The world is changing rapidly. Postmodern thinking is increasing in the west and the East is becoming part of the Global community. Many in the Churches of God General Conference are interested in what church will look like as fresh expressions in the 21st century. This blog has been encouraged by the CGGC but in no way reflects the official thinking of the denomination. It is a place for free flow of thought and conversation.
"Sometimes to get to the future you must look back. I'm not speaking of Winebrenner, but to where he looked, Jesus and the apostles. What might this mean for us? It means it's time to renew our "first love" and get moving again." -- Ed Rosenberry, The CHURCH ADVOCATE, April/May 2009
posted by bill Sloat at 7:45 AM
12 Comments:
I read this and think, "Amen."
I want to get back to the raw, compromised passion of the first century followers of Jesus. That passion to take the gospel as far and as deep as they possibly could. And to let nothing stand in their way: not abuse or death, not religious systems - Jewish or pagan.
To boldly proclaim Jesus as the Christ and call for people to respond in repentance and faith. For them to be baptized and seek to live out their lives as bold disciples of Jesus Himself - seeking to obey His teaching.
To form themselves into deep community that they would lay down their lives for one another, not to mention their wallets.
That as these deep communities form, they would not all stay settled but would continue to move out, preaching that gospel in new places and seeing new deep communities of faith gather in these new places.
Yes, I long for that as well.
That's what I think when I hear that statement. And it's why I love being a part of the Churches of God.
Maybe I'm alone in such an interpretation...I don't know exactly what it means to be a restorationist, but I want this back in a bad way.
M,
My question for you is this:
Do you embrace Winebrenner final comment on what it means to "establish and build up churches on the New Testament plan?"
Winebrenner said:
To accomplish all this will require another great reformation. But, under God, it can be achieved.
For Winebrenner it is clear that a return to the doctrines and the practices of the Reformation is futile. For Winebrenner, the Reformation failed. For Winebrenner, the task before the Church of God was so impossible that it could be achieved only through God.
That is a radical vision. And, by straightforwardly and unabashedly ripping off Winebrenner's vision casting message presented on the day when the Eldership was formed, our leadership embraced the whole Winebrenner vision. Ed said as much in The CHURCH ADVOCATE.
There are three realities that I see in the creation of this Mission Statement. Two are merely my own opinion. The third is very personal.
1. The Ad Council adopted this as a cute idea that is a nice tie in to our heritage. Based on the fruit of their actions since they adopted it and announced it, they had/have no intention of actually doing it. (If you see fruit, describe it to me.)
2. The Ad Council didn't consider the hyper-radical nature of Winebrenner's assessment of what taking on this mission implies, i.e., they had/have no intention of scuttling the Reformation and offering themselves in naked obedience to the New Testament model of the Church.
3. They have put me, at least and perhaps others who are less vocal than I am, in a difficult position because I actually believe this and spend the energy of each of my days trying my best to do it. They've put us all in the position that the people in the CGGC who take them seriously have to oppose them.
Let me respond to your comments in reverse order:
My hunch is that #2 on your list is quite right. And the reason I don't feel at odds with it.
On the reformation: I'm not loyal to the reformation per se. I think it was needed but didn't go far enough. I don't consider the reformation a total failure, neigher was it a success. It was much needed, but the problem is that it is not settled. It's the reformation ethos that I affirm - The Bible itself as the authority over religious traditions. And the Scripture stands in authority over any and all other Christian leaders of our day.
So, the Reformation didn't solve or answer the problems and set things right, but it was helpful and necessary. I want to affirm and submit to the Scripture, not the reformation, or Winebrenner for that matter.
As for my affirmation of Winebrenner's, statement: I'm not sure yet. I believe that whatever the Apostles taught as being normative perpetually ought to be so. I think that N.T. theology needs to be inform our practice as directly as possible.
But if he means that we should replicate every facet of what happened in the first century, than, no, I don't agree (at least at this point.)
Of course all of this comes back to the question of, 'what is the New Testament plan?'
In all of this let's not forget that the driving passion of Winebrenner was the preaching of the gospel and conversion. The establishment of churches is what follows. This is so in our mission statement as well. In my view this is what we should spend most of our time on and what I am passionate about.
M,
In all of this let's not forget that the driving passion of Winebrenner was the preaching of the gospel and conversion.
Just curious: Based what do you believe that?
I accept this as the current CGGC myth but I don't accept it as reality.
If one's familiarity with Winebrenner's ministry begins to fade in 1825, you can easily come to the conclusion you reach and you may be correct. But I don't see it.
A new John Winebrenner emerged in 1829 with the publication of his, "A Brief Scriptural View of The Church of God." That Winebrenner is the one who, in 1830, understood that there is more to serving Christ than, as you say, "the preaching of the gospel and conversion." That John Winebrenner formed our body and organized an Eldership with what he was convinced was a biblical name: The Church of God. That Winebrenner's driving passion was built on the conviction that the glue of an obedient community that preaches the gospel and works for the conversion of sinners was the formation of a body whose plan is demonstrated in the New Testament.
Dan, you are a bright and devoted Jesus follower and a committed part of the CGGC body and I suspect that that your characterization of what Winebrenner's driving passion was is conventional wisdom.
But, I don't share that opinion.
I'll defer to you as the Winebrenner expert. It is easy to read out what we like and our passionate about ourselves I guess.
When I think of what little I know about Winebrenner, I see him preaching for conversion among groups of people that were already church attenders and certainly not atheists. I see him preaching the gospel in pubs and schools and churches and outdoor and wherever; I don't see him going into churches and saying that the problem is that not everyone has brought a meaningful contribution to the worship gathering. The problem is that people aren't born again, regenerated...
I know that's only part of it, but in my recollection that's a prominent feature.
Again, I am probably very wrong, but I'm going to have to get a new picture in my mind I guess.
I hope that if nothing else, I'm willing to learn and grow and repent myself. I do this by dialogue such as this.
I think I need to go back and re-read some primary sources.
M,
I don't see him going into churches and saying that the problem is that not everyone has brought a meaningful contribution to the worship gathering. The problem is that people aren't born again, regenerated.
Take a gander at the vision casting message he preached in 1830 and his 27 points published in 1844 and republished in 1848 and republished again in 1854.
In 1830 Winebrenner was something between the evangelist you envision and the church reformer I'm describing. However, by 1844 Winebrenner was deeply concerned about the configuration of the community of believers and he was insisting that the New Testament model was the only one that was valid.
What I believe our exchange on this thread illustrates is that we, as a church, don't know who Winebrenner was. He is a figure of myth and, if we care about him at all, we mold him into an image that is convenient to us. It is a dangerous thing, therefore, for our Mission Statement to call us back to his vision.
Brian has made a telling point by referring to Leading Change by John Kotter:
"1. There is not a sense of urgency.
2. There is not a guiding coalition. There may be an ad council, but it is not a coalition that is leading the change.
3. There may be a vision, but I know of no strategy.
4. Communication is existent but not as effective as possible."
Just to be clear, gang, when I say that in the CGGC Winebrenner is a figure of myth and, if we care about him at all, we mold him into an image that is convenient to us, I acknowledge that the Winebrenner I see is as much my creation as anyone else's.
Your last comment is probably dead on. I do think about early winebrenner for whatever reason.
For me, the fact remains that new disciples and the core characteristics of gatherings are both non-negotiably important.
Understanding winebrenner is something that may be worthwhile but in the end much less valuable than understanding the vision of the new testament.
I think Ed is correct in this quote. All great reformers point not to themselves but to Jesus and the Scriptures. And we must spend our time of study primarily there.
Ricky: Dear Tiny, Infant, Winebrenner...
Carley: Hey, um, sweetie, Winebrenner did grow up. You don't always have to call him baby. It's a bit odd and off-puttin' to pray to a baby.
Ricky: Look, I like the Christmas Winebrenner best, and I'm sayin' grace. When you say grace, you can say it to Grownup Winebrenner or Teenage Winebrenner or Bearded Winebrenner or whoever you want.
Bearded? Winebrenner?
Wouldn't it be great if it was all about Jesus in the CGGC?
If we did it Winebrenner's way it would be!
; - )
And there's our point of agreement. How can it not be? It's all about Jesus.
And for me, that's one point of reference that gets my attention.
Like in our dialogue about 'pastors' When you made the point that the idea of a 'pastor' often (or always in your view) functions like a priest and undermines Jesus as our great high priest, that got through to me.
The way forward must be a return to the study of and obedience to the teaching of the Scriptures. We all give the authority of the Bible lip service at the very least. It's time we call ourselves to account. Will we obey or not?
It's time that our body again became a Bible studying, Bible obeying, bold Jesus proclaiming body once again.
M,
The way forward must be a return to the study of and obedience to the teaching of the Scriptures. We all give the authority of the Bible lip service at the very least. It's time we call ourselves to account. Will we obey or not?
It's time that our body again became a Bible studying, Bible obeying, bold Jesus proclaiming body once again.
I agree.
The one characteristic of all restorationists is that the Word is understood to be a lifestyle manual, not a book of doctrine. Let's open it together and start doing what it says, no matter what it says.
Post a Comment
<< Home