If These Things were Happening in 1911
Think about what has happened in the CGGC since 2008.
1. Mission and Vision Statements for the CGGC were adopted in 2008. Neither Statement has been implement.
2. A Task Force was formed in 2009 to revise We Believe and to create inter-regional Standards for Ministerial Credentials.
3. When the labors of the Task Force were presented to the General Conference Ad Council prior to General Conference in 2010, the proposed revision of We Believe was not accepted and was sent back to the Task Force for more work. (How often has that happened in the CGGC? Do you know?)
4. When the Standards for Ministerial Credentials document was presented to the General Conference in session, the motion for its acceptance was tabled and then revised and brought off the table the next day for approval and was approved only after General Conference staff agreed to send the document back to the Task Force so that a revision could be presented at the 2013 session of General Conference.
5. The Task Force met in early 2011. Individuals who were not invited into the 2009 Task Force which failed to produce documents that satisfied the Ad Council and the General Conference in session in 2010 showed up to participate in the 2011 meetings. Those discussions were lively at best and contentious at worst. Those meetings closed with a serious lack of consensus.
-----------------
Now, if these events had happened 100 years ago, they would represent one of the most important moments in the history of the Churches of God.
Of course, there has been no resolution to our conflicts to this point.
What we know is that the story of what began in 2008 continues. It will continue until at least 2013. Tension currently increases. The 2013 General Conference is shaping up to be one of the most lively in the history of those gatherings which got off to an eventful start in 1845.
The 2013 General Conference may turn out to be the most lively, contentious and controversy-filled of all.
It seems likely to me at this point that the 2013 General Conference will not resolve issues of what we believe and how we configure our leadership. It, therefore, is likely to lead to an even more lively General Conference that would meet in 2016.
Take this seriously: It may lead to a series of events that will result in the implosion of the CGGC before there is a General Conference in 2016. (I honestly think that that is a possibility though not, at this point, a probability.)
Do you appreciate what is happening in the CGGC today? Do we understand how monumental these events are? How unprecedented they are? How dangerous to the CGGC future they are?
Do you care?
In a previous thread, I detailed a conversation with a very sharp CGGC leader who was in the Ad Council meeting that approved the Mission Statement. He doesn't even remember approving the Mission Statement. What began as another run-of-the-mill, mindless assertion about what we believe and do has become a palm-sized snow ball that is increasing in mass and continues to roll down hill. It is gaining momentum. It could, my friends and brothers and sisters, create an avalanche.
That avalanche may bury us all.
It's possible.
posted by bill Sloat at 7:23 AM
4 Comments:
I'm curious as to what the expectations were regarding the mission & vision statement - are these statements supposed to be definitive for all churches within the CGGC or are these directives for the organization supporting churches within the fellowship?
If the former, then it would seem all churches who would walk under the "umbrella" of the CGGC would be required to adopt these as personal statements as well; a franchise model, so to speak, with each church reflecting the overall corporate brand, philosophy, and strategies.
If this is the case, then the burden of implementation is on the individual church. And I would observe that the model is not viable given that I have not seen two CGGC churches that look or sound the same.
But that was not my understanding. My understanding was (and continues to be) that the CGGC valued the individuality of each church community and encouraged each local body to reflect not a corporate image, but a cultural, contextual identity.
If that is true, then the statements should be directives for the organizational body and I would suggest that they are being implemented to a certain level - we may not find it to be an acceptable level, but I would hesitate to say they have not been implemented at all.
As to the We Believe, my concern (again, based on my current understanding) is that we are using a document as a standard and rule of faith and practice (i.e., credentials) that states that the Bible is our ONLY rule of faith and practice. So, we hand the emerging, God-called, Spirit-led leader a Bible. And the We Believe. And say, "Now, do both."
Interesting stuff, Bill, thanks for sharing.
Taren (interesting name),
I'm curious to know who you are. Your name is not familiar to me.
You raise good questions and issues.
They illustrate the vast gulf between what the CGGC:
1. Says it believes,
2. Believes (if by now it believes anything at all corporately)
3. Does.
What we say we believe is that our body functions as the early church did. When the apostles and elders of the early church met to consider the question of whether a Gentile had to become a Jew to be a disciple of Jesus, the apostles and elders made a decision which was binding on all disciples. They put that decision in writing and communicated it to the churches and, in reality, that decision became a higher authority in the church than the teachings of Jesus.
The CGGC says that it operates according to that pattern of 'Church Government.' (The theological way to say that is: We practice Presbyterial Polity.)
Taren, that is precisely what we say we believe.
Is it what we believe?
Is it what we do?
So, according to what we say we believe, because they were issued by our most authoritative bodies--our General Conference Administrative Council and our General Conference in session which approved the actions of the Administrative Council--the Mission and Vision Statements, hold a higher authority in the CGGC than the Word itself.
According to what we say we believe, they are absolutely binding on our Regions and congregations and 'pastors' and members every bit as much as the decision of the apostles and elders was binding on all disciples in the early church.
At Faith in the Eastern Region, the congregation in which I participate, we accept the Mission and Vision Statements as being as binding on us as the decision of the apostles and elders was among early disciples. So far as I know, no other CGGC congregation has submitted to CGGC authority. So far as we know, no other CGGC leader at any level has submitted to that authority either.
Why? I believe that, in the CGGC, we don't walk our talk. We don't seem to value the assertions we make about ourselves. And, we don't practice submission to authority within the body.
We don't believe what we say we believe.
And, we certainly don't do what we say we believe, either.
Is it any wonder that the Spirit is not pouring Himself out on us?
Bill, you made some great observations on submission and authority within the CGGC, and I thought this was a particularly excellent observation:
What we say we believe is that our body functions as the early church did... the apostles and elders made a decision which was binding on all disciples... and, in reality, that decision became a higher authority in the church than the teachings of Jesus.
One might ask, "Should that be? Should the authority of the apostles be equal to Christ himself?"
Put simply, we wouldn't read past the Gospels if we didn't believe and accept the teaching of the Apostles to be on par with those of Jesus.
But now I run into a serious issue, one that has challenged me greatly over the past few years that I have walked with the CGGC: do I consider the statements and directives of an Admin Council to be Apostolic in authority to the church?
My struggle with that question has to do with how we practice our system of presbyterial polity - because after the first couple of steps, I don't believe we do reflect the "New Testament Plan." I believe we reflect the "American Democracy-with-the-New -Testament-mixed-in Plan."
1. We hold western elections - while nominations are evident in the NT church, the election process was left either to God (when choosing an Apostle) or to the Apostles themselves (when empowering ministry). Yet we use a congress ballot. And whoever has the most votes, wins.
Do we not trust God to choose our leaders?
Do we not trust our leaders to choose leaders?
2. We elect to terms - this is where I have my major hangup. In the NT, especially regarding the Apostles, this was their life-long calling, ministry and position.
Yet we elect to a term. And then, perhaps, if the person pleased us (because that's really what elections boil down to) we give them a successive term. And then, regardless of how much God might be using them - they must step down.
Where is the New Testament in that plan?
So, are we really based on the NT plan, or are we mingling moments within the NT with american democracy? Because the moment something doesn't flow with me, I am not motivated to submit to authority - I'm motivated to vote at the next election.
Let me say this clearly -- I fully support and respect those who serve on our Councils. But I cannot with good conscience look to someone today as "Apostle" or even "Apostle by Consensus" and then tomorrow, when their term expires, view them as Joe Christian.
Which means that, in my church at least, we are on paper part of CGGC as an organization, but in practice do not always look to them as our sole spiritual Headship. That's not a statement of rebellion, just an honest admission that - somewhere - there is a disconnect. Or a trust issue.
And I think this speaks to a coming rift between current CGGC congregations and the upcoming/emerging ones -- especially those of a younger generation who are jaded with standard politics and are disgusted to find political games being played within the church at the highest levels.
How do we teach submission in a system that undermines trust?
Apologies for my bluntness.
Apologies if I have caused offense.
************************
Bill,
You might know me... Taren (or Taras) is a transcription of my English name from the post-Soviet country I grew up in. I use it when writing on blogs.
"Taren Capel" happens to be character from science fiction, a scientist who attempted to lead a robot revolution against the accepted norms of society.
Somehow, that all fits. :)
To all Bloggers and Lurkers: Taren Capel in this thread isn't a name I came up with to appear to dialog with myself. This is a real person other than me.
Taren,
Have you figured out how to use my brain? Why would one want to?
I couldn't possibly agree more with what you have written.
I'd add to what you have written that I believe that our real sin isn't that we are not functioning in a New Testament way. We could be working our way toward that goal. Clearly we are not, as you have described and in many other ways.
For me, the part of the Mission Statement that is most vile to the Lord is the contention in the Mission Statement that "we commit ourselves to...(establish) churches on the New Testament plan." The fruit the CGGC produces is that that assertion is a lie. It is bearing false witness. The Lord hates that. We are committed to no such thing and we shouldn't say that we are if we are not. The Lord takes truth very, very seriously. As a result, He takes lies seriously as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home