Pro Bono Publico
Friends,
I believe that it is possible that we may soon realize that the CGGC is no longer a viable body and that the CGGC may be about to enter a state of such intense chaos that it may disintegrate before our eyes. I say that I believe this is possible. I don't think it is likely but I can see a way that it might happen. In saying this I'm not speaking as a prophet but I am describing the dangerous state that we have fallen into.
----------------------------
John Winebrenner was opposed to Statements of Faith and Doctrinal Statements with all the passion that his heart could muster. Despite the myth that the CGGC web site spins, there is no 1844 (1848) Statement of Faith.
The assertion on our web page:
John Winebrenner’s Twenty-Seven Point Statement of Faith
John Winebrenner, History of the Churches of God, All Religious Denominations, [Harrisburg: 1848], pp. 170-180.); First published in An Original History of the Religious Denominations, I. Daniel Rupp [Philadelphia, 1844]
is a bold, yet well-intentioned lie.
It's a clever lie. Clever because if the entire statement was entered on the web site the lie that the 27 points are a Statement of Faith would be blown away. The web site omits Winebrenner's crucial Preamble
"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."
There is nothing about the CGGC that angers me more than the dishonesty in removing the Preamble from Winebrenner's 27 Points. It's removal changes the meaning of the 27 Points entirely. By removing the Preamble, the manipulator of truth who placed it on the web page took a document intended to argue that the Church of God has no authority but the Word and made it say that even Winebrenner described an authority in the Church of God other than the Word.
But there is a deeper truth here. We need to acknowledge that truth and take it very seriously.
John Winebrenner was being honest in 1844 when he said pro bono publico (for the public good, i.e., for the benefit of those outside the Church of God) that there are 27 assertions that are true about us.
Here's my contention:
There is very little--almost nothing--that the CGGC can say about itself pro bono publico today. As far as truth is concerned, there's almost nothing left of the CGGC.
I'm looking at a copy of the 1980s We Believe that is still in effect. Assertions about our faith begin on page 7 and continue through page 51. That's 45 pages of theological assertions. As watered down as they are, my rough guess is that 75% of the theological assertions do not describe us today.
If we took Winebrenner's idea that we can describe pro bono publico the beliefs we hold in common, there'd be almost nothing to say.
There's almost nothing left that can be described as our theological consensus.
Do we have a consensus on the Bible? No. We don't even have a consensus on this blog? I take a Restorationist's view of the Bible. Most of the rest of you don't.
Do we have a consensus on humanity? No.
Do we have a consensus on free moral agency? Okay, stop laughing. And, those of you who are crying, go get a hanky.
Do we have a consensus on regeneration? No. Not without a consensus on humanity.
Do we have a consensus on justification? No.
Do we have a consensus on sanctification? No.
Do we have a consensus on the ordinances? Tragically, no.
Do we have a consensus on baptism? We might be close enough there to come up with a meaningful statement.
Do we have a consensus on Lord's Supper? I don't agree with We Believe on it but few others go as far as I do.
Do we have a consensus on feet washing? Enough said? (We lost that, when we gave up on Winebrenner's Restorationism and went with Forney.)
Do we have a consensus on "The Ministry of Reconciliation and Wholeness?" I still don't know what that means or how it got into a CGGC doctrinal statement.
Do we have a consensus on last things? Perhaps in a way that would gloss over the considerable lack on consensus. But, not in any meaningful way.
We got just about nuthin.
It was a vitally important truth about the Church of God in 1844 that Winebrenner could describe the faith of the movement. It is equally important that, today, we can't.
----------------------------
I know many of you want me to stop saying this. Some of you become angry with me when I do say it but, this is a prophecy, the only part of this post that is:
We need to destroy and overthrow our Pastor-as-Priest, shepherd dominated leadership mafia. Its love of harmony-at-the-expense-of-principle has, over many decades, drained from the CGGC nearly every drop of truth. It has left us with nothing meaningful that we can say about ourselves with a straight face.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that, as we try to revise our doctrinal statement, we may realize that the CGGC has become a house of cards. We've tried once to revise We Believe for General Conference and couldn't even get it to the floor. Something's percolating. Something's amiss. There are things about us that we need to repent of.
The truth is that there are those in the CGGC who do value truth. They have been marginalized by the shepherd mafia and, now that the issue of truth has been brought to the fore by the mafia, we may find that it is too late for us to find a meaningful truth.
posted by bill Sloat at 6:32 AM
3 Comments:
bill, about some of your questions and answers:
Do we have a consensus on the Bible? No. We don't even have a consensus on this blog? I take a Restorationist's view of the Bible. Most of the rest of you don't.
perhaps i'm just missing something, but i suppose i don't know what you mean as the "restorationist" view of the Bible. could you explain this a bit more?
Do we have a consensus on humanity? No.
Do we have a consensus on free moral agency? Okay, stop laughing. And, those of you who are crying, go get a hanky.
Do we have a consensus on regeneration? No. Not without a consensus on humanity.
i think those three are all related. i suppose i don't fully understand the differences on humanity, unless you're bringing up the idea we talked a while ago about, that much of modern evangelicalism (and many in the cggc) are semi-pelagian at best. is that what you're talking about?
Do we have a consensus on justification? No.
i thought we were all pretty much agreed on justification by faith in Jesus Christ apart from works of the law. what am i missing?
Do we have a consensus on sanctification? No.
against, i must be missing something. i thought we were together on progressive sanctification until the return of Christ.
Do we have a consensus on the ordinances? Tragically, no.
Do we have a consensus on baptism? We might be close enough there to come up with a meaningful statement.
Do we have a consensus on Lord's Supper? I don't agree with We Believe on it but few others go as far as I do.
Do we have a consensus on feet washing? Enough said? (We lost that, when we gave up on Winebrenner's Restorationism and went with Forney.)
i think you're right in that we're pretty much on the same page in baptism. i would love to hear more on your view of the Lord's supper, and how it differs from "we believe", as well as on feetwashing.
Do we have a consensus on "The Ministry of Reconciliation and Wholeness?" I still don't know what that means or how it got into a CGGC doctrinal statement.
i had taken this to mean church discipline, which we don't have a consensus on. i know people on the "membership role" of most churches i've been in who will tell you they aren't Christians, yet for one reason or another they're still there. why don't we take this part of Scripture seriously? don't we love these people?
Do we have a consensus on last things? Perhaps in a way that would gloss over the considerable lack on consensus. But, not in any meaningful way.
i think we can say meaningful things about Jesus' bodily return, the judgment of the unjust and the justified, and the eternal states of the new earth and of hell. if you're looking for tribulational stances, i think those are things upon which we can agree to disagree, at least to some extent.
walt,
perhaps i'm just missing something, but i suppose i don't know what you mean as the "restorationist" view of the Bible. could you explain this a bit more?
I'd say it this way:
The restorationist view is Winebrenner's. For Winebrenner the Word is the ultimate source of truth so much so that to develop a creed or a discipline interferes with our access to raw and unfettered revelation. It strikes as being significant that in 1530, 13 years after Wittenberg, the Lutherans published the Augsburg Confession and that in 1844, 14 years after casting his vision for a church established on the New Testament plan, Winebrenner published his 27 points preambled with the contention that the Church of God has no creed.
i suppose i don't fully understand the differences on humanity, unless you're bringing up the idea we talked a while ago about, that much of modern evangelicalism (and many in the cggc) are semi-pelagian at best. is that what you're talking about?
The unspoken truth that I have only ever heard in whispers around the CGGC is that--shhhhhhh--there are actually ordained CGGC people who are, quiet now, keep this under your hat--Five Point Calvinists. There are many who accept Winebrenner's Pelagianism but think it's Arminianism. And, there is a small handful of Arminians. We certainly have no consensus on the spiritual state of humanity.
i thought we were all pretty much agreed on justification by faith in Jesus Christ apart from works of the law. what am i missing?
I think we do have consensus on justification as far as you go. But, read the article on Justification in the new WB. It goes into a lot of detail and I'm not sure that we all buy all of it. That, in fact, is a problem with a 21,333 word doctrinal statement. It goes into so much detail that it couldn't possibly describe a consensus.
i would love to hear more on your view of the Lord's supper, and how it differs from "we believe", as well as on feetwashing.
To me it is obvious in the New Testament that every gathering of believers was something akin to an Agape Meal.
Do we have a consensus on last things? Perhaps in a way that would gloss over the considerable lack on consensus. But, not in any meaningful way.
i think we can say meaningful things about Jesus' bodily return, the judgment of the unjust and the justified, and the eternal states of the new earth and of hell.
Recently I read over my thread, "We Believe 2.0." The article on Last Things is the only article that I actually praised. And, if we did a pro bono publico document there is something that we could say about ourselves. But, it would only touch on the most general ideas.
Ben,
You obviously think "We Believe" is a bad idea, so what do you suggest in its place? What will bring us together?
What I have been suggesting is a 'for the benefit if those outside the CGGC' (pro bono publico) statement of our current 'avowed principles' exactly on the pattern of what Winebrenner did in 1844 and republshed in 48 and 54,
Doing that is externally focused and mission-oriented. And, I believe, comming to grips with what our "Ises' are would be beneficial to us.
Post a Comment
<< Home