Eight Characteristics of New Testament Plan Congregations
I meet regularly with a group of people who determined about a year ago to go on a journey whose intended destination was rather carefully envisioned. We decided to function as faithfully according to the New Testament model as possible. Since then, we have determined always to do what is modeled in the New Testament no matter what our church traditions demand.
This has been a mind-blowing journey. A few days ago we met to take stock of the conclusions we have reached together at this stage of our uncompleted journey. We identified eight truths about the way New Testament congregations would function in our time and place. We have no notion that these eight tell the whole story. We know that these eight are a small fraction of the total. With that in mind, here’s what we agreed to.
New Testament plan congregations:
1. Gather in community in numbers of people who can meet in a home.
2. Grow numerically through multiplication, not addition.
3. Do not invest in elaborate facilities.
4. Are shepherded by elders.
5. Grow numerically through the ministries of apostles, prophets and evangelists who function as itinerants and move among many congregations.
6. Expect that disciples will live out the Gospel as a lifestyle, not only through organized programs.
7. Anticipate that all who gather for worship come prepared to participate.
8. Require that all people fully connected to the congregation understand that following Jesus involves a total commitment to Him.
posted by bill Sloat at 5:08 AM
46 Comments:
These are core values. That is where we agreed the conversation should go. And by today's standards, these are radical.
In my opinion, the CGGC as a whole can not endorse #1, #3, or #7.
Should they? That would totally blow apart the denomination if they did, which is not anyone's hope.
However I am impressed by the cogency of these values and can see how they would be useful in reproducing a movement of churches.
The CGGC however could endorse (and should endorse) all the others. It would be an excellent start.
I have long complained that the CGGC has core values on paper but does not champion them.
Brian,
In my opinion, the CGGC as a whole can not endorse #1, #3, or #7.
What do you mean by can not?
Interesting. I think that if you (or we) followed those characteristics, we'd have some healthy churches.
At this point, I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as 'the New Testament plan.'
I'm not saying that we are free to do whatever we want, but at this point I'm not convinced that the N.T. prescribes one way to do church.
We can get a halfway decent idea about how the earliest churches functioned - and Bill seems to have a good picture of that in these characteristics.
I've mentioned this before but I'm not sure that because they met in homes, we're required to meet in homes or home sized groups only.
Paul did not require churches to meet in homes rather than other buildings. Would he have told them to sell them in move to homes if they had? Personally I doubt it, but I'm just guessing. The synagogue was the place of teaching for Christians outside of Jerusalem and I think that if the majority of Jews had embraced the gospel, they would have become Christian gathering places.
I am not here trying to simply defend all of our current practices. I think that we do need reform. I think that we need our gatherings to be fully participative and not spectator entertainment. I think that mortgaging ourselves to build big buildings is not wise.
We need to to recognize that not every leader is a shepherd (pastor). We need to expect full devotion of Jesus in every part of our lives. We need to realize that there is no real divide between leaders and everyone else.
These are some of the realities that we need to reform ourselves around.
But I think that there are other aspects that will vary from culture to culture.
I also have a thought that apostles and prophets and evangelists can be settled in the culture we live in, where they were less so in the first century.
If a city consisted of several house churches, what we consider a church of say 100 or 150 people could consist of 10 or 12 smaller gatherings that a prophet or apostle could guide. This is just speculation.
And all of this is my thoughts at the moment. I need to go back to the N.T. and read more. But right now, I'm not convinced that there is a New Testament plan in such a specific way.
oops...I meant to say that the synagogue was the place of gathering for Jews outside of Jerusalem (not Christians.)
M,
At this point, I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as 'the New Testament plan.'
If the CGGC didn't have a Shepherd Mafia controlling it but was dominated by an apostolic culture or a prophetic culture or, perhaps, even a teaching culture, you'd be in really big trouble. You'd be on your way to meet with someone or some group of people to explain how you think you can be a part of this body and so openly trash the intellectual core of its mission.
But, of course, we know in our hearts that we are run by a Shepherd Mafia and, as long as you live by our real, Rodney King, "Can we all just get along?" value system, no one but me will even notice and everyone who reads this post will merely role their eye at ME.
The core of our Mission Statement is a commitment to be establishing churches on "the New Testament plan." How can you even think you could say,
"At this point, I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as 'the New Testament plan,'"
and not be concerned for the ripples you will create in the fabric of the unity of purpose in the CGGC?
How can you not be quivering, understanding that, based on your bold question, that your own standing in the Body--even your so recently won priestly ordination--might be removed?
You just spat in the face of our General Conference leadership! Wow, man! Talk about courage!
Oh, that's right.
We have no unity of purpose--other than to all just get along. And, the fact that you can dis the Mission Statement so openly and easily merely proves that our Mission Statement isn't our Mission Statement.
:-(
I sincerely hope that if my beliefs are at odds with the mission of the cggc, I will be contacted quickly by Ed or Kevin or someone in leadership.
bill, my claim is that there is no New Testament plan in the way you interpret the idea.
I think that when we privilege the specifics of our gatherings, we have put the cart before the horse and missed the crucial aspect of the New Testament plan.
The proclamation of the gospel is the lead of our mission and of the New Testament plan. It seemed to be the driving passion for John Winebrenner and of most of our history.
My claim is that the New Testament plan is that the gospel be boldly carried and proclaimed in every place and that the church be formed around the response of people to the gospel in repentance and faith.
I don't think Winebrenner conceived that the gathered church would have all of the guidelines that you think it should. (I could be very wrong here). And my boldest claim is that I don't think that the Apostles (capital A) conceived of one specific and timeless way to gather the way that you do.
Perhaps that gets me in much deeper trouble.
Some others weigh in on this. Does the New Testament dictate such specifics of worship gatherings or is it something else mainly?
I was wondering what Winebrenner meant by the New Testament plan. Opening up Kern's book, I think I found the answer: Church Polity.
Quoting from Winebrenner's 'History of the Church of God',
"The conversion of these scores and multitudes in different places led to the organization of churches. 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..." Kern, 45.
So, what he meant by the New Testament plan was the polity of churches. Likely in contrast to the organization of the German Reformed Church.
I have no problem with that understanding.
M,
My claim is that the New Testament plan is that the gospel be boldly carried and proclaimed in every place and that the church be formed around the response of people to the gospel in repentance and faith.
I did a thread last summer on the New Testament plan in the thinking of John Winebrenner. I think what I said was correct.
What you see as the New Testament plan is not rooted in the thinking of Winebrenner and the Mission Statement which is a transparent rip off of the so-called 'sermon' Winebrenner 'preached' to launch the first Church of God Eldership in 1830.
In our body the New Testament plan means to pattern everything about the church in any place and time on the church that is modeled in the the Book of Acts and in the Epistles. Its mission is a very small part of that but only a small part of it.
M,
So, what he meant by the New Testament plan was the polity of churches. Likely in contrast to the organization of the German Reformed Church.
Kern takes an important but short passage out of the whole document. While what Kern says is certainly accurate, it is neither comprehensive nor complete.
To All of You,
Let me just say publicly that shortly after Ed announced the Mission Statement in the Church Advocate, I asked Ed to create a gathering of CGGC people around the question:
What is the New Testament plan?
He smiled and told me that he liked how I was cutting my hair.
Well actually, that's hyperbole. What he really said was, "Interesting idea. I'll take that up with the Commission on Church Development." That's the last I've heard about defining the New Testament plan in the body.
M,
That's why I've tried to steer you away from just throwing out 'medieval Christendom' as a criticism. People don't get it.
Dan, the cornerstone of the credentialing process in the CGGC is academic training. All, um, 'ordained,' um, 'clergy' in the CGGC have extensive theological education. Most have Masters' degrees. An increasing proportion have more education than that.
If what you say is true, then someone should hand Ed Rosenberry Dave Draper's head on a sterling silver platter. Ed should have it pickled and displayed at every Regional and General Conference Session where the Winebrenner Theological Seminary display would have been located.
If what you say is true, it is inexcusable!
Bill - what the heck are you talking about?
I didn't mean that you can't criticize the IDEAS of mideval Christendom - far from it. I think that you are correct in very many ways. I meant you can't just throw out the term as a catch phrase and expect people to know what it means.
In any case, I don't think the silver platter reference was in good taste.
M,
I meant you can't just throw out the term as a catch phrase and expect people to know what it means.
And I mean that if I can't expect a community of people with Master's degrees or higher from seminaries to know what that means, then there should be metaphorically speaking--and I hope you know the sterling silver platter reference was metaphorical--some heads lopped off.
If I can't expect you, with the education you paid a lot of good money for, to know what I mean, you deserve a refund.
Ok, I'm done.
Until this very moment, I did not know what Bill wanted with macro-repentance. With this last exchange, perhaps I finally get it.
It is about repenting back to die-hard core values. I will mention again that the CGGC has 10 core values that I doubt anyone could name all 10.
Maybe core values don’t really matter. Have we all tried to develop the mission and vision statement and then add on the core values? It hasn’t been very effective for me, though we are going to try again, and I’ll tell you why in a minute.
It strikes me the problem is that I wouldn’t die for the core values we created.
If you have a core value of multiplication or church planting, there shouldn’t be a leadership meeting go by that it isn’t asked, “How are we doing at multiplication? How can we more effectively multiply? Are we multiplying at every level? Are we multiplying right from the start? What needs to change for us to multiply?” And there should absolutely nothing we won’t change in order to multiply unless it conflicts with another core value.
So when you develop core values but don’t require everyone to put them at the core of who they are, then you have created nothing.
And why does it matter? We all love Jesus. We all want other people to love Jesus.
The answer is pretty simple – organizations that laser focus on their core values reproduce like crazy! And the Kingdom of God is too important to not laser focus on multiplication. Multiplication requires discipleship.
So Bill asked me, “Why can’t the CGGC embrace his values #1, #3, and #7?” Because in my opinion, those are models, not New Testament commands. However, I can definitely see how not embracing these three will cause reproductive problems down the line (and not so far down the line), and if we are radically serious about #2, which should be #1 on the list (#8 should move to #2), then we may come to Bill’s conclusions of #1, #3, and #7. But I don’t think we should start with them on the list.
Dan, God bless you for starting the conversation. I think there is a New Testament plan for starting churches more than polity. It starts with core values we can all agree upon. It is impossible to work on such things as credentialing when we don’t know our core purpose. And requiring every ordained pastor to have an MDiv slows reproduction.
So what should we value? Let’s make a list right here.
Brian - yes!!! You keep pulling me back from being done.
I agree with that kind of repentance.
The core values I think of are:
1. The proclaimation of Jesus
2. Submitting every part of ourselves in response to Jesus as Lord. (discipleship)
3. Doing all of that in community.
Neil Cole (I believe it's him) calls their list a bullet list. Things they would take a bullet for. For me, these three are. They could probably be worded better.
Dan,
This is an excellent start. When you have a minute, could you better define "proclamation of Jesus" and "in community"? I DO NOT want paragraphs! Just a bit more definition so I know what I'm taking the bullet for.
I really regret not meeting you at the CGGC meeting in Decatur.
Brian,
I love it when apostles and prophets live within the symbiotic relationship authored by God, which Paul says is the foundation that the church is built on with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2, y'all.)
You have just completed the symbiosis and have provided an intellectual structure to make my uprooting and tearing down, my destroying and overthrowing of the current insanity more possible.
Until shepherd dominated leadership is replaced with foundational leadership of apostles and prophets with Jesus as the chief cornerstone the Western church will merely stagger in the wilderness.
Brian - Prclaimation: Jesus is Lord - the King has come. God in flesh, died for our sins, rose from the dead (1 corinthians 15 - first importance.) Repent and believe in response.
That's not preferred wording, but some idea.
By proclaimation I simply mean that this truth is forefront. In interpresonal conversation, home gathering, public proclaimation.
In community means something like discipleship doesn't happen by yourself in your living room. It involves a lot of 'one anothers' As we respond to the gospel, we become not just 'saved' individually but a part of - wait for it - the Church of God.
As I write I realize that all of that phrasing is weak, but hopefully you get some idea of what I'm getting at.
A forth core value for me might be something about every person empowered and responsible to use their spiritual giftedness. (This incorporates the APEST leadership gifts but not only them but the spiritual gifts of every believer equally.
Brian:
So Bill asked me, “Why can’t the CGGC embrace his values #1, #3, and #7?” Because in my opinion, those are models, not New Testament commands.
It's probably time to say something that I've been holding off on saying:
From 1830 on in the Church of God "New Testament plan" refers to the early church model, not on biblical commands.
The Church of God, in its early days at least, was a part of a great and historic Christian theological tradition often known as Restorationism or Primitivism. The Mission Statement is a call back to that tradition.
It is my opinion that the Mission Statement doesn't reflect who we are or what we aspire to and that it was foisted on us and it will do us more harm than good until we trash it.
But, for now, establishing churches of the New Testament church model is precisely what we are committed to. I, for one, am all about that. But, I know that I'm in a small minority.
M,
Ok, I'm done.
I have to know. Are you suggesting that the people who participate in these conversations don't know the essential characteristics of Christianity in the Middle Ages?
Bill - not quite. I'm sure they do. But it seems like in your mind saying that something was developed in the middle ages is a slam dunk and that we'll realize the obvious error and repent.
The reformation happened after the middle ages, right? Didn't we correct all those errors in the reformation?? After all we've had pastors as such in every denomination since and that's all we've ever known.
That would be a typical thought process I think.
When you are asking us to change the only way we've ever though so radically (as you should), you have to br more specific. You have remind us of that specific area of mideval doctrine and show specifically why it is not different but heretical. Even then people won't get the connection you make between priest and pastor.
You are now becoming clearer to most of us but it's taken me fighting you to get down to business.
Bit this is simply my take. Others chime in please on what your understanding of Christendom means.
It is not considering people dumb to remind them of things they already know. I think Paul did this all the time his letters. Remind of the right theology, acknowledge the error, point to to correction.
Dan,
Part of the ongoing confusion may come from the fact that while you appear to understand what Bill is saying you keep saying "we" don't always understand or don't forget about "us."
My suggestion is to speak from your own perspective and knowledge (use "I" not "we," "they," or "us") and let others speak up if they aren't clear about his comments. I appreciate your concern for those who may be reading and lack an understanding of his comments, but let them speak for themselves (or remain confused). One of the strengths of a blog format is the personal interaction it allows for - don't minimize the potential to reach a new understanding by continually referring to an unknown "they."
This post reminds me of the comments earlier in the week about the idea of having a "communication breakdown." Too often leaders hide behind an unknown (and often non-existent) "they" in an effort to de-rail the innovative thinker. I am guessing that you are not intending to do that.
Thanks for the reminder Brent. My opinions are only my own and I will strive to use I rather than we.
I'm hoping others will comment and add their own views.
M,
The reformation happened after the middle ages, right? Didn't we correct all those errors in the reformation?? After all we've had pastors as such in every denomination since and that's all we've ever known.
That would be a typical thought process I think.
Okay.
I get your point.
In my defense, I'll say that my target in most of my recent posts has been the Mission Statement.
I have a boat load of angst over it because it reflects my own conviction but, as far as I can tell, it reflects no one else's conviction in the CGGC. The reason I continually use the clumsy term "New Testament plan," as I've done in this thread, is to make it an issue.
As I said to Brian, I think it was foisted on us. In addition to the foisting, I think the fact that we display it so prominently on our web site merely illustrates the rampant hypocrisy in the CGGC. It declares to everyone in the world with access to a computer that we are great a talking talk but no better than a mob of drunken sailors on their first shore leave in months in walking the walk.
The reality is that what we value is not church modeled in the New Testament. What we value is a tweaked version of what the Popes put together in the Middle Ages with priests who serve as mediators between the laity and the Lord at the head of every congregation. We call them pastors not priests but, just like the Popes did, we assume that they will pray to God on behalf of the people and that they will speak from God to the people and that they will administer sacraments for God and for the people.
Can I get more specific? Yeah. And, no doubt, some day I will. But, prophets often, it seems to me, have fought to keep the focus on the biggest picture and have normally painted with the broadest possible paint brush. It's for people in the apostolic role to lead in making change a reality. It's always been up to the prophet constantly to cry out for change in the loudest voice s/he can and in the most stark terms.
And, that's what I feel led to do when I pray and when I meditate on Scripture.
Gang,
Brian said,
So Bill asked me, “Why can’t the CGGC embrace his values #1, #3, and #7?” Because in my opinion, those are models, not New Testament commands.
I let this assertion go unchallenged initially but I do want to make a comment on it because I disagree with it and, for me, this is the very heart of the issue.
I believe that #7 is commanded. Here's #7:
New Testament plan congregations...Anticipate that all who gather for worship come prepared to participate.
I've said this before and it bears repeating: My understanding of how the church functions has been revolutionized by my study of Paul's treatment of early church 'worship' in 1 Corinthians 11-14.
The passage begins with universal theological principles at the beginning of chapter 11 and says in that chapter "we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God," therefore stressing the fact that what Paul says in these chapters represents universal practice in the church of his day.
The passage ends in 14 with Paul saying, "As in all the congregations of the saints..."
Paul summarizes his teachings in 14:26 saying, "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." (NIV)
Further, verse 29 is a command in the Greek, though put in the subjunctive in the NIV: "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." Literally Paul says, "Let two or three prophecy...," a command.
I believe that the command to the New Testament church was clear. "New Testament plan congregations... Anticipate that all who gather for worship come prepared to participate."
……………
Now, here's my experience:
It is impossible for a group of believers to gather with the biblical command in mind that everyone will come prepared to participate if the number is greater than the number that can meet in a home. I can tell you from experience that if a congregation contains more than that number some people who wish to participate will be drowned out by the force of the number who have gathered.
Because of that, #1 on the list merely becomes a necessity. #3 becomes simply a practical reality.
I will say to Brian and to all of you that #s 1, 3 and 7 are, in fact, much closer to biblical mandates than anything that is taken for granted in the era in which the mega-church model seems to be the dream.
bill,
Thanks for sharing that. You need to know that I have no interest in blunting your edge.
I'm now realizing that you don't need my help (ha). I feel like if I'm not hearing you clearly, others might not be too (I hope that's wrong.)
I want you to be heard clearly.
And yet much of the time I'm disagreeing with you.
You are absolutely right that if we have a mission statement, it should mean something (everything) to us.
I wouldn't choose the phrase 'New Testament Plan' because of it's awkwardness, but I understand that it was important to Winebrenner...
______
on gatherings:
I think, but could be wrong, that our point of difference is the specificity to which our gatherings ought to match those of the early church. This is generally the discussion that seems to happen between organic church advocates and others. Some argue that organic requires specific forms, others say that organic is a way of thinking about church that can be applied to various types of sizes and gatherings. My understanding is that you are advocating the former, while I the latter. Is this correct?
_______
On the validity of 'pastors'
What I'm hearing you say is that the term pastor is hopelessly tied to the concept of a priest and the clergy/laity divide. And thus the term needs to be abandoned.
We agree that we need to move to an APEST leadership understanding.
My position is that yes, there is more baggage with the clergy system than we realize - often much more. (you have convinced me). However, I believe that the term can be redeemed. I believe that the pastor must be redefined into the Ephesians 4 paradigm (shepherd), as one leader amongst others. (side note: watching Hirsch on video from a recent conference, he still uses pastor rather than shepherd in the APEST discussion.)
Bill, if you care to, please respond whether we are hearing each other on these two issues. Not disagreeing before we understand each other. If I have not heard you, clarify. Fair enough?
M,
Bill, if you care to, please respond whether we are hearing each other on these two issues.
I think we are hearing each other about as well as people who embrace two different paradigms can.
To all:
I'm looking forward to Dan H posting his "The State of the Conversation" thread.
Sometimes the medium is the message and having conversation about that itself is worthwhile.
Bill - I started that thread draft, not Dan H. I didn't post it because it didn't feel substantive yet. And I feel like I am dominating the conversation and am uneasy about that.
Can you read the content of the draft too? Just curious, no problem.
Bill, I really want badly to know how one can change paradigms if desiring to do so? Is it primarily in these two areas? I'm thinking much more. Is it more trying diligently to read the N.T. fresh and not through Christendom lens?
You talk about new paradigm and new vocab. I'm sure I'm denser than most but point the way.
If you want me to understand you more clearly, tell me how to get to where you are.
I'm asking nice, so don't blast please. :-)
There is something that I need to acknowledge as a personal interpretive obstacle (not the only one) for me to embracing the biblical model as being strictly paradigmatic perpetually. That is the command for women to be silent in the churches.
It is a command in the immediate context:
1Cor. 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
1Cor. 14:35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
So, why don't we modify, 'expect that all males who gather for worship come prepared to participate' ?
[my tone: not combative or argumentative, but genuinely wondering.]
M,
You talk about new paradigm and new vocab. I'm sure I'm denser than most but point the way.
The biblical answer to what to do is consistent and simply begun: Repent.
The Greek word that was used to describe that process has the word for 'mind' as part of it. It means to change your mind.
John the Baptist prepared the way for the coming of Jesus by challenging Jews to produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
The synoptics all describe the message that Jesus preached as "Repent and believe the good news." We talk all the time about believing in Him. We never, ever talk about the step that He says proceeds belief. No wonder our believing produces so little. It is not built on the foundation Jesus designed for it.
When asked by the crowd on Pentecost what people should do, Peter answered, "Repent..."
When Jesus dictated letters to seven Asia churches he had the same message to each of the five that He didn't praise: Repent.
I think it's time for the CGGC to examine the fruit that it is producing and understand that the Lord is not longer blessing. I am convinced that it is time for us to come together with convicted and sorrowful hearts and to ask the Lord to show us how He wants us to change what we have been thinking so we can know how to change the way we have been acting.
It's for prophets to make that call. It is for Apostles to give substance and structure to the commitments we make.
Way down the line, shepherds have the important role of keeping us together on our journey.
M,
I think that the time has long since passed that we should have looked honestly at the teaching about women that you mention. It's not an easy one to interpret.
However, it seems clear to me that 1 Corinthians 11 - 14 are one unit. Even if they are not, they are a part of one letter and Paul certainly wouldn't contradict himself in the same letter.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul takes for granted that women will be praying and prophesying. One might argue that prayer can be done in solitude but prophesy can only be done in community. Whatever it is that Paul means at the end of chapter 14, clearly it is with the understanding that women will be speaking prophecy in the church.
I have ideas about what he does mean but it's not for me to answer them for all of us. So, I won't even offer them as possibilities here. I'll just say that, as is the case in many areas of truth, it is time that we stop pretending that truth is less important than relationship, that the answer to nearly issue is, in practice, to agree to disagree--unless you reject feet washing, of course. Jesus didn't claim to be the relationship. He did claim to be the truth.
You know, I have been feeling on rhe local level the way you feel on the macro level. And somehow at this moment I feel like I understand you just a little bit better.
Jesus demands obedience. Following Jesus is not just heart belief but doing what he says. Obeying everything that he commands us the qualification of a disciple.
And fruit us the honest guage isn't it? We want to talk about good intensions and hearts in the right place but fruit is the mark and it's supposed to be evident.
I have been away from the blog-- busy with Haiti stuff, getting ready to move the church, etc.
I enjoyed reading all of this, and appreciate the lively dialogue. I like Bill's focused values, and agree that unless we get specific about what we believe the New Testament plan is, we are left in the vague mush the church often gets bogged down in.
I also, though, resonate will Dan's reticence to see everything the early church did (or didn't do) as prescriptive. Some of it may be merely descriptive, and in the absence of specific instruction or commands, we should be careful about our assumptions. The example of the size of Christian gatherings and the structures they gather in is, to me, a good example of this. The principle that certain necessary things can only happen in a small gathering is indisputable, but churches of various sizes and with various facilities can still foster small size gatherings. I'm not even suggesting that many medium to large churches do this well, just that the New Testament does not command one model with regard to these things.
If we try to make debatable things prescriptive for the whole church, this can become a new legalism. Personally, I believe we have greater freedom than this to contextualize expressions of the church.
quick side note: bill, you responded to Fran under a different thread than he posted. I'm sure he'll see it anyway.
All of our posts seem to be wandering anyway :-)
Re: talking about the Bible etc.
I pretty much totally agree. I think that there are some conversations that do need to happen around various issues etc (talk).
But for the most part we need to do something about it. Respond - Repent - Obey.
Can I just share a few scriptures that we all already know? I just feel like it...
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
and TEACHING THEM TO OBEY EVERYTHING I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
James 1:23 Those who listen to the word but do not do what it says are like people who look at their faces in a mirror and, after looking at themselves, go away and immediately forget what they look like.
2Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is God–breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
And perhaps my simple favorite:
John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands.
M,
Thanks for advising me that I put my response to Fran on the wrong thread.
I embrace all the Scriptures you quoted. They all throb in my heart daily.
But, I'll say again that we need to repent of our long established and deeply rooted culture of being hearers of the Word and not doers of it. It's long past time to talk about repentance. We need to repent.
Bill, I found your response under the other thread. To be clear, I do agree that there is a New Testament Plan. I think many of us on this blog have been working our way back toward it in our own thinking and ministries in recent years, embracing things like an APEST paradigm of leadership, discipleship rather than just conversion, etc. (those are just a couple of examples).
My ONLY concern as we talk about the New Testament Plan is not making prescriptive for the whole church things which are not given prescriptively to us in the New Testament. There are dangers on both sides of this road: on one side is the danger of vague values and retaining Christendom paradigms, one the other side is the danger of new legalisms with regard to just how we live out being the church. I have long been of the suspicion that we are not given specific instructions about many things precisely because we are given freedom in those areas (and perhaps because a wise God knows how adept we can be at making legalisms of things).
But... yes, the modern church has landed far from New Testament Christianity in so many ways, and like many of you, I am attempting to journey back to it.
Fran,
The very conversation that you and I are having right now here on the blog is the conversation I fervently asked Ed to begin in the whole body. I did it short after he published the Mission Statement in the Church Advocate.
I can't see how we benefit by not engaging in a spirited and prayerful conversation about what the New Testament plan is.
You are one of a few people I know who actually has the ear of people who could call us into that kind of conversation about mission.
It seems to me that the defining of standards for credentials and the writing of a doctrinal statement are secondary to the forming of a unified and focused understanding of mission.
I ask you to put that word in the appropriate ear. My experience, time and time again, is that the institution ear is deaf to the things I say.
Being hearers of the Word only is not a problem our culture created. Jesus dealt with it, James addresses it. And it continues to be one of the biggest obstacles and probably the biggest thing we need to repent of.
Francis Chan tells it like this[me remembering loosely]
It's like I tell my daughter to go clean her room. She comes back an hour later and let's me know that she heard me, and she comes back later and recites what I said from memory. She gets together with friends and talks about how to clean a room. They imagine together what it would be like to clean a room.
She does everything except actually cleaning her room.
Bill,
I agree that the CGGC has an obligation tom define the New Testament Plan. My life is a little crazy at this moment, but I will try to engender some conversations with significant people about this very topic.
Fran,
I will try to engender some conversations with significant people about this very topic.
I think I've now thanked Dan and George and walt today but let me add a very heartfelt thank you to you.
bill, I might have done you a disservice by taking this list of things that you came to while seeking to be faithful and thinking that you are trying to rigidly impose them on us.
Maybe you meant that, maybe not, but it was a poor assumption. You presented the list humbly. If I took it anyway other than intended, I apologize.
M.
I might have done you a disservice by taking this list of things that you came to while seeking to be faithful and thinking that you are trying to rigidly impose them on us.
I meant what I said.
How many times can I say that I don't think that simple/organic is the answer for all of us?
apparently one more. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home