The New Testament Plan in the Thinking of John Winebrenner
Gang,
Several of you have asked me to provide some historical background to give richer meaning to the phrase "establishing churches on the New Testament plan" which appears in the CGGC Mission Statement.
What follows is an academic style article without footnotes. I've tried to be as comprehesive as I can. Most of you won't care about all of this but, in my opinion, all of it helps provide an important part of the context. I hope you can wade through it without much difficulty.
(Lengthy quotes are in bold.)
bill
-----------------------
In September 2008 the Churches of God, General Conference Administrative Council approved the following Mission Statement:
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.
In announcing the Mission Statement in the April/May 2009 edition of The Church Advocate, Executive Director Ed Rosenberry tied the Mission Statement to the vision with which John Winebrenner launched the Church of God in 1830. Rosenberry said,
“(Winebrenner) identified three objectives: “1) The conversion of sinners; 2) The establishment of churches upon the New Testament plan; and 3) The supplying of the destitute with the preaching of the gospel.”
Rosenberry was clear that the Mission Statement was not intended to elevate Winebrenner. Its purpose was to bring the church’s focus on the founders of the Christian movement, not the Church of God movement. Rosenberry offered this commentary on the essential meaning of the Mission Statement:
“Sometimes to get to the future you must look back. I’m not speaking of Winebrenner, but to where he looked, Jesus and the Apostles. What might this mean to us? It means it’s time to renew our “first love” and get moving again! It’s time for a new birth of mission and vision across the CGGC-USA.”
As Rosenberry explained, the mission articulated by the General Conference Administrative Council challenges the twenty first century church with the vision which launched the Church of God. In fact, Winebrenner’s three objectives were the three points of the sermon he preached when the early leaders of the movement gathered in October 1830 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to “hold a meeting for the purpose of adopting a regular system of co-operation.”
The First Church of God Eldership
Winebrenner’s account of that meeting suggests that the Eldership lasted one day. The morning session was devoted to “solemn prayer and deliberations.” Of the afternoon session Winebrenner says, “a sermon was preached before the meeting by the speaker …”
Winebrenner’s account of the organization of the Church of God is extremely brief. He notes only a few actions that were taken. He himself was appointed speaker and John Elliott of Lancaster was appointed clerk.
Winebrenner’s sermon prior to the beginning of the afternoon session is sketched in great detail. After Winebrenner’s sketch of the sermon, he includes these few details of first Church of God Eldership:
“ After the sermon, the business meeting was called to order, and after some further consultation, it was agreed, as the unanimous sense of the meeting,
1st. That there is but one true church, namely: the Church of God.
2dly. That it is the bounden duty of all God's people to belong to her, and none else.
3dly. That it is "lawful and right" to associate together for the purpose of co-operation in the cause of God.
4thly. That we agree to hold an eldership annually for this purpose, consisting of teaching and ruling elders belonging to the Church of God.
The following teaching elders then subscribed their names, namely, Andrew Miller, John Winebrenner, John Elliott. John Walborn, David Maxwell and James Richards.
Thus originated the Church of God, properly so called, in the United States of America; and thus, also, originated the first eldership.”
The importance of the sermon Winebrenner preached is suggested by four facts. First, the sketch takes up the majority of the words that record the first Eldership, second, the four actions taken after the preaching of the sermon amount to the adoption the sermon as the church’s plan of action, third, that this action was unanimous and, fourth, Winebrenner goes to such great lengths to detail the content of the sermon yet, amazingly, fails to record a detail as important as the actual date of the first Eldership.
The CGGC doesn’t know the date on which it was formed. It only knows the month. Yet, it knows in great detail the content of the sermon that Winebrenner preached to launch the movement. It also knows that the vision cast in that sermon was embraced by every leader in the movement.
Winebrenner’s Foundational Sermon
It is fitting that the radical restorationist John Winebrenner launched the Church of God into existence with a sermon based on words from the Book of Acts: “--"And now I say to you refrain from these men and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God (Ac 5:38,39, KJV).”
Key to Winebrenner’s message was the phrase, "counsel and work."
Winebrenner’s notes on the sermon begin:
By the "counsel and work" spoken of in this passage is meant the preaching and propagation of Christianity, or, in other words, the conversion of sinners, the formation of churches, and the supply of the destitute with the gospel ministry.
The furtherance of this counsel and work, then is the great ostensible object contemplated by the present meeting; that is, by adopting such a plan of co-operation as shall most happily subserve the cause of God in promoting
1st. The conversion of sinners;
2dly. The establishment of churches upon the New Testament plan; and,
3dly. The supplying of the destitute with the preaching of the gospel.
From Winebrenner’s first and second paragraphs it is clear that the purpose of the sermon was to cast a vision for the ministry of the Church of God. Winebrenner was clear that his object of the sermon was, in effect, to offer a lengthy motion which would define “a plan of co-operation” for the church. His purpose was achieved by the unanimous vote that followed the sermon.
The Evolution of Winebrenner’s Restorationist Theology
John Winebrenner experienced four phases of spirituality from childhood to maturity. Each transition was marked by a theological change.
First, Winebrenner was a religiously inclined person from childhood. Later in his life, Winebrenner wrote about the impact of his very religious mother on him as a child. He said that she “Trained me up in the fear and admonition of the Lord and instructed me in the great principles and duties of religion.” Winebrenner was so devout in his youth that he remembered practicing the preaching of sermons and attempting to preach to his friends.
He entered a second phase of spirituality during his training for ministry under the guidance of Samuel Helffenstein in Philadelphia, which he began in 1817. Shortly after Winebrenner arrived in Philadelphia he was converted and, in an account recorded most famously in Richard Kern’s biography of Winebrenner said, “My bowels yearned for the salvation of sinners.” Through his conversion, Winebrenner not only became born again but he became a German Reformed pietist, believing that every follower of Jesus must be born again. He also experienced a transformation in his understanding of his calling to ministry. From that moment, he possessed a rabid evangelistic zeal which he lived out for the remainder of his life.
The third phase in Winebrenner’s development took place during his years as a German Reformed minister in Harrisburg. At some point in the first two years of his time in Harrisburg, Winebrenner began to practice what is known as “new measures.” The new measures were evangelistic techniques employed by revivalists to lead sinners to repentance. Richard Kern has argued convincingly that Winebrenner’s separation from the German Reformed Church did not result from the fact that he was a pietist. Many German Reformed ministers were pietists, especially in the American church. Winebrenner’s problems had to do with how he worked to reach the lost.
Winebrenner’s fourth and final stage of theological development demands careful examination. It took place between the time of his separation from the German Reformed Church and 1829 and his publication of his radical pamphlet, A Brief View of the Formation, Government and Discipline of the Church of God. This pamphlet presents John Winebrenner as a man committed to starting a revolution in the church. The Preface of the pamphlet, while written in conciliatory tones, expresses Winebrenner’s awareness that the opinions that have become the core of his thinking are radical and will offend many.
By 1829 Winebrenner was much more than a revivalist or an energetic advocate of new measures revivalism. He had become a radical church reformer. The John Winebrenner of the early 1820s unsettled the German Reformed Church in Harrisburg because he believed that the doctrine of salvation was crucially important. The Winebrenner who emerged in 1829 saw the reinvention of the church as his primary calling. In 1829, this conviction resulted in the writing of a revolutionary pamphlet. In 1830 it resulted in the formation of a radical church movement.
Winebrenner’s belief that the reformation of the church was his central task is evident in the Preface to A Brief View. He says, “…among the various duties of our glorious religion, there are, in my opinion, none more arduous and more pre-eminently important than the duties of forming and regulating the church of God.” Note the appearance, for the first time in his writings of the name of the church, the church of God.
Winebrenner acknowledged that he was not alone in calling for church reform. He noted however, that many who agreed with him were silent on the issue. Winebrenner himself, through this pamphlet, would not longer remain silent. He says,
“…there are others again, who, seeing the sectarian jealousies and party feelings that exist in various parts of Christendom, are induced from prudential considerations to keep silent in relation to these matters. The principal one among these, perhaps, is the fear of giving offense, and thereby making bad worse, as the saying is. Yet it is neither policy, duty, nor Christianity to let a great evil alone for fear a greater one might follow.”
What would be the cost of not reforming the church? Winebrenner says that the consequences are grave. Notice again the strong language:
“…many people are left in great ignorance; others are thrown into great perplexity of mind; whilst others again are led into bewildering notions and erroneous ideas on these weighty subjects.
These unhappy and deplorable circumstances, under which thousands are placed, should excite our tenderest sympathies, and prompt us to speedy and energetic efforts to ameliorate their condition and bring about a salutary, remedial reformation in regard to these ecclesiastical matters so manifestly wrong, and so much confused.”
Perhaps the most significant passage in the pamphlet is the one in which Winebrenner for the first time publishes his conviction that creeds and books of discipline are grave offenses against the New Testament model of the church. He says,
“But if after all, some should take offense at this book, I venture to predict, that none will be more offended, and look at it with a more evil eye, than those who are most in the habit of binding great burdens, such as Creeds and Books of Discipline, and laying them on men's shoulders and consciences. And where do men get such a privilege from? Surely not from the Scriptures?”
Two observations are worth noting from Winebrenner’s comment. First, Winebrenner was passionately committed to his conviction that creeds and disciplines are error by 1829, a year before the formation of the Church of God. Second, notice in what stark terms Winebrenner decries creeds and disciplines. They bind great burdens on men’s shoulders and consciences.
The John Winebrenner who wrote A Brief View of the Formation, Government and Discipline of the Church of God was a radical church reformer. His thinking had matured from the naïve devotion of a pious young man into a passion for the salvation of sinners into a commitment to radical measures to convince sinners to repent. His thinking matured with his conviction that Christ’s Church is modeled in the New Testament and depends solely on God’s Word as its authority.
The Central Tenet of Winebrenner’s Mature Theology
The mere publication of A Brief View suggests that between 1825 and 1829 Winebrenner had become deeply concerned about the nature of New Testament Christianity. Interestingly, in his early years in the German Reformed Church he so was comfortable with the Reformed Church’s view of the church and with the fact that the church has a Cathecism that, iIn 1822, he published A Compendium of the Heidelberg Catechism... Therefore, the mere publication of A Brief View… was a profound theological statement in and of itself. It announced a radically transformed John Winebrenner.
As quoted, the pamphlet contains the stark assertion that creeds and disciplines bind great burdens on the shoulder and consciences of people. This is a theme Winebrenner would return to again and again. It is the theme that was Winebrenner’s central conviction in forming the Church of God in 1830.
In his account of the early history of the Church of God, Winebrenner described his belief that the church should be organized on what he called the “apostolic plan.”
“About this time (1825) more extensive and glorious revivals of religion commenced in different towns and neighbourhoods… And, as 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, and established spiritual, free, and independent churches, consisting of believers or Christians only, without any human name, or creed, or ordinances, or laws, &c.”
Clearly, for Winebrenner, the terms “apostolic plan” and “New Testament plan” were synonyms. A church organized in that way was organized without, among other things, a creed or human laws.
In his description of the teaching and practice of the Church of God, published in 1844, Winebrenner prefaced his 27 Points with the same assertion about creeds and disciplines:
“The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline church standard, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have.”
Any movement with a purpose derived from Winebrenner’s founding vision for the Church of God will embrace two forms of radicalism: First, a radically high view of the authority of Scripture in which the Bible truly is its one and only rule of faith and practice. And second, a radical view of the evils of creeds and disciplines which bind the shoulders and consciences of followers of Jesus.
Winebrenner’s Understanding of the New Testament Plan
Winebrenner articulated his vision for the Church of God in 1830 in five points. That vision remained dear to Winebrenner for many years. As noted, he apparently could not recall the day in October of 1830 on which the Eldership of the Church of God was organized but he did retain precise notes of the sermon he preached. He published those notes in every edition of History of All the Religious Denominations in the United States.
In the sermon, Winebrenner says, “Agreeably to the New Testament, churches should be formed…--
1. Of Christians or believers only (Ac 2:41 5:13);
2. Without a sectarian or human name (Isa 62:2);
3. With no creed and discipline but the Bible (Ps 19:7 Mt 28:20 Ac 2:42 2Jo 1:9);
4. Subject to no extrinsic or foreign jurisdiction (Heb 13:17 Ga 5:1); and,
5. Governed by their own officers, chosen by a majority of the members of each individual church (Ac 6:3 20:28).”
The first point undoubtedly reflects his frustration that he didn’t consider many of the members of his German Reformed congregations to be regenerated.
The second point reflects the degree to which he was committed to a rigid adherence to the New Testament model of the church—to so great a degree that it can only have a name consistent with the name by which New Testament churches knew themselves. For Winebrenner that name was “Church of God.”
The third point picks up on the central concern of Winebrenner first stated in his pamphlet published in 1829. For Winebrenner it was absolutely essential that the Bible be the only authority for a New Testament church. Creeds and disciples were anathema to Winebrenner—an absolute abomination. He passed up no opportunity to make the point.
Point four is a point Winebrenner made elsewhere as well. He seems to be calling for congregations to operate independently. This is not a call for congregational polity however. Winebrenner’s last sentence in describing the formation of the church in 1830 is, “Thus originated the Church of God, properly so called, in the United States of America; and thus, also, originated the first eldership.” Winebrenner saw church government as presbyterial, hence the term ‘eldership.’ His understanding of an eldership, however, was as a loose confederation, not a federal association of churches with a strong central authority.
Point five is important in several ways. It may be, however, that one of the truths most quickly lost in the Church of God as it passed from movement to organization into institution is its emphasis on strong local church leadership. By the second half of the twentieth century the church pursued the goal of providing every congregation with its own ‘pastor,’ a full-time pastor, if possible. Winebrenner’s statistics for 1844 indicate that the rapidly expanding movement had a total of 385 congregations and preaching places and only 83 ministers serving them, a ratio of nearly five to one. Winebrenner’s vision was of a movement in which genuinely converted local leaders were given permission to lead an ever expanding church.
Winebrenner’s Self Awareness
It may be that the one comment in Winebrenner’s notes that is most significant has to do with his understanding of the magnitude of the task before that small group gathered for the task of organizing the Church of God. After he described the five characteristics of the New Testament plan, Winebrenner said,
“To accomplish all this will require another great reformation. But, under God, it can be achieved.”
Two conclusions can be drawn from the regarding the self-awareness of the people who unanimously moved to form the Church of God on Winebrenner’s vision:
First, they were convinced that Protestant Reformation had failed. Because of that another great reformation was required.
Second, the people who formed the Church of God didn’t consider themselves to be Protestants. They were among the very first self-identified post-protestants.
Nostalgia or Need to Repent
In 1830 John Winebrenner cast a vision for a movement of God peopled by followers of Jesus Christ bound together in congregations established on the New Testament plan. Winebrenner knew that such a vision would offend many. He centered the movement on a belief in the authority of the Bible so uncompromising that, in that way of thinking, creeds and disciplines are a burden on human shoulders and consciences. He defined the church on the assertion that the Protestant Reformation was a failure. And, he called brothers and sisters together in the building of a church so different from all others that its success could be achieved only under God.
In September 2008, the Administrative Council of the CGGC approved a Mission Statement carefully crafted on Winebrenner’s founding vision articulated 178 years earlier. Nearly two years have passed since then.
It’s worth asking: What fruit has adopting Winebrenner’s founding vision produced? Is the Mission Statement merely a vague wish for a better day? Or, does it reclaim the radical commitment to the authority of the Word and post-protestant passion of John Winebrenner and his contemporaries?
posted by bill Sloat at 7:48 AM
54 Comments:
Bill~
This is an absolutely excellent article! I think what struck me immediately (among other things) was the independence Winebrenner saw the churches having within the confederation known as the Church of God. Why do we feel that we must tell local churches how to practice the ordinances, who can lead the ordinances, how they must ordain (or more properly, that they simply cannot do so)? To think like Winebrenner, we have to trust the Lord more with His own church.
I feel like you have clarified well for us what J.W. had in mind with the phrase "New Testament plan", and I am fascinated that his synonym phrase was "the apostolic plan". Some of us (via guys like Alan Hirsch) are just re-embracing the apostolic plan, but Winebrenner saw aspects of this a long time ago-- too bad CGGC folks let go of it along the way.
I need to reflect on this more, but I am hoping that more CGGC leaders begin to desire to go back to this thinking, which is really simple New Testament thinking.
Bill-
That was great, and exactly what I was talking about. A well defined position on what J.W. prescribed to.
Fran- You went for one of the three things that I resonated with. The independence of the the local church. I think this is vital to creating movement. I struggle with this issue on large level,because even with the idea of permission giving, I still think we will be preventing local congregations seeing where God is working and joining him on mission.
If congregations operate independently and associate by free will, I think we will be more apt to accomplish the mission of God.
The second issue that I really enjoyed reading about is what Stetzer called in, Planting Missional Churches, Apostolic Harvest. The 1 to 5 pastor to church ratio.
I think you will find if you study movements of the past, that strong local leadership and releasing those gifted to multiply is a common thread of spreading the Kingdom at a rapid rate.
The third thing I like was the idea of being post-protestant. The ideals of our movement were not protestant they were restorationist. We as an institution have fallen into protestantism. I believe to become a movement again we need to embrace a new reformation (just as J.W. did) and get back to a restoration mentality.
Unlike J.W. I am not prescribing we leave our group to do so, but that we restore a biblical model to the Church of God.
Guys, I don't want to be obstructionist here, but I'm not sold on the idea of the CGGC becoming an "association of independent churches." I believe the biblical model is presbyterial if not apostolic, and there were clear lines of authority. I know some won't agree, but I believe the Antioch Church submitted to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, thus providing not only a case against independence but also establishing the authority of a general Church council at which the Holy Spirit works through the "catholic" church (similar to our Conference sessions).
Regrettably, the CGGC in many ways already is an association of independent churches. Pastors and churches quite frequently cut off communication and refuse to provide financial support to conference-sponsored ministries. One recent situation near where I live was that of a church that refused to work through the Conference in obtaining a new pastor. Instead they hired a guy who seemed dynamic but in reality was a time bomb. They're still working through several legal issues as a result. Needless to say, they came back to the Conference with some degree of embarrassment as they asked for help -- which was freely given.
Will we avoid all problems with a presbyterial structure? Of course not. A structure alone won't guarantee health anymore than our skeletons guarantee life. Without flesh and spirit, we'd just be anatomy displays. (Which is what happens to churches that choose structure over life.) But on the other hand, where would we be without our skeletons? We'd be amorphous blobs. Rather than throwing away our structure, I believe what we need most are apostolic leaders who know how to work with churches of all varieties in bold mission, loving fellowship and mutual accountability (as Paul counsels the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28-31). Somebody needs to have the right to tell me and/or my church that we're wrong if we go astray. If we need help, it's good to know we can count on our family to reach out, and vice versa if another church needs us.
I think the CGGC is on the right track, especially because of leadership and ideas represented here in this blog. But please don't create a black-and-white dichotomy where it doesn't need to exist. Church multiplication and a presbyterial structure aren't mutually exclusive.
Ben,
This may not make you feel any better (and may even scare you), but I agree with you, and appreciate you saying it. I don't think an "association of independent churches" is a good idea either. It 'might be' in an ideal world, but we all know our churches are far from ideal.
Interestingly enough I was just listening to a program yesterday on the pitfalls of Alcoholics Anonymous. The whole idea is that the meetings are independent and everyone is equal and all that. While it has enjoyed a fair amount of success for many people, it has also created quite an atmosphere for abuse.
I think that is a danger the church is especially prone to as well. Especially with pastors who aren't interested in any kind of accountability. And, let's be honest, there are many - and maybe especially people who want to plant churches - who really need some accountability in their lives. Not as a way to "hold them back", but as a way to keep moving them forward.
Just some thoughts...
I'm leaning in with Dan. The problem with independent local churches is that they tend isolate themselves from something they need.
They might need an apostolic push, but they find apostles too arrogant and refuse to participate. They may need a prophetic word but find prophets too "out there." They may need a shepherd or a good teacher, but they don't want to open themselves up. So they stagnate.
The New Testament churches were somewhat independent but were reliant on the teaching and decisions of the Apostles.
So instead of outright independence, the alternative is to raise up visionary leaders (prophets, apostles, and maybe even evangelists and teachers -- we have plenty of shepherd leaders) to key positions to create a more vibrant atmosphere in the denomination.
These leaders take risks and even break some rules but their heart and loyalty lies with their tribe. I think much of the denomination longs for such a change.
Thanks Bill for the historical background and commentary.
It was a helpful reminder that we need to model ourselves on the NT plan. But it also brought a question: "If we are building on the NT plan and our view of that plan differs from Winebrenner's view do we go with the NT even if it means moving from what we believe is a distinctive issue for us?"
Another question is "what is
Winebrenner's view of a creed?"
He did outline 27 points. If he did not see that as a creed then would there be a place for us today to outline our distinctives without being creedal?
Hey all...
I DID use the word "independence" in my earlier comment on this post, but I want to be clear that I, for one, am not arguing for an association of independent churches.
Brian said the alternative is to see visionary leaders raised up who help us move toward that fuller Ephesians 4 leadership picture. I do believe we should be people, and churches, under authority... our current quagmire is that in becoming institutionalized, it often feels like the only leader further up the chain of command is a committee. And when that's the case, we do the Lord's picture of His church a disservice.
As Ben said, it is true that in some ways we already seem at times like an association of independent churches, but in the Midwest for example, at present, it could feel no other way. What I'm saying is that it's a two-way street: local churches wanting connection and those over the pastors giving a sense that there is in fact something to be connected around, as a group of churches.
I agree with the other comments here that there is a balance to be found in all this. One of the toughest balances will have to do with which things a local church has to get approval for from the denomination, or ask permission to do. When things become institutionalized, we train local churches to be institutionally dependent, and many of them trade in great dreams of being used by God for asking if they can have a hall pass.
PART 1:
Friends,
There are some interesting comments in reply to my article.
In response to what Ben started, I'll say three things. Those comments will connect to some of the things others of you have said to him.
1. I'd said that the nature of the independence of local congregations varies in the CGGC from Region to Region. I can speak most familiarly about my own region.
But, I will also say that the nature of the independence of our congregations and the attitude of regional leadership toward individual congregations is nowhere close to the "New Testament plan" in any of our regions. What we have is based on a Christendom theology of church and the traditions of our regions. In no way that I can see is it derived from the New Testament model. I believe that our local congregations are suffering as a result.
2. Ben, I'm intrigued by your comment, "I believe the biblical model is presbyterial if not apostolic, and there were clear lines of authority."
I've been thinking a similar thought for a long time, though I don't know what you mean by it and I suspect that what you mean by it may be very different from what I mean by it. I know what it means to say that the biblical model is presbyterial. I don't know what you mean by an apostolic model.
I know what presbyterial, episcopal and congregation mean. I don't know what you mean by "apostolic." I hope you mean by it what I mean by it. Would you mind breaking that down for me?
PART 2
3. I'd like to take off and run with your opening comment. Believe me, I don't mean to be offensive. I'm merely using your comment to make a point. You said,
Guys, I don't want to be obstructionist here, but I'm not sold on the idea of the CGGC becoming an "association of independent churches."
We were formed in 1830 on the conviction that we are about establishing churches on the New Testament plan. Since 2008, through the Mission Statement, that conviction is offically a part of our vision.
And, so, it doesn't matter if any of us are "sold on" any particular idea. And, I don't think it's appropriate to even think in those terms. The only thing that matters based on our early history and our Mission Statement is if a concept is a New Testament concept. If, in fact, an "association of independent churches" is in the New Testament model, then we are committed to it. If it's not, we're opposed to it.
My point is that if we give ourselves over to living out the Mission Statement, there will undoubtedly be many ideas that each of us are not sold on. Nevertheless, the big idea that binds us together in common purpose, i.e., establishing churches on the New Testament plan takes precedent what any of us are sold on.
It is appropriate to say, "I don't see an association of independent churches in the New Testament model." And, it's appropriate to say, "Here is the New Testament data that supports that opinion."
If we are going to establish churches on the New Testament plan, the New Testament model of the church is the only thing that we can care about. What any of us are sold on is entirely beside the point.
So, to be absurd, if I can demonstrate to you from the New Testament that we should all preach hopping on one leg while wearing Patrick Star tee shirts then we should do it, whether we are sold on the idea or not. All of us will have to accept the idea that notions we personally don't like will become standard for us if we establish churches on the New Testament plan.
The culture of the Church of God in Winebrenner's day was strongly dominated by prophet values in which biblical truth was the unquestioned sole authority and any individual's personal discomfort with it was coldly disregarded.
One of the problems with the Mission Statement that I see is that it promotes prophetic values, which emphasize biblical truth in a pretty harsh way. Today we are, for the most part, lead by a community of shepherd. Shepherds care much more about the comfort and happiness of the individual. Prophets don't give a rip about that warm and fuzzy stuff. In many ways, the values of the prophet and the shepherd are antithetical. The truth is, if we're going to be radically committed to the New Testament model, and true to the Mission Statement, our values are going to have to shift away from shepherd values.
Being who I am, I can easily groove on something as stark and truth focued as the New Testament plan. I can--I want to--disregard my personal preferences for that big picture philosophy of ministry. But--as let me be clear that this--I do understand that the values shift for those of you who are, by gift and calling, shepherds will be hard to achieve.
I just want to add that I didn't write the Mission Statement. I'm wasn't on the Ad Council that approved. But, it is our Mission Statement and I believe in it and I will support it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lew,
"If we are building on the NT plan and our view of that plan differs from Winebrenner's view do we go with the NT even if it means moving from what we believe is a distinctive issue for us?"
As I pointed out, Ed said, when he announced the Mission Statement, that it's not about Winebrenner and it's not about recreating the early Church of God movement, it 's about the New Testament and the Christian movement.
Because of what other New Testament plan movements have added to our understanding of what the New Testament plan is since Winebrenner died, obviously we will see things that Winebrenner didn't see. We take for granted that spiritual gifts are a part of the New Testament plan in a way that never came to Winebrenner's mind. We understand APEST as a part of the New Testament plan in a way he didn't.
Ed unveiled the Mission Statement in a way that possessed unqualified courage.
So, yes! The Mission Statement is about the New Testmant plan, not the Winebrenner plan. It is entirely possible that distinctives may be radically altered.
In fact, I had some misgivings about creating this thread because it would tempt us to latch on to
Winebrenner's idea of the New Testament plan. Now, some of you have to think through Winebrenner's plan AND the New Testament in a way that you didn't have to before.
But, there can be no question. If we decide Winebrenner was in error, we drop him on that point like a hot potato. And, honestly, Winebrenner would have had it no other way!
Another question is "what is
Winebrenner's view of a creed?"
He did outline 27 points. If he did not see that as a creed then would there be a place for us today to outline our distinctives without being creedal?
Winebrenner's view, as I repeated so often it was making ME ill, is that creeds bind great burdens on the shoulders and consciences of people.
You raise an important question about the 27 points. Winebrenner was clear in his preface that we have no creed or discipline or even constitution or anything like that. He said that he created this list of the faith and practice of the Church of God "pro bono publico," i.e., for the benefit of those outside the movement. A creed creates a standard for people within a movement, or more likely an institution.'
That's why I'm certain that if we dug him up we'd find him retching over this 21,333 word We BELIEVE. It stands for everything he opposed with all his heart from even before the Eldership was formed in 1830. And, it certainly has no roots in the New Testament plan.
Lew,
"If we are building on the NT plan and our view of that plan differs from Winebrenner's view do we go with the NT even if it means moving from what we believe is a distinctive issue for us?"
As I pointed out, Ed said, when he announced the Mission Statement, that it's not about Winebrenner and it's not about recreating the early Church of God movement, it 's about the New Testament and the Christian movement.
Because of what other New Testament plan movements have added to our understanding of what the New Testament plan is since Winebrenner died, obviously we will see things that Winebrenner didn't see. We take for granted that spiritual gifts are a part of the New Testament plan in a way that never came to Winebrenner's mind. We understand APEST as a part of the New Testament plan in a way he didn't.
Ed unveiled the Mission Statement in a way that possessed unqualified courage.
So, yes! The Mission Statement is about the New Testmant plan, not the Winebrenner plan. It is entirely possible that distinctives may be radically altered.
In fact, I had some misgivings about creating this thread because it would tempt us to latch on to
Winebrenner's idea of the New Testament plan. Now, some of you have to think through Winebrenner's plan AND the New Testament in a way that you didn't have to before.
But, there can be no question. If we decide Winebrenner was in error, we drop him on that point like a hot potato. And, honestly, Winebrenner would have had it no other way!
Another question is "what is
Winebrenner's view of a creed?"
He did outline 27 points. If he did not see that as a creed then would there be a place for us today to outline our distinctives without being creedal?
Winebrenner's view, as I repeated so often it was making ME ill, is that creeds bind great burdens on the shoulders and consciences of people.
You raise an important question about the 27 points. Winebrenner was clear in his preface that we have no creed or discipline or even constitution or anything like that. He said that he created this list of the faith and practice of the Church of God "pro bono publico," i.e., for the benefit of those outside the movement. A creed creates a standard for people within a movement, or more likely an institution.'
That's why I'm certain that if we dug him up we'd find him retching over this 21,333 word We BELIEVE. It stands for everything he opposed with all his heart from even before the Eldership was formed in 1830. And, it certainly has no roots in the New Testament plan.
Bill you responded in the way I expected. I have no question about your loyalty to the Bible. This gives us all common footing then when we discuss the issue of a NT plan. We all stand on the Word.
We owe a debt of gratitude to John Winebrenner for pointing us back to the Bible as the guide. Now we can put ourselves to that task--in community.
A funeral and the need to help lead a congregation have taken me out of this discussion for a time. I have just reread the 13 comments to Bill's original thread. As a church leader who has had to help "clean up and heal" congregations who had walked a highly independent line within a presbyterial system, I have these observations: (1) the independence was often rooted in a pastor's or a congregation's desire to do ministry according to their preferences rather than clear accountability to the Word, (2) the independence was often a subtle expression of a desire to imitate a church or religious celebrity or a particular doctrinal thread (generally at variance with the denomination) that substituted either contemporary fad or a nostalgic theology of earlier times for the Word as understood by the larger Body of Christ. (3) The Holy Spirit rarely had anything to do with the "independence" that was pursued to the detriment of a healthy church.
I cannot yet get past the sense that "NT plan" is still viewed by some as a magic program (sort of like the church growth movement of the 20th century) that will INSURE results. Sometimes denominational systems become restrictive to AVOID results. Both can become rabbit trails that do not produce fruit that will last.
The most compelling image of the Book of Acts to me is not its plan but its leadership. "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us .." begins the report of Council of Jerusalem. Denominational leadership or local leadership that is not willing to submit to the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and is not willing to be accountable the Word of God as the revelation of values and heart and priorities of Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life will always degenerate into another semi-powerless human ecclesiastical system that does not serve the ongoing mission of Jesus Christ.
Where is the discussion about prayer to seek the mind of Christ?
Where is the call for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? Where is the understanding that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow that reminds us not to be enamored by any epoch of history or doctrine if it keeps us from "our first love" and its ministry of reconciling the world to God in Christ?
Do not interpret this as a condemnation or an agreement with any particular position that has been expressed in this thread of the CGGC Emerging Blog. I am just offering a different lens through which to see this whole issue.
Lew,
Bill you responded in the way I expected.
I'm glad that I've become so predictable.
;-)
My message here is rather narrow and finely focused, now isn't it?
I have no question about your loyalty to the Bible. This gives us all common footing then when we discuss the issue of a NT plan. We all stand on the Word.
No offense intended to anyone here or elsewhere in the CGGC, but I sincerely don't believe that we all stand on the Word. As far as I can tell, many of us stand more on the Christendom myth than the Word.
And, I think if we ever really do start to work on an understanding of what the New Testament plan is we'll find out quickly that that is the case. I'm afraid that we are more about our traditions and shepherd dominated, relationship-oriented, "can we all just get along?" values than stark, uncompromising submission to the truth.
I hope you are right and that I am wrong. But, I strongly believe this.
We owe a debt of gratitude to John Winebrenner for pointing us back to the Bible as the guide. Now we can put ourselves to that task--in community.
Well, we had that 180 years ago. The two questions I have are:
1. Can we be honest with ourselves about how we lost the radical belief in the authority of the Word? And,
2. Do we really want to reclaim Winebrenner's radical theology?
(Ben's post continued)
Paul's filial concern notwithstanding, the original 12 Apostles didn't seem to care too much about overlapping geographic boundaries. We see Peter in Jerusalem, Antioch and eventually Rome; John in Jerusalem, Samaria, Antioch and western Asia Minor(cf. his letters to the churches in Revelation); and Paul was everywhere.
My conclusion here is that the apostolic gift is still functional (along with all the NT gifts), and is seen chiefly in church planting and cross-cultural evangelism (the traditional missionary). The clear lines of authority I mentioned in my last post, would be chiefly those between the church planter and his church plants, and later between the bishop/overseer and the churches under his care (i.e. John's authority over the seven churches in Revelation; Timothy's in Ephesus and Titus' in Crete). The apostle is the initiator and planter in unevangelized regions, while the bishop serves as his successor in providing ongoing oversight.
This conclusion is borne out in later Christian history, namely after the original Apostles died. This happened very early on. Consider this quote from Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (30-107 A.D.):
"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
I know this smacks of the "myth of christendom" and the egregious use of authority, but we need to remember why these things developed. Along with the Apostles' Creed sometime in the 2nd century, the episcopacy provided for spiritual oversight of existing churches (especially to counter a host of false teachers) AND to further the expansion of the Church. Creeds and episcopal authority existed long before Constantine in 315 A.D., and long before the NT Canon (finalized in 450 A.D.).
What the CGGC needs -- in my belief -- is a renewal of spiritual leadership and accountability, one that is focused on prayer rather than Robert's Rules, one that seeks God's guidance for expansion into new areas rather than playing turf wars.
Bill,
First let me apologize for the use of "I'm not sold on ...": I had no idea how irksome that phrase is to you. I should have simply said, "I don't agree ..." or "I don't believe the NT teaches independence."
In response to your request that I explain what I mean by an "apostolic" structure, we have to deal with the apparent distinction between Apostle (the office) and apostle (the gift). In Acts 1:15-26, the Eleven felt the need to replace Judas with one who had accompanied them beginning of Jesus' ministry ("John's baptism") to Jesus' ascension. This was the primary qualification, and the purpose for Peter's view of Apostleship is to serve as a "witness to Jesus' resurrection" (v. 22).
Paul vigorously defends his Apostleship in several of his epistles. "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5). He includes himself as the last witness of the risen Savior, one "untimely born" (1 Cor. 15:8) compared with the other apostles.
From this evidence, it would seem that the formal office of Apostle is closed forever: obviously there are no more eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.
However, the gift of apostleship seems to be different. Included in the number of "apostles" are individuals who most likely were not fellow witnesses to the Resurrection: Andronicus and Junia (a woman) "who are of note among the apostles" (Rom. 16:7); Epaphroditus ("your messenger [lit. apostle]" in Phil. 2:25; and possibly Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6). (I'm omitting Barnabas and Silas from this list, only because -- for all we know -- they might have been among the select group of witnesses.) Paul mentions false apostles in 2 Cor. 11:13, suggesting that the role of apostle was somewhat open and therefore vulnerable to those with a lust for power.
The apostolic gift seems to range from messenger and representative (as in the case of Epaphroditus in Phil. 2:25) to the spiritual authority-wielding role of missionary bishop/evangelist/church planter (best exemplified by Paul himself). It is on this end of the spectrum that I base my understanding of the NT apostolic structure. We have very limited knowledge as to how the apostles organized their areas of ministry, except that in Gal. 2:6-10 Paul alludes to the fact that Peter's "target" group was the Jews while Paul's was the Gentiles. Elsewhere, Paul has a deep-seated sense of responsibility for the churches under his care. He asks the Corinthians, "Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord" (1 Cor. 9:1b-2).
(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)
At least a couple of comments have leaned toward the idea that we need a healthy dose of what we have now because it will prevent rogue congregations from getting off into trouble. I'm not sure that's actually true. Those in positions of denominational oversight would have to pay an awful lot of attention to each and every congregation to know when pastors and churches were beginning down some unhealthy path. If you have too much fear of individual congregations going bad places you will "structure for control", and if you do that you will put in so many standards and procedures that you will not see a multiplying movement generated. Again, I am not objecting to having some standards, but we should shape pastors and other local church leaders by vision and good teaching, not by denominational policing (which is different from the "apostolic parenting" I see in the N.T).
Steve, I agree that the N.T. Plan is not some kind of "magic" that cures all ills. However, there do seem to be certain things about how the early Christian movement did things that increased the likelihood of positive movement rather than stagnation. I think part of it has to do with how leaders are raised up, trained, and affirmed or sent out. And I think part of it has to do precisely with the freedom of leaders to go where the Spirit leads them. I have a friend in a group of churches where they have a value expressed this way: "We believe that every pastor and church is free to follow where the Spirit leads them, provided they are true to our basic teachings and values." That strikes me as very N.T. Someone referred to a church that didn't go through the denomination to find its pastor. I don't see anything in the N.T. implying that the church in a given locale, once established, would not have been free to choose it's leaders when new leaders needed to be chosen. And yes, they might make a mistake, but are we really arguing that our denom. has done a good job in who they've approved and placed?
And Steve, I totally agree with what you said about seeing "leadership" as the thing that stands out in the N.T. This is what Hirsch calls "apostolic genius": the nature of leading by apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers, and how each of these fits with the others. How far we are from the N.T. plan is evident by the fact that our denominational jobs and committees are loaded with people about whom, when we considered them for those roles, we never asked which of these APEST gifting/callings they were.
Ben,
Thanks for your two posts. You have written some good stuff. I probably am more in agreement than you would have thought.
The phrase, "I'm not sold on..." isn't irksome to me per se.
What concerned me is that Scripture describes human leadership in the Body as being in the hands of an interdependent group of people who are called to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers and the CGGC has disintegrated into a leadership culture dominated by shepherds. I was afraid that "I'm not sold on..." reflected the values of that unbiblical leadership culture. It has the ring of code words in the shepherd culture.
It's been my experience that, in the CGGC in recent decades, if someone we care about says, "I'm not sold on...," because we value relationship so highly one person's discomfort could scuttle mission and vision. No formal action is ever taken but someone expresses discomfort and vision is set aside and becomes nothing more than the latest fad. We can all name many of those fads--victims, I believe, of the shepherd dominated leadership culture.
Some historic things have happened in the CGGC lately. One is that we have Mission and Vision statements. (Now, having those things is a recent development in Christianity and the fact that we have them in probably nothing more to most CGGCers than just the next bandwagon we've jumped on a decade after it started to fizzle, but we have them.)
What complicates the mere fact that we have the Mission Statement that we have is that our Mission Statement harkens us back to the era of our greatest radicalism. In the day that Winebrenner cast that vision, we were radical among the radicals. Today we, the CGGC, have taken moderation in theological things to amazing extremes. So we have to deal with who we are now and where our official Mission Statement would take us.
Talk about cognitive dissonance!
And, your phrase is powerful code language in a shepherd culture. "I'm not sold on..." is code language in the shepherd culture for, "Whoa! Relationship, here! Warm-fuzzy alert! I'm uncomfortable! I don't feel good about this! Slow down! 'Can we all just get along?'"
I see now that that's not what you intended to say to us. And, for thinking that you did, I apologize.
Having apologized, I'll add that I'll always be sensitive to the shepherd ways. I been laughed at and laughed with in the past when I've identified our Shepherd Mafia. Well, if I'm right and if it exists, we'll know it in the next one or two General Conferences.
To stand up for a leadership community in which apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds and teachers are all empowered to live within their callings is to bring down the shepherd dominated leadership culture that has reigned in the CGGC for more decades than any of us have been around.
This comment has been removed by the author.
On submission to the Bible:
I think that for the most part we do hold a high view of Scripture in common. I think the problem is the way that we read/interpret the Scripture. In short, we read it through tradition and, yes, Christendom thinking. Anybody else reading about the justification 'debate' going on will be aware of how tradition can dominate the way we read and understand the Bible.
The great thing about the Scripture though is that once we have clarity, we can lead and discuss not from feelings and opinions alone, but with something authoritiative over us.
Thank God for his Word so that we can proclaim with boldness things that would probably get us run out of town if we had thought them up on our own.
Can anyone describe some examples to me of how Winebrenner, Maxwell, and the lot dealt with established churches under the care of strong lay leadership, that a year or two down the road, began to introduce heresy?
George,
I can't give you a CGGC example, but I can give you a Vineyard example.
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_blessing, you can see a description of the Toronto church that was famous for the "Toronto Blessing." This was a Vineyard church.
The article says, "In 1995, the Airport church was released from affiliation with the Vineyard movement. The reasons for the disaffiliation were for growing tension over the church's emphasis on extraordinary manifestations of the Holy Spirit and the Vineyard leadership's inability to exercise oversight over the revival."
I was told that John Wimber, acting in an apostolic way, made that decision.
George,
Is this Elroy?
Re: "Can anyone describe some examples to me of how Winebrenner, Maxwell, and the lot dealt with established churches under the care of strong lay leadership, that a year or two down the road, began to introduce heresy?"
So, if we would agree that a church with strong "lay" (your word, not mine and not the Word's word) leadership is consistent with the New Testament plan, are you opposed to it?
I believe that this is a straw man, George. From my experience, having a seminary trained clergyperson standing in front of a sanctuary every Sunday is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Just look at the Episcopal Church or the PCUSA or the ELCA.
From what I know of early Church of God history, there was virtually no problem with heterodoxy when the Bible was truly our only fule of faith and practice and when our ministry to congregation ration was 1 to 5 and we empowered strong local leadership.
We had many more problems with heterodoxy in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s when the CGGC had a strong seminary pumping out highly trained graduates into the church on a yearly basis.
Bill I am sorry if I implied you were predictable--prophets can't be predictable. I hope you understood that I meant you would stand on the Bible rather than man's word, however much we may appreciate the message.
As to whether we truly stand on the Word I think Dan makes a good point, "I think the problem is the way that we read/interpret the Scripture. In short, we read it through tradition and, yes, Christendom thinking".
We all read with a particular set of lenses and most of us think we are reading clearly when in reality the lenses are etched with the blade of culture, etc. John Winebrenner realized his glasses were scratched and replaced them.
Maybe it is time for an eye exam in the CGGC. However, like the blind man in the Gospel we may see trees walking and get scared.
Lew,
No need to apologize. I was serious. My thinking is pretty narrow and very tightly focused. And, no doubt, tedious to some.
As to whether or not we stand on the Word, I've been toying with entering a thread in which I argue that the CGGC lost its own 'Battle for the Bible' in 1975. (What year did Harold Lindsell come out with the book?) In our case, we lost that battle, not to liberalism, but to the rise of the shepherd dominated leadership culture.
In that year, we published a new "Statement of Faith," supposedly based on the 1925 Statement but, in it, we buried the phrase, "...the divinely inspired Word of God as our only and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice" as a subpoint under "We believe in the gift and work of the Holy Spirit."
The entire point of the 1925 Statement was our strongest possible affirmation of the inspiration and authority of the Word. In 1975, other matters of faith were far more important. In 1975, we marked the descent of the centrality of the authority of the Word in the Churches of God. We affirmed that in the first WE BELIEVE when we, again, placed other doctrines above the doctrine of Scripture. And, we did it again in our current work in progress.
Can anyone doubt or deny that we have lost Winebrenner's radical dependence on the authority of the Word?
So, no. I don't think we stand on the Word. We acknowledge it. But, promote it? Declare its ultimate authority? Build our churches soley on its model? No, not any longer.
On apostolic leadership in the NT and today:
I think we've far to limited the function and importance of apostolic leaders to say that church planters and cross cultural missionaries are the prominent examples. Perhaps they are but evangelists seem vital in those roles.
It seems to me that (almost all?) denominational leadership positions should be apostolic. Some positions would be exceptions of course.
Furthermore I believe areas need apostolic leadership to see new ministries started and coordinate existing expressions of the church of God.
It seems indisputable that Paul Peter and John all had a continuing vested interest in the communities that thy had apostolic leadership over.
Dan,
I believe that you make good points about the scope and centrality of apostolic leadership.
But, you also illustrate a pretty serious problem that we have. It's a problem that will take, perhaps a generation for us to overcome. Since at least the middle of the last century we have all but run the apostles that the Lord has called into our body out of the body.
If they didn't agree to go on the mission field or become a church planting PASTOR, our shepherd culture was uncomfortable with them and in the quiet and gentle way a shepherd mafia whacks someone, they ecclesiologically whacked them and, to quote the title of the Harlan Coben novel, they are GONE FOR GOOD.
What's certain is that when people gifted to be apostles made themselves available for denominational and regional leadership positions in the past, we always somehow seemed to decide that a shepherd was more qualified. And, so we have wonderful guys who are devoted followers of Jesus at the top of the CGGC pyramid now. But, they are all shepherds--every last one!
Today, when we look around our body to see who are the younger apostles being molded by the lord to lead us and who would one day take the place of our shepherd leaders, what do we see? A big crop of shepherds and a few church planting pastors and missionaries...
...oh, and we can remember some really great people who left the CGGC because, well, somehow they just didn't fit in.
Dan-
I would agree, I think it would be great for Apostles and Evangelists to team up in planting churches and on the mission field.
As for Apostles at our top levels of leadership, I would also agree. But I believe that our churches for the most part don't want that.
A phrase that I believes comes from the shepherd based culture is "a pastor to pastors" I would contend at least 75% of our CGGC churches believe our Regional Directors and Executive Director need to be a pastor to pastors.
Not that they don't on some level, but that is how they are generally described. These men are generally not able to speak into the lives of congregations to implement change unless there is a big problem. But what most people don't realize is that most of our congregations are in big trouble because they are in decline or stagnant.
If Apostles could speak into these churches we over time would start to see change. We are starting to see this on a small level with some of our field directors like Jeff Rockey. What I see is a big problem though is that they have to call him. And it is a take it or leave it relationship.
That is why you now see the apostles of the CGGC seeking either church planting or planting field director positions.
I still think we have to break down some of institutionalism that is in our apostles. I think that especially Fran would be more effective mobile versus tied down to a local church. That is not a slam on Fran or Life Spring. I think LS is one of the most progressive congregations because they do let Fran travel to Haiti a lot and participate in CGGC stuff. But on the other hand he is tied down because he still is the main preacher and lead elder of the church.
We do have some full time church planting directors, but I'm not sure if they are apostles. They could be, but I'm not sure. They may be evangelist or shepherds themselves.
But until we release Apostles completely and give them a voice in other churches, I don't think we will see the shift that the few prophets we have are calling us to.
Justin makes a good comment. I have heard people say that if we had a "hot rod" (which may be a code word for an apostle type), he would make a mess of the region, and then someone (a shepherd type I assume) would have to clean it up.
So the general feeling is that apostles may accomplish some growth, but at what cost, and most likely the cost is too great.
I'm not sure where these feelings are coming from. Have we in the past had apostle type leaders make a mess of regions?
Certainly an apostle would have a challenging vision and create a sense of urgency in a region, (of which there is little or none now).
On the note of Fran being mobile, I have been very blessed by conversations with our church's elders who tell me that if I need to be gone for "kingdom work," they fully support that. I'm assuming not every pastor has that flexibility.
Brian,
Re: I'm not sure where these feelings are coming from. Have we in the past had apostle type leaders make a mess of regions?
Ed would probably be the best person to answer this question. The last really strong non shepherd or shepherd culture leader that we've had on a denominational level that I know of well was S. G. Yahn. He took over from Forney at the Church Advocate in 1913. His crowing achievement was the 1925 Statement of Faith which came about after a lengthy series of editorials. I read him as having a very domineering personality and leadership style. But, he comes across to me as a prophet, more than an apostle.
It is my guess, not as educated as it might be, that the rise of the shepherd culture was a reaction to his domineering personality. It seems to be that, in his place, we elevated soft-spoken, tender hearted leaders.
But, either Jim Moss, Sr. or Ed could speak more authoritatively than I can in response to your question.
It is a VERY important question, Brian.
It would seem to me that if leaders were almost all shepherds, they would be continueally frustrated trying to do more than called and gifted to do.
I have heard the 'pastor to pastors' phrase before, but not as much recently. I think things are changing and perhaps changing significantly (but not enough for Bill understandably). I think our directors see apostolic and prophetic importance to their tasks, even if it stretches personal callings/giftings.
I don't see much fear. Could it be that sometimes apostles/prophets lack the maturity to stick around? I understand the temptation to leave, but the O.T. prophets often had a specific calling to a specific people and didn't get to 'move on' when the people were not receptive.
Likewise, would Paul have given up on a church or network of churches because they desired stability and shepherd leadership. Heck no.
What we need is apostles and prophets who are here to stay no matter what. The good news is that we have them, at lease some of them, many of whom are part of this blog discussion. For that reason, the future will look different than the present.
Dan- Generally I think your spot on, but I really disagree with most of your last post.
You said "It would seem to me that if leaders were almost all shepherds, they would be continueally frustrated trying to do more than called and gifted to do."
I think generally that could be seen as a logical argument, but I think the current state of the CGGC is disproving it. The CGGC has been on a steady decline for some years. I think the shepherd mafia has done with things with it. First is that they embraced fads. Minus this past General Conference speaker the list I have seen in the past are generally guys that have a program to sell us. Those fads worked in there context not necessarily ours.
Then when that fads don't work they do a wonderful job of comforting us in our death. That is one of great characteristics of a shepherd, not so much for an innovative leader. I have heard more times than not well at least we tried such and such's idea. Now let's take time to regroup. When in fact we shouldn't have been following wome one elses growth model, we should have been listening to what the Spirit was telling us to do. And in that regroup time our tribe over all became passive in the work it should have been doing for the Kingdom and our numbers shrank.
You also said "I have heard the 'pastor to pastors' phrase before, but not as much recently." I heard it at least 15 times at General Conference two times from the podium. I have heard it in Every region I have visited (I have not been to Allegheny or California). It is in the job description of most of our Regional Directors. I have most of the Directors job descriptions if you want them. I tried to fight for it to be taken out of our regional directors job description. It is everywhere, I don't now how your not hearing it.
You also said "I don't see much fear. Could it be that sometimes apostles/prophets lack the maturity to stick around?" You are partially right with that, I struggle with the maturity issue. But I think you are wrong in the fear department. There are regions that don't recognize people on the regional level that are recognized on the National level. In my current region we do almost everything we can to choke out planters without just saying NO to planters completely. Thanks to people like Phil Wilson he fights to help our planters survive.
Beyond that I look at the fear in the Eastern Region. It is not held by everyone, but there has been fear in the credentialing commission for some time (I think that is changing)This is not just in the East though it's been in almost all our regions. That is why movement has not been happening in our tribe.
As for Prophets and Apostles leaving. Yes we leave to fulfill our calling somewhere else. Jesus told to NT disciples that if their message isn't received to shake the dust off their feet and move on. And because ministry is seen more vocationally in Western Culture the shepherds and drive way apostles and prophets. In fact some one did a study for our denomination an said almost all of our Apostles and Prophets had been scared off. Bill or Phil Scott who did that study for us? Was it Barna?
I think most of the Apostles and Prophets the CGGC have are overseas that is why we see movement there. As for Bill your right he is pledged himself to the end. But honestly who besides Bill is calling us to the mat both regionally and nationally. I think Fran and Brian are, but it's from and Apostolic point of view. I will throw Phil Scott into that mix too, but I don't know his gifting yet.
But if that's all we have, we need to start raising up a new Generation of these giftings and people or the past some odd years will be the same years we have to look forward to.
Thanks Justin,
My comment about 'pastor to pastors' was my anecdotal experience, and you're obviously shown that it is still prominent. That still doesn't seem to me the way that all leaders function though, considering that there are other regional staff given solely to this purpose. Anyway, I concede that point for the most part.
At my installation service, our regional director exhorted me to preach the Word and proclaim Christ. Sounds prophetic and evangelistic to me.
My comment that 'it would seem...' about shepherds was not a comment about the state of reality but more of a general statement. I just don't see how there could not be frustration there...
But (I think) I'm sticking to my guns on the apostles and maybe primarily prophets staying. And maturity was the wrong term for me to use, but perhaps conviction is better. I don't think your scripture reference applies in context. We are talking about established Christianity begun by an apostolic movement, not evangelized.
Maybe it especially applies to prophets more than apostles. The prophet is there at least partially because something is wrong, or not as it should be.
Maybe I'm reliant too much on the O.T. prophets as models, but there ought to be some continuity.
Justin,
"Dan- Generally I think your spot on, but I really disagree with most of your last post."
Thanks for responding to Dan. I was hoping someone would. I don't think anything I've read here upset as much as that post.
I attended my first East Pennsylvania Conference in 1976. Shippensburg.
I've seen many APEs come into the Conference/Region with excitement and passion and begin to live out their gifts. Over the last 30+ years I've seen almost all of them leave. Some in a year or two, some lasted 10 to 15 years but almost all of them are gone now.
My best friend is a guy I met in 1977 in seminary. He was a minister in the East Penn Conference. He is unbelievably gifted as an apostle. He is passionate about the gospel. He loves the Lord as much as anyone I know.
He couldn't stand the oppression of the shepherd culture and left the Churches of God in the early 1980s. He wasn't immature. He was being stifled. His giftedness was not embraced. Most of what comes natural to him in serving the Lord was resisted or even opposed. He became frustrated and, while he was serving in ministry, lost the most of the joy of his salvation and all of the joy in his calling.
In order to live in his gifts in a way that he could experience freedom--in a church culture which would empower him to be himself in his calling and give him permission to do the things he was spiritually wired to do--his best option was to leave the Churches of God.
I've seen many, many, many like him come and go and we are in serious decline because of it.
Bill, not sure if you read my follow-up post or not before this.
Again, I'm sorry about using the term mature - it was the wrong choice.
Perhaps I should wait for a few more years to get more experience to comment of the state of the church.
I guess I just don't understand what/when is grounds for leaving/staying. I was trying to use what I believe are biblical examples. I can see how 15 years of trying would be demoralizing. But again, the prophets (and apostles for that matter) suffered greatly to call God's people to where He wants them. We should be prepared to suffer if necessary as well. This is not in judgment of anybody else (and that is how it came across it seems) but as a personal commitment on my part and what I see to be a deep commitment on many others part.
Dan,
It is an unfortunate thing for the CGGC that we are not the only show in town. Because of that, people in ministry have the same choice that people who attend congregations in America have. If people at Fairview Bethel feel that their gifts and passions don't fit the rest of the congregation, they have many other options.
It seems to me APEs in the CGGC during my years have come to a similar place and they have been led to the point, time and time again, that they have concluded, "If the CGGC doesn't want to embrace someone with my gifts and passions and calling, there are bodies that do."
When my friend was going through the agony--and it was agony that continued for several years--that led him to decide to leave us, I did everything I could to dissuade him. But, I have to be honest. It was better for him to leave.
I've been shepherd-whacked. It's not a fun thing to be on the receiving end of, believe me. They do it, and because of the hegemony of the shepherd culture, they don't even know that they've done something. A shepherd in a shepherd culture that has dominated for decades can be brutally arrogant.
It is the truth that, as far as I know, the only people who entered the ministry in the Churches of God--in this Conference--in my time and who have remained are people who are, by calling, shepherds. As far as I know, I'm the only APE of that era left. And, oh what we might have become by now, if all the rest of the APEs'd been empowered and given permission to be who they are in their callings.
Thanks for that Bill.
I regret that I seem to have offended. It was not my intention.
I learn by interaction and sometimes throw out ideas that are not well worded or sometimes adequately thought out.
Anyway, I have not walked the road that those who have chose not to stay have, and I'm not judging anyone.
My intention was actually to credit you Bill, among others, for being committed even when it's painful. And it's one of the major reasons why I think the future will be better than the past.
For my edification, both Justin and Bill, was it the tone / language that I used that's causing the strong disagreement or the idea itself that some people should stick it out over a longer period of time.
Again, my intention was/is not to judge others who have left but to say that if the persecuted voices are driven out, how can the change ever happen?
Hello to everyone from the southern peninsula of Haiti, where the miracle of sattelite is allowing me to read the blog and comment.
Dan, don't worry about seeming to have offended-- it is the nature of these conversations to say things that rattle one another. Bill and Justin can take it, and just long for a vibrant CGGC.
I actually see a lot of common ground over the last few threads. We all want a fruitful denomination. We all agree we need the full range of APEST leadership, and most of us agree that shepherds have been rewarded and accepted while the APEs have been seen as a threat and often frozen out.
I almost left the CGGC over the last few years because I am in a region that neither has nor wants APE leadership (no comments on other regions-- I don't know them). The sad part of this, to me, is that in addition to the group not being fruitful together, we end up with a poorer quality shepherd without the apostolic and prophetic giftings. I have stayed because Ed Rosenberry envisions a vibrant CGGC and gave me avenues to live out some of my calling.
I am grateful for those who have shepherding as their primary calling, because they are the one of these leaders most needed in the local church-- as shepherds they are ones who want to spend all their time hanging out with and leading the local sheep. We even need SOME shepherds to be the "pastor to pastors". But we have filled most of the denominational leadership roles with shepherds, who prefer green fields to regions beyond.
As Dan reminded us, we should not expect it to be easy. That's a good reminder.
Justin-- thanks for the prodding to see me "on the move" rather than just anchored at LifeSpring. I resist that, because I LOVE my people and what LifeSpring is becoming. I have no desire to leave... at all. But I would do what the Lord says. Pray for me-- I am stretched thin, but love every piece I am working.
Dan-
I was not offended, I just highly disagreed. If I sounded offended I apologize. Also I will share later how I found my leanings with the APEST.
Bill- 670,000 ft. That's the view ;)
Fran- I just respect your giftedness and I believe you still have some good planting years in you. That said I also understand you have a wife to consider, and the connection you have to your congregation. I also believe you hear from God, so I know if he calls you will follow. I just believe we would grow much faster if you were more mobile. My dreams not necessarily God's will.
Just made it to KC, MO to visit a church planter, then headed out to PA. Bill I'll see you Sunday.
Dan.
I actually was offended but Fran’s right. I can take it. I’ve been taking it for many years. I hope that I didn’t violate the “In your anger do not sin” standard.
You said, “Could it be that sometimes apostles/prophets lack the maturity to stick around?” and “What we need is apostles and prophets who are here to stay no matter what.”
In doing so, you articulated the very attitude of the shepherd mafia that I’ve faced all these years and which ultimately results in so many APEs leaving.
Most APEs are wired as APEs by the Lord but raised up in the shepherd dominated leadership culture. Because the APEST teaching has only recently become prominent again most of us think we are deficient spiritually because we’re not shepherds.
I recall telling myself for decades that if I ever become truly spiritually mature the time will come when I will care less about truth and more about relationships and that I’ll fit in in the church. In the past, I became very anxious as I’d experience spiritual growth. I'd end up caring more about truth and was even less inclined to pursue rich relationships with other believers. I’d be excited about lying awake at night to meditate on the Word for hours and want less and less to nurture the flock I served. But, in my heart, I also believed that there was something essentially wrong with me because of that.
And, I’ve seen many good people who didn’t fit in the church culture, whom I believed were genuinely gifted for ministry by the Lord, lose every drop of joy in their calling because they were naturally wired to disciple, not to nurture, or would naturally spend time taking the gospel to unbelievers while shut ins were going unvistited. I’ve seen the Conference side with congregations because APEs don’t shepherd. And, I’ve seen those APEs not, to use your words, ‘stick around.’ I’ve heard the diagnosis you’ve stated, “S/He lacked maturity.”
And, I can’t help but conclude that it’s that very shepherd mafia thinking that’s killing us and robbing many genuinely called people of a calling from the Lord.
So, you hit an exposed nerve. You had no idea. I know that.
But, that explains my reaction.
Bill, I knew you were offended you and that's why I was so quick to apologize. You are correct, I had no idea it would offend. Disagreement is not usually a surprise though :-)
As I've now said at least 2 or 3 times, I used the wrong word in choosing 'maturity' as part of the problem. I hope we can move past that poor choice.
Also, none of what I said initially was meant to say that APE's need to change and shepherds were right all along.
What I was trying to say, and I'm still having a hard time letting go of (dispite strong disagreement) is the idea that God might be calling some to stay through hardship, persecution, even pain, for the sake of the church. Not just suck it up and submit forever, But be a constant voice 'in the wilderness.'
Bill, it seems like this is you, so I'm surprised you disagree with me on the point.
A prophet would not be immature for leaving, and this was probably the point of offense, but I still believe there is a (strong?) biblical case to be made for sticking it out to call God's people back, even when nobody wants to hear it.
Anyone else have a thought? I truly hope that I'm not continuing to offend, but clarifying.
Dan,
I think you have made a good point and that the issue of prophets staying and apostles staying are two different issues.
Maturity can be an issue but this isn't a culture that raises apostles so it is hard for an apostle to mature.
Our culture typically wants apostle types to cool down and ease up. A level of maturity instead for an apostle type is tact and realistic expectations... to use leadership tools rather than a hammer... These things were not taught to me.
That being said, you were right that the "mature" word was a little offensive, but you are totally forgiven and in fact I appreciate that you have brought so much to the conversation.
It's been a good (and long) discussion.
Brian -- You're right: apostles often aren't given the chance to mature. Every Paul needs a Barnabas to back him up. Even though I'm not an "APE," I want to help champion and defend them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well said, Ben.
I've been given the privilege of hanging out with some of the new planters. I share your concern. But, I'll say that the shepherd mafia has the kind of attitude toward them that puts them off.
It's "We need you. We're figuring out that we'll die without you and so for pragmatic reasons we will use you. But we don't really like you and we are reaaaaaaallllllly uncomfortable aroud you. So stay among us. But, please, keep your distance from us." That's how I read it from conversations I have. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
Can you understand why they're not chomping at the bit to embrace identification with the shepherd mafia?
Now, I'm not content with that and so I'm working to make the synthesis that Hegel describes a reality. But, I'm not finding many others who are working at the sort of mediation I'm attempting.
If we don't follow through on what you and I are both seeing, these planters will bolt in exactly the same way Living Water did here in the east. (And, frankly, I think Living Water was justified in doing what they did considering how the mafia treated them.)
I will say that, from what I've heard, General Conference sessions left a sour taste in the mouths of many of the planters who attended. I don't think their being there helped us.
I'll also say that, after I said my thing the second time in the credentials debate someone who is very highly placed in the planting culture walked up to me while I was sitting my chair and hugged me. He didn't say a word, but I thought for a while that I'd need a chiropractor to recover from the hug. The way they are being ill-treated really matters to them.
Ben, I appreciate your openness and support for those of us who don't fit it. The CGGC will need many more like you if this planting movement is to be assimilated--i. e., if the mafia and the planters are to be synthesized.
Bill,
I appreciate your prophetic use of words and though you used two **'s to soften the blow, please change your post.
I expect the intent was to offend, but I would appreciate if you would change the word.
Brian,
I reflected for a long time over using "**". The intent is not to offend. It is to illustrate as vividly as I can, precisely what it feels like to me to have been repeatedly shepherd whacked over the years.
It's the best way I know to do it.
Honestly, I feel like Jeremiah being told by the High Priest that it's okay to say what I think I need to say so long as it doesn't rattle the religious powers that be too aweful much.
But, while I honestly feel that way, I respect you as much as I respect anyone and I recall that Paul says, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."
I disagree but I will submit.
Dan,
I get all of that. You asked why I reacted the way I did and, as a matter of recent history, I told you. I am no longer offended by what you said. I understand. And, if it helps you for me to say I forgive you, then, I forgive you. However, after you explained what you meant, I was fine with what you said.
I would add, though, that if you think that this is just an issue of APEs staying through hardship, I'll tell you, from my experience, that the shepherd mafia, in the past has actually wanted APEs to leave if they insist on not being bleepity bleepity bleep bleep. (Sorry, but that reflects my honest thought and feeling. Is that okay, Brian?)
The shepherd mafia really does act like a mafia. It really has not been neutral toward those of us who have trouble working within the shepherd paradigm. And, so people like Fran, with all his gifts and immense maturity, considered leaving the CGGC and almost did leave.
One of my friends told me on the bus on the way home from General Conference that the people at his table were (my word) mocking me as I stood on the floor saying that the Standards for Credentials are from Catholicism in the Middle Ages, not from the NT. They wanted to know how it is that I think I have the whole NT figured out.
I run into that all the time.
The shepherd mafia is not as benign in the issue of APEs staying as I susupect you think. You have enough shepherd in you to fit is as one of them. I hope you never get shepherd whacked. But, I have been many times.
Thank you Bill.
The change is acceptable except that it loses the sentiment. For those reading, the bleeps referred to a sub-standard class of people who do what they are told.
Bill's words were prophetic and in that sense acceptable, but I made the decision not to accept that word on this blog. Some will appreciate it. Some will think I censored the words of God.
Bill, I truly appreciate your willingness to speak your heart as it reflects from the heart of God.
No sweat, Brian. You banned a word with the letter "*" appearing in it twice?
;-)
****
* ******'* ***** *** **** ** ****.
*'* ***** * ****** *** **** ***** *** ******* **.
I take it Lew is a prophet as well.
Dan-- yes, it IS about Jesus... I'm with you and always appreciate someone saying it out loud to remind us.
Ben-- I think you have a great attitude... as you want to support APE's, I want to support good shepherds.
Bill-- "Immense maturity"? I need to get my wife to start reading this blog!
I just came down from 4 days in the mountains of Haiti, and I spent a lot of time with a young Haitian pastor who has great vision and wants to see more effective, Jesus-centered ministry and church planting take place. His denomination (the Haitian Baptists we work with here) do not allow such leaders the freedom to pursue what the Lord puts in their heart, and the result is that they are frustrated. Guess where their denoms learned how to run denoms? From us Americans! Almost all the Haitian Protestant denoms are like this, so these guys have nowhere to go. He asked me to start a new movement here (which I probably cannot do without offending at this point), but it was fascinating to see a mirror of what we have in many U.S. groups.
I don't know that we have developed a consensus on what the "NT Plan" consists of, but most seem to agree on a few things:
--We need the spectrum of APEST leadership.
--There need to be APE's in significant denominational roles.
--It will be a struggle to see those with primarily shepherd-shapes exit many of the leadership roles in our regions and committees, and I suspect it will be painful and there will be many hard conversations along the way.
--Their need to exist both accountability and permission within that accountability.
It discouraged me to hear that planters who attended General Conference left with a bad taste (I had not heard that). I thought there was a lot of good stuff, including the healthy public discourse on things like credentialing.
Post a Comment
<< Home