brian put together. By joining the conversation, YOU have agreed to abide by the guidelines and stated purpose of this blog. This blog does not change for you.
Over a year ago I was one of the major ones who pushed Brian to post guidelines for this blog. Hopefully you can now see why.
I stand by my view that this blog is fine, as is.
If you want a blog that serves the purposes you are proposing, here's my suggestion: Pick up a phone, call the CGGC offices in Findlay, and seek permission.
I'm tired and I'm really not trying to be a jerk, even though it may look that way.
"Either this blog speaks for all of us (i.e. Churches of God, General Conference), or it speaks for none of us."
That was the implication that I intended to make in the quote you used of mine. Anything emerging CGGC should in all fairness represent all of us IN THIS DENOMINATION. When you insert the letters cGgc on the blog, whatever is said at the top of the blog is irrelevant. The fact is that this is a personal blog (as Brian indicated) and it should not in any way represent the official opinion of the denomination. It should also not presume to carry the name either. I would ask, "Who gave permission for the name to be used in the first place?" Was it Wayne Boyer or Ed Rosenberry? If they did, than by all means gentlemen, carry on.
You said,
"By joining the conversation, YOU have agreed to abide by the guidelines and stated purpose of this blog. This blog does not change for you."
I have not joined any conversation. I do not acknowledge the existence of any parallel church, or church within a church. I do not ask for any change on my behalf. What I have concured with is what Brian is quite reasonably suggested doing and what you are attempting to discourage. The issue here is not for me to "start another blog;" I have no interest in that. What would I call it anyway, "Contra emerging cGgc?" The issue here is to ask whether it is appropriate for the name CGGC to be used in this venue. I continue to contend, "It is not."
You said:
"If you want a blog that serves the purposes you are proposing, here's my suggestion: Pick up a phone, call the CGGC offices in Findlay, and seek permission."
Fiddlesticks, we don't need another blog. What we need is accountability on this one, if it is to continue in its present form. Anything that presumes to carry the name CGGC should be monitored by the leadership of our denomination. The fact is that if I were to start a blog, I would not presume to put the name CGGC anywhere on it lest I got permission for it from Harrisburg as "Approved Ministry." The problem is as Brian said, "Is it possible to have an "unofficial" CGGC blog?" If it is not official then it is not CGGC. It is opinion. It is inappropriate to present it in any other fashion.
I stand by my comment that it is perfectly appropriate (and advisable) to just change the name so that these conversations can go on. These fine people are allowed to converse in whatever manner they desire. Just not under the perceived auspices of the CGGC.
I am glad to hear that you were not trying to be a "jerk" Brent; I would suggest in the future that perhaps you should follow your own advice:
"Pastors shouldn't blog"
maybe, especially not when they are tired.
Just my worthless two cents... And I am tired, too. Didn't sleep well and not quite thru my 1st cup of coffee. :-)
Gentleman, I respectfully make a suggestion. Separate what you blog, from what you send as personal emails to one another.
It's perfectly ok(again only IMHO)for you to discuss and disagree on what the emerging church represents....even if its only your opinion. That's why this blog was established, I think.
Pastor Ken can bash the EC all he wants, as long as its not personal. And if anyone has a problem with it, they should email him, not bash HIM on the blog.
And if Pastor Ken or others have a problem with what anyone (personally) is preaching or teaching in their congregation, then they should confront them in email or face to face, not here.
I'm nobody. Not even a CGGC member, I admit. But to give you the observers point of view, it pains me to see you guys take shots at each other.
Argue the topic, and don't get personal.
When I question the motives of the EC,I'm not calling into question the integrity of Pastors Brent, Bill, Brian, etc. It's a given that not all "emergents" hold the same beliefs. So, defend what you agree with, and let us know what we need to be wary of in the movement.
In other words, put your focus on teaching "us" and each other. What's that verse Protestants often quote, "iron sharpening iron"? ;-)
But please don't fight. God don't like ugly.
Ok, I'll shut up now. Maybe I shot my mouth off way too much. If so, my apologies. Chalk it up to caffeine deprivation. My coffee's cold now.
Humbly and respectfully,
Felicia Swavely
Prior to this time, I never gave a second thought to the fact that our denomination's name was connected to this blog, thus we have "emerging cGgc." But Ken raised a good point that I never thought of: Is it fair to put the words "emerging" right next to "cGgc" since it may give the appearance that the cGgc is endorsing the emerging church? It is clear that some in our denomination are uncomfortable with the emerging church and even more are uncomfortable with the emergent church. Therefore, it is probably wise to re-name the blog so that it is abundantly clear that this is only a conversation for cGgc people about the emerging church.
Why is the appearance that a name gives such a crucial issue? I'll give some examples. If some in the cGgc were to start other private blogs to foster discussions about various theologies and ideologies, it may be problematic for others within our denomination to have the name cGgc right next to the name of the issue depending on what it is. For example, can you see why many would be uncomfortable with the following hypothetical blogs named as such: "Calvinist cGgc" or "non-Trinitarian cGgc" or worse yet "White Supremacy cGgc" or "anti-American cGgc"? I, for one, would be opposed to any of our pastors starting blogs with the aforementioned hypthothetical names and I would even be more opposed if Findlay gave a green light to them (I know Findlay wouldn't--thank God).
Again, it doesn't bother me personally that the word emerging is connected to our denomination's name in this blog. I think Brian has been very fair in the way that he has overseen the discussion. He has shown nothing but great respect for the cGgc. BUT, for the sake of appearances, I am recommending to Brian to change the name. Perhaps a "bumper sticker" version (shorter, that is) of "cGgc Conversation About the Emerging Church" would be better. I know that's what this blog is about, but the current "bumper sticker" name of "emerging cGgc" probably doesn't give that connotation and may be problematic for some. Just my 2 cents.
-Rev. George Jensen
Enola First Church of God
There is a lot to respond to here.
-Ken quoted two We Believe items. I certainly agree with both doctrinal statements as do I believe does everyone else who is contributing. If the pastors didn't, they wouldn't have been ordained. That is why when George compares "White-supremacy cGgc" with "emerging cGgc," I don't agree it would be the same at all. This blog is well within the bounds of We Believe. I have tried to explain this several times, that from what I see, "emerging" does not take anything away from being saved by grace, and if it does, I oppose it. A "non-trinitarian cGgc" would not be within We Believe.
-Did Wayne give permission for the name? Honestly, I don't remember. But he read it regularly and would comment with me personally. I have no idea if he continues to read or not. I do know that Ed, Don Dennison, and Lance Finley currently read it. No one from "The Office" has ever asked me to change anything. And as I've stated before -- I would do what I was asked. So perhaps that isn't an endorsement, but it does indicate a lack of a problem. And even now, with the assumption that those in the office are reading this, they now have the opportunity to respond with their concerns.
-To say a blog with the cGgc name on it has to represent everybody is ludicrous. It isn't possible. The cGgc is very diverse. I honestly do not know how the majority of the pastors feel about such a conversation as this. And to me, that has become part of the problem. We fear conflict more than we want vision. And that is why very little (if any) denominational communication is visionary. Ken says many oppose this view. I would say many would support this view, and even more would not oppose it. But I actually don't know, nor do I think anyone is sure. But as for me, I pray that God's wind might fill our sails.
-Felicia says we shouldn't bash Ken on this blog. Actually, I've thought people have been very restrained with Ken.
-George's suggestion of "cGgc Conversation About the Emerging Church" isn't a bad one, though it wasn't my intent to have a conversation about it. My intent, if any, was to stir a missional passion in the people of the CGGC. And if that continues to be my purpose, then perhaps I should leave the name alone. Perhaps "Applying Faith in the cGgc."
Actually my original intent was to help Wayne by facilitating a conversation about emerging issues and postmodern issues. I would say we have been faithful to Wayne's original idea. I would NOT say that it was Wayne's intent to move the cGgc toward emergent theology, but he was interested in providing a conversation for it and at one point, when I very much wanted to end this blog, Wayne talked me out of it.
But I am not opposed to changing the focus, and since Wayne has retired, it is not fair to keep imposing his name, so I'll try to make this the last reference.
I have no problem with "cGgc" being in the name of the blog, and I know full well that we don't speak for everyone in the denomination. I don't feel threatened by ideas I don't agree with; also, I have a few opinions I'm sure most people on this blog don't share. Does that preclude our ability to have a conversation and learn from each other? Of course not! That's how theology (with a minuscule "t") works.
We're not carbon copies of John Winebrenner and C.H. Forney! They lived in earlier generations, and they "theologized" from those perspectives. And so do we. We possess an unchanging Message but we live and converse with a rapidly changing culture. That's how I understand "emerging": it's an admission and a hope for the dynamic growth of our larger family as we grapple with new challenges and tasks.
I can see how attaching "cGgc" to the blog name might be problematic, but its presence there is a witness to our common identity. For years the Church Advocate was the medium for the exchange of ideas within the CGGC, albeit in a slower way.
Brian, I don't know if "emerging" needs to stay, but please keep "cGgc." Personally, I'm thankful for this forum.
God bless us every one!
Personally I don't think the title matters all that much. You can call it the Pennsylvania CGGC for all I care (well, I don't know if I'd go that far). :) But I can understand how some people might have a problem with it.
How about if the title was something like "Free Flow" or "Emerging Thoughts" or something, but you kept the description the same underneath of it?
I do think there is an identity issue - and somehow people need to know that most of us are associated with the CGGC. But that doesn't mean it has to be in the title. I think the subheading says it all anyway:
Emerging is a broad label, but many in the Churches of God General Conference are interested in what church will look like as fresh expressions emerge in the 21st century. This blog has been encouraged by the CGGC but in no way reflects the official thinking of the denomination. It is a place for free flow of thought and conversation.
Something I failed to respond to was my use of the word "conservative." In no way did I mean it as an "Us vs. Them." If I had to identify my politics (which might be difficult when you can't hardly stand any politicians), I would not identify myself as liberal. And in no way do I lump conservatives all into the same reaction. But I have noticed in a general way that conservatives (at least the spokespersons) tend to play the "fear" card more than others. Moderates and liberals don't tend to ban books or boycott movies. Conservatives sometimes do "for fear that" some might be inappropriately influenced. And sometimes I believe, we should certainly take great care with what we view and/or discuss. But the fear card is way overused in my estimation.
Brian,
Please don't misunderstand me; I in no way compared this blog, "emerging cGgc" with "White-supremacy cGgc." I was only making an illustration. As I said, I personally have no problem with the title "emerging cGgc." Also, I think you have handled the blog well. Please don't think that I am comparing this blog to a hypothetical "kook" blog--something like "White-supremacy cGgc."
It's just a fact that if you are going to use our name next to the word "emerging", some folks in the denomination (who take ownership of the name cGgc) may object. It doesn't matter whether or not things on this blog comply or don't comply with "We Believe" (and yes, I agree with you that the posts on this blog have complied with "We Believe." Some comments under the posts, in my estimation, have pushed the boundaries, however). It's just that the name of the blog includes our name, plus a movement that some are concerned about or even wary about. That's the issue. It's the first impression or appearance that is at stake, not the content of the blog.
I like the name "Missional cGgc" as well. I can't imagine anyone objecting to the word "missional" next to cGgc. If so, then they need to read the Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commandment, and the Great Commission.
Again, please don't misunderstand me. I in no way was comparing this good blog which you have created with some hypothetical "kook" blog. Keep up the good work. Blessings on your day.
-George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
George,
LOL, I didn't think you were comparing it directly. Perhaps only now am I fully seeing your point. I was riffing off of what Ken had said about the two We Believe statements and missed your point. My apologies.
Brian,
As Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
I'm content with the current name. But, my concern is that we don't lose the forum for the discussion of these issues.
Thanks for making it available to us.
bill
Gang,
I’ve sat on this comment for some time now and still feel strongly about it. So, here goes…
…AGAIN.
From Ken:
“"We believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice."
(We Believe, pg. 17)
"We believe we are justified by faith in Christ, not by works of the law, or by works of our own righteousness."
...The major emphasis in justification is that it is an act of God. We are not capable of doing it for ourselves.
(We Believe, pg. 26)
These are only two areas that I see potential problems as I look back over the posts on this blog (since Dec. 2005), and what I know would be construed as orthodox christian/CGGC teaching. And if by some chance I am just misunderstanding, nobody on this blog has bothered to take the time to allay my concerns. There could potentially be more that I have not given attention too. These are the two that are most apparent to me.”
From Brian:
“-Ken quoted two We Believe items. I certainly agree with both doctrinal statements as do I believe does everyone else who is contributing. If the pastors didn't, they wouldn't have been ordained. That is why when George compares "White-supremacy cGgc" with "emerging cGgc," I don't agree it would be the same at all. This blog is well within the bounds of We Believe. I have tried to explain this several times, that from what I see, "emerging" does not take anything away from being saved by grace, and if it does, I oppose it. A "non-trinitarian cGgc" would not be within We Believe.”
Ken, I’m with Brian. (Big surprise, eh?)
And, I’m weary of you continually impugning the orthodoxy of my brothers and sisters who contribute to this blog.
As far as I can tell, the only person here who been shown to be opposing We Believe is you--in my The ‘Biblic‘ Basis of the Ordinances thread. And, I pointed out your error with a quote from We Believe.
You say, “And if by some chance I am just misunderstanding, nobody on this blog has bothered to take the time to allay my concerns. ” Well, be specific. You say that you've reviewed posts since January 2005. Fine! Quote them. I'm sure you know how to drag a cursor.
If something I’ve posted raises concerns for you about my orthodoxy, quote it and confront me with it. Same for Brian, Brent, Dan, Tammie--all of us. I’m sure any of us would be more than willing to engage you in conversation.
So far, all you’ve ever done is defame our people based on what radicals outside the CGGC associated with the Emerging Church have said.
Like Brian, I see no issues with orthodoxy among the people on this blog--at least based on what I’ve read on the blog. If you see it differently, I encourage you--I genuinely encourage you--to be specific.
Your vague accusations of our heresy are not constructive. If that’s all you have to contribute, you’re not helping any of us and you are wasting your time.
bill
I like the name emerging cGgc for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.
For me it is about how we in the cGgc can reach a postmodern (influenced) culture. I don't believe that we need to change what "We believe" to do that.
I agree with George, I like the name "Missional cGgc" This seems to be the direction the "Church" is "emerging" to and it doesn't cause as much theological confusion and hopefully it could keep the conversation focused. But I think some of you enjoy debate more then dialog. That is OK if in debate we can create dialog and learn from one another. Lets move on!
peace!
I like the name as is. I especially like the cGgc part of it. That gives me a sense of community with my extended family. I will certainly talk with people who are not in the CGGC, and I know some of the bloggers are not, but we share a common foundation.
I know there is some concern over the word "emerging" and maybe missional would be helpful. However, I like the word emerging and we shouldn't let it be hijacked by a group or a person who wants it to mean just one thing.
If we are not emerging what are we doing?
I don't know if this matters or not, but it seems to me the term "missional" carries with it just as much confusion as "emerging" for many people. Perhaps not among those who know what is meant according to the latest books, blogs, and whatnot; but I would say for the average person in the pew in my context "missional" might actually carry more negative connotations than "emerging." I don't think a lot of people still have any idea what "emerging" even is, but for whatever reason "missional" scares them. I'm not saying this is how I feel, but this is the experience I've had. Sometimes it doesn't really matter what it means, as much as what people "think" it means.
I guess I say this because I don't know that simply changing a word in the title is going to alleviate any controversy. But... that's just my 2 cents. I'm okay with whatever.
Bill,
A short response (maybe long - so don't post me back asking "why the contradiction") is warranted to your last post so as not to give the wrong impression. I'm not disregarding your question.
But here's the deal Bill: I am not going to get into that. I felt bad about having to confront YOU with words that you had posted; (under the "radical orthodoxy" thread) words that you spoke a couple of years ago in order to help you to see the inconsistency of the position you were taking on feetwashing based on what you had previously posted.
I have no desire to go back and dig up people's quotes and confront them with them and say, "See, see, this is what you said!" That is immature and although it could be done, it would not facilitate unity. In the end, all I would hear anyway is people saying whatever (using Scripture out of context and popular thought) to justify their positions. The fact is that all of you are forever going to be "very reasonable" in your views, I am always going to be just another one of those conservatives who constantly play the "fear card."
The bottom line is, I don't want to hear it anymore. I have had just about a belly-full of this.
For your information and further reflection IF YOU WISH: I sat back and went through the blog last night. I don't know how I missed it previously, but I went back and studied the time period when George Jenson came on the blog, and the time that he left it back in 2006. It was a very illuminating time. Let me tell you this: George (as well as a few others) did a wonderful and masterful job of articulating during that time many of the concerns that I would have with this blog. If you want to know what my issues are, go back and look at brother George's concerns, "Heartsicks's, I think "dusty's, and another anonymous one or two (I think). By the way George, I think it extremely fascinating that nobody ever gave you an answer to your question that you asked in one of your posts (is there some things a pastor should believe - or something to that effect). To me, the lack of "conversation" there is very revealing. It says more than any point that I could make by confronting people with what they have posted in the past.
You want to know what my concerns are Bill? Just look back then. Read "Heartsick's" points that he made about the emerging movement. (I know, I know, all emerging is not the same-it just sounds that way to my unenlightened mind) George also took on much of the philosophy that is just taken for granted on this blog. I don't need to dig anything up Bill, it has already been adequately done. And it was done very well. The points that were made were not answered then, why do we think they will be answered now. As Doug said above, we are not interested in meaningful dialogue here, only if it serves our purpose, and our point of view. But if it is in opposition to our sacred cows, forget it.
Bottom line Bill, I'm sick of this blog. I'm tired of the grief that it causes inside my heart. I have grown increasingly dissatisfied with having to defend myself from those who say they value "conversation". It is tiring. The sadness that I feel knowing where this conversation can and probably will lead is enormous. I can't stomach anymore trying to deal with "brothers" who don't want to deal with the issues, they just want to get into tearing down character to preserve their positions.
GO FOR IT fellows! As for me and my house, "We will serve the Lord." We will serve Him in a traditional, conservative way, and we will hold tenaciously to the Bible and what "We Believe." I think doing those things will be just fine, as awful as it might seem to you and your friends here. I'm not afraid of the future with that as a philosophy of living. And FYI I am going to think ALOT about eternity. I'm going to continue to encourage others to do so also. I'm not going to be anywhere near as concerned with the future of this earth. Heaven and earth shall pass away... well you know the rest of it. I'm just going to be thankful that Christ shed His blood for me, and I'm going to regret being the sinner that I am. I'm going to allow the gratitude that the Holy Spirit produces in me to direct my actions. I'm going to share with others that the repentance that I have undergone will produce the same kind of joy in their life. In other words Bill, I'm going to share the gospel, the same modern gospel that was shared a hundred years ago (as flawed as you all say it to be), oh yea, also the same one that was shared a millenia ago (as ancient as it is). I'm not going to be taken in by "theologizing" that has conveniently just been recently articulated here in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that says that we should build the kingdom on this earth. (Postmillenialism??) In any case, I and mine are going to be quite content in the knowledge that this earth is going to pass away. I am going to remain convinced that the church is God's kingdom now, and will be until Christ returns. I'm going to reject any so called missiology that seeks to leave people where they are in their sin (which is the root issue of people's problems)(Matt. 9:1-7). I will instead embrace the same goal of missions that has always been taught: Teaching others "that if you confess with you mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." I'm going to continue to give "altar calls), and rest easy that God will carry out and complete the sanctification of whomever he will. I'm not going to feel bad or guilty about any of that strategy at all.
I have had enough of the anger that this blog produces inside of me. My participation here in the future is going to be limited to responding to what I think I need to respond to (my discretion). I am no longer going to be construed as "theologizing." I'm going to remain quite convinced that belief in Jesus is the only way and there will be no buddhists, muslims, hindues, JW's, mormons or any other kind of "'s" in heaven.
In this venue, I am going to confine myself to answering and challenging with Scripture. And I am going to remember: Ken Zitsch does not need to defend this denomination from anyone. If God wants it to continue, He will provide the way. If He wants it to die, it will be so. Someone else can tend to that. I have a church to tend to.
By the way: I know that it doesn't matter to any of you, but my recommendation at this point in time is to take down this blog. It is divisive, it is at the very least problematic in the way that it presents itself. It presents the opinions of only a few in the CGGC, it does not in any way speak for all. That is deceptive to anyone who might be investigating our denomination to possibly attend one of our churches. The emphasis of those on this blog can not be construed to reflect the emphasis of the other churches in the denomination. It is also offensive that in some of the posts that people have made, traditional church has been belittled, and certain caricatures are made with regard to those having traditional views. It is structured in such a way so as to discourage active participation (not permitting anonymous posts from those who for good reason don't want their identity known). I know from at least one conference official who told me that the reason that they don't post is because they don't want to discourage people from expressing themselves. I think that is noble, and I don't have a problem with that, but if anonymous posts were allowed, even conference officials could potentially join the conversation without seeming to intimidate anyone. Honestly though, I don't believe that a couple of people on this blog want that kind of dialogue. Knowing that you would have to better defend some of your positions is terrifying.
So again fellows, you do what you want (being as though it is really only a personal blog). I am DONE.
Brent:
I am sorry that we got cross with each other. I want to repent of the whole dialogue that just recently occurred between us. You are my brother, and I value your friendship. I have gone back and followed some of what you have provided here on this blog. The history of the posts that you made is encouraging. Your presence on this blog has been needed, and I can see that you have provided a stabilizing force along the way. You have acted with integrity here. Please again, accept my sincere apology for any disagreement that we have had. I respect you, not because of any smarts that you might have, but rather because you are in my graduation picture and I am extremely thankful for the positive influence that you had on me and the friendship that you offered during our years of studying together. I hope that this will not affect our long-term relationship. My wish for you is that God's grace be upon you and that you be well.
Ken
Ken,
Although unnecessary, your apology is accepted. My time doesn't always allow me to post, so please don't take my lack of activity since your last post as an indication of any ill feelings on my part.
Brent
Brent:
I am sorry that we got cross with each other. I want to repent of the whole dialogue that just recently occurred between us. You are my brother, and I value your friendship. I have gone back and followed some of what you have provided here on this blog. The history of the posts that you made is encouraging. Your presence on this blog has been needed, and I can see that you have provided a stabilizing force along the way. You have acted with integrity here. Please again, accept my sincere apology for any disagreement that we have had. I respect you, not because of any smarts that you might have, but rather because you are in my graduation picture and I am extremely thankful for the positive influence that you had on me and the friendship that you offered during our years of studying together. I hope that this will not affect our long-term relationship. My wish for you is that God's grace be upon you and that you be well.
Ken
Ken,
In response to your post that begins:
Bill,
A short response (maybe long - so don't post me back asking "why the contradiction") is warranted to your last post so as not to give the wrong impression. I'm not disregarding your question.
There are many things I could say. But, I'll limit my remarks to a few.
1. I'm sorry that your involvement in the blog has led you to such a high state of anxiety. I know that the emotions that you are dealing with are not what Brian had hoped to produce in the fellowship when he created this forum. My advice is that you take a week or two off. Don't even come here. Don't read a word. Let this go. Let the conversation move on. Let your frustration subside. If you need to deal with me or others as individuals, do it in emails. Then come back and see if you can participate here without being vexed by us to the point of frustration.
2. Just a word of definition. I'm not sure how often I have used the term 'traditional church.' That doesn't feel like what comes through my finger tips. And, I honestly don't recall reading the term from Brian or Brent or Dan or Lew. So, you may be projecting some opinions on us that we don't actually hold when you see us attacking the 'traditional church.'
But, I will say this. I am devoted to recreating what the NEW TESTAMENT church was in our day. I am a Restorationist, as I've said. I'm not sure that anyone else here is--at least to the degree that I am.
And, I see a big difference between what might be called the 'tradtional church' today and the New Testament church. You seem to be defending tradition and to be of the opinion that the tradition you are supporting is ageless. Based on my study of church history, it is not. What you represent as having roots that go back a thousand years is a much more recent development--at least as I see it.
I have called the CGGC to reclaim the spirit of Winebrenner. You seem to want to hold on to something less traditional than that. So, in a sense, I, not you, am the traditionalist. In a CGGC sense, YOU are the one attacking tradition.
What I hope you will understand is that the concepts of liberal and conservative are in the mind of the beholder. And, from my perspective, in a very real sense, YOU are the liberal.
You are the one advocating something more modern. I'm the one calling us back to what I believe to be our genuine roots. I'm the traditionalist. I am the conservative.
And, Ken, there is a very real sense in which the Emerging Church is, as I said in one of my first threads, "The New Fundamentalism." In that sense, you are a pretty radical liberal.
3. As someone who has devoted about as much time to an understanding of the CGGC as anyone who posts here, let me say that your understanding of CGGC history and tradition is not as well developed as you might think it is.
And, as the one who taught CGGC history to you, I take more than a little responsibility for that.
But, there are some very important facts of our history that you, very simply, are unacquainted with. Some of them are very important. For example, when you say...,
"I'm not going to be taken in by "theologizing" that has conveniently just been recently articulated here in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that says that we should build the kingdom on this earth. (Postmillenialism??)" [emphasis mine]
...you clearly are unaware that C. H. Forney was a postmillenialist. He was, Ken. He really, really was. I don't know if anyone blogging here is a postmillenialist. But, C. H. Forney, whom you've defend to me over Winebrenner, truly was a postmillenialist. My guy, Winebrenner, was the premillienialist.
---------------
Anyway, Ken, I've said at least twice in the past that I don't want to lose what you might bring to the blog. But, your emotions are running way too high now.
Let me say that the one thing you bring to us that could be a benefit to all of us, is your intense passion for Truth. You care about Truth more than most here do. And, the body needs to care passionately about Truth.
After all, Jesus is THE Truth.
But, for now, I believe that you do need to take a break.
I hope you do that and that you come back.
And, I hope that you can contribute leadership in the search for Truth on this blog. And, that you be able to do it obediently by speaking the truth in love and without being frustrated with me and the rest of us.
I love you, Ken.
bill
Bill,
I appreciate your words at the beginning and the end of your post. As for everything that came in between, I refer you here:
Proverbs 15:1-4
Good, bad or indifferent, the emerging church movement is affecting the Church. This is a blog about how the emerging church movement is affecting the CGGC.
There have been and are many expressions of the Church. Some were lies and others truthful. There are different expressions or streams of the emerging church. Some are lies and others truthful.
Some ideas in the emerging church are a calling for reform in places we have strayed. Other ideas in the emerging church are corruptions of Biblical truth.
It seems that most who post here lean towards either glossing over the bad aspects of the emerging church or fixating upon them.
I hope this blog does continue. But I want a blog that focuses on the timeless truth of Scripture as it applies to our culture today.
The reflection in these comments have been good for my soul. I have found some peace. Thank you.
It is disheartening to read:
I'm sick of this blog. I'm tired of the grief that it causes inside my heart. ...
I'm really at a loss as how to respond to Ken, so for now I won't. It is time to move on.
Based on the responses here and the personal response I received from Ed Rosenberry, we will keep cGgc in the title. This was created as a place for dialog largely among those in my own tribe, as a response to be helpful to our national director. The current director has asked for this to continue. So for now, it will.
As for "emerging," I was almost convinced to keep that word. For me, it just feels too tied to a few specific people, like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Doug Paggitt. The works of these men are not what drive me, though in ways they have been helpful to me. But I personally am far from involvement in any Emergent groups and don't feel the responsibility to defend any of their work. These issues are welcome here, but they are not the foundation for these conversations.
I know there are a few other names, such as NT Wright, Andrew Jones, and Scott McKnight connected with "emerging", but I'm not personally that familiar with their works. I think the direct connection that 'emerging' makes with this movement is part of the distraction.
The culture is quickly changing not only with Postmodernism but with demographic changes like the expansion of the US Hispanic population, the flattening of the Global landscape (see Friedman and Roberts), the teetering of the US economy, and so much more. Most of the world is not postmodern and that must be on our radar as well.
It is my belief that our churches will need to be able to step strongly into the 21st century, aware of all that is swirling around us. It will directly affect both our missional response locally and globally (yes, I believe we are called to minister to the needs of the least of these with the effort that we would lend to helping Jesus Christ Himself - Matthew 25) and our ability to effectively communicate the Gospel to those who are lost and how they might be saved (through the saving actions of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of calvary and to admit their inability to connect with God in any other way -- John 3, Romans 3). They go hand in hand. Without both, we lose the strength of the Gospel. Those who are saved should be a blessing to their communities and to their world. (Genesis 12)
What name conveys that desire? Perhaps it is the world that is emerging from the 20th century and this blog wonders what course the church should set in order to be as true to our King as we possibly can.
cGgc in a Changing World?
Andrew said: "This is a blog about how the emerging church movement is affecting the CGGC."
This statement brought to light something my thick skull had been missing. I have never thought that's what this blog was about. I always thought of it as a place for those in the CGGC who were interested in the emerging church to share and converse (not that those outside the CGGC couldn't contribute also). I don't know that I'm right, or that Andrew is, but I'm glad he said this because it helped me understand better where some people are coming from.
And, Brian...
I am ok with Emerging CGGC, but I think 'CGGC In A Changing World' would be good too. I will admit, though, that I don't understand the cGgc (only the "G" is capitalized). I mean, it's no big deal; but is there a reason for it or significance to it, as opposed to CGGC?
cGgc: I'm not sure when that started but for me it represented that "God" in the acronym was stronger than the rest of the letters.
Post a Comment
<< Home