The Central Issue of General Conference 2010: Cognitive Dissonance
According to the Random House Dictionary, cognitive dissonance is, “anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.”
The reason I allowed my name to be entered into nomination to be a delegate to this General Conference is that I might have a voice in shaping the Credentials document and We Believe. As I prepare myself for the few minutes set aside for those issues, I am experiencing an intense form of anxiety.
“…Simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes (and) beliefs ….” I can think of no more apt description of the materials distributed in the delegates’ packet.
Our Mission Statement asserts: “As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world.” (emphasis mine)
And, that is as it should be.
John Winebrenner wrote of himself and our movement in the years between 1825 and 1830, “…the writer's views had by this time materially changed, as to the true nature of a scriptural organization of churches, he adopted the apostolic plan, as taught in the New Testament…”
The anxiety that is symptomatic of cognitive dissonance is precisely what I experience when I read our Mission Statement and compare it to the Credentials document and We Believe 2010.
Here’s what I see in the documents that will be presented in General Conference session:
We Believe 2010 takes the CGGC back to precisely what Winebrenner rejected. In the 1500s, the vitality of the Reformers devolved into cold, lifeless, doctrinaire sectarianism. The factions of Protestantism abandoned Kingdom building to argue among themselves and to write catechisms tens of thousands of words long. (Our own 2010 retreat into sectarianism is 21,333 words long.)
The Standards for Ministerial Credentials document does We Believe 2010 several paradigms better. It abandons our apostolic vision, not for Protestant scholasticism but for a model of leadership rooted in Constantine and polished off by the Roman Catholic Church in the Dark Ages. The Mission Statement proclaims the building of New Testament plan churches. Do we think we can lead those churches with a clergy system rooted in the theology of Middle Ages?
So what will it be? The New Testament plan? Post-Reformation scholasticism? Medieval Catholicism? Or, just good, old-fashioned CGGC cognitive dissonance?
It would help me to know two things from you:
1. Do you agree with my analysis of those documents (if you have access to them)?
2. Do you care enough to do something about it?
I believe we are in a transitional moment. We can build Kingdom on the New Testament plan. Or, we can entrench as a sect with a 20,000+ word catechism and a medieval model of leadership.
posted by bill Sloat at 9:54 AM
51 Comments:
I do not have access to these documents, so it is hard to express significant thoughts.
Fran,
The absence of your apostolic giftedness will be a loss to the General Conference as it gathers.
Hopefully, you will never see these documents in their current form.
Bill,
I have the documents with me, but so far the beach is winning the battle for my time. I will get around to looking at them eventually.
Dan,
I would never dream of asking a friend, to give up the glories of the beach to read a post of mine, let alone WB 2010 or the Credential document. But, when you return to earth, let us know what you think.
Bill... not sure what you assumed, but I will be present at General Conference.
I have been reading WB2010 and will finish next week (?).
Can we ever return to "Jesus Christ is Lord"?
Fran,
If you are a delegate you have this stuff in your packet.
Lew:
Can we ever return to "Jesus Christ is Lord"?
Very, very interesting that you should ask that question.
One of the most offensive parts of the new We Believe to me is that the line from the old WB,
"We believe the central message of the Scriptures is the Good News that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,"
has been replaced by,
"We believe the central message of the Bible is the creative and redemptive work of God in history."
So, you could say that not only can't return to "Jesus Christ is Lord," we currently have it and we've decided to abandon it.
Don't get me started.
This thing can not be allowed to stand.
Bill and others I posted a comment a week or so ago about others who are not bogged down in dogmatic institutionalism. I gave the example of our separated brothers the Church of God Anderson.
I had made a comment that I believed their simplicity in their statement of belief was one of the reasons they have continued growing over the years and we have continued in decline.
I could not paste their statement of belief, but you can find it @ www.chog.org/AboutUs/OurBeliefs/tabid/307/Default.aspx
Justin,
I've looked it over quickly.
It's about one fifth the length of WB. That is definitely a step in the right direction.
If I had my way though, our document would be less than one fifth the length of the Anderson document and it would deal specifically and only with our understanding of the Gospel.
Also, it strikes me that the Anderson document is designed to define the Anderson tribe. I really want to see any document we produce demonstrate how we are part of the Kingdom, not how we are distinct from others in the Kingdom.
But, if we want tribalism, then I'm not sure you can do better than WB 2010.
------------
One of the central themes of my critique of WB is on this issue of Kingdom vs. tribe. Doesn't anyone agree with me that we should produce a Kingdom document and not a definition of this tribe?
Bill-
I agree. I don't want to copy it, I just wanted to show an example of something way shorter and not very institutional. There is tons of wiggle room in their document to include many in the body of Christ.
They no longer emphasize even why they split from us.
My point is short and sweet serves the Kingdom best. It truly includes the Body. I think the we believe narrows us down to heads, left hands and right feet.
Bill, I agree that we should have a Kingdom document. However, isn't there some concern people will join our tribe without accepting our tribal rituals. Isn't that the reason for WB2101 or the statement of any other group.
Lew,
Bill, I agree that we should have a Kingdom document. However, isn't there some concern people will join our tribe without accepting our tribal rituals. Isn't that the reason for WB2101 or the statement of any other group.
Wow, now that is, I suppose, a central question underlying this whole discussion. And, I know that I take a view that is outside the mainstream in Western Christianity and in the CGGC.
What I've been hoping is that there is a mainstream missional subculture in the CGGC and that my view is at least somewhere close to that mainstream.
I understand that this next statement may be a fatally dangerous one as far as my future in the CGGC is concerned:
The only tribe to which I want to belong is the Kingdom of God tribe.
(It's not that I want to ignore the practices that we believe in together. Those practices, e.g., the literal observance of feet washing in obedience to the command of Jesus and believers' baptism are issues of tribe to me, though, they are matters of obedience. And, I think that we should have a document that defines those practices.)
But, Jesus launched His ministry on the simple message, "The time has come. The KINGDOM (not Church) of God is near. Repent and believe the euangelion.
He said, "Seek first God's KINGDOM and His righteousness."
Those are foundational teachings to the man and woman who follows Jesus. I honestly believe that to make any tribal issue-even a tribal 'ritual'-crucial is, well, a form of idolatry. And, as I read Scripture, I can't see that the Spirit will bless that.
I agree with you that, as far as the people who have composed WB 2010 are concerned, the document is precisely about defining the tribe and its rituals. I just believe that thinking in those terms is very, very wrong.
Bill, what you have stated is so radical that I don't think you will have any one agree with you--except those who met in Jerusalem for the first church council, where it was determined that "it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved".
But I'm right behind you Bill
Lew,
I know many who talk the Kingdom talk. I'm not saying that I'm the only one who walks the Kingdom walk but, it seems to me that we all have to fight the temptation to talk Kingdom but walk sect.
I don't even know how much time we'll be given to discuss this stuff. But I think it is very important.
My last post was tongue in cheek, trying to point to WB50AD in Acts 15. I would certainly endorse a document that espouses Kingdom values.
Lew,
I'm up for WB AD 50, as is the Mission Statement. It's the other documents that take us away from that.
I'm not convinced it's wrong to have a tribe smaller than the whole body of Christ. Tribes give us a pack to run with, and we need that. And if we have some good and strong convictions, it gives us the opportunity to run with others who we believe care about the right things.
I understand what Bill is saying about not wanting to be continually defining ourselves by what makes us different from other Jesus-tribes, and I agree. Yet I think there is something legitimate about defining your tribe's deep convictions, which may then be things that set you apart from other tribes. I think we need to note that there is a difference between defining distinctives in order the protect our heritage, and defining convictions because we think they are crucial to how we follow the Lord and lead His church in the future.
And when you contrast those two different motives for laying out "what makes us us", the interesting mixture of what the CGGC is at this point in history becomes apparent. We are a hodge podge made up of old school fundamentalists (with a passion for CGGC distinctives), classic evangelicals, and then an assortment of others (including me)who have been rethinking a few things in recent years (the nature of the Gospel and the mission of the church, to name a couple of significant ones).
So the question is, "Could you write a truly meaningful document (whether more doctrinal or missional) that would resonate with our various sub-groups?" I highly doubt it.
We are all concerned about what will become of the CGGC. If it were up to me, I would write a document that:
A) Affirms our commitment to the essentials of the faith.
B) Addresses our historical distinctives by acknowledging their historical value to the movement, then giving some fresh perspective to put them in their place.
C) Spends most of its ink on defining the message and work of the Kingdom, the things we would die for.
And I'd keep it short. But it's not up to me.
What God has allowed me personally to be involved with is some opportunities to help shape where the CGGC goes (my involvement in the national church development commission and a role in a new CGGC journal which will address important questions). My personal hope is that we see those with a passion for the Kingdom, for contextual mission, and for discipleship grow greater in number, and more visible within the CGGC over the next few years (and I am growing more optimistic about this)... and then that at some point such a document is the obvious thing to pen for the whole denomination.
I am not opposed to a lively debate about the new WB at General Conference, but because of the various subcultures within the CGGC, I suspect that it will be quite an argument, and we'll all be glad there wasn't drinking involved.
Regardless of what happens with the new WB at General Conference, I still think it would be an interesting idea for a group of us to pen a short, non-divisive document which articulates important things beyond what WB addresses.
Wow, Fran, good stuff! You pack a lot into a few words.
This issue of tribe is a very important one, I think. It surprises me that, several months after finishing The Forgotten Ways, the chapter that impacts me most is the 'Communitas not Community' chapter. That chapter is about tribe issues.
I believe tribal identification is essential but that understand who the tribe is foundational. I believe we should strive for communitas, not community. (BTW, a shepherd led culture will only ever produce community. I believe that communitas can come only from APEST leadership.)
We live is a transitional time--perhaps more so than at any moment since the mid 1600s. It strikes me from my study of church history that at transitional times, tribes are not formed within, uh, judicatories but among those who participate in forward looking movements. (It also forms among reactionaries to forward looking movements.)
Hence, the revivalists of the First Great Awakening were closer to each other than they were to others in their own faith groups. In the 1800s the young Winebrenner felt closer to the people he worked with in campmeetings than others in the German Reformed Church. He deeply admired Charles G. Finney, a Presbyterian.
And, I wonder, since we care about community formation, what are the terms we should be forming tribe on? If we are going to have a functioning CGGC tribe then I think we have to be very careful around what beliefs and activities define the tribe in the 21st century.
In my opinion, dredging up Forney's definition of an ordinance and his unique understanding of Feet Washing as a memorial of the incarnation, won't create communitas among 21st century people who are following Christ and living in a postmodern culture.
All of that is to say that I agree with you when you say,
I think we need to note that there is a difference between defining distinctives in order the protect our heritage, and defining convictions because we think they are crucial to how we follow the Lord and lead His church in the future.
You just say it better than I.
It seems to me that WB 2010 attempts to define the CGGC tribe in a way that pulls us toward a CGGC past and not the best the best CGGC past. It pulls us back to Forney and CGGC scholasticism and increasing institutionalization. It doesn't pull us toward Winebrenner and Spirit-empowered movement.
To go back to Winebrenner and the stuff of movement might connect us with our Mission Statement's assertion that we are committed to building churches "on the New Testament plan" and, therefore, might launch us into a rediscovery of movement for our future.
I have comments on other thoughts in your post which I will enter later.
Blessings, Fran.
You bless me.
bill
Bill,
We're on the same page, to be sure. I also resonate with that communitas/community distinction, and strongly agree that communitas can only be formed through APEST leadership, not shepherd-only leadership. Communitas is the kind of community formed on adventures, during crises, and in foxholes. It is not "Gee, I like you" community, but rather, "Wow, we did that (or survived that) together" community.
Our church (LifeSpring) used to have only community, now it also has a healthy dose of communitas. The great thing about communitas is that those who share it keep better track of what is big and what is small.
You wrote: "...tribes are not formed within, uh, judicatories but among those who participate in forward looking movements". Not only is this true, it is true precisely because organizations which have become institutionalized have lost the adventure and/or danger required to create communitas. The question this raises for me with regard to the new WB is this: What is my brother Bill hoping for, since no document can create what we all wish the CGGC could magically be transformed into?
Then you wrote: "And, I wonder, since we care about community formation, what are the terms we should be forming tribe on?"
It seems obvious to me (though I may easily be mistaken) that "tribe" can only be formed where the passions and convictions on which the tribe is formed live in all the persons out of which it is being formed (try saying that 3 times fast).
So, here are some tentative thoughts emerging for me as we chew on this:
1. The CGGC is not at present a tribe (though it was in Winebrenner's time); it is an organization (and one in which some love institution and some would love to dismantle institution).
2. The CGGC cannot be made into a tribe by a document, no matter how good it is (I am not arguing against the value of a good document for the CGGC as it exists today, but getting to a document that represents the tribal values we hope will one day prevail is like asking the African nations to work things out).
3. The effort most likely to lead to the majority of the CGGC living good values adventurously and dangerously is the emergence of a tribe, within the CGGC, which chases those things NOW (I am not sure exactly what this looks like, though I think there are some foundational things beginning to happen which would help this).
4. IF we are willing to do #3, above, then always working to edge CGGC documents in the right direction is a good thing (which is what I think you are trying to do). If we do not do #3 above, then your current efforts with WB will be a blip on the historical timeline, and a blip people regard as having been merely about documents.
I was reading Leading Change, the classic leadership text by Kotter, and was thinking about the CGGC as I read the first couple chapters.
The first step in Leading Change is to have a "sense of urgency."
Here is a list of what Kotter says leads to complacency (the opposite of urgency):
1. The absence of a major and viable crisis.
2. Too many visible resources.
3. Low overall performance standards.
4. Organizational structures that focus employees on narrow functional goals.
5. Internal measurement systems that focus on the wrong performance data.
6. A lack of sufficient performance feedback from external sources.
7. A kill the messenger of bad news, low candor, low confrontation culture.
8. Human nature, with its capacity for denial, especially if people are already busy or stressed.
9. Too much happy talk from the senior management.
I'll be curious to see how much "happy talk" there is from the senior management.
The second step in Leading Change is Creating the Guiding Coalition.
You need people with:
1. Position power
2. Expertise
3. Credibility
4. Leadership
It may not be an exact correlation, but it sounds a little like APEST. And it is significant that our keynote speaker will kick off the conference with a talk on APEST.
The transparency we need is to be able to admit, "We aren't doing what this expert is recommending."
Kotter talks about how tribes have leaders that get them moving, but institutions have more managers who were brought on to deal with the massive growth brought by the leaders.
When the growth stops, and the managers (shepherds) still make the decisions, growth will never occur.
So a Guiding Coalition must be put into place that has the ability to move the organization with sufficient urgency into a challenging vision.
This is followed by massive communication.
And so on.
If there is anything we can do, at this point it is to establish a sense of urgency because there is not a Guiding Coalition that I'm aware of.
Last year I read two of Kotter's books, both of which are relevant to the church. I recommend Our Iceberg is Melting as a reminder of the urgency we need. However, another book was recently recommended that seems to apply directly to the APEST issue. The title is The Trellis and the Vine. The premise is that most churches are spendi8ng more time on the trellis than the vine. The trellis produces nothing but often consumes us. The vine that produces fruit is often neglected. Is this a picture of our denomination?
By the way Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun has a lot to say about tribes.
Fran,
The stuff you write is first class. Not to sound like a broken record, but your posts here are a genuine blessing to me.
A few posts back you wrote:
"2. The CGGC cannot be made into a tribe by a document, no matter how good it is (I am not arguing against the value of a good document for the CGGC as it exists today, but getting to a document that represents the tribal values we hope will one day prevail is like asking the African nations to work things out).
"
By, the time we get to the bottom line, I agree.
However...
...This process of creating a document can be one in which we sort out crucial issues of mission. It can be one where we come to grips with the questions:
Will we be internally focused or externally focused?
Will be build a sect or will be build the Kingdom?
We will seek to understand how we are a part of the whole Body of Christ or will be dot the 'i's and cross the 't's of the minutia that make us unlike all of the rest of the Body?
What I'm concerned with is not so much the document that will be written but the process of edification that will result in the document that is ultimately written.
This has not been a good process to this point because the document that has been produced to this point is internally focused and sectarian. It is not missional. It calls us back to a time that some of us apparently regard as the good old days. It doesn't engage the issues of our day. And, it doesn't propell us toward a vibrant future.
Also, while I agree that a document can make a tribe, I believe that a document has a more significant role in tribe formation than you're admitting.
The bridge in the Rich Mullins' song "Creed" is an awesome statement that resonates with me. Much of the time since I read your post, the tune's been running continually through my mind.
Mullins says,
"I believe what I believe. It's what makes me what I am.
I did not make it, no it is making me..."
I'm with Rich on that.
I believe that a signficant reason that the CGGC in 2010 is internally focused and sectarian and living, say, 100 years behind its time is because the We Believe that has formed it for a generation is internally focused and sectarian and aspired to an era several generations behind it time.
That document has had a substantial role in making the CGGC what it is. And, the new one in this form, will intensify our internal focus, sectarianism and it will freeze us theologically in the year 1906 for another generation.
I'm not sure how, if we make this document a reality--if we send the whole next generation of leaders to the Polity class to be enculterated into this definition of church with its internal focus and its understanding of church as sect--we can hope to be externally focused, Kingdom oriented, missional movement.
If what I believe makes me who I am WB 2010 in this form will kill us.
Like you, I am not opposed to a lively discussion of the document that will be on the table at General Conference.
Brian,
Regarding the sense of urgency stuff from Kotter:
Was he writing a case study on the CGGC?
Yikes!
Okay, Fran, you wrote:
You wrote: "...tribes are not formed within, uh, judicatories but among those who participate in forward looking movements". Not only is this true, it is true precisely because organizations which have become institutionalized have lost the adventure and/or danger required to create communitas. The question this raises for me with regard to the new WB is this: What is my brother Bill hoping for, since no document can create what we all wish the CGGC could magically be transformed into?
Here's what I think:
A document absolutely can not make tribe possible but it can make it almost IM-possible.
I taught the Polity Course a few times at Winebrenner.
There was no question that, in the theology part of the class, We Believe would be the primary text and that is as it should be. What else would be?
And, I remember the powerful process of enculturation that took place when students from all over the General Conference travelled to the Holy City to be instructed on Missions by Don Dennison and (in that day) Church Planting by Jim Moss/Jay Nickless and to have denominational vision cast by Wayne Boyer himself and to hear about stewardship from Bob Stephenson.
Then to have church doctrine explained by, well, me.
Most of the students came to the class with trepidation. They left relieved to see that the big shots in the Holy City were really just people. And, they left formed for ministry in the CGGC by the people they met, the truths they were taught and the values they absorbed.
And, they were taught, for instance, that it is important to believe things about ordinances and Feet Washing specifically that makes us totally distinct from all the other members of Christ's Body: They were taught sectarian values, not Kingdom values.
They were taught material about the doctrine of the Church that failed to mention the Great Commission or the Great Commandment or the New Commandment. They were taught shepherd ecclesiology--what Reggie McNeal call 'club culture.' They were not taught Kingdom ecclesiology.
They were taught from a Doctrinal Statement well more than 10,000 words long in which beliefs that define the salvation for eternity were printed in the same bold print as the beliefs that have to do with the finest points of the minutia of our distinctive doctrines. A value that the Gospel is central to our beliefs was NOT engendered in these nubies.
They had an extremely emotional, very important formative experience that enculturated them into a CGGC that made the CGGC what it is today.
I want to transform that formative experience, at least the degree that We Believe forms the newest, most impressionable leaders of our church.
The Polity Course can't make us a tribe but, I believe that it can make it almost impossible for us to stop being an institution so we can be a tribe.
Can you see why this matters so much to me?
I took the polity course one year ago. Having not attended a CGGC school or seminary or training program, it was the only formal training I had in our polity.
I wonder sometimes if I just lack discernment. I left that week excited about the kingdom. Yes, we talked about distictives, the rationale for them, but not in a we're right sort of way.
I just don't know...I don't feel sect coming from anywhere. I feel kingdom. Maybe I see what I want to, I'm not sure.
We can be formed by written documents. We are formed by the Scripture, are we not?
For me the 'We Believe' doesn't get opened often. In discussions with potential new members perhaps. I'm not sure if I'd open it much more often if it was 'perfect' (ha).
At the end of the day, I teach from the Bible, proclaim the gospel. People in my church are going to see the beleifs that we in the local church focus on and talk about more than what's written in a blue or other colored book.
I want a good and helpful statement too. Sometimes I just don't see the severity of the problem.
But again, maybe I simply lack discernment.
Brian...
Guiding coalition... yep. that's part of what I was trying to say. And no, it does not exist, but I can tell you that Ed wants kingdom effectiveness, and that vision is starting to bubble on the national development commission. We may be able to get to a "guiding coalition", but it may have to initially come together on the corner across from the playground (if you catch my drift). If it is not intentionally antagonistic to Findlay, it will be invited over to the monkey bars. If we are all waiting for the institution to take the initiative in creating a guiding coalition with a sense of urgency...
Bill...
I get why all this is so important to you. But whatever role the old WB has played, the new one cannot shape a tribe, in part because it is not being created by a guiding coalition with a sense of urgency. You listed several formative questions which could be asked in the process of creating a document. The problem is that those questions don't burn inside those creating it.
You are right that it may work against the creation of tribe, but you are assuming that our key leaders in the future will have attended the polity class (I have not, and I am raising up APEST leaders who have not). If a reshaping of the CGGC is successful, future leaders will learn most of their perspective on gospel, church and mission as they are mentored by US. And the time to shape them starts now. As Gandhi said, "You must be the change you want to see in the world".
I'm not arguing with your passion for this document, and it may be your calling as a prophet to address this strongly. I see other, more apostolic opportunities, as having greater real potential to shape things.
All this aside, I still believe that the hope of the CGGC is the development of a subculture within the larger body, which:
A) Defines it differently
B) Lives it our differently
C) Replicates it in others
D) Winsomely invites others to join the parade
E) Challenges the institution without antagonizing it.
As I read the comments, it seems obvious to me that there is not a Sense of Urgency. Most of the sense of urgency will need to come from Ed and his staff. Kotter warned of "too much happy talk" from corporate. If Ed tries to convince us we've done really well this last year, urgency will become complacency.
There is of course a place for rewards and attaboys. Reward what you want repeated, they say.
It does really strike me after the sense of urgency, that a guiding coalition would have to be put in place before the Vision (the document). It cannot be done from the corner across from the playground. It has to be done on the playground.
The playground is the Regions. And I haven't seen any sense of urgency there at all.
Brian,
As this round of blog dialogue unfolds, I'm feeling like I "see" something that I must not be explaining well. You said that "most of the sense of urgency will have to come from Ed and his staff". I understand the value of that, but does this mean that if a group who are not the national staff came together with a sense of urgency, that will not contribute to change? And are you saying that unless the national staff becomes the seedbed of urgency, that we should not look for the sun to rise from other quarters?
Perhaps where my mindset is different is that I am not really hoping that the institution will reform itself. I am hoping for a counterculture to grow up among those connected to the institution, which eventually becomes the dominant culture (and the odds of this seem good, since the institution is slowly dying and has no compelling vision taking it to fruitful places).
You wrote:
"It cannot be done from the corner across from the playground. It has to be done on the playground. The playground is the Regions. And I haven't seen any sense of urgency there at all."
Can you clarify what you mean by that? If you mean that for the CGGC to go better places it has to start in the leadership of the Regions, that seems like a potentially futile place to wait. Reform almost always comes from places other than the seats of power.
In my very simple way of thinking about things, it seems like those who feel a sense of urgency, if it is fueled by the Holy Spirit, should respond to it in whatever way they can.
Fran, we are talking about different things.
The title of this particular blog thread is "The Central Issue of General Conference 2010: Cognitive Dissonace."
So we are talking about the body of the CGGC, "the playground," if you will. At this meeting, it would be best if the sense of urgency came from as near the top as possible.
And I am saying for the CGGC as a body to turn that a group "on the playground" (to use your metaphor) will have to embrace the need for change and see it through.
Yes, Regional leaders, whether directors or other key leaders will have to sense the urgency for the CGGC to change.
You said, "I am not really hoping that the institution will reform itself."
I would say that is where Bill and I differ with you. We would love to see the CGGC reform herself into a growing, world changing, "Thy Kingdom Come" type of organization.
I can see your vision as well Fran, and I am not just waiting for the internal change to occur, but it is my heartfelt hope.
Here I was speaking directly to the issue of upcoming meetings and the general direction of the CGGC as a whole.
My question is, "What exactly is the sense of urgency for the CGGC?" If you were to write Ed's notes for him, what would you write? (This question is for anybody not just Fran)
Fran:
Perhaps where my mindset is different is that I am not really hoping that the institution will reform itself. I am hoping for a counterculture to grow up among those connected to the institution, which eventually becomes the dominant culture (and the odds of this seem good, since the institution is slowly dying and has no compelling vision taking it to fruitful places).
Your mindset isn't different than mine in that I'm not hoping that the 'institution' will change?
(What is the CGGC 'institution' anyway? I agree that it exists--or, at least, it has taken on an institutional identity. But, who? What is it? Ed? The Holy City staff? Those people plus the regional staffs?)
I write these things in order to call people within the Body to repentance from inward focus and sectarian vision and the yearning for a lost past.
My hope in all that is that the counter-culture you hope for will emerge and that apostles in the body will call the people who emerge to a unified mission and vision.
I'm calling the remnant to come forward. I'll stop doing that when I sense that the Lord has spewed the rest of the body out of his mouth. I've seen the counter-culture you hope for happen in church history and I believe it can happen but I don't think it will happen without consistent calls to repentance and careful explanations of why change is necessary.
I agree with you that the sense of urgency doesn't have to come from Ed and his staff. But, from church history I can say that, unless it does, the counter-culture/remnant will ultimately leave the CGGC and scatter or be formed into a new body that will function as a movement.
I pray daily for Ed and his staff--all of them--and everyone on my Region's staff in the hope that they will develop the sense of urgency that Brian mentions.
Brian has brought to this conversation a theme that I believe is worth noting and highlighting and exploring. He's been talking about the importance of a sense of urgency.
In my opinion, if the tone of General Conference is that all is well and that the CGGC faces a bright future, I'm not sure we'll be in good enough shape in three years to be able to do something about the mess we're in.
We are in dire straits--a sense of urgency trifecta!
The majority of CGGC congregations appear to be at the end stages--the death stage or near to it--in their organizational life cycles. That this is the condition of so many is a problem but it's not necessarily a fatal problem in and of itself. CGGC congregations have floundered in the past and have rebounded.
What's problematic today is that the CGGC itself is showing all of the signs of being near the end of its organizational life cycle. And, so flailing congregations can not find energy in the vitality of the larger body. The truth is that many of our congregations in trouble are in better shape in terms of their own life cycle than their region or the General Conference.
What's more, Western Christian is at as low an ebb as it has been in many centuries--perhaps at a lower point than at any time since the Reformation. In "It's AD 30 All Over Again," Reggie McNeal points out that at the beginning of the 20th century 80% of Christians were white and were western culture people. He says that by the beginning of the 21st century 80% of Christians were not white and lived in nonwestern cultures. The totality of Western Christendom appears to be near the end of its life cycle. It is dead and highly institutional.
So, as Brian points out, a sense of urgency is what's called for. Looking this over from a 40,000 foot view, things are bad. Is it too late? Well, only if the Lord decides to spit us out of His mouth. If He doesn't do that all things are possible.
Will we change? No. That is unless there are some serious and widespread decisions to repent. I can't see that happening until we take an honest look all around us and start to get serious about how much trouble we are in.
Brian, right on, friend!
We need to leave General Conference with a sense of urgency.
Brian,
Thanks for clarifying-- I suspected e were talking about different things.
I share your desire to see Ed deliver some hard talk, and some visionary talk, at General Conference with a sense of urgency.
Bill, you wrote:
"What's problematic today is that the CGGC itself is showing all of the signs of being near the end of its organizational life cycle. And, so flailing congregations can not find energy in the vitality of the larger body."
I thought that was really interesting and poignant. We've watched our Midwest Region function with zero vitality for years, and be useless to the churches, and no one yells and screams about it. There are some in regional roles who see it, and they have absolutely no courage to call for real change. Beyond the question of WB discussion at General Conference, I would love to see people say some messy things akin to what you said in your last comments here, and for a bit of a mess to follow that. Otherwise we all just keep pretending that the emperor has clothes.
Having said all that... I think Ed gets it, and is trying to allow/promote the cultivation of a more kingdom/missional culture within the CGGC. How that will translate into his public words at GC, I cannot say.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry. That was not directed at you, Fran. Carry on.
Fran,
The exercise the Roths had us do at the Church Development Gathering last year in which we all plotted our congregation and our Region on the Life Cycle of an Organization bell curve had a powerful impact on me. We all agreed that our Regions are near death. Where does that leave the General Conference?
The theme of GC, "A New Tomorrow" can mean anything. But, based on the upbeat tone of Ed's report, I'm expecting to hear a lot of, "We're doing great! Keep up the good work!"
You're right, if that's so, we need to start describing how we see the outfit the Emperor is really sporting.
Dan H,
Regarding your now deleted comment, I know that it was the fruit of love for the Kingdom and anger at the church.
I also love the Kingdom and I am also angry.
Many of us share a sense of urgency. At least, some of us do. I agree with Fran that the CGGC needs a counter-culture. It needs an active counter-culture that is both prophetic, in that it calls for repentance, and apostolic, in that it offers a positive solution.
Perhaps when we meet next week we can begin to do some things that will, in the end, make a difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I completely missed the deleted comments, so I probably missed all the fun;-)
A thought about Ed... I've spent a lot of time with him. He wants the right things, and he wants them with a right heart. He has a hard job, which is to try to turn the ship. And as your comment, Bill, noted, turning the ship requires both the honestly stated correctives and the positive solutions.
I think we all ought to be coming to GC with our eyes open for opportunities to have honest conversations, whether these are in the assemblies, or the hallways, in hotel lobbies, or over dinner tables, and not just with each other, but with others who are willing to hear and think.
I also keep thinking about this idea of a short document articulating the values of our emerging subculture (isn't that what we are here, even by having this conversation?). It doesn't have to be official, and let's face it, such a document is very unlikely to come from the official regional or national offices at this point. Neither does it have to be angry. It could state where we have gone amiss, and what we are embracing. It would need to be specific enough that it clearly represents something different from what have been the prevailing values, and broad enough that even those of us in these conversations can all embrace and own it. I'm not sure how it would be circulated.
Bill, you are right. And, Fran, you didn't miss much. Just me being an idiot again.
I don't even know if I am angry anymore. And, like has been said on here by others, I am certainly not angry at any individuals.
I haven't been able to follow all the comments, and some of you know now that I cannot articulate in a very civil manner (and I don't even know if I can put it into words). I also don't expect that very many see things my way, and I don't think the kind of change you guys are talking about really should come from the top. I think it develops from the fringes. However, it seems to me that denominational leadership could serve well by giving encouragement and affirmation to this sort of thing. And maybe they are, but I don't see/hear it. I think that is symptomatic of a fear-based system; and that is perhaps what they can address first and foremost. But I may not know enough about the "inner workings," and maybe I'm totally off base.
Just a thought (and apologizing again for yesterday).
Dan M,
I took the polity course one year ago. Having not attended a CGGC school or seminary or training program, it was the only formal training I had in our polity.
I wonder sometimes if I just lack discernment. I left that week excited about the kingdom.
Be honest, Dan. You arrived there being excited about the Kingdom.
Dan H,
Like you my anger is not at individuals.
The theme of my 'macrorepentance' threads is that there is a value system that controls the church culture that is at the root of our problems.
No one is individually responsible. We all suffer from it.
Perhaps because there's no individual to be angry with I'm all the more angry. You can't apply the principles of Matthew 18 just between the two of you with a value system.
The question of whether the urgency should come from the top is a good one. My belief is that the urgency is coming from the fringes (many of us for instance), but for the urgency to form, there either has to be a revolution or a call from the top. I'm asking for a call from the top to really gauge the sense of urgency among those gathered.
Bill,
I'm sure you're right. Nothing there slowed that down though.
Particularly Ed's passion, and I believe urgency, is growing and exciting.
I think change in mindset is happening for some, even if it is slower than we think it should be.
random side comment - I like wordpress much better than blogger. One of the reasons is threaded comments - that we can reply directly to one another's comments.
Brian,
We'll know soon how intense a sense of urgency is articulated by Ed. I've read his report. What's the term? "Happy talk?"
That's how I read it.
It's what I always hear. Perhaps I'm hearing wrongly. I really do hope that he leaves with a queazy and uneasy feeling--a sense that we need to change the way we are thinking and behaving. I hope he gives us some specific, detailed definition of the nature of that change. I hope, before he is finished speaking to the GC, he calls the people of the CGGC to stand up and promise to work for change--to as Fran/Gandhi say, to BE the change. I hope he empowers people who are calling for change.
I hope he does anything that will unsettle the Kumbaya Culture that has dominated the CGGC for decades in which "Can we all just get along?" thinking has displaced the Great Commission's "Go and make disciples."
I wish I was a bettin man. I'd place a bet right now. I'd give odds.
It is time Bill and Fran. The darkest and coldest part of the day is always just before sunrise. I see hope everywhere I look. Twenty years ago, we were told that we were on the rocks and Barna painted a dark picture for us. We were reminded that we were ingrown, institutionalized more than the "Presbyterians", and giving lip service to the Great Commission. I remember that our ministry in Haiti was threatening to spin out of orbit, we had missions to the Navajo's that were only seeing people come to Christ through VBS groups and had someone serving who plainly said I don't want to do this. I remember God not blessing our plans and cutting short our funding. Barna said unless we repent, by 2000 we would cease to exist.
Twenty years ago, few people would have even questioned the "target", "Kingdom focus", or cried of the cultural "irrelevance" of We Believe. Instead we drew lines to make sure a portion of the tribe is represented and articulated. The cry this time is quite different! That is a great thing! The questions and challenges are of a completely different nature. Our discussions are of a new nature.
I see the door to credentialling beginning to crack in the credentialling documentation. We are a diverse tribe! Recognizing a localized ordination is a step in the right direction.
I also wish to speak to urgency. I believe that there is a generation of leaders coming forward that have that sense of urgency. I can see it in the endless pages of minutes and the reports that are being shared in our Ad Council minutes. There is a holy discontent to the status quo. There is hunger for God to begin a new work in us, which is not just from a denominational perspective but a personal level.
Is there cognitive dissonance? Yes! Absolutely! I say praise God for it because it is precisely that cognitive dissonance that is fueling the flames of preperation for God's new work through a tribe that has been uncertain of it's niche in God's Kingdom! Paradigm's do not shift quickly without fracture and disunion.
I apologize for rambling. I feel like for me, though I am not content with how far we have come, we are moving. I feel like the kids in Narna beginning to realize that the icicles are melting. Aslan is on the move, and Spring and a new work is coming.
Phil,
Loved the Narnia reference. I see signs of hope as well-- that's not "happy talk", but rather the acknowledgment that there is greater discontent in some and that some are shifting to a kingdom perspective. We do not want to alienate those who are waking up to some new things just because they are not the ones we hang around with or who are not in these blog discussions. The call to repentance must be mixed with a positive articulation of what I've been calling "fresh values", so that people understand that this is not just criticism of where we are (or have been), but a call to embrace and chase something better, something that smells like Jesus, something beautiful.
Phil,
Thanks for the comments.
Fran,
The call to repentance must be mixed with a positive articulation of what I've been calling "fresh values", so that people understand that this is not just criticism of where we are (or have been), but a call to embrace and chase something better, something that smells like Jesus, something beautiful.
Hence Paul's assertion that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone. There is a spiritual synergism between apostles and prophets. There is no question in my mind that we need to seek the guidance of the Spirit and find the perfect apostolic/prophetic balance in these next few days that will be crucial to a meaningful CGGC future.
To y'all:
I will do my utmost to be speaking the truth in love.
Post a Comment
<< Home