CGGC on wikipedia
Did you know there is an entry for the Churches of God General Conference (Winebrenner) on Wikipedia? Does anyone know where this information came from? It says we "might best be described as a fundamentalist Bible Church." Is this true? And I always thought it was "Churches of God (comma) General Conference." Interestingly, it also lists this blog as a link, calling it a "conversation blog for CGGC members interested in the emerging church."
Anyone know anything about this?
posted by dan at 9:52 AM
7 Comments:
Dan, I read that article a while back and had the same questions. But I am a newbie, having spent many years in "fundamentalist Bible" churches so somebody other than me should edit the site. Based on what I read in "We Believe" we are not a fundamentalist Bible Church. We have a much bigger view of the church than they do. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include that the CGGC is a Restorationist church?
Lew,
That's kind of how I feel. But as a fellow "newbie" I don't know if the wiki description is wrong, or if I am. I guess it probably doesn't matter, right? ;)
I also agree that the information posted there is incorrect. Not sure who posted it. Another evidence that not everything posted on websites is true. Yes, I know, hard to believe. But "fundamentalist Bible" is a loaded term that misrepresents who we are.
- Don
Don,
Thanks for clearing that up for my own peace of mind.
Too bad we didn't know someone on this blog who specialized in church (and cggc) history [cough/Bill/cough], who was able to alter that. :)
i actually found this blog a few months back through the wiki article. i've been meaning to get more involved, and now that summer's here i'll have more time. anyway, i know there's a lot of bad connotation that comes along with term "fundamentalist", but all that aside, we do accept the Bible as inerrant and our only rule of faith, right? so while the title doesn't fit with the sectarian and strict reputation that "fundamentalists" have, the cGgc is technically fundamentalist, isn't it? also, the article earlier stated that the cGgc is wesleyan in theology. is that accurate? if so, wouldn't we be closer to methodists than baptists? sorry, i'm coming with more questions than answers.
Walt,
The CGGC is not identified with the Wesleyan Holiness movement which historically has taught that sanctification is a 2nd work of grace. Denominations such as Church of the Nazarene, Wesleyan Church, Free Methodist, Salvation Army, Church of God (Anderson), and some Pentecostal groups have been identified with the Wesleyan movement. Because we in the CGGC believe sanctification begins with regeneration and continues progressively as we mature in Christ, we would not be considered Wesleyan.
And I am not aware of us ever officially using the term "fundamentalist." (Maybe Bill can help us out here.) We do say we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and our infallible authority and only rule of faith and practice. But fundamentalism can suggest a rigidity that often rejects other believers who don't totally agree with our point of view. I'm grateful that we can agree on the essentials but still maintain some differences on less important matters.
missions,
i'm with you on the being faithful to the Scriptures while being flexible on a few side-issues like worship style. when i said wesleyan i didn't mean the holiness movement so much as wesleyan soteriology as compared to classic arminianism, and i wasn't sure where the cGgc stands. also, do we hold only to the infallibility or also the inerrancy of the Bible? thanks for your help.
Post a Comment
<< Home