The Church of God Movement in Motion
Sunday, July 4, 1830 is as good at it gets in the Church of God. There is no day in our history that we were more purely a movement.
July 4, 1830 is the second day John Winebrenner was baptized.
John Winebrenner was born in 1797 into a family who were members of the German Reformed Church. Winebrenner was baptized into the family’s church at the age of two months. He grew up a loyal GRC kid. He felt a call to ministry even in childhood, prepared for ministry in the German Reformed Church and imbibed fully of that church’s teachings.
Winebrenner’s tenure as a German Reformed minister, however, was turbulent and short-lived. Within five years of his appointment as a German Reformed minister in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1820, Winebrenner was involved in a movement that was forming out of what his biographer George Ross calls “extensive revivals of religion” in Harrisburg and its surrounding communities.
The issues that caused problems for Winebrenner and his Harrisburg congregation focused on the reality that Winebrenner was not gifted by Christ to be a shepherd. By the accounts of both Winebrenner and his opponents, Winebrenner was consumed by a yearning to convert sinners by the most radical and controversial methods of the day. And, by the accounts of Winebrenner and his opponents, Winebrenner was very poor in performing the one activity that characterizes the ministry of a shepherd: He was lax in visiting members of the congregation, even those who were sick.
By 1825 it was clear that Winebrenner could not thrive as the pastor of a German Reformed congregation. Yet, in all the conflict that resulted in his separation from the German Reformed Church, there is no evidence that Winebrenner objected to Reformed theology. In fact, it is abundantly clear that, at the time the movement was forming, Winebrenner had a view of the Church and its Sacraments that was consistent with Reformed theology. In fact, Winebrenner strenuously objected to pressure from his United Brethren friend Jacob Erb to participate in a feet washing service in 1827 saying, "Do not bind your brother's conscience. You believe that it is a positive command, and I do not."
Winebrenner continued to accept the German Reformed Church’s teaching on infant baptism long after his separation from that church. He continued to baptize infants as a normal practice during those years. There is some evidence that he had begun to be flexible on the issue by 1826. Ross notes that Winebrenner baptized several people at a camp meeting in Harrisburg in that year “by several different actions in the mill dam near by (the Harrisburg poor house).” But, the core of Winebrenner’s movement in those days consisted of people he’d encountered through his connections to the German Reformed Church. From every indication, Winebrenner continued accept the Reformed teaching on baptism and to practice infant baptism until 1830.
George Ross’s account of Winebrenner’s baptism on Sunday, July 4, 1830 is a depiction of a movement in action. It taunts today’s institutional CGGC with an unpleasant testimony to a more spiritually vital past.
Winebrenner was baptized only after a year-long passionate search for biblical truth during which he read the Bible on his knees. The activities of the day he was baptized as a believer were carefully planned. Winebrenner invited his friend, Jacob Erb from the United Brethren Church to immerse him in the Susquehanna River. The event was widely publicized and a large crowd gathered at Winebrenner’s Mulberry Street “bethel” in Harrisburg. Winebrenner preached what became famous as “the 1830 sermon on baptism” based on Ephesians 4:4-5, “There is…one baptism.” Winebrenner followed up by publishing that treatise on baptism in pamphlet form and republished it many times. After Winebrenner preached, Erb and he led a procession two blocks to the river where Erb immersed Winebrenner.
Here’s the stunning truth that mocks the institutional CGGC through the ages:
No matter how you started out in the movement, from that day on, if you were a part of the Church of God, you believed in and practiced Believer’s Baptism by immersion.
Period!
On that day when the Church of God was pure movement, this is how it functioned:
1. It passionately examined Scripture, seeking an increasingly faithful understanding of truth.
2. It empowered a culture in which motion toward truth was natural.
3. When a leader encountered a new truth, he transmitted it into the movement culture which its leadership had already primed to seek and accept new understanding of truth.
4. It engaged in risky leadership which valued truth over the traditions that connected people to an imperfect past.
5. It gave a careful rationale for the change in the understanding of truth and celebrated the move forward through a well-publicized gathering of movement participants.
6. It demanded uncompromising agreement to the new core truth from all movement participants.
7. It refused to seek, to accept or even to tolerate lowest-common-denominator unity.
8. It empowered those who could not continue with the new understanding of truth to leave.
Oh, for a few more July Fourths, 1830 in the Churches of God, General Conference!
Oh, for leadership so radically committed to truth that it engenders a culture of motion, takes risks, goes to the pain of transmitting truth to movement leaders, uncompromisingly demands motion, refuses to seek or tolerate lowest-common-denominator unity and acknowledges the reality that in a movement people sometimes fail to continue to move!
Oh for movement people unshackled from the “never did it that way before” chains that confine them to dungeons of spiritual death!
-----------------------------
I landed in my deepest trouble on this blog for something I wrote on June 26, 2008. What I wrote even earned me concerned but loving phone calls from my friends Brian Miller and Ed Rosenberry.
Here’s some background:
Ed took a group of CGGC leaders to the 2008 Exponential Conference and reported in that week’s eNews article that the CGGC gang was inspired by what it saw and heard. Then Ed wrote, “The key now will be to translate the concepts back into our ministry setting in the Churches of God.”
And, I went ballistic. Here’s just a piece of my intemperate rant:
Translate?
I don’t believe that translating is what we need to do. And, I don’t think that Peter or Paul or Barnabas would have received a word from the Lord and gotten together and said, “Yeah, guys! The key will now be to translate this into the existing ministry setting in the church.”Think about this from a biblical perspective.
Imagine Moses entering Egypt with the words Yahweh spoke from the burning bush burning in his ears. Picture Moses setting out on the task of translating Yahweh’s vision of freedom to a nation of slaves before he went to Pharaoh. If he’d done that, he would have died an old man, having never spoken to Pharaoh. . ..
Imagine Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13 being called to mission then pausing to translate that call to other believers before they responded. Here’s another one: Imagine Paul and Barnabas HAVING TO TRANSLATE their call to the on-fire missional believers in Antioch.
Well, add to that biblical data, July 4, 1830 from our own history.
Imagine John Winebrenner, after spending a year reading Scripture on his knees and being convinced that the correct method of baptism is Believers’ Baptism by immersion once backward concluding, “The key now will be to translate the concepts back into our ministry setting in the Churches of God.” Can you even imagine that happening with Winebrenner?
No. Don’t even try to imagine Winebrenner patiently plodding through on the process of translating.
Better than that, imagine if you can the current shepherd dominated leadership in the CGGC practicing movement style leadership. Imagine it passionately searching Scripture for truth not already chiseled in We Believe granite. Imagine it empowering a culture of motion. Imagine it taking risks because of its love for truth. Imagine it uncompromisingly demanding motion toward truth. Imagine it refusing to tolerate lowest-common-denominator unity. Imagine it taking the position that you either continue to move or you leave the movement. Imagine it empowering people to leave.
All that’s virtually impossible for me even to imagine.
I am convinced that one of our greatest days was that Sunday in July of 1830 in which we did exactly what movements do. We moved. Naturally. Easily.
Because we used to be people of the Word, we valued truth without compromise. We announced and proclaimed the truth openly and carefully. We challenged the whole body to move. We empowered anyone who didn’t want to move simply to go their own way and leave us.
We didn’t translate. We were people on a righteous and spiritual journey consumed by passionate devotion to truth. Without hesitation, we moved!
You know what? That worked for us! No doubt, not everyone moved. Undoubtedly, we lost some people. But, the movement advanced. The ministry moved. It grew in the Spirit.
I’ll repeat it:
Oh for a few more July Fourths, 1830 in the Churches of God, General Conference!
Will we ever see one again?!
posted by bill Sloat at 7:27 AM
37 Comments:
Bill,
I greatly appreciate that you continually point this conversation back to Winebrenner's experience. Someone asked previously, what does it mean to be a CGGCer? One of the major things it means is that we continue to live within the tradition of J. Winebrenner.
Going a step further...
Can we priortize our obligations?
First, we must follow Jesus and the Bible. Which of these is the greater priority is a conversation taken up in another recent thread.
Second, we follow in the footsteps of Winebrenner. This tradition has been developed further by C.H. Forney, S.G. Yahn, etc.
Third, we fall in line more fully with the teachings of James Arminius as opposed to John Calvin.
Thoughts?
bill,
first off, i thank you for the historical research you've done and brought to our attention. a few of questions on those lines:
~what do you mean that winebrenner used "the most radical and controversial methods of the day" to convert sinners? what does that mean for us today?
~do you happen to know where one could find a copy of the "baptism sermon" he preached that day, or of the pamphlet based on it?
~when did the cggc move from reformed soteriology to arminianism? was that in winebrenner's day?
brent,
i think the order you put out is fairly accurate to the stance of the cggc, at least in theory. we follow the truth of God as revealed in the Bible above all. then we look to winebrenner et al for some tradition as to how that truth is interpreted.
it's true that we only hold to a creed or a statement of faith in as much as it is correct Biblically. but in affirming any doctrinal statement, we affirm that what it says is what we believe the Bible teaches, and only by strong Biblical evidence to the contrary will our thoughts on the matters addressed therein be changed.
as far as arminius/calvin, i'm interested in hearing the answer to my question to bill, as to how the cggc went from a reformed view to a "free-will" view. but, as far as "we believe" is the standard of faith in the cggc, the answer to your question is yes.
Brent,
Congrats on being the first person to enter into the conversation--again.
Regarding your questions:
First, we must follow Jesus and the Bible. Which of these is the greater priority is a conversation taken up in another recent thread.
I must admit that I'm at a bit of a loss to know how to respond to this question. I even considered creating a separate thread about this issue.
It seems to me that in order to feel forced to choose between which you follow as a greater priority, Jesus or the Bible, you probably have a very modern view of the Bible.
That view was corrupted first by the Documentary Hypothesis and then later by Dispensationalism. In both cases, it seems to me that the Bible is viewed as nothing more than a carcass awaiting the knife of the butcher is slice it up: It is dead.
I don't view Scriture in that way. I consider it to be 'god-breathed,' i.e., that it itself contains spiritual life in the same way the flesh and blood of the first man became more than flesh and blood when the Lord breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul.
In my mind, the word of God is living and active. (Heb. 4:12) Reading it, immersing oneself in it, meditating on it is to encounter the Lord is a very real and mysterious and intensely spiritual way.
In my opinion, the modern era as far as Scripture is concerned began after Winebrenner's death. He knew nothing of our dead carcass Bible.
Truth be told, I don't think that modernism nor postmodernism nor premodernism can bring us into an adequate understanding of the revelation of God. But, I think that Winebrenner's premodern radicalism has much to recommend it to us. I, for one, can't improve on it.
For me there is no priority in following the living written Word and the living incarnate Word. To engage either is a powerful experience in which one enters into a purely spiritual realm.
Second, we follow in the footsteps of Winebrenner. This tradition has been developed further by C.H. Forney, S.G. Yahn, etc.
Very good point. I noted in the earlier thread that one of the problems I have with We Believe is that it makes it possible for there to be a Winebrenner CGGC doctrine and a We Believe CGGC doctrine.
But, I was simplifying. You are correct. What Winebrenner began was changed very shortly after he died. Forney and Yahn did their best to be faithful to his spirit but, in my opinion, they failed. If I'm right about We Believe, its authors were much less concerned with preserving anything but a skeleton of what Winebrenner began.
Part of what I do here is call us back to the genius of the voice that began this movement. Over the years we have settled for alternatives that are vastly inferior to that.
Third, we fall in line more fully with the teachings of James Arminius as opposed to John Calvin.
To me this is a small point. This Calvin/Arminian thing focuses us on one small aspect of just the doctrine of Soteriology. Yeah, Winebrenner was Arminian. In fact, he took Arminius places he would never have dreamed of going.
But, the real genius of Winebrenner is not in his miniscule contribution to our understanding of the doctrine of salvation. Winebrenner's genius--especially for today--is in his unique construction of the doctrine of the Church.
In an age in which we are rediscovering APEST and are calling into question of validity of the Christendom model of the church, Winebrenner has a lot to teach us.
Bill,
I have a good friend who is preparing to defend his dissertation this week - his topic explores the Civil Rights Movement. I asked his opinion about this blog conversation and this is how he responded:
"Now, to social movements. I have done limited study of social movement theory in general, with most of my knowledge coming from my study of the Civil Rights Movement.
I would venture to say that what gives a movement longevity is having a combination of the theoretical as well as the practical. In looking at any movement, I would say that either one without the other would make for difficulty in the growth and development of the movement.
Now...what triggers a movement is an interesting thought...kind of like which came first, the chicken or the egg??? Would be interested in talking about this further…" [This is the end of my friend's email.]
The reason that I am often the first to jump into the conversation is that I think you bring a necessary level of reflection to this conversation. I can do no better than restate my friend's thoughts when someone asks "Why does Winebrenner matter today?"
This leads to one of my major concerns about the emerging church movement. Often, I feel as though action is emphasized above all else. YES, action must be taken, but it must be thoughtful action and not just "action for the sake of action."
So have the Churches of God ever been a movement, or only followers of one powerful leader early on?
The example of Winebrenner for me is his absolute commitment to the Gospel and God's Word to reform us.
But was he able to leave us with something that could be carried on in the same way?
Winebrenner was on the move, but what after him?
Has any movement in Christian history lasted more than a generation? (possible exception of the first 2 or 3 generations of Christians).
This is continually the rub for me.
I don't know what the solution is.
Dan,
I think you answer one of your own questions. Winebrenner's "absolute commitment to the Gospel and God's Word to reform us" serves as a great starting point and answer to the question of whether Winebrenner was "able to leave us with something that could be carried on" into the future.
Let Winebrenner continue to serve as a guide and model.
I'll let Bill or others answer your question about how long Christian movements have historically been sustained.
But I can say this about what it will take to sustain a movement now and into the future: I firmly believe that it will take a dual commitment to reflective thought about what we should do and why we should do it AS WELL AS a firm commitment to taking action now.
While historical examples should inform our choices, they don't determine our future performance.
Perhaps we're not propelled by an answer - perhaps we're driven by asking the right questions...
Thanks Brent. I think that a deep commitment to the gospel and Scripture is something that probably most folks in our denomination - even the dominate shepherds - accept.
Maybe what we need is some good preaching.
I guess that one of our challenge is to pass the movement - the mission - on in such a way that it keeps moving.
This surely can't be done by producing the right documents or policies alone. Perhaps I'm beginning is sense what Bill's been saying about "We Believe"
How did Winebrenner mentor other leaders to carry the mission on?
Walt,
~what do you mean that winebrenner used "the most radical and controversial methods of the day" to convert sinners? what does that mean for us today?
If you have access to Richard Kern’s book on Winebrenner, check the chapter on ‘The New Measures.’ Kern explains it well.
There were, in that day, may new methods being used to bring about the conversion of sinners. They were extremely controversial. Among them, for instance, was the altar call. Winebrenner was a radical in the methods he used. It was the first form of radicalism he embraced.
~do you happen to know where one could find a copy of the "baptism sermon" he preached that day, or of the pamphlet based on it?
Ed,
I know you read this stuff but are hesitant to enter the conversation. Can you either write an answer here or email it to me so I can pass it on?
Walt, there may be a copy in the archives in Findlay. There are several Winebrenner sermons in print in book form. This sermon may be in one of them. The way Ross describes it, one could still find a copy when he wrote his biography of Winebrenner in 1880.
~when did the cggc move from reformed soteriology to arminianism? was that in winebrenner's day?
Very early. In Winebrenner’s famous 27 point description of the Church of God, it is well established. That first appeared in 1844.
Dan M.,
So have the Churches of God ever been a movement, or only followers of one powerful leader early on?
I don’t agree with the premise of the question that we could not have been a movement when we were following Winebrenner’s leadership. I believe that we certainly were a movement when Winebrenner was our leader.
Again only in my opinion, the spirit of what Winebrenner began fizzled with unusual speed and for a variety of reasons.
One is that he died right before the beginning of the Civil War. The Civil War changed everything in America. Especially in many of the pre-war Christian movements.
Another reason for the rapid loss of the spirit of what Winebrenner began is that the guy who, in my opinion, was his natural successor, G. U. Harn died in battle in the Civil War. Harn was quite a guy. From what I can tell, he was a profoundly charismatic man--almost certainly more than Winebrenner, who would have come across as bookish compared to Harn. Harn was unpolished. The only book I read of his (there may only be one) was chock full of spelling and grammatical errors and was absolutely spellbinding. Who knows what would have happened to the movement if Harn had been able to place his charismatic impact on it for a generation. With his loss, leadership eventually fell on C. H. Forney who was only 21 when Winebrenner died, was in his late 20s when he assumed the role of editor of the Church Advocate and was a great guy, but not a movement guy.
A third reason that comes to mind is the question of how Winebrenner was gifted in the APEST scheme of things. A couple of us who are in the Grassroots Churches Movement are currently disagreeing about whether or not Winebrenner was an apostle by calling. One reason I am the guy who says that he wasn’t is that he didn’t provide a structure that would have empowered the continuation of a movement ethos for the Church of God. Wesley, for instance, who clearly was an apostle, did just that. The Methodists continued to exist as a movement many years after Wesley passed from the scene.
Has any movement in Christian history lasted more than a generation? (possible exception of the first 2 or 3 generations of Christians).
Well, I’ve given the example of the Methodists.
It seems to me that your question raises the importance of the church honoring the reality that the Lord will continue to gift us with apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers until the end of this age. Most movements that fall prey to the shepherds and become institutionalized are generated by prophets or evangelists or people who have some of both callings. Those people are people of principle and truth. They are normally inept at organizing and providing significant ministry structure.
One reason I believe the early Christian movement maintained itself as a movement for so long is that Jesus built it on apostles and the apostles were very concerned with mentoring new apostles.
If we are able to rekindle a movement spirit in the Church of God and are able to build a movement ethos that lasts it will be because we have empowered apostolic leaders to generate movement structures and to mentor future apostles for leadership.
Bill,
What a helpful post. Thanks.
It did seem like I was saying that it wasn't a movement under Winebrenner. Apologies.
That info about the Civil War and loss of a key leader is informative.
Without knowing what you know about the history, I think that you are correct about the differences - and highlighting Wesley. Wesley set up a good 'movement structure.'
So, what does a 'movement structure' look like? I think that this is really important.
I still believe that there is some tension there - between movement and structure' but not unresolvable.
I am excited to see what happens in the near future.
Dan M.,
So, what does a 'movement structure' look like? I think that this is really important.
Key question.
We have some biblical and historical models.
And, in the Body today, we have apostles. Brian and Fran, with whom I am well acquainted, are apostles.
It would really be up to them to answer that question.
I know I sound as if I only have one serious thought, but that is why it is crucial for us to develop a leadership culture in which apostles, prophets, evangelists as well as shepherds and teachers are empowered to live within their callings.
(sorry this is so long)
brent,
your dual commitment to reflecting on our methodology and to acting on it is right on. and while we do need to be fueled and constantly reforming based on a set of questions, we are first and foremost propelled by an answer, namely, the gospel as the answer.
bill,
thank you for pointing to kern's book. the website http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/believers/ has many texts from the cggc, including kern's works and winebrenner's sermon on baptism.
on his "controversial methods", i am wary of the description of the "anxious meetings", and of how some, in that day and ours, have used the altar call for "decisions" that then lead people to a false sense of security, rather than discerning the regeneration of the heart by the Holy Spirit by the fruit produced in their life (cf. matthew 7).
dan m.,
i'm not sure what you think of him in general, but mark driscoll recently gave a very good message on the idea of a movement and its progression, from "movement" to "organization" to "institution" to "museum". i think right now there's a lot of "movement" going on, and it's groups of men like us, acts 29, etc. that are providing organization to those movements, while guarding against the deadly "institutionalism" that can grow out of that.
on that note, bill wrote in the original post, referring to a movement like winebrenner's, that:
"6. It demanded uncompromising agreement to the new core truth from all movement participants.
7. It refused to seek, to accept or even to tolerate lowest-common-denominator unity.
8. It empowered those who could not continue with the new understanding of truth to leave."
my question is, where does one draw the lines of one's own movement, and what boundaries are acceptable to cross, not in complete unity, but for mutual benefit?
i ask this because i grew up in the churches of God, but in recent years have felt convicted that reformed soteriology is the proper understanding of Biblical truth on the matter. after reading winebrenner's 27 points, i still hold to much of what he wrote (trinity, vicarious atonement, credobaptism, premil-ism, etc.) and feel that, while we're not on the same side of every issue, we could still work together for the glory of God.
i also noticed that 2 of winebrenner's 27 points were complete abstention from alcohol (18) and pacifism (20), neither of which seems to be strongly held by the cggc today.
so what do we hold as uncompromising within the movement, which boundaries can we reach across, and where do we draw a line in the sand?
Walt,
I did listen to Driscoll on that. It was good. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next generation. I believe that Acts29 has a lot of strengths in this area of movement structure.
Anybody else familiar with this stuff?
Walt,
I know your remark about the Gospel being the answer was well intentioned, but the questions come about the nature of the Gospel. It rightly makes people nervous when we ask "What is the Gospel?" but I am convinced the Gospel is more than just "Getting saved/a ticket to heaven."
There is a young woman in our church who is a skeptic. But she has been coming to church fairly regularly even after her post-modern Christian husband has stopped coming due to work schedule.
She told me today she was talking to a lady raising money to take a trip to El Salvador. They are planning on doing a number of skits to convince people to come to Christ.
Our skeptic gal, who has been against our ministry in Haiti (we need to take care of people here first) found herself on the offensive. We build schools and hospitals and feed and clothe people in Haiti who are the poorest of the poor. And you're doing skits?!
It is truly a question of the Gospel, and my skeptic gal is slowly getting it.
Dan-
You asked "Anybody else familiar with this stuff? If that question is in reference to Acts 29, I am very familiar with the group. We almost planted with them almost 4 years ago, before seeking out help from the CGGC.
They are a very active group that does have a fairly liquid movement structure. The reason we chose nt to plant with them is I didn't think I could carry the arrogance/ Sarcasm factor that a majority of thier preachers have.
I want to make clear I don't think their style is wrong. Their attitude attracts alot of people. It must be working they have a 96% success rate in planting viable churches. In fact I listen Mark preach every monday while I'm at my secular job.
Mark has been putting out alot of books recently all of wich I have found as good reads. He is truly the mouth peice and figure head of Acts 29. He also isn't the most accessable of people to try to talk to unless your at an Acts 29 Boot Camp. The person I find most helpful when it comes to guidance is Darrin Patrick. He is on the board of A29 and Pastors at the Journey in St. Louis. He will give time to you and direction if you ever need resources or help from A29.
You also can get a ton of info at Acts29.org. I will warn though the group is nearly Hyper Calvinist. Or at least very Reformed.
I hope this helps a little.
brian,
i can understand, to some extent, what you mean. i'm not sure if perhaps a new thread would be a better place to discuss this, but perhaps "what's the gospel?" is something that would be helpful to define on here. that's the center of the question i asked earlier:
what do we hold as core (where we draw a line in the sand, the hills we die on, so to speak), what boundaries can we reach across (there's disagreement, but we still count them as brothers and partners in kingdom work), and what uniquely defines us?
justin,
it's good to hear your take on acts 29, and that it seems there can be bridges built between us.
your criticism of sarcasm, no one would deny, and the youth of their guys tends to lead to arrogance, though i've been encouraged in how driscoll and other leaders have been speaking out against that and trying to repent of their own.
just one question: when you say "hyper calvinist", do yo mean that they are very firmly and enthusiastically reformed, or that they're like the guys spurgeon was fighting that said "well, God's sovereign, so i don't have to do anything"? i doubt you mean the latter with the amount of planting and evangelism they do, but i don't have any first-hand experience with them.
this probably is a separate thread, but I can't start threads.
It was great to recently hear Driscoll say that Acts 29 is first Christian, and then Evangelical, and Then Reformed. His point was that Evangelicals are all on the same team - not rivals. I think we'd be wise to adopt a similar model with our distinctives replacing 'Reformed.'
They are certainly not hyper-calvinists, but yes unapologetically reformed (and strongly complementarian).
This is unrelated to this post, but related to Dan M.'s comment...
If I am not mistaken anyone can become a 'contributor' on this blog by contacting Brian Miller and asking to be one. This way you can "start threads" too.
I was actually just talking about this with someone else this morning. If someone knows about this for sure (Brian?), perhaps they can let it be known.
I also believe there was once a way to have comments/posts sent by email every time a new one was made, but I don't remember how one can go about doing this, or if it is still even possible. Does anyone know?
I should have said exclusive Calvinist instead of Hyper. To plant (not associate) with them you have to be strongly reformed in theology. They will partner with other evangelicals to build the kingdom or get ideas/ share ideas but that is the limit.
I passed their assesment (I tend to lean reformed), but I didn't feel God directing me that direction. Instead he lead me to CGGC. Where, to me, the theological debate over Calvinism/ Arminianism can be secondary or even third level and we can focus on just Loving God, Loving People.
And maybe another reason I didn't fit in was I'm not big on teaching reformed theology in church. 85% of Marks Sermons include reformed teaching. I don't think Arminians are wrong, I just don't always see things the way they do.
Gang,
Thanks to all of you who have posted comments on this thread.
It would bless me if you would answer a few questions related to the eight characteristics I identified regarding the way the Church of God functioned as a movement on that day:
1. It passionately examined Scripture, seeking an increasingly faithful understanding of truth.
2. It empowered a culture in which motion toward truth was natural.
3. When a leader encountered a new truth, he transmitted it into the movement culture which its leadership had already primed to seek and accept new understanding of truth.
4. It engaged in risky leadership which valued truth over the traditions that connected people to an imperfect past.
5. It gave a careful rationale for the change in the understanding of truth and celebrated the move forward through a well-publicized gathering of movement participants.
6. It demanded uncompromising agreement to the new core truth from all movement participants.
7. It refused to seek, to accept or even to tolerate lowest-common-denominator unity.
8. It empowered those who could not continue with the new understanding of truth to leave.
------------------------
Would you personally like to see the CGGC function in this way today? Why or why not?
If so, what do you think people like us who blog here can/should do to promote that sort of movement culture?
How do you think it would impact the CGGC as it exists today if there was a concerted, intentional and apostle-led effort to return the church to a movement ethos?
I'm yearning to know what you think.
bill
Bill,
Yes, it would be nice to get answers to questions that are asked on here, wouldn't it. :)
I'll throw mine out there, even though I am not the most informed of people - especially about Winebrenner - and, to be honest, I may not even understand the questions as you're asking them. But this is my opinion.
Personally, I would NOT like to see the CGGC function in this way. The biggest reason being the issue of trust. And I don't say that to imply that anyone is not trust-worthy, but *I* don't necessarily have that level of trust in any one.
As kind of an aside even - something that I've been thinking throughout this whole thread too - I don't even know that I trust following John W. 100%. Just something about that seems a bit cultish to me. But, then, I can tend to be on the negative/pessimistic side. But that's my gut feeling.
When I see words like "uncompromised agreement" and "refusal to accept or tolerate", that makes me nervous. It also seems to lack grace and mercy.
I am all for "empowering" though. And, for what it's worth, I thought we used to do a half-way decent job of that. Not "telling people what to do", but equipping, encouraging, empowering people to follow where the Spirit was leading them (which would, of course, be in their seeking of the truth). THAT is what I don't see happening now. Just in my opinion, there seems to be a real guardedness rather than an openness. I mean, just a small example... I was in Findlay last week, and thought about stopping at the headquarters, but then it occurred to me that... I don't even know if I would be welcome there. Not that there's any reason I shouldn't be, but there just doesn't seem to be that *openness* there. And if there's not even that kind of openness, then I really don't want someone to be telling me that I've got to believe "this" or else I need to leave. And I realize that you're maybe talking about a different atmosphere, but... I don't know... I would still be leary. So, maybe it's me that has the problem instead. :)
But maybe I have misread your point entirely, and that's not what you're talking about. You know, I used to brag on our denomination as sort of a "non-denominational denomination." Maybe I was wrong to think that. But that's how I liked it. This stuff, honestly, tends to scare me a little. But again, maybe I'm misreading; and this is just my opinion. Thanks for asking.
Dan H.,
A few questions about your answer:
Do you think that what we did regarding Winebrenner's baptism and the changing of our faith and practice regarding baptism, as I have described it in those eight characteristics, was a bad thing?
If you were connected to the movement in that day, would you have balked? Would you have been one of the people who accepted the empowerment to leave the movement?
Dan H.,
One more question (If you don't feel comfortable answering this on the blog, please email me):
You say,
"Personally, I would NOT like to see the CGGC function in this way. The biggest reason being the issue of trust. And I don't say that to imply that anyone is not trust-worthy, but *I* don't necessarily have that level of trust in any one."
I think you are isolating a huge issue. I think that Winebrenner was trusted. He could do what he did and lead a movement because he had engendered enough trust to serve as a genuine leader capable of leading a radical movement. In addition to that, the people who were attracted into the movement were willing to give their trust.
Who/what don't you trust?
Bill,
What you present is a vision of a "permission giving" environment as opposed to a "permission withholding" environment. I see nothing about committees, votes, or formal gatherings. There you go again, using the Bible as your example. Obviously you need more MBA training...
So, how would this impact the current CGGC? It would gut the existing system. At heart, I think we (CGGC) hold a congregational polity but try to function in too formal a fashion.
It would require working from the ground up. A few examples: Churches should focus on teaching children about Jesus - it's NOT the exclusive job of church camps. Leadership should be trained and equipped locally - it's NOT the exclusive job of the Winebrenner Seminary.
I posted this a few weeks ago, but it comes to mind again. Here are some additional questions to consider:
- What characteristics (or virtues) do we most desire in our leadership?
- What practices are necessary to develop, sustain, and celebrate those characteristics?
- How do we develop a leadership structure to promote those positive practices?
- What tradition do we desire to pass along to our children?
One of the potential problems of institutionalism is that we take our by-laws or belief statements and attempt to fit everyone into the same mold. The questions above work from the other perspective - we start with the outcomes we desire and build a structure from there.
Many here, myself included, can speak about the struggles of trying to change the system.
Bill,
Questions 1:
Okay, when you put it like that a little light turned on. In that regard, yes, I think the change in baptism was a good thing. It takes me a while to digest some of this stuff.
Would I have followed John or not? Hmm... that's hard to say. Partly because I don't know that much about him, and partly because - for me - there is usually a lot more involved than whether a person is right or not. That's probably a lame excuse, but I think that's the reality with most people. And there are plenty of examples of people who placed their trust in people, and followed, and then drank the cool-aid. But if he was as you paint him, then, yes, I like to think I would have followed him. But, as has been suggested in earlier questions, I don't know how many generations these things can be carried through. Could it be that what John started wasn't able to be carried on, and cannot be restarted? Can we restart a movement that died, or does there need to be a new movement entirely?
Question 2:
See above. And... yes, I agree that I isolated a huge issue. Sorry about that, and I hope it doesn't take away from what you intended. I was just talking off the top of my head. You asked for "why/why not" and that is the biggest issue for me at present. I don't know that it even has to do with a person, or just the whole ...aura. Or maybe it's just me personally (and that is probably it). I feel totally disconnected from the denomination. And I know people are trying, but even the communications I receive just don't connect with me. They seem generic and bland. And there seem to be a lot of opposing forces; a lot of elephants in the room - or at least what appear to be elephants to me - and I never know if it's just my imagination or if other people see them too.
The summation of all that is that I'm probably just not a very trusting person in general, and I hope this doesn't interfere with the conversation you intended. :)
Brent,
What you present is a vision of a "permission giving" environment as opposed to a "permission withholding" environment. I see nothing about committees, votes, or formal gatherings. There you go again, using the Bible as your example. Obviously you need more MBA training...
Close, but my dream goes even beyond that.
When I read Acts 1-6 I see what can only be described from a human level as chaos as a goal.
Look for order and organization in Acts 2:42-47.
Imagine the apostles hearing that Greek speaking widows were being ignored when food was distributed saying, "That's not our deal. It would be WRONG for us to handle that problem. Fix the problem yourselves so we can focus on prayer and the ministry of the Word."
I believe that that kind of spirit-driven chaos is what Winebrenner was about on the day he was baptized. He was actually directly changing a theological belief and church ritual as foundational as what was the Sacrament of infant baptism into what instantly became the Ordinance of believers' baptism.
Because of the nature of my calling as a prophet, I groove on that kind of (humanly speaking) erratic and ecstatic life in the Spirit. When I entered the post, I naively assumed that all y'all'd also want that.
But, it has occurred to me that one reason that we are not moving toward a movement ethos is that perhaps even many of us here don't want that.
Re:
- What characteristics (or virtues) do we most desire in our leadership?
- What practices are necessary to develop, sustain, and celebrate those characteristics?
- How do we develop a leadership structure to promote those positive practices?
- What tradition do we desire to pass along to our children?
Great questions.
Before answering them I'll give them some thought.
Bill,
I answered "no" to your previous question, but when you put it into these "chaos" terms then it is "YES." THAT is what I would like to see too. I guess I failed to see the "permission giving environment" until Brent mentioned it. Maybe my confusion is in trying to see what you were saying through the current lens of our present structure.
Dan H.,
Would I have followed John or not? Hmm... that's hard to say. Partly because I don't know that much about him, and partly because - for me - there is usually a lot more involved than whether a person is right or not.
Perhaps, then, the answer is yes. If you knew him well enough and you believed him to be a man of integrity and you accepted what he said about baptism in that sermon, you would have. Is that correct?
One thing about a movement is that to be a part of it is always to live in the present. Winebrenner had made the change to practicing feet washing two years earlier. In succeeding years, he'd move further and further away from Reformed theology. It's possible that people who bought the feet washing and baptism change'd leave at a later point.
Being in a movement does not offer the security of being in an institution. That's one reason that most people settle for the institution.
But, know this: New Testament Christianity was movement Christianity. You will never what that was like unless you make the decision to live in the moment in the Spirit.
As far as the trust issue is concerned, you are correct to raise it. It is an issue for all of us to one degree or another. Some of us may be excited about the idea of movement but also be convinced that the current leadership has no capacity to lead it. We'd join a movement just not THAT movement.
Let me be clear in saying that what I'm advocating must be, as I am able to discern it, a movement of the Spirit, not movement for the excitement of being on the move.
Dan,
I answered "no" to your previous question, but when you put it into these "chaos" terms then it is "YES." THAT is what I would like to see too. I guess I failed to see the "permission giving environment" until Brent mentioned it. Maybe my confusion is in trying to see what you were saying through the current lens of our present structure.
Perhaps the problem is that I communicate these things poorly.
Perhaps it is that the paradigm of movement is so very different from what we experience now, that it is hard to imagine, even for those of us who yearn for it.
Perhaps a little of both.
I like most of what you asked in your series of questions.
My question/concern is, how detailed must our unity be? I would agree with not accepting 'lowest common denominator' unity, but I am currently pleased that we don't require specific belief on issues like eschatology. What if some leaders came in and said dispensationalism is truth. If we had to adhere or leave, I probably be on the way out.
All that to say, there needs to be real and deep unity but also flexibility. How do we find that sweet stop?
On Acts:
I think some of that chaos was unique in how fast things were happening, how they were making sense of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the relationship between Judaism and faith in Jesus being primary, dealing with questions, problems, opposition, leadership for the first time all at once.
Some of this chaos was one time stuff. There are many elements of the early church that we must recapture, but using that as the only lens and ideal is mistaken in my estimation. The church became more established in the years to come. Paul and the apostles sought stability.
Movement is not always chaotic. I believe that the must be both elements or stability and chaos.
Dan M.,
My question/concern is, how detailed must our unity be? I would agree with not accepting 'lowest common denominator' unity, but I am currently pleased that we don't require specific belief on issues like eschatology. What if some leaders came in and said dispensationalism is truth. If we had to adhere or leave, I probably be on the way out.
That's a good point. A very, very good point.
It seems to me that being in a movement is to be about the task of keeping the important thing the important thing.
What amazes me about what Winebrenner did is that he did it with a belief and practice as foundational as the doctrine and mode of baptism.
And, I think that the reality that he was able to accomplish what he did is that he most likely would only have done something like this with a teaching and practice as foundational baptism.
The reality is that he didn't make an issue about so fine a point as dispensationalism. He made it out of a big issue like baptism.
I believe that if we were a movement again, we would know what is theologically important and what is not.
Because we're an institution our doctrine is a mess.
Dan M.,
Paul and the apostles sought stability.
Movement is not always chaotic. I believe that the must be both elements or stability and chaos.
Could you define what you mean by stability and give examples of Paul and the apostles working to achieve it? I'm not entirely sure that stability is the best word for what they sought, but I'm willing to give you a chance to convince me.
Bill,
I've been thinking about your eight characteristics, and perhaps I was a bit premature in my judgment of them. I was merely trying to give some input. Rarely, if ever, is anything I say on here something hard and fast. I still see this as a place for conversation; a place to throw out ideas. And I appreciate your 'throwing them out there.'
In looking over your list, and in light of follow-up discussion, I don't have near as much of a problem, and, in fact, really like some of these things. I think an issue for me is often verbage/wordage, and not so much the idea. It usually takes awhile for the ideas to sink in.
Thoughts...
I like #1. Hard to argue with passionately examining Scripture.
I like #2. I think an empowering culture is absolutely necessary.
#3... yeah. I'm not exactly sure what this means, but no red flags.
#4 is good too. "Risky" is a risky word, but I like what it conveys in valuing truth over traditions.
I like #5. "Careful rationale"... "well-publicized"... yes. This means COMMUNICATION, right? And not just times and dates.
#6... I think I see where this is coming from. Still, my gut is uncomfortable with the wording. Demanding uncompromising agreement... It's hard for me to filter this through my present lens.
#7 is similar to 6 for me. I think I know what you mean, but it sounds a bit militaristic. However, I agree this is necessary for a movement. I just wish I could get a different mental image.
#8... Yes, again, I like the empowering idea. We are not enemies here.
You know, I keep coming back to the trust issue though. I wish we could get some interaction on Brent's questions - especially the one about "what characteristics/virtues do we most desire in our leadership?" For me, it has to start with an authenticity/honesty/integrity mix. That's why I have such a hard time with the lack of communication, or poor, or partial communication. And that's why I hate being ignored and/or patronized.
On another thought... as far as the "chaos" issue. I don't think you mean 'total' chaos. But don't you mean it more in a sense of "lack of institutional control"? I mean, for people grounded in the Word, and intent on following the Spirit, it would not just be madness. But it would not be as "programmed" maybe. It would allow for more fluidity and freedom of ... movement. Correct?
Dan H.,
Good post. Good comments and questions. No doubt, I will not do them justice.
Re: Characteristic 6.
"6. It demanded uncompromising agreement to the new core truth from all movement participants."
Looking to the actual event, from that time forward in Winebrenner's movement it was understood that Believer's Baptism was the teaching and the practice. There was no longer a menu to choose from, as had been the case up to that point.
If you wanted to be a born again, revivalist type person and still accepted infant baptism you could become a Methodist or a United Brethren person. Church of God people still worked with those folks and supported their efforts. But, from that day forward to share in the Winebrenner led movement, only Believers' Baptism was taught and practiced.
Re: Characteristic 7.
"7. It refused to seek, to accept or even to tolerate lowest-common-denominator unity."
Well, in a movement there are those points in which there is no bending. Dan M. raised the issue of dispensationalism as a good example. In an age in which almost every revivalist was a postmillennialist--that's right, post-MILLENNIALIST--Winebrenner was a premillennialist. He listed that position in 1844 among his 27 points. Premillennialism in its broadest from was as specific as Winebrenner was willing to get. He didn't choose eschatology as a hill for the movement to die on. He did choose that with Believer's Baptism. On that point and a few others, within the movement, there was no compromise.
You say,
You know, I keep coming back to the trust issue though. I wish we could get some interaction on Brent's questions - especially the one about "what characteristics/virtues do we most desire in our leadership?" For me, it has to start with an authenticity/honesty/integrity mix. That's why I have such a hard time with the lack of communication, or poor, or partial communication. And that's why I hate being ignored and/or patronized.
I, too, yearn for some conversation on Brent's questions. Because I carry so big a stick and scream so loudly here, I'm hoping for others' input before I make my comments.
In my mind an authenticity/honesty/integrity mix is an essential starting point.
In my region, I see no problems there. We have four staff people. All of them pass that test with flying colors.
However, the Shepherd Mafia exists here now in a way that it has never existed before. One problem I have with the Shepherd Mafia is that it is unwilling to empower characteristics/virtues other than those of the shepherd.
It feels to me as if everything I do here that is prophetic in nature is rejected and, since I won't allow anything that I believe to be of the Spirit to be patronized or dismissed, I end up in fights all the time here.
ALL THE TIME!
I've got several fights going on right now.
I believe that the New Testament ideal is that there be a diversity of leadership characteristics/virtues that must be not only desired but intentionally empowered. But, I also believe that the symbiotic mix of the apostles' passion for mission and the prophets' mania for truth need to predominate and form the foundation for leadership.
I believe that one of the reasons that we are in so rapid and serious a decline is that we only empower the values of the shepherd.
As far as what I mean by chaos is concerned: I mean that on the human level what the Spirit does seems to be chaotic. That's what was going on in Acts 1-6. People were livng in the Spirit. They were gathering in each other's homes to take the Lord's Supper. They were laying large amonnts of money at the Apostles' feet to be given to whomever "as he had need." Organization was arrived at reactively, not proactively and to as minimal a degree as possible so that, when the Greek widows were starving the Apostles gave only cursory attention to how the problem would be handled and absolutely DEMANDED that they be permitted to focus, first of all, on prayer, second to the ministry of the Word and there was no third on that list.
The value they had in mind is that all believers would be living as deeply in the spirit as possible at all times.
On a human level, that seems to be chaos. That's all I mean.
Here is a story from my neck of the woods of how the institution and the movement can be in conflict and the result be not so good for the institution. This is the story of one of the fastest growing churches in the UMC a denomination on the decline.
"Today was an interesting day for GracePoint church. Bryson announced his resignation from GracePoint United Methodist Church and announced the start of GracePoint Community Church, and he will be lead pastor. Basically, the staff and most church leaders will be going to the new church. I can't imagine the turmoil this puts the church conference in right now. The whole deal leaves me quite melancholy and sanguine at the same time. I've posted my own frustrations with the UM church here and my withdrawal from the system here.
Yet, I love the UM church because of its solid doctrine (if followed), its adherence to the Bible, and because I was nurtured by her and came to know Jesus as my Lord and Savior through her. Even with all that, though, the UM church has been called by many from within as the Titanic - a sinking ship... it's just a matter of time before it goes down. And, I hope I'm wrong but I think that's an accurate portrayal. Frankly, the church has enough resources to last a long time - and many UM congregations are doing great work in communities all over this country. But unless there's a major overhaul in structure and leadership, I don't see how the church can last.
My heart hurts with GracePoint's withdrawal because there are some very good churches doing God's Will and winning people to Jesus in the church. Alot of people I look up to and trust most are pastors in the UM church. Yet, I see why it would be frustrating - and almost impossible - to plant a church within the system. The UM system puts up so many walls for a new church (and churches that wish to change and get rid of the box that everyone says to think outside of) that it's very difficult for people to understand any reason to be a part of the system anymore. I'm afraid that the UM church needs to ask itself why something like this would happen. They can blame Bryson, they can blame egos, they can blame alot of people and things, but the system itself should ask the really hard questions. But it won't. It can't.
John Wesley once said,
"I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out."
We may be seeing this fear from the founder of the movement unfolding."
Second article: "The United Methodist Church's commitment to a new church start in northwest Sedgwick County remains strong a day after the leadership of GracePoint United Methodist Church announced plans to leave the denomination and begin a new community church of the same name.
"We want the membership of this congregation to know that we are deeply committed to this church and that we hope they will continue to be part of GracePoint UMC," said Kansas Area United Methodist Bishop Scott Jones.
GracePoint United Methodist Church will continue to worship at Maize South Middle School at 37th Street North and Tyler Road. Jones and the district superintendents are working to name an interim pastor this week and plan to introduce the new pastor to the congregation at 11 a.m. worship Sunday, March 8.
"We would have liked to have some opportunity to discuss this in advance to see if the issue could have been resolved in a different way," Jones said. "While we knew there was some disagreement about the church's desire to expand faster than we were able to support, we were unaware of Rev. Bryson Butts' decision to leave the United Methodist Church."
Butts has surrendered his clergy credentials in the United Methodist Church and is no longer a United Methodist minister."
I post this to show we are not the only ones with this struggle. What can we learn from these others. How can we prevent the mistakes that they have made? Just some thoughts I found interesting.
Justin,
Thanks for sharing these stories. I would like to think the cggc does not suffer from as severe an institutionalism as the umc, but it's also true that we have never had their level of "success" (I don't like that word - but was thinking of number of churches, spread, etc.). However, stuff like this worries me, because I think it can happen pretty easily when we lose our focus; when we fail to keep the main thing the main thing. And it's quite possibly beginning to happen in our own denomination right now.
So, this raises the question in my mind... what purpose should the denomination serve? I have asked before for a reason we should stay (and I'm asking anyone, not just Justin). If our clergy credentials are the only thing at stake (and i would question if they're even at stake in the cggc), what are some reasons for our affiliation as such? And I'm not asking to try to create discord, but I am seriously curious. I keep asking and asking (on this blog and off it), and I don't think anyone has ever given an answer.
Post a Comment
<< Home