The State of the Conversation
What is the state of this ongoing conversation?
I'd love to hear what some folks think.
Here are a few of my thoughts:
I joined the conversation late. I've appreciated the candor with which people have been able to raise important issues.
I've been personally challenged and stretched as a result of this conversation. I've also 'met' many people I did not know previously.
At this point, I am interested in the conversation partners and the next steps. I've been told that there are many 'readers' of the blog who do not participate, or if so, very occasionally. Additionally, there are some who are busy or don't check back often but weight in when they do. Others are more actively involved.
I think for the future, it would be nice to see more voices. Voices from different backgrounds and gifting willing to be honest and to be challenged bluntly without being personally offended.
________________
I believe that it is time for this conversation to become constructive in the sense of building consensus about some core values, even if building one at a time.
Does any of us doubt that change is needed? Is not the whole Christian life one of repentance?
Let us repent of any sins of our past and present together and move into a more faithful future.
What core can be agree on? Then let's engage in discussion on applying it together.
That's where I want the conversation to go, but like most real life conversations, planning can be futile.
Labels: conversation, core values, repentance
posted by Dan Masshardt at 10:17 PM
13 Comments:
M,
As I think I've said to you off the blog in the past, I see this blog as a sort of prophetic (and sometimes apostolic) CGGC ghetto. Most people stay away from ghettos.
If the Executive Directors would bless this conversation with their participation, I suspect that some of what you want might happen. But, I can't see that happening.
Dan,
Thanks for your contributions to the blog. I've been a part of the discussion since the beginning (over five years ago). In that time I've transitioned out of pastoral ministry, so my focus isn't always on the same items as those discussed here. But, I check in when I can and enjoy the conversation.
Here is my thought about one of the looming issues for the CGGC: Can our denomination survive if there are multiple interpretations of what it means to be "church"? Do the core values allow for multiple interpretations? Should they? I think the point about the "prescriptive-ness" of the ongoing conversation is vitally important. Is this blog seeking to add one additional perspective about what it means to pursue the gospel or are the participants seeking to make this THE interpretation embraced by the entire denomination?
I appreciate your invitation to those who are reading. We've gone through many stages of discussions over the past five years. This may be wishful thinking, but perhaps more off-blog conversations are beginning to take place and people don't feel that the only place to talk about these issues are here.
(I am posting the below comment only after having first shared it directly with Bill. He encouraged me to put it on the blog {I've taken out some specifics}. I think we both want to see the discussion continue and expand. I admit that some of his comments offended me, and I am often prone to discount or ignore what someone says based on how it is said. So I hope this will be helpful rather than divisive).
It is with much hesitation that I stick my toes back into these waters. I have been a part of this blog from the beginning. Over the years I have both enjoyed it, and been frustrated by it. To be perfectly honest, lately I’ve grown tired of what seems to be bitching and complaining aimed specifically within our denomination (and at one another). I know I have contributed to such myself at times, but the same old message just gets a little old after awhile.
Under the blog heading it says: “Many in the CGGC are interested in what church will look like as fresh expressions in the 21st century. This blog… is a place for free flow of thought and conversation.” At different times Brian has likened it to sitting around a table at a coffee shop and having a conversation.
Personally, if I were in a coffee shop and one person seemed to be speaking belligerently all the time, I would not be inclined to join the group. That's what bothers me on here sometimes. Perhaps I occasionally misread things, but in my opinion a constant barrage of criticism and negativity does not allow for “free flow of thought and conversation.” This is why I have chosen to keep quiet. I have a hard enough time with it myself, I don't need any help from others.
So… I hope this does not discourage anyone from sharing. In fact, I wish more people would. But I wish it could be done in a slightly more civil manner than it sometimes is (by others and by myself).
One of the challenges of online discussion is that tone, etc is sometimes exaggerated to make a point.
It's hard to know how different people respond. Some people are very resilient, others more sensitive. One is not better than the other.
Also, I know very few of you in person. It's tough to read someone online. I talked with bill in person several times - it's just different.
It is VERY important to me that I'm respectful of leaders in our denomination and region. I've asked several people to hold me accountable to this. (Please if you're reading and feel disrespected by me as a denominational leader, contact me privately).
Obviously, I'm not afraid to speak my mind. It's just that I believe that by and large the changes that our denomination needs to make that the changes that I need to make. I happen to love those leaders that I know and respect them very much. I love our denomination, even though had not even heard of it 10 years ago.
I, too, would like to hear more voices involved, including those of our regional leaders. But I'm not expecting that, but if it would become evident that they are hearing the conversation in other places and types of communication, that would be appreciated.
I am very hopeful (maybe alone in this). The conversations of the last day or so have been very constructive I think and my hope prayer is that much of this conversation will move into a new season.
A couple of thoughts...
Tone of conversation -- I remember reading a very respected leaders very satirical material about specific people when I was much younger. I was shocked by it. It seemed tremendously disrespectful.
As I read Bill's comments, knowing Bill very well, I read them as satire ("Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon." - Wikipedia) and not to be read as particular statements about particular people.
But not everybody knows Bill, and not everybody appreciates satire to make a point. I would say more disapprove of satire in general than not. I wouldn't (or least shouldn't) use satire to make a point in a sermon, using the head of someone we all knew on a platter. So maybe it was a poor choice, though it may be in line with the voice of a Biblical prophet.
So Bill's words lost meaning. Should he change them? I don't know. It took me several blasts to understand his meaning, and I'm glad I finally got his meaning.
Denominational leaders participating -- Probably not going to happen for several reasons, but the number one is that it is an odd forum for a leader to debate in. It could (and most likely would) become a debate of a point between one person and the leader, and that puts the leader in a very awkward position.
The hope is it would be a coffee round table discussion, which would be great, but it could turn into someone trying to defend themselves in the comments of a newspaper editorial website, which I would say no one should ever do.
If you would like round table coffee discussions with your leaders, I suspect they only need an invitation. And in that forum, someone can more easily intervene to keep a stable environment.
Part 1
Gang,
This, with minor revisions, is my response to Dan’s email.
Thanks both for your restraint on the blog and for sending this to me. In sending it to me you have shown genuine Matthew 18 brotherly love. Having said that, I encourage you to post this on the blog. It would be a valuable contribution to the conversation. What you have written doesn't offend me and your honesty, expressed in love, will add to the quality of the CGGC dialog.
I have been on a journey over the course of more than three plus years now to come to grips with my calling. I actually received an, uh, I don't know, word of knowledge?/revelation? shortly before I read The Shaping of Things to Come, in which I came to understand the essence of APEST. When I read that part of the book I was humbled and in awe. I began a spiritual search for understanding of who I am in my calling and what it is that the Lord is asking of me. I quickly understood that I am not a shepherd and, very shortly after that, that I am a prophet.
I personally know of no other people who claim to be prophets or who are living as prophets. Therefore, I have no mentors. I have no peers. I am on my own. I do have historical mentors from Scripture and a few from Church History. What I see there doesn't make me feel good about the prospects for my ministry. I am often discouraged by the second half of Isaiah 6 in which the Lord forewarns Isaiah from the moment of his call that, no matter how faithfully he speaks, that the Israelites will not repent. I see similar things in the ministries of Jeremiah, whom I seem to resemble, and John the Baptist. We know what happened to him. I see Luther as a prophet, concerned above all for truth, uncaring about the consequences of speaking it.
Part 2
At the beginning of every day, I ask the Lord to help me to speak the truth in love. And, I know that I often fail. That said, the things the Lord lays on my heart often make me angry at the church. And, the truth is that the things He often lays on my heart are of such a nature that, no matter how I say them, they will be offensive to many people.
I have believed for most of the time that I've known that I am a prophet that His call on my life is "to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow" the shepherd dominated leadership culture and "to build and to plant" a leadership community in which apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers are all empowered to live within their callings. And, that's what I do every day to the best of my ability. I realized recently that I love truth more than I love any person. While I'm not happy when I say that about myself, I think I'm on track with other prophets.
Your characterization that I think I'm always right isn't really accurate. I don't think that about myself. I do believe, like prophets in a time and place in which the Lord is displeased with His people, that He has given me a ministry in pointing out sin and calling people to repent of it. I honestly believe that we are in a position similar to that of the five of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 and that if we don't repent He will do things like what he threatened in those letters: Take our 'lampstand,' fight against us, spit us out of His mouth. And, there's no easy and soft Coffee Shop way to say that. I recent viewed Reggie's, "It's AD 30 all over Again" video on the internet. He says that 'in many places of the world (today) there is a Pentecost every hour.' We both know that that's not happening in the CGGC USA. There's a reason that the Lord is not pouring out His Spirit on us as He is, at this very moment, among others.
I love and admire you personally. I think you are among our brightest hopes. I hope you can forgive me for things that I've said in an unnecessarily loveless way that have hurt you or have discouraged you. Still, I'll probably continue to look around me and cry out, "You generation of vipers" from time to time.
Please consider putting what you have written on the blog.
I think making that exchange 'public' might be helpful.
I'm not sure how long ago that happened and what Dan's response is.
I think that it's important that we try to understand one another.
Bill, for you to state your own discovery process and struggles puts humanity on your direct words. You have done this several times in the past and I think that you commend yourself to those more relationship focused than you are.
If we are Christians indwelt by God the Holy Spirit and having been transformed by the gospel, I refuse to accept being a community who fails to hear a word calling us to back to faithfulness. Interestingly, the O.T. prophets were calling God's people back to the covenant. Maybe, bill's role is calling us back to New Covenant faithfulness.
We must together discern the call that bill brings. I think we have been doing that recently here.
And I believe that we are coming (will come) to some mutual understanding here that will hopefully enable us to move forward together.
Brian,
Denominational leaders participating -- Probably not going to happen for several reasons, but the number one is that it is an odd forum for a leader to debate in.
Can you imagine that Jesus would let conversation take place among His disciples and not interject His presence into it if it was warranted? (Mk 9:33)
Can you imagine that Paul would not assert himself in the musings of the people over whom he held apostolic responsibility and with whom he was collaborating in ministry?
I seems to me that if one is to lead incarnationally then one must be willing to be a presence anywhere and everywhere.
Bill,
While I appreciate your spirit, I think you are greatly underestimating the impact of how we communicate. Jesus only ever interacted with someone face to face, which is NOT the same as this forum. I'm not sure you want this conversation to become about the differences of blogging versus human-interaction so I'll stop there.
Rather than have the New Testament letters of Paul, we could have had the blog archives of the Paul's interaction with the Corinthians! I actually think Paul writes in a dialogue anyway so it isn't so far from it.
I understand Bill's desire, and I think there are some conversations leaders could interact with, but there are others than remind me of newspaper online comments, and Jesus would be unwise to enter comments there.
Having been a denominational leader at a time when people were far less open to new ideas and far less forgiving of anything, I agree with what Brent and Brian have written about the expectation of denominational leaders being regularly involved. Bill is probably the only P(rophet) that I know personally. Executive Pastors who must steer the ship that involves many ecclesiastical parts tend to be careful around prophets. A prophet's passion is a little like electricity, You are careful how you connect with it.
Brent, Brian, Steve and Y'all,
As long as my brain produces conscious thought, I will never forget the exact instant Evelyn discovered her massive tumors.
We believe that the church is the Body of Christ. We believe that we are all parts of one body and that we are connected and interdependent and that we have a responsibility to the Head of the Body to serve Him in unity as one in His purpose.
If that is really what we believe, if it's not a concept to which we merely pay lip service, then I think there are two possible metaphors for this blog.
1. It is a malignity. It is a pernicious mass which, if it is left to itself will, by its nature, grow and attack the body and put the whole body's health and, perhaps, even its very life at risk.
2. It is Peyton Manning's right arm. It is the asset that might make ultimate achievement and success in mission a reality for the whole team.
Either way, it is spiritual folly and disobedience for leadership to behave in such a way as to ignore the existence of this part of the Body. And, "behave in such a way as to ignore" us is what at least some of them do. I get notes off the blog from some of them. I know you do too.
If the CGGC is a political body, it makes perfect sense for leadership to ignore this blog and behave as it is doesn't exist. If the CGGC is a part of the Body of Christ, I believe that--and it stings even me to be this bold. I can't imagine what it does to you--it is theological corruption for leaders to know what we say and do but lie in their actions by behaving as if they don't know about it.
Should they engage us caautiously and thoughtfully? Of course. Should they converse in the same manner that some of us do? I'd guess not. Could they be counter-culture to this counter-culture? I think that's their obligation, if that is called for to achieve unity of purpose of the Body. Could they facilitate a more lively communication in the whole Body? Yes! Should they? I believe they must.
I can see no spiritual justification for the pretending away of this part of Christ's Body.
Post a Comment
<< Home