What You Mean, "WE," White Man?
You know the old joke:
The Lone Ranger and Tonto are riding along, when suddenly the horizon fills with thousands of screaming Native Americans on the warpath. The Lone Ranger says, "Well, this doesn't look good. I don't think we're gonna make it out of this alive."
And, Tonto says, "What you mean, 'We," white man?"
We: pronoun, first person plural.
The word has a very definite meaning. It is the plural of "I." It refers to me and everyone else with me. If I am with my wife and say, "We love NASCAR," I'm lying, believe me. It may be true that I love NASCAR, but it is not true that WE do.
John Winebrenner knew his pronouns.
In 1844, when Winebrenner published his twenty seven "Ises" on the faith and practice of the Church of God, he chose his pronoun carefully so that his statements would convey real-world actuality. When he characterized the Church of God's view of the Bible he said,
She believes the Bible, or the canonical books of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, a revelation from God to man, and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice.
"She."
(The Greek word for church, "ekklesia," is a feminine gender noun and so Winebrenner referred to the Church of God in the singular as a she.)
Because Winebrenner cared about transmitting what is true, he was careful to be certain that his twenty seven Ises about the Church of God were really ises. It was possible for him to speak of the Church of God as a movement and to honestly describe what she believed and did. He cared enough that his assertions were real-world truth that he didn't pretend to speak for all of the individuals in the movement. He didn't say, for instance,
WE believe the Bible, or the canonical books of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, a revelation from God to man, and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice.
Had he done so, he would have been lying because he wasn't omniscient or clairvoyant. He couldn't possibly know the inner thoughts of all of the approximatively 10,000 Church of God members in 1844.
Of all the problems I have with We Believe, perhaps the most aggravating to me is its audacity in claiming to be able to read the minds of all of the people in the Churches of God. Words have meaning and the words, 'we believe' mean that what follows them describes all of the individuals in that set of people. No body or gathering or organization in the CGGC can say, "We believe..." We aren't mind readers.
I think I know why the writers of We Believe chose to adopt the first person plural pronoun,we, and not, as Winebrenner did, a third person singular pronoun, she or it. They were enthusiastic imbibers of and participants in shepherd-dominated leadership.
We is a flock word--a word that a shepherd or a shepherd culture would use. Shepherds, very legitimately because of the way the Spirit wires them, think of the church as a flock of individual sheep. They elevate the importance of each individual member of the flock. They are the people whose hearts break for the last kid chosen in a pick-up game. They want all to be considered and all to be included. And, when that's appropriate, it's a good thing.
But when shepherds, who are the stewards of relationship in the Body of Christ, are asked to become the stewards of truth, they do some wacky things--things that turn truth into lie.
We all know that much of what We Believe contends is, very simply, not true.
Based on the dictionary meaning of the word, 'only,' the assertion,
"We believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice"
is a lie.
Other important We Believe assertions are not true:
"We believe God has created us as free moral agents."
"We believe that since believers were free to make the decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord, they are not less free at any time to turn away from God and be lost."
"We believe Christ has given the church three divine ordinances."
"We believe in the ordinance of feetwashing as a celebration of the incarnation."
We believe in the presentation of children for the Lord's blessing."
All of these assertions are important to our collective identity--or, at least, they have been in the past. Nevertheless, WE do not believe these things.
The symposium on our doctrinal statement is near. I believe that before we get into specifics, we need to consider big issue questions about the purpose we hope to accomplish.
Can what we say about ourselves, if we say anything, at least be true?
posted by bill Sloat at 7:37 AM
5 Comments:
Bill, in response to your comment: "But when shepherds, who are the stewards of relationship in the Body of Christ, are asked to become the stewards of truth, they do some wacky things--things that turn truth into lie."
1. The shepherd's role is not as cut-and-dried as you claim. Paul clearly instructs the Ephesian elders to be shepherds of the church of God and protect the flock from savage wolves. He states, "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth ..." (Acts 20:30). Guarding against heresy and making truth claims is very much a shepherd's job.
2. Granted: not everyone in the CGGC holds to every single one of the doctrines of "We Believe," thus claiming WE believe these things isn't true.
At the risk of further beating a thoroughly dead horse, I actually like the "We Believe" document. I've used it as a teaching tool, and I look forward to its revision. Would JW agree with our using it? Probably not. His "27 Points" pro bono publico notwithstanding, he saw a dichotomy between creedal statements and a Spirit-led church of God movement whose only authoritative standard is the Bible. I disagree with that dichotomy. The Bible is not and cannot be our only authority; else we'd have to get rid of every constitution, set of by-laws and church council in existence. No, the Bible is our only authoritative rule; it stands above all others. Creeds, councils and all human-produced authority are accountable to Scripture -- but they're still allowed and usually are necessary. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is a case in point.
We find ourselves caught in the tension between the Rock and the Wind, the unchanging truth and the dynamic "new song." On the one hand we want to affirm our continuity with the catholic church throughout history and across cultural lines, but on the other we want to claim our heritage in the Restorationist Church of God movement. Somewhere in the middle we want to assert our distinctive interpretations of Scripture (even though they are not universally held in the CGGC).
That's why we have the "We Believe" document. Obviously not everyone is going to agree on every detail; we certainly can't publish a document called "Most of Us Probably Believe"! Rather, "We Believe" stakes out our basic doctrinal positions so that our own people can know what most of us hold in common, and so that outsiders can figure out where we fit in the Protestant world. (I can think of two cases in Cross-Cultural Ministries where that has led to affiliation with other churches.) I don't believe God is going to punish us for the temerity of saying "we."
Ben,
Good stuff.
These are the things we need to discuss in the open as an entire body. You make your points well, though I'm sure you know that you have not changed my mind.
You are correct about Paul's admonition of the Ephesian elders. Peter says something very similar in 1 Peter 5. The question of whether elders and shepherds are the same people is also one that we should sort out as a body. What we know is that elders of the type attached to a single community of disciples must do the act of shepherding and, in doing that, at least defend truth. My experience is that when shepherds articulate truth afresh in a new generation or cultural context they don't seem to be functioning in the center of their calling.
I actually like the "We Believe" document. I've used it as a teaching tool.
In the setting I am in I have found it an ineffective teaching tool and that it is way over the heads of the people I minister with.
Would JW agree with our using it? Probably not.
Finally!
You are the first person to have expressed that sentiment to me. What I usually get is, "I like having it. I just ignore what I don't like."
My point on the blog since I became aware of the Mission Statement is that we have adopted Winebrenner's vision and the theology that produced it. I believe that your view is the majority view but we do have a Mission Statement. I didn't write it and I don't agree with having one but, as an ordained minister in the Churches of God, I have vowed to abide by it as long as it exists.
(What scares me is what's going to happen with our Ministerial Credentials considering the Mission Statement. Nothing there comes from the New Testament nor Winebrenner nor the Mission Statement.)
We find ourselves caught in the tension between the Rock and the Wind, the unchanging truth and the dynamic "new song." On the one hand we want to affirm our continuity with the catholic church throughout history and across cultural lines, but on the other we want to claim our heritage in the Restorationist Church of God movement. Somewhere in the middle we want to assert our distinctive interpretations of Scripture (even though they are not universally held in the CGGC).
My theory is that these tensions might strengthen us if we actually cared about truth and discussed it honestly as a body. Instead, we attempt to silence questions of truth by shoving copies of WB in people's faces. The fruit of recent years is that we have produced documents in outrageous contradiction with each other without an ounce of shame. Probably without a shred of self-awareness.
That says to me that we are stumbling over our own feet trying to live in community with our forefathers and in a bland, truthless unity with each other. And, that won't work.
That's why we have the "We Believe" document. Obviously not everyone is going to agree on every detail; we certainly can't publish a document called "Most of Us Probably Believe"!
Yet, it seems to me that unless we want to sin by bearing false witness and to violate the teaching of Jesus, "Let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no, no" we can't claim "We believe" if WE don't.
Our generations of choosing tolerance over truth are coming back to bite us. There's not much that we do believe any longer. And, it's time to come to grips with that problem.
Rather, "We Believe" stakes out our basic doctrinal positions...
Basic?
The proposed revision is 21,333 words long. Oh, that it were basic!
A brief rejoinder: "We Believe" at 21,333 words is quite "basic" in comparison with tomes such as the Methodist Book of Discipline.
Bill, you have pointed out quite frequently the inconsistencies of doctrine within the CGGC. In my opinion, "We Believe" is an attempt to correct that. That's why we're using a process of having feedback and dialogue. You obviously think "We Believe" is a bad idea, so what do you suggest in its place? What will bring us together?
Ben
reposted in the right thread on behalf of bill:
"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."
Thanks for fixing my mistake, walt.
Post a Comment
<< Home