Update on the Symposia
The symposia on the revision of We Believe and the Standards for Ministerial Credentials were held in the snow in Findlay on February 21. I was present. Others who participate on this blog who were present were Brian Miller, walt and Andrew Griffith. Here are some of my observations of the day. They record what I see as significant facts. Later on, no doubt, I'll offer some interpretive comments:
- The agenda called for discussion of We Believe in twelve categories. However, because discussion was so lively, the group completed only five of the twelve categories and was in the midst of a discussion of the sixth category when time ran out and discussion of credentials began.
- Some of the items not yet discussed could require significant attention, among them are the Ordinances, Feet Washing, Last Things and the practice of Child Dedication.
- Discussion of We Believe was animated. It was contentious at times. Several issues were discussed at great length and with great passion by people on differing sides of those issues.
- Discussion of Credentials didn't even advance to the point that the current document was examined. All discuss had to do with big-picture, philosophical issues. My sense of that discussion is that it was less emotional. However, because big-picture concerns required so much conversation, it is likely that much work on credentials is ahead of us.
posted by bill Sloat at 11:02 AM
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks for the update, Bill. Being in Haiti, I could not be there. I'd be curious to hear impressions/thoughts from anyone else who was there.
A couple of notes:
From We Believe:
1. It was suggested we revamp a one page statement of faith that would sit at the beginning of the book. I think this would help.
2. There was discussion on essential and non-essential doctrines. It was emphasized this book was a "centered set," meaning that this was not the official CGGC doctrine but a basic gauge to where the CGGC is doctrinally.
I hoped they might designate specifically what was essential and non-essential but I don't believe that was the consensus.
3. I was impressed by the discussions for inclusion in areas of calvinism and women in ministry.
From Credentials and Standards: There was a split view of whether what we have is good and just needs emphasized or tweaked and those who thought it should be restarted from scratch. The plan going forward is start from scratch.
Thanks, Bri, I appreciate the details.
Brian,
It was emphasized this book was a "centered set," meaning that this was not the official CGGC doctrine but a basic gauge to where the CGGC is doctrinally.
My guess is that if, in the Introduction, it is explained that the beliefs that follow represent a 'centered set' of core ideas that there will be an uproar among the rest of the CGGC.
I was surprised to hear that centered set statements were the idea. And, it seems to me that, if those statements about Jesus are centered set notions that we may, indeed, very well be able to open Jehovah's Witnesses into our fellowship with open arms.
This is something we are going to have to think through very carefully. I suspect that we will decide that, in practice, this may not be as good an idea as it seemed to the WB task force on first blush.
Bill,
Absolutely! The problem with "centered set" without an essentials/non-essentials separation allows for the material on God and Jesus and justification to have some wiggle room. That is not what we're looking for.
Brian,
I'm sure that the centered-set notion will not fly.
And, it strikes me and deeply disturbs me that the expectation of the Task Force was that WB would have been sent to General Conference by Ad Council and that it would, by now, be the 2010 Doctrinal Statement of the CGGC--
WITHOUT AN EXPLANTION THAT THESE WERE MERELY CENTERED-SET NOTIONS!
Apparently, they were hoping to sneak that by us. No wonder so many were so deeply confused and that WB didn't pass muster.
Ed failed to make that known in the Introduction to WB. And, it certainly didn't come out at the WB meeting that I attended when it was presented for feedback.
I am sad to say that I see some deception in the way this WB was presented.
Very cleverly, it seems to me, Free Moral Agency has been quietly folded into the Article on Humanity.
It concerns me that the Task Force is being less than honest by the fact that the Article on Women in Ministry now appears as part of the Article on the Church.
And, now you and I know that these are merely centered-set notions. Thanks, by the way, for mentioning this.
Now that the idea that this is a centered-set document is out among some who lurk here, I suspect that ears are going to be perked up for the next round of WB meetings if and when they come.
It may be that I am being overly sensitive. That happens from time to time. But, I will say that I am disturbed by this for myself, even if no one else is.
I think that we need to come at the issue of what we believe from another direction than the notion that all we can come up with is center-set assertions. That's not an honest reflection of who we are, in my opinion.
We are a unique group.
Our identity is connected to Pietism's assertion that the essence of Christianity is not pure doctrine but love of God and neighbor AND to the restorationists' belief that New Testament Christianity--the 'New Testament plan'--is who we are in its most pure form.
Both are radical notions and we can't capture them in diluted fuzzy theological assertions.
Centered-set doctrinal assertions do not do the richness of the Church of God movement justice.
I can't help but wonder if we don't have the wrong people trying to rework these statements concerning who we are. I don't mean that either arrogantly or meanly. I suspect that when many of those engaged in the WB rewrite were asked to do so, they were told that this was just a rework of what we already had. But in an organization where things are percolating and people are becoming aware of and discontent with the status quo, things like this become opportunities to express something more powerful. The credentialing process is the same thing. People thought it would be a slight rework... now it's a big conversation. The people given this task may have been unprepared, and not the optimum assortment for where the conversation has gone. In this light, we might fault them less and see if they are open to some help.
I wonder if a group of us made a set of "framework suggestions" it would be helpful at this point.
Fran,
Thanks for your post that began with,
"I can't help but wonder if we don't have the wrong people trying to rework these statements concerning who we are. I don't mean that either arrogantly or meanly..."
You are so right.
After General Conference, I all but begged Ed to reconfigure how this was being done. I argued to him that what we now have is an institutional document and that is exactly what you'd expect. He addressed the writing of the documents institutionally and the institution did the only thing it can do: function as an institution and create documents oriented to the institution and which serve the institution.
I pointed out that he purports to embrace APEST. I asserted that, if that's the case, then he should understand that there are spiritual giftings and callings that are appropriate to the task of addressing issues of proclaiming truth (WB) and organizing for mission (credentials).
He agreed in what felt like a "pat on the head now just go away" kind of agreement. I'm used to that. I get it from a lot of people, not just Ed, but it's not the first time I've gotten it from Ed. Since then, I gave Ed the benefit of the doubt.
(So, this is a sort of cyber second step in Matthew 18 confrontation.)
My blood began to boil in the first moments of the symposia when it became clear to me that:
1. Ed had no intention of leading the group in submission to the Mission Statement,
2. Ed wasn't going to address the concerns of the Ad Council that prevented it from sending WB to General Conference, though he did print out my email,
3. Ed wasn't going to highlight the concerns articulated on the floor of General Conference regarding credentials, though he did print out your document,
4. Ed was continuing to look to the institution to re-frame WB and credentials and
5. He'd had no intention of bringing an APEST community into the conversation.
I will say prophetically, though not as a word of prophecy, that we are approaching an 'Armageddon' moment in the CGGC over these things. I'll also say that I think Hegel's paradigm fits.
I see a thesis/antithesis conflict emerging. There have been several of those in the last generation and the Pastor-Dominated culture has swatted the antithesis away like it was a fly. My guess is that it won't be as easy for the old paradigm to prevail this time. And, if there is not mutual submission in our body, there may be a war that we never recover from.
I hope some of the old paradigm lurkers on the blog take this to heart. Those you have beaten down in the past may, very likely, get back on their feet for more of a beating at your hand this time. They may not go away as easily as we always have in the past. The emergence of a motivated and spirited counter-culture was apparent at the symposia.
All that is to say, "Amen," to your insight.
Fight the good fight, my brother and friend! It is the Kingdom, not the puny CGGC that is at stake.
Bill,
Do you really think posting something here is a "second step in Matthew 18 confrontation"? This seems pretty public to me.
Dan H.,
You make a good point.
What I'm doing is more like the third step in Matthew 18 and, believe me, this conversation between Ed and me has been going on for years and others have been involved.
I am increasingly convinced that the tensions in the body can no longer be swept under the rug, as they normally are in our Pastor-Dominated leadership culture. I am convinced that the day for me to submit on my own, apart from mutual submission, is over.
Two of the struggles I undergo in trying to make sense of prophetic impulses are the tendencies to compress time and to exaggerate the seriousness of issues. I learned long ago that I see things in brighter colors than anyone else I know does and that I judge a moment of crisis to be closer than it really is.
Having said that, I do not apologize for what I wrote. It was honest. Ed has had ample opportunity to know what I think and how I feel so that I believe, if anything, I have waited too long for the good of the body to make these things publicly known.
I was present at the symposia.
I saw the two opposing paradigms face off against each other. I read the body language. I heard the tones in the voices. I know the spiritual struggles that were going on within me. I genuinely believe that a crisis moment is at hand.
And, I believe that it is now the wrong thing for me to hold these feelings inside and to restrict the universe in which I say them.
The things I hear from the Lord when I meditate and pray about our body break my heart.
I don't want to face the reality that I believe is before us if we choose to continue to walk this path and if we continue to refuse to repent.
And, in the end, the issue between the Lord and me may one day be: Did I bury my talent? Did I not speak when He was calling me to speak? Did I wait too long?
These are not easy matters for me to resolve. I do it as faithfully as I can, having no mentors or peers in living out my calling.
I believe that we are in a dangerous and contentious time as a body. I see little interest in repentance among us. And, I see no hope for us apart from repentance.
Post a Comment
<< Home