We Believe 2.0
Gang,
I’ve been reading over the new version of We Believe since it was first posted on line in early October. I have four comments and I hope that they will evoke important and meaningful dialog about who we are as a body.
-----------------------------------------
In my opinion, We Believe 2.0 must be sent back to the drawing board.
Let me say from the beginning that I know some of the people are who are on the committee who put this draft together. I consider several of them to be my friends. I love all those people and I respect them. I believe that they are all deeply committed to the Lord. I know that they love the CGGC and the whole Body of Christ. What I write here is not personal criticism. However, I think that the document they presented for our consideration will be bad for the CGGC.
Here are my four comments:
1. We Believe 2.0 diminishes the authority of the Word.
When John Winebrenner was leading the Church of God and the Church of God was a vital, edgy Spirit-empowered movement, Winebrenner described us in this way:
“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, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have.”
We Believe is something on that list of things Winebrenner says we don't have: A creed or a church standard or a test-book. Whatever it is, its role is to stand between the Bible and us. From the beginning, we have opposed the creation of that sort of document.
There is something about a movement that makes institution people uncomfortable. There is, in a movement, what looks like disorder and chaos. The church in the New Testament was a movement. Read Acts 1-15. There was so much leading of the Spirit that, as Reggie McNeal puts it, the disciples were struggling to catch up.
The New Testament church never made a concerted effort to codify the content of its faith.
Recently, we have invited Reggie McNeal to speak at IMPACT and at several of our Conference Sessions. We’ve booked him to resource the Missional Leadership Initiative. Ed Rosenberry appeared at the Eastern Regional Conference this year encouraging the delegates to read Alan Hirsch’s great book, The Forgotten Ways.
McNeal and Hirsch share an emphasis that was core to Winebrenner’s thought: The Western Church must throw away the Christendom version Christianity.
The new We Believe and its predecessor advocate Christendom.
Has it occurred to you that the Christendom Era began in AD 313 with Emperor Constantine and that the first major achievement of Constantinian Christianity was the creation of the Creed?
One of the most amazing realities of human history is that the Jesus movement was just that for almost 300 years. It was a movement. It had no creed. Emperor Constantine’s first success in transforming Christianity from movement to institution was to begin to codify the content of Christian faith. That’s what the Nicene Creed began to do.
John Winebrenner knew that efforts to codify belief kill Spirit, kill passion, kill movement.
Since 1925 the Churches of God has played a clever semantic game. It has said, “We don’t have a Creed. We have a Doctrinal Statement.”
Hogwash.
Winebrenner knew how to start and continue a movement. If we want to become a movement again, we need to heed his words and take radical action to make them true once again:
“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, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have.”
We Believe codifies the content of our belief. It institutionalizes our faith. It creates order. It promotes tranquility. It dulls edge. It quenches spirit. It steals from us the need to do what Winebrenner did in the late 1820s, that is, to read the Scriptures on his knees. We need to get rid of our creed. We need to foster raw faith in the Word. We need to open our Bibles and fall on our knees again.
We Believe makes it possible for us to be a homogenous institution and gives us no room for the raw and edgy spirituality of a movement. It is spiritual Prozac. It gives a peaceful mind but not necessarily peace with God.
If we want to be a movement again. If we want to shed the shackles of institutionalism, we have to send We Believe back to the drawing board.
2. We Believe 2.0 is sectarian, church-centered and internally-focused, not Kingdom-oriented.
There are two passages in 2.0 that I embrace. If we send 2.0 back to the drawing board, I would want both of these statements to rule 2.1. One of the two appears in the section on Last Things. This is the statement:
“We believe there are honest differing understandings regarding details or how last things will unfold.”
This is a Kingdom-focused sentence. It connects us to the rest of the Body. It doesn’t distinguish us from it.
In recent years, we have invited Reggie McNeal to motivate us to build the Kingdom. Two times, we have made his books Book of the Year. We have promoted and discussed Alan Hirsch’s The Forgotten Ways and we have valued, in theory at least, the call to build Christ’s Kingdom.
Yet, read 2.0. That one sentence in the section on Last Things is the only sentence I found that respects what we have in common with others in the Kingdom more than it focuses on puny differences that separate us.
There are points at which 2.0 is so sectarian that it is actually offensive to me. The section on Feetwashing is one example.
The Church of God was the first among many recent movements to teach that followers of Jesus practice Feet Washing.
We can take some pride in the fact that much of the new life in the body of Christ since the early 1800s, especially in the West, follows John Winebrenner on Feet Washing. Much of the Holiness and Pentecostal Movements understood, as Winebrenner did, that people who live out a radical New Testament lifestyle need to take John 13 literally.
Honestly, the Feet Washing section of 2.0 breaks my heart.
I agree with Winebrenner that to follow Jesus in a radical way requires obedience to His words, “Now that I your Lord and Teacher have washed your feet, you also should was one another’s feet.” And, to be fair, 2.0 does affirm Feet Washing.
But, 2.0 affirms Feet Washing in a hyper-sectarian way (as does the original for that matter). It ignores the amazing reality that millions of brothers and sisters share our conviction on Feet Washing. It makes an issue of one point of difference that distinguishes us from every other believer in Jesus Christ on the earth. It argues that we believe that Feet Washing commemorates the incarnation. (More about that later.)
The new We Believe could affirm our connection to the larger community of believers. It could even proudly affirm our important leadership in this area of belief. But, it chooses to emphasize our disagreement with the rest of Christ’s Body. In this way it is sectarian. It works to diminish Kingdom, not to build it.
The new We Believe is all about how we are distinct. It sets us apart as insular. It is all about CGGC as church. It highlights ways we are different from the rest of the Kingdom. It is aggressive sectarianism. It will serve to kill Kingdom thinking in our body.
Gang, if you care about Kingdom, you cannot let this stand.
3. We Believe 2.0 is irrelevant.
I said that there are two passages in 2.0 that I love. One of them is in the last section. The other is in the Introduction. The Introduction is a marvelous beginning to the document. It sets the correct tone. It says,
“As the family of God moves forward on its journey each generation needs to come to grips anew with the faith once delivered to the saints.”
Amen.
And, when I first read the Introduction, I was thinking about the things we say we are for now:
Movement
Kingdom
Mission
Based on the Introduction, I expected that this document would be—to use Winebrenner’s term—a “manifesto" that would empower us to shift from institutionalism to movement, from internal to external focus and from church-centric thinking to Kingdom orientation and from tired traditionalism to missionality.
This document is not about movement or Kingdom or mission. It ignores the challenges of our day. It merely re-answers questions that were hot 80 or 180 years ago.
When I read Winebrenner’s 27 Points from the 1840s I know exactly what the point is. The point is that the Church of God strives to be the New Testament Church in its time and place.
When I read the 1925 Doctrinal Statement, I know exactly what the point is. In the midst of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Debate, the Churches of God declared, as clearly as it could, that it proclaims the historic Christian message.
When I read the original We Believe I have no difficulty knowing what the point is. The point is that we’ve had a liberal seminary in the recent past have flirted with liberalism but our conservatives have won. We’ve also noted the emergence of Evangelicalism from the womb of Fundamentalism and we have chosen a very moderate, shepherd-oriented way of being Evangelical. That’s the point of the original.
In each of those statements of our faith and practice there was a point—one controlling truth that was clearly proclaimed.
In our own time we are struggling with life and death issues of institution v. movement, church v. Kingdom, internal v. external focus and missionalism v. the Christendom model of the church. In any other age, a Church of God statement of faith and practice would have taken a clear stand on those issues.
I defy you to characterize for me where 2.0 comes out on any of these defining issues of this generation.
The new We Believe is irrelevant. It says nothing to our age. If you care about the CGGC facing its future with clarity and focus, you need to send 2.0 back to the drawing board.
4. We Believe doesn’t describe what we believe.
That wouldn’t bother me, if it was leading us.
Winebrenner’s 27 points and the 1925 Statement and the original We Believe didn’t actually describe a consensus. They cast vision for a new consensus. If 2.0 cast a vision for what we hope to become, I’d be shouting halleluiah. If it described a future CGGC—a missional, Kingdom-focused movement I’d be praising it.
But—and I’m speaking very personally here—in the ways it fails to represent our consensus it merely serves up moldy leftovers.
Here are two connected examples.
First, the new We Believe joins the original and insists that C. H. Forney’s fivefold definition of an ordinance is what we believe.
Perhaps you don’t even know what that means. Rejecting Winebrenner (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, in an attempt to correct Winebrenner), Forney argued that an ordinance is defined by five characteristics. It:
Is commanded by Divine Authority
Involves Material Elements
Portrays Redemptive History
Denotes Spiritual Experience
Requires Formal Observance.
I don’t believe that.
Based on 35 years of whispered conversations with others in ministry in the CGGC many of you don’t believe it either. You may pay lip service to it to receive and maintain credentials, but many of you honestly don’t believe that.
And...
...John Winebrenner didn’t believe it either.
I am so purely Winebrennerian on this issue that you couldn't tell his thought from mine. But, according to 2.0 (and the original as well) what I believe is not what we believe.
Second, I don’t believe that the ordinance of Feet Washing commemorates the incarnation of Jesus—another idea we take from Forney. 2.0 says, “We believe in the ordinance of feetwashing as a celebration of the incarnation.”
I don’t believe that. I suspect that many in the CGGC don’t believe that and John Winebrenner certainly didn’t believe it.
According to Winebrenner, Jesus created the ordinance of Feet Washing, “To symbolize or represent the two cardinal graces of the Christian character--humility and love”
And, that is what I believe.
Neither version of We Believe describes what I believe or what others who whisper to me believe. But, more to the point, it opposes what John Winebrenner believed. It leaves no room for a person in the church to be a Winebrennerian.
It cannot be, therefore, what we believe. If you care about what we believe, I hope you will join me in the opinion that this draft has to be sent back for more work.
So, I have problems with the draft of 2.0 that is being circulated. I love the people who put it together but I love the Lord, the mission and the Kingdom more. I think 2.0 is bad and wrong and that it casts the wrong vision for our future.
Please care about this. Please care about the raw authority of the Word. Please care about Kingdom. Please care about relevance. Please care about the consensus we hope to build for this generation.
Read the draft over. Tell us if you agree that the draft must be redone.
2.0 must go!
posted by bill Sloat at 11:40 AM
16 Comments:
Bill,
If I may, I would like to first say I think I really like your Winebrenner and wish I could get a time machine and meet him.
Our church is about to celebrate our one year anniversary. While we are as proud as punch over surviving that first critical year, we are struggling with an issue. That issue is a disconnectedness from the rest of the body of Christ and we really want to share in a "cross pollination" of communities and people and resources. To the point, we feel isolated and alone and that pains us.
We are looking for a larger association to join, not just to join, but to be a part of something. We genuinely feel that we have a lot to offer and we also feel we have a lot to learn.
In this dance to marry into a larger body we have had dates with Ed from CGGC, Dr Heckman from the FCA, and Rebecca from the Emergent Village. I will be very honest with you when I say that I held off for the longest time on talking to the EV. But now comes the rub and this is in no way meant to recriminate anyone for everyone we have spoken with have been good and decent people who are honestly seeking God.
We have had two hurdles that have impacted us as a community from taking some directions seriously. The most critical one has been the FCA statement of faith and a shared concern that you have with We Believe 2.0. While I do not agree with all the positions of McLaren, Jones, Ward, and others who are a part of the village, the embracing of the principle of the conversation means that we do not have to ascribe to be a part of a statement of faith and our form of worship and whatever we choose to believe on substitutional atonement are not impacted, and yet, we get to be a part of a movement and we still have an opportunity to discourse with those who disagree with us.
The other part is the cross pollination of communities. Conferences and committees are what is being offered by the FCA and CGGC, where "cohorts" which are kinda like small groups that multiple emerging churches can all take part of with no one owning them are being offered. Real community and real oneness of joined communities sharing stories and lives and resources. Also a preservation of movement over institution is in play.
So, at this juncture, it looks like the bridge we will be building is with the EV. The one thing they do not offer is cash and the CGGC and FCA do have funds, but the strings attached such as 2.0 diminish what we want to be and what we have the potential to be. I would rather walk away from much needed funding and embrace a movement.
Here is the rub for me. The leaders that I have met here are amazing. You, Brian, Fran, Brent, and many others do nothing but challenge me and enrich me with your thoughts and your insights and your passions. I check this blog every day to read your words and I will continue to do so.
Now this is not just me. In my quest to end isolation I have made friends with two smaller churches that meet in houses that are both more than an hour away from me, but we have made a joint pact to have our communities meet at least once a month and share all the things we wanna share to not be a alone and all three of us are looking for some form of association to feel even less isolated. Their communities are of the same mind I am as we have all explored the same three options.
So, Bill, to cut to the chase, I am saying this. Not only do I and two other small communities resonate with what you are saying and REALLY resonate with what Winebrenner felt on matters, but we also are a little scared of the structured direction you are currently embracing. Scared enough to look into another direction.
Take what I said however you want, it is merely an outsiders perspective who would like to be an insider with the larger community of Christ and be a part of a movement as opposed to an institution.
God Bless and keep you, my friend and thank you for your thoughts.
tux,
I'm stunned that you took my post so deeply to heart--though I meant it to be taken as life and death serious.
What exactly pushed you over the edge?
Bill,
These are thoughts I have had for a little while, but your reflections gave me an opportunity to express my express my thoughts here as they are relevant. To come to the conclusions I came to I had to first let go of some anger that I have held close to my chest for some months now. Letting go of the anger was a process, but it has freed me so much and given me a peace.
To answer your question I have to give some history. LifeBridge started in November of last year. It got off to a good start too. We had some couples around my age to ten years older than me, some kids, and a few people in thier 20's. In February something changed. I saw a mission of a bunch of kids who hung out in the neighborhood. Talking to the three under 25 people I had coming to church I talked to them and we decided to start something called YASO (Young Adults Speak Out). We put together some flyers and invited some people to come by just walking the streets of Lockport at night and talking to some kids. The first night we had 12 kids, the second night 26, soon we had more kids at YASO than I have congregants on Sunday morning. I buy 8 pizzas and some pop and we sit in a circle and talk about life. Sometimes we have an adult share their story then the kids talk about the topic. The topics are things you do not talk about in polite society or church. Addiction, eating disorders, death, abuse, cutting, poverty,and so forth. Most of these kids are poor or abused or suffer with some kind of addiction or have been raped or molested and all sorts of things. Along the way a transition started to happen. Most of the kids (though not all) have started to check out LifeBridge on Sunday's. The more kids in baggy pants and with piercings and tats that started to come, the less and less we saw the couples coming in. Now we stand at 85% under 25 and a handful of the over 30 crowd still attending. This is fine,but also know that the tithes went from hundreds a week to about $50 a week. Today, I fund most of this mission.
Anyway, as YASO grew and I began to see the lives these kids have I began to realize that I have never seen anything like this in ministry before and this was not something I could do on my own. I needed help and I needed advise. I sought out pastors and groups that, at least claim, to be missional and read and discuss all the missional aspects of the gospel and even do some things in their churches.
This is the point that I began to see first hand that institutionalism can hinder missionalism. The first problem I encountered was I could not get most pastors to even come to see a YASO to meet the kids to see what I was talking about. I had the kids write letters about their stories and in the 26 letters I have, I have yet to see someone read them without misting or crying. These letters generated conversations with pastors and denominations, but still no results.
The conversations were sometimes frustrating. I was once accused of trying to get others to glam on to what I was trying to pitch as the next greatest ministry, I had another (missional) pastor suggest to me that I needed to do more marketing oriented things to attract older people into church and fund this, and I have also had pastors come up to me and tell me they do not know how I do what I do, but keep up the good work. I have gotten some yummy free lunches and coffee out of this, but no results. I even had one pastor say everything I was feeling and not follow up. He told me he saw how alone I was and was ready to help and he took the letters and we prayed and despite me contacting him, I have never heard from him again.
More in part two since there is a word limit on replies.
Now to the hopeful side of things. A UCC pastor took the time to come and his heart was broken. He comes when he can and sometimes he is able to get his congregation to help offset the cost of pizza and pop and also get me some badly needed food and gas cards. Some of these kids have parents who spend the food stamps on beer or pot. I literally have some kids in suburbia who do not get to eat a full meal every day. His help and his kindness is so meaningful. I did have a rep from the Catholic League come for a few but then he stopped. He told me it was too emotionally exhausting for him. I had the local state rep come and see it and she left in tears and now she calls me every once in awhile and even stops by my house to see how things are going. She was affected and changed by it and she has literally been going door to door in her zone to learn about abuse and neglect and the kids who fall through the system and she is driven to try to improve things. I do not know how far she will get, but simply meeting them changed her on a fundamental level and she has tried to get me in the room with other people to help and she sees the frustration I have in that people smile a lot and then....walk away.
Ed and his wife came and saw it and I was honored by that. The next day we had lunch and he recognized that what we do is unlike anything he has ever seen and he and his wife told me "Pat, you cannot do this alone, you need help." and I said,"This is why I am the table with you." He was moved and he was touched and he wanted to help and he still wants to help, but to get that help requires jumping through hoops and doing things that, best as I can tell, may get me some funding as a young church, but would not help me rally people from other churches with other stories and other skills and resources to help me. NOT ED's FAULT! The institution sees the body of Christ as a collection of individual churches who may pump money into a general fund and the bodies are joined together merely by leaders as opposed to the people in the communities.
Now, the FCA. There was a large Christian youth convention in Chicago that I could not afford to take my kids to, but I was able to afford a booth. Me and the kids talked at the booth about what we do and how we do it and the FCA leader and everyone else who met them fell in love with the kids. My kids had over 70 kids from other youth groups sitting in a circle and sharing life. Youth pastors were amazed and told me they could do nothing like this because they could never get permission. As I entered the path of seeking out the FCA, it soon became apparent that I would get a check and they would get to brag about a demographic. I do not need just a check, I need wisdom and guidance and help and an opportunity to contribute to the party. These kids have energy and will do anything for anyone and want to and they want that opportunity to make a difference. They also desperately want to meet other people with other stories and be a greater part of this kingdom of God I teach them about. They see the Kingdom of God as all of us, not just the bunch of us in a small building in Lockport. My God, we are going into hospice centers to visit the dying and making sandwiches for the homeless.
Now you see the frustrations, in part three I will tell you how once I let go of my anger, how this led to my conclusions and what those conclusions are.
Welcome to part 3.
Now, I need to admit that my perceptions of the facts I laid out in part 1 and 2 may very well be skewed by past frustrations and anger. As I let go of the anger I was able to reflect. Understand, I made more than 100 copies of these letters and have talked to dozen's of pastors and leaders.
The conclusion I came up with is this. Where you have institution, it is difficult to have mission. Institution can become a wall or barrier to a missional stance. If I join an institution I may be able to affect change and I may be able to get the resources I want and need and I may be able to make a difference to other bodies. But there is another edge to that sword. The other edge is that I may become institutionalized and that could hinder and affect my missional stance. I cannot take that risk. This is not about authority. I want wisdom and I still need a mentor and I will gladly submit myself to another's authority humbly and honestly, but what I cannot do is risk becoming institutionalized and accept the institution over mission and the Kingdom of God and the Great Commission. I say this with no vitriol.
The current proposal of We Believe represents too much institution and though it includes mission, it is not in the proper place and there is a fear on my part that institution will play the larger role.
Why the Emergent Village? They are not institution and they are pure mission. Also, they want to MEET my kids and on December 7th, multiple communities will meet, people will share stories, and we will take our first steps into what we wanted all along. Will we commit? I do not know. I told them that this is as much their choice as it is mine and they love that they have a voice in the direction of our community.
As I said before, the people on this Blog enrich me and educate me and give me great insights and I hope that one day we get to partner together and work together, but in the current climate, I fear that I cannot take that step and that is in NO WAY a recrimination of any of the men here or Ed or anyone I have met from the CGGC. It just is what it is at this time.
Bill, I'm approaching We Believe from the opposite direction than you. You’re correct in saying that the official position of the CGGC is that we’re “non-creedal” and that it makes no sense to say that and still adopt an official statement of belief. Let’s accept it: we ARE creedal. You will disagree with me about my next statement: we SHOULD be creedal. I happen to appreciate the Nicene Creed, and have since I learned about the events leading up to the Council of Nicea. Namely, Bishop Arius was introducing a gnostic understanding of Jesus Christ into christology and hence was destroying the Christian faith. The Church had to respond, and so -- with Constantine's help -- they gathered from all across the Mediterranean world to address the crisis. (No one considers the Emperor a saint.) The interesting thing is that the Church was already biblically organized and -- dare I say -- institutionalized. The early Church movement saw the necessity of building and maintaining bridges that went beyond mere association to the point of bishops wielding spiritual authority. This happened long before Constantine (beginning at least in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15), and the fact that some of the bishops at the Council bore the marks of persecution on their bodies testifies to their commitment to Jesus Christ.
My other rejoinder is that we owe the canon of Scripture to St. Athanasius in 367 A.D., the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D., and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. In other words, the Bible in its current, closed form wasn't settled until after Constantine and Nicea. In this age of "anything goes," I prefer using the Nicene Creed as the biblical summary of orthodox Christian beliefs. If it was sufficient for the early Church (which was innocent of the later corruption that brought about the Reformation), then it's sufficient for me. My point about the use of creeds (and institution in general) is simply this: why do we see them as antithetical to the movement of the Holy Spirit? Why do we insist on a non-creedal position that ignores the fact that the Creed came before the Canon? We owe both to the conciliar movement and the institutionalization of the church that made it possible. I don't believe that We Believe necessarily dulls the edge of what God wants to do through the Churches of God. Rather, I think it helps to identify what we believe -- no more and no less. Can it be improved? Of course, but that doesn't render it useless. The Church is the Body of Christ, and a body must have the "institutional" structure of a skeleton to support the living flesh. Rather than confine and limit growth, the authority of Christ the Head works through the leaders to "prepare God's people for works of service" (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The amazing thing about this text that promotes structure is that, because of the unity of structure and belief, the body matures and grows, "as each part does its work." (cont'd in next post)
I believe history shows that the Church continued to grow throughout Europe and parts of Asia long after Constantine, so that there were (Nestorian) Christian churches even in China in the 6th century A.D. St. Patrick's story is a great example of how the institutional Church was able to send a Spirit-led bishop to evangelize Ireland.
I suspect today's distrust of institutions is due to bureaucratic stagnation and the righteous indignation of those who have a vision for the kingdom. But I don't see why the idea of "institutions" is automatically blamed. We must recognize spiritual authority. There must be accountability, not just for finances, but also for teaching and practices. Instead of blaming "institutionalism," couldn't our stagnation be due to a loss of faith and love for Christ and others? Couldn't it be due to a relativism that sucks away our life because we don't know (and therefore do not practice) what we believe?
On another issue ... I'm not a fan of Forney and his Enlightenment trashing of the ordinances/sacraments. I would love to reaffirm Winebrenner's understanding of the Lord's Supper as a "vehicle of grace" and ditch Forney's "mere symbol" approach. I don't agree with Winebrenner's four-times-a-year observance, because I believe the New Testament Church followed a weekly observance. But that's another issue.
Your fellow servant in Christ,
Ben
Ben's comments make me think of the story about the emperor's new clothes - everyone is under the illusion that the emperor really has clothes until a child innocently announces otherwise.
If Ben is correct, then maybe it's time we announced what's been obvious, yet unspoken, for so long. Maybe it's time that our denominational language reflects the way things really are. According to Ben, we DO have a creed. So maybe we should stop acting as if we never had one and never will.
In light of this, should the conversation be changed to what our creed should contain? My guess is Ben's position is that we should return to the Nicene Creed.
I completely agree with the point that the institution should not automatically be blamed. One of the myths of the postmodern era is that there can be a hierarchy-less organizational structure. All that is really happening is that the old hierarchy is attacked and a new one takes its place. While the emergent movement within our denomination can be a spirit-led movement, it is a structured movement. Structure leads to hierarchy. This makes me think of the technology conversation. As some within our denomination desire for it to grow larger in numbers, that works against the idea of a structure free environment. As it grows larger it will become more structured. That is just the way it is. If we desire to be a creed-less movement we’ll have to stay small. One of the things that happened when Constantine embraced the church is that it grew exponentially. It was impossible for it to remain creed-less as it grew larger. Is it possible to become larger and remain creed-less? Probably not.
I personally see nothing wrong with authority. That is one of the parts of my isolation is that I am a student without a mentor and this leader (me) needs a leader to follow. I need wisdom and I also need checks and balances to ensure I am not leading my congregation down a wrong path. Having rules is not the problem per se. The problem is when the bureaucracy of the institution hinders the mission of the gospel and too stringent rules do not allow for the Holy Spirit to work and use the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.
Bill I had never even considered your point of not needing the We Believe. It is something to think on.
As I read through I found things that to me will take us away from the scripture as our rule of faith. Specifically p.15 on our nature & p.20 on sanctification. These to me are gross errors in the way they are presented. I am posting not to discuss these particular points but to point out that we have elevated the We Believe and that thru time and future updates we can be led further down a path where scripture becomes secondary to our faith. Errors such as these become magnified over time, not corrected. The integrity of the scripture is of utmost importance and cannot be allowed to be watered down or ignored as so many denominations have done - over time.
I apologize for posting anonymous but I forgot my password.
Phil - Fort Scott
I didn't immediately read Bill's post. It was too long and I'm ADD. But after Ben posted, I read it.
I thought Bill's points 2 & 3 were exceptionally thought provoking, especially how 2.0 is a response to nothing, just an update. It would be fascinating to see it be a response to the issues of today.
I also agree with the problems of Forney's 5 fold ordinance. It is out of step with historical and global Christianity. It is sectarian. We took the right tack on Last Things. But here we took a step back.
Are you sure you guys need an update, even a 2.0.
I was one of the consultors for the 1.0 version. I thought the process was a little odd (I was one of the CGYA delegates, and I sat with an Episcopalian rep from the College who was a complete participant), but a lot of work went in to describing the consensus of what the community believed.
There is nothing wrong with having a Creed. In fact, I would suggest there is everything wrong with not having one.
tux,
If you can wait for the CGGC to catch up, please wait.
I suspect that we are going to have something like our own Armageddon over this WE BELIEVE thing.
Either we are going to be hyper-institutional or we are going to repent. I think that there is a chance that we may move toward mission and kingdom.
I understand that you may not have time to let us catch up to you, but it would be great for us if you could and did.
bill
Ben,
Re: "I suspect today's distrust of institutions is due to bureaucratic stagnation and the righteous indignation of those who have a vision for the kingdom. But I don't see why the idea of "institutions" is automatically blamed."
I don't see a long history of the Lord working though institutions. What I see Him doing is calling prophets to speak for Him and call His people to repent and leading from the fringes: Moses, David, John the Baptist.
Jesus didn't create an institution. He talked about building His ekklesia, His assembly.
Bill,
I love you and think highly of your insights and heart so I will wait and see what happens here. :)
Re Brent's: "If Ben is correct, then maybe it's time we announced what's been obvious, yet unspoken, for so long. Maybe it's time that our denominational language reflects the way things really are. According to Ben, we DO have a creed. So maybe we should stop acting as if we never had one and never will.
In light of this, should the conversation be changed to what our creed should contain? My guess is Ben's position is that we should return to the Nicene Creed."
It seems to me that one form of dishonesty is denial, which is a form of lying to oneself.
I'm beginning to suspect that there are quite a number of lies that the CGGC tells itself.
Ben is saying, in effect, that one CGGC lie is that the Bible still really is our only rule of faith and practice. We say it in WE BELIEVE and repeat it verbatim in 2.0:
"We believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice."
Does anyone but me think it is an oxymoron to say that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice in a document that we will use as the standard in deciding to grant credentials? (At least, in the east that's what we've done and will do.)
Doesn't that strike anyone else here as being just a tad ironic?
I think Brent's being a wee bit facetious to suggest that we merely need to talk about what the content of our creed should be.
But, that's what I think these feedback meetings were planned for. So, for instance, if you think we should drop Forney on the Ordinances you get a chance to have input on the actual content of the creed.
I think that there's a step we need to take before we argue creed or no creed. Or to debate what we think the new version of creed should be.
I think it's time for us to acknowledge that our church was founded on wild-eyed radicalism by a wild-eye radical.
Let's be honest about our heritage just for a few moments.
I'm not sure any of you get what John Winebrenner was all about!
In Winebrenner's sermon preached on the day when the Church of God was formed in 1830 he said that the church needs 'another Great Reformation' for cryin' out loud! Get it? For Winebrenner, the first one didn't go far enough!
Once we acknowledge the truth of who we have been, we can come to grips honestly with who we wish to be.
After we honestly admit that our founder's vision wasn't just that we not have a creed but that, even before that, he stated that we'd not even have a CONSTITUTION, we can wonder together what we have done to ourselves by writing and re-writing Doctrinal Statements and Statements of faith over the course of the last 85 years.
What we need now is some honesty and self-awareness.
Post a Comment
<< Home