"for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"
those words are what Paul uses to describe a primary purpose of the Scriptures. as men with a high view and valuation of the Word of God, we believe it to be sufficient for these things. however, i think most of us would agree that a summary of "leading matters of faith, experience and practice" (to quote winebrenner) is useful, as a concise overview of the teachings of Scripture.
much has been said on this blog over the past few months concerning the revisions to "we believe". some have disagreed with the style, that a listing of doctrinal points is not a timely format for today's culture, nor is it good to be removed from praxis. some have disagreed with its content, either disagreeing on specific points, or calling it too sectarian, something that many among the founders of the cGgc and among us today loathe, if i may use such strong language. some have been relatively unconcerned, since they see "we believe" as having no effect on their work for the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, but rather as a piece of institutional literature left on a bookshelf, useless and irrelevant.
while there is some truth to these claims, i think that at least part of the reason for the current situation of "we believe" is that most of those in leadership simply don't know another way of doing things. they may have some idea of the theory and abstracts behind doing things differently, in ways previously expressed on this blog, but i don't think most of them know what it would look like. i'm not even sure i know what it might look like.
last week, i had the privilege of sitting down with dan m. and bill, and toward the end of our discussion, an idea was hatched. instead of the traditional confession of faith, composed by a shepherd-dominated leadership, what if a group of leaders with a mix of the a.p.e.st. gifts got together and worked out a missional document, a summary of both faith and practice, framed in the meta-narrative of God's history? the document could also contain an faq toward the end, with various specifics to common questions on faith, where group/denomination "distinctives", for lack of a better term, might be outlined.
this document would be written to emphasize the things that unite the universal body of Christ, thus able to be used not only by the cGgc, but by any who we could call brother. it would be written to be usable, not only as part of an institutional foundation, but also to teach and train men and women in the faith, and help guide their steps in living out our mutual convictions. and we would want it to be straightforward enough to be readable for those who may not have much of a church background, so that it might even be practical for evangelistic purposes.
whether this document becomes a part of official cGgc literature or not, it could still prove profitable for those among us and like us who are seeking to glorify our King in carrying out His mission on this earth. if you are interested in collaborating on this missional document, or know someone who would be, please let us know. we're looking for men who, though imperfect, love King Jesus, are passionate about His glory, and want to see His kingdom grow and His gospel of grace spread to the nations. we want to find a balance of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherds and teachers, so that we learn from past problems. if you have any encouragement or input, feel free to leave a comment. even if you think this is a waste of time, please tell us (and why you think so), that we may be good stewards of the time and energy God has given us.
thank you all for the blessings you have been thus far. please be in prayer about this, and see if God is calling us to take this proactive step toward becoming a more missional movement of churches.
Labels: missional document
posted by John at 11:18 AM
46 Comments:
I used to work for a painting contractor who had a great way to see if a job was done well. When we finished painting a bathroom he would sit on the toilet and look around. He figured that is where any problem would be seen. We could all learn from this: Sometimes we need to find the right place to sit to gain perspective. Walt, from where I am sitting you have a great idea.
walt,
Several days ago I had a very interesting and lengthy conversation with someone on the Committee that is working on 2.0.
He is aware of at least some of the blog discussions about WE BELIEVE. He indicated to me that he will do his best to communicate the concerns that have been expressed here.
He seemed particularly concerned by the observation that we have been kicking around here that 2.0 is irrelevant. We discussed some specifics regarding how a relevant document might be composed.
It was an encouraging conversation.
The Committee is gathering this week for three more days of conversation. He promises to let me know how things are progressing.
At this point, I am moderately hopeful.
I'm a little surprised that there haven't been more responses here, even if to say 'not interested.'
I think that a project like this is worthwhile, even if just for a few churches.
It is not so much that I am in disagreement with the idea of 'We Believe.' It's that I think we need something else - like what you (and we) have been talking about.
I think that it would be helpful if we had something of an outline and a sample of one piece of such a document in case there is more interest.
I've been very busy and hence away from the blog, but I think this is a good idea. If it came from across the denomination (geographically), it might be seen as more significant by others in the CGGC. One question I have is how it would be made available to our fellow-CGGCers.
I spent a short time at the conclave yesterday, taking care of some other business, but had a chance to talk to some of the participants and was very encouraged.
Of course I am one of those more in favor of a vague 2.0 so that we can be more inclusive to a variation of views on Non-essentials . Even Ed Rosenberry was in favor of making a way for some of us different breeds of Calvinists. I think we were termed as Calvinist lite (sounds like an interesting adult beverage). I also was told that 2.0 wouldn't be all taken care of till 2013.
The idea here on the blog makes me excited though. THere are a multitude of reasons, I won't share them all, but I think it is a great idea.
First, I like it because of timing. I believe we will have between 5 and 10 churches and/or networks in Texas in the next 2 or 3 years. I think this would be a great document to guide and train these planters (and that's just TX). I don't believe the WE.B is very missional at all, this could play that role.
Second, My hope is that this document will guide us in new endeavors that will bring the APEST into balance as Fran and I and, hopefully others, start building new regions for the CGGC.
I also am thrilled in bringing all the giftings of APEST together to do this. I think this will be a great guide and may allow this document to stay a little fluid over the years so it doesn't become an institutional document like the We.B and can stay relevant to the times.
My suggestion would be to bring two of each gifting to the table. One with Very Strong ties to the CGGC and then one without. I don't think having Fran and I both at the table as A's would be a great idea, my gamble (I could be wrong)is that both of us are in favor of scrapping many of the same things that we see are archaic stumbling blocks of the institution. Yet what we see as stumbling blocks may be key to some of the flavor of the CGGC. I don't know any staunch CGGC A's. I'm not saying they aren't there, I'm just to new to know them.
I am all for balance. I also want to urge or compel this to happen soon. I think we need this urgently. I think it is a top priority. My often and probably only complaint about this blog is that, besides Haiti, I don't see a lot of rubber meeting the road. This could be our rubber and the future is our road.
I will do anything to help. If it means I need to raise some money to get Bill Sloat to IL. I will. If we could show up a day early to MLI or stay a day late let's do it. I'll raise money for a night for Fran. I don't know the details, I'm a big picture person all I know is this needs to get done.
Let's do this, great idea. Let's follow it up with some amazing work.
Good thoughts Justin.
My thought is that trying to be too structured in composing the document will be troublesome. We'll not be able to get a large group around the table, nor should we spend a lot of money trying to.
I think what's most important is that the input and honest feedback is welcomed from as large of a cross-section of leadership giftings as possible.
I also don't think everybody has enough self-understanding of exactly what their gifting is to jump right into a category.
My thought is some sort of a wiki approach that many can contribute to and can be refined rather than become a static: missional document 2010. and then 5 years later we revise it. It could be constantly revised. I recognize there are logistical challenges here.
I think the first step is to come up with a guideline, outline, whatever as to the approach and get feedback to the approach from several different leaders before putting together the whole document that may end up needing to be changed drastically later.
Dan-
I just signed up for a trial with some new Tech that will allow us to have 9 people on at once. It is a spin off of skype. Everyone can see each other and talk. My wife just used it for a church planting wives' Round Table and loved it. Lets set up a time and get started.
I believe this is an urgent need.
Yup
whoever else is interested in Justin's idea of the video conference call, let us know.
I know I am not CGGC, but if you want this document to extend beyond that, if it is okay, I would love to be a part of this process. Not to be BMOC, I gave up on that in '86, but to be a participant in something that may have passion.
I would be up for that conversation. Someone (not me:-) will have to take responsibility after that for creating a structure/outline for the document.
Ok, here's my proposal. (I'd like for walt to chime in again here since he started this thread.)
I think we should take Justin up on the conference call idea. The point of this call should be to establish the aim and structure of this missional document.
Then, we should post the aim, structure and outline here (and possibly other places) and request feedback from people of all the giftings and also some outside of the cggc.
Then we can go forward with the composition, knowing that we are on the right track.
i lack the time to write what i'd like, but here's the basics:
-i'm really excited to see the feedback. i've been pretty busy with job search stuff (please pray for my interview on wednesday), but i'm glad to see there are others who feel like God could use something like this to put what we've talked about here into action.
-i'd be up for the conference call. i'm not sure what justin's talking about, but a group of my friends from college use something called tokbox, which proportedly works for up to 20 people video chatting without any downloads. in any case, count me in.
-i'm a little wary on the wiki idea, just because of logistics, but i like the general idea of making it easily modifiable, so that it's not so static.
more soon. God bless you, bros.
As we think about composing this document, I would recommend looking at the Lausanne Covenant as what I believe is generally an example of a documuent that is non-compromising but also not sectarian.
http://www.lausanne.org/covenant
I'm a tokbox guy. Laura Beth does Church Planting Wives round tables with it. I figured we could use that.
On the Wiki approach I think it could fly if it was done in a shared gmail document. That is how our transitional housing program wrote most of it's documents. There were only four of us adding stuff though.
Give me a date and I will schedule a tokbox conference.
We could also use Google Wave. II would like to know what the concerns regarding a WIKI are? If it is a complexity issue, there are some very simplified wiki's out there. Also, if it is a vandalism issue, we can set up a wiki that only registered users could make adjustments and they be required to enter their logic in the notes regarding their change so the entire community can discuss and if we do not like it-reversing is a snap and we are back to the former document.
Guys,
Maybe I'm whacko. Perhaps it's merely the obsessive pursuit of principle that comes with the prophetic temperament. It could be that I'm simply unreasonable.
In any case, I often find myself living between the world that exists and the world of conscience and am torn between the two.
From a real world point of view, I'm excited about what walt has proposed and am encouraged that some of you are willing to participate in it.
The view of the world on conscience, however, constrains me. The other day I reread my We Believe 2.0 post and read over my first objection to it which is, "We Believe 2.0 diminishes the authority of the Word."
I know how far off the beaten path I am over this, but I believe that our answer is not the creation of even the sort of missional document that Dan and walt and I discussed--as vastly superior to 2.0 as it might be.
I'm afraid that such a document might serve the purpose of giving us something to point to other than the Word.
My idea of the answer is to do what Winebrenner did in the late 1820s, in the time between his separation from his German Reformed churches in and around Harrisburg and 1830 when the John Winebrenner who formed the Church of God Eldership emerged. During that time, he read the Scriptures on his knees.
So, I'm deeply conflicted.
I will not participate in this endeavor but I will pray daily that the Lord will bless those of you who do.
Blessings on you all, my dear brothers (and I'd hope a sister to two would join in).
bill
I believe that there is an inherent danger with any type of systematic theology. We can attempt to systematize doctrine to the point where one wonders whether or not we even need to be in the Bible.
What the missional document must do (in my opinion) is to track the grand narrative of Scripture. It should increase our love for and dependence upon Scripture.
I hear you Bill and am sympathetic but ultimately I disagree. To say 'just the Bible' simply does not work. People who are not on mission at all read the Bible. Churches that are not on mission still have Bible studies and sermons from the Bible.
It's how we approach the Bible that's everything.
If any document replaces the Bible in any way, that's a huge problem. If it leads us back to the Bible, it's helpful.
For this reason, I'm for the document.
I agree with Dan. "Just the Bible" seems like a great idea but it is flawed. People ALWAYS create a system with which they approach the Bible. To be upfront with our system is only appropriate. I look forward to seeing what the missional document will look like and accomplish.
Brian,
I believe McKnight's book, The Blue Parakeet illustrates your point quite well.
Bill, I hope you reconsider. I think your perspective on the Bible and Winebrenner would help keep us honest and be a good check and balance to keep everyone focused on the right things as opposed to just making another statement of faith or systematic theology. You have a style about you that is centered on the right things. You think and ponder and see things in their right place. A bloke like me envies that for I tend to work from passion first and examine the repercussions later.
I share Bill's level of conviction about the fact that it is God speaking which we need to hear. There is certainly a danger in preferring to bat around our own current ideas versus hearing and responding to God Himself. I read a quote recently (can't remember from who) which said, "The Bible isn't meant to be read; it is meant to be heard." That's a distinction I value, and I think it may reflect Bill's concern.
At the same time, we have to be honest and admit that since the Reformation, a plethora of groups who all liked the idea of Sola Scriptura have disagreed widely on both doctrine and the nature of the church's mission. A document such as is being discussed here defines an approach to the faith in which Scripture can then be "heard" with an ear toward what ultimately matters.
It reminds me of N.T. Wright's conversations about Scripture being the ultimate authority, but experience, tradition and reason all playing a part in helping us hear Scripture the best we can.
But even if we do that reasonably well, it will land us back in Bill's territory: Have we written a document which merely says that we are right about some things, or which calls us to hear the living God and respond to Him by following the Way of His Son?
Late to the conversation as usual ... really should check into things more often. So many comments makes it tough to really respond.
Generally, I love the idea of a missional document. I've worked mostly with youth and college students. Though limited, it has been my experience that they embrace the possibility of interacting with God's Story. I've seen amazing things while volunteering at Passion Conferences with what students are willing to do and to give up. A missional document could help students (and those of us a tad older) to do that. I'm not sure that We Believe of any version has or will continue to do that.
Specific comments follow:
@Dan Masshardt — RE: whoever else is interested in Justin's idea of the video conference call, let us know. ~~> I would be, but I'm very limited. I don't have internet at home because I know full well that the social media addict that I am would spend far too much time tweeting/Facebooking/blogging and not enough time doing the more important things.
@Dan Masshardt — RE: I also don't think everybody has enough self-understanding of exactly what their gifting is to jump right into a category. ~~> True. The only thing I know as a somewhat educated lay leader (leader being somewhat of a misnomer) is what I have read about on this blog.
Blessings (from usually the only girl on the blog)
Tammie
Tammie,
Thanks for jumping in! Whether or not we can all make it in on that first call, I'm not requiring you to have input on this project :-)
Re: your gifting etc. If you share what you're most passionate about, it will probably give us some idea where you're at. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what my gifting is, but I know what passion God's put in my heart.
Friends,
Thanks for all of the responses to my last note.
It's a blessing to know that so many of you care...
...and are so willing to tell me that you disagree with me and think that I am wrong.
;-)
When I say "So, I'm deeply conflicted," I'm understating my angst. I'm torn over this.
I know of no one except John Winebrenner who would join me on this side of the argument.
Still, try getting me to change my mind over something I feel as strongly about as this.
Ed Rosenberry once told me that I am relentless. I told that to Evelyn and when she could stop laughing she said, "He means you're stubborn."
So you have it from the Executive Director and the person who knows me best.
Please don't allow this issue of conscience to deter you all from creating this document.
I will pray for this endeavor regularly.
Also, I would say that my view is not well characterized by saying, 'just the Bible.'
I'm advocating the radical trust in God's Word modeled by Winebrenner in those years when he read the Scriptures on his knees.
I still think that's our best answer.
Blessings on you.
Bill - I was personally in no way suggesting that you should change your mind. In fact I thought what you said was profound enough to need a response as to why I am taking a different position.
Just so you know, my post yesterday about We Believe was not meant to detract in any way from your discussions about a more "missional" document. I am all for it. I just had a thought about WB and thought I would share it - for those who are still interested in that.
So Bill is asking us to trust in three things.
1. The Bible - We read it to understand what God has done, what He will do, and what part we play in it.
2. Prayer - We get to talk to God ourselves... and He talks back.
3. Mission - God tells us what to do and we obey.
All of this is to be done without full understanding. All of this should be approached without preconceived ideas.
Bill is suggesting that rather than have a document that tells us how to approaching the Bible, that in fact, God will direct us after we read the Bible.
The problem with this is obvious. People have taken the Bible the wrong way. Heresy, defending abhorrent practices, ...
It is a child-like faith that would make us think it could be a simple connection with God, followed by our obedience.
Oh how I long for a child-like faith.
Brian,
All of the things you say are true. Because we are finite and flawed what we do with the Word is flawed.
My take on history, however, is that we did better when our basic document was the Word than we have done when one of the many forms of our doctrinal statement has been our basic document.
I am opposed the the adoption of 2.0 in any form remotely similar to what's currently on the table.
I'm not opposed to the creation of a missional document. I'll support it with my prayers--as I do your ministry.
However, I will not participate in its creation.
Here are two more cent from me.
Bill, I will disagree with you and tell you why you need to be involved and why I think J.W. would be okay with it.
1. I am not interested in writing a statement of faith but a declaration of mission. Would J.W.'s 27 points be considered something similar.
2. As I look back over the past post in debating this situation, I noticed Bill, you defended the idea of the 27 points verse the We Believe. Why can't this document be a 27 pointesk document. Bill you can make sure we hold to movement and mission ideals verse dogma.
3. Third I hope this document would describe what we feel called to do, not what we believe. Therefore it is not a statement that would describe what the Bible says (which can be done by the Bible itself), but hopefully about what we feel the bible is calling us to do through mission.
I guess there are 3 cents from me instead of two.
My next comment is for all of us. LETS GET STARTED.
walt and I are ready. Let's set up a time next week.
I would be interested in being part of this discussion.
What about Tuesday evening? Let's say 7:00 pm CST. 8:00 pm EST.
The only eve I can do is Monday. Daytimes are generally better.
This comment has been removed by the author.
something i picked up at college.
go to this link and highlight what times work for you. if everyone interested could reply by sunday night, we can set the time for next week. thanks!
ok, with the handful of replies i've gotten from my last comment, it looks like the best time is thursday between 11am and 3pm.
if you're still interested and haven't check out this website yet, please do, so we know who to expect. justin or i will put something on here about how to connect to the conference call later.
also, brian (i think), what did you use to record the grassroots podcast? perhaps recording what we talked about would be beneficial for those who can't make it?
Sounds good to me. It would be best for me if we could be done by 2:00.
Probably should keep it to an hour to stay focused?
walt, will you give us an agenda or a couple of key questions so that we can stay focused. Or give us the goal of the session. If we can establish that and form thoughts beforehand, it might be helpful.
Dan
I used Skype with a PrettyMay plug-in (which I purchased) to record the Grassroots podcasts.
I used Skype with a Prettymay plugin to record the Grassroots Podcast.
Gang,
You have no idea how much I have agonized over participating in this enterprise.
I am excited about what this document might accomplish but I can't participate in its creation.
I'm sure you all think I am a whacko.
I pray for this daily. I will continue to do so. I hope that what you produce will have a revolutionary impact on the church.
Blessings on you and what you are doing.
bill
What's the deal walt? Let us know if we're doing this tomorrow. Thanks.
Just give me the exact times and I will set it up on Tokbox. Everyone who will be on this needs to sign up for an account.
sorry about the delay.
let's set the call for 11:30am tomorrow, running til about 12:30. i'd recommend everyone trying to sign on by at least 11:15, so we can make sure there aren't any technical problems.
some topics for discussion of tomorrow:
- what do we want the main thrust(s) of this document to be? what do we want to emphasize?
-if we're framing it in the meta-narrative of the Bible, what would be the major sections/events/etc.? in other words, how would we divide it?
-how can we heed the bill's warning so that this document acts as a pointer to Scripture and not it's replacement? how can we present it as an appetizer to whet people's spiritual appetites for feasting on God's Word?
-how could we make it easily revisable, as dan has suggested, to avoid the potential problems of a more static document?
that should be enough for probably more than an hour. i'd like to cut the conversation off around 12:30, and then spend some time in prayer with you guys. we'll be done by 1pm at the latest.
i'm looking forward to working with you guys, for the glory of God and the growth of His Kingdom. God bless you all.
Is that Eastern Time?
I'd say he intends eastern time. Let us know the info when you get the link.
Here is the Tokbox link: http://www.tokbox.com/Justin2988/Emerging-CGGC-Mission
Post a Comment
<< Home