A REFLECTION ON GENERAL CONFERENCE 2010
I am not a fan of 16 hour bus rides but I was delighted to be a part of the gathering of the Church called General Conference 2010. What I heard and what I saw demonstrated that "a new tomorrow" is dawning in our 185 year old denomination.
Who could not have their heart quickened by Andrew Draper's powerful testimony about the work that is being done to transform lives at Urban Light? Dr. Katherine Fell, the new President of the University of Findlay talking about her faith history and her desire to see UF deepening a relationship with the CGGC that has been steadily improving for almost two decades. A new church in Santo Domingo while we were in session! More church planters in attendance than there were pastors in some of our smaller conferences 20 years ago. The Leadership Initiative with Reggie McNeal. A church planting director from the Western Region! Winebrenner Seminary talking about concrete plans to make itself accessible to regions of the church - including the Massachusetts area that is entirely the result of recent church planting efforts. The powerful testimony of the church's generosity in response to the earthquake in Haiti and the leadership on the ground there that was provided by our own Project H.E.L.P. New missions in Thailand and Haiti and kingdom work in Kenya. A real Navajo pastor for Tsaile. The church planting vision expressed by Bill Shoemaker. Jeff Rockey, the pastor of a turnaround church in rural Indiana who is now one of the national leaders for church renewal and wellness. Ed Stetzer's clear and passionate challenge to evangelism. A philosophy of evangelism expressed repeatedly that was actually making disciples not simply gaining decisions.
In 1989 I became the President of the CGGC. At the time I was the youngest person to hold that office and I inherited a church that was in the throes of denial about its demise. That General Conference was all about turf and the many conferences generally saw themselves as in political competition. There was little church planting going on except in Ohio and what was then East Penn and that movement was struggling. We were just disengaging from a Hymnal Project that would have tied our worship into such traditional formats that would have stifled any true culturally relevant efforts to turn around or plant churches. The University and the Church were silently at war with one another. We are articulating, debating and voting on position statements regarding our society that were rarely being used or honored. We were not even talking about women in ministry. We Believe was still in its first decade of existence and was still being attacked by the proponents of the awkward 1959 Oak Grove document and the fundamentlaist dominated Yellow Book that had been created in elderships who wanted to circle the wagons against the culture instead of being salt and light within the culture. Except for talking about spiritual gifts, there was no real commitment to genuinely following the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Many of our churches were still fighting the charismatics.
There were two bright spots. Winebrenner Seminary under the leadership of Dr. George Weaver was now firmly committed to training evangelical pastors instead of trying to be a mini version of eastern divinity schools and people were now beginning to surrender their distrust of theological education for pastors. The other bright spot was our keynoter, Eugene Peterson, who spoke of a deep and biblically rooted discipleship that took the spiritual disciplines and scripturally consistent approaches to leadership seriously.
I am among the older part of the church now. Then I was in my thirties. My heart very much resonates with the sometimes messy, but always awesome leadership of the Holy Spirit. My own church has dramatically reshaped its focus to be an outward-focused kingdom Church under the Spirit's leadership. We are taking the making of more and better disciples as the definition of our mission. But some of the "battles" that it took to get there were "won" by the Spirit's working and not my pastoral persuasion. Some of the changes came because the Spirit's work could not be ignored and we made changes to be in step with the Spirit.
And there are a whole lot of us in the church -- many who were delegates to this 2010 CGGC and many of whom are now in positions of influence in their local regions -- who are committed to see that the church follows the leadership of the Holy Spirit. We are not as concerned with battles over doctrinal systems that marked the church of the Enlightenment and Modernity. We would prefer that those arguments were ended. While being committed to the gospel and deeply appreciative of what the Spirit did in the New Testament era, we do not presume to be authoritative on what that New Testament pattern precisely is. We are, in fact, suspicious of making the pattern from any age of the church a programmatic litmus test for ministry in this present age. We are open to the Holy Spirit creating a new "pattern" for ministry that is appropriate to the 21st century, our only test being its consistency with the core values of the gospel.
To use Fran Leeman's observation about church multiplication being "messy," I would affirm that ministry is always messy when it is missional. But that again is why we must be faithful to the leadership of the Holy Spirit who intends to be at work within us and through us. The Spirit will bring clarity and unity and transformation and fruitfulness, And that will be my prayer in this "new tomorrow."
.... Please note that my Google account labels me as LIFE MATTERS. My name is Steve Dunn.
posted by LIFE MATTERS at 4:29 AM
24 Comments:
Thanks very much Steve. That is great perspective. I think things are going to keep getting better too. Thanks for being a part of the conversation. I always appriciate your passion.
Steve,
One thing I have come to appreciate about you in recent years is that you are more intentional than anyone else I know in the CGGC about asserting that the church must follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Institutions have little room for the operation of the Spirit unless He would happen to choose to work in a way that fits the structure the institution has in place. In any case, there is no desire to submit to and walk in the Spirit.
Historically the Winebrenner movement has not been strong in advocating dependence on the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Winebrenner was radical in his emphasis of sola scriptura to the point that he found little room for sola fidei and virtually no room for sola gratia. Therefore, even in our best movement days, Spirit was little spoken of. Winebrenner was all about the Word.
Nevertheless, as we move through the tension that is a part of transition, we need to call on the Spirit's blessing and guidance and we need to submit to Him and live in Him. Given our history--both early and recent--that will not be an easy thing for us to do.
One of your comments gives me an opportunity to say something that I've been thinking through for a long time. It is an imcomplete thought. What you said is:
While being committed to the gospel and deeply appreciative of what the Spirit did in the New Testament era, we do not presume to be authoritative on what that New Testament pattern precisely is. We are, in fact, suspicious of making the pattern from any age of the church a programmatic litmus test for ministry in this present age.
One reality connected to your comment is that the sentiment you articulate is out of touch with the General Conference Mission Statement and Winebrenner's vision in forming the Church of God. By Winebrenner's vision and by our new Mission Statement, we are all about building churches on the "New Testament plan."
I suspect that many share your conviction about the inadequacy of the New Testament plan. What I know is that your vision is neither universal in our body, nor is it official. And, that that's a problem for us.
It seems to me that the Mission Statement is normative for almost no one in the CGGC. From comments I've received about what I said in the credentials debate, few of the people who were at General Conference even know what the phrase means.
I'm an Organic/Simple Church guy, as many know, and I'm all about the New Testament plan. Many whom I love and respect, prominent among them are Ben and you, are not about New Testament plan.
Here's my question: Is an early part of the process of moving into the future a conversation about tossing out the Mission Statement?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve-- thanks... great perspective and balance. I appreciate the "list" of ALL the good things you observed at General Conference, because while we have a long way to go, it IS a remarkable list!
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. That conversation might be best had by starting a new thread.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill, I'm glad you "love and respect" me and Steve, but I'm struggling with your next comment: "... you aren't about New Testament plan." What you mean is: we don't agree with your interpretation, therefore we're not about "New Testament plan." Sorry.
Ben,
Bill, I'm glad you "love and respect" me and Steve, but I'm struggling with your next comment: "... you aren't about New Testament plan." What you mean is: we don't agree with your interpretation, therefore we're not about "New Testament plan." Sorry.
What I mean is that you don't agree with Winebrenner (and me, for what it's worth) that the New Testament provides the only pattern to guide both the faith and the practice of the Church of God.
What the CGGC seems to have lost touch with is how unbelievably radical Winebrenner and our first generation were.
He really believe that we can't be the Church of God and have a creed or a discipline or even a CONSTITUTION. And, while I may not be able to go that far, I really can go almost that far.
That's a radical attachment to New Testament Christianity--Winebrenner's meaning when he said New Testament plan.
In this important 1830 sermon, which I go back to so often, Winebrenner distanced the Church of God from Protestantism. He said, of building a church on the New Testament plan,
"To accomplish all this will require another great reformation. But, under God, it can be achieved." (emphasis mine.)
That is radical stuff. And, I am all over that!
So, that's what I mean by New Testament plan. In our history, the notion is truly radical. There may be others in our body who hold views as close to Winebrenner's as I do. They are not coming to me out of the woodwork to say, "I'm with you, brother!"
Understand that when I say that you are not about the New Testament plan, I'm saying that, as I understand it, you don't share Winebrenner's convictions--which defined our early years--about creeds and disciplines and constitutions and, even more to the point, the REFORMATION.
If I am wrong about you, I apologize and I welcome you to a very small club.
Bill and I have already talked about this over lunch. My one caution is the presumption that there is a clear New Testament plan as if it were a perfect formula. The reporting about baptism, about the reception of the Holy Spirit can take on a variety of "answers" given the New Testament record. That's why there exists doctrinal diversity. Any plan still requires the working, blessing, empowerment of the Holy Spirit today to be fruitful for the kingdom. That refers to plans first experienced at Antioch after the initial Diaspora or first experienced centuries later.
If it is part of our mission statement to start churches on the New Testament plan, we should probably have some idea what that means that is generally agreed upon, no?
My guess is that others are thinking differently than Bill is.
When I think about the New Testament churches, I think about apostolic activity and churches growing up around response to the proclamation of the Gospel.
Bill, are you saying that for churches to be on the new testament plan, they must be just like first century churches in every way?
Is it only prescriptive Scripture taken into account or descriptive nature of these churches as well?
I think churches can be very different. The first century churches were mostly in homes? Must they be? They certainly can be, but I see little necessity that they must.
Perhaps one important thing is that we cannot require a church to have or do something a first century church did not have. Do do so would imply that those churches were sub par, no?
I’ve been pondering this idea “establishing churches on the new Testament plan”. I don’t know the context in which Winebrenner spoke/wrote this (historian Bill… enlighten?). I agree with Dan’s sentiment that this cannot mean we are trying to make churches which are like the earliest church in every way. If we think that way, the New Testament becomes a document that fences the church in and inevitably limit’s the contextualization of the church to different times and cultures. I have a personal conviction that the Lord allows for creativity when it comes to the church, provided the church seeks to live for those things He holds dear.
What I’ve been wondering about is those things that account for the vitality of the church and her ability to multiply, but which transcend time and place. Here are a few things that comes to mind. I’m curious what others would add to the list.
--APEST leadership.
I’m not sure if the Lord meant for every local church to have all 5, but even what some call “apostolic impulse” ought to live at the local level. At the least, we should think about more than the role of “pastor” in the local church, and when we think of the oversight of a group of churches, we should be asking lots of questions that relate back to these specific giftings. For example, why do we have regional directors who are not apostolic?
--True to the teachings of Jesus.
I guess this goes without saying for most of us, but I mention it because I believe certain things in evangelicalism have departed from the teachings and values of Jesus.
--Leaders seek to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, all of us as pastors would say we seek this, but in the New Testament we see the Spirit giving direction, speaking over people like Timothy at his ordination, etc. The Spirit is not an idea, but a powerful reality in the N.T. church.
--Churches can be started by any followers of Jesus.
In the early days churches were started when the believers were scattered. Of course leadership is needed, but the church can spread organically and not ask any institution for permission. Her Lord is the Lord God alone.
--People ordained by leaders who know them and who have a spiritual authority.
Our modern credential system of committees bears little resemblance to the description of Timothy’s ordination or Titus’ mandate to appoint elders on Crete. WE aren’t really given a lot to go on, but the bit we get strikes me as more dynamic, relational, and spiritual.
I suspect that Winebrenner would have been a little embarrassed by our attempts to be his disciples. I am sure that he would prefer we be Jesus' disciples. I am reflecting a bit more yet on Fran's comment and question. Following Jesus' teaching and the leadership of the Holy Spirit are the obvious two; but I want to reflect a bit more before I add other things to the list.
This talk about church on the "NT pattern" reminds me of the whole "WWJD" thing from a few years back. I understand the idea of patterning our lives after Christ, but I always thought asking "What would Jesus do" was the wrong question. I thought it should have been "What would Jesus have me/us do?" To ask what Jesus would do seems to point to the historical Jesus; which can lead one to believing that the incarnation was an historical event. But I think that just as the Word is "living and active" yet today, the incarnation was not something that happenED, but something that continues to happen. So I appreciate how you guys are laying some groundwork for what the NT church should look like TODAY; not just historically. Eternal life forever!
To ya'll,
Not ot be redundant, but just to clean things up, I initially entered this on the wrong thread so I'm reposting it here.
-----------------------------------
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 credentialing 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 heard me coming across that way at General Conference.
But, in broad terms I'd say this:
APEST
Permission Giving
Declergification--especially De-PASTOR-fication
Itinerent Apostolic/Prophetic leadership as core leadership
1 Corinthians 14:26 worship involving the whole body
Developing 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.
Fran,
I always appreciate you contributions to our conversations. Sometimes you question are your best contributions.
You said,
I’ve been pondering this idea “establishing churches on the new Testament plan”. I don’t know the context in which Winebrenner spoke/wrote this (historian Bill… enlighten?).
I agree that the phrase is an important one. I brought it up twice on the floor of General Conference, so obviously I do.
It is a commentary on the way the CGGC functions that this phrase--which has profound historic meaning in the Church of God--could end up in our Mission Statement and that people as motiviated and well-informed as you, Fran, could not know its context beforehand and that it has not been explained to you yet.
This is, of course, not your fault. But, it demonstrates how we can be so directionless as a body and how we can state the mission of establishing churches on the New Testament plan and, almost immediately after that, produce the credentialling document we did, which contains no references to New Testament models for acknowledging and developing leaders. (Okay, sermon over.)
I'll give a brief answer to the question now but I think a more detailed and thoughtful answer should come later and I will be glad to provide it when I have time.
The Church of God was formed in October 1830 in Harrisburg at its first "Eldership." Winebrenner was the key figure in the gathering that launched our ministry. The key event of the gathering was a message that Winebrenner preached.
Winebrenner said that the "counsel and work" of the Church of God consists of three things,
"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."
As I said on the floor of General Conference, I (because I study our history with such interest) immediately recognized our Mission Statement as a "rip off" (I can believe I said that) of the outline of Winebrenner's foundational message.
That's the history, in brief.
Thanks Bill for your comments about churches on the NT plan. However your post and subsequent posts indicate to me that we don't all have the same picture of a church founded on the NT plan, although there is a common core we share (i.e APEST leadership).
Fran said :
"I agree with Dan’s sentiment that this cannot mean we are trying to make churches which are like the earliest church in every way. If we think that way, the New Testament becomes a document that fences the church in and inevitably limit’s the contextualization of the church to different times and cultures."
That's a good point. So how does this church look with 21st century flesh on it?
I have been looking for something from Winebrenner that gives more substance than just a bare bones statement but I haven't found it yet. If there is no more than that mere statement we need to have a clearer statement for toady.
At this point in my life and ministry my image of a church on the NT plan is small groups of people meeting regularly in large rooms (and not shelling out $$ for heat, construction and maintenance). But with a connection to every other church in a given area under the leadership of an apostle.
Whatever our view of apostles there seemed to be only a small group of them and they had oversight of the church as a whole. (Apostles in every church would bring anarchy.) When Christ gave APEST to the church he gave them to the whole church so we don't have to have one of each in every church. In a way each one of these gifts can involve an itinerant ministry.
That represents a few pixels of my image of the NT plan. If others see it differently in only emphasizes the importance of a shared understanding.
Bill- Okay, I think most of us will concede that J. Winebrenner wanted to start churches on the New Testament Plan. What I think Fran, I and others are asking you for is what does J. Winebrenner say the New Testament Plan is?
I think I have a fair idea. I served in a Restoration Movement groups churches that kept their distinctives. From what I have seen from studying some of the documents in the CGGC museum and reading what used to be in the archives of the ERC website, and listening to Ed Rosenberry, we have not only forgotten some of our distinctives, but ran from some of them.
An example would be Fan, I and others were talking with Ed about the Spirit Filled/Charismatic early history of the CGGC and Fran had no idea about it. And went on to explain the old policy of the Illinois Conference was to make pastor sign a piece of paper that said they did not endorse tongues.
My gamble is because J.W. was a Restorationist he was probably more in favor of simple church government/polity. Not elaborate institutional government.
My gamble is that he believed in churches calling their own pastor/elders and deacons. My gamble is that the "movement" would grant credentials to a person that a congregation chose, not that a region chose.
My gamble is he was in favor of local church autonomy not regional church regulation. (I would gamble that do to reading about his split with the G.Reformed Church on the UCC website). Also it was the prevailing thought of the restorationist movements.
I think he would have embraced APEST, but at the time there was such a push back against Roman Catholicism that he called himself and Elder instead of Apostle or Bishop. I also think this because after he stepped down from his church he took the title "General Missionary." Which are the foot steps I hope to follow in.
I say all this to say, Bill and others, if you want a few of us to fight for Winebrenner Kingdom disctinctives help us understand them more.
I ultimately believe that this battle over the We Believe and credentialing will be won by progressive getting back to our roots. Fist by arguing for what Winebrenner believed and than arguing for Winebrenner's belief that the Bible be our only rule for faith. We first need to know what J.W. meant.
On a side note... The reason I think J.W. didn't talk very much about the Holy Spirit was because they were experiencing it in their churches. It was a main reason for J.W. getting kicked out of the German Reformed Church.
I think this is really a great discussion, guys. It feels like it is going somewhere, and I hope before it's over that we have a list of a few things that strike us all as core elements of a church in the spirit of the N.T.
Bill-- I agree with Justin that any more light you can shed on J.W.'s take on the N.T. plan would be helpful. Steve-- Yeah, Johnny would probably be embarrassed by all our talk of him, but I'd still like to know more about this piece of the early perspective.
Lew-- your attaching an idea like no financial expenditures for church buildings into the N.T. plan strikes me as an unnecessary fence, not a core element (just my gut feeling). I think where a church meets should be a contextualization question each local church has to answer.
Perhaps I am way out of line here, but I have to admit to being just a tad uncomfortable with all this Winebrenner talk. I mean, I'm all for knowing our history and whatnot, but sometimes it sounds like repentance is going back and checking with John Boy, and I always thought it was supposed to be about turning to Jesus. Certainly I know that JW is who founded the denomination, but isn't it possible that he may have been wrong about some things? Is he really who our source should be, or am I just misreading everything?
Y'alls,
Give me a few days. Things are busy here. Yesterday was a chemo treatment. We left for the hospital at about 9:00 am and got home just in time so I could run off to our facility to rehearse for a wedding, which was today.
I'm working on an academic style article on Winebrenner's notion of the New Testament plan: on how he reached the conclusion that building a church on the New Testament model was the correct way to conduct a ministry and on what he thought the New Testament plan was. He was crystal clear about his definition of the New Testament plan. That information is very accessible. I need some time to organize my thoughts and type it up. I'll enter it here.
I must say that I'm thrilled that, coming out of General Conference, we're engaged in so vivid a conversation about the New Testament plan.
Dan: I share your concern when our conversation becomes more about Winebrenner than what a ministry modeled on the New Testament church would look like.
However, when the General Conference Ad Council approved a Mission Statement for us taken directly from Winebrenner's 1830, they made it necessary that Winebrenner's founding vision be our common starting point in pursuing our 21st century mission.
I told Ed shortly after the Mission Statement was published that I was jazzed that we decided that we are about the New Testament plan, not a return to Winebrenner's understanding of the New Testament plan. I think Winebrenner would spin in his grave if he thought we merely want to copy his ideas. I don't think anyone here wants to copy and paste Winebrenner's understanding and march lock step with his interpretation. But, knowing how he saw it will give us a reference point.
BTW, (again to y'alls) Winebrenner saw five characteristics of the New Testament plan. They were revolutionary in the day--scandalous to the 19th century Christendom gang--but they are tame by our standards.
We have to remember that when Winebrenner was thinking these thoughts, the notion of the New Testament plan was revolutionary. We have the advantage of being children not only of Winebrenner's vision but also of others who thought similar thoughts since then, among them the 19th century Holiness people and Pentecostals and people like Alan Hirsch and Neil Cole today.
What thrills me is that so many are at least willing to consider Winebrenner's radical vision as a point of commonality for us. That makes the Organic Church guy in me smile.
Y'alls,
Give me a few days. Things are busy here. Yesterday was a chemo treatment. We left for the hospital at about 9:00 am and got home just in time so I could run off to our facility to rehearse for a wedding, which was today.
I'm working on an academic style article on Winebrenner's notion of the New Testament plan: on how he reached the conclusion that building a church on the New Testament model was the correct way to conduct a ministry and on what he thought the New Testament plan was. He was crystal clear about his definition of the New Testament plan. That information is very accessible. I need some time to organize my thoughts and type it up. I'll enter it here.
I must say that I'm thrilled that, coming out of General Conference, we're engaged in so vivid a conversation about the New Testament plan.
Dan: I share your concern when our conversation becomes more about Winebrenner than what a ministry modeled on the New Testament church would look like.
However, when the General Conference Ad Council approved a Mission Statement for us taken directly from Winebrenner's 1830, they made it necessary that Winebrenner's founding vision be our common starting point in pursuing our 21st century mission.
I told Ed shortly after the Mission Statement was published that I was jazzed that we decided that we are about the New Testament plan, not a return to Winebrenner's understanding of the New Testament plan. I think Winebrenner would spin in his grave if he thought we merely want to copy his ideas. I don't think anyone here wants to copy and paste Winebrenner's understanding and march lock step with his interpretation. But, knowing how he saw it will give us a reference point.
BTW, (again to y'alls) Winebrenner saw five characteristics of the New Testament plan. They were revolutionary in the day--scandalous to the 19th century Christendom gang--but they are tame by our standards.
We have to remember that when Winebrenner was thinking these thoughts, the notion of the New Testament plan was revolutionary. We have the advantage of being children not only of Winebrenner's vision but also of others who thought similar thoughts since then, among them the 19th century Holiness people and Pentecostals and people like Alan Hirsch and Neil Cole today.
What thrills me is that so many are at least willing to consider Winebrenner's radical vision as a point of commonality for us. That makes the Organic Church guy in me smile.
Dan-
I think your right on many levels. Here is where I am am coming from with my interest in what J.W. said.
I think it is a sad commentary on how things are, but I have to say it. I am finding when we make the argument about what is and isn't biblical people aren't really listening(I think this is one of the many areas Bill is calling our tribe to repentance). The reason for this is that there are so many different interpretations of what people think scripture says.
For example I think licensing is not a biblical practice of a New Testament Church. I also think that Ordination should take place either by an Apostolic leader or by the the local congregation.
I believe in the autonomy of the local congregation. I believe that regional churches should fellowship for the building up of the saints not to create boards or commissions to govern local congregations.
These are just some of my thoughts about what the biblical model of church is. As I have been told these are not the feelings of everyone.
So what I am looking for is some common ground to bring as much correction as possible. That is where J.W. comes in. If we can at least get back to a place we can agree on the historical perspectives we were founded on then we will can get to a point of discussing biblical foundations of things.
J.W. (I think we all can agree) wanted everything that was done based on the bible. So in essence all the things he put in writing he feels were based on scripture. Now do I agree with everything J.W. spoke and believed? No. But if we can at least get back to what he said I think we can get back progressively to a launching pad at making us a much more biblical church.
I think I need to make clear though, I am not advocating for the ending of licensing and I am not advocating for local church ordination. These are just to examples of where my personal interpretation of scripture would be very different in our tribe.
I do advocate for local church licensing with regional oversight through education though. I also advocate for the ordinances to be performed and overseen by any on all members of the body of Christ if so called.
My argument is progressive. I am learning our tribe likes to take things in steps. I am just trying us to take the first step.
Happy 4th all
Dan, thank you for expressing your concerns about looking to JC instead of JW. If there is one thing we can look to Winebrenner for it is his finger pointing back to the New Testament. That is the place we should go now that we have raised these issues and I think it is important to spend time looking at the NT and continue this discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home