The Missional Manifesto of 2013
Gang,
I am opposed to the creation of an updated We Believe for many reasons. One reason that is that we have suffered greatly under the dominance of the old one. How many churches have we close since the old one came out?
I believe that we need to articulate core truths that will focus us and guide us into a new paradigm. If anything close the 21,333 word version of the WB revision that is currently on the table becomes the standard for us in our next generation we will have in place a document that is larger than the last one and even less relevant and less focused than the one that has been a missional millstone around our necks for 30 years.
John Winebrenner didn't call his twenty seven points a Statement of Faith or a Doctrinal Statement. He referred to his document as a "Manifesto." If we are serious about becoming a missional movement again, we need to toss out We Believe and and every other Statement of Faith and Doctrinal Statement and return to the spirit of Winebrenner and our founders.
We need to repent of making statements. Making statement is what institutions do.
We need to create a new manifesto--one that is fresh and meaningful for our day. We need to hold our people to a lifestyle that, well, manifests that manifesto. With that in mind, I propose: The Missional Manifesto of 2013, to be presented to the General Conference when it next meets.
(FYI: nothing in the manifesto is original with me. It is an adaption of Winebrenner's Preface to his 1844 manifesto and a document presented by Andrew Draper at the recent symposium.
If the formatting of this document is wack, forgive me. I wrote it over several days and when I came back to it the spacing between paragraphs was altered and font sizes were irregular.)
----------------------
The Missional Manifesto of 2013
The Churches of God, General Conference has no authoritative ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. It believes the Bible to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, or test-book, which God ever intended His church to have. Nevertheless, it may be useful, for the benefit of those outside the moment, to present a short manifesto describing what may be called its leading matters faith.
The Churches of God, General Conference believes:
- that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
- in one God, eternally existent in three persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--one in essence and community.
- in God the Father, the almighty Creator of heaven and earth.
- that Jesus Christ our Lord is Word made flesh--fully God and fully man; that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, was crucified and buried, rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven.
- in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, who indwells the believer, convicts of sin, enables the believer to live a holy life, comforts, teaches, and bestows spiritual gifts.
- that humanity is created in the image of God, has fallen into sin, and can be born again by the Holy Spirit, justified freely by grace and saved through the atoning work of Jesus Christ alone.
- that the church is the body of Christ, the people of God whose mission is to make disciples of all nations and to be salt and light in the world.
- that baptism, the Lord's supper, and Feet Washing are the ordinances of the church.
- in the return of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, everlasting life, and the New Heavens and New Earth.
-----------------------------
Could we write a longer document or several documents to create commentary on these few core principles?
Could we hold symposia highlighting one or more of these beliefs for the purpose of clarifying our vision and motivating a vision-focused lifestyle?
Could we become intentional about holding on to the few central convictions that could transform us from a declining institution and create a culture of change that might result in the formation of a new CGGC as a missional movement?
Of course!
posted by bill Sloat at 7:12 AM
8 Comments:
I have to say... I like this.
Webster says:
1man·i·fes·to noun \ˌma-nə-ˈfes-(ˌ)tō\
plural man·i·fes·tos or man·i·fes·toes
Definition of MANIFESTO
: a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer.
-------------------
Bill you said,
"We need to repent of making statements...
We need to create a new manifesto..."
A manifesto is a statement.
A "short manifesto describing what may be called its leading matters faith" is a statement of faith.
Bill, you're assertion to do away with all statements of faith and then immediately call for another statement of faith is self contradictory.
You cannot have it both ways.
Andrew,
Thanks for your careful thought about what I've written.
Here's what I can say about your comment. If others disagree, I'd love their input.
Words have definitions and they also have connotations. A connotation is something implied by a word that may not easily be captured in its definition.
I'm suggesting that calling a summary of our core beliefs in a form that could be printed on one page of a bulletin a Manifesto will carry a wallop that won't be accomplished by printing a 21,000+ word small book that we subtitle a Doctrinal Statement.
The difference in connotation between the words manifesto and statement is stark in my opinion. You may be correct that they mean exactly the same thing to people, but I doubt it.
And, in my mind, the difference in the implications of the two terms is even more stark than it was in 1844 when Winebrenner issued his manifesto because of what was wrought by the Communist Manifesto published four years later.
But, by all means, if everyone else thinks, 'Doctrinal Statement' has more paradigm shifting zip than 'Missional Manifesto,' I won't quibble over the words.
How many pages are in the Communist Manifesto?
Andrew,
What's a page? Depends on the dimensions of the book. In most editions I think the manifesto itself prints out to be about 40 pages.
Andrew,
How many pages are in Winebrenner's manifesto?
bill,
i've restarted this comment several times now. i think andrew has a point about the difference between "statement" and "manifesto" being less than you would like. it also seems that you're aiming at a document that would be more of an "ought to be" rather than an "is" document, which would seem contradictory to what you've previously stated. however, i'm open to hearing more, and to clarify my understanding of what you mean.
mostly, could you please clarify what you mean by these lines: "We need to repent of making statements. Making statement is what institutions do.
We need to create a new manifesto--one that is fresh and meaningful for our day. We need to hold our people to a lifestyle that, well, manifests that manifesto."?
walt,
Good issues.
I'll say again that I think this is where we need to start. We need to ask and answer big-picture questions before we take on the task of tweaking that document that, as I've claimed, has been a missional millstone around our necks for the last 30 years.
i think andrew has a point about the difference between "statement" and "manifesto" being less than you would like.
That's the problem with the connotation of words. To me, a manifesto is a document offered with the hope of fueling a revolution and a statement is one that describes the status quo and leads nowhere. I would never, ever claim that my impressions represent those of the majority. In fact, I learned a long time ago that the opposite is true.
it also seems that you're aiming at a document that would be more of an "ought to be" rather than an "is" document, which would seem contradictory to what you've previously stated.
What I'm aiming at is a document that will keep us focused on mission. It is my hope that the core beliefs that Andrew describes in his document do, in fact, describe our ises. I think he was careful to make assertions that represent us as a body and could be useful in excluding from our body people who do not share our faith and vision. (If there is one item that he, perhaps, overstates it is the one on Feet Washing being an ordinance.)
If you think that anything, even in the Winebrenner part, is a should and not an is, I think it would bless us if you would be clear about that. You need to be clear about that for the good of the whole body.
mostly, could you please clarify what you mean by these lines:
"We need to repent of making statements. Making statement is what institutions do.
We need to create a new manifesto--one that is fresh and meaningful for our day. We need to hold our people to a lifestyle that, well, manifests that manifesto."?
What I'm trying to do is distinguish between what Winebrenner intended in his twenty-seven points and all of the Doctrinal Statement/Statements of Faith that our increasingly powerful priest culture composed since 1925.
I could write a book-length thesis on this point but I probably never will.
Winebrenner was exactly what our leadership says it wants the CGGC to be. Long before the term was invented, Winebrenner oozed missionality. His focus was external. He yearned to build the kingdom. He wanted to incarnate the New Testament church through the things he said and did. And so, for those outside the Church of God he presented a manifesto.
All of this Missional Leadership Initiate stuff, for all its drama in the CGGC, is as old as the Church of God hills. It is absolutely nothing new, at least in theory.
Since 1925, we have abandoned the essential spirit--and I believe the motivating courage--of Winebrenner and his vision. We have been concerned with defining who we are for our own sakes. We have hope to maintain theological order and relational tolerance within our church. We have been inwardly focused and, increasingly, we have embraced the Medieval, priest-dominated concept of the church which honed the notion of the Creed invented by Constantine and we have abandoned Winebrenner's vision for raw, primitive obedience to the New Testament model of discipleship.
What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, we need to go back to our founding vision--which, by the way, we have done formally in our Mission Statement.
Everyone else in the CGGC is welcome to disagree with me. And, I suspect that most--even here--do.
Post a Comment
<< Home