Virtues & Practices in the CGGC Tradition
The fact that so much time has been dedicated to debating and revising a doctrinal statement could be taken as a sign that the pastor-focused culture is still dominating this blog, even in their absence from the conversation. Arguing over a doctrinal statement is like playing on their home field, playing their style of the game, and using their ball. We've already lost the conversation; the best we can do is walk away with a "moral victory." So...I'll let others decide whether or not the time invested in these conversations was well-spent. But now that I have your attention, let me continue to build an alternative approach to how transformation could occur in the CGGC. The three key terms in the title of this post [virtues, practices, tradition] will serve as the framework for refocusing the conversation that has been taking place in response to my previous post, "Starting Points (aka Describing Postmodern: The Sequel)."
Tradition
In many circles, this is still a negative word. But, let's face it, there is a distinct CGGC tradition (I was using the term "narrative" in the previous discussion). Most of the questions here were raised by Fran, Brian, or Bill in the previous discussion, including:
- How can a diverse group like ours recapture a common cultural story?
- What is the new story that binds us together?
- Whose version of the CGGC tradition are we going to embrace?
- Who are the major characters and story-teller(s) of the story?
When viewed against the backdrop of the version of postmodernity I was describing, the importance of these question begin to emerge.
The key point I want to make here, though, is that regardless of the specifics of the tradition, a tradition cannot exist on its own merits. In order to be sustained a tradition must be supported by a variety of social practices that promote, challenge, and contribute to the tradition. When the practices that sustain a particular tradition change, it will eventually change the tradition. Therefore, we must look at this second key element of transformation next.
Practices
Over the past 15 years, there have been multiple events within the CGGC (on both the regional and denominational level) that have seen declining attendance and/or outright cancellation. One way to react to these changes is by challenging people to return to "the good old days" where people flocked to Findlay or the regional conference sessions in eager anticipation of what would occur. But, clearly, those days are over. The key questions here include:
- What type of practices does the CGGC need to implement and promote to sustain the CGGC tradition?
- If transformation is the goal, what new practices need to be created that will, in turn, create and sustain a new tradition?
- What current practices are sustaining elements of the tradition that need to be eliminated?
This is where things begin to create friction. Most won't clearly understand what is happening through these changes. But many will begin to sense the changing winds. In a similar way to the practices sustaining the tradition, there are certain characteristics that are necessary for people to sustain the practices. This leads us to the most contentious part of the conversation.
Virtues
I'm going to use the word "virtues" here instead of characteristics, although either one makes sense. Some of the key questions here include:
- What habits are necessary in order to be an active participant in the practices that have been established?
- If the CGGC is diversifying, how consistent an experience should people have across the different regions?
- Are denomonational events necessary, or can each region provide these experiences?
- What types of training and resources are necessary to equip people to be able to actively participate in the practices?
- What will a disciple look like who embodies this new tradition and embraces these new practices?
- Instead of a conversation about "core values" do we need a conversation about "core virtues"?
There are many more questions for each section, but this gives you an idea of what I'm thinking.
Making the Connection
If you are following my line of reasoning, you are beginning to notice where the points of frustration will emerge. What happens to a seminary-trained pastor who no longer sees practices that are suitable for his/her skill set? What happens to a church that is promoting a different set of virtues from what is supported by the CGGC administration? What role does the CGGC main office play in promoting this version of the CGGC tradition?
You can begin to make these changes from the top-down or from the ground up. Either way, until a group of decision-makers embody this new tradition any conversation about "We Believe" is going to play into the hands of the pastor-dominated culture.
I always liked the original title of this blog, "Emerging CGGC." This is my official request to return to that title. I think it captures the spirit here and also is a more honest observation about the current state of our denomination. We are in a moment of transition. Feel free to agree, disagree, debate, and/or add to my list of questions. Only through prayerful interaction will any new changes emerge.
Labels: CGGC
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 7:47 AM
35 Comments:
My official request is that the blog retain the title "CGGC in an Emerging World." I was and still remain opposed to the former blog title, "Emerging CGGC." As an opponent of the so-called "emerging church," I found it offensive that the word "emerging" was linked to the denomination that I identify with, proudly belong to and love. It is my opinion that no one should strive to "color" the CGGC to their own liking by attaching a controversial descriptive word to it in an official or even quasi-official capacity (such as a blog). For example, no one should "color" this denomination with descriptive words that many may find questionable such as "progressive/liberal CGGC" or "fundamentalist CGGC" etc.
We are the CGGC. We minister in an emerging world. That says it all. That's certainly good enough.
Rev. George C. Jensen
Enola First Church of God
George,
Thanks for the feedback. Just like yours, my opinion is only one of many. Although I am the one who included the closing comments about the blog title, my goal is to keep this conversation from simply being about the title.
So, in an effort to promote good conversation about the CGGC, what are some of your thoughts about the ongoing conversation about postmodernity, tradition, and my interpretation of how we can transform the denomination?
Brent
George,
...no one should "color" this denomination with descriptive words that many may find questionable such as "progressive/liberal CGGC" or "fundamentalist CGGC" etc.
It seems to me that one of the primary functions of the prophet is to announce the adjectives that the Lord employs when He regards His people. In other words, to 'color' God's people.
Because of that, I believe that it is both healthy and important that we prayerfully seek understanding of the colors God sees when He looks at us. I also believe that engaging in lively, heart-based discussions of those colors is to think biblically about our body. To suggest that we can't color the church may be a step toward ecclesiolotry.
I see no problem with one blog that is a forum for grass root conversation in the CGGC calling itself the Emerging CGGC blog. In fact, in 2011 I'm deeply chagrined that there are not several blogs which encourage spirited conversation about who we are. The fact that there is so little spirited conversation among us probably is a symptom that we are dying.
(Having said that, George, like you, I'm not a fan of Emergent. I think that, for a time, the emerging movement was asking important questions which moved evangelicalism toward mission but that it was a fad with about as much staying power as the pet rock.)
For the record though, I'd be opposed to the motion that we change the name of the denomination to Emerging Churches of God, General Conference.
I've fallen behind on the blog reading, but briefly saw the comments about the title.
I completely agree with Brent that the first title was a better description, but I changed the title because as George said, it inferred connection with the Emerging Church, and as Bill said, they were asking good questions, but have become a connection I do not want to make.
I do plan on reading the fullness of Brent's post and respond, but not until next week.
Blessings!
Brent,
Re: ...let's face it, there is a distinct CGGC tradition...
If that is true, I think it would be helpful for us to come to an understanding of what that distinct tradition is.
Could you, with your experience and skill, get us started in a search for self-awareness of who we are right now so we can have greater understanding of who it is we may become?
Bill,
Is it accurate to rephrase your question as "What unique characteristics contribute(d) to the development of the CGGC tradition?"?
As far as an answer to this question, I can see a picture in my head but I'm not sure how I'll do at translating this into words. Here's my first effort...
The recent conversation about the cultural implications of postmodernity can serve as a background for this post. When placing the CGGC tradition in the foreground, a few of the following items come into clearer focus.
First: We should try to establish what the greatest good is that we are trying to protect and promote. Most of us would agree that recent discussions about "We Believe" really have nothing to do with "We Believe." What these discussions are asking is What is the best way that our particular tradition can live out our Christian faith on a daily basis? A mistake that some are making is that they fail to see the greater good. This happens in churches all the time when they fail to grasp that the goal isn't to sing the same music but to provide a place where people can worship and encounter God.
So...to start the conversation, I would suggest that the greatest good is that we want to be faithful followers of Jesus. [Notice: the CGGC has nothing to do with the CGGC; it's just one way to live a faithful life.]
But, living a faithful life can't be done in isolation; so, therefore, the particular tradition where one practices this faith matters greatly.
Second: In this view the CGGC is no longer an independent nor isolated tradition but an approach to the Christian faith that stands in relationship with other ways to live out the faith. One way to begin interpreting a particular tradition is by establishing a priority of competing commitments. The existence of the CGGC itself becomes just another commitment along with a commitment to the Bible, believer's baptism, traditional evangelical doctrine, etc. But within this context, how can we prioritize these commitments?
Think about it in terms of what will exist in spite of the elimination of another commitment. For example, could believer's baptism exist without the Emerging Church movement? Absolutely. Therefore, believer's basptism becomes a greater good and a higher priority.
So...again, for the sake of starting the conversation I will suggest some starting points for how we can situate the CGGC. Because Christianity is a historical movement, there is a historical flow to the list below. You'll notice that the list will become more problematic as it progresses. Each item represents a choice that requires that something else is no longer a commitment.
1) Bible
2) Jesus
3) Early Creeds
4) Reformation
Note: this is the firste move that may invite questions. As the historical theologian you probably have more to say on this.
5) Arminianism/Calvinism [do we need to choose? Can there be elements of both?]
6) Pietistism
7) John Winebrenner [this is the first step that begins to create our uniqueness]
Note: this next move is where much contention exists. Which direction do we choose in response to Enlightenment thinking?
7) Adopts Conservative Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism
8) Emergence of Shepherd dominated culture
This is only intended as a starting point - there is much more to write.
I recall from my own seminary days that many students didn't see the point in studying our history or talking about philsophy. I honestly don't see a way to resolve many of our present concerns except by drawing from these two fields.
I'm not sure we can rightfully call the current conflicts in many churches and demoninations theological conflicts. They may be more accurately called conflicts over competing narrrative structures. When we accept a particular set of priorities for a given tradition, we become bound by those commitments.
Anway, you asked for a starting point. Let me know what you think.
Brent, you said,
"First: We should try to establish what the greatest good is that we are trying to protect and promote. Most of us would agree that recent discussions about "We Believe" really have nothing to do with "We Believe." What these discussions are asking is What is the best way that our particular tradition can live out our Christian faith on a daily basis? A mistake that some are making is that they fail to see the greater good. This happens in churches all the time when they fail to grasp that the goal isn't to sing the same music but to provide a place where people can worship and encounter God."
I certainly agree that the discussions about WB have nothing to do with WB. I'll add that the discussion of the Mission Statement, from my perspective, have absolutely nothing to do with the Mission Statement.
Let me also say this:
I believe that the situation in the CGGC is so dire that, even among this small group of CGGC bloggers, it may be impossible for us to establish what the greatest good is that we are trying to protect and promote.
From where I'm sitting, it is beyond the realm of possibility to establish the greatest good that the entire CGGC is trying to protect and promote. I believe that that is how far the CGGC has fallen. Based on what I heard at the symposia, what I value stands in bold and passionate opposition to what some others in the CGGC value. I'm not convinced that collaboration, even compromise, is possible.
Having said that, what I want is someone to convince me that I am wrong as far as the whole CGGC is concerned.
The only path I can see to achieving what you say comes as the start of the conversation, Brent, is to undergo a thorough process of repentance in which we become:
1. radically willing to turn away from all of our unrighteous thoughts and acts of the past,
2. confess our sins to each other and to the Lord,
3. freely forgive each other of past sins but only after they are confessed,
4. agree in the Spirit and in wholehearted unity on a new way of thinking and acting,
5. hold each other accountable to that new way and
6. remove, through an ongoing ministry of discipline, from our fellowship each and every person not willing to begin that new journey.
There are biblical models for coming to the sort of agreement about what we hope to promote and protect but they are all very radical. They include Yahweh's command to the priests to step into the Jordan River at flood stage, carrying the Ark of the Covenant, in order to enter the Promised Land and Jesus calling those who would be His disciples to leave their nets and become fishers of men.
I will agree with you on how to begin the conversation.
However, I'll add that that conversation will be a hard one and that, if we have it, many of us will have to shed tears and will have to humiliate ourselves in confessing our sins and that many of us will also have to forgive people we will not want to forgive.
I pretty certain that this will be very hard because I've been saying this in private conversations to people in authority in our Body and I'm receiving no agreement.
The way you are suggesting we begin the conversation, demands repentance. I'm not seeing willingness to repent in the CGGC yet.
Bill, it just occurred to me that part of the complication with the repentance you long to see is that when we are talking about the nature of a group of churches, we have no united picture of what we are repenting TO. We can repent of past sins, but we cannot repent TO a new direction or set of values or mission when no such common understanding exists among us.
Bill,
In some other conversations we've talked about your historical/theological approach versus my philosophical/rhetorical engagement. Though I've spoken most recently from a philosophical perspective, I'm going to shift directions and draw on a few rhetorical insights in reply to your questions and concerns. In order to do so I am going to take a few liberties with your comments and exaggerate them to make a few points.
First, were the voices at the symposia representative of the CGGC?
You're suggesting that if we conducted a social-scientific poll of the CGGC regarding what the greatest good is that we are protecting and promoting we would find that there is not widely-held agreement. The breakdown of this approach is that those who are surveyed are not always well-informed and are speaking about things based upon hear-say and a lack of information.
Trying to discern what is common across the CGGC is more of a top-down approach to interpreting an organization. Perhaps we should begin looking for where there are pockets of people gathering around new interpretations of JW's legacy. From this perspective, the voices on this blog become a glimmer of hope. This approach leads to my next question.
Second, is there room within the CGGC for competing interpretations of John Winebrenner's legacy?
Based upon your earlier comments, the shepherd/pastor-driven culture still dominates the larger conversations. At some point, if alternative visions will survive, some form of permission will need to be sought and granted by the "higher ups" to these new voices.
One of the dangers of the 20th century deconstruction movement was that often, when everything was deconstructed, nothing was offered in its place. We need to be intentional about offering some alternative vision anytime we openly criticize the way things are now.
So...share your new vision any time you are given an opportunity and continue to call for the repentence that you see as necessary. But, don't lose hope.
Perhaps this conversation is not indicating there is a remnant remaining. This may be the start of a new direction.
Francis,
Bill, it just occurred to me that part of the complication with the repentance you long to see is that when we are talking about the nature of a group of churches, we have no united picture of what we are repenting TO.
Amen.
Repentance, to use Alan Hirsch's phrase, is one of the "Forgotten Ways."
I have been studying it and calls for in the Scripture for some time and I have learned several things so far. One of them is that the very concept is foreign to the way the Western Church thinks and has been thinking, except for some rare moments of revival, really since Constantine.
When I pray for the church, the Lord tells me time and time again that we need to turn from our tradition bound, Spirit-quenching ways that are not rooted in biblical truth. I receive that message clearly.
That is, I get the repent FROM part clearly. When I meditate on and ask about the repent TO, I don't get so clear a message. Of course, a large part of the TO is built into the FROM but you are correct that there must be more.
I've been asked by someone in Findlay what I think about calling the people of the CGGC together for a "Prayer Summit." I've said that, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with that but that, in my opinion, we need to come together for a "Repentance Summit."
Here's what I can say, and this is as Paul said, from me not from the Lord: There is so much to the FROM part of the repentance equation for us that we need to show the Lord that we are serious about emptying ourselves of what's not from Him and that, if we ever do that, He will be glad to show us what to fill ourselves with anew and how to do that.
Francis & Bill,
Your conversation reminds me of what can be lost within a shepherd-dominated culture. If I understand Bill's interpretation of his call as a prophet correctly he views calling the CGGC to repentence as a key part of his role. But, in order to move forward with some kind of constructive plan, a prophet cannot work alone.
This is where the apostles, evangelists, and teachers play a part. I can see the role of a teacher to help us discern the forces that have caused the current climate and provide some insights into navigating through the chaos. In addition to some of their own insights, an apostle can provide some vision to how these plans can be put into practice in order to build upon the repentent environment. The evangelist can continue to spread the word about what's working and invite others into the conversation. The shepherds can provide comfort to those who confess their unrepentence and who are overwhelmed by the all the changes taking place.
We need each other. One role, standing alone, should not dominate the CGGC culture. But, together, we are definitely greater than the sum of our parts.
Part 1
Brent,
Now we are getting to the place that the pedal hits metal.
You're suggesting that if we conducted a social-scientific poll of the CGGC regarding what the greatest good is that we are protecting and promoting we would find that there is not widely-held agreement. The breakdown of this approach is that those who are surveyed are not always well-informed and are speaking about things based upon hear-say and a lack of information.
Please understand that I'm not being argumentative or contentious.
The question at hand, as I see it, is, "What is the real world reality of the CGGC?" That some in the CGGC may not be sufficiently informed is irrelevant. If they are a part of the CGGC, they form the reality of the CGGC.
The first important thing I learned when I began to study history in grad school is that understanding the past is understanding the totality of the past.
For example, understanding the Reformation has to do with much more than what Luther, Zwingli and Calvin wrote it books. It also has to do with what people who worked farms and carpenter shops believed and did.
Remember, that Jesus preached in fields and in homes much more than He spent time in synagogues and seeking out the Priests and Pharisees.
When He called people to follow Him, he issued that call to many different types of people. In fact, He issued that call to all types of people. When He looked at the Jews, He didn't define the state of the Jewish people based on what was going on in the temple and in the Sanhedrin, He was concerned about what went on in fishing boats and in tax collector booths. Those are the places He sought out people. When He spoke the Sanhedrin it was because people from the Sanhedrin came to Him. He spoke to the High Priest when the High Priest compelled His presence.
Part 2
Trying to discern what is common across the CGGC is more of a top-down approach to interpreting an organization.
For you it is. Understand that for me it is not.
I believe we are in trouble precisely because in our first days, Winebrenner's 27 points did describe the Church of God very substantially but that WB is a myth, i.e., WE don't really believe almost all of what WB contends.
When we were a movement, it was possible to describe the teachings and practices of the whole movement. When we were a movement, we could and would say to someone who didn't practice, say, Feet Washing, that they didn't fit us because, in the Church of God, we believe that the practice of Feet Washing is commanded in the Word and if you don't join us in that teaching and practice--ALL of us--you don't belong in the Church of God. There were things that could honestly be said about each and every one of us.
Perhaps we should begin looking for where there are pockets of people gathering around new interpretations of JW's legacy. From this perspective, the voices on this blog become a glimmer of hope.
And, I say, that perhaps we should begin by being honest about who all of us are and are not. And, that, with that understanding of what are real-life IS is that we should go forward. We are a mess. And, until we are honest about who we really are, we will continue to live a fantasy.
Part 3
Wow, a three parter!
Second, is there room within the CGGC for competing interpretations of John Winebrenner's legacy?
Again, I see a more basic question: Is there room for John Winebrenner in the CGGC in 2011 at all. The man was a beast! A radical among radicals who cast a vision for a movement that is, honestly, one of the most radical visions cast in the whole 2,000 year history of Jesus-following. (I personally don't think there is room for Winebrenner for more than a small handful of us.)
What I see is a hierarchy that officially pays only partial lip service to the Winebrenner heritage and is enthusiastic about merely saying that we embrace Winebrenner. And, I see a larger CGGC community saying, "Who? Is that the guy who stated that school in Ohio?"
Based upon your earlier comments, the shepherd/pastor-driven culture still dominates the larger conversations. At some point, if alternative visions will survive, some form of permission will need to be sought and granted by the "higher ups" to these new voices.
You know, if biblical history and church history teaches me anything, it is that the shepherds will never give permission. They never have. They didn't to Luther. They didn't to the Pietiests in Europe in the 17th century, they didn't to the Methodists in the 18th century. The German Reformeds didn't to Winebrenner in the 19th century. They didn't to the Pentecostals and Charismatics in the 20th century.
Now, it is true that Luther and Spener and Wesley and Winebrenner and numerous Charismatics all, as you say, "sought permission." It wasn't granted to them. And, I see absolutely no reason to think that the 2011 Shepherd Mafia is more inclined to grant permission than the Shepherd Mafia was in any of the last four centuries.
I appreciate your civilized approach but history tells me that the only solution available to us will be storming the Bastille, as Winebrenner himself did in 1830.
One of the dangers of the 20th century deconstruction movement was that often, when everything was deconstructed, nothing was offered in its place. We need to be intentional about offering some alternative vision anytime we openly criticize the way things are now.
Agreed.
What I see in history is that it's our task to formulate a new paradigm and begin to practice it and, if those in control don't grant permission, to force it down their throats. What they almost always do a generation later, is appropriate the new paradigm, modify it and claim it for themselves. That's what the Council of Trent was about. It's explains changes in Protestant denominations in the 18th and 19th and 20th centuries.
And, I'm afraid, either we accept the lessons of history or we allow ourselves to be whack by today's institution.
And, Brent, what I see in church history is precisely what I see in biblical history.
The prophets didn't come with the message, "Thus saith the Lord, 'Give me permission.'" They said things like the Lord says, "See, today, I appoint you...to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow..."
Jesus truly went into the field and into houses. And, as Simeon said,
"This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."
As John the Baptist said,
"His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
It was not Jesus' thing to ask that permission be granted. I don't see that it is our thing, either.
Brent & Francis,
If I understand Bill's interpretation of his call as a prophet correctly he views calling the CGGC to repentence as a key part of his role. But, in order to move forward with some kind of constructive plan, a prophet cannot work alone.--Brent
You are essentially correct.
For a long time I've been thinking about entering a thread under the title, "Prophecy Came First."
I believe it did in Scripture.
I believe that the first step in repentance is an abhorrence over the current state of unrighteous that is so abject that uncontrollable weeping takes place and continues for a long time. After that, a new way forms out of godly sorrow.
I don't believe that apostles, evangelists, shepherds and teachers can lead the body forward until they themselves first participate in that sorrow.
That's what I see in the Bible.
Thank you, Bill, for making this conversation better.
At the risk of sounding self-serving, I think that the conversation that has been taking place on this blog over the past week or so should be required reading for anyone interested in contributing to the transformation of the CGGC.
Since it looks like interests have moved onto other ideas, as a closing thought to this conversation I want to make a disctinction between "optimism" and "hope." Although I am not optimistic about the CGGC's ability to turn around, I am hopeful that things will change. In other words, optimism often avoids addressing the way things really are and instead invites us to engage the world as we wished it appeared. Hope requires an honest assessment of what is occuring. We can be hopeful. Hope requires honesty and action. Optimism only requires happy thoughts about what could be.
There is much more that could be said about the future of the CGGC.
With hope...
Brent,
...I want to make a disctinction between "optimism" and "hope." Although I am not optimistic about the CGGC's ability to turn around, I am hopeful that things will change.
A more ominous note about the future of the CGGC has never, in my memory, been sounded on this blog.
I agree with you. I am deeply pessimistic, in fact, but, in Jesus and His mercy, grace and death-defeating power, there is hope.
Amen.
Brent,
I have a question for you - I'm not sure if you will be comfortable answering it; but I'll ask it anyway:
Are you currently either attending or serving in leadership in a CGGC congregation?
I would be very intersted in hearing your answer.
Rev. George Jensen
Enola, PA
George,
Sure, I'll answer your questions. In fact, I'll answer any more questions like this that you have under one condition: that you provide a clear reason why these are relevant to this conversation. [I'm not sure I see the connection, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you introduced me to Veggie Tales back when we all lived in Findlay.]
No, we do not currently attend a local CGGC church and I do not currently hold a leadership position within a local CGGC church. We live in Erie, PA, where I am an Assistant Professor within the Department of Theatre, Communication, and Fine Arts at Gannon University. If you click on my name you can see my blogger profile which provides a link to a page with more professional information about me.
I hold Life Ordination from the Allegheny Region of the CGGC and am a member in good standing. I have spoken with our regional director and he supports my current position.
We have been attending Grace Baptist Church (a member of the Baptist General Conference) since August of 2008. I can provide more details about our local church involvement if you prefer. The church website is www.whoisgrace.com.
If there is a case that can be made against my viewpoint because I am not an active CGGCer, I would be very interested in hearing it.
George and Brent,
I have a question for you - I'm not sure if you will be comfortable answering it; but I'll ask it anyway:
Are you currently either attending or serving in leadership in a CGGC congregation?--George
Forgive me, Brent, for presuming that I can contribute to your reply to George's very important question.
Was Elijah serving in a leadership role in Israel?
Was Isaiah?
Did Jeremiah serve in a leadership role among the Jews?
Did John the Baptist attend a local Jewish synagogue and serve in leadership or was he, like his father, a big shot in the temple?
With rare exceptions, did Jesus attend a local Jewish synagogue? Did Jesus and John serve in a leadership role in a local gathering of Jews?
In times that the Lord is not pouring out His blessing on His people, it is often the case that righteous people who yearn to see God's people obey the command, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength," seek the Lord outside of the run-of-the-mill, institutional religiosity of their day. In fact in Scripture many, perhaps even most, of the people we admire and think of as heroes of our faith walked with the Lord in that way.
From what I know of Brent, he loves the Lord and yearns to join in the building of His kingdom and he also loves the CGGC and wants to see it return to the days in which the Bible was its only rule of faith and practice and which our body was involved in Kingdom building.
I believe that Brent is serving in a leadership role in the Kingdom of God, even if he doesn't hold a leadership position in the Churches of God. General Conference.
Just for the sake of the conversation, George asked an "out of the blue" question, but we didn't give George a chance to answer why he asked it.
My guess is he wasn't ruling Brent out of the conversation.
i've been out of the conversation for a bit, so i want to chew on things more before saying more.
but to answer one of bill's questions:
"With rare exceptions, did Jesus attend a local Jewish synagogue?
"And [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read." (Luke 4:16)
Thanks, Bill.
I'll agree with Brian. I welcome the questions and am open to answering more if the replies can help further this conversation.
To Walt,
but to answer one of bill's questions:
"With rare exceptions, did Jesus attend a local Jewish synagogue?
"And [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read." (Luke 4:16)
True enough. But, check out where Jesus spent His time after that visit.
While people of the synagogue are mentioned a number of times in Luke, for instance, after Luke 4, I know of no other specific instance of Luke describing another visit of Jesus to a synagogue. Luke ends chapter 4 by saying, "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea." (Interesting that Luke identifies Judea, not Galilee.)
It occurs to me to wonder: Is that visit to the synagogue in Nazareth used by Luke to announce the end of involvement in institution Judaism for Jesus? From that time, Jesus is said to have preached in synagogues away from home, in Judea. But, it would be hard to argue that He conducted His ministry there. He conducted His ministry in field and houses.
I'll still make the assertion that Jesus didn't, in practice, attempt to change Judaism from within the institution. He was more of an Elijah or Jeremiah figure among the Jews than He was an institutional figure.
Brent, Brian and George,
I didn't mean to suggest that George's question isn't a worthy one. In the CGGC clearly it is today.
What I hoped to do was to demonstrate that the Lord can call and use people not enmeshed with the institution to testify on His behalf to the institution.
I was afraid that George's question was implying that Brent had no claim to have a voice in the church simply because Brent is not connected to the CGGC institution. If that was his implication, there's abundant biblical evidence that he may be thinking wrongly.
But, let me be clear: I think George's question is an important one, no matter what his question implied.
George,
I hope you will follow through and give us all an opportunity to think think through and talk through your concern.
What characteristics must a person demonstrate in order to be a good member of the CGGC story?
This returns us to a key question of this conversation.
To connect my question to the original title of this post:
Characteristics = Virtues
Demonstrate = Practices
Story = Tradition
Another key to evaluating the quality of practices within a tradition is to consider the following. When you have an issue with a particular practice are you:
a) disagreeing out of personal preference (in other words, if someone put you in charge you would do it differently)?
b) concerned because that particular practice is destructive to the development and retelling of the story?
If the answer is A, often we just need to get over it. If the answer is B, often we need to take some form of action.
Either way, this presupposes we know what larger story binds us together.
What is lost when we don't have a story that binds us together?
There are many answers to this, but here is one suggestion to begin this part of the larger conversation: Guilt.
The twentieth-century emergence of psychology has greatly damaged a healthy understanding and acceptance of guilt. When viewed from a narrative perspective, guilt is a reminder that we've somehow violated the story in which we are a part. But, if we are all working from a different story (if any at all) we are not feeling the same level of guilt about the same items. In such a context, accountability becomes problematic as well.
Guilt, therefore, can become a motivator to positive action.
What are some other items that are lost when we don't share a common story?
George,
And Bill: those men of old that you mentioned from Scripture were immersed in the culture of their day in Judah, Israel or Roman-occupied Palestine (depending on which one of the several you mentioned). Elijah may have not been part of the “Ahab/Jezebel Administration,” but he knew what was going on because he lived in the culture of the day.
Fair enough.
I know Brent and his concern for, passion for and ongoing involvement in the CGGC from interaction we have with each other that you and others might have no knowledge of.
I can't find George's latest comments/reply. Could someone help me out?
George,
Your comments seem to have disappeared again and I have no idea why (I agree; there was nothing malicious in your post). But I was able to read through them before they went away.
You raise a good question: How do I know so much about the CGGC?
First, I am not suggesting that my knowledge is universal. I am open to the fact that I could be completely misguided in my analysis and also completely wrong. Based upon the flow of this conversation over the past few weeks, I'm guessing that this is not the case.
So, how do I know what I know? From conversations with family members who attend local CGGC congregations, reading this blog, reading the information generated by the Allegheny Region and CGGC General Conference, attending (when I can) various events, visiting a local congregation during holidays and times with in-laws and family members.
I have also learned to trust my "gut"; some may refer to discernment or intuition. [To put in spiritual terms, and as Bill has pointed out, perhaps the Holy Spirit can work in those outside of the CGGC to bring a message to the CGGC.] I am about as "true blue" of a CGGCer as they come - spent 18 years (rarely missing a Sunday) in a local congregation, attended the University of Findlay, attended Winebrenner Seminary, served in a variety of part and full-time pastoral capacities within our denomination. I compare what I continue to see, read, and hear to my experiences when I was actively involved on a weekly/daily basis.
True, my knowledge may become dated; when that time comes I hope that someone will gracefully help me see how my thoughts are no longer relevant to the conversation.
In the meantime, I feel that I may still have some insight left to give. But, to be faithful to my comments, please feel free to suggest places where what I see is wrong or slightly misleading.
I see your questions and this particular conversation as an invitation to spur us on to a clearer story, not as a threat to whether or not I have something to contribute.
Like all characters, my time in this story will one day end. I welcome the day when my knowledge of the "old CGGC" no longer has a place in the new CGGC.
Finally, I am using a particular critical approach informed by scholars who have written much about narrative and related issues. That is why much of the original post for this conversation is a list of questions generated by other participants. Also, this is why I remain quiet on some issues explored on this blog. For this conversation I am trying to bring a theoretical framework that will be filled in by those of you who are much more active in the CGGC than I am. Thank you for helping me make this point.
But, since this is not about me (and God help us if it ever becomes that), let's return to the conversation...
George's Post (reposting):
I am not saying that Brent has no voice on this blog. I am questioning how he claims to know so much about the current state of the CGGC. I am not questioning his faith, his passion or certainly not his intelligence (he’s a lot smarter than I am – seriously). He is making some stark comments, and I’m not sure I can buy them. Brent, you admit you are not active in a CGGC congregation. I suspected that, and that’s why I was questioning in my own mind whether or not you are “immersed enough” into the current “CGGC culture” (for lack of a better term) to be able to make some of the claims you are making. And Bill: those men of old that you mentioned from Scripture were immersed in the culture of their day in Judah, Israel or Roman-occupied Palestine (depending on which one of the several you mentioned). Elijah may have not been part of the “Ahab/Jezebel Administration,” but he knew what was going on because he lived in the culture of the day.
Now I will admit this Brent: I did not know you still hold credentials with the ARC. Perhaps through venues like attending their Annual Conference, e-mails, CGGC publications, conversations with CGGC folks you know you are informed. If so, that’s great! I was just frankly asking, “How does this man know so much to make such stark claims about the CGGC?” If I were to make claims about the Baptist denomination you are now affiliated with, you would be well within your rights to ask, “How can Jensen be so sure of this if he isn’t even active with the group?”
So I will at least concede this – my question was the wrong question. The correct question would have been, “Brent, how do you know so much about the current situation in the CGGC?” I do want to seriously consider what you are saying in this conversation. Again, I do trust your sincerity, faith and powers of reasoning. I was just having trouble swallowing what you are saying not knowing whether or not you are currently well-immersed in the CGGC.
-George C. Jensen
Bill,
Your exchange with Taren raises a few interesting thoughts and questions. The reason that I am posting a follow-up in this thread is because this conversation reminded me of the hierarchy within a narrative that I posted earlier (on 3/11).
While Winebrenner created a vision based upon the NT, it was still a human plan. As you are continually calling the CGGC back to the NT, are you calling the CGGC back to Winebrenner's NT vision? Or, is it possible that elements of Winebrenner's vision need correcting as well? Since promoting the NT is a greater good than promoting Winebrenner, could it be possible that you aren't just protecting the original story of the CGGC but creating an entirely new story that has stronger anchors in the NT than even Winebrenner imagined?
Just curious.
Friends (and others),
With this post I will be going "off to a quiet place to get some rest." I may not have computer access for a while.
Brent,
While Winebrenner created a vision based upon the NT, it was still a human plan. As you are continually calling the CGGC back to the NT, are you calling the CGGC back to Winebrenner's NT vision?
I need to reply on several levels.
1. I think that the most essential part of what I'm doing is calling us to honesty--about ourselves. We have a Mission Statement in which we make claims about who we are and what we do. Based on who we currently are and what we currently do, we are misrepresenting ourselves--to ourselves, to the world and, most importantly, to the Lord.
We serve an immanent Lord. He is intimately involved among His people. In Old and New Testaments He represents Himself as being just; i.e., He rewards faithful behavior and He punishes unrighteousness. We have positioned ourselves to be punished by Him because we have said that things are true of ourselves that we bear no fruit of every being true of ourselves. Jesus truly did say, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline." What do we expect from the Mission Statement other than His just wrath?
2. I am calling us back to the New Testament, not to Winebrenner's interpretation of it. When Ed announced the Mission Statement in the Church Advocate, he said the same thing. In reality, Winebrenner was a forerunner in calling the church back to New Testament Christianity. But, his practice of it was highly flawed. As Taren has pointed out, there were no elections of elders in NT congregations. There were no terms or term limits. In fact, in the NT, there is no evidence that elders were chosen by the congregation. Also, there were no 'bethels' in NT Christianity. Winebrenner was serious about the idea that a congregation could build a 'house of God' but he didn't get that from the New Testament. There are many other examples of ways that Winebrenner's interpretation of the New Testament plan was flawed. But, it is also true that Winebrenner, when he was convinced that a belief or practice that he adopted was not biblical, He'd drop it like a hot coal.
3. In my opinion, Winebrenner's notion of building the church on the New Testament model is sound. His way of doing it is not something I think we should recreate, not do I think he'd want that.
Post a Comment
<< Home