My Proposed Replacement for WE BELIEVE
Because the Scriptures are its only rule of faith and practice, the Churches of God, General Conference proclaims:
- That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
- That he was buried,
- That he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
- And that he appeared to people.
posted by bill Sloat at 6:25 AM
15 Comments:
bill,
the more i've thought and talked about your "anti-preaching" stuff, the more i'm brought in to all the cultural assumptions we make in worship. and i think we believe is a reflection of that.
but what happened to nehemiah 8, where those with understand read Scripture and then gave the people the sense of it? why not explain a bit more? paul certainly does, since 1 Cor 15:3-8 is certainly not the extent of paul's teaching on the subject, nor did it keep him from teaching/discussing with the ephesians long into the night in Acts 20. the author of Hebrews comments that his Letter is brief, which takes nearly an hour to read aloud.
why is brevity such a value?
walt,
Good questions as always.
but what happened to nehemiah 8, where those with understand read Scripture and then gave the people the sense of it? why not explain a bit more?
I am certainly not against the gathering of CGGCers to discuss and exegete the meaning of the gospel. For crying out loud, I could write a book just on,
Christ
died
for our sins
according to the Scriptures.
But, the point is that Paul was able to distill the whole message that is contained in the first 11 chapters of Romans into the few words he used at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15.
Why, if the gospel can be explained that simply, wouldn't you do that? Why would you want to settle for 21,333 words.
(By the way, what's up for consideration now is faaaaaaaar more lengthy than the whole Epistle of Romans. You could print out Romans and Hebrews and Ephesians and still have room for all of James and 2 and 3 John in the number of words contained in We Believe with words to spare.)
So, go for Nehemiah 8. That's what I say! But why do that at the expense of 1 Corinthians 15. I see this as being both/and, not either/or.
why is brevity such a value?
Empowerment for mission! A call to unity of purpose!
Every time I've gone to Applebees or TGIFridays and told the waitron, "I'll take the Real Thing with a slice of lemon," I've gotten a Coke with lemon. Wouldn't it be a benefit to mission for CGGCers to know in a few very familiar words exactly what we are all about?
Think of the power that Paul had in his ministry because he was able remind the Corinthians that they knew the exact message he preached and that they could state it in one sentence!
Image how the CGGC would be empowered to unity and mission if we all could, in the same 50 words, describe the belief that connects us!
Now, when you've finished that thought experiment, reflect on how demoralizing it is to attempt to be equipped for mission with the 21,333 sectarian colossus that's currently on the table.
bill,
thank you for the clarification. i think i understand a good deal more of where you're coming from.
i suppose the question that is sort-of behind this is, what is the purpose of we believe or another statement of that nature? is it a rallying cry, a concise clarion call to mission?
or is it a teaching document, designed to instruct young or uninformed believers some basic points of doctrine and practice (cf. Hebrews 6:1-2)?
i think which way you answer that largely determines which way you write it. now, i disagree with much of the style of the early draft of we believe that was on the cggc website, but the idea of a (somewhat lengthy) document, laying out the teachings and practices of the church, can be a very useful tool. i appreciate conciseness even in that, but comprehension is good also, and if you need more words in order to protect against certain misconceptions and heresies, then so be it.
Bill,
A Jehovah's Witness could agree with a statement of faith that only includes the verses you mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. So could a Mormon. So could a number of other cults.
That being the case, if this proposed statement of faith that you are offering were to be ratified as the CGGC statement of faith, how would anyone be able to distinguish us from the groups I mentioned above?
Furthermore, if that statement were to be ratified, by what basis could a local Conference remove a pastor for denying the Deity of Christ? On what basis could a local Conference attempt to correct a congregation that is teaching what we know to be heresy?
I'm afraid that what you are proposing would not be adequate for the day and age in which we live.
-George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
I agree with Walt that the purpose of the statement matters. If we are distilling things down to communicate them succinctly and clearly to someone who doesn't know the Lord, then Bill, your statement might suffice.
But if we are trying to communicate our understanding of the gospel and how we think about the mission of Jesus so that A) we have a rallying cry for the CGGC team, and B) we help leaders who might want to be part of us know if they fit with us, then you have to have something more.
I'm not saying what anyone has to do, but I am saying that it depends on who it's for.
walt,
i suppose the question that is sort-of behind this is, what is the purpose of we believe or another statement of that nature? is it a rallying cry, a concise clarion call to mission?
or is it a teaching document, designed to instruct young or uninformed believers some basic points of doctrine and practice (cf. Hebrews 6:1-2)?
Right on, brother.
And, you are correct in identifying the directionless state of the CGGC. It is absolutely insane, in my opinion, that we'd create a Mission Statement rooted in Winebrenner at the point of his greatest radicalism and follow that up with the We Believe that came down from on high.
What are we: Radical restorationists bent on restoring New Testament Christianity or 17th century Protestant scholastics who believe that, if you get doctrine exactly right that you stamp your ticket into heaven? The Mission Statement says one thing. We Believe says exactly the opposite. And, then we wonder why we are not living on mission!
Before we do anything with We Believe we need to come to grips with the reality that Winebrenner would probably despise even my proposal.
Prior to listing his 27 Points he said:
The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline church standard, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have. Nevertheless, it may not be inexpedient, pro bono publico, to exhibit a short manifesto, or declaration, showing her views, as to what may be called leading matters of faith, experience and practice.
Let's start at the beginning and figure out what to do with that!
George,
if this proposed statement of faith that you are offering were to be ratified as the CGGC statement of faith, how would anyone be able to distinguish us from the groups I mentioned above?
It was good enough for Paul in a day when threats to orthodoxy were more intense than they are today.
I'd be blessed if you could tell me how a body committed to 'establishing churches on the New Testament plan' can even dream of defining its faith in a way better than the New Testament does.
if that statement were to be ratified, by what basis could a local Conference remove a pastor for denying the Deity of Christ?
Perhaps in the way that the New Testament church, which didn't have pastors but did have false apostles and false prophets and false teachers did? That we seem to think that we're doing better than the early church did because we have We Believe helps me understand why it is that we are closing churches at a record pace.
I believe that we should live more radically in the Word and in the Spirit and spend less time devising clever, humanly-oriented methods for serving Christ.
There can be no doubt that we represent different paradigms. I'll only say that mine and Winebrenner's (you know: "only rule of faith and practice)--and we are Church of God--are very similar.
if that statement were to be ratified, by what basis could a local Conference remove a pastor for denying the Deity of Christ?
George, if you think that we are challenged by heresy more than the early believers were, you are utterly mistaken.
Fran,
But if we are trying to communicate our understanding of the gospel and how we think about the mission of Jesus so that A) we have a rallying cry for the CGGC team, and B) we help leaders who might want to be part of us know if they fit with us, then you have to have something more.
The Church of Cod has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline church standard, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have. Nevertheless, it may not be inexpedient, pro bono publico, to exhibit a short manifesto, or declaration, showing her views, as to what may be called leading matters of faith, experience and practice. -- John Winebrenner, 1844
We have a history and we now have a Mission Statement.
Both say that, for us, the New Testament is all.
I have two comments.
1. As far as you, walt, George and Fran, are concerned, I have achieved my purpose. Before we redo a doctrinal statement, we need to decide what purpose such a statement will serve in building the Kingdom.
If anything is clear to me about the first revision of We Believe, which didn't even make it through the Ad Council to the floor of General Conference, it is that its writers had no idea of what purpose they were pursuing.
2. My fingers were shaking when typed the proposed replacement for
We Believe. My theology and Winebrenner's are very similar. As I quoted the very words of Scripture as a proposed doctrinal statement, I was thinking that Winebrenner'd be spinning in his grave if we adopted even this! While I did start a bit of a conversation that I think is important, I have to confess what I've done.
The early believers didn't write a doctrinal statement. Winebrenner said that the Church of God has no authority but the Bible. And, I think we approach blasphemy when we think we can write our own faith document that improves on God's Word.
The church didn't write a Creed until after Constantine. Winebrenner said that we only have the Bible. And, I'm cool with that.
Let's live by the Word and the Spirit and not think that we can do better.
Bill,
I believe in living by the Word and the Spirit, but when Paul was writing the Bible he did not yet have to contend with 2000 years of what people have done with the Bible, but we do, and we have to speak to it in clarifying ways.
I agree that long-winded, wrongly motivated Protestant doctrinal statements are not the answer, but I heartily disagree that all statements written to clarify things for specific groups of people are wrong.
Fran,
I believe in living by the Word and the Spirit, but when Paul was writing the Bible he did not yet have to contend with 2000 years of what people have done with the Bible, but we do, and we have to speak to it in clarifying ways.
My brother, even the difference between the two of us is so profound that it goes all the way to the level of paradigm. Knowing that, I shiver when I think about the differences I have with the people who standardized credentials and revised the doctrinal statement.
I think you are embracing the same myth that George is.
Our struggle against theological diversity is not more challenging than the struggle faced by the early church. If you think it is, you need to crack open your church history books again. You are being naive.
The fact that the early church remained true to the faith without resorting to doctrinal statements tells me that the answer to this challenge comes from an entirely different way of thinking and a different way of acting than the one that began with Constantine and says, "Let's spell it out in writing. Let's invent to creed."
The Church of God was, from its first day, built on the conviction that Constantine corrupted the church, not that he purified it.
The Church of God was built on the idea that Constantine's first great achievement, the creation of the Creed, perverted the church. Since 1925, we have embrace Constantine's innovation. In doing so, we have turned away 180 degrees from the vision we were built on.
I have three thoughts about that.
1. The differences between us--even the two of us--are fundamental and paradigmatic.
2. It's time, in the CGGC, that we understand how foundational these issues are.
3. We need to forget about the doctrinal statement and credential for the moment and settle the issue of who we are in reference to Constantine.
I love you, brother. I can't tell you how deeply I respect you. You have no idea how many times you've edified me and continue to edify me.
But, because we are linked to 1830 and the Church of God, the difference between us is a deep as the question: Did Constantine pervert of purify the church. We all need to answer that question.
bill,
What are we: Radical restorationists bent on restoring New Testament Christianity or 17th century Protestant scholastics who believe that, if you get doctrine exactly right that you stamp your ticket into heaven?
i think you are much too harsh in your criticism of the reformers and those who strove to keep the Gospel free from heresy. they shared the sentiment of paul, that to false believers and their doctrine, they "did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved." (Gal. 2)
were they imperfect? certainly. did they get caught up in the battle for the mind over being on mission to the "heathen" and doing service? in some cases, and far too often.
but they had their own battle to fight, and while we are faced with challenges because of what they did, we also know the true Gospel because of their carefulness and love for truth. i would think a prophet and historian such as yourself would appreciate such things more.
---------------------
(in response to george, and similar response to fran)
It was good enough for Paul in a day when threats to orthodoxy were more intense than they are today.
in the first, your quoting of a few verses out of one chapter of one letter of paul's does not in any way come close to how paul dealt with doctrine. he did emphasize the Gospel, and drew everything out of that in a truly Godly way, but that in no way stopped him from expounding upon doctrinal truths at length, under the influence of the Spirit, nor from writing those doctrines down for the sake of the Church, present and future. claiming that a couple sentences of paul is sufficient for a doctrinal statement is un-pauline.
and in the second, i believe you are historically incorrect in saying that constantine was the inventor/introducer of creeds into the church. what do you make of 1 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Timothy 2? those seem to be creeds in paul's letters.
and reading the church fathers, there were some short creedal-type statements, rules of faith which were tests of orthodoxy. beyond that, before constantine legalized Christianity, it seems to me that was hardly possible to gather together the leadership of the catholic Church in order to form any lengthy unifying statements. the great exception to this is during the time of the apostles, before the destruction of jerusalem and the great persecutions, where they met to decide the gentile/circumcision issue, preserved for us in Acts 15. their letter to the churches is, in a sense, creedal, though more in praxis than belief.
beyond that, what is wrong with having a summarizing document to help people learn our faith, "the faith that delivered once for all unto the saints"? the early church had such things (see didache) which they did not hold as Scripture, but still used. why are we prevented from summarizing our faith in such a way as to help people have the proper framework in interpreting the Scriptures, so that they do not twist and distort the Scriptures to their own destruction (cf. 2 Peter 3)?
walt,
i think you are much too harsh in your criticism of the reformers and those who strove to keep the Gospel free from heresy.
In this case, my problem is not with the Reformers. While I do sympathize more with the Anabaptists of that era, the Reformers themselves, I think, got off to a good start. As you quoted, I have problems with the 17th century scholastics who did to what the Reformers started in the 16th century pretty much what the writers of CGGC doctrinal statement writers of the 20th century did to what Winebrenner started in the 19th century. They took what was once vibrantly alive and turned into dry bones.
in the first, your quoting of a few verses out of one chapter of one letter of paul's does not in any way come close to how paul dealt with doctrine. he did emphasize the Gospel, and drew everything out of that in a truly Godly way, but that in no way stopped him from expounding upon doctrinal truths at length, under the influence of the Spirit, nor from writing those doctrines down for the sake of the Church, present and future. claiming that a couple sentences of paul is sufficient for a doctrinal statement is un-pauline.
I agree.
I said, I could write a book out of "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." I'm sure Paul could have too. And, I'm certain that he did more than just repeat those 32 words in chapter 15 during his time in Corinth. But, the point is, that he was able to represent his message in those few words and, it seems to me, that the whole of his message was easily and intentionally distilled into those words. Look over either version of our doctrinal statement. Is it carefully constructed enough that it can be distilled? It is gibberish.
and in the second, i believe you are historically incorrect in saying that constantine was the inventor/introducer of creeds into the church. what do you make of 1 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Timothy 2? those seem to be creeds in paul's letters.
I guess it depends on your definition of the term Creed.
beyond that, what is wrong with having a summarizing document to help people learn our faith, "the faith that delivered once for all unto the saints"?
In the Church of God, I think there are two things:
1. We claim that we have no rule of faith and practice other than the Bible.
2. No one can claim that we Believe is a summarizing document to help people learn our faith, "the faith that delivered once for all unto the saints." It's 21,333 words long! That's nearly twice as long as Romans which isn't a summary of anything.
walt, what I'm doing is saying that we need to take who we are seriously. Our roots trace to one of the most radical Restorationist movements in the history of Christianity.
*We began with the assertion that we have no authority at all but the Bible.
*We began with the conviction that the Reformation failed and that a new one was necessary.
*And, we continue to pay lip service to all of those historic beliefs of our movement while, at the same time, we live out principles that mock those contentions.
What's more, we just wrote a Mission Statement that embraces all of our most radical urges. Then we followed it by proposing credentials and a doctrinal statement that straightforwardly oppose the Mission Statement. There is so much dissonance is what we do that chaos is inevitable.
You can't possibly think you can defend the fruit we produced in the last two years by appealing to the authority of the early church or or the Reformation.
And, the way we behave in ministry and mission is every bit as chaotic and visionless and truthless as the things we say about ourselves. How can anything else be true?
We will never be people who live out a coherent mission until we think coherently.
Do you disagree?
bill,
i love how you are never intimidated to back down. i thank God for your courage in your conviction.
i think we're speaking on two different levels, and that may be why there is dissonance amongst us (at least, you and i).
i've been spending much of my energy here in arguing for the legitimacy of a doctrinal statement in general, one which can be used for teaching, for rebuke, and por bono publico, as winebrenner would say. i agree that the draft version of "we believe 2.0" was a mess, and often babbled. reading it did not feel Spiritual, but dry and jagged. it had no eloquence with which one can say in a few words what may take several sentences to say otherwise, but no less clearly.
while i think you and winebrenner might disagree with my liking of having such a document, i don't think that's the main issue. you are far more focused on the reality being played out by the cggc, while i have been arguing more theoretically and abstractly. i feel much less dissonance because i am not as involved with the denomination and claim less of its history as my own, though i certainly appreciate much of its influence on me. you, on the other hand, are deep in the thing and want to steer it in the path it first set out upon.
that being said, i agree that the dissonance in the denomination and its statements is incredible, and ought to come to an end, so that Biblical unity and Godly coherence may be achieved.
to that end, i would propose the following:
* we officially adopt what we practice in reference to authority: prima (not sola) Scriptura. God is our highest and ultimate authority, and thus His Word is His revelation of us to that, carrying the weight of His sovereignty. however, we do agree that we have lesser authorities that are themselves subject to the Word, such as our local church government, the denomination, any documents describing our joint understanding of Scripture, etc. all of these authorities may be challenged by Scripture, but they are nevertheless above the individual congregation or believer.
* the reformation is not a failure, but incomplete, and a praxis of semper reformada (always reforming) must be our culture, so that we do not become complacent or corrupt.
* we ought to honor our past without it dictating everything to us. tradition in any form, even restorationist tradition, is not without flaw, and must be ruled by Scripture and tempered with an eye to our modern context. this is not that contextualization is to be allowed to corrupt our Message, but that our methodology must be informed by an understanding of the world around us.
a few proposals to perhaps get the ball rolling. thoughts?
(Part 1)
walt,
that being said, i agree that the dissonance in the denomination and its statements is incredible, and ought to come to an end, so that Biblical unity and Godly coherence may be achieved.
Ahhhh!
You are joining me in a call to repentance!
See! You ARE a prophet.
to that end, i would propose the following:
* we officially adopt what we practice in reference to authority: prima (not sola) Scriptura. God is our highest and ultimate authority, and thus His Word is His revelation of us to that, carrying the weight of His sovereignty. however, we do agree that we have lesser authorities that are themselves subject to the Word, such as our local church government, the denomination, any documents describing our joint understanding of Scripture, etc. all of these authorities may be challenged by Scripture, but they are nevertheless above the individual congregation or believer.
(gang, this is not a Restorationist view. I don't agree with it personally. But, it is the view symbolized by the arrangement of our doctrinal statements from at least 1975 onward.)
If we would take this view, we will need to be very intentional in describing, in community, the reality that we are abandoning Winebrenner. And, I don't think we have the desire to do that. We would need to be very clear about what he believed that we no longer believe. We would also need to be clear about why we reject our founding vision and why we think our new view is the better one for us.
This will require open and intentional acts of repentance and confession.
(part 2)
* the reformation is not a failure, but incomplete, and a praxis of semper reformada (always reforming) must be our culture, so that we do not become complacent or corrupt.
Again, you are calling for distinct and radical and intentional repentance of the vision upon which our movement was founded. To agree on this principle will require that we be clear and definite about the fact we reject Winebrenner on what may have been his most finely honed theological assertion, one that he stated clearly on the day we came into existence. That's a big deal. Do you really think, walt, that our shepherd EDs and Directors and Commission Chairs and long-time, uh, pastors have the stomach for this? I don't.
* we ought to honor our past without it dictating everything to us. tradition in any form, even restorationist tradition, is not without flaw, and must be ruled by Scripture and tempered with an eye to our modern context. this is not that contextualization is to be allowed to corrupt our Message, but that our methodology must be informed by an understanding of the world around us.
Here's where I think you are off-base. Now, this is merely opinion and it's no more likely to be the truth than what you are contending. But, it is my opinion.
I believe that you are wrong in suspecting that we have moved into the Protestant theological world and that we are no longer Restorationists. I'd be glad if I believed that. However, the fact that the Ad Council pumped out the Mission Statement that it did makes me think that we still think that we are Restorationists, not matter what the truth about us may be. I honestly believe that the Ad Council was serious when it asserted that we are committed to establishing churches on the New Testament plan.
No. I think something else is going on here.
What's going on is that we have allowed ourselves to become so shepherd-dominated for so many generations that truth is of little consequence to us. We are not people of truth any longer. We are relationship-driven. It's not that we don't hold to restorationist convictions. It is that we have no theological convictions.
The principle that guides us is Rodney King-ism: The truth that propels us into our muddled future is bound up in the question: "Can we all just get along?" It is not, "Can we live in His truth?"
We are no more Protestant than we used to be. We are certainly, less Restorationist than we were but the issue is that, these days, truth means almost nothing in the CGGC, not that we have embraced a different truth.
The dissonance that you and I see is a result of the fact that shepherds, who by their spiritual wiring are not gifted to lead in issues of truth, and who, because of what their calling is, merely dabble in truth, are trying manage issues of truth for the Body. That is not the Lord's way. He will never bless it. They need to step away from this task and repent.
That's just my opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home