Are we dead yet
It's been almost a month since the last post. I've been thinking....
- How indicative do you think this blog is of our denomination (CGGC)? And I'm not trying to point fingers or stir up controversy, but.... in my neck of the woods everything seems pretty quiet lately. Is it just me?
- Are the people who started out on this blog (those with an interest in the emerging church) really the misfits/minority in our denomination?
- Does the fact that things have gone silent mean the CGGC has no interest in the emerging world or in what fresh expressions of the church might look like? Or is it something else?
- Is there any hope?
posted by dan at 9:41 AM
26 Comments:
I have had an idea or two about a post but I have tried to live with the pause. I know as a teacher one of the hardest things for me to accept was silence so I used to fill the silence with my voice. This time I was waiting. Thanks for breaking the silence.
As to whether members of this blog are misfits or a minority I can't give a definitive answer but I can note that there has been a workshop for the emerging church the last two years at Impact. That shows support for emerging thinkers.
Maybe people are afraid to post due to the potential repercussions. Should anonymous posting be reconsidered???
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
Dan Horwedel:
I have one question: Who is the "we" in "Are we dead yet?"
-Rev. George Jensen
Enola First Church of God
Felicia,
I respectfully say "no" (we should not reconsider anonymous posting). If so many people are afraid to speak due to potential repercussions, then maybe we need to be reconsidering bigger things than anonymous posting. But that's just my opinion.
Hi George,
You asked who the "we" is in "Are we dead yet." Um... that's a good question. :) I don't think I was consciously thinking of anyone in particular - it was more a phrase I was using.
However, in re-reading the post, I suppose I was initially meaning the people listed as 'contributors' in the sidebar (most of whom haven't posted in a long time anyway); and based on my first question - I'll go ahead and say it - I suppose by "we" I also do mean the denomination as a whole.
Y'all,
I've been involved with other things these days. Our congregation just relocated into a new facility and that's been a consuming process.
I wonder if activity here hasn't waned because there has been some, well, belligerence in a number of the posts offered here and the tone had become less than constuctive.
I do appreciate Dan starting up the conversation again.
Are we dead yet?
I don't think so. As a student of our early history, I fear that we have lost our first love and that we are more lukewarm in our deeds than we are either hot or cold. But, I don't believe that the Lord has taken our lampstand away or that He has spit us out of his mouth--at least not yet. (A little Revelation 2 and 3 lingo, there.)
Dan,
Thanks for clearing that matter up for me. I don't know if the folks on this blog are "dead yet," but as for the denomination, the answer is definitely "NO." The reason I say this is not due to what's happening in the North American church, but rather what's happening in our cross-cultural ministries. Talk to Don Dennison or George Yerger or anyone who has recently been to places like Bangladesh, Haiti, or Brazil, and you will find that the church is very much alive and on FIRE! The largest CGGC gathering of 2007 occurred in Bangladesh at the Spiritual Conference at the Khanjanpur Mission with 1,150 delegates coming from 72 churches. They also ordained 17 pastors and other leaders at that Conference (my source is the Feb. 2008 "Joined Together" leaflet). So, as for the bloggers, I don't know if we're dead or not. As for the U.S. church, things don't look particularly healthy. But when we look beyond the good ol' USA to the denomination world-wide, the CGGC is very much alive! God is fulfilling Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" through places like Bangladesh. That's my take on the thing. Thanks for this thought-provoking post.
-George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
Well said, George.
If things continue as they have been, the part of the denomination beyond our shores will be providing leadership to the American church in a generation or two and that may be the church's salvation.
Felicia,
I have always been (and will continue to be until persuaded otherwise) a supporter of anonymous posting. But I work within the Guidelines that are posted for this blog until they are changed.
But I think you do raise a good point that we should revisit the criteria for posting from time to time.
So, in that spirit - what are some of your other thoughts about why anonymous posts should be allowed?
I can only speak for myself, but this blog didn't really feel like a safe place for the emerging conversation anymore. As soon as the threats of institutional heresy hunts started flying I dropped out. It appears to me that "Emerging CGGC" turned out to be a misnomer. Perhaps this blog is dying because CGGC folks really aren't that interested in the emerging conversation after all.
I'd like to respond to several thoughts here.
Mike said, "Perhaps this blog is dying because CGGC folks really aren't that interested in the emerging conversation after all."
I would have to say that is true of me. I'm not all that interested in the "Emerging" conversation that would include such voices as McLaren et al. I'm not opposed to such conversations. I just don't seem to be all that interested in them.
Felicia said, "Should anonymous posting be reconsidered???"
No. Courage and Freedom should be reconsidered. In a moment of weakness, I whined to Wayne Boyer about possible repercussions. In a bold stroke of leadership, he said something like, "No guts no glory." In other words, for me, the CGGC needs people willing to live out the Kingdom without fear of angering people and without fear of losing their place within the institution. This doesn't mean to flame people but it does mean to live free in the Kingdom of God. Anonymity is not where I will go. Winebrenner himself certainly didn't desire a place to anonymously complain to the board of his former church.
Dan asked, "Are we dead yet?" I thought he just meant this blog, and it may very well be dead.
Now to take a stab at Dan's questions.
Are the people who started out on this blog (those with an interest in the emerging church) really the misfits/minority in our denomination?
I would think leaders in general would be misfits/minority in our denomination. My guess is that no, there isn't much interest in emerging. There is mainly interest in surviving.
Does the fact that things have gone silent mean the CGGC has no interest in the emerging world or in what fresh expressions of the church might look like?
I'm definitely interested in fresh expressions and with what is emerging in the world.
Or is it something else?
For me, the question burning in my mind is "How can I be fruitful?" I'm not finding this blog to be as fruitful as I hoped. So at some point, if you burn to be fruitful, you trim the branches.
Is there any hope?
There is always hope. We bank on hope. I tend to think we bank on hope after death more than we do on hope for our generation or for our communities.
That has shown itself to be the problem. Is there any hope here and now for this tired world? Emerging people say "Yes." That draws me to them. But some are without a sacrifice. You have to be willing to give up so much. It often requires sacrifice of income, title, comfort, maybe even friendship and acceptance.
I'm not pointing fingers. Fingers are for pointing out exceptions and there are many. And I myself groan in self-pity at every sacrifice.
I appreciate the encouraging words some of you have shared here. I know things are not "hopeless", but I'll admit, this is stuff I need reminded of often. You know, that there actually is a point to what we're doing, that it's worthwhile, that something is happening ...somewhere.
Brent mentioned the "transition." I agree that our denomination is going through some transitions, and I guess that's where some of my questions come from. I have a concern for where/what we're transitioning to. And, please, I'm not questioning anything that's going on, but... just like the things Brent mentioned in his comment on another post - I didn't even know where the Allegany Region was, let alone some of the other stuff going on. Which, I know, is my fault for not knowing. But it seems there is more of a connectedness of pastors/church leaders in the east (maybe I'm mistaken). And it's really discouraging to me that for those of us stuck out here in the further reaches, there just seems to be no interest in conversation or community or comradery or whatever you want to call it. I realize not everyone saw this blog as a place for that to happen, but that's what "I" was hoping it would be.
So... there's some rambling words.
Peace and out.
Dan,
I had no idea about the goings on in the Allegheny Region.
(Brent: Fill us in. Be specific. Are y'nes searching for a new ED in your Region?
Which is your largest church? Mt. Pleasant? Indian Head? I have to admit I have no idea.)
I know about the hiring of a Director of Church Development at the GC. And, I'm confident that the Lord will bless in directing us to fill the pastoral and staff positions in the various regions. I hope that some CGGCers who have a passion for ministry that is relevant to 21st century unbelieving people are at least seriously considered for those leadership positions.
As far as your sense of how things are in the East, Dan, I don't know that things are as ideal as you suspect. I don't know how bad things are in your region, although I sense that a number of my friends out your way are deeply discouraged.
I view this blog as having community building potential. I am blessed to know almost all who blog here personally and to consider you friends.
I hope we are a source of encouragement to you.
Blessings my brother.
bill
In the interest of pinpointing my geographic location I send you greetings from Martinsburg,PA--15 miles from the parking lot of the Altoona Walmart (in the Northwest District of the Eastern Region). Perhaps that will help with one of the concerns recently expressed on this posting. (By the way, I have appreciated Pastor Ed's full color weekly news from across the denomination. It has gone a long way to help me see who we are.)
Now, moving on to other issues raised in this post. I originally posted under Vieuxloup to protect my anonymity. That came from having served in churches where my real opinions would have got me ostracized or ousted--the left foot of fellowship. But I have found on this blog a place to share some of the things God has been teaching me. I, for one, would miss this place if it ceased to exist. It took me 30 years to find a place like this. (I am an Old wolf--vieuxloup)
Admittedly, it hasn't seemed to be a safe place recently but let me say, for my part, you don't have to be afraid of this loup (french for wolf but pronounced like Lou).
Lew Button
Re: Winebrenner himself certainly didn't desire a place to anonymously complain to the board of his former church.
Winebrenner didn't post on a blog.
He chose his audience. I'd be willing to bet that he had any number of conversations with colleagues behind closed doors before "going public" with his theological beliefs.
On a site such as this you don't choose who "hears" your words. And, it seems to me, sometimes posters forget that they are not behind closed doors. Some things that are said here, I and others should not be privy to.
At least not if we know the author of the posts.
Congregation members are not helped by seeing the uncertainty and sometimes even animosity of their pastors.
In addition, this is a place to hash out your ideas----not present them to the board. Yet, in effect, that is exactly what happens.
In the process of discussion and bouncing your thoughts off your brothers and sisters, you open yourself to critical review by your leadership before you are ready... before your ideas are fully formed.
YES! By all means be prepared to stand up for what you believe. Shout it from the rooftops---even if it means you'll be shot down for it.
But, I thought this blog was for learning and intellectual argument, not necessarily decisive statements of personal theology/philosophy.
Either close it to anyone but brothers/sisters who can be trusted to support each other and keep confidences during the process, or make it anonymous so all can speak freely.
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
Lew,
I've never met you, but I believe you were "outed" very early on in your posting here. :) And it's been nice to get to know you through your participation.
I am in Yoder, Indiana - which is about 10 miles from Fort Wayne (though I am NOT a hoosier - I'm from Illinois and will forever be an Illini fan). I pastor Fairview Church of God, in the East district of the Midwest Region. I live in the middle of cornfields but I believe there are 3 Walmarts within 15 miles of my house.
Felicia,
You said, "Congregation members are not helped by seeing the uncertainty and sometimes even animosity of their pastors."
I don't know that I agree with this, but I'm also curious... do you attend a CGGC church? For some reason I was under the impression you attended a Roman Catholic church. And I guess I'm unclear of what you mean exactly.
You also said, "Some things that are said here, I and others should not be privy to."
Would you care to clarify what you mean by this as well? I realize there have been some heated exchanges, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about.
I think it all goes back to the very first post. Brian said: "...efforts were being made to create a dialogue for an emerging/postmodern conversation in the CGGC. I offered to create this blog to provide such a space."
To me that says, "If you're interested in this, you're invited." Maybe I've misunderstood it, but I just don't see that as lending itself to argumentation. I think we also have to remember that this IS Brian's blog. Even though it is here for anyone to read, he can do with it whatever he wants. And I have probably been as cantankerous as anyone, But I have certainly appreciated this place - and hope it continues - provided we can adhere to the guidelines and proper civility.
Also, Bill, I forgot I never did respond to your last comment. Yes, you have certainly been a source of encouragement - as has most everyone else who participates here. For that I am thankful.
Peace & blessings,
Dan h.
Hi Pastor Dan,
No, I am not a member of CGGC. I stated that right up front. You are correct in that I am a Roman Catholic. So maybe I should just keep my thoughts to myself, but since you asked.......;-)
There are times when I would cringe reading the exchanges here between fellow pastors. If I were a member of your congregation it would be very unsettling.
How can you teach with authority in your churches if you can't agree amongst yourselves? I mean no disrespect, truly, but its puzzling to me.
And it's obvious that there are some who stopped posting here because they fear the "Inquisition" will show up on their doorstep. How can a pastor speak freely when he knows this blog is being monitored?
As you pointed out, Pastor Dan, this is Pastor Brian's blog, and he has final say. But the spirit of a "free flow of thought and conversation" is stifled by the veiled and often blatant threats of censure, as evidenced by the absence of spirited debate of late.
You and your fellow pastors would be better served by a secured site opened by invitation only. Then you truly could speak freely and create a support network for mutual editification.
Respectfully,
Felicia Swavely
Felicia,
You said: "How can you teach with authority in your churches if you can't agree amongst yourselves?"
I guess my question would be: How could the Apostles teach with authority when THEY couldn't agree amongst themselves?
I mean no disrespect, but you have stated on a couple of occasions what should be done with this blog; Yet, according to Brian, both the current and former director of our denomination have supposedly given it their blessing. That seems a bit odd to me, and I wonder if that might have something to do with the lens through which you're accustomed to seeing "church" and church leadership.
Pastor Dan,
You asked:
"I guess my question would be: How could the Apostles teach with authority when THEY couldn't agree amongst themselves?"
Clearly the Apostles DID preach with authority; I think we agree on that point. But I will have to bow to your knowledge of Scripture to point out to me where they disagreed on doctrine. I'm having difficulty finding an example of that.
Of course, the most known occurence where there was disagreement among the leadership was a matter of practice: whether or not Gentiles must be circumcised. (Acts 15)
Even in this case, it was not the Apostles who disagreed, but rather Pharisees who had become Christians. Nevertheless, it provides a model for how the early church handled the issue of dissent.
Those involved brought the problem to the leadership (vs.2). They discussed and debated (vs. 6-7). And, guided by the Holy Spirit (vs.28), they came to a decision. This decision was put in writing and disseminated throughout the church (vs.22-30)
The Council of Nicea imitated this model in the development of the Nicene Creed in response to the Arian heresy.
So, in answer to your question, Apostles---and church leadership---can debate a point of faith UNTIL it becomes doctrine and is adopted as a teaching of the Church...then it becomes immutable.
As for my opinions about this blog---that's all they are---my opinions. I asked permission, and was told it was ok for me to participate even though I am not a member of the CGGC. Say the word, Pastor Dan, and I will respectfully bow out.
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
I'm not sure how to respond to Felicia because I don't see the problem. Sometimes we need people to stay on us until we see the problem. That is why we haven't asked anyone to leave.
If the issue is doctrine, then I've seen this blog not as a questioning of CGGC doctrine but as a sharpener of it. I wouldn't entertain just throwing out what we have.
But our doctrine is rather loose as compared to others. It covers the basics but leaves much to be interpreted. For instance, We Believe supports Premillenialism and Amillenialism. Therefore, if I understand them right, the world could be getting darker and darker or it could be heading toward the Kingdom of God on earth. That alone could help us understand the discussions on this blog.
There have been discussions of a rewrite. According to Bill, historicially, it has been rewritten about every 20 years and it is now close to 30. That doesn't mean it needs rewritten, but it does mean we should ask whether it should be. There are very good reasons not to.
I remember when I was tested for Ordination, an old-timer pastor, asked simply, "Do you have any problems with Church of God doctrine?"
I responded, "Do you mean We Believe?"
He responded, "For the most part."
I responded, "Then... for the most part, I agree with Church of God doctrine."
It has been interesting to see that some of the more heated discussions have always given insight into context of the arguers (only when they have not been anonymous.) In other words, they have finally given us some insight into how we can be a better community.
Felicia,
I have no interest in arguing church doctrine or history with you or anyone else. My point in responding to you was that you seemed frustrated with the blog, and I was trying to suggest that perhaps the difference in our faith traditions could account for some of that.
A last thought on the anonymous posting discussion -
Keep in mind that the most flagrant violations of the spirit of this blog came from people who used their name to sign in and not from those who posted anonymously...
It seems to me that anonymous comments are similar to plagiarism? Aren't they both built around deceit? While an anonymous comment may or may not be malicious, you’re still not presenting yourself as *yourself.*
I don't agree that the most flagrant comments came from non-anonymous people over the whole course of this blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home