A Radical Mission for a Moderate Church?
Gang,
It may be that my biggest problem with the CGGC Mission Statement is that I believe, in my heart, that it is a lie.
Here's the 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.
(Matthew 28:16-20, Ephesians 3:8-11, Acts 1:8)
The lie is in the present tense, active mood verb "commit."
I don't believe that we do commit ourselves to the 'establishing churches on the New Testament plan' part. I think that to say that we do breaks one of the Ten Commandments.
But, believe me: I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. More than that, I very truly and sincerely want to be convinced that I'm wrong. I want to have to enter a post on this blog in the future tearfully confessing my error. So, if you think I'm wrong and if you love me as a brother, for the good of the Body and my role in it, please convince me I'm wrong if you think I'm wrong.
Here's a scenario that I believe will demonstrate that the Mission Statement is a lie.
A new family begins to attend the XYZ Community Church of God in your Region. You attend, perhaps lead, that congregation. These new people like what they see at WYZ. They check out the church and the denomination. They see the Mission Statement at the top of the Web page and show up at the next worship gathering and, taking 1 Corinthians 14:27 and the New Testament plan Mission Statement claim at face value, one of them speaks in tongues and another member of the family offers an interpretation.
Here are some questions I'd love you to answer:
1. Would you personally be able, with commitment, to practice the New Testament plan and regard the speaking in tongues and its interpretation according to the pattern described in 1 Corinthians 14:27 as an act of worship that must be accepted, embraced and encouraged in your congregation's gatherings?
2. Would the attenders of the congregation with which you gather accept, etc. speaking in tongues and its interpretation? How would the claim of the CGGC Mission Statement fold into how the congregation responds?
3. How would the larger faith community in your CGGC Region respond when it became aware that tongues is being spoken and interpreted in a New Testament way in the congregation where you gather?
Because I think that the Mission Statement is a lie, my guess is that many of you would have serious reservations about the tongues/interpretation practice but that some of you would allow it, even if you didn't embrace it. But, that in the great majority of our congregations, the practice would not be permitted and that this new family would be instructed not to literally practice 1 Corinthians 14:27 in your gatherings. And, I suspect that in most, if not all, of our regions, this practice would be, at the very least, highly controversial and that, if tongues was either tolerated, accepted or, God forbid, embraced in your congregation it would be divisive in your region.
If I'm correct, the claim of the Mission Statement, well, bears false witness, of who we are and what we do.
Now, as I said, I sincerely hope that you can convince me that I'm wrong. I want you to convince me that I'm wrong.
If I am wrong, please convince me.
posted by bill Sloat at 7:51 AM
13 Comments:
I'll respond to the scenario you give. (I'm not prepared to adequately comment on the bigger question you ask or to prove you wrong.
Speaking in tongues is not a gift that the Spirit has given to me. I don't have a lot of close-hand experience with others who do, particularly not in a worship gathering.
But to answer your questions:
1. yes, I believe that I not only would must accept these contributions to the worship gathering (the tongue and the interpretation - the first without the second becomes biblically problematic).
2. Whether the others gathered would accept it or not - I don't know, but I don't see that they have a biblical choice but to accept it. We can't go by what people like or don't like.
3. Again, what choice does the larger faith community have but to accept it? I was asked about this issue in the ordination process and answered clearly to this effect with no further question or push back.
Again, I'm not claiming to answer (at all) the big question that you ask in this post, maybe for me another scenario would be more exposing. We'll see how others comment.
Bill, I can echo Dan's responses. I remember the General Conference session (I think it was in '86) when the prohibition against speaking in tongues was repealed. Clearly, the leaders back then acknowledged they had an unbiblical policy. It is also clear that striking down the prohibition did nothing to change our behavior, as near as I can tell. I don't think I've ever witnessed public glossolalia with an interpretation in ANY church, CGGC or otherwise.
But in regards to your charge that the mission statement is, in essence, a lie, I believe people have different ideas about what the "New Testament plan" entails. I know this has been a discussion point on this forum before, so I’m not going to beat a dead horse. But I do find it interesting to consider how we all have different views here. You've raised a good point about speaking in tongues, but what about a church that forbids women to speak or teach men (to say nothing of ordaining them)? That church could also claim to follow the "New Testament plan," which is what every fundamentalist group would claim. What would you say to them? It's not consistent to follow St. Paul's "format" for glossolalia in worship in 1 Cor. 14:26-40 while at the same time ignoring what he says about women in vv. 34-35.
Please understand that I'm not arguing a fundamentalist interpretation. I just don't think it's fair to accuse the CGGC leaders of lying about the "New Testament plan" on the basis of the way we handle glossolalia.
Can anyone refresh my memory about how the CGGC leaders define the "New Testament plan"? I agree with Bill that it's wrong to use that phrase if it doesn't really mean anything. But if they do provide an explanation for how they're using it, then let's focus on fleshing that out for what the “New Testament plan” looks like today in our situation.
This post leaves me mostly confused. The dots are not all connecting for me.
Our church has never had speaking in tongues occur in a worship service.
And if it did, I would try to be sensitive to it, but on the other hand, "tongues" is misused in many churches in our area, so I wouldn't just assume I should accept it either. I would lean toward caution.
Here is another example. Much of the CGGC is anti-alcohol. I use that term because I've been accused of being pro-alcohol, which is kind a funny label in my opinion.
I think a prohibition on alcohol is unBiblical. However, I think we should be very careful in how we use our previously unused freedom, especially since we are very inexperienced.
I would say the same is true for "tongues," and I'm confused how this is a lynch pin type example of lying about the NT Plan.
Prophesy does need to be challenged. This one seems askew.
Brian,
What do you mean that "a prohibition on alcohol is unBiblical?" If I prohibit it in my home (which I BOLDLY do by the way with NO shame), am I being unbiblical? Even if someone bans PG movies from their home, is that unbiblical? I wonder what you mean by this?
-George Jensen
Enola, PA
So what do you do, Bill, with people in the CGGC who are Cessationists? And oh my--they are out there! I'd bet you'd say that they're not following the "New Testament Model." TRY TELLING THAT TO THEM! If you talk to them they most SURELY think they are following a New Testament model fitting for the New Testament Church after about 95 A.D.
So here we are with the most asinine dilemma: Sloat says to be NT you have to allow tongues. To not do so, you're not NT (and let me guess - you're some Medieval Christendom creepy clergy dude?). Then, the Cessationists say that since tongues is a foundational spiritual gift that ceased around 95 AD, when it does allegedly occurs in churches it's at best an emotional frenzy or at worst demonic.
What in the dickens are those of us out here simply trying to do our best to move the kingdom forward supposed to do?
Who's right? Sloat or the "Cessies" (not sissies, "Cessies" for Cessastionists)? And how in the heck are we ever going to know for sure?????
George C. Jensen
Church of God Teaching Elder
Toviah,
Try telling a Cessationist that their views are unbiblical! I guarantee you will get more Scriptures thrown at you than the number of feathers on your Thanksgiving turkey (before it was plucked, that is).
-George C. Jensen
You know what, I'm not finished. I have more to say. This post has really fired me up.
I'm officially putting out a plea and a call: I want to hear from all of you Cessationists out there in the CGGC. What do YOU think of the notions that prohibiting tongues is either "unbiblical" or "not New Testament."
By the way, I am not a Cessationist. However, I guess you could say that I am a "Cessationist sympathizer." These dear folks (Cessationists) are being denigrated with terms like we are seeing on this post: "Unbiblical" or "not New Testament." These same Cessationists are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Furthermore, many of us could never hold a candle to their ability to defend their position.
That being said--PLEASE--any Cessationists out there--PLEASE reply to this post and defend your beliefs!
Again, I am not a Cessationist, but I do sympathize with how you have been treated by elites in the CGGC.
As far as I'm concerned, there ought to be room for you in this big tent. If they're going to water down the next We Believe to be more generic in some areas (for example, Free Moral Agency), then they darned well better leave room for a Cessationist interpretation of the NT.
For the third and final time, I'M NOT A CESSATIONIST.
-George C. Jensen
A discussion on tongues is an interesting one. I think that we're still waiting for bill to come back and clarify the question for us.
On the alcohol analogy, I think the question was more to a denominational position. For the CGGC to prohibit alcohol would be to go beyond the Bible - prohibiting something that the Bible does not prohibit. Now, what conviction you have as an individual and as a family is different.
I'm neither a cessationist not a charismatic (I'm really not convinced that some gifts are still "normative" to all Christian communities) There is also no real biblical basis for a Cessationist position (at least that I find convincing.)
The requirement for an interpretation for a tongue is the best policy I think in the local church. Of course, discernment is always necessary, but I would strongly oppose a 'prohibition on speaking in tongues.'
But again, I suspect that all of this discussion is probably tangential to whatever point bill was trying to make.
clarifying comment: I didn't mean to say that there are not any valid reasons to be a cessatinist, only that there is not enough of a direct biblical case to prohibit it (in my opinion)
Back to the title of this post. I think it's true for the most part that we are a moderate organization in reality - much more moderate than our roots. We'll see where we go though...
George,
I appreciate the way you lace your comments with humor. Helps me to read it with a lighter heart.
Is it unBiblical to prohibit alcohol in your home? No. There are many good reasons to do so. I'm not sure if CGGC ever had a stance against alcohol.
Anyway, it was a practical analogy not a direct point.
I have no idea why you have raised the cessationist banner, but that could definitely pull us off the point of trying to clarify the CGGC focus. Happy Holidays.
I agree with others that Bill's example is likely not a good test of whether a church is following the NT plan. Bill, I'm guessing your point was that many CGGC churches are likely yo be following their inherited positions and practices rather than having the NT as their rule instead- and I have not doubt that this is true in our denom and scores of others. If that's what you meant, it's a good question: Are we following the NT or something else (which may have been handed to us, or which may be more in our comfort zone.
And I think I'll go on the record here: Cessationalism is not a biblical position. It is built solely on an unsustainable interpretation of I Corinthians 13, where a definition of "that which is perfect" as the completed NT Canon must be imposed on the text, a definition none of Paul's readers could have understood, and which violates the text's own clear view toward the time when we shall see "face to face" and "know fully", a very perfect state which clearly has not arrived yet.
I am not arguing that all churches must make much of this gift in their gatherings, just that cessationalism is poor biblical interpretation.
I'm not picking a fight, I'm just sayin'...
I don't think I'm part of this denomination, but my church does on occasion have members speak in tongues and sometimes there is an interpretation. The thing is, speaking in tongues is generally not helpful in a large gathering since most people cannot understand it. Speaking in tongues is for the edification of the speaker--a secret language between her and God. On the rare occasion that it does happen, it is definitely spirit led and it does not dominate the service. It takes a minute or two and then it is done. We all exhibit our faith in different ways, and we all have different gifts. Just because I do not understand someone else's gift does not undermine its relevance to others.
i think most of what i could say would be mere redundancy, so i'll stick with this:
fran, thank you for being brave enough to say what you mean and stand where you are. our culture is so afraid of confrontation that we seem to be unable to disagree in a civilised fashion. thank you for not capitulating to that mold. it is much easier to respect a man when you know where he stands, and that he is capable of standing at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home