The Trick WE BELIEVE Played on the CGGC
Friends,
Excuse the length of this post. It's about twice as long as I'd like. Some of the excess length results from the quotations I've included. Please try be patient enough to read this through. I believe it's timely and important.
Please feel free to respond to me, preferably on the blog.
bill
-------------------------------
I got an education a few years ago when I filled in at Winebrenner Theological Seminary and taught some theology courses.
In preparing for the first, introductory class session, I dealt with this question: “Which doctrine is the starting point for systematic theology?”
I discovered that through the centuries our best thinkers have answered that question in two different ways. One answer is that the starting point of all systematic theology is the doctrine of Scripture. The other answer is that the essential doctrine is the doctrine of God. I also discovered that the way one answers the question has implications for all of theology.
Those who argue that systematic theology begins with the Doctrine of Scripture make the point that it is impossible to have any knowledge of God apart from the Bible and the “Christ event.” These are people with passion for the Word. They acknowledge the centrality of the Scripture. On the other hand, those who begin with the doctrine of God make the observation that exploring the reality that God exists should precede any discussion of how God makes Himself known. The truth is that great minds have come out on both sides of the question and that there is no universally accepted answer.
For a long time this issue was purely theoretical for me. That is, until about a year ago when I was reading We Believe. When I read it, I noticed something that is subtle, yet powerful.
I personally have always believed that theology begins with the Word. I live out my calling in the CGGC for a reason. I seriously and intentionally embrace the history and teachings of the CGGC.
John Winebrenner was a radical on the authority of Scripture. I am too. Winebrenner’s theology of the centrality of the Word leaves Luther’s sola scriptura as a microscopic dot in his rear view mirror. So does mine. Winebrenner said of the Bible that it is, “the word of God, a revelation from God to man, and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice.” (Emphasis mine.) And, I shout, “Amen!”
And, up until the writing of We Believe, so did the CGGC. But not now.
Here’s some background.
There can be no question where John Winebrenner stood on the question of where theology begins. For Winebrenner theology begins with the Word. In his twenty seven point description of the Church of God, Winebrenner not only began with the doctrine of the Word, he prefaced it by stressing the centrality of the authority of the Word. He said,
“The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, or test-book, which God every (sic) intended his church to have. Nevertheless, it may not be expedient, pro bono publico, to exhibit a short manifesto, or declaration, showing her views, as to what may be called leading matters of faith, experience and practice.”
Talk about a theology in which the starting point is the Word!
Then, Winebrenner listed the Church of God’s position on the Word first and its position on the doctrine of God second, just as you would expect. He wrote,
“1. She believes the Bible, or the canonical books of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, a revelation from God to man, and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice.
2. She believes in one Supreme God, consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these three are co-equal and co-eternal.”
It wasn’t until 1925 that the CGGC developed a more formal statement of its beliefs. At the General Eldership which met during that year, the church formally accepted its first Doctrinal Statement. In adopting the Statement, the delegates affirmed our historic belief that theology begins with the doctrine of the Word. Notice the priority of the Doctrine of Scripture in the first two articles:
"We believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God; that the inspiration of its writers enabled them to record truth without error; and that it is our only and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice.
"We believe in one supreme God--the Father, Son and Holy Ghost--and that they are co-equal and co-eternal.”
So, as I said, it was about a year ago, while I was reading We Believe, that I was stunned and chagrinned when I realized that I, at least, have been bamboozled. For some reason after many years the purely academic, theoretical issue of the starting point of systematic theology moved to the front of my mind when I read the first four articles of We Believe. Maybe I’m slower than the rest of you, but I was stunned. Here’s how We Believe begins.
“(1.) We believe in God. We believe God is three persons but one God. We believe God is both unknowable and knowable. We believe God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We believe in the holiness of God. We believe the work of God is primarily creation, grace, justice, mercy. We believe God wants us to know him and has revealed himself in various ways.
(2.) We believe in the pre-existence of Christ. We believe in the incarnation. We believe Christ's nature is human and divine. We believe the characteristics of Jesus' divinity are the very characteristics of God. We believe Jesus is Savior and Lord. We believe in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. We believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ.
(3.) We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is God. We believe that the Holy Spirit was active in the old covenant. We believe the Holy Spirit came into the world in a new way on the day of Pentecost. We believe the Holy Spirit can be known and experienced. We believe the Holy Spirit endows the followers of Christ with the "unity of the Spirit." We believe the Holy Spirit enables believers to grow spiritually. We believe the Holy Spirit dispenses spiritual gifts for the upbuilding of the Church.”
And, only then,
“(4.) We believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice. We believe God spoke, using the words of men to convey divine truth. We believe the central message of the Scriptures is the Good News that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We believe proper interpretation of the Scriptures comes from the Holy Spirit. We believe original infallible manuscripts were written in Hebrew and Greek and other ancient languages.”
Subtle.
The dirty trick is that the writers of We Believe removed the Word as the starting point of our faith and practice. They diminished the Word and dethroned Scripture as our essential authority.
They defied the spirit of John Winebrenner and of our entire history. They did it subtly for sure. But, they did it.
For about a year, I’ve been keeping this thought to myself and working it through in my mind. I don’t recall mentioning to anyone. I’ve spent that time wondering what the dethroning of the Word by We Believe signifies. You may have your own ideas. But, three possibilities come to my mind.
First, the dethroning of the Word was an accident. That is, We Believe was written carelessly and sloppily and that the writers didn’t go to the effort to understand what the document meant to the church in its historical context. I don’t buy that.
I’m certain that the greatest number of the people on the committee didn’t consider the deepest and most theoretical issues involved in arranging the order of the articles in the Doctrinal Statement. But, some of those people surely did. Some of those people were well informed, very careful thinkers. I’m convinced that the great majority of the people on the committee had no idea at all of the subtle and powerful point they were making when they placed the doctrine of the Word in a secondary position. But, some surely did. This subtle and powerful act was, in my opinion, no accident.
Second, it is possible that the dethroning of the Word was a subtle, last gasp victory for the liberals in the church.
If you’re old enough and have been in the Churches of God long enough you know that during the sixties and seventies there was considerable tension between liberals and conservatives in the CGGC. Winebrenner Theological Seminary was founded in 1942 and had become unattractively liberal for many in the church. There were harsh battles in the church over liberalism. That battle was ultimately won by the conservatives with the selection of theologically conservative George Weaver as the President of the seminary in 1977.
One way to understand the decision to update the Doctrinal Statement in the late seventies to early eighties is that the rewriting was an effort to consolidate the victory of the conservatives and to make it clear that the Churches of God affirmed it historic beliefs. There’s no question that, for the most part, historic CGGC doctrines appear in We Believe. There’s no way that the few remaining liberals could have won a battle to liberalize the actual statements regarding our belief in the authority and inspiration of the Word. But, did the liberals win an ultimate and very subtle victory by subordinating the doctrine of the Word to the doctrine of God--something that would have made Winebrenner spin in his grave?
Honestly, for a long time that’s what I thought. I have been of the opinion that the dethroning of the authority of the Word was a clever, subtle and symbolic last gasp victory for the liberals. I’ve wondered who still might be smirking today every time he/she opens We Believe and sees our beliefs about the Word buried in Article IV. But, I’m no longer convinced.
Third, and the most recent possibility that has come into my mind is that the dethroning of the authority of the Word is the fruit of our shepherd dominated leadership culture.
If you are familiar with my rantings on this blog, you know that I take very seriously the teaching of Ephesians 4:11-13 that “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ,” (Eph. 4:13) Jesus will continue to gift the church with apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. (Eph. 4:11)
If you are familiar with my rantings you will also know that I believe the CGGC abuses this truth by imposing on nearly everyone called into ministry the role of shepherd. In the past five decades or longer we have developed a shepherd dominated leadership culture. In the CGGC, shepherds rise to positions of leadership. Ed Rosenberry, for instance, is an eminently gifted shepherd. He fills his position as a Master Overshepherd. From my knowledge of the CGGC Regions, the Regional Executive Directors are all gifted by Christ as shepherds. In the CGGC shepherds lead and the values of the shepherd reign.
For the shepherd relationship is key. More to the point, to the shepherd relationship is more important than truth.
The reality is that apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers all value truth over relationship to varying degrees. But, the shepherd’s role in the Body is to be the guardian of Christlike relationships. Because of the domination of the shepherd, the CGGC has developed an unbiblical leadership culture that places relationship above truth.
It occurs to me that the break from the CGGC’s loyalty to the centrality of the Word in We Believe takes us more in the direction of the shepherd than it takes us in the direction of the liberal. One other brief passage in We Believe reinforces my belief. In the commentary on the article on the Doctrine of Regeneration, We Believe says,
“The doctrine of regeneration, or the new birth, is a central teaching of the Churches of God. This belief comes from the declaration of Christ to Nicodemus, "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again'" (John 3:7 NASB).”
Historically speaking, that statement simply is wrong. Read Winebrenner. Read the 1925 Statement. Until our doctrine was rewritten in We Believe our only central teaching was that the Word of God is the only authoritative rule of faith and practice in the Churches of God.
Which agenda does the contention that the doctrine of regeneration is a central doctrine fit: The liberal agenda or the ‘shepherd’ agenda? For the most part, liberals were not concerned with the salvation of sinners. In fact, many of them scoffed at our born again emphasis. They would never see the Doctrine of Regeneration as a core belief. However, for the shepherd, the essence of everything is relationship--and the Doctrine of Regeneration is ultimately all about human beings entering into a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
All of We Believe smacks of the way and of the values of the shepherd.
We Believe dethrones the Word of God as the foundation of the CGGC. The more I think about it, the subtle and dirty trick that the writers of We Believe played on us possesses the DNA of the shepherd dominated leadership culture. In either case, We Believe did serious damage to the authority of the Word in the CGGC.
The process of the rewriting of We Believe is about to begin. In my opinion, that is a very good thing. I hope against hope that the dirty trick, whomever it is that played it, will be undone.
posted by bill Sloat at 7:07 AM
60 Comments:
Bill,
Very interesting. One of the strenghts of the CGGC also serves as one of its greatest weaknesses. I've (reluctantly) come to accept that we are not a theologically literate denomination.
Growing up, I always heard some variation of "the Bible is the standard for faith" without much thought about ALL that implies. Therefore, it seemed odd to me to later realize that we had an actual statement of our beliefs.
We are a very minimalist denomination as far as our theology. There are very few absolutes. One absolute - the Bible is central - rises above all others. Our absolutes emerge out of our interpretation of scripture.
But what happens when a theologically minimalist demonination, with a void as far as a strong tradition of theological thinkers, tries to write a doctrinal statement?
You get "We Believe" a document full of contradictions (many of which you have pointed out) that ultimately undermines our strength as a minimalist denomination. [Which also returns my thoughts to earlier conversations about the need for some level of formal education.]
If your soapbox on this blog has been about the over-emphasis on shepherd driven leadership, one of mine has been about a lack of appreciation for what it means to understand and live in a postmodern culture.
A minimalist stance is highly valuable in a postmodern time. Following your thoughts, "We Believe" strikes me as a modern attempt to institutionalize a set of beliefs that may or may have accurately represented our true nature.
So, what do you propose as the next step?
Bill... wow... interesting. I find myself wondering if you are making too much of the statement about the Word being moved to the #4 slot in we believe (not saying, just wondering... and you have a lot more history in the CGGC than I do). It's an interesting question, whether theology starts with God or Scripture. I have tended to say "with God" because God predates the Bible and is the ultimate reality. The Bible may be preserved for posterity through all eternity, but you won't be looking up Bible passages in the New Jerusalem.
But I understand that from the standpoint of testing what is true ABOUT God, you have to put Scripture in the primary slot. So for me, it kind of depends on WHY you are asking what is primary. God is primary. If you want detailed info about God, Scripture is primary.
But then, my view of Scripture, though it is as strong as ever, has definitely taken on some new shades in the last few years. Most significantly in this way: When we think Jesus came to start a religion in which getting all the answers right, we will move toward seeing the Bible as a textbook. The problem is that Protestants who all claim to be basing their doctrines on the Bible disagree dramatically-- which means that at least in some areas of theology, the answers do not emerge from Scripture as plainly as many of us would like to believe. On the other hand, if we conclude (as I must say I have) that what Jesus came to bring was not so much a religion where we get all the right answers as a new WAY of seeing, being and living, then whether or not I can extract all the right theological answers from Scripture becomes less important (Note: I did NOT say UNimportant).
That's a long way of saying that I come to the Bible less often these days to get an A on my theology paper, and more often because I am a man desperately in need of new eyes, a new heart, and new ways.
You have tied what you see as the CGGC's downgrading of the Bible's value to the shepherd culture... hmmm... I don't know. That's for someone with more inside-the-CGGC perspective than me to figure out. That the CGGC has developed into a shepherd-dominated culture is certainly true. When a movement (think Winebrenner's time) becomes an institution, the visionary, pioneering leadership goes away because there is no place for it anymore (aka apostles and prophets). In Christian life, all that's left to do at that point is shepherd the saints. The CGGC desperately needs to recover a movement ethos, but the price will be HIGH and in some way current leaders would have to begin deferring to apostolic leaders. Likelihood? Hmmm...
I don't know if rewriting We Believe right now is a good idea or not. Personally, I agree with Alan Hirsch who wrote the following about recovering a movement ethos with the strategy he calls "apostolic genius":
"For one, it will involve (re)engaging directly the central confession of 'Jesus is Lord' and attempting to reorient the church around this life-orienting claim. I t will also mean simplifying our core messages, uncluttering our overly complex theologies, and thoroughly evaluating the traditional templates that so shape our behaviors and dominate our consciousness. I have become absolutely convinced that it is Christology, and in particular the primitive, unencumbered Christology of the NT church, that lies at the heart of the renewal of the church at all times and in every age." (Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, Chapter 3).
This is interesting and I'm not quite sure what to make of it as someone in the denomnation for only 6 or 7 years I clearly am mostly ignorant of the past tensions among our leadership.
I'll admit that I'm not sure that for me it makes much difference whether the actual statement about Scirpture is listed first or forth. Are they really supposed to be listed in order of importance? I am more concerned about what the statement on Scripture actually communicates. And it's not a footnote - it's right there.
Additionally, the statements about God, Jesus, etc. are dependent on the Bible for their basis. Perhaps in that sense the Bible statement should be first.
I think that the Bible is both authoritiative and useful in that it communicates what God has said and done, particularly in Jesus Christ.
God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are primarly. Scripture is the primary way that we learn about the Trinity.
The precise order in a book is of little interest to me. If, however, you are correct in that it was put their to intentially minimize Scripture, than that is indeed a problem. But a problem which those in my generation probably never knew about.
I will preach and teach God's Word whether it is first or forth on the list.
Thanks for the stimulating dicussion.
Brent,
You say,
"..."We Believe" strikes me as a modern attempt to institutionalize a set of beliefs that may or may have accurately represented our true nature."
I agree that it is both modern and an important building block in the institutionalization of the CGGC.
I believe that what comes next should not be modern and that it should not continue to enable the process of institutionalization that is choking off the work of the Spirit among us.
It is odd to me that the first I heard even the suggestion of rewriting We Believe was here on this blog, and it seemed to be considered a terrible idea.
It wasn't until Thursday that I even realized what was happening with We Believe. I saw a notice on a regional email noting the date and symposium, but I thought something of such magnitude would have called more attention to itself. I didn't realize what it was.
The process so far seems to be firmly entrenched in institutionalism, linked directly to credentialing, which is at the top of institutional importance.
I would hope to link We Believe to Mission and Vision rather than Credentialing. It is a shepherding type of mistake.
I would then hope to see Missional and Visionary leaders invited to the symposium rather than committees, though I know very little of the event.
Having pressed the issue, but not with much time to mull it over, I would initially throw my hat in the ring for the Bible being listed at the top. In Postmodernism, the authority of the Bible will be the number one issue. And in my mind, what do we have to work with about know God through Jesus Christ, except for this ancient text.
My reservations would be similar to those of Fran about the Bible as a cookbook or the capturing of the vision of God and it's ongoing expansion of the Kingdom until its fullness.
I don't know how such things happen such as shepherds becoming the primary leaders. Perhaps it is the natural development to keep the status quo until a revolution comes.
I echo what Fran and Dan M. have said about not being that familiar with the history, nor all that concerned about the order of importance in We Believe. However, I think you make a good point, Bill, and I see the Shepherd-as-leader problem showing itself in another possible way too.
You mention that we are getting ready to rewrite the We Believe. Is this public knowledge, or has my head been too far up my...? I mean, I know that there is an "event" listed called "Credentials/We Believe Convocation (or Symposium)", but I have no idea what this means or who is invited or anything other than the fact it is Feb. 2 and 3. Has this information been made known and I've just missed it, or is it a secret?
And it's not even so much that I care about this in particular, but I have always been bothered by the fact that when I first became a pastor in the CGGC I was cautioned that I "should never give out any more information than I need to, because it just gives people more things to complain about." Frankly I can't believe someone actually said this, and am appalled if this is a common attitude among the leaders in our denomination. But I can now see how this might tie in to your shepherd/relationship-oriented thinking. Shepherds would be more likely to have this attitude, so as not to create problems and risk offending people (although it DOES offend those of us who aren't so shepherdly-gifted).
In my opinion, if we have leaders who are afraid to speak their mind or share information, then they either have some things they need to repent of, or they need to step aside and allow someone who isn't afraid to share their heart and vision to lead.
I don't mean for that to sound harsh, and I'm not even thinking of anyone in particular. I also realize this may be getting away from the point of your post. But I think things like this make it easy for "tricks" to be played, so I don't doubt that maybe we have been duped.
i'm going to try to say this as concisely as possible, so please forgive me if i speak too harshly. i mean to encourage Biblical discussion, not to put godly men down.
----------------------------
it is reassuring and encouraging to see a post like this where you guys are keeping in focus the authority of the Word over our own ideas and experiences in light of many "postmodern" ideas.
i agree, like fran and dan m. said, that God is primary in life, and Scripture is primary in knowing God. if these are true, then shouldn't we be devoting ourselves to studying and obeying Scripture, that we might know God better and have more to praise Him for? isn't that the point of life, to glorify God by obeying Him joyfully? doesn't our (general) lack of theological understanding mean that we don't really know God that well? i'm all for not making things "overly complex", but if our God is infinite, and He writes 66 books to explain Himself vividly to us, then perhaps our theology ought be thorough and complex as well.
i agree with bill that we can't emphasize relationship at the expense of truth. if we do, aren't all our relationships fake, and our unity, shallow?
i understand what fran meant about turning the Bible into a textbook, but doesn't that only happen when we know truth but don't apply truth or live it out?
i'm confused as to why is there this negative connotation on institution. i know sometimes we get so bogged down in bureaucracy that we lose vibrancy and life, but isn't Christ's church represented Biblically as a building, as a thing of permanence on this earth? isn't an institution a good means of pushing the truth of Christ into the future, and a powerful mechanism for training leaders and equipping men and women to spread the gospel of our great God and Savior, and to guard against wolves and false teachers who mean to scatter and lead astray?
and i heartily agree with dan that we need to be able to speak the truth, and we are to do so with love. at the same time, "the same sun that melts the ice hardens the clay." we need to speak, and some people will be offended. as paul said, if we are the aroma of Christ, then we will stink like death to some and smell like life to others. isn't that as true in our day?
this is my attempt to speak some truth and to test my thoughts by the counsel of men older and wiser than i. i would appreciate your further thoughts on these matters. God bless you, brothers.
Walt... appreciate your comments. I'm definitely serious about all 66 books of Scripture. But I don't think the the only time we treat the Bible as a textbook is simply when we don't apply it. It happens when we think that knowing the Bible is the end, rather than a means to the end (the end being really living... "I came that they might have life"). And this has been a poor side road evangelicalism has taken over the years. We also treat the Bible as a textbook when we think of the Bible as communicating a vast array of commands we must attend to, rather than what Jesus said, which was that God wants to restore a good heart to us from which we can love Him and love our fellow humans. In a lot of Christian circles one gets the sense that we need a theology course before we can begin to awaken and live the live. Maybe the best way to say it is this: What Jesus talks about in the Sermon On the Mount isn't complicated; it's hard.
On the question of "institutions"-- I think you're just thinking of the word in the sense of "organization", and there's nothing wrong with that. The rest of us have had a lot of previous conversation contrasting highly structured institutions with spirit-led movements (like the early church or the church in China today). A movement isn't led by committees or shepherds, but by by Apostles, who articulate a passionate and healthy DNA of the Gospel and the mission of Jesus, and then embed that in leaders who choose to go with them. A good book on this is The Forgotten Ways by Alan Hirsch. Like many others, our denomination is now highly institutionalized and cannot even figure out how to make room for pioneering/visionary/apostolic type leaders. This results in stagnation and decline... ultimately the death of the institution.
To all of you who have posted comments to my article, I say thank you.
I will rejoin this very important conversation soon. I have a lot of real life going on now, including a death in Evelyn's family.
I will return soon.
Blessings on you all.
bill
Interesting post and comments. I'm not CGGC so I don't even come close to understanding your tensions on this. But you did mention Weaver who was one of our Bishops so I'll throw in my two cents.
I won't argue the theological issue but I do have a hard time with your argument. First, I didn't hear you objecting to language in this argument, only its position. You make this case quite strongly in the language you use as well. (dethroning)
That raises some questions about how one views the entire document. Are some statements less true, less important, or less primary? After a certain number do they become secondary?
If what has been done is really dethroning, what's next? If you move #4 back to #1 would you use the same language? Would you proudly stand and say you are dethroning God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit because you are moving them down? There is a big difference between order and position and your term implies position. Yet your original argument was about order. Had you said that you wanted #4 in the #1 spot because that is the order where we must begin I may have been able to see your point. But when you started using the term dethroned I became suspicious.
Is the #1 slot really where you want #4? I suppose that would work for your purposes here in the US but it may not be very universal. In some cultures the most important stuff would be last. Some might argue for #3 and others would argue for #7. I imagine Jewish Rabbis would absolutely love this argument, though I wouldn't count on it being settled in this century. How about bullet points?
Just throwing out some more thoughts on an interesting discussion. Please don't be offended.
For those of us out of the loop of information, could someone post the full text of the announcement about the gathering to reconsider We Believe?
I wasn't aware that something beyond Bill's quest for truth was motivating this discussion.
Thanks.
Brent,
Re: For those of us out of the loop of information, could someone post the full text of the announcement about the gathering to reconsider We Believe?
A few weeks ago I went on the CGGC website to use the Searchable Directory to get an email address.
I found this item (which as of the moment I write this is still present):
Credentials/We Believe Convocation- February 2-3
I emailed Ed and asked him about it. After we played phone tag, he filled me in.
He told me that he set this up by contacting the Regional Directors who, in turn, were responsible for choosing who, from their Region, would participate in the process. They were also responsible for informing their community that credentialing and We Believe would be reconsidered.
No one in the East that I know of, other than Kevin and the members of the Church Vocations Commission, even knew what was going on.
How the other Regional Directors handled this I can't say. Apparently from what Brian and Fran tell me, they were not informed. I believe that they found out what was going through me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fran,
Yours is a very insightful and provocative post. Thank you for extending and deepening the conversation.
You say,
“It's an interesting question, whether theology starts with God or Scripture. I have tended to say "with God" because God predates the Bible and is the ultimate reality. The Bible may be preserved for posterity through all eternity, but you won't be looking up Bible passages in the New Jerusalem.”
When I read those words I began to relive my own study of the issue and I was tempted to debate you and make the case for a theology that has at its foundation the Doctrine of Scripture. Maybe on another thread or maybe on a pod cast or in a private conversation. The point at hand now though is that, in the days when the Church of God was a movement it was built on a radical assertion that the Word is everything. We Believe changes that radically.
You raise this foundational question:
“I find myself wondering if you are making too much of the statement about the Word being moved to the #4 slot in we believe (not saying, just wondering... and you have a lot more history in the CGGC than I do).”
Honestly, my guess is that a lot of the lurkers on the blog didn’t just wonder that, they concluded it.
There are five reasons why I think I am not exaggerating the point.
First, We Believe was written in a historical context. We Believe abuses our past. The shepherds who dominate the institutional CGGC today have difficulty dealing with the reality that, at its heart, the Church of God began as a prophetic movement. In the days when the Church of God was a movement we were radical about many things--most of all the Word.
John Winebrenner really did speak for the whole movement when he said,
“The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, or test-book, which God every (sic) intended his church to have”
We Believe assaults our historical belief in two ways: It loses Winebrenner’s radicalism by pretending that his assertion that the Word is our sole authority didn’t exist. For me, that sin of omission in itself would be egregious. Also, We Believe presents the Doctrine of God as the starting point of our theology. Now, granted, the order in which doctrines are listed is a subtle issue, but, if anything, its subtlety increases its importance.
Second, I think that We Believe serves as a Manifesto for the transition of the CGGC from movement to institution. Certainly, we had ceased to be a movement and had become institutionalized long before We Believe was written. But, it seems to me that, until We Believe; there was a discomfort about the loss of the zeal and extremism of our early movement days and a lingering desire to be a movement again. We Believe, however, is a rationale for an institutional CGGC. It presents a theology of institutionalization. Since We Believe, we can be proud to be an institution. We can see why being settled and institutional is superior to being a movement.
In its movement days, the Church of God had an edge to it that was raw and radical. We Believe takes away the rough edges of our movement days and gives us doctrine sufficiently refined and temperate so that any institutional church could be proud.
Third, We Believe makes a very powerful theological point that stands at odds with the belief that fueled the Church of God as a movement. Make no mistake about it. We Believe is a revolutionary document in its own right. By losing Winebrenner’s radical Preface to his twenty-seven points and rearranging the doctrines so that our belief in the Word is no longer primary, We Believe is saying that, in the CGGC, relationship now trumps truth.
In We Believe it is having relationship with God and each other that is primary, not living radically and uncompromisingly in the truth. And, while We Believe purports to affirm our historic beliefs, it is, in reality, a revolutionary departure from what we believed in the days we were a movement.
Now, as I’ve said, good, devout and brilliant Christian thinkers have taken the position We Believe takes that the Doctrine of God is the starting point for theology.
We Believe is NOT heresy. It simply creates a revolutionary new foundation for theology in the CGGC. But, the writers of We Believe didn’t have that right. They weren’t in the position that John Winebrenner was in. They didn’t have blank slate to write on.
While what they did in rearranging the order of the doctrines was subtle, it is no less revolutionary than if they had said that we now believe in eternal security.
Fourth, We Believe provides a theological justification for the reinvention of the CGGC as a shepherd dominated institution. To use a term I’ve used on the pod casts, it justifies the creation of the Shepherd Mafia.
John Winebrenner was a prophet and evangelist. His ministry generated a prophetic movement. His twenty-seven points are naïve and raw and radical--the stuff that makes shepherds sweat. The devolution of our church from movement to institution, from prophetic leadership to shepherd domination was accomplished by the time the writers of We Believe gathered as a large committee to do their work.
But, up to that time, there was a cognitive dissonance between our faith statements and shepherd domination. We Believe was the Alka Seltzer that took away the heartburn of that pesky attachment to our actual radical faith heritage. It allowed the shepherds to be comfortable leading us as an institution in which relationship matter most and truth is secondary.
Fifth (and this one is most meaningful to me personally), We Believe is dangerous not only because it breaks with our history, nails the coffin of the Church of God as a movement, diminishes the authority of the Word and provides a rationale for our unbiblical shepherd dominated leadership culture:
It creates a distinct and alternate theology for the CGGC.
I am very close to reaching the point of saying something that someone in the CGGC should never have to say or be able to say: “I reject We Believe because I am a Winebrennerian.”
The better acquainted I become with John Winebrenner and the more I admire him for creating a vital movement and the more carefully I read We Believe, the closer I come to the conclusion that there are now two distinct Churches of God theologies. There is the prophetic movement built on a zealous, raw and radical devotion to the authority of the Word in which we sing "Trust and Obey." And, there is also the moderate institution, justified by We Believe, that is shepherd dominated and in which relationship trumps truth where we ask, "Can't we all just get along?"
We are in the untenable place where it might be possible for a person called into ministry to legitimately say, “I reject We Believe because I believe what John Winebrenner believed.” How would our credentialing bodies respond if someone actually said that?
That can’t be good, either for the Church of God movement or the CGGC institution.
Fran, you also say,
“But then, my view of Scripture, though it is as strong as ever, has definitely taken on some new shades in the last few years. Most significantly in this way: When we think Jesus came to start a religion in which getting all the answers right, we will move toward seeing the Bible as a textbook…On the other hand, if we conclude (as I must say I have) that what Jesus came to bring was not so much a religion where we get all the right answers as a new WAY of seeing, being and living, then whether or not I can extract all the right theological answers from Scripture becomes less important (Note: I did NOT say Unimportant).”
Fran, I hope you know me well enough by now to realize that my view of Jesus is the same as yours. I believe that if you knew John Winebrenner and the movement his passion for the Word spawned you’d realize that you are very much a twenty first Winebrennerian.
Winebrenner’s view of Scripture was the raw and radical stuff of which movements are made. Doctrine was not his concern, radical and uncompromising obedience to the spirit of truth was.
So, no. I don’t think that I am making too much of the rearranging of the articles of our faith in We Believe.
But, I will be the first to acknowledge that my views are outside the norm in our institution today.
So were none of the people on this blog invited to the credentialing/we believe convocation?
Doesn't that seem odd in light of the fact that - as whoever said - this was actually talked about here (and still is)?
Dan,
To the best of my knowledge, none of the people who post prominently on this blog were invited to participate in the Convocation.
Tom,
Are you related to Dave? I had him in a class when I was at Winebrenner.
You say,
“I won't argue the theological issue but I do have a hard time with your argument. First, I didn't hear you objecting to language in this argument, only its position. You make this case quite strongly in the language you use as well. (dethroning) ”
My post hit highlights. If I were of a mind, I could probably write a book of at least equal length to We Believe. There are some concerns I have about the text of We Believe. But, for the purpose of this thread, I merely wanted to make the point that We Believe abandoned John Winebrenner’s radical devotion to the authority of the Word.
If I were writing a similar faith document for the church today I certainly would say different things about the authority of Scripture than We Believe did. They would bear a striking resemblance to Winebrenner’s words.
I am not CGGC and I am not sure how much I can add to this conversation on the positions of Bill. The discussion is provocative.
I wish you gentlemen had been invited to the party and informed about this potentially key event to your future, that sounds like it may hinge on embracing your past. You guys think so deeply and passionately about change, truth, and relevance.
There seems something deeply disturbing to me that the regional directors of your group are not talking to the men in the field harvesting and fighting off predators.
As someone who stands on the outside watching and discussing and learning from some of you..the credentialing part is of interest to me.
I will admit I am aloof about your "We Believe" document. Changing the wording and the document is only useful if people embrace the heart of the document and the heart of sola scriptura and live it and steer their congregations towards that. Without practice it is academic to me. I see some denominations with terrific statements of faith that are not lived out in their churches and I see Christians who do not live like Christ. So change it...awesome...live it..essential.
I know a lot of guys out there like me. We are planting small churches on no budget. We feel kinda isolated and alone and we would love to be a partof a group that actually was alive and thriving and, if I am being honest, is willing to invest in us. I am not just talking about a check, though that would be nice. I am talking about being a part of our ministry where the people in the congregation see and feel the presence of something larger than just our gathering. We can invest back, again, not just with money.
Justin with River City and I share. I have sent him 9 boxes of clothing and toiletries and stuffed animals and blankets. He has sent me some tools for my church to use. In summer I am going to come down with some teens and young adults and we will help them. They are also going to advise and aid us as we get to building a halfway house in our area. This is the synergy of siblings or cousins working together. But I need more than that. I need a parent. Right now I am an orphan struggling for scraps and I would like to be formally adopted by someone so I am a part of a family.
I will submit to authority if that authority is willing to raise me. If the entry path into that family is hoops that have nothing to do with Jesus' calling of Apostles and disciples and the family patriarchs are not willing to let me know about important things going on in the family, I do not know if I want to be adopted into that family...but when you are desperate and alone...sometimes you get Machiavellian.
If you gentlemen find a way to get to this party and affect change, please keep in mind the orphan churches who are effectively reaching the emerging generation. I have cutters, ICP kids, rape victims, and the impoverished under 25 hugging me on Friday nights and Sunday afternoons. I know other guys doing the same kinda stuff and we are alone and disconnected.
I've been meaning to comment but every time I figure out what to write, Fran beats me to it.
A coupla thoughts:
1. Institutionalism (not the institution necessarily) swallows momentum. Movements cease when they become institutional. This can be seen by the fruit or lack thereof. Momentum creates an energy that can be focused but not controlled. Institutionalism can't stand uncontrolled movement. The institution of the CGGC needs to raise the banner of following Jesus to the very gates of hell and stop worrying about if we have a seminary degree or not and whether we're paid enough and whether everybody is feeling ok about it.
2. Sola Scriptura -- Count me in, though I wouldn't mind agreeing to a few of the Creeds for the sake of orthodoxy. But we do seem to get into conversations about "you should just preach the Truth of the Bible," where truth gets capitalized and I begin to think we are talking about something different than what I think the Truth is.
The Truth, otherwise known as the Gospel, is that God wants to bring reconciliation with Himself and with all people, and that those who do not accept this will find themselves on the outside, even if they are very religious.
Of course, sin must be called sin -- racism, not caring for the poor, homosexuality, abortion, greed, divorce, rage, lust, ... But surprisingly, Jesus talks most about hell when he talks about not creating relationships with outcasts. (Matthew 8; Matthew 25) Hell is a warning to those who consider themselves believers.
3. Shepherd Mafia -- the CGGC appears to me to be dead in the water. I have absolutely no idea what is going on in my Region, or possibly, I know exactly what is going on... nothing.
We spend over $100,000 per year on a Regional Director and office and for that, I get an ID card. I can't for the life of me figure out why everybody doesn't think this is so wrong! Except that we would hate to cause any division or upset a person's employment.
Over the life of our Region, we have spent over $1,000,000 on our Director and have seen all of our numbers dwindle. How can this be defended? And yet... it is.
Denominationally, I will give Missions a pass because they seem to have momentum and understand that imposing institutionalism on the nations would be hurtful to the mission. But most of their finances do not come out of our tithes. They raise it independently.
But nationally, I see no movement and wonder if this is a good time to stand by and watch as the CGGC crumbles apart.
Is this just my opinion or are there those out there (besides the regulars on this blog) who agree that this is poor stewardship? Is there an outcry?
You might suggest that I complain to our leaders. I have without any effect. That is why I now ask it here.
Bill,
The Dave you speak of is my brother.
Tom
Brian,
Good post, brother!
Both Fran and you have made useful comments about institutionalism.
In its early days the Church of God was everything a movement is. Today, it is nothing that a movement is.
I think that it is accurate to say that Jesus came to start a movement. I think that the followers of Jesus in China today are participating with Him in a movement. Movement is happening in many places of the world.
As Reggie McNeal reminds us, Christianity is the fastest growing faith in the world today.
The institution of the CGGC has no hand is the historic expansion of the Jesus movement that is taking place in the world at this very moment.
Questions:
How do we achieve once again our movement identity?
Do you think some CGGCers actually want to be institutional?
I believe we all need to seriously revisit the "sola scriptura issue.
There was a time a few years ago when I stepped back in my study of church history to take a big picture view of the Church of God and I asked myself where John Winebrenner fits in among the big names that we normally think about in the formation of Protestant thought. It was some very intersting thinking.
It was at that time that I began to appreciate that Winebrenner was truly an original thinker and that he was very much a radical. What Winebrenner was is important, of course, because the Church of God is the fruit of his radical passion.
The shepherd dominated leadership culture that carried out an quiet and incremental coup against our prophetic spirit has all but stripped Winebrenner's radicalism away from us.
That really was the point of my post that started this conversation.
Winebrenner was a radical. His view of the authority of Scripture was probably the apex of his radicalism. Now, it's true that times have changed since Winebrenner said,
"The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, or test-book, which God ever intended his church to have."
The JEPD thesis has revolutionized Bible scholarship. All sorts of theological movements have come and gone.
Living in the spirit of Winebrenner's raw acknowledgment of the authority of the Word would look different in 2009 than in 1844. But, I think we do ourselves no favors in compromising Winebrenner's radicalism about the Word.
We will never be a movement again unless we reassert the radicalism that distinguises movement from institution.
You say,
"Shepherd Mafia -- the CGGC appears to me to be dead in the water."
Tough words.
I hope you are wrong.
Are you actually saying that you believe that there is no hope--that, by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit, that we can not have a vital existence again?
Let me put it this way:
In the letter to the church at Laodica Jesus said, "So because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
Are you saying that, as far as the CGGC is concerned, He's already spit?
That's a good question. It is, in my opinion, THE question.
I am not convinced that He has spit. But, I believe that if He hasn't already done it, He may do it soon.
You end by saying,
"You might suggest that I complain to our leaders. I have without any effect. That is why I now ask it here."
I know you have.
That you are listened to but never responded to or respected--that you are, is patronized a good word?--is a function of the arrogance and sanctimony of the Shepherd Mafia.
What are we supposed to do?
You know as well as I do that these posts are being read by our leaders in Findlay.
Do you think they want us:
A. To continue to follow our movement passion, calling the church to repentance and to reclaim its prophetic vision and zeal for the Word.
B. To shut up.
C. To just leave.
D. Some other response.
Bill,
End of the day, here is my question.
If your leadership does not support movement and vision and if they will not change despite cries from the men harvesting in the field..do you have leadership? If you do not have leadership, what is the advantage to being with a denom? As a new kids on the block planting, I am trying to wrap my head around association and denom affiliation...so though this is painful for you guys, it is educational for me and I am praying for you guys...so please keep this going as I learn from the discussions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I removed my last comment because I didn't want it to appear that I was mad at EVERYONE. Certainly that is not the case, though my frustration is significant with some.
I will say it again though, "patronized" and "Shepherd-mafia" hit the nail on the head for me.
I guess it leaves me wondering... if the "powers that be in the cggc" really do want many of us to either shut up or leave, then why would we bother with anything? I mean, I can make a meaningless ID card all on my own for pennies, so why should our church send 10% of our money just to pay for somebody else to do it (which is an overstatement, I know)?
I don't mean to sound ungrateful, or unappreciative, because I know some people are working very hard; and, Bill, you raise a lot of good questions here... but my question remains... what does it matter? Seriously. I'm hoping there is an answer. Why should any of us care about things like We Believe and credentialing? I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I don't honestly know why we should.
I agree with Brian, there appears to be NOTHING going on from our particular region's perspective. So is all this just a waste of time? I hope not, but... I don't know.
Bill asked, "What do they want us to do?" (The powers that be that is.)
They want us to quietly make a difference. They do not want us to shut up or go away, though they do not want us to call anybody out or make any judgments.
They want us to plant churches, grow churches, make disciples, minister to communities, and minister to nations.
They have good hearts, love our denomination, love Jesus and His Word, and have risen to the cream of the crop of shepherding.
These are people I would love to visit me in the hospital when my child is sick, visit me at the funeral home when someone in my family dies, comfort me when I get fired from my church, ... They have done this for me, and I am grateful, though not for what it costs.
Absolutely. And they stay out of our way while we do movement type ministries, which is gracious of them. (truly, no sarcasm intended.)
What they don't do, which is what I want, is to intentionally help individual congregations and areas of churches (say a 30 mile radius of churches) build strong foundations, develop leadership, spark some vision, and get a fire burning.
They don't stand up and clearly say, "What we are doing is not good enough. We are going to HAVE to do better." It just isn't in their nature.
It isn't that they haven't tried. They have tried, with a Church Planter Associate and with a Church Renewal Associate, and the results were grim. They have realized (to their credit) that these positions were not fruitful and needed to be changed.
They aren't able to do the very thing they need to do. The reason they aren't able is institutionalism. A movement, by its very nature, would be doing exactly this.
They have created a grant process to fund just such movements. I'm not sure when applications for this will be available. It seems to have disappeared in the foggy soup we call communication. It has been left to the shepherd directors to dole this out, and my fear is they will use it as "encouragement" money rather than "light a fire" money.
But there will continue to be tension when grants are available to do the sort of things we wish our leaders were naturally doing.
The question is: Do we want to pay for shepherding leadership, to tell us "good job," or more likely, "nice try," to make sure we are credentialed appropriately with the proper education, ... and then create some grants for volunteers to create movement?
Or would it make more sense to have apostolic leadership to build movements, to press vision and mission, to fire up those who have grown tired, to explain what Reggie McNeal is talking about to the lay leadership of individual churches and help them to create a plan, and then to grant some dollars for administration?
I am mostly past frustration and anger. Admittedly, I was full of both a year ago, and at that time, I tried to stay as quiet as possible. And so it leaves me with "What to do?"
There is no place within our Region for appropriate discussion of this. One would have to make a grandstand move at the Regional Conference. Perhaps if there is an election of officers, we can simply vote "No".
Otherwise, we will continue to pay our tithe, be respectful of our leadership (it isn't disrespectful to voice an opinion), and create as much movement at a local/area level as possible.
Have you ever stopped to think--and then you couldn't get started again? That happened to me when I turned back to the blog last week.
There is a lot more going on here than a discussion of We Believe but let me begin there.
Although I believe any statement about belief must be predicated on the authority of Scripture I wondered if too much is read into the position of that statement in the current document.
I was also surprised that none of the bloggers was invited to the discussion on WE Believe. Wasn't a call to do just that issued here about two years ago. But keep in mind this was just a first meeting. I am sure one of us will be invited to the next meeting. (Right?)
It seems to me that Bill's post about We Believe brought some other issues to the surface--issues that have nothing to do with doctrine.
Yesterday, across the US, 400 pastors preached their last message. Some will never return to the pulpit. Some will find other ministries but most of them are gone for good. Why? some because of sin, others discouragement, others because they had no support from other pastors or their denominational headquarters.
Am I hearing that kind of angst in these posts?
I am afraid that any suggestions I make would be dottle, first because I don't have the answers. I have been doing battle myself for the past two years.
Secondly, there are no simple solutions. Eugene Peterson in his book "Under the Unpredictable Plant" says he reached the conclusion he was on his own. "Spiritual direction doesn't come from institutions. The institution has its necessary and proper place. I could not function well without it, maybe not at all. But I was quite mistaken to look for spiritual nurture and expect spiritual counsel from an institution". p. 80
But that is not to say we can't help each other.
Dan,
I still have a copy of the post you deleted. It was a good one. I understand you removing it. On the other hand, it was pure and raw honesty.
In a shepherd dominated church culture, oddly, pure and raw honesty is something that we come to think of as being intemperate and wrong and bad and when someone is purely honest in a way that is raw, the value system tells us that he/she should be embarrassed and should apologize.
You have nothing to be embarrassed about or to apologize for.
Shepherds are all about moderation and refinement. They are not big on honesty. Too much unguarded forthrightness makes their palms sweat.
There are times that I think that their Jesus is not the guy John the Baptist prophecied who'd come with his winnowing fork in hand to clear His threshing for, to gather His wheat and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Their Jesus hung meekly on the cross but didn't really throw the moneychangers out of the temple. That reeks too much of passion it is far too radical about what is right and what is wrong to be the action of the "Great Shepherd."
Dan, you have nothing to be sorry about, nothing to be embarrassed about, nothing to regret. I thank you for your honesty and for your willingness to open your heart. It would be nice if some of the shepherds could do that too.
The post you deleted expressed the raw transparency that must become the norm in the CGGC. Such honesty and transparency should never have to be regretted.
Thank you, my friend, for not retracting the words 'shepherd mafia' and 'patronized.' Because they point to truth in the CGGC today.
You repeat Brian's question, "Does it matter?" You ask if there is an answer. You ask why any of us should care.
Here's my thought about that at this point. I could be wrong. I might correct this next comment in a later post:
I think it's now in the court of leadership people--and I'll spell it out--like Ed Rosenberry and Lance Finley and Don Dennison (and, for you and Brian and Fran among others Bob Etherton) to be honest with us.
Be honest. Tell us guys:
Does it matter?
Why should we care?
I know peole in leadership are reading this. If you don't already know it, then you need to know that there are many of us still in the CGGC who have not left yet and who still do care who are wondering why we should stay or care.
What do you want us to do:
Continue to follow our movement passion, calling the church to repentance and to reclaim its prophetic vision and zeal? (If this is the case and if you don't come out of your closet soon, I suspect that you need to be prepared to see an exodus of passionate, mission-oriented people from the CGGC.)
Shut up?
Leave?
Many of us are asking these questions. None of you are offering answers.
Brian,
You said, They want us to quietly make a difference. They do not want us to shut up or go away, though they do not want us to call anybody out or make any judgments.
They want us to plant churches, grow churches, make disciples, minister to communities, and minister to nations.
In other words, they want the benefit of our being something other than shepherds but they want us somehow still to be shepherds.
You know in 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul talks uses the metaphor of a body to explain the diversity of our gifts and callings? Well, they want to deny the reality the that church is made up of different parts and that each part has its own function. The want the whole body to be a eye or an ear. They want the sense of sight or the sense of smell to be everything.
These are people I would love to visit me in the hospital when my child is sick, visit me at the funeral home when someone in my family dies, comfort me when I get fired from my church, ...
Me too!
While I rant and rave and whine about the dysfunction of the shepherd dominated leadership culture, I love and admire people who are gifted as shepherds. They are the opposite of the prophet in many ways. Their passion for relationship is, in God’s perfect sovereignty, the balance of my narrow focus on truth. The body needs both shepherds and prophets. I know that. I don’t want there to be a prophet dominated leadership culture.
Yikes! Even thinking about that makes my skin crawl.
(It’s likely that the church in Ephesus mentioned in Revelation 2 was a church that was prophet dominated. It had nailed all the doctrinal things and was about to have its lampstand removed because it had lost its first love. That ain’t good! Conversely, the church in Laodicea was probably shepherd dominated: “I know your deeds that you are neither cold nor hot…” That ain‘t good either.)
Or would it make more sense to have apostolic leadership to build movements, to press vision and mission, to fire up those who have grown tired, to explain what Reggie McNeal is talking about to the lay leadership of individual churches and help them to create a plan, and then to grant some dollars for administration?
Duh!
I am mostly past frustration and anger. Admittedly, I was full of both a year ago, and at that time, I tried to stay as quiet as possible. And so it leaves me with "What to do?"
There is no place within our Region for appropriate discussion of this. One would have to make a grandstand move at the Regional Conference. Perhaps if there is an election of officers, we can simply vote "No".
Otherwise, we will continue to pay our tithe, be respectful of our leadership (it isn't disrespectful to voice an opinion), and create as much movement at a local/area level as possible.
From what I know, the thing that comes when one is past frustration and anger is depression.
If there is no place within our regions to discuss mission and kingdom, what do we do? I can’t believe that Jesus would have us throw our hands up into the air and sigh and moan, “Oh, well…”
Wouldn’t it scare the shepherd dominated leadership culture if we looked back to the early 1820s and asked, “What did John Winebrenner do?” After all, it was against an institutional and tradition bound culture that he chafed and ultimately rebelled.
You mentioned what you were thinking a year ago. A year ago I couldn’t imagine suggesting that we ask, “What did John Winebrenner do?” But, you know, it created a movement.
Winebrenner Theological Seminary's Faith Statment
I was just playing around on the internet and stumbled on this. Ironic that the Institution named to honor the man who said,
"The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, or test-book, which God ever intended his church to have,"
would place the doctrine of the authority of the Word in so mean a position.
Winebrenner Theological Seminary affirms the following essential historic Christian doctrines as taught in Scripture and handed down by the Church:
We believe in the living and true God: one in essence, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We believe in the eternally existent Father, Creator of the universe, sovereign and holy God, Lord of all life, perfect in love and power, just and merciful in all ways.
We believe in the incarnate and revelatory Word of God, Jesus Christ, the perfect mediator between God and humanity: fully divine and fully human as revealed by his virgin birth, sinless life, teaching and miracles, vicarious and atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension, and personal return in power and glory.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the divine agent of regeneration, essential to the salvation of alienated and sinful people; by the ministry of the Spirit of God, people are enabled to know God's grace, experience God's love in Christ, and live a Christ-centered life.
We believe in the written and revelatory Word of God, the Bible, inspired and illumined by the Holy Spirit: the only authoritative and trustworthy rule of Christian faith and practice.
We believe in the body of Christ (the Church), the people of God, called out to follow and represent Christ in the world.
We believe in the ultimate realization of God's glorious reign, consummated by the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment of all people to eternal life or separation from God, and wherein all things will be made new to the glory of God.
Poor John must just be spinning in his grave.
So I have been watching this thread develop over time, and while I fnd myself curious about the denominational workings that will either prosper the denomination or kill off the denomination. I find myself pulled to the original intent of the post. So I did some research and some reading and while I agree with Bill that from research we have pulled away from some of the original teachings of the denomination, discussion over some of the things we are proposing I think would make John turn in his grave also.
First, Bill you quote “The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, or test-book, which God every (sic) intended his church to have. Nevertheless, it may not be expedient, pro bono publico, to exhibit a short manifesto, or declaration, showing her views, as to what may be called leading matters of faith, experience and practice.”
I believe the We Believe is more than a short manifesto. Personally I have no disagreement with the conclusions of the We Believe in the sense of why the writers believe what they believe. I too would also enjoy seeing scripture listed first as to me it provides for logical order.
Ultimately my issue is with the creation of the We Believe. Many denominations and movements have survived if not more than flourished with the Bible being its only rule for practice and faith. In fact if you look over history those churches that have held to Disciplines, Catechism, Confessions, and the like have become more than instutionalized and have lost a lot of their zeal and relevance in our current age.
For me having the Bible truly as our only guide would allow us to be more open to grasping the idea of the Five Fold Ministry, and would allow us to create our own informed opinions about things such as footwasshing (which I hear may be down graded) which I feel is a strong symbol of our faith. Although I see why others might not embrace it as much.
I have personally found that like minds hang out together. And for me personally I would rather hear someone's personal beliefs about issues of theology be heard instead of someone repeating quotations of the We Believe when it comes to looking for ministers. I think it would be a better filter for finding men and women who will best serve our fellowship of churches. So my vote is do away with the We Believe and I will promise a stronger focus on the bible and people being able to explain what they believe.
Although I doubt that will happen, I just feel it is the best solution to this problem. I want to make clear though I am not opposed to having a We Believe either, I'm just offering an idea.
Second Bill you talked about J.W. turning over in his grave because we have taken away scripture from the first place of the we believe. So I researched and did some reading of Winebrenner archives and I found this Quote from John Winebrenner.
"There are some men, who take for their rule the opinions of men--there are others, who are guided by custom, or the practice of their Church--and there are others again who go by their feelings or by special movings of the spirit, in this important matter. All this, however, is erroneous. For it is evident that all the acts and ordinances of religion must have a scriptural warrant to prove their validity. Without this, the opinions and practices of men, however respectable or ancient they may be, will furnish no authoritative rule for us to go by. Our only rule of obedience, in religious institutions, is the sovereign pleasure of him who is the alone object of religious worship."
I think John Winebrenner would role over in his grave because we are justifying (what I believe are valid agruments) on him instead of Scripture.I don't disagree that J.W.was an outstanding theologian, and started a vibrant movement that swept across a large section of our nation, and that he had a great love for God's Word(it can even be seen in the quotation I give). But he is still a man himself and not the Word of God.
Let us be followers of his example then instead of followers of him, and let us only justify why scripture should be first versus listing God first. I think that is truely what he would want us to do.
Also I think you will find as I have through my research of archived writings and the way history portrays his teachings that there is quite a bit more that our denomination does that he would not be specifically in agreement with.
All for the Word being first, but why should the Word be first though according to scripture?
Some random thoughts:
Many of you don't know me. I am a psstor in the Eastern Region. I'm 28 and have only been in the demonination for about 5 years.
I am not gifted as a shepherd. My gifting goest strongly toward the prophet end.
Why I am just not feeling the incredible frustration and outrage that you all are?
It seems like what you are looking for is an institutionalized movement. Is that possible?
You want other leadership giftings represented in regional and demoninational positions. Have any of you applied for any of these positions and been rejected?
I see too many signs of life in my region. I am looking for support and encouragement from our demonination. I feel nothing but that.
On the doctrinal statement, I'm seeing what you guys are saying, but disagreeing. There is not comprimise there. First is not most important.
The Bible is utterly important, but everyone thinks that the Bible teaches what they believe. Mormons use the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses use the Bible. By putting the statements about God first, we are simply saying that we adher to orthodox Christianity.
Maybe if you guys knew what people in other denominations went through, you'd be thankful for what we've got.
Do your thing where you are at. Be faithful to your calling. A movement will never be institutionalized. When the institution stands in the way, there is something wrong. I don't feel like that's the case here.
But I could be wrong...
Dan,
I'm really grateful for your comment. We are in different Regions, and the Region I know the least about is the Eastern. I do think Eastern is in much better shape than the rest of the Regions. In my opinion, Midwest has fallen apart and some action needs to be taken.
I am also grateful that a young guy is pouring his life into ministry. God bless you!
By the way, Ed's newsletter that goes out recently covered what happened at the 'we believe' review meeting. I assume that you guys aren't on that list. I'd be happy to forward it to anybody who's interested.
I think you might be pleasently surprised. He was most focused on God's Word.
It is also clear that this is only the first of several steps to adopting changes. It seems that proposed changes will be available to everybody before anything is universally accepted.
Thanks for the heads up Dan. I am of course on this list, and in fairly regular communication with Ed, although the We Believe stuff slipped through the cracks.
I've been out of commission for a few days and there has been a lot of good discussion. It's nice to see. Just a couple random thoughts...
Bill,
Thanks for the encouragement. I can appreciate those who feel they are receiving ample support and encouragement from their region and the denomination. Maybe I'm just too hard to please, or maybe it's my own fault, but I don't feel the same way where I'm at. I'm not too proud to admit that I am easily discouraged, and being ignored just doesn't help much. Sometimes a word of encouragement can go a long way.
I think another issue along these lines is the thinking that disagreement or conflict is a bad thing. I actually think it is vital to any healthy organization. That's why I see the "shepherd mafia" as such a dangerous thing. I certainly don't want everyone to think like me, but if we have people who are afraid of hearing from differing viewpoints or who are afraid of a little conflict, then I'm afraid we're beating a dead horse. That's what has been nice to see in the post on institutions vs. institutionalism.
There were some other thins I was going to say, but now I've forgotten them. Again, it's nice to hear some other voices, and I'm glad to see this blog back in action.
Dan M.
Thanks for your comments. I am perplexed by one of them and I'm hoping that you will explain what you mean.
You said,
A movement will never be institutionalized.
How do you mean that?
It seems to me that church history is the story of vital movements devolving into institutions.
One of the absolute miracles of human history is that the early Christian movment avoided institutionalism for centuries. But, between the time of Constantine and Pope Gregory the movement devolved into the medieval institution of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Methodist movement of the Wesleys and Whitefied and Asbury maintained its movement identity for nearly a century but now there is nothing left of it but the rapidly declining United Methodist Church.
And, Winebrenner's raw and radical prophetic movement really out lived him by no more than 20 years. And, it now lacks the intellectual focus of Winebrenner (as Ed pointed out in his newsletter) and its prophetic dynamism has been replaced by a tired and lifeless institution in which churches are being closed at an alarming and ever increasing rate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill,
I surely know less than you about church history. It seems, however, that once movements try to pin too many things down, they become institution and lose much of their prophetic edge.
Methodism was a reform movement within the Anglican church at first, right? The Anglicans didn't like Wesley's 'enthusiasm' and drove him to the margins. Once Medthodism become a institution, well we see what's happened. Much of it died.
We can be like Wesley without an institution opposed to our 'movement'
If the institution had not been hostile to Winebrenner, would he have left? Maybe. Maybe not.
Did Luther want to leave the Roman church?
It seems to me like what you guys are looking for us for the institution (denomination) to make the movement 'official.' or institutionalized.
I am happy that (if) the institution will gladly let the movement exist (even encourage it) within the institution. That is a rare gift that we can celebrate and not get upset about.
Hopefully our movement will have more effect on the institution in time, but I feel as though the institution is not putting any real limits on the movement, at least not explicitly so.
In my opinion, it's okay if we have a bunch of shepherd dominated churches. As long as we also have apostolic churches. What I want is for us all to support one another because we are all necessary.
dan m., if you could send me that newsletter, or at least the pertinent info., i'd appreciate it. my email is oneringbearer@yahoo.com .
The newsletter is on the CGGC site under Enews. CGGC.org
dan and justin, thanks for pointing to the newsletter. it was very encouraging, especially with the language used, that it seemed to reflect some of what is being said here.
I was looking through the CGGC website for more information about the We Believe gathering, and I came across something that I've read many times, but in light of this thread, it caused me to stop and ponder. As a denomination we have "We Believe" which serves as a (mostly) agreed upon doctrinal statement. But we also have Core Values which I have listed below. Where do they fit into this conversation?
These values confirm this conversation in at least two ways. First, you'll notice that absolutely NOTHING is said about the Bible. Second, isn't the whole Core Value movement over the past 20 years an effort to bring "good business practices" into the church? If so, doesn't that sound an awful lot like another effort to institutionalize a movement?
So...we have the Bible. We have "We Believe". We have Core Values. What's next?
The challenge of the Christian life is not in the understanding, it's in the doing. And yet we keep trying to make it easier to understand while we should be figuring out ways to help people actually do it.
Anyway, here's the Core Values:
Core Value 1:
We value obedience to Jesus Christ even when it hurts.
Core Value 2:
We value each individual as one who matters to God.
Core Value 3:
We value dependence on and confidence in God’s ability to do more than we ask or imagine; we are willing to take risks and expect God to surprise us.
Core Value 4:
We value contemporary, open, joyful worship.
Core Value 5:
We value culturally relevant outreach and ministry to those who do not yet belong to Christ and His Church.
Core Value 6:
We value unity among diversity.
Core Value 7:
We value each believer maturing in Christ and carrying out ministry based on one or more spiritual gifts.
Core Value 8:
We value trained, committed, competent leaders.
Core Value 9:
We value healthy, reproducing churches.
Core Value 10:
We value accountability among believers and congregations.
Brent,
Very insightful observations about the Core Values. They are a powerful testimony to the absolute domination of the shepherd dominated leadership culture in the CGGC.
The writers of We Believe were limited in the degree to which they could diminish concern for truth. They were writing a Doctrinal Statement. Certain unwritten traditions guide the composing of Creeds and Statements of Faith and Doctrinal Statements. One of them in recent centuries is that the enumeration of the articles will begin either with the Doctrine of the Revelation of God (i.e., Scripture) or the Doctrine of God.
The writers of We Believe did a triple whammy to the Word by expanding the Doctrine of God into three articles and then placing them in the position of priority in the document and then simply forgetting Winebrenner's foundational statement about the absolute authority of biblical truth in the Church of God.
But, that's nothing compared to the revolution wrought by the writers of the Core Values. They simply tossed out the notion of biblical authority entirely.
Why do you suppose that one of our ten Core Values is not something like, "We value uncompromising submission to the authority of God's Word?"
Could it be that in the shepherd dominated leadership culture that we don't value that at all? That is certainly possible.
Let me be clear. That's not what I think. I think that most shepherds do value the authority of the Word.
However, there are so many things that they value more than the authority of the Word that submission to the authority of the Word didn't make the Top Ten values.
How un-Winebrennerian!
I think a good indicator that we have become institutionalized and are lead by a Shepherd Mafia is the lack of inovation with in our church.
I think about the suggestions of the General Confrence by looking who they bring to speeak and books they endorse for us to read (which are generally very good)and I notice none of them are coming from our own people.
For expample Externally Focused Church, No Perfect People Allowed, and so forth. What I think we need to realize is that while those ministries are exciting and building the Kingdom of God, those ideas served their specific time and culture. Those ideas were inovative for them.
Do I think it will hurt you to become an externally Focused Church? NO! I think it's a good idea probably if your church struggles with that. Is it bad to become like John Burke's church in Austin where "No Perfect People Are Aloud?" NO!
These are great inovative ideas from their time and place and will help churches for the next year or two before the next fad comes along.
What I have personally found, is that if it is in a book and some one is getting noticed for it now. It's probably not so inovative anymore.
Where is the inovation in CGGC? I think the lack of inovation comes from the lack of being a movement. I know there are little movements trying to pop up here and there, but I think we have become all to stagnant do to our own over instituitionalization.
I guess the one thing I have learned from reading works by Winebrenner is if you want a movement and you want things to change you have to do them yourself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And you have to give it all you have. You have to make sacrifice and you have to struggle, but if what you are doing is really making a difference people will join you and the movement will start.
To me, the movements I thought were starting have slowed down. The progression is not there. I want to be part of a church planting movement of churches that plant Matt. 25 churches. So River City Church's goal is to plant 15 churches in 15 years. Our small group of 40 people are already trying to start a Church in Topeka, KS 20 miles away from us. This coming weekened is our 1 year anniversery since launch.
Your right. We barely have any money. I haven't taken a paycheck from the church since a month after we launched, River City has had Vast ups and Downs, we just lost our meeting place for the I don't know how many times. But aren't those the stories movements are made of. Sacrifice, hurdles, and seeing God move through it all?
I think we want the institution to change so it doesn't stifle the movement. I personally think, it will have to be a sacrificial movement that will change the institution.
Justin,
You end your very provocative post by saying this:
I think we want the institution to change so it doesn't stifle the movement. I personally think, it will have to be a sacrificial movement that will change the institution.
You are taking us to a place that I am too conservative to go without pushing myself outside the box.
I do want to see institutional repentance take place. I do want the institution to change. I do want leadership to support and empower a movement mindset and to cease to enable the institutional way of thinking.
I don't want it to come to the place that the CGGC institution does to us what the Roman Catholic church did to Martin Luther simply because he wanted to discuss--just DISCUSS--the Sacrament of Penance.
I don't want what we do to become separate from the CGGC like what the Methodists did became separate and distinct from the Anglican church.
I don't want us to have to leave the larger body to form our own movement like Winebrenner's gang did in their day.
That's not what I want.
But, at some point, if one of those things doesn't happen it will depend of the leaders of the CGGC institution to behave toward us in some way that is different than the way the Pope responded to Luther or the Archbishop to the Wesleys or the German Reformed Church to Winebrenner.
You make an important point, Justin. It's one that troubles me deeply.
One of my deepest struggles is that, at the same moment I chide the shepherd mafia for its "Can we all just get along" ecclesiology, when it comes do to it, I myself deeply want us just to get along.
If the time comes, some of you may have to lead me.
Bill-
I think we live in an unquie time in the CGGC. We have an Exec. Director who I believe is sympathetic, at least, to our discussions. I also think he is sympathetic towards our mission for the Kingdom.
I share what I think is the same concern as you, I don't want to seperate from the CGGC. In fact that is why I hadn't joined the discussion for awhile, because I thought it was headed that way.
I have found a home in the CGGC. And even though I find somethings that concern me, I don't think I could be part of any group without some concern.
So my solution to this dilema is this... Those of us who want change, ie missional focus, 5 fold ministry, matt. 25 living, church planting, ect., must live the change with sacrifice till we have sucess so we can teach others from it. We must become innovative ourselves.
Two personal examples from my experience are... First, one of the major differences of River City Church versus other ministries in the CGGC is we take in homeless families into our homes. In fact a common statement in all the preaching in our community is that if you have a spare room you should share it. We have had many try to accomplish this goal. Although no long term help has happened outside our personal home, others have taken people in on a short term basis. A large percentage of our ministy is to people who are homeless or have been homeless in the past few years.
We take very seriously the scripture where Jesus said he came to preach the gospel to the poor. Our church supports this ministry instead of me taking a paycheck.
Second, we want to be part of a church planting movement. We figure the way you do that is plant more churches, so we are trying to. Also We sent a projector to a church plant in IL. We probably could have got four or five hundred dollars on ebay for it for our ministry, but we wanted to be part of something bigger than ourselves. We hope to send a communion set and some hymnals to them once we raise the money for shipping.
I have to also mention that this church plant has sent us boxes of clothes for our homeless ministry. We call it interdependence.
But whatever our visions are that God has called us to do, we need to "man up/women up" as we say in our community. And "may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. (1 Peter 5:10).
And while we still have time to change the institution from the inside, we should.
I agree with Justin's point about focusing on innovation within our own ministries in order to share them at some point. That is what I am doing.
But let me give an example of what would be great from the denomination. We do have 10 Core Values, and I actually think they are very good. But no one knows about them. No one can name them. They have just become a list in a drawer somewhere.
What if Ed Rosenberry took the Core Values on the road? He went from Region to Region espousing the benefits of the Core Values and giving examples of how to implement them in each particular church.
What if he went ahead and boldly noted where we are falling short as churches, and held us responsible for living the Core Values in order to be a better church?
What if he took Lance and Don with him, not loaded with resources, but being the resource to help individual churches understand the changes they need to make in order to be better preachers that the Kingdom of God is near.
Barrack Obama has left Washington to sell his ideas to the people. This isn't a bad idea.
We need vision and leadership in the CGGC. Ed I would be glad to host your traveling Core Values show in our facility at your earliest convenience.
Hi Guys. Sorry to have missed so much good conversation. I was in Haiti for 8 days and just got home. A few thoughts…
To Dan Masshardt’s point…
Dan, you wrote, “Why I am just not feeling the incredible frustration and outrage that you all are? It seems like what you are looking for is an institutionalized movement. Is that possible?” Brian is right that your region is perhaps at a better place than ours. There are other reasons for our frustration, though. Some of us have invested a lot of time alongside denominational leaders who said they wanted change, but in the end really wanted us to bear fruit in ways that did not require real leadership or change from them. We are also simply sad that unless something changes, the once-passionate movement of Winebrenner will shortly go the way of the DoDo bird—the CGGC is in decline that will result in demise if there is not a significant reinvigoration of some kind. Lastly, we see an institution that has a few bullets in the chamber that could still be fired to create something significant. These include connections between people (like all of us on this blog, who were only connected because of the denom.), a good missions program under Don Dennison, and some resources that could become seeds in the ground for a new harvest.
GOOD FRUSTRATION…
Some of the recent posts reflect a level of frustration I have not seen publicly before, and I believe that this is a very good thing. A sleeping institution will not be awakened by whispering prophets. While I was in Haiti I lay in bed every night thinking about where we are in the CGGC, and I am convinced that the time is upon us to rise up and create a renewal movement within the Churches of God. In Ed we have a director who wants renewal, who wants us to become a Kingdom of God group. One of the things Ed and I have talked about is that you cannot (and it would not be wise to) try to force all CGGC churches into a new mindset. We have many older, existing churches which will be as they are until they no longer exist. They are not necessarily bad churches, but they are reflective of the church in a different time, the church more institutionalized, and a gospel that failed to capture the full import of the Kingdom of God as Jesus painted it for us.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
Despite all the gracious talk back and forth here about institution and movement, let me say this plainly: The church is always more what Jesus had in mind when it is a movement, that is, when it is faith burning at the level of individual hearts, contagiously spreading through the larger culture, gathered in communities that are decentralized in leadership, with local church leaders drinking deeply from a well filled with a particular bent of gospel and mission that is flowing from apostolic leaders. It is not that shared doctrinal statements, established institutions for training, or a common credentialing process are bad things in and of themselves, but in many ways what these are is the “outsourcing” of leadership functions by the local church to outside institutions. The corresponding results are “pastors” of local churches who no longer think deeply, train leaders, or send leaders out to spread the Kingdom. The ultimate outsourcing is when the local church eventually sees the denomination as responsible to plant churches, reach the nations, etc., which is exactly what eventually happened in the CGGC. Now we are at the stage where we are realizing it doesn’t work. What do we do?
What we do is get the right goal firmly in view. That goal is a return to “movement”, or in our case the emergence of a movement out of what will eventually be the ashes of the CGGC as it currently exists. Think of it as “a new kind of CGGC thinking and action” which, as the “old CGGC” dies off, will simply take its place because it will be all that’s left.
HOW DO YOU GET A MOVEMENT?
Ironically (and this is where the fingers all point back at those of us voicing our frustrations), you don’t get a movement by complaining, or by asking your institutional leaders to create one (if they could do that, they wouldn’t be institutional leaders). Movements begin and spread from the bottom up. I would suggest that requires a premise, and then needs to happen in two ways. The premise is a shared vision/mission. We have a lot of talk going here, but we have not articulated what our new movement wants to live and die for. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I’m working on that. The two ways a movement among us would have to happen from the ground up are:
A) Leaders like us connecting like we are, and then some, around our shared desire for something better. The recent posts here are a good start. It’s what Brian, Bill and I tried to do with our recent Grass Roots gathering. The metaphor is this: If we want to yammer about this stuff but won’t throw in out lot with a group of fellow radicals, take a stand, labor for our shared mission, then it’s just talk on a blog.
B) Second, it has to start from the ground up in the sense that the ground is MY HEART AND LIFE, and MY CHURCH. If you aren’t wanting to enter the life of Jesus more fully and live the free and sacrificial adventure he speaks of, then you want the Kingdom to happen somewhere other than in you, but you can’t give away what you don’t have. And if you want to see some great movement of energized churches and new churches being planted, without asking right now, this very moment, what God wants to do differently in and through your own church, then you really just want the excitement of being a part of something that’s moving without becoming more of a leader yourself. So while we dream of something fresh emerging in the CGGC, get busy with something fresh in your own backyard. That’s what Brian meant when he said that he’s trying to do that right where he is. So am I. When we say the status quo has to go, we mean where we are too, not just in the denomination.
If you get renewed, and as a result the hearts of people around you are awakened and inflamed, and your church starts to live radical love and trust in God (the life of the Kingdom flowing in and out), and then we all dance together as those kinds of leaders… hmmm… movement.
WHAT DO THEY WANT US TO DO?
Brian’s right that our CGGC leaders are a lot of good men. I want then at the hospital with me as well. I love them, and appreciate who they are. For the most part, unfortunately, there are not many apostolic-types among them. The reason should be obvious: Institutions breed institutional leaders. Yes, they want us to go bear fruit quietly without challenging the status quo. But part of our apostolic/prophetic call is to question the church in her current form. They do not want us to shut up or leave, but neither do they want us to rock the boat. We must rock the boat, but keep in mind that the legitimacy of our boat-rocking is linked to A and B above. Gandhi was right: “You must become the change you want the world to be.” One reason we must rock the boat is because there are some pastors/leaders who will catch what we have, and we need to invite them up the mountain.
SO WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY DO?
I think we need to “rise up” within the CGGC and become the voice for a different vision and future. We need to do it with respect, but without apology. Ed will always have to be, to some extent, the bridge-builder between what is, and what’s emerging. I see now that this is needed. What we will need from Ed is for him to bless what we create as it takes shape, and give us public venues to extol a fresh picture of Kingdom, church, and mission. This will require him to take a risk. This is what many other CGGC leaders have not been willing to do, including in my own region. Brian and I have actually been told by leaders that they defended us when others thought we should have been disciplined or shut down (or something). I don’t want to be defended—I want official CGGC leaders to have the guts to stand up and say, “Actually, what we need is more of those guys, because they’ve got it right and they’re chasing the right things.”
ARE YOU READY?
I'm reading a cool little leadership book called "Tribes" (Seth Godin) who says that the mistake is almost never making changes too soon, and almost always waiting too long. This is not about asking for permission from the institution to create a movement. It’s about following Jesus back to the things that he said matter most, being connected enough to each other that we are clear that there is an “us”, and challenging our denominational leaders both to think with us and to throw in their lot with Winebrennarian-radicals who love Jesus and His Kingdom, and which they realize are the only thing that can really create a future for the CGGC they love.
Fran,
Your last post is a blessing to me.
It is apostolic.
This discussion has needed some apostolic focus and you have brought that and, I believe, centered us. I am a prophet. And, I am able to do what prophets do.
There's a young woman in our congregation who is as prophetic as anyone I've ever known personally. She said to me the other day that being a prophet is like being a pyromaniac to whom God hands a flame thrower.
That's what I do. Frost and Hirsch call the prophet the questioner, the disturber and the agitator and the one who knows. I think we see truth issues in vivid colors that others don't see.
It is true that Paul says that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. There is, in the Spirit, a superntural symbiosis when the apostle and the prophet join forces and empower each other to be who they are in the Lord.
Thank you for your apostolic word that brings much needed balance to this conversation. I admire you apostolic guys. Frost and Hirsch describe you as entrepreneurs, pioneers, strategists, innovators and visionaries. Your post has laid an important apostolic foundation.
Just a few comments on your wisdom:
I have been impessed too with the frustration this conversation has given voice to. That's a good sign. I believe it reveals that the Spirit is striking a common chord in many hearts. That is what I think happens at the beginning of eras of revival.
Your desciption of a movment is exciting:
...burning at the level of individual hearts, contagiously spreading through the larger culture, gathered in communities that are decentralized in leadership, with local church leaders drinking deeply from a well filled with a particular bent of gospel and mission that is flowing from apostolic leaders.
I would add that, from the human persective, it is chaotic. It is spirit empowered and spirit guided. It is the work of the One whose ways are as far above ours as are the heavens above the earth. Normally, to those outside the movement, that Spirit generated activity appears to be disorderly. For that reason, it will, by definition and of necessity, be opposed by the institution, which is shepherd dominated.
You are correct that movements bubble up from the bottom. They are not a trickle down phenomenon.
It is, indeed, time for there to be more than radical talk. It's time for that passion to take on structure.
We actually need to begin to do it in our own back yards but, at the same time, the strength to do that will come out of community. Few if any of us will be able to succeed in this alone.
And, you say:
I think we need to “rise up” within the CGGC and become the voice for a different vision and future. We need to do it with respect, but without apology.
Wow, man!
Rise up?
Those are the words of a rebel! Are you saying that we need to self-consciously be the 'holy rebels' that Hirsch talks about?
Are we willing to think of ourselves as rebels and BE rebels, come what may? If we are not, we are just playing.
And, there is the issue of Ed.
You say,
In Ed we have a director who wants renewal, who wants us to become a Kingdom of God group. One of the things Ed and I have talked about is that you cannot (and it would not be wise to) try to force all CGGC churches into a new mindset...
and,
Ed will always have to be, to some extent, the bridge-builder between what is, and what’s emerging. I see now that this is needed. What we will need from Ed is for him to bless what we create as it takes shape, and give us public venues to extol a fresh picture of Kingdom, church, and mission.
But, does he bless what we create?
We have already created a vision for a leadership paradigm rooted in Scripture and for ministry that is missional.
Considering the fact that Ed turned to only institution people to work on credentialing and We Believe, it is harder than ever for me to see Ed as a Kingdom of God person who wants to be that kind of bridge builder for a movement. But, you have spoken to him more intimately than the rest of us.
I hope you are correct.
Hey,
Just popped in after being away from this blog for so long.
My thoughts on this is Jesus first, Bible second.
I have come to this conclusion after observing and participating in many movements in what we call Christendom. I have seen to many people worship the scripture over Jesus. I have seen Churches over emphasize the Holy Spirit and the gifts over Jesus and His mission.
I have been here in Sweden(prophetically I hope) pushing to restore Jesus and His mission, the missio Dei, back to the center of the Church! I believe that a movement must mature and be willing to make changes I think Winebrenner would agree.
If CGGC is going to be a missional movement we need to be willing to make changes! Refocus! Put Jesus and his mission first!!
Scriptures are indeed the only authority we have in knowing Jesus and understanding the missio Dei.
By placing Jesus first we are placing the WORD first! He is the Word!
The denomination that we partner with in Sweden has the Lausanne Covenant as its Statement of Faith. I agree with this covenant and with the Church in over 150 other nations in which order they placed the Scriptures.
The Lausanne Covenant
INTRODUCTION
We, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, from more than 150 nations, participants in the International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne, praise God for his great salvation and rejoice in the fellowship he has given us with himself and with each other. We are deeply stirred by what God is doing in our day, moved to penitence by our failures and challenged by the unfinished task of evangelization. We believe the Gospel is God's good news for the whole world, and we are determined by his grace to obey Christ's commission to proclaim it to all mankind and to make disciples of every nation. We desire, therefore, to affirm our faith and our resolve, and to make public our covenant.
1. THE PURPOSE OF GOD
We affirm our belief in the one-eternal God, Creator and Lord of the world, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who governs all things according to the purpose of his will. He has been calling out from the world a people for himself, and sending his people back into the world to be his servants and his witnesses, for the extension of his kingdom, the building up of Christ's body, and the glory of his name. We confess with shame that we have often denied our calling and failed in our mission, by becoming conformed to the world or by withdrawing from it. Yet we rejoice that even when borne by earthen vessels the gospel is still a precious treasure. To the task of making that treasure known in the power of the Holy Spirit we desire to dedicate ourselves anew.
(Isa. 40:28; Matt. 28:19; Eph. 1:11; Acts 15:14; John 17:6, 18; Eph 4:12; 1 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 12:2; II Cor. 4:7)
2. THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE BIBLE
We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We also affirm the power of God's word to accomplish his purpose of salvation. The message of the Bible is addressed to all men and women. For God's revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable. Through it the Holy Spirit still speaks today. He illumines the minds of God's people in every culture to perceive its truth freshly through their own eyes and thus discloses to the whole Church ever more of the many-colored wisdom of God.
more here:
http://www.lausanne.org/lausanne-1974/lausanne-covenant.html
Oh ya Bill,
Remember Kierkegaard?
Existence precedes essence.
The Living Word before the written Word!
Doug,
Welcome back!
Thanks for checking in.
From my original post (with emphasis):
Those who argue that systematic theology begins with the Doctrine of Scripture make the point that it is impossible to have any knowledge of God apart from the Bible and the “Christ event.”
The greatest of all revelation is the Living Word. But, we get that through the Written Word.
I believe that Kierkegaard'd be miffed with our shepherd dominated leadership culture in much the same way he chafed against his own State Church.
Ah! But still in the order of things. It must be Christ first!
Bill: The greatest of all revelation is the Living Word. But, we get that through the Written Word.
And we can only get that through the written word by the help of the Holy Spirit who reveals the WORD to us which is Jesus!
Jesus First!
"Existence precedes essence"
Wow!
Doug,
I know from our conversations that you know the implications of that phrase, but do you really want to open the "can of worms" that this phrase suggests?
For only containing three words, there are few philosophical phrases that are as loaded with huge implications as this one.
Just a thought...
Brent,
Just provoking thought.
Read it in the context I am writing it in!
There are enough worms crawling around here.
:)
Point taken.
fran, i would like to thank you for your encouraging description in your last comments "what is the goal". your concise yet pointed description of what a movement is, is very helpful for someone who's just coming in to this conversation. i have more to say, but for sake of not mixing the many conversations which have sprung up on this thread, i will comment them to the next post.
Fran,
I, too, very much appriciated your post. That is what I was looking for. I can understand the deep frustration. I have not labored for this the way that you guys have, which is probably why I lack the emotional depth and frustration that has been expressed.
You basically said positively what I was (probably naively and inappropriately saying about the comments here recently.
I believe that you have articulated the way forward better than we have here recently.
Bill,
I appriciate your prophetic passion that makes apostolic folks see their need more urgently. You wonderfully provoke people like Fran in the best ways.
I also appriciate everyone's humility on this blog.
I'm honored to listen in on this at least, hopefully more.
As I was preparing my message for Sunday I pulled one of my Elton Trueblood books off the shelf. This one is called The Incendiary Fellowship. I have a first edition so I can tell you it was published in 1967. That is important to note because he has a chapter entitled Conditions of Emergence so this was way before McClaren et al came on the scene. I thought his comments were appropriate for this discussion.
“The new life which we so sorely need, either in the individual Christian or in the fellowship we call the Church, is something which we cannot produce at will, but we do have the modest function of meeting some of the conditions of its emergence. The conditions of renewal are clearly more demanding than has been generally recognized.”
He then gives some of the conditions of renewal:
Repentance
Return to the Bible
“Every genuine return to the Bible seems to open the door to renewal”.
Hard and clear thinking
Especially theological
“We need to repent of our poor contemporary theology.”
And one more line “There is no possibility of renewal unless we are always living on the spiritual frontier.”
Doug, Thanks for the reminder of the Lausanne Covenant. I had lost touch with Lausanne in the past few years.
Post a Comment
<< Home