Reflections on General Conference
I thought it might be worth sharing a few reflections on General Conference, and I would love to hear what others thought or observed. For me, this conference felt like the door cracked open on a few things in a really good way...
First was the fact that we had open debate on the credentialing question. Yes, the revised document was passed, but with a caveat that a fresh group be convened to work on the issue. More than the actual issue (credentialing), there were newer faces expressing viewpoints-- I've always felt like an outsider at denominational stuff, and I didn't feel like there were outsiders at this event.
Second, I thought the visibility of cross-regional church planting efforts was significant. Others may not have noticed, or thought this, but it chipped away at territorial attitudes... people saw church planting field directors from across the country saying "We don't care if another guy works on a plant in our region, because it's all the Kingdom". I think that beyond church planting, things like this undermine institutionalism.
Overall, I thought that there was good talk about the tension between controlling things and letting God move, both up front and in various conversations I was in. The CGGC has to make fresh calls on being more permission-giving, and I thought it was good that the topic was at least on the table.
I also thought it was great that Stetzer could say things the rest of us might have been shot for saying:-)
posted by Fran Leeman at 3:13 PM
62 Comments:
Fran, I really appreciated your report (if that's what you call it). And Justin's as well. I thought it was good to give you guys that time.
I feel completely out of the loop on the credentialing discussion. Is their an easy way to let me (us) in on what went on?
Thanks very much.
Dan,
I'm not sure I can clue you in on much with the credentialing discussion. They passed the proposed revisions to the General Conference document that governs credentialing, but with the caveat that Ed Rosenberry pull together a group to have a fresh discussion of where we go with this (and I'm not really sure who that will be).
The tension that revealed itself at Gen. Conference is the question of where the lines of control and permission-giving intersect. If you have too much control, it makes it harder for people to qualify for credentials (especially in terms of education), and decreases the odds that the CGGC will ever see a true church planting movement (because it's harder for home-grown planters to get credentialed- and rapidly expanding movements always depend on a lot of leaders raised up at the grass roots level).
On the other hand, if you are too permission-giving, you are likely to end up with a lot of under-educated planters, which can result in shallow gospels and heretical teachings.
So in my view, we need to find a way enlarge the circle of those who can ordain (beyond official regional commissions), allow those ordaining significant latitude on the education question, but also figure out how we build in measures which will help keep shallow gospels and heresy at bay.
On the Monday after an Alabama football game Bear Bryant was getting his hair cut and all the patrons were telling him what he should have called to prevent a loss on the last play on Saturday. He said he would have made a different call if he had till Monday to think about it. This comment comes from thoughts that took a few days to think about and would not have been so well formulated on Thursday during conference.
I wrote them out as a separate post but I include them here as my comments on the General Conference.
I voted nay on the credentials document presented at Conference but that doesn't mean I believe that a Call is enough. A Call is never enough. The greatest church planter who ever lived was called before his birth but he was not ready for ministry till some years later. Nor was he sent (credentialed?) right after conversion when his passion was high. I may have misunderstood but I thought I heard someone say that church planters should get a pass because we need to deploy them as soon as possible. So credentialing will hold them back. But I repeat--A call is not enough.
Even after Paul was actively involved in ministry he was not deployed (as a planter) until he had served in a Antioch for a few years. In the life and ministry of Paul there seems to be a “credentialing” process.
That being said, I voted Nay because the document presented is not based on the APEST model which our speaker presented. We invited a speaker who presented a New Testament model and then we were asked to vote on a model that came 500-1500 years after the New Testament.
I believe we need some kind of credentialing document. I would resist any effort to accept a person for ministry solely on the basis of a call. A call to ministry should imply a call to prepare. Paul had already completed his schooling in the Rabbinic tradition before he was sent to the desert for his Dmin. (In this case he lost his DeMon)
A challenge was presented to our Executive Director to work on a model that answers some of the concerns raised at the Conference. Here are my concerns: Does call imply preparation? Can we come up with a document that includes not just one gift (pastor) but all the gifts?
As for the General Conference as a whole I came away with a great sense that God is working in the acreage of the Kingdom God has given us as stewards.
The invitation to Ed Stetzer was a major reason for desire to attend.
Fran,
Is the door cracked open?
There’s no question that there was a different spirit about the meetings. However, the change in spirit was due to the presence of people who were not delegates and who will not be eligible to be delegates for a looooooooong time: the new church planters and the church planting interns.
I’ve been thinking about what happened in Hegelian terms, i.e., the notion that change happens when a thesis meets its antithesis and a synthesis is formed. What I think we saw is the presence of a thesis, the shepherd dominate culture which controls, and its CGGC antithesis, the (primarily) apostolic church planting culture which screams for permission. But, you saw the stand-up vote on credentials. I counted five for permission and most of the rest of the room for control.
What did encourage me is that among the people who will still be in ministry in 30 years, the vast majority is for Kingdom and mission and PER-mission. What concerns me is that those people will not be CGGC by the time they are out there kicking butt for the Kingdom.
The reason that the promise that the credential document will be revised doesn't yet encourage me is that I’m not convinced that the revision will be created by conversation among a group equally composed of people seeking control and people seeking permission. This can't be done by the dominant culture and a handful of tokens.
What does genuinely impress me is the cross-regional approach to church planting. In that part of the church culture, permission giving is already a reality. I hope that the people who are practicing permission giving will be able to allay the fears of the old, shepherd culture.
You are exactly correct that there is tension between, as you say, controlling and letting God move. I wonder if any in favor of controlling read your statement would agree with that assessment. I, of course, do agree with it. I believe that what has happened in the creation of the credentials document and the draft of WB 2010 is that prior to Conference the shepherd thesis of control did what it has always done in the past—club the antithesis over the head and, hence, create control documents.
I believe that we are at a crucial moment—a historic moment! Can the advocates of control really loosen their grip? Can they not defeat the antithesis? Can they grant room for the development of the synthesis? Or, will we lose this chance to move forward?
I prayed daily for months for the sessions that have recently ended. I will now begin to pray for what happens in their aftermath.
Bill,
I normally stay out of these internal CGGC conversation matters. I am trepedacious to enter this one for I was not at the conference and I am not in the loop as to your internal matters and the comments made.
So the disclaimer that I have is the my reply is predominately to your post.
You are right, history is being made. The movement is underway and will continue to march on regardless of the decisions that the CGGC makes in regard to your stands and positions.
Many of those in this movement are messy, a little less than refined, and not driven by many of the same things that drove people into ministry or planting a scant 15 to 20 years ago.
I think what those who wish to control the permission are failing to understand is that the dedicated ones in the movement trying to march forward for the survival and future of the Kingdom of God no longer seek permission or approval from the systems, procedures, and assessments of men. It is not permission that we seek...it is partnership, wisdom, and a sense that we are a tangible part of the Body of Christ building the kingdom.
The question for those in the permission camp is not if they need to give permission, but if they are willing to partner with the movement of be a casual bystander.
Yeah, this may be arrogant of me. But I can easily temper that arrogance by admitting the being an island unto myself has come at a cost...some errors have been made that could have been prevented with wisdom and involved friendship and love and greater community beyond our four walls. However, we have also had the freedom to do things as a community that the institution never would have allowed until they saw the beauty of it.
Justin finally got to see both the beauty and the warts of what we do and so has Steve Hinkle. They seem to like us and I would love to partner with people....but I do not need permission at this point....we cast the die and went with God....a little messy, a little out of the norm, but the Spirit prevented me from nuking it....so far.
"For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry."
-1 Samuel 15:23
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
-Hebrews 13:17
Gang,
It's a blog rule that anonymous posts are not permitted and are deleted. I hope the two that appear above this post will not be removed. In case they are, I'll paste them into my post:
Anonymous said...
"For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry."
-1 Samuel 15:23
And,
Anonymous said...
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
-Hebrews 13:17
Anonymous,
My participation on this blog over the years leads me to the conclusion that this is a place of passion and acceptance. Generally, those who post here possess a powerful love for the Lord and His Body. Because we are finite and flawed descendants of the First Adam we often disagree.
We have conversations here precisely because He created the church as an interdependent Body whose members strengthen each other's weaknesses and who openly confront one another when one of us sins against another.
It is not necessary for you to hide your identity from us. It impairs our ability to function as a community that you have done so. If the things said during General Conference sessions or on this blog by some of us are rebellion and disobedience, you will not lead us to repentance by stating your belief in secret.
All that I said there and here I have said out of conviction that I believe has come from the Spirit. If I an in error, I want to be openly rebuked and given the opportunity to have peace with my Lord and with you.
Please engage us--ME--in conversation openly, honestly and lovingly. We all love and serve the same Lord here. We all want His Church to faithfully and powerfully execute the Commission He has given us. We all want nothing more than to live out His Great Commands to love the Lord, to love our neighbor and to love one another without limitation.
You are welcome here but understand that, in this community, words offered in secret are understood not to be edifying.
Anonymous,
I would suggest that there is a difference between rebellion and suggesting that a fellowship of churches needs changes in how they carry out the mission of Jesus. By labeling people who are suggesting change as rebellious, you have made assumptions which may or may not be warranted, and I would suggest you get to know people and participate in dialogue so that you may know whether your initial assumptions are correct.
with this talk on credentialing, i'm reminded of how the church at ephesus got its start. first apollos, who knew something of the gospel but lacked much in understanding, came and preached with passion. then priscilla and aquilla pull him aside and set him straight on a few things, and he goes back at it even better. then paul comes along and corrects it some more, instructing on the Holy Spirit.
all along the way, things are kinda messy and perhaps a little too impulsive, but they grow up to a critical mass, and shortly thereafter what we would call revival breaks out, the dead in sin being called, brought to life in Christ.
you see that sort of thing happen all over the NT. paul and barnabas plant churches in galatia, pass back through appointing elders, but obviously are still in touch enough to write the Epistle and correct the judaizer heresy. also, titus was left in crete to help the newly formed churches grow into Christ, yet they had there own elders, who were not very mature.
so it seems to me the NT model is getting those who have the call into ministry, under guys who really know what they're doing, and having strong mentoring relationships. i don't want to say this is the only model (like lew pointed out with paul's extensive training), but it is a model that, alongside others, allowed the gospel to quickly overtake the known world.
and it seems to me that either way, there's a ton built on trusting relationships. paul had his crew who traveled and learned under him (timothy, titus, luke, etc.), and then started sending them off on their own, to plant or oversee churches, and told them to pass on what they knew to faithful men who could teach others. (i love 2 Tim. 2:2 because paul has 4 generations of believers in mind at this point!) there was clear authority, and trust, and love, and teaching, and mentoring, and correction... you get the idea.
anyway, i hope this helps, and is at least thought-provoking. God bless you, bros.
I put those posts there. I apologize - I didn't know anonymous posts were not permitted. The reason I left my name off is that I didn't want my name to blur the message of the Word of God. In a later post, I will state why I believe those Scriptures are relevant. Again, I apologize that I was ignorant of the anonymous rule.
-George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
George,
You are supposed to sign an anonymous post, as you normally do.
I look forward with eager anticipation to hearing your explanation.
Fran Leaman - I did not label people who want change as "rebellious." I posted Scriptures.
Bill Sloat - My response had nothing to do with General Conference.
Fran Leaman and Bill Sloat - My Scriptures were TOTALLY in response to Mr. "Captain Tux." They had nothing to do with either of you or the CGGC triennium sessions.
I take offense to Mr. Captain Tux advising people (including CGGC people) as follows:
"I think what those who wish to control the permission are failing to understand is that the dedicated ones in the movement trying to march forward for the survival and future of the Kingdom of God no longer seek permission or approval from the systems, procedures, and assessments of men. It is not permission that we seek...it is partnership, wisdom, and a sense that we are a tangible part of the Body of Christ building the kingdom."
Um, excuse me... but YES, you DO need to seek permission to do things in the CGGC. We are called by God to be obedient to the leaders God has placed over us. And how do you know that those in authority are simply trying to "control?" Is it possible that those in authority over us are exercising it out of wisdom and direction by God?
Are those of us out here serving in the pastorate honestly supposed to believe that anyone who has an idea to do something should be given permission with absolutely no "leash" or restrictions simply because they claim to be led by the Holy Spirit?
Ask Bill Sloat, an accomplished historian, about a religious dude back in the 1820's who claimed that an angel told him where to find a new testament of Jesus Christ written on gold plates buried somewhere up in the hills of New York state. Bill probablly knows the history of Mr. Joseph Smith more than any of us.
Do some of you guys out there (whether you are CGGC, SBC, AG, BIC or whatever other denomination is out there) believe that you can circumvent those who are in authority over you simply because they said "NO" to your idea? If so, then READ THOSE SCRIPTURES I POSTED AGAIN.
Now, I will speak to those in the CGGC. The CGGC is Presbyterial in polity. If you are a part of the CGGC but can't submit to the authority of her leadership, then GET OUT.
Again, the Scriptures I posted had nothing to do with the General Conference Triennium. One thing that Mr. Tux and I have in common is that neither of us were there. I am not commenting on the triennium sessions.
George C. Jensen,
A "P" and "T" on the APEST,
Lead TEACHING ELDER
Enola First Church of God,
a Loyal CGGC Congregation
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
As an almost 30 year member of the Churches of God who attended his first General Conference session I came away with an impression that the future of the CGGC maybe changing and I must say I see that as a positive. The Lord is working in new and exciting ways.
The highlights for me were the last hour or so on Thursday evening and the last hour and half on Friday morning. On Thursday evening it was exciting to see the new church planters and the enthusiasm for their ministry and the Lord.May God continue to bless them in their various ministries.
On Friday I enjoyed listening to the field directors talk about what is going on in their areas.It is an exciting time in the CGGC and we have some outstanding bright young leadership leading the way. I especially impressed with the eloquance and passion of Fran.
Fran, I don't know if you remember but I introduced myself to you as Bill's friend at the end of Friday's session.
Another highlight for me was spending 15 hours on a bus with Bill on the ride back to Harrisburg. Bill, it is always a pleasure to sit and discuss issues with you. Take care my friend.
George-
I think the Lord has a sense of humor sometimes. I just came from a CGGC denominational meeting this afternoon where part of the discussion (lead by Ed Rosenberry) was how we get over some of our control issues and start to free up permission giving on more of a local level verses national and regional levels.
One of my favorite things about the CGGC keynote speaker this year was he was not a fad guy. He did not try to sell us any program to fix our woes here in the CGGC. He pointed out some of our key roads blocks though. One of those was control, another he called over clergification, another was a biblical perspective on being sent.
Whats funny was a lot of what Captain Tux said was said (in a different way) by our keynote, our CGGC leadership and delegates. So George, does that make you less of a CGGCer because you are not in line with what is now the direction the leadership is going? I would contend not. You are aloud to have your opinion just like other people are. If all people do is tow a party line then we will surely find ourselves in error and heresy. In fact I would contend part of this years General Conference was discovering areas we were in error, before we step into some heresy.
I think many people are coming to the realization of how we in the CGGC have over institutionalized ourselves and progressively walked away from the movement that John Winebrenner started and we wish to embrace that movement again.
All- later I will post my new ideas on credentialing and what will become my swan song for restarting the movement.
I think it may be helpful for future discussion if we defined some of our terms or gave our understanding of them.
For example, is credentialing the same as getting permission? Is it some religious game of Mother-May-I?
That is not my understanding. I see credentialing as exposing my call to those in leadership so it can be acknowledged and blessed.
I was in a system in which all that was required was a call and a person was off and running--little or no accountability.
I agree with Dan that we are in trouble if we have to get permission for everything but are we really crusading for a system in which a call and passion are enough?
Note that in the NT elders were appointed. They did not just raise their hands and tell the teacher they wanted to run a church. Admittedly many of them were immature but they were under authority and if things got out of control someone stepped in.
So maybe it would help to have someone clarify this issue or at least give their own definition because I don't see from the NT what is wrong with accountability and submitting one's call to those in authority. Yes sometimes a person is held back when God has really prepared them. It is not a perfect system but are we really trying free people for ministry just because they say they are called?
Is it "clergification" that we are talking about? Then we have to find a way to credential without chaining a person to system.
George,
I hope you can see how by simply entering Scripture quotations in the thread, "Reflections on General Conference," we would understand your reference to be to General Conference.
I get your explanation of why you didn't sign, but, in retrospect, I hope you won't do that again.
Justin,
Re:
I just came from a CGGC denominational meeting this afternoon where part of the discussion (lead by Ed Rosenberry) was how we get over some of our control issues and start to free up permission giving on more of a local level verses national and regional levels.
I would like to hear more about this.
As I was praying and meditating recently, it seemed to me that I was hearing that what we have done successfully is introduce permission giving on the smallest micro level--the level of the individual--and have seized control at every other level. Therefore, Fran has permission to do outside the box stuff and Bill Shoemaker has it and YOU really have it! But, when we do things as a body--t the macro level--we continue to strengthen the culture of control.
Who who posts here will not say that the Credentials document is a control document more than it gives permission? Who wouldn't suggest that the 21,333 word WE BELIEVE draft seizes tight fisted control over doctrine more than empowers in the Spirit and gives permission?
I believe we will never create a permission giving culture in congregations and regions until the cultural value of permission giving is modeled at the macro level. We cannot bear the fruit of a control culture in macro documents and then smile and say, "Go for it!" The document produced at the macro level absolutely prohibit permission giving thinking.
This is precisely the cognitive dissonance I wrote about in the other thread. Everything I see coming to us says CONTROL! while, at the same time, we're hearing a whispered, "But, you do have permission."
As the Family Systems people say, "That makes me anxious."
What am I misunderstanding? How am I wrong?
That's right Bill - I won't do it again. Why? Because I srtrive to play by the rules. Granted, I didn't read the blog rules and I violated them and the whole thing is ALL my fault.
Now based on some of the logic I've seen on this blog, do I have the right to say, "OO--This blog is WAY too restrictive. God has prompted me to post Scriptures anonymously. Therefore, I'm not going to listen to these permission-giving leaders of the blog! I'm going to obey the Holy Spirit and post Scriptures anyonymously because God's word doesn't need permission to be proclaimed."
I would NEVER do that.
GEE, this is a good little object lesson for the CGGC! I wonder if the CGGC could fall into chaos if everyone does whatever he or she wants to without regards to our God-given authority!
Justin - you may be surprised to hear that I am delighted that you and Ed Rosenberry are talking about the matters you discussed. By all means, if our system is broke (too much control, or whatever), then LET'S GET GOING AND FIX IT!
BUT---Until it's fixed, we have to submit to the system that is in place. I have faith in our godly leaders that as they hear from the Holy Spirit, they will fix what's broken in the system. This is how God works - He speaks through the body.
What scares me are these "cowboys" who think that God has given them and ONLY them a true revelation and that everyone else is wrong.
Justin (and I'm not saying you are one of those cowboys), THAT is the kind of thinking that is the perfect recipe for error and heresy. Read the history of virtually any cult and you will find this to be so.
-George C. Jensen
George,
I wonder if the CGGC could fall into chaos if everyone does whatever he or she wants to without regards to our God-given authority!
Yikes!
At virtually every break out session I teach, in many of the things I write, people hear me calling for anarchy.
I am for the absolute destruction of every rule that has its roots in Constantine and in Medieval theology. But, who can say that there were no standards in the New Testament? Who can say that the early church was paralyzed by chaos?
John Winebrenner called for a movement built on "the New Testament plan." That's what I want. Period!
How can I stop getting people to hear me call for anarchy?
Lew-
I think in many ways you and I are on the same page, but in some ways I don't think you understand what some of the control issues are in some regions with the credentialing comission.
The question is calling enough? In some instances yes and some no. There is not a single person at General Conference or in recent discussions that has advocated Licenses or Ordination with out equipping and educating individuals.
My argument is that the current system that we embrace in the CGGC does not and can not foster a multiplication movement (which is the articulated desire of CGGC leadership). The biggest argument I get is "well things are alot better than they used to be." I have heard that over 20 times now and in my heart my sarcastic self says "Way to settle!" I don't say it out loud because, I don't want to be a stumbling block.
I gave the example at General Conference, we have a young lady that went to a bible college of sorts, I was paid by her region to do an ssesment, the assesment proved she was ready for certain areas of ministry, she asked to serve in those areas, and was told to go to seminary. She was not asking to be a Sr. Pastor she was asking to serve.
What's great as if we weren't having this discussion now, she could be in our sister movement (COG Anderson) and receive her credential and not be building the Kingdom with us.
Wether we like it or not our credentialing system is more political than we want to admit. Our current system leads to creating a Hindu Cast System (which I will right on later) that causes some pastor to be abused or a least feel like second class citizen/pastors.
My recommendation is that Local Churches have the right to grant Annual Licenses to staff pastors, church planters, and pastors in training to be sent out. With the condition that they enroll in two credentialing classes a year from the region or some source (seminary/Bible College) with a 15 year limit (unless special circumstances) as they are seeking ordination.
While not my preference, but I think necessary for our tribe, the office of "ordained pastor" will be overseen and "protected" by a region or comission in our current system.
I have been witness to people who would have served the CGGC well, leave over the credentialing systems who now serve in othere denominations in very successful capacities. I almost became one of those people.
I find it semi-prophetic that this has become a major discussion area, because after reading our credentialing standards Ed Stetzer took Laura Beth and I out for dinner and asked me when I was leaving the CGGC (I have a history of leaving groups who will not embrace multiplication). I told him I had found my home, but if we could not foster multiplication on the national or regional level, I believed the CGGC still gave me a platform to help start a movement in some other tribe.
I believe we are in the birthing pains of what could become a multiplication movement. We have two choices right now, we can abort this baby and allow the movement to die or we can embrace this messy, painful, and amazing thing that God is doing and see the Kingdom of God and the CGGC grow.
What are we going to do?
As for the point on "Clergification" I think you have pointed out a major part of it Lew.
Bill,
I don't think you are calling for anarchy. I've seen you at work on the ERC Commission on Renewal and you clearly are a person who understands our polity. Whether we are now following Winebrenner's idea for structure to a "T" or not, I don't know.
What I do know is that we are Presbyterial in polity. I, for one, think this is a good model. As I read Acts 15, I thank God that the whole body came together and resolved that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised to be Christians. Now, by the way, who was saying that they did need to be circumcised? A bunch of "cowboys" who were part of the Pharisees.
The BODY put a stop to this. In a sense, the BODY did something to CONTROL the situation and DENY PERMISSION to people who were preaching this heresy. At the same time, those Gentile Christians were freed from legalism! Hurray for the Body which God used to speak His message through!
I, for one, would like to see some more "permission giving." I would like to see ruling elders (non-pastoral) be given the authority to administer the Lord's Supper. Some time back on the ERC Ad Council I was recommending that some "rules" be changed to accommodate new church plants that may turn out to be permanent house churches.
That's right - George Jensen recommeneded these. However, until the rules are changed, I am not going to send out my elders to give Communion and say to the ERC, "HA! I know better than you. I'm following the Holy Spirit and you guys are a bunch of mean, old-fashioned fuddy-duddies with halitosis." No, I'm going to submit to my leaders. I encourage all of you to do the same.
-George C. Jensen
Wow, interesting discussion and lots of good thoughts.
I think George does have something of a point, and I appreciate how you shared some examples of things that you might like to be different but will still submit to.
For one thing, I think our control is far less than lots of other denominations (Presbyterian and Methodist come to mind). That means little I suppose in the grand discussion.
I don't think it's hard to get into just about any ministry, but maybe my experience just happened to work our right accidentally. I am now ordained but was licensed before I began seminary and have been able to 'do' everything I can do now all along.
Also, having the PTI program is a good alternative to the time and cost of seminary it seems.
I as well will submit to the teachings and practices of the cggc as I promised in my ordination vows. That being said, I see a couple things as mainly being restrictive.
1. 3 years of membership in a cggc church. This is probably the biggest barrier to multiplication, no? I'm just not sure why this is necessary.
2. What is the rationale for only allowing liscenced ordained clergy to preside over the ordinences? Tradition I suppose. Maybe I missed the biblical precendent...
The great thing about being Protestant is the authority of God's Word over the traditions established by us (if they are in conflict). I'm not sure whether this is the case or not, but I love and appriciate our leaders, gladly submit to them and enjoy the freedom to be able to speak openly and truthfully to anyone in our churches or leadership, even and perhaps especially our 'top' leaders.
Bill-
Your right, both the we believe and our current and even progressive ideas for credentialing are forms of control. I see that, and I think you expect me to see that. Do I plainly wish local congregation had the "permission" to License (a completely non biblical thing), ordain, and truly equip the saints for ministry? Of course I do. Do I wish that we could semi function more like our Bible Church, Baptist, and Independent Christian brothers? Yes! But I believe also in progressive sanctification (will I be kicked out for that?). I believe that we are slowly but surely being sanctified by God in our systems and ideas. Will we get where you and I want to be by the time we pass? I doubt it. But I do agree we still need to champion this cause for Christ continually. I think many that have a prophetic gift are ran off, because they are labeled cowboys. Keep up the good fight, as I fight with in the system also.
The meeting I referenced was Leaders in planting from all the different regions (minus Allegheny). We primarily discussed vision and the road blocks to that vision. As I read this blog though I am growing ever more concerned because men at this meeting are being give permission to be "independent," "Cowboys," and "Barbarians" on some level and I think the Body as whole views us as unsubmissive and reckless. I wish there was a better way to communicate we have permission and encouragement to stir the pot.
George- It wasn't just I and Ed. It was quite a few people who are either paid by a Region or by the CGGC. The discussion you are hearing on this Blog is our dialogue as we sort through our attempts to fix it. On some levels I completely agree with you George, but in other areas I think you don't have all the info.
For example we have one gentleman who has been given permission to be a cowboy. There are some dynamics that I don't feel comfortable discussing, because it's not me, but he doesn't have to follow all the rules. If things stay the way they are right now, I don't know if his planters will ever be credentialed, yet we give them money and support them.
There is a background of people being given permission to be cowboys or "Barbarians" as one of our recent church planting consultants told us to be.
In fact it was Anne Roth who said sometimes you have to do things that buck the system to prove it is right when your national leadership is saying that it's wrong. Our national leaders did not correct that statement and in fact by some of their actions prove they want us to embrace it.
And also George I would say if you look at all the regions individually we do not uphold the same standards across the nation. Regions utilizes different licenses and standards for obtaining the pieces of paper. You contend we are presbyterial in polity, on paper I would agree with that, and on some level in your region it is, but in how things truly operate nationally I would contend it is nearly fantasy. I have done work for 4 different regions and I will tell you it is a different ball game in each region.
As for the topic of error and heresy I don't think your example fits our context very well. I think of object lessons like the Episcopalian Church that with a form of hierarchy polity and government fell into great heresy. We can also look at the ELCA and the UCC all of which I believe have fallen away from orthodox Christianity.
And we have examples of it now in our own movement people feeling this way. They aren't well published but how about the 9 churches of the CGGC in Arkansas that walked away and started their own denomination. Or how about a small group of CGGC pastors who approached me about doing our "own thing" because of the thought of error. I have found it more effective and biblical to stay and fight against error rather than leave. But I want you to know some have been given permission to do what is seen as being cowboy.
Justin,
If you read my earlier post, you would see that I did not label you as a "Cowboy." In fact, I admire that you are working through the system. That's the way change should come, in my opinion. We should stay and fight for change when that is warranted.
What you DON'T do (not you, in general, that is) is say to the leadership, "I know better than you and I am going to do whatever I want, you mean old control-freak." I don't think God honors an attitude of rebellion. A passion for change and to do the right thing - of course he honors that.
Frankly, I have no idea what you are up to, but I am curious to learn more. If whatever you are doing is a movement of God, I have faith that our leaders will embrace it. I don't think we are in the same as the UCC or ECUSA. That's because we have godly people over us. Just my 2 cents. Blessings.
-George C. Jensen
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm not calling anyone a "cowboy" Dan. I can't know what everyone is doing. What I do know is what I read from Captain Tux's comments. His comments seem to advocate to CGGC people that we should engage in what I am calling "cowboy" actions. Again, he seemed to be advocating a rebellion against leadership. That's what I am arguing against.
If there are any "cowboys" reading this blog (again, I can't know what anyone is up to except myself), then I would ask them to read those Scriptures I posted.
As far as change is concerned, if change is needed, then let's make it happen the right way. Blessings.
-George Jensen
Here is a portion of Captain Tux's comment:
I think what those who wish to control the permission are failing to understand is that the dedicated ones in the movement trying to march forward for the survival and future of the Kingdom of God no longer seek permission or approval from the systems, procedures, and assessments of men. It is not permission that we seek...it is partnership, wisdom, and a sense that we are a tangible part of the Body of Christ building the kingdom.
This does not reflect my sentiments. It struck me as cowboyish when I read it. If I wasn't seeking approval of my leadership, I wouldn't have went to General Conference as a delegate. Fran and Bill wouldn't have spoke up for change.
The trade off for submission is that you don't always get to do what you want to do.
I will admit to being a bit rebellious, but I am submissive to leadership. The Roths might call me a civilized barbarian.
If Tux is a cowboy (which he is), what would I call George. Dropping a Scripture text is not as powerful as you imagine. It does not hone in on your issue like a smart bomb. It is often a shot gun blast, and that is why so many people are crying, "Ouch."
George, as do we all, I welcome your insight and comments. But engage the conversation (as you have in your last few posts).
I suspect I may be the cowboy George refers to. And that is fine. In some ways it is true, but in some ways the analogy does not fit.
I will give a proper reply to some of the concerns you expressed regarding my post. As I expressed myself I can see why you would have visceral reaction. Perhaps when I elaborate a little more you will see that what I am for is less rebellion, but more of a change in the praxis of the CGGC to some of the people out there like me.
Yeah we think a little outside the box. Giving us the blank check and the keys to the car would likely be an error...but giving us an allowance and mentor us-while at the same time being willing to be reverse mentored in a symbiotic relationship would be beneficial.
I friend who started his church at about the same time I started LifeBridge. His launch day was one or two weeks after mine. Now he is ready to throw in the towel and due to some hurts seeped in judgement on him by the denom he was once affiliated with, he is bitter and is becoming dangerously close to having an unteachable spirit. Even if I sat him down with someone more accepting of difrferent thinking like Fran or Justin, I suspect it would be hard for him to submit to coaching or guidance at this juncture.
Me? I see the dangers of being an island unto myself, but I also see the dangers to my community and my ability to reach out to the "m3" and "M4" camps as well as I do if I were forced to capitulate to dogmas and procedures seeped in politics and control as opposed to orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and the kingdom of God.
Me and my community are valid members and parts of the body of Christ and though Christ accepts us as thus, some treat us like we are a dispensable gall bladder or a appendix with no clear purpose.
We have a lot to offer the body and we have a lot to learn from the body...and we would love to be a part of a greater whole than the few dozen of us meeting in an abandoned Juice Bar 30 miles SW of Chicago....but to do so...the dress code may need to loosen up and the doorman holding the velvet rope at the front may need to leave so we can sit at the table. This is not an abandonment of rules, but an embracing of Mavericks who may not wanna be circumcised and still dig eating the shrimp. The only way the institution can take us in is if the institution changes it's praxis to us uncircumcised shrimp eaters who do have the Spirit working in us.
Just as a random side note....being called a cowboy kinda rocks. I think this saga gets an entry in my blog.
On a more serious note...George, I will give you a more comprehensive and complete reply later. I hope it helps you better understand my position and sentiments. I doubt you will agree with all of it, but mutual respect of our positions and perspectives will likely be a good thing.
Cheers!
Well, I had no idea my original post would generate so much excitement, and the conversation has come to encompass a lot more than reflections on General Conference. Some thoughts…
George… sorry I misunderstand the trajectory of your posted verses. Forgive me. I do think most of us agree with your basic point about submission to leadership. The flipside is that the nature of any reform is that someone usually begins to do something a new way before the entire organization is approving of it. You yourself said, “If whatever you are doing is a movement of God, I have faith that our leaders will embrace it”, implying that a fresh movement of God may indeed come before all of an organization’s leaders recognize it as such. Please also understand that the question of permission is a little complicated at this point, and that what might look like non-submission to one leader may be actions cheered on by a leader higher up.
Bill… You are not an anarchist, you’re a prophet, and you guys always sound like anarchists, because you are crying out to the people of God to return to the Lord and his ways AT ALL COST. I think the only thing you may be misunderstanding is HOW change will come about. I believe a day will come when that same vote on the credentialing document will turn out different, but it was probably unrealistic of you to think that day was last week. To draw from one of Jesus’ parables, the yeast hasn’t risen that much, but as it does, it will increasingly permeate the dough.
As for credentialing itself, we do need to admit that the New Testament contains nothing like the systems most denominations (not just ours) have created. That doesn’t mean we don’t have the freedom to create forms and processes we find helpful, but we have to be careful about which elements we claim are the “biblical” way. Here are some things which I think are akin to the “spirit” of ordination we find in the New Testament:
--Credentialing should be done by people who actually know the candidate.
--Credentialing should be in keeping with, and responsive to, the Holy Spirit’s direction.
--Credentialing should be done by those operating apostolically, or by those under their directions in situations where the church is multiplying significantly (think Paul, then think Paul to Titus). This would not necessarily preclude the current Regions from having a credentialing function, but might A) expand the power to credential beyond regional commissions, and B) would raise the question of whether there is an apostolic impulse in those on the regional credentialing commissions (or whether they are just “on a commission”). Note: I am not suggesting we start going around calling people “Apostle so-and-so”, but I am saying that the church suffers for lack of apostolic leadership, and the CGGC suffers for that lack greatly at this point, and the issue is compounded when, in the absence of that leadership, we agree to be led by institutionally-minded folks.
I do not know what we will end up with as far as credentialing, but I pray it will somehow involved both good standards AND not be too restrictive.
I must respond:
Brian: You said, "Dropping a Scripture text is not as powerful as you imagine." Really? Then what do you have to say about Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." I have people give me Scriptures all of the time. I have faith that those Scriptures have the power to cause me to change for the better.
-George Jensen
Tux - you say, "I suspect I may be the cowboy George refers to." Again, I don't know how clear I can make this---I am not saying anyone here on this blog is a "cowboy." I'm not saying YOU are a "cowboy", Tux. I have little knowledge of most of the people on this blog--including you. What I do know is what you wrote, and it sounded to me like you were advocating that CGGC people have the freedom to ignore the authority of her leadership. You said these words: "the dedicated ones in the movement trying to march forward for the survival and future of the Kingdom of God no longer seek permission or approval from the systems, procedures, and assessments of men. It is not permission that we seek...it is partnership, wisdom, and a sense that we are a tangible part of the Body of Christ building the kingdom." Unless our leadership is so corrupt that their "rules and procedures" violate God's standards and His word, then we must submit to them. That's the biblical mandate.
Now finally - to all of you. I sense you are absolutely DYING to know what or who I have in mind as a poster child "cowboy" in the ultimate sense. I actually do have someone in mind -- but no one here on this blog. It's actually someone from the recent past. I almost posted the name of this individual, but due to the sensitivity of the situation, I didn't want to cause problems for our leadership. So I will refer to the situation in relatively vague terms.
Do you remember a certain individual who was planting CGGC churches that claimed to be associated with Hebrew Roots Christianity (He was out on the west coast and was even scheduled to speak at Impact but was denied at the last moment - rightly so, by the way).
Again, I will not mention his name so that there can be no repercussions for our leadership. Anyway, what this individual was doing was totally "WHACKED." BUT HE CLAIMED HE WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF GOD!!
What did the CGGC leadership do? The Ad Council, under the direction of the person who was Ad Council president at that time (again name withheld of this man of God to protect him and the leadership) did the absolutely postively right thing: They DENIED PERMISSION to the stated indvidual to continue on. They said "NO" to him. This person was even removed from the CGGC. Thank God!
Those of you familiar with the situation are at an advantage - you KNOW who and what I'm talking about. Those of you who want to know more, call me and I will explain the situation in private.
Now do you guys out there who agree with Tux's post honestly envision a CGGC that takes anyone with a heartbeat, a pulse rate, and a so-called "call from God" and lets that person go out and do whatever he or she wants? Do you want your CGGC church to be associated with people and situations like I described above? This is why we have leaders over us - to act as overseers on behalf of God. In addition to encouraging and equipping, overseers sometimes have to say "NO."
Individuals and situations like the one I mentioned above are why we need strong leadership -- people with the teeth and the guts to say "NO" when necessary and keep the peace of the church.
Fran Leeman - AMEN! I totally agree with your post. You have stated (much better than I have) how I feel about this whole matter. THANK YOU. Again, if our credentialing system is flawed, then let's work to fix it as a BODY. But until then, let's not be "cowboys" who feel we have a God-given right to ignore our God-given leaders.
-George C. Jensen
George, I too hold a very high view of Scripture. But as you saw, dropping a powerful Scripture into a conversation, was misunderstood. Perhaps the shot gun blast result was fine with you. My suggestion is that you use your sword with a little more aim so as not to bloody your own troops. (Enjoy my mix of metaphors!)
Fran,
I think the only thing you may be misunderstanding is HOW change will come about. I believe a day will come when that same vote on the credentialing document will turn out different, but it was probably unrealistic of you to think that day was last week.
I have tried with a compelling lack of success to explain this in the past. The prophet wiring is of a different nature than the apostle and shepherd wiring.
I say this humbly and honestly: HOW change will come about is--the best way I can say it--immaterial to me. Being concerned with that takes me beyond my calling.
I am not able to understand the HOW of change. I seem to be unable to care about the HOW of change. I've tried to care many times. It seems to be beyond my ability to care about it because what I do care about I care about so passionately.
Did I think that the day the change would take place was last week?
Putting it this way: Did I think that a majority of us would reject the credentialing document shepherded into existence through the guidance of the Executive Director and brought to the floor by two separate motions from the Executive Director?
Duh!
Can you understand that how the vote went doesn't matter to me? CAN'T matter to me?
The only two things that mattered to me at that moment were:
1) I would speak the truth.
2) I would speak it to the best of my ability in love.
I hope you are correct that the day will come when the vote will be different. What I fear is that the ministry will implode before that vote can take place.
I don't say that as the result of a prophetic word, but what I saw at General Conference is the beginning of the unraveling of the shepherd consensus with nothing to take its place. I saw the coming of anarchy, of chaos.
Shepherd thinking certainly won the votes by vast majorities, but did it win the day? It seems to me that the Hegel thing is well under way and the those who'd form a synthesis are not being empowered to do so. And, that nearly all the youth and energy and passion in the body is the antithesis. It opposes shepherd ways. It will either oppose the official shepherd documents or, more likely, disregard them until the people of the antithesis are called to the carpet by the shepherds who still hold institutional control.
The people of youth and energy and passion today in the CGGC don't possess votes in the General Conference, but they are moving the body. They are not shepherds nor do they understand shepherd ways, nor do many of them care to. (Justin is the exception. Thank God for him.) That is a very dangerous thing for the body. It is the formula for disaster. For unmanaged conflict. For implosion, not the formation of synthesis.
Cognitive dissonance on the macro level.
I hope you're right about a future vote but I'm not sure it will matter if and when the vote takes place.
I very much share Fran's assessment of what occurred at General Conference. There was excellent dialogue on critical issues. I agree that we need to wrestle with the intersection of control and permission-giving. But if you truly believe that the Holy Spirit should ultimately lead the church, then we can find common ground on these matters like credentialing. That is why I issued a call as a delegate that this credential issue be addressed more thoroughly and promptly. I do not want to see the CGGC lose the momentum the Spirit has generated nor to miss this particular season of fruitfulness.
By the way, in the spirit of not being anonymous LIFE MATTERS is mu google account name for a variety of blogs I author or contribute to. I am Steve Dunn and I serve as the chairperson for the ERC Commission on Evangelism, the theology instructor in its School of Evangelism, and the Lead Pastor of the Church of God of Landisville, a 177 year old church committed to effectively ministering to emerging generations.
Bill~
You put a smile on my face, brother. On the one hand, you can't care about the HOW of change because it takes you beyond your calling-- and I get that, 100%... I love you prophet guys because it's clear, and you cry out, and that's your job. On the other hand, you are worried because you see "the unraveling of the shepherd consensus with nothing to take its place", a worry that tilts your trajectory at least slightly back toward the HOW question... What will take it's place? How will that happen? And what I'm saying is that I see the seeds of the plant that may supplant beginning to grow. You may just have to trust those of us attempting to answer the HOW, and keep crying out until then.
Steve-- thanks for making that suggestion at General Conference that we convene a fresh group to wrestle with the issue. Ed is going to do just that, and I think it's a step in the right direction.
Fran,
Yeah, you apostles make me smile too in the best way. I thank God for you.
I reread my post. You say,
On the other hand, you are worried because you see "the unraveling of the shepherd consensus with nothing to take its place..."
I didn't say I'm worried. I'm not worried. I wonder if it will happen because I don't believe my observation is a prophetic insight. There are prophetic words that I've received that fit the thought. But, I'm not worried.
I will be very sad if the CGGC implodes but that it might doesn't worry me.
Our wiring is so very different. I am so glad that few people are like me. I'm so glad that YOU specifically are around. But, the how of the implosion doesn't matter to me. The WHAT of it does. The who will be damaged by it does.
Prophets live in the future. That's why they are so bad as Christendom Pastors. It's impossible for me not to wonder about what the convergence of all these forces in the CGGC will mean. On the other hand, I have lived with having no insight into the 'how' of things for so long that I merely observe that what happens happens.
To quote Alfred E. Newman, "What? Me worry?"
George,
I am going to try to curtail my reply to be focused on the following:
"I take offense to Mr. Captain Tux advising people (including CGGC people) as follows:
"I think what those who wish to control the permission are failing to understand is that the dedicated ones in the movement trying to march forward for the survival and future of the Kingdom of God no longer seek permission or approval from the systems, procedures, and assessments of men. It is not permission that we seek...it is partnership, wisdom, and a sense that we are a tangible part of the Body of Christ building the kingdom."
Now before I go further, allow me to better introduce myself. My name is Patrick Green. I am a 39 year old pastor of a church plant in Lockport, Il called LifeBridge and I have a unique youth outreach called YASO (Young Adults Speak Out with the tagline of "Society's Forgotten Children Silent No More".
Though some of the people in the CGGC have coached me in this effort and I have some good friends whom I trust and value that are CGGC, I am not CGGC at this time. At the moment, I am not anything. I spend some time with an emergent village cohort called Up/Rooted. Though I am not theologically typical emergent. I am more closely aligned to what Belcher described in the book Deep Church and if I had an author/mentor that I wish I could meet, that would be Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Gandhi.
Now, just as there are assumptions from an outsider perspective about the CGGC, there are also outsider perspectives about me that are not accurate either. Though I understand why people think the way they do. I come off as cocky and arrogant...that is a defense mechanism because the institution and people who's opinions I value have hurt me deeply...so the wall of emotional protection is sometimes up in an unfortunate way. Some people think I am anti institution. There was a time that was true, but with maturity and wisdom I overcame that. I see value and wisdom and resources in the institution, but there are times where the institution wants me to fill a mold that I cannot. It troubles some that our music is rather unpolished and that we sit in a circle on Sundays and the "sermon" allows room for discussion and even disagreement. This makes my friends interesting ones. I have come to know and interact with Peter Rollins, starting to know Phyllis Tickle a little, getting to work with Amy Moffit on YASO related projects, and a few other strange friends. I also spend a lot of time with small planters like me who do not draw an income and invest so much into our communities and either cannot or will not be a part of organizations.
Also contrary to popular belief is the misnomer that I am unteachable. I am quite teachable and know I am unrefined and need further training and wisdom and guidance and authority and without such I present a risk to myself and to my community being so disconnected. But living without an authority other than the Holy Spirit leaves me in a position of choosing who's authority to submit myself to and I have a bit of a high standard as to who I am going to submit to. The standard is not that one agrees with me...the standards are based on not just the orthodoxy of the body I will one day align myself to, but their orthopraxy.
So here I am, by myself and knowing it is an untenable and un Biblical position to be in and proactively attempting to repent of that. But I need to choose carefully and with God so I do nto have to wonder if I am walking in the danger of the verses you tossed out. But I need to avoid aligning myself with people who reflect the following verses as well.
“…How terrible it will be for you experts of religious law! For you crush people beneath impossible religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden.” Luke 11:46
“How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest part of your income, but you ignore the important things of the law- justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but you should not leave undone the most important things. Blind Guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat; then you swallow a camel.” Matthew 23:23-24
Aligning myself with such as that would be bad and I am in no way suggesting this is the camp the CGGC is in...but I need to choose the authority to submit to cautiously. Now, as these blog replies have limits...I need to do a part 2 to explain myself, but first I wanted to better introduce myself.
Captain Tux,
I wish you the best in your search for an authority/overseeing person or group to align with. I mean that. Best wishes. I will look forward to your further comments.
So on to my explanation.
There is a small army of people out there who are emerging/emergent/missional/post modern/post evangelical/trying to embrace mere christianity/ reaching for Dietrich's religionless christianity/ etc. Pick your label. Some are more conservative and follow guys like McKnight and Hirsch and others are reading McLaren and Bell. Some are in the bounds of orthodox and others have kinda left the reservation. Some of these people are in house churches, others are in hotel rooms, bars, run down abandon juice bars, and wherever else we can meet.
As some of us have moved past the deconstructionism phase, we are looking to build something and we also buy into Phyllis Tickle's view that this great emergence could actually be considered a great convergence. The place where, as they say in Oklahoma, that the cowman and the farmer should be friends. In other words, the cowboy and the institution need to learn from each other and work together to advance the kingdom.
You, as the institution, offer wisdom and guidance and resources and discipline. We, as the voices in the wilderness offer potential keys to the m3 and m4 hearts and perspectives that redefine church in ways closer to a pre constantine era yet reflective of the modern age we live in. I am not speaking of relevance, but I am speaking of new monasticism, new friars, new molds that are not Shepard based, pastorally driven constructs but still hold true to the Jesus Creed and the Great Commission. A new praxis that overcomes spiritual and secular divides and reaches and disciples in the m3 and m4 without forcing the new disciples to m0. But we do need refinement. More to come as I go into a part 4. Sorry this is so dang long.
WHOOPS - sorry guys, that last post was mine - I forgot to sign it - absentmindedness
-George C. Jensen
The worst thing that could happen is for you to offer us a blank check and give us free reign. But if you look honestly at your current methods of planting structures, ministry assessments, permission granting, and ordainment procedures..it is unfortunately very largely based on corporate principles and not Godly ones. We usually add a dash of Bible verses here and there, but we have become businessmen starting small not for profit groups and we have relied too heavily on the systems of men and not on the authority and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. To swing the pendulum into all "Hey he is called" would be dumb...you need your authority and your standards and some checks to verify that this mysterious call is ununsual but orthodox. You need some standards, but the current standards lead those of us out in the wilderness to say...."Yeah, I am gonna chance it out here and hope I do not screw up really bad."
I think at the end of the day the institution would do well to re read acts 10:23-48. It is a feel good moment, but it also starts something messy. I feel for Paul having to write letters about matters like temple prostitutes and orderly services and not hogging the wine to get wasted. It seems they credentialed and let run some really really messy churches, but with his wisdom and guidance and the help of the spirit it seems to have worked out. My goodness...we are right here and right now trying to figure out this whole being a disciple thing.
So all this to say that I am not advocating an abandonment of your orthodoxy and your authority. Should I ever sign on the dotted line, I take my word seriously and would submit to the authority in complete obedience. That said, I need to be sure that my work and my allegience is going to those who are passionate about the greatest commandment, the great commission, and the Kingdom. They do not have to agree with me...I have not the answers...but they do have to stand for something beyond the layers and ways of man that we have built on the church that Christ never intended. Wash the feet of my people and you have my heart. Be Jesus to them and to me and I will be your disciple. I have already been a pharisee...I did not do it very well...well...I did too well and that is the problem.
I humbly apologize fo4r the suggestion that we enter a free for all and the CGGC reduce the scriptures. I can see where you get that, but that was not the intent.
Okay...done. (for now ;) )
I haven't been on this blog for a long time, but I want to throw in my bit since I was there. (A caveat: I have a nasty head cold, and so I can't promise to be lucid.)
Fran, Justin, and Bill, I deeply appreciate hearing you all share from your heart. Your words resonated with me and probably some other "institutionalists." I also appreciate Fran's assessment of Gen. Conf. in his original post: it truly was a moment when some new voices were heard.
I voted for the credentials policy, not because it was perfect (when will THAT ever be the case?) -- but because it is a step in the right direction. I agree there is too much control when people are denied credentials by a group of officials who don't know them. I was encouraged by the acknowledgment at the beginning of the policy that there will be flexibility for planters and others. That's pretty cool, because it acknowledges that God is at work in multiplication. But then maybe I'm being too optimistic.
On the other hand, I agree with George in being concerned about the lack of accountability, which is on the other end of the spectrum from "control." Somewhere, somehow there needs to be godly authority and godly submission. I suppose that's where the group Justin is part of is focused.
I'm on the Cross-Cultural Ministries Commission (CCM), and we're seeing some amazing things happening in Latino Ministries (a la Caleb & Christina Acosta) and in India (a la Samir & Charuseela Singha). I'd LOVE to see multiplication in each of our fields!
India is an encouraging case. For nearly 100 years, that field consisted of little more than one church and a school on a compound. For heaven's sake, the church building looks like it came straight out of 19th century Pennsylvania! (Which it did, in a weird way.) Prior to Samir Singha stepping in as Director, I wasn't sure the India Mission would survive. But after just 10 years or so we're seeing what God can do through missional leadership. There are now at least 10 churches and many "preaching stations" planted by dedicated evangelists, some of whom work in areas of persecution. (When I visited in 2008, I was unable to meet one of the evangelists because he was in temporary hiding.)
God can do the same thing in the U.S. as well! Who would've imagined there was any hope for church planting in NEW ENGLAND?? I came away from Gen. Conf. sessions refreshed and revived (except for this stupid head cold), and I can't wait to see what will happen in the future.
My prayer is that ALL CGGC churches -- "traditional" and cutting-edge, regardless of ethnicity -- can embrace one another with joy.
Blessings,
Ben Tobias
Ben,
On the other hand, I agree with George in being concerned about the lack of accountability, which is on the other end of the spectrum from "control." Somewhere, somehow there needs to be godly authority and godly submission. I suppose that's where the group Justin is part of is focused.
You were there. He's what I heard from Ed Stetzer:
The alternative to control by an institution and the rigid documents it produces is a permission-giving culture that expects God to move and bless and hopes to join Him in the work He is doing but which demands accountability from those who are given permission.
Taking control is easy. Giving permission and entering into a relationship in which there is accountability takes energy and commitment. In the past few generations we've taken the easy way out and opted for institutional control.
Bill, I basically agree with what you're saying, but I don't consider the credentialing policy to be rigid. If it were, there wouldn't be any flexibility for church planters. Again, it's not perfect, but at least we're seeing progress.
Ben,
"Rigid?"
Well, it is not as rigid as it once was. Is it still rigid? I think it is.
But, its rigidity isn't my primary objection to it. Rigidity is part of what Fran objected to and most of what Justin objected to.
My objections to the credentialing standards are purely theological.
My primary objection is that it reflects what Stetzer called "pre-Reformation Catholic" thinking. We make the claim that we are on a mission to build churches on the New Testament plan. Can you imagine the early church giving Barnabas or Paul or Silas or Timothy this credentialing document?
(That was a rhetorical question.)
The exchanges that you and I have had about We Believe and creeds makes me think that you're not as on fire for the Mission Statement as I am. But, for the moment at least, our Mission Statement says we build churches of the New Testament plan. If that's so, then our credentialing documents must use the New Testament as our strict authority.
If not, then let's be honest about that and burn the Mission Statement.
Bill, after reading your comments on the New Testament plan I decided to dust off my Roland Allen reader.
Do we really have the same image when we hear that phrase?
When people tell me that belong to a NT church I usually ask which one? That may be a different issue than a NT plan but for the purpose of dialogue what is you view of the NT plan (Or Winebrenner's view)?
"Giving permission and entering into a relationship in which there is accountability takes energy and commitment."
Sir, you never cease to amaze and touch me with your words. This type of relationship is exactly what I am looking for.
I just got kicked in the butt by Roland Allen. I took my coffee break with him this afternoon and was kicked twice by statements from his book "The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church".
When Ed Stetzer referred to him I thought I should read him again.
Here are the two statements "Today if a man ventures to suggest there may be something to in the methods by which St. Paul attained such wonderful results worthy of our careful attention, and perhaps of our imitation, he is in danger of being accused of revolutionary tendencies"
And "The rapid and wide expansion of the Church in the early centuries was due in the first place mainly to the spontaneous activity of individuals". (from chapter 9)
Of course he may be wrong.
Lew said:
Do we really have the same image when we hear that phrase?
When people tell me that belong to a NT church I usually ask which one? That may be a different issue than a NT plan but for the purpose of dialogue what is you view of the NT plan (Or Winebrenner's view)?
Exactly. Bill, it's obvious we have different views of "pre-Reformation" Christian history. I don't see a drastic separation between the NT Church and subsequent early Church history. And I know that sets me apart from you, McNeal, Stetzer and the vast majority of the CGGC. My view is that God guides His Church through a variety of cultural challenges that require a variety of responses and structural changes on our part. Obviously we haven't always done very well, but I can't agree with the idea that the Church was apostate from 325 A.D. until 1517. Was God asleep at the wheel?
When I hear "NT plan," this is a brief description of what I think it means:
1. Rapid multiplication of churches planted by evangelists and recognized by apostles (exemplified by Philip, Peter and John in Samaria).
2. Churches connected to each other by apostolic authority and presbyterial fellowship (exemplified by the Asian churches in Revelation).
3. Conflicts dealt with on the local level when possible, and ultimately on the conciliar level when necessary (as in Acts 15).
Just as the NT doesn't provide detailed descriptions of how worship services were conducted, neither do we have a detailed plan for how "credentials" were granted, other than oblique references to the "laying on of hands" and the "appointment of elders" in the Pastoral Epistles.
That's why I don't have a major problem with institutions, so long as we don't get mired down with territorial claims, Robert's Rules of Order, and bureaucracy. I see administrative, "institutional" principles at work in the selection of the seven "proto-deacons" in Acts 6:1-7, which notably concludes with "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly." It seems to me that the NT plan is not antithetical (here's some Hegel for you) to institutions per se, but only to the life-choking excesses I mentioned above.
Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but I think some good things are happening. Steve's historical review is a good reminder of where we've come from, and I'm thankful we're at a different place today. Let's work together on this mission.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ben said, "Obviously we haven't always done very well, but I can't agree with the idea that the Church was apostate from 325 A.D. until 1517. Was God asleep at the wheel?"
That's a great question and good reminder. I lean heavily toward New Testament church (at least my idea of it), but when I hear that we've forgotten how to do church since 325AD, it sounds pretty arrogant, as if very few people seem to have gotten it right over 1200 years.
Nevertheless, it doesn't fuel my love for institutions much at all. Thanks for the good input Ben.
Gentlemen,
I just wanted to let you all know that it has been an honor and a privilege to be a part of the conversations here. You men (and woman) have enriched me, guided me, corrected me, and challenged my thoughts on matters.
I wish I could take the time to say specifically how much each and every one of you have meant to me. If I forgot anyone, though, I would feel I would be doing a disservice.
I have rarely...well...never had the honor to sit in a room (albeit virtual) with so many individuals who exemplify the greatest commandment, seriously try to fulfill the great commission, and seek the Kingdom. I mean that.
If anyone wishes to continue one on one chats with me, I welcome it. I can be reached at patlgreen [AT] gmail [DOT] com. That said, it is time for me to drop out of the conversation at large here. My prayers go with all of you and your quest to improve things for the GCCG, each other, and the larger body of Christ.
With sincere love for all of you. God bless you and keep you.
Patrick L Green
Lew,
"Bill, after reading your comments on the New Testament plan I decided to dust off my Roland Allen reader.
Do we really have the same image when we hear that phrase?
When people tell me that belong to a NT church I usually ask which one? That may be a different issue than a NT plan but for the purpose of dialogue what is you view of the NT plan (Or Winebrenner's view)?"
Since the General Conference started this ball rolling and because I didn't hear any motions at General Conference to abandon the New Testament plan from our Mission Statement and since we still have not declared John Winebrenner a heretic, I suggest that the General Conference staff call a gathering of CGGC people to enter into conversation in response to the question:
What is the New Testament plan?
I believe we should examine Winebrenner's understanding of it.
I believe we should consider the opinions and conclusions of believers in primitivist/restorationist bodies, including those in the Pentecostal and Organic Church movements.
I believe we should honestly raise the question: Do we still believe in building the church on the New Testament plan?
I believe we consider what parts of our history we want to embrace and which parts of it we want to set aside.
I believe it's time that we come to grips with our heritage and decide how who we were in 1830positions us to be missional and Kingdom oriented today because, when New Testament plan had meaning to us in the past, we were missional and Kingdom oriented. And, we also have to acknowledge the fact that when we said New Testament plan in the past we were so radical about it that we packed into it no creed, no discipline and no constitution and we shared the belief that the Protestants had failed and that we were pursuing something that went beyond the Reformation.
I think we should do that before we do more on credentials and before we bring any document with the title, WE BELIEVE to the body for consideration.
It's interesting as we talk about reforming back to a New Testament Plan, we start to get a little antsy. And I understand that.
But then and I stop and think that I'm glad we had the Reformation. Churches needed to change. They had gotten too far away from the "Jesus Plan" (I just made that up). And we tend to think they should have gone farther as many of us connect with the Anabaptist of that time.
But when we talk about reforming our own church, we get a little edgy. It's like talking about my sister. I can talk about what's wrong with her, but you can't.
As Junior O'Daniel says in O Brother Where Art Thou, "Pappy, we should get us some of that re-form."
Fran,
Bill-- Can you describe a few elements that you believe are reflective of building churches on the New Testament plan for us? I am attracted to that phrase, and know what I think of when I hear it, but I don't know if that is how Winebrenner meant it or how you mean it.
First, let me say that it is much easier for to see what is NOT the New Testament plan. The credintialing document is not.
The 21,333 word WE BELIEVE is not.
Those are no brainers.
I wouldn't presume to suggest that I know what the New Testament plan is, though apparently some hear me coming across that way at General Conference.
But, in bold terms I'd say this:
APEST
Permission Giving
Declergification--especially De-PASTOR-ification
Itinerent Apostolic/Prophetic leadership as core leadership
1 Corinthians 14:26 worship involving the whole body
Mentoring of leaders via the Jesus model, not the academy.
These are my core, broad stroke, 40,000 foot view ideas but I'm a prophet, not an apostle.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home