the other end of the spectrum
that’s where i feel i’m at. i just spent a large chunk of today catching up on the last two months of posts, and there are a lot of ideas floating through my head, so bear with me. (i’ll try to be concise.)
it’s been several months since i’ve posted anything, so let me give you a bit of background to put this in context:
- i’ve grown up since day 1 in the cggc.
- i was highly involved in my church growing up, and feel very close to it.
- i just graduated college with an engineering degree.
- i feel called to the pastorate, or training indigenous pastors overseas (probably both).
- over the course of my college years, my theological understandings have changed somewhat, leaving me feeling a bit of an outsider in the cggc. (primarily, for those interested, i’m now a calvinist and a complementarian. don’t worry though, i don’t sprinkle babies ;-).)
- in spite of this, i still feel a love for the cggc, especially the church i grew up in.
- i’m young, cocky, arrogant, and in desperate need of grace. yet, i hope Christ will work in, through, and even in spite of me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
first, i’d like to point out the grace that i find flowing freely from God to all of you. your gracious attitude in your disagreements, your love for those you wish would change and for God’s church, your passion for Scripture, and your longing for the lost to enter the Kingdom are all evidences that God is at work in you, and i am glad to be a witness to it.
second, i agree with you as far as most of the problems you’ve identified. the consumer culture of spectator-sport Christianity, the lack of vision and vitality, the chasing after every new fad (especially when it comes to marketing and treating church-as-business), and even bill’s harping on the hypocrisy of paying lip-service to winebrenner while doing things that would make him roll over in his grave are things in definite need of change.
where we don’t seem to see eye to eye is the solution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) i don’t understand the distaste for creeds. it’s my understanding that there are many early creeds inside the New Testament (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 Timothy 2:11-13). i agree that we have no absolute authority other than the Word of God, yet even winebrenner thought it necessary to publish a summary of Christian belief and practice. i think ben has said beautifully everything else i would want to say.
2) this next is particularly a response to dave said about church members being “intimidated by doctrine,” though i find bits of this idea all over this blog. here, i’ll let c.s. lewis speak for me, “they all say ‘the ordinary reader does not want theology; give him plain practical religion’. i have rejected their advice. i do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. theology means ‘the science of God’, and i think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. [they] are not children: why should [they] be treated like children?”
moreover, a large part of my generation is tired of what has been called moralistic therapeutic deism: there is a god, he’ll help you when the shit hits the fan, and he’s angry about your sin, so you’d better clean up your act. now, i know that this is not what the cggc believes, but sometimes it seems like it. i’ve been listening more closely to the sermons at my church back home since i’ve started college and thinking more deeply about what Christianity’s all about, and i hear over and over again something along this theme: “here’s a major problem with us, as people in general and this congregation in particular. Christ has taught us to live differently, and has set the perfect example for us. so now we need to fix ourselves and live better.” then we’ll pray for God’s help in our fixing ourselves and doing better.
the problem is that there’s no meat here. there’s no gospel here. and you guys have hit that latter nail on the head. but it’s also that it’s watered down, it’s simplistic. there’s no sense of the majesty of God, no desperate need for and reliance on the Spirit to move in us, no real sorrow over sin (normally either fear of a god that closer resembles zeus than our Father, or a let-down pride that knows it ought to and can do better), no turning to Christ not only our substitute but as our perfect righteousness. we need to get back to the gospel, and not a simple summary, but a meaty exposition of what it means that we’re justified, what it means that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, what it means that “God is at work in you, to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
and please, don’t be afraid of using big words. most people don’t mind as long as you explain them. carburetor, descant and modem are specialized terms, but a mechanic, musician, or techie will know exactly what you’re talking about without a degree in the subject.
3) we need a bigger view of God. as i mentioned before, there’s a distinct lack of the majesty of God in our churches, at least as far as i can tell. most people seem to go to church because it’s “the right thing to do”, or because it’s socially expected, or to clear their conscience. they pray when they need something from God. they read their Bibles every once in a while because their pastor has guilt-tripped them into it, which lasts a day or so and then fades away.
to parallel bill’s repeating question, can we talk about the glory of God? can we talk about a God who, simply because He is, is worthy of my worship? can we talk about a God who isn’t like a lost puppy, hoping i’ll notice Him today and that i’ll turn around, but a God who demands my honor and respect, both by sheer awesomeness and by His incomprehensible grace? a God whose foremost passion is for His own Name, and who loves me because of His own grace, not because of anything good or deserving in me? a God who sent His Son to die, not just to show His love for ill-deserving sinners but also to justify Himself in “passing over former sins...to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus”?
that’s a God i can’t step all over. that’s a God i can’t wrap my mind around. that’s a God who is bigger and better than me in every way, and far beyond my imagination. that’s a God i can gladly worship.
4) along that same line, can we focus on God more than we focus on mission? i'm really glad you guys talk a lot about the mission of God, reaching out to the lost, doing acts of mercy and kindness, etc. but i'm of like mind with john piper on this one: “missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. worship is. missions exist because worship doesn’t. worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man.”
i know he’s specifically talking about frontier/overseas missions, but the same applies for being missional. we are on this mission, hopefully, because we love God and long to see His fame spread, long to have His gospel go out that the lost might be saved, not only or even primarily for their benefit, but so that more might give Him the glory that He deserves. yes, we do and ought to love people, and we want to see them saved from affliction, both here on earth and eternally in hell, and that they would enjoy God and all His gifts, now and forever. but, as far as i can tell, our primary focus Biblically is to be God and His glory, His renown.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it’s getting late, and long, so i’ll stop there. i know there is much in here that you guys agree with, and might wonder why i’m bringing it up. i ask that you not only believe it, and not only that you live it, but that you speak it as well. many of my generation feel like we’ve lost a lot to those who assumed the gospel and theology instead of proclaiming and explaining them.
i also know that this is far from perfect, and hope that you will extend the same grace to me that you’ve shown each other on this blog. i hope you will read this with charity, being able to discern what is good from what is false, and to be humble enough to find whatever may be profitable despite the flaws of my post. may God bless you all, brothers.
posted by John at 10:50 PM
40 Comments:
Walt-
There is a place for those who are reformed and complimentarian in the CGGC. But if you want help connecting with another tribe let me know I can help.
I have found though that there are more things to Unite with CGGC than divide from. I think there is an unabashed love of the Word, and I think there is a burning of mission in the hearts of many.
And if you can lean a little Hyper Calvinist with me for a moment. We can agree that some are just pre-ordained to be Arminian-Egalitarians, and they are just part of God's bigger story for humanity.
Or you can lean another way and just say the CGGC loves God and loves people. And as Rick Warren says "that just makes us better together.
From my limited perspective, it is difficult for me to tell how similar and different our churches are from one another. Some of you have been around for a long time and know many different churches and pastors well.
Walt - many (most) of the things you say are foundation - about the greatness (fame) of God looming large in our hearts and minds, not to mention our preaching and teaching. Regardless of tribe, I view this as a non-negotiable.
I don't think a Calvinist would be uncomfortable in my particular congregation at all, unless one is hte type of calvinist who feels that calvinism must be continually emphasized.
Complementatianism could vary a bit, but even that wouldn't continually eat at you in my church, unless you couldn't stand hearing a woman preach once in a great while.
Anyway, I'm not sure you are at the other end of the spectrum from me.
p.s. I don't mind creeds either.
from the first couple comments, let me clarify something real quick:
i don't feel like my theological disagreements with the official cggc stance are bigger than what we share. we're still brothers in Christ, and that's of utmost importance.
what i want to focus on are the emphases on the supremacy of God and His glory in all things, and the need for something more meaty than "plain practical religion". our God is not basic: He is complicated and dives deeper than simplistic understandings that i've seen and heard dolled out at numerous churches. and He is not desperate or dependent on us humans, but the other way around.
Part 1:
Walt,
It’s good to see you back on the blog. I’ve missed your participation.
First off: “and even bill’s harping on the hypocrisy of paying lip-service to winebrenner…”
Harping?
Me?
I resemble that remark!
I am overjoyed to hear that you sense a calling. As I’m sure you know, I understand calling in a different way than the institutional/attractional/Christendom church has come to understand it, especially in the last half century or so. I’d love to discuss your sense of call with you.
If you’re in Pennsylvania, I’ll drive quite a distance to join you in conversation about it if you want. If not and you just want to email me about it, please let me know.
Concerning your Calvinism, I wish you’d’a not said that in so many words. Words like Calvinism have many meanings and can be misunderstood. I made the mistake of using that very word to describe myself and went through unspeakable horrors when I asked the East Pennsylvania Conference for credentials. If fact, I had to meet with the entire Administrative Council to be queried about my theological views before I was ordained. I’m the only person I know who has gone through that fire. I don’t want that misery for you.
So, before you use the term again, let me say this:
I imagine you have read my commentary on WE BELIEVE 2.0. One of the concerns I expressed about it is that it is sectarian. It comes by its sectarian tone honestly. As I see it, there is more than a little sectarianism that exists at the core of what the CGGC is today.
Here’s how that works out, as I understand it:
People I know who are seeking credentials these days tell me that the Commission from whom you seek credentials will be at least as concerned about your position on our ‘distinctive doctrines’ as they will be on the doctrines that define orthodoxy. If you would happen to deny the Trinity, you would find yourself in big trouble. However, you will probably find yourself in equal difficulty if you openly reject Feet Washing as an ordinance or oppose the ordination of women or strongly question our belief in ‘Free Moral Agency.’
It deeply concerns me that, for the moment, we are still more church focused than Kingdom focused and one way that works out is that, if you are too honest about holding a Reformed view of the doctrine of soteriology, you will have as serious a problem as if you asserted an Arian Christology.
(Now, that’s my understanding. If others who post here read this differently, please chime in. I don’t want to lead walt astray and I certainly don’t want to mischaracterize CGGC leadership. This is, however, how I see it.)
Part 2 to come.
Part 2:
Your description of yourself: “i’m young, cocky, arrogant, and in desperate need of grace,” is truly exciting.
You say: “i don’t understand the distaste for creeds.”
Your comment: “it’s my understanding that there are many early creeds inside the New Testament (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 Timothy 2:11-13)” is fascinating.
Endlessly fascinating.
It is like saying that the Apostle Paul was, say, a Dispensationalist.
It’s imposing on Scripture a category that is foreign to it.
Certainly there were kernalized expressions of the faith that was held in common by all believers. But, to call them ‘creeds’ would be to impose a category on those New Testament passages that cannot legitimately be assigned to them.
There is a profound theological issue at stake here.
Winebrenner began a movement that, theologically speaking, was what is described as Restorationist or Primitivist.
He made that point most clearly in the sermon he preached when the Church of God was organized in 1830. He argued that this church is built on three purposes. The second of the three was “The establishment of churches upon the New Testament plan.”
For Winebrenner, the very core of what we are about is building a body that has no model and no authority except that which comes to us from God’s Word. If I understand Winebrenner, it’s not, as you say, a distaste for creeds. It is a raw, radical, uncompromising and passionate love for the Word and commitment to the Word.
And, that is primitive. It surely is radical. It is raw. It’s NOT easy.
But, it was our founding commitment. It is what we once were and it is one that I still believe in.
We need dozens of people like you, walt. If there is any way that I can assist you in your journey, please let me know.
bill
It doesn't seem like Walt is interested in pursuing ministry within our denomination.
In all honesty, my preference would be to see us go the direction of the Evangelical Free churches as one example or even the Southern Baptists and not take a stand on these soteriological distinctions.
If I had a vote, that's what I would vote. But as it is, I would not encourage one to downplay it, just realize that it's probably a game stopper in our denomination.
I think if it's something you struggle with and talk about scripture that could lead in differnt directions you would probably be okay (I know at least one ordained pastor who stated that he felt Scripture thought both).
But if you are truly a 5 point Calvinist, it's not gonna happen. End of story.
Unless we change, which again, I would be in favor of.
Dan,
It doesn't seem like Walt is interested in pursuing ministry within our denomination.
If so, our loss.
In all honesty, my preference would be to see us go the direction of the Evangelical Free churches as one example or even the Southern Baptists and not take a stand on these soteriological distinctions.
If I had a vote, that's what I would vote.
Well, in effect, you do. Did you say that at your local WE BELIEVE meeting?
I spoke very specifically about dropping the article on FREE MORAL AGENCY.
I agree that it would be our loss. My hope would be that he (and all of us) would continue to re-think the issues at stake. But I stand by what I said.
Though my journey has taken me to different places on the issue, I am (basically) comfortable with the Arminian position, so I am not interested in fighting to have it changed.
I don't think it's an inapporpriate distinction. So far as I know, you can't be a Presbyterian pastor without being a Calvinist. You can't be a Methodist pastor if you are.
I don't think that many young and passionate Christians have heard a robust defense of an Arminian position. Most of the guys in the spotlight of the day are Calvinists.
Dan,
If walt decides to pursue credentials in the ERC but sticks to his Calvinist guns do you think he should be denied credentials?
hey guys,
as much as the conversation going on here is useful and important, it's not very relevant to what i was posting on. i kind of regret stating the differences i have with the official cggc standing, since it seems to have sidetracked you from what my bigger points are, namely, the supremacy of God in our thoughts, words, and actions.
it seems to me (and as dan pointed out, this is not always the case, thank God!) that most of our thoughts and teaching about God, the gospel, etc., tend to become quickly man-centered; that is, the emphasis seems to be on what has been done to us and how we ought to live in light of that, not on God the Doer or what it says about who He is.
i'm arguing that our focus should be on worship, that our speaking of mission should be fueled by a passion to see God worshiped and enjoyed by more people because of the picture of Him we are giving people by our lives.
i know this might be solely rhetorical for you guys, but for your hearers, this could have a big impact on their hearts and minds. i believe that you indeed love God and want to see Him glorified in your lives, but it seems to me that you talk far more about His mission than His action, and about His people or those He's trying to reach than about Him, His attributes, His glory.
does that make any sense, or am i completely off base?
My comments on the people in the pews being uninterested in doctrine and theology goes along with what you are saying. The lack of interest comes from the fact that worship is man-centered instead of God-centered. Worship is often done for the felt needs of the congregation, instead of for the glory of God. How often have we heard someone make the comment " I didn't get anything out of the service today".
If we are to be truly Kingdom people, we must adopt an attitude of "Knowing God and making God known. We know God through reverent and deep prayer, through a faithful commitment to studying the Word of God, and by Spirit - led worship.
By the way, have you or anyone else read a relatively new book entitled "Deep Church" by Jim Belcher. It's a good read on an alternative to traditional and emergent worship. I think you may enjoy it.
Bill, you know we've had the Calvinist views and COG credentials conversation. I would suggest that maybe discretion is the better part of valor.
We have kind of hijacked the thread. One comment on ordination/calvinism, then I'll post back on the topic indended. The 'should' question is a tough one to answer. Given what our statement of beliefs includes, I don't think we could be surprised at a strident 5-point Calvinist being denied. I think that someone who struggles with the varying scriptures on the issue should not be denied. I understand that there was once a calvinism witch hunt wit some leaders years ago (probably when Bill was ordained). I don't think that it is probably as prominent today. Bill, Did Winebrenner allow early COG pastors to be Calvinists?
If God is not huge, he is not God. Remember that old J.B. Phillips book, "Your God is too small?" It's a great thing to think about.
It seems that churches have gone in one of two directions. Either highly theological, God exalting, exegetical preaching...but with little or no application.
Or 'seeker sensitive' practical teaching, 3 steps to... i.e. the church growth movement.
We need a third way (Jim Belcher is there I believe). A steady diet of theology with no application is lacking. Application with no depth is no good.
Let me plug another book: "Doctrine that Dances" by Robert Smith jr. I love the name. Smith says that as we walk through a passage of Scripture, we must lead them to an encounter with God.
Doctrine without calling for a response (sometimes dancing, sometimes repentace, sometimes mourning over sin, sometimes mission...) sucks. There is no excuse for it.
Application without the proclamation of a Holy, Terrifying, Loving, Merciful God is hollow. Asking people if they want to go to heaven and avoid hell is the vacuous appeal of too many churches.
Walt,
Sorry.
You inadvertently bumped some hot buttons.
Re: What you want to call us back to, i. e. the supremacy of God in our thoughts, words, and actions...
i'm arguing that our focus should be on worship, that our speaking of mission should be fueled by a passion to see God worshiped and enjoyed by more people because of the picture of Him we are giving people by our lives..
You make a good point.
Jesus couldn't have been more clear that the one command that the whole law hangs on more than any other is, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."
Certainly, a key element of that all encompassing love is worship. Worship isn't all that that love implies, but it is an element of it that we don't emphasize enough.
I'd say that mission should be fueled by a love for God that is the first focus of our lives.
Dan,
I don't think we could be surprised at a strident 5-point Calvinist being denied.
Strident is not an adjective that comes to mind when I think about walt. The guy doesn't even capitalize the 'w' for crying out loud.
If what we seem to know about walt turns out to be true, do you think he should be denied ERC credentials as an openly, but not divisive, Calvinist?
Bill, Did Winebrenner allow early COG pastors to be Calvinists?
I know that this isn't answering the question that you are really asking but it is answering the question you stated:
John Winebrenner knew nothing about 'Pastors.'
He never called himself 'pastor.' (Though he did call himself 'Bishop.')
I know of no occasion in which he even used the term (though I'm sure at some point he did.)
He couldn't conceive of the credentialed leaders of a Church of God congregation serving in a role that was primarily sheperding and nurturing in nature.
His idea of someone who'd be recognized as called was as an APE--Apostle, Prophet or Evangelist.
Now that I've 'harped,' I seriously doubt that Winebrenner would have supported recognizing the call of a Calvinist in the Church of God. But, I'm equally confident that he would not have stressed the doctrine as much as we do today.
While agreeing with the APEST distinctions, I still use pastor and will continue to because it is universally accepted. Even folks who are apostolic, prophetic etc. seem to have no problem with the term. I know you disagree, but that is what I meant when I asked the question about Winebrenner.
Since you want to be specific, I can't say because at this point I don't know our friend well enough to say about him specifically on this issue.
Maybe strident was the wrong term to use. What I mean is someone for whom it is a settled issue, not necessarily accompanied by pride about it.
John Piper was mentioned. He is someone I personally appreciate very much and continue to read and listen to. For him, it is a settled issue. While being gracious toward other positions, it is an absolutely central doctrine for him.
John Piper would not be a good fit in the COG.
However, someone who studies the Scriptures and sees things that seem to indicate God's absolute sovereignty over who is saved and other places where is seems clear that everyone has a very real choice that has not been decided beforehand at all and struggles with that balance - I believe should not be denied.
I have been in Natural Dam Arkansas for the past few days and have fell off the map via the web and my phone. I have not had service to either.
I want to respond to both of the conversations taking place here.
First to the discussion of "reformed" theology in the CGGC. Some people in our tribe know, but I have not made a public statement, but I am a reformed guy. I also am a complimentarian. I am what is known as a Unionist. I merge much of Lutheran and Calvinism together. I am down with all of TULIP except for limited atonement in the Calvinist perspective. I lean more Lutheran.
Some of my favorite altar calls are those from the "are you chosen" genre. I don't give those types of altar calls, but I do enjoy hearing them.
As for being Reformed in Armenian tribe, all I can say is I really used to enjoy reading Winebrenner's sermons, because of the reformed theology I could see in them.
As for a region credentialing a reformed guy. I would say it probably won't happen in the Eastern Region,especially with the break off of the Living Water Church.
I don't think it would be such a problem in the Midwest and I know it wouldn't be a problem in the Western Region. We currently have 3 Ordained Baptist pastors serving established churches.
I think we are better together.
Part I. Part II to come.
Armenian...lol. The only full bloooded Armenian I ever asked was a Calvinist. True story. ;-)
Dan,
While agreeing with the APEST distinctions, I still use pastor and will continue to because it is universally accepted.
Just so you know: That use of the term is more modern than Darwinism. By about a century!
There is no biblical precedent for it. There is no Greek word for our term pastor in the New Testament.
Maybe strident was the wrong term to use. What I mean is someone for whom it is a settled issue, not necessarily accompanied by pride about it...
John Piper would not be a good fit in the COG.
Assuming that John'd be groovy with us, what is the Kingdom-focused rationale behind that assessment
Pastor, minister, whatever. It is the vernacular, understood by nearly everybody. The called and affirmed leaders of the church.
I generally equate pastor with shepherd - a biblical term. Jesus himself is the good shepherd, and he certainly was(during his earthly ministry)and is much more than what we consider shepherd in Ephesians 4.
If you have a good alternative, I'd be open to it. I guess Winebrenner's Elder would be okay, but will be misunderstood by most people.
Is there anyone else besides Bill that is upset about the word pastor?
Re: Justin's comments. Again, I have no problem with including Calvinists. I do have a problem with regions having different standards. I think we need to get on the same page.
Has Calvinism (i.e. the free moral agency item in We Believe) come up in any other of the gatherings besides Bill's?
I think it's problematic if our statement of beliefs is not reflective of our leaders.
It seems like this is going to have to come to a head at some point in the forseeable future.
and this one has taken the back burner, but I think that the complementarian / egalaterian question is actually more important for us.
Interestingly, I believe that there is often more flexibility here then on Calvinism.
This to me is deeply problematic, because if you are strongly complementarian, you are working alongside female colleagues who you must believe are completely mistaken about their calling.
This is very concerning to me.
Dan,
Is there anyone else besides Bill that is upset about the word pastor?
As you know, I see everything through the lens of Church History.
The fact is that the notion that the core leadership task performed by a credentialed leader in the CGGC is pastoring is only 50 to 60 years old and those have been, by far--by so far that it can't be debated--our worst 50 to 60 years.
Thinking of our leaders as pastors is unbiblical and it's led/leading to catastrophic decline.
As Reggie McNeal says, we need to make a shift to A.D. 30 leadership.
I know I'm harping.
But, this is paradigmatic.
I apologize to walt for taking worthwhile thread so far off track.
Excuse my ignorance but could someone give me a good and concise definition of complentarian/ complementarianism.
Complementarianism holds that "God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood, but different and complementary in function with male headship in the home and in the Church."
__
While it seems evident to me that there are many differences between men and women, where the rubber meets the road in this discussion is that women aren't to hold any positions of authority (except teaching kids and other women) in the church. Women are not ordained.
Southern Baptists are a prominent example.
i appreciate the attempt to be on topic, but i suppose i can deal with the double-conversation going on. since there's been far too much talk about me (i'm not deserving of this much airtime, though perhaps i represent to you guys the up-and-comings?), i figure i ought to clear up a few things:
dan, you're right, i've never heard a good, Biblical defense of arminianism. as i said, i grew up cggc, so despite the fact that the issue was never formally mentioned, i had a "free will" understanding of humanity, salvation, etc. during my sophomore year at college, i spent roughly 3 months where nearly all my free time was spent reading on, talking about, and attempting to refute calvinism, using my own thoughts and as many arguments as i could find. eventually, Scripture beat me into submission, more-or-less. i've never heard a arminian exposition of Romans 8 and 9, or Ephesians 1, or any of the predestinarian bits of John (or any other part of the Bible, for that matter), that either makes sense or seems faithful to the text. i'm not sure one exists.
so, your description of me as "strident" isn't far off the mark. it would be fair to say that i and many of my friends are part of the "reformed resurgence" going on. if you haven't read "young, restless and reformed" (either the c.t. article or the book) by collin hansen, i'd highly recommend it.
that is to say, that i am staunchly a 5-pointer, and i'm not afraid to debate about it. i do believe it makes a ton of difference in how you view God, people, history, current events, etc. i am not currently considering serving with the cggc, because of both its stances on the sovereignty of God and the role of women in the church.
the thing is, i don't think i should be allowed to serve in the cggc. i believe that whatever stance you take on big, though secondary, issues (baptism, sovereignty, gender roles, etc.) you should stand there, because theology matters. that's one big reason i'm not a fan of the efca, is that the don't take a stand on many of these important matters of faith.
i want to be in a church where i can declare the complete freedom of God to do all that He pleases and His sovereign rule over all creation, and not have the church get confused because other elders teach differently (and i do prefer that term for church leader, though i use pastor more often so that people understand what i mean).
i also think that while there should be some amount of division among us on these issues, i also believe that what unites us is far bigger and far more important than what divides us. i do believe they are secondary issues to the character of God, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, regeneration, etc.
that's why i'm a part of this blog: i may disagree with you on some things, but i think we agree on the core, and thus i can call you my brothers and work alongside you for the glory of God and the saving of His people.
[a side note: bill, i don't capitalize my name (nor much else that would normally be capitalized) because i reserve that usage for God and Scripture. i occasionally use it for the catholic Church, but i'm still debating that in my head. the point is, God and His Word deserve the honor of capitalization, and i don't think most nouns (or being at the beginning of the sentence) is good reasoning. yes, i'm eccentric, but i do have my reasons].
Dan,
Thanks.
That was very concise and clear.
Based on your definition, then the WE BELIEVE article on Women in Ministry, which wasn't in the version passed out at the WE BELIEVE meetings would be egalitarian. (Copies of the rough draft, at least, are floating around the CGGC.)
I agree with you, Dan, that this is an important issue.
If you start a thread, I can guarantee that I'll participate. I suspect that such a thread may set a record of most posts.
And, it needs to be discussed, IMO.
bill
walt,
When I taught the Polity course at Winebrenner, I taught the Arminian version of Ephesians 1. As far as I know, none of the well over 100 students I had in that course over the years had ever heard it before.
Most came into the course agreeing with the statement:
"We disagree with the doctrines of predestination and election."
Even though both doctrines are built on biblical terminology.
Ok, I will start a thread - actually probably a series, on women in ministry and probably something about A Big God and Arminianism.
Walt, thanks for the clarification. That is generally what I thought. Love you passion by the way. The key will continue to be to keep the humility so well evidenced by Piper but struggled with among many of the younger generation.
Allow me to throw in a link to a blog post that I found helpful.
About what is essential and non-essential and choosing your battles.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/essentials-and-non-essentials-how-to-choose-you-battles-carefully-chart-included/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ParchmentAndPen+%28Parchment+and+Pen%29
dan,
interesting post. i found it was good, for the most part. i think it fits with the idea that there are some things which divide Christian from non-Christian, some things that ought to divide brothers (while they still hold a transcendent unity of the core), some things we ought to argue about but not divide over, and some things that probably aren't worth making any sort of solid statement about. i am curious, what's the difference for him between "essential for salvation" and "essential for historic Christian orthodoxy". i'm pretty sure those are the same camp, imho.
I would tend to agree with you on that distinction between salvation and orthodoxy, however I think Patton is allowing for someone to be saved without necessarily affirming the creeds.
Where I could see this happening is for a brand new Christian. If you asked a brand new Christian, "Is the Holy Spirit God?" and they said, isn't it just God's spirit and not actually God?" This would fall into the category of lack of understanding, but I wouldn't be prepared to say that that person isn't saved at that point.
If you take it further, is a person who has the doctrines regarding sin, Christ, and salvation right on but still denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit barred from heaven?
I'm not wishing to debate that point here, but I think that is the question he is getting at with his categories.
__________
Dan/walt,
I contend that the category "Essential for Denominational Orthodoxy" is itself a notion so offensive to kingdom-focused thinking that it is HERESY.
Jesus did not say, "The time has come. The CHURCH of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel."
To care about doctrine because it serves to distinguish my denomination from the remainder of His Kingdom is the most hideous form of idolatry. It is not, therefore, merely heresy.
It is sin.
Bill, I'm glad you mentioned that. I wanted to ask you if you feel that there should be something like denominational orthodoxy (for us in particular).
That seems to be an important issue that we've hit upon. Should there be a denominational orthodoxy within the cggc besides historic orthodoxy?
Dan,
That seems to be an important issue that we've hit upon. Should there be a denominational orthodoxy within the cggc besides historic orthodoxy?
I know that my thinking is different than that of most of my brothers and sisters in the CGGC, who I dearly love.
But, no! I don't think there should be such a thing as denominational orthodoxy.
Paul tells the Corinthians that we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ that we may receive what is due us for thing while done in the body.
I imagine that those of us who have built walls and not bridges in the Kingdom will have something to answer for on that Day.
If anyone here can cast a spiritual vision for expending time and energy in building denomination in a way that distinguishses one believer from another, I'd be blessed to read it.
But, for now, I'll continue to believe that denominational orthodoxy is a virulent, even pestilent form of idolatry of which nearly all in the American church are guilty.
That is one of the prime reasons I entered my essay on WE BELIEVE 2.0 on the blog.
I, very honestly and frankly believe that it will lead us into greater sin because it builds higher and thicker walls between us and the rest of the Kingdom that we have ever constructed.
God help us!
Bill, I think I disagree with you, but I'm not sure yet.
I think that denominational orthodoxy can potentially clear the way for mission.
As an example, take the Acts 29 church planting network. They are, to my knowledge without exception, Calvinist and Complementarian.
That's just the way it is. If you are a committed Arminian, join another network. No ill will or disdain.
I think that some denominational orthodoxy can free us for mission because we don't have to continually debate theology, but share a common theology and move forward with mission.
The key is a realization that we can work with other churches, demoninations and people who share different convications. We are not better or worse.
If no denominational orthodoxy than what? What is the common denominator? Historic orthodoxy?
If we gather under the biggest possible tent, there will be so many ongoing disagreements over everything under the sun that we will never be able to get on mission.
So as I think about it, I think I disagree with you. In love.
The question for me is what things should be non-negotiable for us. That is a more difficult one for me.
I agree Bill, I may be a back door CGGC, but I feel that my "preferences" in theology should not separate us from working together. I can see how one can read the Bible and be an Arminian. I infact I am open to being challenged on my beliefs and am willing to learn where others might think my line of thinking is wrong. I am open to change, because I believe both points of view can make a case.
As for denominational orthodoxy, I agree I think when we start arguing about strict distinctives we hinder the work of building the Kingdom.
I think those who have certain strong affinities will honestly weed themselves out. I also think that the CGGC will probably never change it's stance on being Arminian, yet as I have mentioned before I hope to be a director of a region someday. A region full of what will more than likely be Arminian churches.
I think this is a good format to have our discussions about differences here. I hope this is where they stay, because at the end of the day when we bring them out of the info world and into everyday life, it becomes a distraction from building the Kingdom.
Here I can choose to toon in or toon out. Engage when I have time, when I want to relax, but if I had to deal with it on a weekly or even monthly basis, it would be a distraction from the work of the Kingdom.
I think orthodoxy and not catechisms or overly detailed statements of faith should govern our cooperation. If the Bible is our only rule for practice and faith, then we must understand that sometimes we see issues a little bit different. To me that is a beautiful and wonderful things. I think that makes us stronger as a denomination.
My prayer is as Jesus, that one day His body would be one.
a few short things, and then i'll put more on bill's new post. i think this conversation is more relevant to that post, so let's continue it there.
dan,
wrt the essentials for salvation/orthodoxy thing, i would agree that one may not have to fully understand those things listed in the orthodoxy category in order to be saved. i would question (though not dismiss) the salvation of someone who outright denied the orthodoxy list, but ignorance and denial are significantly different. you follow?
bill,
i don't understand you're dichotomy of heresy and sin. in my mind, heresy is a type of sin by definition. would you agree with that?
I appriciate your heart Justin. And of course you too Bill. And all the others. I love being challenged and encouraged both.
I think that our statement will probably remain Arminian. What I would like to see happen is for our statement to soften a bit though to allow folks who are trying their best be be biblical but see the strengths of the other position.
As I have mentioned, I think that it is appropriate to have a statement about women in ministry. One that allows for something of a soft edge as well.
walt - yup, I feel you.
Post a Comment
<< Home