CGGC in an Emerging World

The Elephant Room

2012-01-27T06:58:00.002-06:00

Last year and again this week, James MacDonald, an influential Illinois church leader brought together a group of guys who might be prone to criticize each other but never talked in person.

There are different camps and we don't often talk. Sometimes we talk past each other; often we misunderstand.

So MacDonald decided that it was time to address the elephant in the room. Bring together people who love the Gospel and God's Word, but differ substantially in ministry philosophy and have a 'frank conversation.'

I wonder if it would benefit our body to have an Elephant Room.

Host a live conversation. Video recored it for the benefit of the body of believers in the CGGC churches.

It takes courage and MacDonald has taken heat - mainly from those in the 'reformed community' who 'aren't fans' of those under the bigger tent of Evangelicalism.

I would be interested in hosting such an event.

But I wonder what you guys think: would such a thing be beneficial? Would we get the participation necessary?

I believe that it is necessary for us to continue online, but what about in person?

This blog will end in 9 days

2012-01-23T10:30:00.002-06:00

Passionate conversation about substitutionary atonement. Not much talk of what's next.

When Grace Became Amazing to Me

2012-01-23T10:18:00.003-06:00

I'm not John Newton.

I didn't make my fortune trafficking in human misery. The 'hour I first believed' was not the dramatic event for me that it was for Newton. It could not have been. In fact, I wasn't amazed by grace until called myself a Christian for decades.

It was only after I decided to practice grace when practicing grace was painful that I began to love grace. Only then did the reality I have received grace become amazing to me.

Many years after I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I decided to take literally what Jesus taught about the Day of Judgment in His sheep and goats description. That decision reshaped how I lived out my faith. I began to do many things that I'd never done before. In the end, that decision changed what I believe.

One of the things I began to do was intentionally to latch on to a person who fit the description the 'the least of these brothers of mine' nearly perfectly. And, I began to take every opportunity to serve him.

It turns out that I chose wisely. The person I chose (call him Abe) is cynical, demanding, ungrateful, never satisfied, perfectionistic, foul-mouthed, judgmental, bigotted and, often, downright mean. On many days, for me even to come into his presence twists my guts into knots. Getting his food for him and taking care of him is never fun because I know that no matter how carefully I do it, I won't do it well enough. Being in public with him is a horror because I'm sure we'll be seen by people who know I'm a part of Faith Community Church who will condemn the church because its 'pastor' associates with a man whose opinions are so vile and whose speech is so coarse. I have never done anything for Abe because I enjoy doing it. I have only ever done it because Jesus specifies, "whatever you did for the least of these...you did for me."

Here's how grace became amazing to me from almost the first moment I connected that closely with Abe:

I realized that I am Abe.

God loved the world so much that He sent His pure and perfect Son into the world to live in it and to die at the hands of the people of the world. When I think about myself in light who Jesus is, I get a more realistic image of myself and I have no trouble serving Abe. When I think about who I am compared to Jesus, loving Abe becomes easy. Liking him? Not so much. But, loving Him? How could I not? How could I have a hope of eternity with Jesus if I do not love Abe?

When I take Abe to see his doctor and I want to hang my head in the waiting room or examination room every time he opens his mouth, I gain a better understanding of what grace is: A kindness done that is not deserved. I realize what Jesus goes through sitting at the right hand of the Father as He intercedes for me.

And, I find grace more amazing than ever.

When Jesus talked about the cross, He talked about a sort of transaction taking place. He died on one for me. There was a ransom, there was redemption, there was reconciliation. (Sorry. I still will not say that there was substitution.)

But, Jesus says that if, in response to His cross, I don't carry my own cross, I am lost because I can not be His disciple. Carrying my cross will never be fun. Following Jesus, knowing His destination when He carried His, will never be, in itself, a pleasant journey. It will never be fun.

However it does, more often that I would have expected, bring joy.

And, it makes grace absolutely amazing.

Adoption Sermons & Resources

2012-01-12T20:31:00.001-06:00

Brian and I have been having a side conversation about his adoption sermons in the midst of the atonement discussion. I'm starting a new thread so that it's easier to exchange these ideas. Anyone is free to join in this discussion.

One of the things that has been fascinating in some of my reading is the influence that the first century practice of adoption had on Paul's writings about spiritual adoption. I've been reading Trevor Burke's book Adopted into God's Family over the last week or so. It's been interesting to see how Paul took an actual practice of the first century and used it as a metaphor to describe the relationship between God and those who believe in Him. Today, there are people who are using Paul's metaphorical description to inspire the actual practice of adoption. Practice - Metaphor - Practice That strikes me as interesting, but it just may be me.

For what it's worth, I have a label on our blog that is titled "Biblical Foundations of Adoption" - click here and it will take you to the list of the posts that have that as a label. I'll be adding your sermon(s) and note(s) to the blog soon.

A Different Face of Jesus

2012-01-11T10:44:00.003-06:00

Last night we went into our nearest city, Lancaster (PA), to feed hungry and homeless people and, as Evelyn and I were debriefing the experience, we talked about one significant reality.

Jesus said, "...whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Last night, Jesus had a different face than the one we are used to seeing when we do this feeding.

Normally we see people who are young: Dead beat males, drunk or high males with substance abuse problems, single young women who got knocked up and whose babydaddy ain't around or single, abused women recently on their own.

Last night's crowd included those people for sure, but there were also many who were older, wearing nice but old clothes who, apparently, have recently come on hard times. They were a humble, perhaps humiliated, lot.

They are, increasingly, the new Jesus.

Sad.

But, it is our world these days.

In Appriciation

2012-01-09T21:28:00.000-06:00

In this final season of blog life, I want to take opportunity to show my thanks and appreciation.

I'm thankful to be a part of the Church of God in Fairview Township. I'm also thankful that His church meets in all sorts of places, including the towns and cities where each of you live and serve. I'm thankful that we are brothers and sisters.

I've gotten to 'know' most of you in some sort of way, through our discussions here. That has been a blessing.

I've gotten to meet and know a couple of you in person. None of these connections would have probably happened without this blog. For that I am thankful.

I've even met some people who do not participate here because this blog discussion exists.

I also deeply appreciate and have been challenged by the discussions that we've had here. I learn best in dialogue (even debate) and I'm glad that you guys have been patient with me.

I've learned some about our history and the current realities in our Body. I've been forced to think though what I believe about a number or things and what the Bible really says.

Thank you all for caring about truth. Thank you for caring about mission.

The World Will End in 22 Days

2012-01-09T13:22:00.006-06:00

Ok, not the world, but the blog. I would recommend more focus on transition.

The Doctrine of the Atonement and Missionality

2012-01-05T07:39:00.004-06:00

I have come to the conclusion that the classic Protestant view of the atonement--the Substitutionary view of the atonement--is far from adequate and, more importantly, prevents the kind of ministry commanded by Jesus in the Gospels.

I have stopped teaching it at Faith and not teaching it is working.

On the day our movement was formed, John Winebrenner made the point we are not Protestant. He declared the Reformation a failure. It is outright idiocy that the Protestant view would be our understanding of the meaning of the cross. And, it is ridiculous not to intentionally and transparently repent of that corrupt view of the atonement when we are investing a huge percentage of our financial resources in an attempt to create a critical mass for missionality. You can not behave missionally without believing things about Jesus consistent with missionality.

Truth really matters.

2012-01-02T10:08:00.004-06:00

Post 3: Future – There are conversations here that need to continue. Where are these conversations going to occur in the future?

2012-01-02T10:08:00.001-06:00

Post 2: Complaints – You are welcome to post all concerns and irritations on this post. Whenever there is change, there is always discomfort.

2012-01-02T10:07:00.002-06:00

Post 1: Celebration – As of December 17th, there were 27817 pageviews - 452 posts over 6 years of history! What were the highlights of this blog? How has this blog encouraged you?

2012-01-02T10:06:00.002-06:00

A Time to EndEcclesiastes 31 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, 3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, …There was a time to blog,There was a time for the blog to thrive,There was a time for the blog to wane,And now is the time for the blog to die.I’ll post 3 more posts to make this transition complete, and you have 30 days to comment on these posts.

Worship on Christmas?

2011-12-23T17:10:00.002-06:00

Could it be that churches that feel the need to close their doors on Christmas morning are too large and, therefore, outside of God's desire and design for His Church?

Full disclosure: while our church is not cancelling Christmas morning worship services, they are greatly modified in the name of "giving our volunteers time with their families" - so, could it be that churches that feel the need to greatly downsize are outside of God's desire and design for His Church as well? [The average attendance fluctuates between 900 - 1100 on any given Sunday.]

Sarcasm aside, could someone give me a legitimate reason why a church should not worship on the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth?

Just askin'...

Based on What We are (Not?) Doing: Twelve Jesus Teachings the CGGC Rejects

2011-12-20T07:24:00.017-06:00

Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. - Mt 7:21 and 26

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees you hypocrites. You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. - Mt 23:23

Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. - Mt 10:34

Anyone who loves their father and mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. - Mt 10:37-38

Depart from me you who are cursed, into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. - Mt 25:41-43

You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to obey your own traditions. - Mk 7:9

I am the true vine and my Father in the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit. - Jn 15:1-2

This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Lk 24:46-47

I know your deeds. - Rev 2:2, 2:19, 3:1, 3:8, 3:15

If you do not repent, I will come to you... - Rev 2:5

Because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. Rev. 3:16

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. Rev 3:19

When Did the church Stop Being the Church?

2011-12-17T09:30:00.004-06:00

I've been thinking about Bill's statement from a few weeks ago:

I want to thank you for the affirmation on this thread but I'm still asking for guidance in the hows. I think they have eternal consequences for me and for everyone who seeks to do what Jesus would do.

When did we, as a church, stop doing what the Church is commanded to do?

I was talking with someone the other night who asked "when's the last time you had a conversation in the church about what to do when you pass someone with a 'homeless' sign?" His point was that we often miss the practicality of the Gospel.

When do we talk about how to live missionally?

We share our adoption story and people look at us blankly. When the did church stop following the Church's mandate to care for orphans?
Bill asks about caring for a mother and children in his home and I, along with many others, have no practical advice to give. When did the church stop talking about how to care for widows (although this woman is not a widow, the family dynamics sound similar)?
My friend asked a basic question about caring for the poor and out of work. When did the church stop following the instruction to the Church to care for the least of these?

I am thinking, Bill, about what practical advice I can offer. But, I am at a huge disadvantage because I grew up in a church that failed to be the Church, as far as living out the commands of scripture related to these items.

This is not an excuse and it definitely doesn't make your situation any better. But in order to avoid this problem occurring time and time again, we must admit that the church is often not the Church.

Wayne Boyer

2011-12-08T10:31:00.005-06:00

Cancer stinks.

I've smelled the stench in a more up-close-and-personal way than I ever wanted to.

Since her diagnosis, Evelyn has had the joy of walking the cancer road with three people she regarded as friends before cancer came into their lives. It's a road you don't want to walk on without human companionship. On Tuesday, Wayne became the last of those three 'cancer buddies' to come to the end of the journey.

The cancer road is such a strange one. Though he'd been on it long before Evelyn, she endured a particularly harsh chemo drug before Wayne was put on it. So, she was able to describe for Wayne its horrid effects before he experienced them. And, we were able to understand what he went through during those treatments and to appreciate the faith, the grace and the courage with which he embraced that incredible suffering.

Not long ago, I could not get Wayne out of my mind and so, as I was driving, I phoned him. From the instant he answered, I could hear the smile in his voice. I actually heard his laughter as he told me that he knew that the cutting-edge drug he was on was not working and that he knew that it would not extend his life and that that was okay. He talked about the joy he still felt in the Lord's salvation. He expressed his only real regret that Kay would be left alone. When we hung up, it was with laughter and a naive, "Talk to you later."

Two days after that, the final onslaught overwhelmed him and he was rushed to the hospital.

Cancer killed Wayne. It did not beat him.

Wayne followed Jesus. He set his heart on living out obedience to the greatest of all the commands in the Law: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."

Thanks, Wayne, for letting me see that.

Talk to you later.

The Roman Road or Matthew's Missional Mile

2011-12-07T07:46:00.005-06:00

I suppose that most of us are familiar with the "Roman Road to Salvation," those few scriptures from the Epistle to the Romans used to lead a people to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. There are variations but it goes something like this:

"While we were still sinners Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:8

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

"The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

"If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9-10)

"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

The Roman Road has been used faithfully by many and effectively by some but I, personally, seem not to be gifted by Jesus to use it as an effective tool.

About a year ago, I attended a class on evangelizing postmoderns AKA the 'Emerging World' and the leader of the class, Gilbert Thurston, known to many CGGCers from his days in leading growth at our Chambersburg church and who is now planting a church in Harrisburg, actually said that the Roman Road is offensive to many postmoderns.

In our admittedly outside the box group, we are settling into something that can be called "Matthew's Mile" or "Matthew's Missional Mile." It's more focused on missionality than resonating with the emerging generation for its own sake. But, it does seem to help people of the 'Buster' generation and those who are younger relate to Jesus better than the Roman Road does.

This is primitive and still in its developing form, but here is Matthew's Mile:

"Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven has come near." Matthew 4:17

"Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 5:20

"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21

"Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40

"Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thristy and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prision and you came to visit me." Matthew 25:34-36

"Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20

I believe that Matthew's Mile integrates orthodoxy and orthopraxy in a way that is more consistent with the teaching of Jesus than the Roman Road does.

What do you think?

Why Should the Church Engage in Orphan Care?

2011-11-29T21:11:00.001-06:00

In the last two days I've had several conversations with CGGC pastors and a regional director about how we can continue to use our adoption story to get people's attention about orphan care. My hope is that we can help others make the connection between what we're doing and what the church is commanded to do. Several authors that we've read have suggested that bad things happen when someone tries to get between God and orphans. Our goal is to continue in our own journey of adoption and bring others along as well.

Will you join us?

Two of the major factors that impact how we view our adoption are related to our family and our faith. As far as family, we are a married couple (12+ years) with a five-year old biological child. As far as our faith, we fall somewhere in the broad range of evangelical Christians. Since readers of this blog aren't really interested in our family dynamics, I want sort through some implications for our faith.

A quick Google search reveals that almost anyone can adopt regardless of whether a person's relational status, sexual orientation, age, or religion. Therefore, the fact that we are working from a Christian perspective changes the agencies we can work with, the grants that we are eligible for, and our overall thoughts about adoption. In many ways our faith makes us unique. But in other ways I believe many adoptions are very similar. One of the first things that comes to mind is that there is no way we could do this alone. We have been overwhelmed by the amount of people who have offered some form of support whether to watch Zoe when we travel to Haiti, pray for the paperwork to move quickly, assist in coordinating our fundraiser, or offering some kind of financial support. If a person sets out on their own adoption journey with an I'll do it myself mindset, they'll quickly learn how impossible that truly is.

The idea that we can't complete this process alone reminds me of one of the major points of conversation at our local church when we often hear that we are designed by God to live in community. I fully believe this idea and that is one of the major reasons I believe that the church is well-positioned to respond to the orphan crisis both in the United States and around the world. By some estimates (most notably UNICEF in 2010) there are approximately 163 million orphans around the world. [Note: since there are nuances in the definition of orphan this does not mean that all of these children are in need of adoptive parents.] The local church is one of the few institutions that can provide healthy support networks for those who want to pursue orphan care - this could be in the form of foster care, domestic or international adoption, mission trips to assist orphanages, orphan hosting, and many other opportunities. When we combine the idea that we can't do this alone with the church's emphasis upon living in community we find a motivator to work for the cause of the orphans. I've had the conversation with some CGGC leadership about whether orphan care is a mission issue or a discipleship issue. We all agreed that it is both. This leads to the third thought for the evening.

Why should the church engage in orphan care? The two reasons above are completely legitimate on their own, but the most powerful is simply because the Bible tells us to. There are multiple verses such as James 1:27 that speak to this concern: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. Psalm 68:5 refers to God as a Father to the fatherless. As if this isn't enough, one of the most striking examples of God's view of adoption comes in Matthew 1:1-16 where the lineage of Jesus is traced through his father, Joseph. Why do I find this significant? In order for the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus to be fulfilled, he had to come from the family line of David. The problem, for those who don't see God's role in adoption, is that Joseph is in the line of David, not Jesus's mother, Mary. In other words, the only way that Jesus is able to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies about him is through his adoptive father who shares no blood relation with his son. There are enough scriptural references to justify another post which may be worth writing in coming weeks. But my goal tonight is to provide some thoughts about why orphan care should have a special place within the ministries of the church.

I'll be happy to talk more about what your church can be doing to become more active in orphan care. Or, if you have an active ministry please provide some details for those of us who are interested.

NOTE: I've posted a modified version of this at http://adoptingfromhaiti.blogspot.com/

How Do I Live Missionally?

2011-11-22T08:11:00.003-06:00

As I write this, at 9:45 a.m. in the room across the hall from me in our home, a seven-month-pregnant 20 year-old mother of two is sleeping in with her two year old son, her 11 month old daughter and her currently unemployed, shack-up boyfriend who, we believe, is the father of all three kids and who is our great nephew.

Why are they living together in our house? Well:

1. We believe, without doubt rightly or wrongly, in what Jesus says will happen on the day He sits on His glorious throne and separates the people of the world as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will look at the sheep and say,"Come, take your inheritance...For...I was a stranger and you invited me in." Then He will look at the goats and say, "Depart from me...For...I was a stranger and you did not invite me in." We believe that if we are compelled to invite the stranger in, we must be required to do the same for relatives.

2. We believe in the words Yahweh spoke through Hosea and which Jesus quoted twice: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

3. We don't know what else to do.

4. We know of no one in the CGGC--or outside of it for that matter--to turn to for advice or wisdom.

At the last MLI session, one of the people in MLI leadership asked me what we are struggling with at Faith as far as missionality is concerned and I laid out some of the story of the homeless unmarried mother of two. (She hadn't revealed that she was knocked up for the third time yet, though she was five months along at the time.) And, that MLI person had no response--not a single word. It was as if I had spoken in tongues.

What I learned at MLI is important and I am thankful for it. I am much further along in doing stuff in the cause of mission than I would have been without it.

But, it seems to me, that it was all big-picture stuff. It's about forming alliances in the community. It's about connecting needy people with programs that are already in place. It's about adopting schools. It's not about adopting the students and their families.

It tells us to connect with agencies that assist the homeless but it doesn't tell us what to when those agencies' capacity is maxed out and the only option for the homeless family of four looking into our eyes with their own pleading eyes is to sleep in the car in the cold or move into our only spare room. It sees the needy as a mass, not as individuals. It doesn't tell us if it's right or wrong to let an unmarried couple to shack up under our roof in our one spare room.

I really believe that one day I will stand as an individual either at the right hand of Jesus or at His left hand and I will be where I am as an individual because of how I responded, as a person, to the least of His brothers and sisters who were hungry and thirsty and homeless and clothes-less and sick and imprisoned. He doesn't say that He will separate the congregations of the world based on how well they formed alliances with social service agencies in their communities...but I don't know. Is what I am doing right? Is it a sin? Who do I ask?

I don't know.

I don't know the how-tos of missionality.

For me, those how-tos are among the forgotten ways.

So, because we don't know what else to do, our spare room is filled beyond capacity and I'm frustrated and angry and confused and exhausted and I lose sleep.

When God Gives You a Story to Tell

2011-11-17T21:06:00.004-06:00

What are some of the stories that God is giving you to tell?

The last six months have been an incredible learning process for our family about the role that adoption does, can, and should play in our spiritual lives. Of the many things we've learned, one of the points that has been reinforced to us is that people are more compelled by stories than they are by abstract ideas and principles. In other words, people are much more receptive when we tell them about our adoption experiences than even when we point them toward the scripture verses laying the foundation for an orphan care ministry within the local church.

We completely see this as God's story - our job is simply to give voice to it and share it with others. From a rhetorical perspective, there are two components of a narrative, or story. The first is the idea of coherence - is the story internally consistent. In other words, does the story make logical sense. The second part to consider is the fidelity that a story has with a larger narrative or story. This one may be a bit confusing, but let me give an example. Since we view our story as God's story, we see our experiences as a chapter in God's larger narrative. His story existed before us and will continue after us. Therefore, what we say should align itself with the larger biblical narrative and should help move His story forward (just like main characters in a novel). When our stories possess both coherence and fidelity then others will be more motivated by what they hear.

So, what happens when God gives you a story to tell? You tell it. Right now, our story is about our adoption. You can read more at our blog - just click here. This adoption story is allowing us to connect with a wide variety of people about what God's doing in our lives. It's fair to say that my wife and I have both talked with people that we never expected. It took awhile for us to view this experience in this way, but once we did the opportunities only have grown. We are now in the process of trying to start an orphan care ministry at our home church as well as begin to make connections with some other churches within the CGGC. If we can share our story with you or anyone you know, just ask and we'll see what we can do.

If my thoughts are on track, then there are others who read this blog who also have stories to tell. What are some of the stories that God is giving you to tell? Are you telling them?

Let's start the conversation here...

Revolutionary Church Plant Launches

2011-11-14T14:15:00.002-06:00

Gang,

My friend Dwight Lefever 'launched' a church yesterday--a satellite of our New Providence Church. The MLI cohort that we are both a part of met this morning and, as you can imagine, everyone was loaded with questions for Dwight about how the day went.

Dwight was excited and reported a glorious first day. He described the gathering in almost complete detail. The part of the encouraging story he never mentioned was first thing that most would consider to the only meaningful mark of success.

The entire discussion of the day ran its course and Dwight never mentioned how many heinies they put in seats.

And, remarkably, no one in our cohort asked!

Eventually, I brought the issue up and told Dwight that I'd noticed and was excited that he has biblical values in mind.

Amazingly, even then, no one asked how many heinies there were and Dwight never said. We still don't know!

Maybe we are moving toward a church built on the New Testament plan. Maybe we WILL focus on making disciples.

Question of Bible Interpretation

2011-11-11T08:42:00.004-06:00

I noticed a change between the New NIV and the old one the other day and I'm curious to know what you think about it.

The New NIV presents John 3:16-21 as John's commentary on the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. The old version presents it as words Jesus said to Nicodemus.

The NLT agrees with the old NIV. So do the Message, the NASB, the NCV and even the NRSV. The old Revised Standard Version agrees with the New NIV.

Having thought about it, I'm inclined to agree with the New NIV and that changes, in a very significant way, my understanding of John 3:16.

How do you read it?

Discipleship Notes

2011-11-09T12:21:00.002-06:00

Hey all,

I recently participated in a thing called the Missional Learning Commons held, Oct. 28-29 in Chicago (at Northern Seminary). I didn't take very good notes, but jotted some things down and thought I would share them for your perusal, thought, and discussion. Some are just personal observations from me, and some are quotes (or what I remember of quotes) made by some of the speakers. And one of the problems with the MLC is that they don't introduce the speakers, so I don't even know who most of them were. The "main" people that I do remember were: Mike Breen, David Fitch, Ben Sternke, and Matt Tebbe (among about 140 others). This year's learning commons dealt specifically with 'discipleship'... So... here goes some randomness...

Most intense points of discipleship come when we're pushed to our weaknesses, rather than playing to our strengths. (sort of agree/disagree)
Imitation plays a big part in discipleship. "If my life looked like (who), that would be ok." (are we good imitators for people?)
The culture of our formation is important (Breen): parents, geography, friends, people who invested time in us, etc.
"People usually most open to the gospel are refugees" (Breen)
The thing Jesus is looking for is -- who's following you.
Do you know who your disciples are, and do they know you're discipling them?
"Does the gospel you preach naturally lead to people becoming disciples?" (Dallas Willard?)
"The gospel you're preaching is going to result in the disciples you're getting" (Sternke)
"Missional people don't fall out of trees - they have to be formed" (Fitch)
"Discipleship is considered 'extra credit' for too many, and it's not... it is what the gospel is about." (Sternke)
People who are taught that forgiveness is the gospel don't become disciples... because they see no need for discipleship. They are what Dallas Willard calls "vampire Christians" - they only want Jesus for his blood. (Sternke)
"Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning." (Willard)
Breen gave this really nice description of the gospel - that I can't really remember. Something about... "Jesus is the king. The kingdom is Jesus in charge. We are involved by either being for it or against it; with the king or against the king. Life is defined by Jesus and his rule. The question is how we are involved in the kingdom (protagonist or antagonist).
Sometimes we're too eager to explain things and we're not content to plant seeds.
"Most of us don't have ears to hear, we have ears to sort" (Willard).
"Jesus was asked over 180 direct questions, and he only answered 3 of them." (Tebbe) (so don't tell people what to do, but ask questions).
The Christian life is not my own, but it belongs to the community.
Discipleship is part of community, not meant to be done one on one. (Breen made this comment when I was not around, so I don't know the context).
"The practice of reconciliation is the single most forming thing you can do..." (Fitch)
Colossians 3:15 - "rule"=referee/arbiter (teaching people to listen to the whistle; or else they're breaking the rules)
The word "disciple" is not mentioned beyond Acts. Discipleship is taken from Rabbinic tradition. In the epistles the language - the process of imitation (or metaphor) - changes from Rabbinic to "Father/Child" language. Training/nurture in a parent/child relationship is in more repeatable/predictable patterns. (Breen - interesting stuff).

New Adoption Blog

2011-11-01T20:52:00.000-05:00

We've started a new blog at http://adoptingfromhaiti.blogspot.com/

We can talk about it here or we can talk about it on that blog. Either way, it's an important topic so let's talk about it somewhere.

Brent

The Evangelical Adoption Crusade

2011-10-29T18:07:00.000-05:00

This is an incredibly long article for this blog, so feel free to read just a portion. But, it's exploring an issue that's growing in importance within the evangelical community and worth considering further. You'll be reading more from me about this topic in the future but, for now, this can start the conversation.

The Evangelical Adoption CrusadeKathryn Joyce
April 21, 2011

In late March Craig Juntunen told a group of Christian adoption advocates assembled at a Chandler, Arizona, home about his plans to increase international adoptions fivefold. Just over a year before, the world had been riveted by the saga of Laura Silsby, the American missionary arrested while trying to transport Haitian children across the Dominican border. But the lessons of that scandal seemed far from Juntunen’s mind as he described his “crusade to create a culture of adoption” by simplifying adoption’s labyrinthine ethical complexities to their emotional core. Juntunen, a former pro football quarterback and the adoptive father of three Haitian children, has emerged as a somewhat rogue figure in the adoption world since he recently founded an unorthodox nonprofit, Both Ends Burning. He has commissioned a documentary about desperate orphans in teeming institutions, Wrongfully Detained, and proposed a “clearinghouse model” that will raise the number of children adopted into US families to more than 50,000 per year.

Juntunen acknowledges that many adoption experts find his proposals naïve, particularly in a year that witnessed scandals in Haiti, Nepal and most recently Ethiopia, where widespread irregularities and trafficking allegations may slow the once-booming program to a crawl. He met a chilly reception recently at the Adoption Policy Conference at New York Law School when he spoke alongside State Department officials. But Juntunen insists that his ideas for increasing adoption constitute a social movement, akin to the civil rights movement, and that the force of a growing “adoption culture” will help them prevail.

In this expectation, he may be right. In Arizona, Juntunen was speaking with Dan Cruver, head of Together for Adoption, a key coalition in a growing evangelical adoption movement. The event was the first of the organization’s new “house conferences”: small-scale meet-ups bolstering an active national movement that promotes Christians’ adopting as a way to address a worldwide “orphan crisis” they say encompasses hundreds of millions of children. It’s a message Cruver also emphasizes in his book Reclaiming Adoption—one in a growing list of titles about “orphan theology,” which teaches that adoption mirrors Christian salvation, plays an essential role in antiabortion politics and is a means of fulfilling the Great Commission, the biblical mandate that Christians spread the gospel.

Yet while Cruver and his colleagues have inspired thousands of Christians to enter the arduous and expensive process of international adoption, the adoption industry is on a steep decline after years of ethical problems and tightening regulations around the world. Since the mid-’90s, eighty-three countries have ratified the Hague convention regulating international adoption. By 2010 there were 12,000 such adoptions in the United States (including 1,100 exceptional “humanitarian parole” cases from post-earthquake Haiti)—almost half those at the peak in 2004. If evangelicals heed Cruver’s call en masse, it could mean not just a radical change in who raises the world’s children but a powerful clash between rapidly falling supply and sharply inflating demand.

* * *

Adoption has long been the province of religious and secular agencies, but in the past two years evangelical advocacy has skyrocketed. In 2009 Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and author of the 2009 book Adopted for Life, shepherded through a Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) resolution calling on all 16 million members of the denomination to become involved in adoption or “orphan care.” Last year at least five evangelical adoption conferences were held, and between 1,000 and 2,000 churches participated in an “Orphan Sunday” event in November. And in February, the mammoth evangelical adoption agency Bethany Christian Services announced that its adoption placements had increased 13 percent since 2009, in large part because of the mobilization of churches.

“We expect adoptions will continue to rise as new movements within the Christian community raise awareness and aid for the global orphan crisis,” Bethany CEO Bill Blacquiere said.

One result has been the creation of “rainbow congregations” across the country, like the congregation Moore helps pastor in Louisville, Highview Baptist. An active adoption ministry has brought 140 adopted children into the congregation in the past five years. These children don’t recognize the flags of their home countries, Moore proudly noted at a 2010 conference, but they can all sing “Jesus Loves Me.”

* * *

After the Haiti earthquake, the evangelical adoption movement sprang into action. Next to longstanding religious relief orphanages, upstart evangelical missions appeared. Some flung themselves into adversarial activism, decrying international aid organizations like UNICEF for obstructing the speedy adoption of Haitian children.

In the United States, evangelicals and sympathetic politicians led the charge for expanded, expedited international adoption for what they had claimed before the earthquake was the country’s 400,000 or more orphans—a figure repeated widely, despite a UNICEF clarification that likely only 50,000 children had lost both parents. (Identifying which children fit this description is a matter of painstaking investigation.)

Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat and staunch adoption advocate, argued ferociously to expand a “humanitarian parole” program that expedites adoptions in progress: “Either UNICEF is going to change or have a very difficult time getting support from the US Congress,” she told the Associated Press.

Others used the emotional language of rescue; a Mormon mission president said he had “negotiated the release” of sixty-six children bound for Salt Lake City homes.

But what most people will remember about adoption in Haiti is the saga of Laura Silsby and nine other Southern Baptists who were jailed after trying to transport thirty-three “orphans”—most solicited from living families—to an unbuilt orphanage in the Dominican Republic, to await prospective evangelical adopters. Throughout the scandal the group members maintained they were simply “ten Christians who obeyed God’s calling.”

* * *

Silsby’s claims to divine guidance attracted scorn from the media—one outlet accused her of “baby-snatching for Jesus”—but her language resonates with now-commonplace Christian adoption rhetoric.

The movement cuts across evangelical distinctions, with the Southern Baptists taking a doctrinal lead; charismatic prayer warrior Lou Engle, co-founder of TheCall, praying for “the most outrageous adoption movement to be released through the church”; and Rick Warren declaring that members of his Saddleback Church will adopt 500 children in three years.

Individual ministries abound, like Orphan’s Ransom, which helps evangelicals pay international adoption fees that can range from $20,000 to $63,000. Churches report a “contagious” “adoption culture” in which even small congregations have adopted dozens of children in just a few years. Movement leaders say this viral effect is key to building the movement. “Get as many people in the church to adopt, and adopt as many kids as you can,” said one speaker at the 2010 Adopting for Life Conference, noting the particular power of a pastor’s example. Following that advice, in June the SBC joined with Bethany Christian Services to begin subsidizing Southern Baptist pastors’ adoption costs.

Observers from adoption lobby groups mention two watershed moments for the movement: Warren’s entrance into the orphan care field in 2005 and President Bush’s decision in 2008 to name Jedd Medefind, a former Republican staffer in the California legislature, as head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Medefind is now the affable president of Christian Alliance for Orphans, a coalition of eighty Christian groups, and Warren’s church is helping to set up an adoption program in Rwanda.

“It was kind of a perfect storm,” reflects Tom DiFilipo, president of the Joint Council on International Children’s Services (JCICS), an influential secular adoption advocacy group that has sought to partner with the evangelical movement. “We hit that moment when a movement really starts to ramp up and get the attention of the public.”

The movement’s influence was on display in September in a closed-door meeting with UNICEF—frequently cast as “anti-adoption” for raising ethical concerns about adopting from disaster- or poverty-stricken nations—leveraged by six key evangelical adoption groups in an effort to find common ground.

As a way for conservative evangelicals to reclaim the social gospel message from liberal churches, adoption is a perfect storm, too, seemingly defining antiabortion activism as more truly “prolife”—or “whole life,” as one Bethany staffer coined it—while providing a new opportunity, as recent orphan theology texts explain, to spread the gospel. In Reclaiming Adoption, Cruver bluntly declares, “The ultimate purpose of human adoption by Christians, therefore, is not to give orphans parents, as important as that is. It is to place them in a Christian home that they might be positioned to receive the gospel.”

In person, Russell Moore denies that invoking the Great Commission means adoption is a vehicle for evangelism. But in Adopting for Life, he calls adoption “evangelistic to the core,” since Christian adoptive parents are “committing to years of gospel proclamation.” Likewise, although Medefind dismisses the idea of proselytizing through adoption, the Alliance membership agreement envisions “every orphan experiencing God’s unfailing love and knowing Jesus as Savior.”

Followers appear to have taken the message at face value. Last winter, in the wake of the earthquake, the Rev. Tom Benz announced his plan to “airlift 50 to 150 [Haitian] orphans” to a place called BridgeStone, a 140-acre retreat center owned by his Alabama church. Benz, a jolly pastor who runs an evangelical summer program for Ukrainian orphans next to the Black Sea, explained that the Haiti program would host children for ninety days, during which volunteers would teach them English, “immerse them in the gospel” and “incubate adoptions” with local church families.

Benz originally planned the program for Ukrainian orphans, but once he announced his Haiti plans, he says, he was overwhelmed by volunteer support and donations. Miles of new plumbing and electrical wire were laid for the center’s twenty-two cabins, and construction began on three permanent staff “lodges” (one for Benz’s family), almost all with donated materials and labor. Benz was optimistic that he could wrangle the system, with the help of a friend with State Department connections, by representing his plan as a foreign studies program.

“It’s not like we’re taking the kids permanently,” he said. “We’re taking them for ninety days, and then they’re going back.” Reminded of the adoption mission, Benz chuckled. “Well, that’s absolutely part of our agenda, but you know, that’s not the thing we’re going to emphasize to the Haitian government!”

Over the spring and summer of 2010, months wore on and passports for the Haitian children were not forthcoming. The only progress made was on the BridgeStone estate. After months of delays, a September fundraising missive asked donors for continued patience as Benz sought to “bring children out of darkness and suffering into faith and life in Jesus Christ.” Shortly thereafter, Benz’s Haiti blog came down, and he sent an announcement of the retreat center’s pending open house for the launch of its adoption program for Ukrainian children. By March it had resulted in eight adoptions that, Benz promised, would help the children “grow into mighty men and women of faith.”

* * *

For many adoption reformers, the Silsby affair changed the script for how adoption is discussed. Karen Moline, a board member of the watchdog group Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform, says Silsby “put a face to the worst part of what international adoption can be, which is entitlement,” meaning American parents’ sense of entitlement to developing nations’ children.

Susie Krabacher, an American and devout Christian, is director of Mercy and Sharing, a Haitian orphanage founded in 1994 to care for severely disabled, abandoned children, which does not perform adoptions. She says there is enormous economic pressure on Haitian parents to relinquish children. Many orphanages in Haiti provide for children whose parents can’t afford to feed them but who remain involved and visit often. But Haiti also has a history of unethical adoption programs. Post-earthquake, Krabacher says, they have become “the biggest money-making operation in Haiti.” Indeed, many orphanages, mindful of high international adoption fees, tell struggling parents that they should give up one of their children. The financial desperation in Haiti is so intense and the coercion so pervasive, Krabacher says, that the vast majority of Mercy and Sharing’s 181 employees “would have to look at the option of giving up a child if they didn’t have a job.”

This gets at the central problem in how most evangelical adoption ministries define the scope of the worldwide “orphan crisis.” As with the misleading estimates of Haitian orphans, the global numbers most frequently mentioned—ranging from 132 million to 210 million—paint an inaccurate picture, willfully misconstruing UNICEF tallies of developing nations’ vulnerable children, a category that includes children who have lost only one parent or who live with extended family.

Susan Bissell, UNICEF’s chief of child protection, says no good estimate exists of the number of orphans worldwide, but a 2004 UNICEF report calculated that there were at least 16 million children worldwide who had lost both parents.

“There are not 145 million kids out there waiting for someone in America to adopt them,” says Paul Myhill, president of the evangelical orphan ministry World Orphans, which he calls a “black sheep” in his field for its prioritization of in-country orphan care over adoption. “It’s unfair to bat these statistics around without using all the qualifiers.”

But those numbers have their effect. In July, Bethany Christian Services announced that “three of the largest Christian-based adoption agencies,” including itself, were “seeing record numbers of adoptions.” Bethany attributes the increase to the evangelical adoption movement as well as the crisis in Haiti, which inspired nearly 20,000 inquiries from across the United States, even though Haiti, post-quake, was quickly closed for new adoptions. Agencies like Bethany explained that they easily redirected this outpouring of enthusiasm to more open markets, like Ethiopia.

The problem is that Ethiopia, which last year was poised to become the world’s top “sending country,” is beset by numerous ethical scandals. In 2009 and 2010, investigations by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and CBS News found evidence that Christian World Adoption—a US agency whose slogan is “God is in control of our agency and your adoption”—had recruited and allegedly even bought children from intact families, some of whom didn’t understand the permanency of adoption. (CWA claimed that these cases were misunderstandings and charged that it was being persecuted for its Christian beliefs.) In January the State Department hosted a conference call to discuss ethical difficulties surrounding Ethiopia’s adoption program. Just weeks later came the announcement that the license for Minnesota-based Christian agency Better Future Adoption Services had been revoked by the Ethiopian government over accusations of child trafficking. And in March, Ethiopia’s government announced it was cutting the rate of new adoptions by 90 percent.

Just after the Haiti earthquake, the Christian Alliance for Orphans advertised that its sixth-annual summit would produce a “long-term response” for Haiti’s orphans. By late April 2010, when nearly 1,200 Christians gathered for the summit at a megachurch outside Minneapolis, organizers had to contend with the shadow Silsby had cast. Even Moore worried that the scandal would “give a black eye to the orphan-care movement.”

“We’re killing ourselves with these ethical lapses,” says Chuck Johnson, president of the secular adoption lobby group the National Council for Adoption (NCFA). “I think Christians are the worst at this sometimes, about the ends justifying the means. ‘I will do anything to save this one child’s life’; ‘I will falsify a visa application if I have to.’”

In early 2010, Johnson told me, NCFA held an online ethics seminar that drew roughly twenty-five representatives from religious and secular adoption agencies. As part of the webinar, NCFA took a blind poll of participants’ responses to various ethical situations. Either through ignorance or a willingness to bend the rules, 20–30 percent of agency representatives gave answers that were tantamount to committing visa fraud or other serious violations. “You’ll hear people saying, I’m following God’s law, not man’s laws,” Johnson says.

Brian Luwis, founder of the evangelical agency America World Adoption and a Christian Alliance board member, says ardent adoptive parents can wreak havoc for those coming after them. “I call them ‘adoption crazies,’” he says. “They’re such strong advocates, they’ll do things in desperation to have a child they think is theirs. Some are really unlawful, falsifying an adoption or something like that. Many won’t get caught, but once you get caught, what have you done to the system?” It’s not hard to imagine how movement rhetoric that casts international adoption as emergency rescue and spiritual battle could inspire a willingness to use any means necessary.

There are indications that such rule-bending occurs at the top levels of government. Blogging about the 2010 Adoption Policy Conference in New York for The Huffington Post, sociologist Philip Cohen reported a troubling statement made by Whitney Reitz, an official at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—the Homeland Security agency that oversees the entry of international adoptees. Reitz, who is credited with crafting last year’s “humanitarian parole” program for Haitian children, told the crowd, “The idea was to help the kids. And if we overlooked Hague, I don’t think I’m going to apologize.”

Chris Rhatigan, a USCIS spokesman, explains that the comment was made during a closed-door session not meant to be open to the media and in the context of a devastating natural disaster, “where very extraordinary measures were taken.” “Our main goal at the time was to save those children,” says Rhatigan. “I think they did everything they possibly could.”

* * *

Despite the Silsby affair, the Haiti earthquake helped accelerate the rise of the evangelical adoption movement, and increased its influence. At the Christian Alliance summit, JCICS’s DiFilipo implored the audience to advocate for less restrictive adoption policies, pointing to the drop in international adoptions from nearly 23,000 in 2004 to a projected 7,000 by 2012.

These numbers underlie a feeling among adoption advocates that even though demand is increasing, international adoption is under siege. “The days of a large sending country are over,” Johnson has said.

The decrease is often attributed to the closure of Guatemala and the slowdown in China. DiFilipo says the threat is far broader, with eight or nine countries “functionally suspending” intercountry adoption within the past three years—something he attributes to “institutional bias” against international adoption rather than documented ethical lapses.

As the numbers have dropped, the adoption industry has constricted, with the closure or merger of 25 percent of US agencies since 2000. The shuttering of Guatemala in 2008—what Luwis called “the gravy train” for many agencies—was a major factor. JCICS felt the squeeze too. In an internal 2009 document, the organization described financial shortages that forced it to halve expenses and staff in recent years.

“In the last few years, a bunch of top placing agencies in the US met together kind of clandestinely,” recalls Luwis. “To me it was a ‘saving our rear’ meeting. I take no salary. But for some of the others, this is their livelihood. They place thousands of kids; this is the way they’ve done it, they’re not going to change.”

Even as adoption numbers decrease, advocates maintain substantial bipartisan support. A key ally is Senator Landrieu, a founding member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute and sponsor of numerous pieces of pro-adoption legislation—many in collaboration with hard-right senators.

Landrieu was scheduled to address the Christian Alliance summit but was waylaid by the BP oil spill. In her place spoke fellow Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, another advocate who has made common cause with right-wing senators like Sam Brownback and James Inhofe. Klobuchar told me how, as part of the first senatorial delegation to Haiti, she urged President René Préval to revise the country’s adoption and parental rights policies. In a September letter to the State Department, she interceded for US families whose pending adoptions from Nepal were halted after indications that the country’s newly reopened program was again processing trafficked children.

It’s an illustration of how temporary were the lessons from Haiti, and how common the underlying problems its scandals exposed. “Congress’s slant is that international adoption is good, so let’s get those kids out,” says Moline of Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform. “They don’t understand what the business aspect of it really means, and they must answer to their constituents’ demands.”

One of the most significant recent initiatives on Capitol Hill is the Families for Orphans Act, drafted by the Families for Orphans Coalition, whose executive committee includes DiFilipo, Luwis and Johnson. The bill, which Landrieu’s office will reintroduce this year, would create a special State Department office to oversee adoptions and offer—critics say condition—developmental aid to countries that help obtain permanent parental care for orphans, including through international adoption. In an op-ed published in the Washington Examiner in March 2010, co-sponsors Landrieu and Inhofe dangled the promise that the office could facilitate the placement of tens of thousands more Haitian children with US families.

Juntunen of Both Ends Burning believes the chokepoint created as newly mobilized evangelicals enter the tightening adoption market will spark outrage that will transform the system—cutting red tape, and possibly needed safeguards, along the way. “We’ve created this culture of adoption, and now more and more people want to participate and are left frustrated because they’re denied the opportunity to pursue what they want to pursue,” Juntunen told me. “Well, that’s where social movements happen. I think that this culture of adoption will be the force, the catalyst, for change.”

And the pressure won’t be coming just from evangelicals. In June, Together for Adoption and other evangelical leaders will meet with Juntunen and his network of secular adoption advocates to discuss ways to reverse the international adoption freefall.

After a year of headlines concerning improperly adopted children, from Haiti to Nepal to Ethiopia, evangelical advocates admit that the system is troubled, but they insist that expanding international adoption is necessary and, if done right, beautiful. “There’s always going to need to be tremendous vigilance that compassionate intentions lead to compassionate outcomes,” says the Christian Alliance’s Medefind. “But if you’re not willing to deal with complexity, it would be wise to stay away from efforts to address the world’s needs.”

Despite the altruistic motives of many evangelical adopters, the size and wealth of their movement is likely to tip the balance of a system that already responds too blithely to the moral and humanitarian concerns raised by poor countries and all too readily to Western demand.

Church Planting & Discipleship

2011-10-24T14:30:00.001-05:00

Steve Pike, Director of Church Planting for the Assembly of God, writes a blog post about how discipleship is the point rather than church planting. Good post!

To Obey is Better than Sacrifice

2011-10-19T08:23:00.002-05:00

I'm comfortable saying that Keith Green was a disciple.

He's well known for his music, much of which has a prophetic edge.

I recently read his biography, written by his wife Melody. It's called "No Compromise."

When Keith and Melody began following Jesus, their lives changed dramatically. As they showed Christ to others, many of whom were in broken situations, they often invited others to live with them, opening up their home.

Eventually, they owned or rented houses in their neighborhood, all offering places for hurting and needy people to live as they put their lives back together. Later they bought a ranch in Texas. They studied the Bible together nightly and offered counsel to those in the midst of struggles.

Visiting an impoverished community in Mexico, they immediately knew that THEY needed to do something and began collecting huge amounts of supplies for these needy people - eventually building orphanages in Mexico and later India.

When I read the story, I thought, "Keith was a real disciple."

How Do We Make Disciples?

2011-10-07T07:21:00.001-05:00

How does the Church go about making disciples?

Which practices actually make disciples?

What is a Disciple?

2011-09-22T20:43:00.003-05:00

This is a core question, isn't it?

It's a term that we toss around all the time. There has been some indication here and elsewhere that not everybody has the same idea of what it means to be a disciple.

I'm curious whether or not we are basically on the same page here, or whether there is a wide divergence.

Our mission is supposed to involve making 'more and better disciples.'

Jesus commanded his disciples to go and make disciples.

So, what is a disciple?

In a followup post, we'll talk more about how one is made.

I'll post my own thoughts in a comment. I'd really like to hear several people weigh in on this. If you're a blog reader but haven't posted, consider jumping in on this one.

Why the missional movement will fail

2011-09-15T07:17:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to pass this along for your reading and something to think about: http://mikebreen.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/why-the-missional-movement-will-fail/.

Is There (Still) a Place for Barnabas?

2011-09-13T19:23:00.003-05:00

[NOTE: I've expanded this from the original post that I made earlier today]

Soon after Saul's conversion in Acts 9, many apostles were perhaps confused and fearful that his life change was for real. Barnabas took the risk to take Saul around to the believers and make a case for why he was authentic in his new found faith.

I'm reminded of this passage because I wonder if the role of Barnabas is one that is often overlooked in the starting of new churches. It's been almost ten years since we completed our church planting experience and just over four years since I last served full-time in a church setting. I share that because there may be resources that are available now with which I am unfamiliar that address this topic. But, from my brief research I have not been able to find much that explores the significant role that a "Barnabas" could play. I'm not thinking strictly of a team-based ministry approach - that has been tried, written about, and over-conferenced for a long time. I'm thinking specifically of someone who is well-connected in a community who serves as a person of influence who takes the planter around to introduce him/her to various community leaders to explain away confusion and fear over the new church start.

I'm interested in this topic for a very specific reason: our current church is looking to add a third campus over the next year or so and I am researching some items to pass along. I have no idea what role (if any) we will play in this project, but I want to make use of any insights that I can pass along.

If my memory serves me correctly, when the Crossroads Community Church was planted in Sullivan, IN, in the late 1990s, the planting pastor (Eddie Hammond) had someone from the community who served as a strong support for the initial planting phases. Thank you to Brian for adding after the earlier post:

"Crossroads was launched with two staff people. One was a seasoned pastor, who served as a people magnet. One was a local businessman, who served as the administrator/organizer.I thought the model worked very well. Most Planting Organizations strongly encouraging planting in teams and to find a partner who has strengths where you are weak."

Here are a few questions I am pondering:

Is this model (church planter moving to community with established partner) a recurring pattern in church plants?

Are there organizations or trainings that address this topic?

Are there better biblical examples than Barnabas for this approach?

Do you have any thoughts or insights about the whole notion of multi-site church starts (as opposed to straight up church plants)?

Are there geographic regions that would be more receptive to this approach than others?

Could a person serve as a Barnabas (as I'm desribing him here) and simply be the "#2" in a new church/multi=site ministry and serve this role repeatedly for different planters?

I appreciate any feedback you have.

Fairy Tale Missionality

2011-08-19T08:33:00.005-05:00

We all know the story of the girl who kisses the frog and turns him into a handsome prince, right? Pure fantasy. But, it's something many of us try to believe in anyway.

In our ministry our vision is based in two teachings of Jesus.

1. That the greatest command is actually two commands from the Old Testament Law: First, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and, second, to love your neighbor as yourself. We believe that all of the law and the prophets rest on those two commands.

2. That on the day Jesus comes in His glory He will separate the people of the world as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats and He will reward or punish all people based on how thoroughly their lives bore the fruit of His lordship. He will welcome those who fed the hungry, hydrated the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, gave clothes to the clothing-impaired, cared for the sick and visited the imprisoned among 'the least of these brothers of mine.'

Sharing that twofold vision leads to the formation of a faith community engaged in an exciting spiritual walk.

We have discovered, though, that practicing this vision isn't magical. In just the last year, we have touched many hundreds of lives. None of them have turned out to be frogs-turned-into-princes by the kiss of the love of Jesus.

Most of the people we have encountered fall into four categories:

1. The cynical who will take as much as you are willing to give, bleed you as dry as they can and then move on to the next do-gooders they can find. There are very few of these people but, if you minister as we do, they will find you.

2. People who are genuinely thankful that you have met a need in their lives but who don't care why you do it. They will smile and thank you and hug you and even thank God for you, but they have no interest in living differently than they are. They will have no more interest in following Jesus after you bless them in His Name than they did before. They want to live the way they are living. They believe in it as much as you believe Jesus is Lord. In my opinion, this is, by far, the largest category of people we meet.

3. People who are genuinely impressed by what you do and by the fact that you do it because you follow Jesus. They, are at least, willing to acknowledge that there is something about following Jesus that produces acts of love. However, they are not willing or able to repent of the life they live and make the radical commitment that becoming a disciple of Jesus requires. (Lk 14:26-27) This is probably the second largest category of people we encounter.

4. People who are moved to take at least a tentative step toward following Jesus. However, here's what I see in those people: They are not likely to embrace the Christendom version of Jesus-following which says that discipleship means showing up for Sunday School and a Worship Service and putting your name on a church membership role. They will do radical acts of love. They will even invite strangers into their homes. But, they probably won't groove on the Sunday Morning Rock Concert definition of living for Jesus. They will feed the hungry. They will join your group when YOU feed the hungry but they will not become churchy people in the traditional way. Hence, the way most religious bodies count success, doesn't account for them well.

Two thoughts come to me from the journey we have been on:

1. If you move toward missionality in your ministry, don't be naive. Don't think that if you begin to be externally focused that a little smooch will instantly turn frogs into princes. That probably won't happen.

2. Start working on a New Testament way to measure the sort of results missionality will produce. So far, institutional Christianity does not measure the results that missionality produces.

A Jesus Who is Waaaaaaaaaaay Out There

2011-08-15T07:18:00.011-05:00

It's weird.

Like John Winebrenner, I believe the church should have no Creeds. I believe in the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice. Still, I find myself monitoring our Body based on how well we live out the Apostles' Creed. It upsets me that, in practice, we don't.

We don't walk the Apostles' Creed talk. We live heresy.

The Jesus part of the Apostle's Creed goes:

And, in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven...

So far so good for the CGGC as far as I can tell. As much as those items of belief can be lived out, I think we are true to the historic faith of the Body of Christ.

It's the next line that I think we abuse horribly:

...and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty.

Based on that line, it is the historic belief of the Body of Christ that Jesus isn't on vacation. The Almighty Father has given Jesus an important role in the Kingdom until He leaves that place, as the Creed says,

to judge the living and the dead.

To say that Jesus is, at this moment, sitting at the right hand of the Father is to say that he exercises the authority of the King. This is what Ephesians 1:20 and 22 say. "God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church." (22)

Characteristic of his ministry on earth, Jesus uses that authority to practice mercy and grace. Hence, he sits at God's right hand and is interceding for us. (Rom 8:34)

But, he's doing more than that. He's also blessing His people and fighting against (Rev. 2:16), rebuking and disciplining the unrighteous in the church. The words,

"Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So, be earnest and repent" are the words of Jesus. (Rev. 3:19)

The fact that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty is not just a throw away line in Christian thinking. It is an assertion that Jesus is intensely involved in what His people are doing. He is, at this moment, blessing righteousness and judging, condemning and punishing unrighteousness among his people.

What I see in our denomination is the institutional rejection of the historic Christian belief that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God. What I see is the fruit of the conviction that Jesus is a "clockmaker savior." I see a belief that we can be lukewarm in our actions and that we can take oaths and not keep them and the clockmaker savior won't care.

The Jesus of the CGGC is waaaaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaaaay out there. We talk orthodoxy but we walk heresy.

In the CGGC, we solemnly vow in the Name of Jesus,

As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world.

But, those words are empty.

By our actions, we don't believe that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. It's a good thing, then, that we have no Creed. Because if we accepted the Apostles' Creed we'd be heaping more judgment on ourselves.

Unfortunately, we do claim that the Scripture is our only rule of faith and practice. We claim to believe Ephesians 1:22. We claim to believe that Jesus is sitting at God's right hand and that he is the head of the church.

I can no see evidence that Christ is blessing us. While the gospel flourishes in many places in our world, I see our plans and strategies being thwarted just as they would be if Jesus was keeping his promise, "I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth," as if he was living out the principle of life in the Kingdom, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent."

We are behaving as if He's not at God's right hand. We are behaving as if He created the Kingdom as if it was a clock--as if he wound it up by dying on the cross, being raised from the dead and ascending into heaven. We are behaving as if He no longer cares if we invoke his name in vain.

We are living as if he is waaaaaaaaaaaaay out there. But, he is sitting at the right hand of God. He is praying. And he is blessing, rebuking and disciplining.

And, we are receiving the just desserts for our empty words and lukewarm deeds.

Repent.

Why WE BELIEVE Should be Canned and, if Anything, Replaced with WE DO

2011-08-08T07:35:00.009-05:00

The essence of the Christian life is, well, life.

Lifestyle.

Actions.

Deeds.

Works.

Doing.

According to the Word, those things come first for the Christian.

"I know your deeds." -- Jesus

"By their fruit you will recognize them." -- Jesus

Matthew and Mark say that, from the beginning, the core of the message of Jesus was the call to repent--to change the way you live.

When Jesus called disciples, His invitation was to act. He said, "Come, follow me...."

Truly what a person believes is of eternal value. Paul was crystal clear with the Corinthians that it was through belief in the gospel he proclaimed that they were saved. Nevertheless, the Word teaches that orthodoxy--right belief--is a fruit produced from orthopraxy--right practice.

For that reason, it is the first task of people called to leadership in the Body of Christ to be concerned with what the people they lead do, not what they believe.

Nowhere is this truth presented with greater clarity than in Ephesians 4:11f.

As the New NIV puts it, "So Christ Himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the [shepherds] and teachers to..."

To do what?

Teach proper theology?

To guide proper belief?

To catchize a Creed?

To keep God's people from being blown back and forth by every wind of teaching?

No.

Paul says that Christ gave those leaders "...to equip God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up..." (Eph. 4:12)

Then, Paul says, after the equiping of God's people for works of service, "we (will) all reach unity in the faith..."

"Unity...in...the...faith."

Isn't unity in the faith the goal of a Doctrinal Statement?

The Word teaches that unity in the faith is achieved when APESTs equip people to put their faith into action, doing works of service.

Have you ever wondered by Creeds and Statements of Faith or Doctirnal Statements are not to be found in the Word and yet believers were able to be true to the gospel?

From what I see in the Word, early Christian leaders knew that we don't achieve unity in the faith by writing down beliefs. They sought to reach unity in the faith by training people to possess a living faith, i.e., to do the works God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph 2:10)

The reality in the ministry in which I participate is that we began to achieve spiritual maturity when we began to live out the New Testament teaching that our "spiritual act of worship" is to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God. (Rom. 12:1-2)

There is something deeply spiritual about the offering of one's body as a living sacrifice in community with other Jesus followers. To do so brings the blessing of the Spirit. One fruit of that blessing is--exactly as the Word says--unity in the faith.

We are finding this to be true: WE DO produces WE BELIEVE.

The CGGC is plugging away on its quest to revise its Doctrinal Statement. I have been praying over that effort almost since the day the work began. And, the more I listen to the Lord, the more clearly He tells me that this effort is in vain. It does not please Him or glorify Him and is not being led by His Spirit nor blessed by Him.

Works of service come before unity in the faith.

The core message of Jesus is that all people must repent--change the way they act.

The act of following is the first act of discipleship.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commands."

Hebrews says that the purpose of Christians meeting together is, first of all, to "spur one another on..." not to pure doctrine but "...to love and good deeds."

Peter says, "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us."

We will never honestly be able to state, "We believe..." until we achieve "We do."

The Idol of Orthodoxy

2011-07-19T07:27:00.004-05:00

Friends,

The process of updating We Believe is about to resume in earnest. Before long, the CGGC Administrative Council will be looking over the most recent tweaking. As I understand it, the goal continues to be the approval of a new We Believe by the General Conference in session in 2013. Because I believe I am called to be a prophet, this truth-based enterprise interests me. I believe I would be the servant who buried his talent if I did not initiate/participate in a conversation about official CGGC truth. Here's a first comment as the new chapter begins

-----------------

At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that understanding truth does not make a man or a woman His disciple. Jesus said,

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose and the wind blew and beat against that house yet it did not fall because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the wind blew, the streams rose and beat against that house and it fell with a great crash."

For about the last four years the CGGC has been engaged in a strenuous effort to articulate its understanding of orthoxdoxy for the early twenty first century. That effort has been monumental. The group assemble to achieve the task generated a document 21,333 words in length. In the end, that document was not supported the Administrative Council. It was not presented to General Conference in 2010 as planned.

Much of the specific content of that document deeply concerns me. However, it is the existence of the document itself that is most offensive to me.

I believe that any attempt to define right thinking defies a core teaching of Jesus.

According to Jesus, right thinking is not a worthwhile end for those who follow Him. In fact, right thinking is not the end He will bless.

Truth in and of itself never mattered to Jesus. What mattered to Jesus was truth-lived-out.

According to Jesus, a day will come when He will sit on His glorious throne and separate the people of the world as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. On that day He will explain why some will take the inheritance prepared for them since the creation of the world and others will be condemned to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

What will define the difference between the sheep and the goats? Truth-lived-out versus truth merely understood and believed.

On that day everyone will experience what Jesus meant when He said, "Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man..."

Jesus saw faith and action as one inseparable reality. Any attempt to consider what truth for its own sake is, is folly--is SIN. It is a perilous step toward being numbered with the goats.

Ironically, there was a day when the Church of God--before it was the CGGC--understood that truth and truth-lived-out are two different realites. When John Winebrenner published his famous 27 points, they were not a doctrinal statement. Winebrenner called them, "The Faith and Practice of the Church of God." There was a time that what mattered to us was truth-lived-out.

Can we look at the very idea of We Believe through the eyes of Jesus? Can we honor the wisdom of the founders of our movement?

Orthodoxy for its own sake is an idol. We Believe is an abomination.

True and Proper Worship

2011-07-15T11:14:00.003-05:00

I have never been a big fan of the NIV. I am by no means a Greek or Hebrew scholar but I know enough about both to know that the NIV is mediocre. So, when the newest NIV came out recently, I went on Biblegateway.com to look it over. Based on what I can see, the new version is an improvment.

I've looked over some verses which I know inside and out in Greek to see what the newest NIV has done with them and, generally, I am pleased.

I appreciate especially what the newest has done with Romans 12:1. The Greek there is rather hard to deal with. The last NIV version had it, "Therefore I urge you...to offer you bodies as living sacrifices...this is your spiritual act of worship." The newest NIV tightens that up and says, "...offer your bodies as a living sacrifice...this is your true and proper worship."

As I mentioned, I'm not an expert in the Bible languages and I certainly am not a wordsmith capable of turning an English phrase with skill, but I will say that "true and proper worship" is a good way of expressing in English what Paul is getting at.

So, according to Paul, what is true and proper worship? True and proper worship is the offering of one's body as a living sacrifice. Not singing the old hymns. Not rocking out contemporary Christian music. Not sharing prayer requests or praying. Not listening to an expository sermon or preaching one. Not tithing. Not even attending a 'worship service.'

"...offer your bodies as a living sacrifice."

My question is: How often do CGGC congregations really worship?

How often, in community, do CGGCers put themselves on the line for Jesus to feed the hungry, hydrate the thirsty, open their homes to strangers, clothe those needing to be clothed, care for the sick or visit people who are imprisoned? (Mt 25)

My guess is that nearly all CGGCers have not worshiped even one time in the last 12 months.

If you have, praise God!

But, if you look forward to the day when the CGGC is renewed, understand that it will not be renewed because we get people to attend the Sunday morning show, no matter what style that show takes. Renewal will happen when we begin AGAIN to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice.

But, will we do that?

What in the Word Are:

2011-07-12T07:07:00.004-05:00

1. (Executive) Directors?

2. Administrative Councils?

3. Commissions?

4. Ministerial Credentials?

5. Church Boards?

"As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan..." -- CGGC Mission Statement

The Priesthood of All Believers

2011-07-06T08:18:00.003-05:00

In the Missional Leadership Initiative Retreats the first group activity is to receive a devotional from Reggie McNeal. The second is what he calls "Fast-Fire Updates" in which all MLIers update the community on how the journey toward missionality is going in his/her setting.

Two retreats ago, in my update I noted that in our ministry everyone is understood to be a priest in the world and that there are only two priestly activities that I still carried out exclusively: Weddings and funerals.

Amend that.

Now, there is only one priestly activity that I carry out exclusively: Weddings. One of our guys just performed his father's funeral and, from what I hear, did it with a wisdom and compassion that could match that of any priest with a M. Div. from the best of seminaries.

In Revelation 1:6 John says of Jesus that He has made us "to be a kingdom and priests." How much has been lost in recent generations in the CGGC because we've allowed ourselves to be taught that to function as a priest one must be a member of the clergy?

More than we'll ever know on this side of His return.

Macrorepentance Question

2011-07-02T05:57:00.001-05:00

Where in the New Testament are followers of Jesus told/commanded/commissioned to plant churches?

Stop funding church plants and start funding missionaries

2011-06-29T08:48:00.002-05:00

I am on vacation so I don't have a lot of time to comment (or want to take the time right now), but David Fitch has an excellent article - Stop Funding Church Plants and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea To Denominations - that I feel is right on. I would be interested in others thoughts, and hope to chime in eventually. I think this is a must read for those of you interested in denominational issues, and very applicable to our denom right now (given our interest in planting).

peace & blessings,

ps - btw, I am not the "Dan" who is commenting at Fitch's site (I always use my first and last name everywhere).

http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/stop-funding-church-plants-and-start-funding-missionaries-a-plea-to-denominations/

What in the Word is a "Better Disciple?"

2011-05-31T11:40:00.005-05:00

A day rarely goes by that I don't shiver when I reflect on these words of Jesus:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me you evil does.'"

Don't we have to believe that?

Don't we have to believe, based on the word of Jesus Himself that on the day people stand before Him that many who call Jesus their Lord--many in our congregations, many whose hands we shake on Sundays and who backs we slap, many whom we hug--are going to be sent away from Him into eternal punishment?

I do believe that and I am humbled.

I've said a few things about the CGGC Mission Statement in the past. One thing I've said is that it stands in judgment on us. We claim its high ideals but are not striving to live them out. Paul says in Romans 14:23, "...everything that does not come from faith is sin." I believe that the Mission Statement, because we don't live it out, declares us sinners and brings judgment on us.

I've also said that, while I embrace most of the Mission Statement, I don't embrace all of it. The part of it I don't embrace is the part that claims, "...we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples..."

It's the notion that there are degrees of discipleship that I disagree with. I think the very idea opposes what Jesus taught about discipleship.

More to the point, I believe that in suggesting that there can be such a thing as "better disciples" we are guaranteeing that many of our people will hear Jesus say to them on that Day, "away from me you evildoers."

Based on what Jesus taught, I can't see how one can become a better disciple. According to Jesus, discipleship is an ultimate commitment. It is already a best. There can be no better than discipleship.

Luke makes it clear that on a day when the numbers traveling with Jesus were large Jesus turned to the crowd and spelled out what the minimum requirement is to become His disciple. He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother,, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."

In His next statement, Jesus described the life of the person who remains His disciple. He said, "And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."

After some parables describing the great amount of care one should take in committing to follow Him, Jesus said, "...any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."

John quotes Jesus describing the necessity that disciples' lives produce fruit. Jesus said, "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing...This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."

What is a better disciple?

What is better discipleship than loving Him so much that your love for others seems like hate? What's better than carrying your cross and following him? What's more than giving up everything you have? What's better than producing much fruit?"

When the CGGC first conceived the phrase, "more and better disciples," discipleship was defined as contributing to a CGGC congregation's average worship attendance over the course of a year. According to Jesus, that's not discipleship.

We allow people who are not disciples to think they are. We teach people that they are disciples when, according to Jesus, they cannot be His disciples.

We are setting people up for that Day when Jesus will say to many who call Him "Lord," "Away from me you evildoers."

It is a vile and dangerous error to suggest that there is such a thing as a "better disciple."

ERC, CGGC Conference Sessions

2011-05-05T08:32:00.003-05:00

Get it: We are living during one of the most powerful times of Christian revival in the entire history of our movement.

God is pouring out His Spirit on people in a way He rarely has, perhaps EVER has.

In China tens of thousands of people become followers of Jesus every day. Some estimate that the number might be as high as 100,000 acts of repentance in the name of Jesus in China on a daily basis.

In India the revival rages in numbers that range in the tens of thousands on a daily basis.

It's being suggested that in post-tsunami Indonesia there is so powerful movement of the Spirit that the population may now be as much as 20% Christian.

The growth of Christianity is so staggering in Africa that the percentage of the population that identifies itself as Christian may have increased by ten to fifteen times in the past century. Some suggest that the growth is greater than that.

When I was at Drew University about 20 years ago a visiting prof who was connected to the Pentecostal revivals in Central America said that the standard joke among the leaders of that movement was that if trends continued that 120% of the population of some Central American countries would be Pentecostal by the year 2010.

And, I've heard Reggie McNeal say:

"This is the first spiritual awakening the American church

has not participated in--because it is too secular."

Nearly 25 years ago I read Martin Lloyd Jones' book, Revival and began to pray that God would bring revival into the world during my lifetime. I suspect that many thousands have joined me in that prayer.

Praise God! That prayer is being answered. God's Spirit is turning our world upside down on this very day!

He is moving powerfully in our world...

...but I'm only getting the stories second hand...

...because the Western Church is withering and dying. It is not being empowered by the Spirit. It is, at best, bearing meager fruit.

I have just returned from three of the most spiritually painful days of my life: The 2011 Sessions of the Eastern Regional Conference of the Churches of God.

That pain was all of my own generation.

I sat through the sessions wondering how I could feel things so different from the things being felt by people whom I have known and admired, in some cases, for decades. During those three days I asked myself again and again,

How we could have come to believe things so vastly different?
How we could be working toward goals so diverse?
How could we get to the point that, in reality, we care about things that are at exact odds with each other?

I wondered if I should condemn or be condemned. I left each day wondering if I should ask God to change my heart or the hearts of so many others.

I was--AM--in agony.

Here's what I know:

The actions of the Conference amounted to rubber stamping reports offered by the organizations and institutions related to the Conference and approving reports of our numerous Commissions and staff people. I heard, again and again, glowing reports of how the Lord is blessing. Had I not known better, I'd have thought that believers in China and India and Africa could be envying the way the Lord is working in the ERC. But, my feet on are the ground in the ERC.

In the midst of those reports and after some debate the Conference achieved its most substantial accomplishment of 2011. It approved an amendment to the Constitution which tweaked the ERC budgeting process by allowing the Administrative Council to approve the annual budget without the consent of the Conference in session.

In an age in which our world is throbbing with revival when, with the passing of each day tens upon ten thousands of people are repenting of sin and embracing Jesus as their Lord, the best the ERC could manage in 2011 was the tweaking of our budgeting process.

I opposed that amendment, but I am heart-broken that that amendment represents the spiritual state of the Conference.

"This is the first spiritual awakening the American church has not participated in--because it is too secular." -- Reggie McNeal.

I believe that it is time that we repent of our earth-bound ways and change our focus.

I honestly don't know if it's too late.

I don't know if the Lord who warns "...because you are lukewarm I am about to spit you out of my mouth," and who says, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline so be earnest and repent," has already spit us out of His mouth. I don't know if it's too late to repent or not.

What I do know is that I want revival in my nation and in my community and that the same Spirit Who is rocking our world is not blessing the CGGC or the Western Church as a whole.

We need to set our minds on spiritual things, not the ways we create budgets. We need to stop coming together to rubber stamp reports. There is none of that in the New Testament plan. We need to stop pretending that the Lord is moving in our midst. We need to notice what it looks like when the Lord does move and pray that He really will move among us.

We need to fall on our knees and weep and wail and beg for mercy.

Becoming Missional

2011-04-29T08:12:00.005-05:00

Faith Community puts on a really lousy show on Sunday mornings.

Paul's summary of 1 Corinthians 11:1-14:25 guides what we do and how we do it:

"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together everyone has a hymn or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church." (1 Cor 14:26)

It's not a pretty sight for consumers of religious products and services. It's definitely not seeker-sensitive.

Our music team doesn't practice. It rarely has more than one song, hymn or spiritual song in mind when it leads. It asks people to tell it what they want to sing and expects to hear suggestions. Frequently, what we sing is unknown to many. Some love Fanny Crosby era stuff that others never heard of before. Others love the latest hits on the contemporary Christian charts. For consumers wanting polished excellence that's offensive.

We never know if one person or one dozen will pray aloud or if the time we spend praying will last three minutes or thirty.

People who speak don't use notes. Often people who have earlier said, "I don't have a message today," end up speaking. Speakers are interrupted with questions or comments. One person's message is often responded to by someone else. People sitting on their hands are often asked direct questions by the speaker.

In a culture in which religious people are conditioned to consume, what we do is offensively counter-culture to many.

So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the size of our Easter morning crowd didn't make the local Fire Marshal sweat. In fact, by attractional standards, we did very poorly. The number was lower than usual. We don't count Sunday morning attendance. I honestly don't know for certain what the number was but it was low.

Interestingly, though, on the Tuesday after Easter, the congregation had volunteered to go into the center of Lancaster city--about 15 miles down the road from our facility--to feed a meal to homeless people in the kitchen of a church that makes itself available for that purpose every Tuesday evening. That Tuesday was one of ours.

We achieved a sort of goal of mine in that more people participated in the preparing and serving of that meal than attended the Easter morning show.

More 'visitors' fed the hungry with us than sat their fannies in our seats for the Easter morning show.

More than 100% of our Sunday morning attendance--on EASTER Sunday--actively fed hungry people in the name of Jesus as a part of our ministry!

I'm still trying to figure out what missional would look like if we achieved it. I'm still trying to overcome the impulses to be attractional and inwardly focused. I believe that, on that day, many pew sitters are going to be among the people to hear Jesus say, "I never knew you," (Mt 7:23) and, "I was hungry/thirsty/a stranger/naked/sick/in prison" and you ignored me.

I think that missional fruit is being born.

If These Things were Happening in 1911

2011-03-24T07:23:00.004-05:00

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.

Macrorepentance Question

2011-03-17T06:53:00.002-05:00

This is not a rhetorical question but it's one that has been eating at me for a while. I learned a long time ago that I don't have everything figured out. And, so, while I have a strong opinion about this, and am strongly convinced that my view is correct, I've been convinced of my error so many times in the past that I've learned humility. So, enlighten me.

All the CGGCers I know personally take the following teaching about speaking in tongues literally and they consider it to be authoritative and relevant to today. Here's the teaching:

"If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God." (1 Cor 14:27-28 NASB)

Yet, those same CGGCers regard the teaching in the very next verse regarding the speaking of prophecy as not authoritative or relevant for today because it addresses a situation unique to the first century church in Corinth. That teaching is:

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." (1 Cor 14:29 NASB)

As a result, when we gather we restrict speaking in tongues, based on a teaching from 1 Corinthians 14 but we do not encourage the speaking of words of prophecy by multiple speakers even though that practice is commanded in 1 Corinthians 14 and those two teachings appear together in the text.

I can see no justification for what we do based on the text and our historic claim that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice.

Many of you who post here and lurk here regard the teaching about tongues and interpretation as being authoritative and you obey it tenaciously YET prohibit words of prophesy by a minimum of two speakers which, in the text, is very literally commanded.

How do you justify your practice from the Bible?

Virtues & Practices in the CGGC Tradition

2011-03-09T07:47:00.003-06:00

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.

Starting Points (aka Describing Postmodern: The Sequel)

2011-03-04T10:01:00.004-06:00

The suggestion that the Bible should be our starting point for a revision of "We Believe" represents a particular bias. Although it is one that is probably widely held by those who are reading here, it is still only one option of many. While I am not suggesting that the Bible should not be our starting point, I do accept the potential that other starting points may be helpful as we sort through this conversation. Another way of entering the conversation is to recognize that there are major differences between those making the decision and focus some attention on that difference before moving on to constructing a new statement. Obviously the goal is to construct a new understanding of the CGGC, but often we may assume too much about those participating in the conversation.

I posted some of these thoughts in October 2006 (under the heading "Describing Postmodern"), but in light of the recent discussion and agreement/disagreement over “We Believe,” I thought it may be timely to revive the conversation. Also, since many new voices have joined the blog over the past (almost) five years, hopefully others will contribute to the purpose of this blog which is to create a space for “emerging/postmodern conversation in the CGGC.”

I believe that definitions are very important; so, from my vantage point, it is important to consider what we mean when using words like “emerging” and “postmodern”. Although it is difficult to provide a definition for the phrase “emerging church”, many of the recent conversations that have taken place here have helped illustrate how that idea is understood. While equally difficult to define, we have not talked as much about what is meant when we use the term “postmodern”.

To help reignite this conversation, I want to provide a few coordinates that are helpful to me as I think about what is meant by the word postmodern. Since a complete analysis is beyond the scope of this post, there are many items I have overlooked. Questions/answers, discussion, and subsequent posts can provide additional ways for understanding our current historical moment.

Seeking a Definition
Over the past few months Bill has started many conversations about the role of a Mission Statement, the importance of being faithful to who we say we are, and the need for conciseness, clarity, and consistency with our doctrinal statement.

Taking this example a step further, the conversation about “We Believe” can be connected to the wider use of the term “common sense”. When we say something is “common sense” we are suggesting that what is understood without explanation in one particular narrative (informed by different geographic locations, one’s education, family traditions, political/religious traditions, etc.) can be transferred to another and be readily understood. While this may have been true in a Modern era that was driven by universal understanding it is no longer the case in a postmodern context.

In his book The Postmodern Condition, Jean-Francois Lyotard provides the philosophical backing for an understanding of the postmodern era that highlights the loss of universals in the public arena. Understanding “postmodern” as a loss of a metanarrative (or all encompassing story that unifies each person’s existence) also suggests that we live in a time of competing narratives. Lyotard writes that “the grand narrative has lost its credibility.” In other words, we currently lack an agreed upon metanarrative that guides public life. Based upon Lyotard, this means that our public life is no longer dominated by a trust in the progress of Science, Religion, and Progress. This creates a context in which there is a multiplicity of competing narratives that strive for our attention within public life.

Several years ago someone introduced a distinction that has been helpful to me and may be of use to others as well. It is possible to distinguish between the terms postmodernity and postmodernism. Postmodernity can be used to describe our current historical moment while postmodernism can used to describe the philosophical theories of Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, and others. Therefore, it is possible to say that we live in a postmodern moment (postmodernity) without accepting the whole of postmodern theory (postmodernism).

One side note. Although there is no universal agreement about what is meant by “truth”, the rise of postmodernism did not end the importance or the pursuit of truth. We can simply read Pilate’s question directed at Jesus (“What is truth?”) to see that there has not been a universal acceptance of truth for over 2000 years. Some of the same debates that go on today regarding who controls the truth, etc., took place several hundred years between Greek philosophers before Pilate asked this question. I have encountered many, both in personal conversations and through their writings, who suggest that postmodernity equals the “death of truth.” I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of our current historical moment.

Cultural Factors
Many events took place throughout the 20th century that shattered the sense of Scientific Progress leading to the decline of a metanarrative (both World Wars, the use of the Atomic Bomb, the Holocaust, etc.). Much has been written about the decline of the Christian culture in the United States since the middle of century. Other cultural events such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Great Depression, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also helped many recognize that the Modern world dominated by routine, technique, and progress was slowly fading.

Why Clarity Matters
Imagine an open field. A sign has been posted that simply says “Come and play.” Some people make the assumption that the game to be played is football, so they bring the appropriate equipment and attitude necessary to play the game. Others read the same sign and assume they will be playing baseball. Others rugby. Still others come prepared for lacrosse, volleyball, and even a friendly game of tag. A few remember the good old days when the field was used as a running track. Some come ready to play competitively while others come for the simple enjoyment. Others come, not ready to play, but simply to watch.

When the group assembles, no rules are provided, no boundaries given. Chaos breaks out when those hitting the volleyball around are run over by a person trying to catch a football. Arguments erupt because everyone feels they have the right to be there because they have come to play – just like the original sign invited.

Even as the spectators notice the growing conflicts, no one wants to offer any guidance because “everyone has a right to play the game of their choice.” “Who am I to say that football shouldn’t be allowed here?” is asked by others.

Eventually, frustrations over the lack of guidelines cause most people to leave. Of course there will be a few diehards who love to play anything who will stick around until no one else is there. But ultimately, no meaningful games will be played and many people will never again respond to a sign that has the simple invitation “Come and play.”

Wrap-Up
When working from an understanding of postmodernity defined by competing narratives and metanarrative decline, this brief story illustrates what can happen if clear boundaries are not drawn. Whether a church, a non-profit organization, a blog such as this one, or any other context in our current moment, guidelines must be given in order to help people make a decision about their participation.

What does this mean for the CGGC? local churches? “We Believe”? And the list of questions goes on and on.

This is only one person’s views on the topic of postmodernity. Hopefully this will provide the starting point for a helpful conversation for those who are interested.

Getting along

2011-03-03T12:47:00.005-06:00

Today is the 20th anniversary of the Rodney King beating. It's hard to believe it was that long ago, because I can still remember it clearly. It turned my stomach then and, to be honest, it bothers me still to see his name tossed around on this blog from time to time as an off-hand way of poking fun at others. For those of you not familiar with the real Rodney King scenario, there is some info on Wikipedia; there is a video HERE of the actual beating; and there is a video HERE of the "Can't we all just get along" footage.

That's not really the main point of this post though. I suppose it's merely coincidence that the Rob-Bell's-new-book controversy is happening at this time too. For those of you not yet up to speed, just google "Rob Bell controversy," or something similar, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of info. Jason Boyett shares about it in his post "Thoughts About Rob Bell, John Piper, and Justin Taylor." It's not long, and I highly recommend you read it. To quote Jason, "This is why people hate us. There is no meaner, more hateful person on Earth than a Christian who suspects you have gotten your theology wrong." I don't know if that's entirely true or not, but I suspect there's more than a little truth to it.

Another article I was recently reading touched on the same topic. Don Miller wrote "How Infighting Will Kill the Church." Again, it's very short, and I suggest you read it as well. I'm not sure it will actually kill the church (I don't think we could kill it if we tried - who do we think we are?), but he makes a good point. Don starts his article by saying,

Most of my friends who no longer attend church, and the majority of my friends no longer attend, have left over petty arguments about theology. It's not that they left because people didn't agree with them, they actually left because they got tired of hearing other people argue about their interpretation of Scripture.

Later he said this:

I am wondering whether the church in Europe decreased in size and impact because of loose, liberal theology, or because the church got divided and people got tired of the fighting. You never hear about that loose European theology, but you do hear a lot about bitter fights over theological squabbles... If the church dies in America, it won't be because of liberal theology, it will be because people don't sense Christians actually understand or respect Jesus' prayer in John 17.

Now, I had hoped to put all this together into a nice little package addressing our current squabbles over 'We Believe' and the credentialling issue. It hasn't really come together, and I don't know that I have the time right now to spend on it. But it seems to me there is something we can learn.

For one thing, I think it supports the idea that just because we say we believe Scripture doesn't really explain what we mean by that. Lots of people believe Scripture but have totally opposing views on things.

For another thing, I think it supports the idea that we need to be careful how we discuss our differences. Do we need to discuss these issues? Absolutely. Does it matter HOW we discuss things? I think that might be even more important.

I would just like to encourage everyone to keep these things in mind. I will be the first to admit I have struggled with restraint on this blog many times, and have made some downright stupid comments (no one has deleted more comments on here than I have!). I just hope we might be mindful of the impact our statements and discussions have not only on ourselves, but on others as well. I have so appreciated this blog as a place for open discussion and the sharing of ideas. I would hope it might continue as such. But might we do so with honesty and humility, rather than with exaggerated claims and arrogance. Might we be respecters of our brothers and sisters both within our tribe, and even those we know in name only. Might we submit not only to the authority of Scripture, but to the hope that through us - those we agree with and don't agree with - others might come to know Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Call me what you want. I am not so naive as to think we can all agree. But I do believe we can all get along. Or Jesus was a fool to pray for us.

Peace and blessings, my friends.

The Missional Manifesto of 2013

2011-02-28T07:12:00.011-06:00

Gang,

I am opposed to the creation of an updated We Believe for many reasons. One reason that is that we have suffered greatly under the dominance of the old one. How many churches have we close since the old one came out?

I believe that we need to articulate core truths that will focus us and guide us into a new paradigm. If anything close the 21,333 word version of the WB revision that is currently on the table becomes the standard for us in our next generation we will have in place a document that is larger than the last one and even less relevant and less focused than the one that has been a missional millstone around our necks for 30 years.

John Winebrenner didn't call his twenty seven points a Statement of Faith or a Doctrinal Statement. He referred to his document as a "Manifesto." If we are serious about becoming a missional movement again, we need to toss out We Believe and and every other Statement of Faith and Doctrinal Statement and return to the spirit of Winebrenner and our founders.

We need to repent of making statements. Making statement is what institutions do.

We need to create a new manifesto--one that is fresh and meaningful for our day. We need to hold our people to a lifestyle that, well, manifests that manifesto. With that in mind, I propose: The Missional Manifesto of 2013, to be presented to the General Conference when it next meets.

(FYI: nothing in the manifesto is original with me. It is an adaption of Winebrenner's Preface to his 1844 manifesto and a document presented by Andrew Draper at the recent symposium.

If the formatting of this document is wack, forgive me. I wrote it over several days and when I came back to it the spacing between paragraphs was altered and font sizes were irregular.)

----------------------

The Missional Manifesto of 2013

The Churches of God, General Conference has no authoritative ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. It believes the Bible to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, or test-book, which God ever intended His church to have. Nevertheless, it may be useful, for the benefit of those outside the moment, to present a short manifesto describing what may be called its leading matters faith.

The Churches of God, General Conference believes:

that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

in one God, eternally existent in three persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--one in essence and community.

in God the Father, the almighty Creator of heaven and earth.

that Jesus Christ our Lord is Word made flesh--fully God and fully man; that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, was crucified and buried, rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven.

in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, who indwells the believer, convicts of sin, enables the believer to live a holy life, comforts, teaches, and bestows spiritual gifts.

that humanity is created in the image of God, has fallen into sin, and can be born again by the Holy Spirit, justified freely by grace and saved through the atoning work of Jesus Christ alone.

that the church is the body of Christ, the people of God whose mission is to make disciples of all nations and to be salt and light in the world.

that baptism, the Lord's supper, and Feet Washing are the ordinances of the church.

in the return of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, everlasting life, and the New Heavens and New Earth.

-----------------------------

Could we write a longer document or several documents to create commentary on these few core principles?

Could we hold symposia highlighting one or more of these beliefs for the purpose of clarifying our vision and motivating a vision-focused lifestyle?

Could we become intentional about holding on to the few central convictions that could transform us from a declining institution and create a culture of change that might result in the formation of a new CGGC as a missional movement?

Of course!

Update on the Symposia

2011-02-23T11:02:00.003-06:00

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.

What You Mean, "WE," White Man?

2011-02-19T07:37:00.001-06:00

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?

Winebrenner's Fifteenth Point...

2011-02-18T13:09:00.002-06:00

...goes like this:

15. She believes in the propriety and utility of hold fast-days, experience meetings, anxious meetings, camp meetings, and other special meetings of united and protracted efforts for the edification of the church and the conversion of sinners.

Please be in prayer as CGGCers gather to work on revising the Doctrinal Statement and reworking the Standards for Ministerial Credentials.

the blessing of abraham

2011-02-16T14:30:00.002-06:00

hey guys,
so i remember a lot of talk on here some time ago about the first call of abraham in Gen. 15, focusing on how God called abraham use His blessings to bless others. i think some of the stuff with reggie mcneal involved that passage, as well as some things i heard at the youth mission trip last summer with lance and ben.

in youth group, we've been going through the OT and how it all points to Jesus. in studying up on abraham, i noticed that Gal. 3 quotes Gen. 12, saying, "the Scripture, forseeing that God would justify the gentiles through faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to abraham, saying, 'in you shall all the nations be blessed.'"

my question is, if that is the God-authorized understanding of that verse, how do we interpret it as abraham as our example, to use what he has to bless others?

My Note to the Participants of the WE BELIEVE and Credentials Sympoia

2011-02-15T08:32:00.005-06:00

The CGGC Mission Statement

(Gang,

This is a copy of a note I sent to everyone registered to participate in the Symposia on We Believe and credentials.)

Friends,

In October 1830 John Winebrenner and others gathered in Harrisburg. In their meeting, Winebrenner cast his vision for the Church of God in a message based on Acts 5:38 and 39. By the end of that day the Church of God established itself as an Eldership committed to John Winebrenner's vision. From that day on, authority in our body has been 'Presbyterial.' In the CGGC, authority rests, not in congregations nor in the hands of denominational or regional employees such as Executive Directors or Directions, but in the body of elders--the community of the called.

The highest authority in the CGGC today is the General Conference in session. When that body is not meeting, the highest authority is the General Conference Administrative Council. Every person, Commission, gathering or employee of the CGGC functions under the authority of the General Conference and its Administrative Council. In September 2008, the General Conference Administrative Council approved, for the first time in the history of the Church of God, a Mission Statement. Because we are an Eldership, all of the people of the church are obligated to submit to and to carry out the Mission Statement. This is that statement:

As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world. (Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 3:8-11, Acts 1:8)

That statement did not arise out of thin air. It is based on the outline of John Winebrenner's Acts 5 message preached in 1830. At the conclusion of that message, the delegates of the first Eldership voted us into existence. Our Mission Statement employs, in a direct quote, the antiquated words of John Winebrenner himself. It claims Winebrenner's vision for the CGGC today. Because we are Presbyterial, the Mission Statement commits all of us to the vision of establishing churches on the "New Testament 'plan,'" not the New Testament model or pattern, as we might say today. The Mission Statement requires us to submit to and to embrace the vision of John Winebrenner himself.

Through that Mission Statement, the CGGC Administrative Council has articulated a radical vision. In his message Winebrenner defined, with great clarity, what he believed the New Testament plan to be. He said at one point,

"Agreeably to the New Testament, churches should be formed...With no creed and discipline but the Bible (Ps 19:7 Mt 28:20 Ac 2:42 2Jo 1:9)"

Perhaps the most intimidating component of Winebrenner's definition of the New Testament plan is its view of the Reformation. Winebrenner believed that the Reformation had failed. He called the Church of God into existence precisely because the Reformation had failed. According to Winebrenner, the Church of God movement is not Protestant and its roots are not in the Reformation. In defining the New Testament plan, Winebrenner expressed hope that God would do a new work, beyond what the Protestants did. He said,

"To accomplish all this will require another great reformation. But, under God, it can be achieved."

Understand clearly: John Winebrenner actually intended the Church of God to be a movement that was not Protestant. No reading of our Mission Statement that I can imagine can interpret Winebrenner's words in any other way.

Winebrenner's understanding of the New Testament plan also must be understood for it radical view of the authority of Scripture. According to Winebrenner, Scripture holds authority over the Church of God in a way that Luther's sola scriptura could not have imagined. In the same account of the history of the Church of God in which he presented the outline of his message from Acts 5, Winebrenner said this of the authority of the Word:

In September 2008 when our Administrative Council approved our Mission Statement and quoted Winebrenner's phrase, "New Testament plan" it reclaimed for the CGGC the vision upon which the first Church of God Eldership was established.

That vision is one of the most radical visions cast by any movement in all of Christian history. It rejected the Reformation. It also rejected sola scriptura for something more extreme.

The CGGC General Conference met in session in 2010. It approved the minutes of the Administrative Council and, therefore, accepted that radical Mission Statement for all of us. Because we are presbyterial, all of the people who have taken membership and ordination vows in the CGGC exist under the authority of that Mission Statement.

In 1983 and 1986 the General Conference published We Believe--The Doctrinal Statement of the Churches of God, General Conference. In doing so, it did something John Winebrenner would never have done. It published a Doctrinal Statement. Winebrenner would have never condoned the creation of such a document for the Church of God. For Winebrenner, the Word was all. In 1983 and 1986, the General Conference had every right to do what it did, despite the principles upon which our movement was created.

However, because of actions of the Administrative Council in 2008 and of the General Conference in session in 2010, We Believe no longer has place in the CGGC. As long as the CGGC has this Mission Statement, we are, once again, people of the "New Testament plan." We have reclaimed, in his very words, John Winebrenner's vision of a church whose only authority is the Scriptures without creeds or disciplines or statements of faith or doctrinal statements.

I was not on the Administrative Council that approved the Mission Statement. While I generally agree with part of the Mission Statement, I do not think it characterizes the spirit in which the people of the CGGC wish to carry out ministry. However, this is a presbyterial body. I have taken vows to the Lord and to the CGGC and I will submit to the authority of the Administrative Council and of the General Conference and of the Mission Statement. As a matter of conviction and of conscience, I will carry out and defend the mission, even though I don't entirely agree with it and would change it if I could.

On February 21, 2011, members of the CGGC will assemble in symposia on We Believe and credentials. It is my hope that, when these symposia are convened, conversation about the authority of the Mission Statement will be the first point on the agenda.

In Him and for Him.

How Do You Read?

2011-02-10T09:24:00.002-06:00

As a little change of pace, and to keep this blog from being completely agendized toward denominational issues... I ran across this article at TheGospelCoalition: TGC Asks Bradley Green: What Are Your Reading Habits. It's an interesting piece.

His habits are much better than mine, but I was intrigued when he said, "In terms of reading, I try and follow Albert Schweitzer's advice to 'do everything in 15-minute periods of time, because the hours never come.'"

I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it got me to thinking about my reading habits. I like books that have shorter chapters (10-15 pages), because I like to read entire chapters at a time - even though I only read one at a time.

I am not a 'great' reader, and my habits change from time to time, but they're generally pretty consistent. I try to follow a Bible-reading plan on a daily basis, and most days I will read no more (or less) than one chapter of whatever book I am reading at the time. On occasion I will pick up some random reading at night. I also do quite a bit of reading on the internet (blogs, articles, etc.).

This only lends itself to about 10-12 books per year, and my Bible reading is usually only a chapter or two per day. This is much less than I used to read. But I feel like I get more out of it now than when I rushed through books just to get them done, or forced myself to "read the Bible in a year." Not that there's anything wrong with that, but reading less seems to work best for me. It allows me to think more about what I'm reading. That's why I prefer only one chapter of a book per day. I can then think on that chapter the rest of the day.

I am not suggesting this is the best method for anyone else, but it works for me at the moment. So I'm curious... how about you? How do you read? Perhaps you have some pointers that might be beneficial to others.

The Wizard of Is

2011-02-09T07:01:00.007-06:00

There was a genius about John Winebrenner, the sort of genius that empowers a person break tradition and live boldly in a new way. I am a passionate student of paradigm breaking. I could read up on Einstein and Louis Armstrong--two amazing 20th century paradigm breakers--every day.

There's a quality that Einstein and Armstrong possessed that Winebrenner had. It's something that I can feel but not put into words very well: An ability to exist without being constrained by the nooses around the necks of everyone else? I don't know. But, there's something about the way Einstein was about to think about light and what Armstrong could do when he put his cornet to his lips that is true about the way Winebrenner functioned in the Body of Christ.

It may be the CGGC's greatest sin that we refuse to embrace Winebrenner's prophetic genius and that we force him into the mold invented by Emperor Constantine.

We force him into that mold in many ways. You know by now that it angers me that one of the ways we assault Winebrenner's genius is by pretending that his brilliant 1844 articulation* of "THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD" in twenty seven points is the CGGC's first "Statement of Faith."

To do that is a crime against truth because Winebrenner says as straightforwardly as he can:

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.

What may be more important than that crime against truth is our crime against Winebrenner's spiritual genius that we commit when we ignore the third statement that introduces his description of the faith and practice of the Church of God. He says,

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.

Winebrenner's was a man of is. His genius was to see that, while creating a creed or discipline or any other humanly-devised standard for the the church is unspiritual, that being honest about who you are and what you do is profoundly spiritual. And so, Winebrenner determined to describe the actual truth about the Church of God. In 1844 he recorded the 'Is-es' of the Church of God in twenty seven points.

What he did not do. What he refused to do. What he would never do is record the 'shoulds' of the Church of God--an idealized image of what we might be or could be or should be. Those things are what is recorded in a Statement of Faith.

To call Winebrenner's brilliant and profoundly spiritual 1844 document a Statement of Faith is a sin against is!

It seems to me that the one thing that separates the CGGC from Winebrenner's Church of God is that Winebrenner was into reality. He was into is. And, that we are into wishes. We are into shoulds and mights and coulds.

Those 27 points are ises--truths. They describe reality.

Our Mission and Vision Statement don't, in any way, describe reality. For us they don't have to represent truth because we are no longer people of is. We are people of should.

The difference between the Church of God and the CGGC is that we have no intention of building churches on the New Testament plan. We have produced not one sprout of fruit in establishing churches on the New Testament plan. But, when Winebrenner said on the day we came into existence, that the church of God is about establishing churches on the New Testament plan, he did things to make a New Testament church exist. Winebrenner lived in the world in which is matters.

So, understand that there is a difference of paradigm between Winebrenner's 1844 document and all the Statements of Faith and Doctrinal Statements that have followed. It is the difference between is and should.

There's a world of difference between saying, "Jesus is Lord" and "Jesus should be Lord." The difference is eternal.

Winebrenner's 1844 statement of THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD is an indictment against the CGGC because it does nothing but describe twenty seven ises. It's an indictment because most of those twenty seven ises, for the CGGC, are now ain'ts. Some of them are no longer even shoulds.

I encourage you to look look over those twenty seven 1844 Church of God ises and ask yourself two questions:

Is this an is for the CGGC today?
What are the 2011 CGGC ises?

I'm doing that myself right now and, for me, it's a powerful and challenging exercise.

On February 21, 2011 CGGCers are going to assemble to begin to work on revising a doctrinal statement, despite what John Winebrenner said about the authority of the Bible.

Our leaders tried to have such a revision in place to be approved by the General Conference in session in 2010. They were not able to achieve consensus over the proposed document in time to bring it to the General Conference floor. So, now we have nearly three years until we can attempt to achieve that task again.

Can we begin that process at the level of is?

It's time for us, perhaps for the first time since 1844, to put on a page a summary of what is true about the CGGC in our time and at this place. We can worry about what we'd like to be true after we come to grips with what is.

*Thanks to Andrew for the editing advice.

Pro Bono Publico

2011-02-08T06:32:00.009-06:00

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.

My Proposed Replacement for WE BELIEVE

2011-02-04T06:25:00.003-06:00

Because the Scriptures are its only rule of faith and practice, the Churches of God, General Conference proclaims:

That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
That he was buried,
That he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
And that he appeared to people.

A Do-Your-Own-Thing-Culture that would Make a Hippie Blush

2011-02-02T07:39:00.006-06:00

It's your thing, do what you wanna do. I can't tell you, who to sock it to. -- "It's Your Thing," Ronald, O'Kelly and Rudolph Isley, 1969

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise. -- Proverbs 12:15

------------------------

In the CGGC our real core value is: "We value people who do their own thing in community. "

"Do your own thing" is not a biblical value even if it is done in community.

I make this point now because we are nearing crucial a moment in our history at which we can practice repentance of Do-Your-Own-Thingism. Two years ago we had that same opportunity and chose do your own thing.

More than two years ago, our most authoritative body, our General Conference Administrative Council composed a Mission Statement rooted in the message John Winebrenner presented on the very day that the Church of God was formed. This is that Statement:

As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world.

Two years ago, when the ink of the Mission Statement was barely dry on the page, representatives of our Regions assembled, called together by the General Conference. They were tasked with standardizing CGGC ministerial credentials and revising the CGGC faith statement. When they completed that work, they had incarnated the real CGGC core value. They did it with unabashed zeal in a way that would have made a 60's hippie cringe.

When they standardized credentials, they standardized the traditions of our Regions with each other. They did not standardize those traditions with the Word--or, as the Ad Council declared, "the New Testament plan." When you read those standards can you even imagine that, at any point one of them asked, "But, what does the New Testament say?"

They ignored the Word. They ignored the Mission Statement. They ignored our history. They formed a consensus rooted in tradition.

They did their own thing in community.

When they updated the faith statement, they didn't present a New Testament model. They tweaked tradition and wrote a 20,000+ word sectarian monstrosity. (Do you know that only three New Testament book contain more words than our 'statement' of faith?)

True to the CGGC way, they ignored the Word. They ignored the Mission Statement. They ignored our history. They formed a consensus among themselves in community. They did their own thing and they did it without shame.

It may surprise you to know that it's hard for me to point this out. It is.

I know most of those people. I love them all. Everyone I know who wrote the credentials is a good-hearted person. All are sincere men and women who, individually, want to serve and please the Lord. They want to obey.

When they did this, they wanted to get it right. When they were writing these documents, one of them called me and spoke with me for hours about revising We Believe because, he told me, he respected my knowledge and my passion for truth.

When the documents were sent to the Ad Council, one of its members sent me We Believe as a Word document. He exchanged numerous emails with me and met me for a lengthy lunch and spent hours with me on the phone discussing the most profound issues of truth. (I believe that he was instrumental in putting the kibosh on We Believe so that it didn't even make it to the floor of General Conference. There is a remnant on Ad Council, my friends.)

As individuals, for the most part, the men and women who wrote the documents are good people.

I have two insights about them that I think are from the Lord:

1. The problem is macro, not micro. It is with our culture, not with our individual people. When we come together we function like the priests and kings of the Old Testament and like the religious culture of the Scribes and Pharisees and the priests of the New Testament did.

Like most of the people in the Bible to whom the prophets spoke, CGGCers are sincere people of religious tradition. We are not people of the Word. Read the books of the prophets and the Gospels. The Lord sent the prophets to very religious people.

Take the credentials document at face value. It was written by good-hearted people who looked to church tradition, not the Word, as their guide. Scripture references don't drive our Credentials. What drives them is practices rooted in Middle Ages Catholicism as tweaked by the Reformation. There's more of Constantine and Pope Gregory and John Calvin in the credentials document than there is of the New Testament and of John Winebrenner's passion for establishing the Church of God on the New Testament plan.

The same is true of We Believe. Paul recorded the gospel he preached in a handful of words near the beginning in 1 Corinthians 15. His gospel connected all believers. We Believe resembles a creed from the Middle Ages or, worse, from the seventeenth century. Like the creeds and confessions of the seventeenth century, it stresses what separates us from the rest of the Body of Christ, not what unites us with it.

The people who wrote these documents are good people who did something very, very bad.

2. When we come together, we assume ungodly values that turn good intention into sin.

I'm not attempting humor when I say, "Do your own thing in community" is our real core value. That principle has been guiding us for generations.

We do our own thing. We value consensus but we value the wrong consensus. We look for agreement among ourselves, not consensus with the Lord who makes Himself known to us in His Word and through the Spirit. We ask, "How can we all get along with each other?" not "How can we repent before the Lord?"

The Lord tells me that the credentials and We Believe are an abomination. Good-hearted people composed them sincerely. Yet the Lord despises them.

-------------------------

I say this now because on February 21, 2011 people of the CGGC are invited to assemble for symposia on Credentials and We Believe. As far as I know, attendance at these meetings is not restricted. Those who love the Kingdom should attend if at all possible.

I believe that these gatherings are the best chance the CGGC has to begin to repent of the ways of past generations which have led to our exponential spiritual and numerical decline. These gatherings may, in fact, be our last chance. If we set the wrong course in credentialing and in articulating our faith now, there may be nothing left when we'd get around to doing it again.

I believe we are good people who need to repent of shared values that lead us into sin. We need macrorepentance.

I believe that we can begin to repent.

I believe that we can acknowledge the authority of the Word and of the Spirit not the authority of tradition and human consensus.

I believe that we can demand nothing less from our credentials and faith statement than unadulterated submission to the New Testament.

I believe that we can stand together against of our long tradition of Do-Your-Own-Thingism. This will be hard to do. The peer pressure will be stifling!

I believe we can call the Do Your Own Thing value exactly what it is: Sin!

The questions are: Will we? Will we stop merely talking? Will we act in repentance?

Learnings conference

2011-01-31T11:15:00.000-06:00

What? Your church has learned a lot over this last year. So have we. We would like a chance to share what we've learned and learn what you've learned. You can see more at www.thecrossover.org/Learnings2011.

Who should attend? Any pastor or church leader who is interested in learning. Please forward this email to anyone you might think would be interested.

When? Saturday, March 26, 2011 -- 8:30AM to 3:30PM

Where? The Crossover Church, 1111 Broadway, Mattoon, IL

Presenters? The main presenters will be leaders from The Crossover. We also hope to have some representatives from the local school system since our learning focus has been community outreach through the schools.

Three other pastors are scheduled to share as well -- Jeff Rockey from Tulip Church in Bloomfield, IN, Eddie Hammond from Crossroads Community in Sullivan, IN, and Travis Spencer from the Fields Church in Mattoon, IL. Travis will be sharing about Navigating Change.

How Much? We aren't in this to make any money, but we would like to serve lunch together at The Crossover to allow casual conversations among leaders. We will cater the meal. So how does $15 per person sound?

How to Register? Comment below, and I will contact you directly. We will need a head count for lunch. Payments can be made at the conference.

More Info? Go to www.thecrossover.org/Learnings2011.

What Real Repentance Looks Like

2011-01-19T08:00:00.004-06:00

To All in the CGGC:

This is the closest thing that I have to an actual word from the Lord. This has been on my heart for a long time. I have gazed at it carefully through that clouded and rippled ancient mirror through which prophets see (1 Cor. 13:12). This is as close to what He is saying to you through me as I can make it. As the Word instructs, weigh carefully what is said.

At the same time I have been calling for repentance, I have also been struggling to understand what repentance would look like if we actually practiced it. Here's what I see in Scripture:

Repentance is a radical and violent change of mind and will. Even in the New Covenant, where the violence is described metaphorically and spiritually, it is very real and it is eternal.

Think about models of repentance in the Old Testament.

When Moses saw the worship of the golden calf, he actually called all those who were with him together and he told them each to take a sword, to go among the worshipers of the golden calf and to kill his 'brother and friend and neighbor.' In that time and place, if you didn't do that, you didn't repent. It was not enough merely to agree with Moses about Yahweh, repentance required extreme obedience to the notion that discipleship means hating mother and father, son and daughter and even self.

I find seven accounts of repentance and spiritual awakening in the Books of Kings and Chronicles in the Old Testament. They are all violent stories of the tearing down of altars to false gods and of the killing of the priests and worshipers of gods other than Yahweh. All of those stories are clear in asserting that this sort of violent and radical fruit of repentance pleased the Lord.

Think about models of repentance in the New Testament.

Under the New Covenant, repentance is described with violent metaphors that are perfectly consistent with those tales of Moses and the faithful kings of Israel and Judah.

When Pharisees and Sadducees came to observe the ministry of John but not to repent, John called them a brood of vipers and commanded them to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. He told them that the ax is at the root of the trees and promised them that every tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down and burned.

John's description of the ministry of the Messiah was equally violent. He said of the One who would come after him that His winnowing fork is in His hand and that He will clear His threshing floor and gather His wheat into the barn and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Note the message that Jesus preached from the beginning to the end of His ministry:

First, repent. Then, believe. Belief not based in repentance is not the belief Jesus commands.

Jesus defined the repentance necessary to be His disciple, as Moses did in the face of the golden calf, as being so extreme that if you don't hate your mother and father and wife and children and even your own life, you don't qualify as His disciple.

It was that radical type of commitment that the apostles preached from the day of Pentecost. When the crowd to whom Peter explained the coming of the Spirit asked, "What shall we do?" Peter didn't say, "Accept Jesus Christ as your savior." His first word in response was, "Repent."

In Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation, every church He didn't praise He commanded to repent and He promised harsh judgment and violent consequences to churches that failed to repent. To those in Ephesus he said, "If you do not repent I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place." To those sinning in Pergamum He warned that if they didn't repent, "I will fight against them." To Thyatira, He said, "I will repay each of you according to your deeds." To Sardis, He said, "If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief." To Laodicea He said, "I am about to spit you out of my mouth....Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline."

From what I can tell, as a Body our understanding of what it means to serve the Lord is symbolized by the writing of our radical Mission and Vision Statements which we don't believe in and which we have no intention of enacting. We foolishly suppose that our radical, pious words equal repentance and that they please the Lord.

My reading of the Lord's response is that He is not pleased.

I believe He sees those words, devoid of commitment to action, as obscene mockery of truth.

I believe He is preparing judgment against us and that He is raising prophets to call us to produce genuine, radical, biblical, extreme, fruit of repentance. I believe that our Mission and Vision Statements condemn us--they call down curses on us.

Repentance is not a matter of words. It is a matter of radical change in what people actually do.

We think that we can gently, sweetly, and patiently nurture ourselves and our people into change. We can't. The Lord doesn't empower change in that way. He has never accomplished repentance in that way. He has never called for it in that way. He doesn't think of change in those moderate terms. He defines it only in terms of the darkest black and and whiter than snow white. To think we can redefine repentance in an image that pleases us is to lift our chins to the Lord in defiance and tell Him that we know better than He always has.

He won't bless us if we continue to pursue a repentanceless pseudo-Christianity. He will fight against us. In fact, I believe that He already is fighting us. He will come to us one day like a thief. He will repay us for our defiant deeds. And, if we still refuse to repent, He will spew us out of His mouth and remove our lampstand from its place.

I believe that the truth John described is our truth. The ax is at the root of the trees. I believe that the ax is not yet swinging. But, the swing is being measured. The only thing that will keep the ax from swinging is acts that are fruit of repentance.

We need to repent: Really, really repent as the Word defines the act.

We don't have much time.

Defining Discipleship

2011-01-14T22:13:00.005-06:00

hey family,
so one of the things that i've heard recently on here, is that we have a real problem with our mission of making disciples, since we haven't really defined that. so here's my crack at it, in the form of commentary on the "great commission", Matt. 8:18-20.

"Jesus came and said to them, “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

if you look at the greek, the only active verb in verse 19 is matheteuw, make disciples. the other 3 verbs (going, baptizing, and teaching) are all participles, which i think means Jesus sees them as 3 parts of disciple making.

1) go: Jesus seems to assume that the disciples will go. i've heard some scholars translate this as "having gone", that going out is a foregone conclusion in Jesus' mind. this first part is us not only reaching out, but going out, putting ourselves out into the mess of this broken world and meeting people where they're at. this is where recent terms like "incarnational ministry" and "being missional" come from. book could be, and have been, written on going out and reaching the lost, but i'll leave it there for now, as simply going to the "them" of the world.

2) baptize: as i've studied the Scriptures, it amazes me how closely the apostles tie salvation and baptism together. they almost use them interchangeably, like in Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:12 and Rom. 6:3-4. God uses this symbol to impress upon us the union with Christ, His death and resurrection, that we have through faith. and it is written, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17) so this is about people coming to saving faith in Christ, being united with Him, and professing that publicly. as a command to Christians, this is about proclaiming the Gospel.

3) teach: if the last part is what modern evangelicalism calls "evangelism", this is what it calls "discipleship". however, i think both of these terms are false, in that evangelism and discipleship are the same. it is a myth that the Gospel is "Christianity 101", something that is basic and mastered and then moved past, and equally unBiblical is the notion that Christians don't need to hear the Gospel.

paul writes in to the Christians in rome, "i am eager to preach the Gospel to you also who are in rome." he's eager to evangelize (euangelizw) the Christians! because while non-Christians need to hear the Gospel in order to come to Christ in the first, Christians need to understand the depths of the Gospel and how it transforms a life, how it becomes a lifestyle. that's why almost all of paul's letters start out with an unpacking of certain aspects of the God's ways and His redemptive history, and then he goes into application, because all of the Christian life is an application of the Gospel.

we are generous with our money, because Christ has secured our ultimate Treasure in heaven for us. we are not obsessed with position-seeking vanity, because our identity is in Christ. we honor God in the stewardship of our bodies, our minds, our hearts, and our souls, because He has bought us at the price of Jesus' blood. we love sacrificially, because that's how our adoptive Dad has loved us, and we as His adopted sons want to be like our Father. i could go on and on, but you get the idea.

4) don't forget verses 18 and 20. we make disciples, because Christ has all authority, and He's commanding us to do this. and that authority is also our bedrock. when things look worse, we know Christ has all authority over all things, and that it is His will that we make disciples. He will see this through. we have a divine promise: "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. so there will be one flock, one Shepherd." (John 10:16) it is a sure thing, for "there will be one flock, one Shepherd." not maybe, not possibly, but surely there will be, this will come to pass.

and secondly, He's with us. both joshua of the OT and the hebrews of the NT are comforted by the words "I will never leave you nor forsaken you." (Jos. 1:5, Heb. 13:5)

Christ repeats these promises to comfort paul in corinth. "the Lord said to paul one night in a vision, 'do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are My people.'" (Acts 18:9-10) Jesus was with him in his disciple-making, and was making sure it happens, because, as far as i understand it, the "My people" Jesus is referring to are not yet believers. and paul, being so encouraged, "stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." (v.11)

now i know this is simplistic, and will continue being fleshed out for til Christ comes back. but i think a pretty good, brief definition of discipleship, for our purposes, would be "going into the world with Jesus to proclaim His Gospel and teach His commands to His people by His authority."

i would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Macrorepentance Musings

2011-01-14T09:48:00.005-06:00

As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world. (Matthew 28:16-20, Ephesians 3:8-11, Acts 1:8) -- Churches of God, General Conference Administrative Council, 2008

------------------

Don't say anything you don't mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk. . .. You don't make your words true by embellishing them with religious lace. In making your speech sound more religious, it becomes less true. Just say 'yes' and 'no.' When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong. -- Jesus, Matthew 5:33-37, The Message

The Missional Leadership Initiative

2011-01-08T11:12:00.002-06:00

The CGGC announced a new opportunity for personal growth and leadership development within our denomination last year called the Missional Leadership Initiative. The "MLI" is a two-year experience designed to help our church leaders grow and develop the character and skills necessary to lead effectively in the work God is asking us to do for the sake of his kingdom. The experience has been designed and is led by Reggie McNeal, and it involves six three-day retreats over a two-year period, participation in a 'cohort group,' as well as various books to read and homework exercises to complete.

I signed up and started the journey along with approximately 40 other church leaders last January. Now that we've been through the first year of the two-year program, Lance Finley (coordinator of the MLI) recently asked participants to share their experiences thus far. He asked two questions:

What difference has MLI made in your life/ministry?
How is what you're learning/experiencing becoming a reality in your ministry context?

I asked Lance if it was okay to share this on the blog, in hopes that it might generate some discussion by those who are already involved in the MLI, but also to get some feedback from some of you not (yet) involved.

I wondered if any of you already participating would care to share how you answered Lance's questions (or any feedback you might have - negative or positive); and also, for those of you not participating, are there any reasons why you have not participated, would you be willing to, or do you have any questions or other comments?

Here is what I shared with Lance about my experience thus far:

I think the biggest difference the MLI has had for me has been a focus. Our church had already broken down some of the 'old' ways, but we lacked direction in how to move forward. I think the 'scorecarding' exercises are especially helpful - though we are still taking baby steps in that regard - it at least gives us something to work with.

Personally, I think just the idea of going through this with others has meant a lot to me. I've been reading about missional stuff for some time, but it's not the same thing as being involved with a group who are all going through it together. I thoroughly enjoy the retreats; the cohorts groups are something I've been looking for for a long time; I even like the homework. I NEED things like that to motivate and encourage me.

As far as how it's becoming a reality... It's hard to pinpoint anything specifically. I've been talking about this at our church for a few years. We started to enact many of these changes when our council worked through 'The Present Future' book in 2006. However, I recently took an even larger group through 'The Present Future' DVD series, and along with what we've been learning through MLI it is a nice combination. We have recently formed a "focus group" (or core group, or something like that) to begin addressing things in a more substantive way.

Overall I think this is one of the best things the CGGC has done in my 11+ years as a pastor.

It should be noted that this is to be an on-going thing, with the next session slated to begin in 2012. Any thoughts, comments, or questions? Anyone thinking about signing up for the next round? (I would highly recommend it)

Being a Prophet

2011-01-07T10:03:00.004-06:00

Friends,

One of the truths that occurred to me as a result of putting into words the "The Greatest Danger of Pastor-Led Ministry" post is how much at odds the 'Pastor as Priest' and APEST leadership models are.

They are polar opposites. They represent views of leadership that stand in precise opposition to each other. They can not be combined, though that's what we're trying to do with them. Either you are a Pastor/Priest who envisions yourself as a mediator between the Lord and His people or you live in an APEST calling and see your role as foundational and your function as one of equipping saints to live as ministering priests in the world. You must employ one model or the other. You cannot position yourself in relation to the saints in two different places at the same time.

I have spent countless hours meditating on the following statement: "I believe that I am a prophet."

I have wondered what it must have been like for the biblical prophets to live in very religious, yet profoundly disobedient, cultures and to stand up before the priests and boldly proclaim, "Thus saith the Lord." What audacity it must have taken to say that for the first time. I myself feel that audacity when I function in what I believe to be my gift and calling.

And, I want you to know what I believe Scripture teaches that you owe the Lord and me because I claim with conviction to be a prophet. I believe that you have four choices. I don't believe that any of you ever chooses one of them. Here are the four choices I believe I give you:

1. Determine that the gift of prophecy died out as some point in the past and that I can't be a prophet because there are no longer prophets.

Many people believe that. If you are one of them, you are not alone. If you do believe that, I'd love to know what you do with Ephesians 4:13 but, if that's what you believe, it's what you believe.

2. Conclude that APEST giftings are relevant in the church today but that I am not a prophet.

I acknowledge that to be a possibility. I pray about my calling daily and I am convinced of it, but I also know that I'm fallible and that, as Paul says, "I see but a poor reflection as in a mirror." If this is your opinion, you absolutely owe it to me as your brother in Jesus, to communicate with me as of yesterday. I believe that it is a sin for you not to have already done that.

Here's where the choices begin to scare me:

3. Conclude that I am a false prophet.

The reality that false prophets will be common in the church is indisputable. That reality was so crucial to Jesus that His saying, "Watch out for false prophets" is included in the Sermon on the Mount. How much time do you spend in a typical week obeying Jesus and being on alert for false prophets? That reality was so compelling near the end of the New Testament era John said, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

I take it that some false prophets know that they are false and purposely deceive people but I'm not certain that all false prophets know that they are false. It seems that many false prophets will find out on 'that day' that they are false prophets. (Mt. 7:22)

I assure you that I believe that I am a prophet of the Lord. If you are convinced that I'm a false prophet, I believe you will be judged on that day if you don't confront me.

4. Conclude that I am a prophet.

If that's what you think, then you can never take something I say any more lightly than a contemporary of Isaiah or Jeremiah or John the Baptist or Agabus took what they said.

It seems to me that if a person is gifted by the Lord to be a prophet, there are two possibilities connected to his words.

One is that they will be prophetic words, i.e., they will be the fruit of one wired in the way the Lord wires prophets. Prophets are always concerned about truth more than anything else. At every time and in every issue, a prophet will elevate the truth component above everything else. When the Body acts, it will be the duty of apostles to see that their issues, mission and discipleship, are elevated and it will be, for instance, the duty of shepherds to stand up for their issue--community.

The other possibility connected to a prophet's words is that the words are an actual prophecy--a word from the Lord passed on the one or more people in the Body of Christ. (If you really believe in APEST, you believe in present-day prophecy. If you don't believe in present-day prophecy, you don't believe in APEST.)

Looking back on the things that I've written here, I will confess that I've not been as self-aware about where the boundary between being prophetic and speaking prophecy has been. I think I'm achieving awareness now regarding that distinction.

There are now things that I have to say that I believe are genuine prophecies. When I speak them, I will speak them humbly and with conviction. When I do, and if you believe that I am a prophet, I will be giving you two choices that I can see. One choice is to believe that my word has all the authority of a passage from a prophetic book in Scripture. If you make that choice to act in a way contrary to that word will be sin. Period. The second choice is to ask me if I'm certain that I've transmitted the Lord's word accurately. (I promise you, though, that if you hear it from me or read it from me, I will already be certain.) If you question, the word, though, please feel free to inquire of me.

I say this at this point in time because, as I have lived in my belief that I am a prophet, I believe that I've matured in my calling. When I embraced APEST I started out being more prophetic than ever and less ashamed of not thinking like a Pastor/Priest. In time, I began to believe that thoughts I have are His thoughts, not my thoughts. Recently, and I know how insane this will sound to some of you, I have begun to believe that I can see narrow glimpses of the future.

If you believe that APEST is true, then all of these things I've said about prophets in general and about myself specifically are also potentially true.

If APEST is true, this is not a game. If it's true, we will be judged for your stewardship of our gifts and callings.

This is the most serious thread I've even entered on this blog. In fact, it's the most serious thing I've ever communicated.

Please take it to heart.

The Greatest Danger of Pastor-Led Ministry

2011-01-06T08:55:00.005-06:00

There is an error in the notion that ministry is led by pastors who serve in a priestly role that is so in opposition to what Scripture teaches that I can't stop myself from wondering if it is not outright heresy.

So much of what we take for granted as the role of a pastor places the pastor in the position of standing above the laity--between God and common believers.

Why is it assumed that it is the pastor who is empowered to pray in 'worship services?' Because s/he stands above the others and grants them access to God's ear? What other explanation suits our common practice?

Why is it a comfortable thing that the pastor leads the taking of the Lord's Supper? Because the pastor has the mediatorial authority to give meaning to the eating and drinking of the elements?

Why must a pastor baptize? Because without the act of the one who connects the common church attender to God, can the dunking or the sprinkling or the pouring have God's blessing?

Why is a marriage performed by a pastor superior to one performed by a judge?

So much of what we take for granted assumes that a pastor is a priest elevated above the people and that s/he possesses the ability to mediate between God and His people. The biblical truth, however, could not be further from that way of thinking.

There is one mediator between God and humanity, the man Jesus Christ.

There is absolutely no suggestion in the ministry of Jesus that He was discipling apostles to be priests. (Mark 9:35) He sent them to serve all and to be disciplers and witnesses.

Paul's teaching about this could not possibly be more clear. Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church. (Eph. 2:20) They are not mediators. They are not priests. The remainder of the body in this metaphor is positioned above apostles and prophets--between them and the Lord. Christ Jesus Himself is the chief cornerstone of the church, not the apostles and prophets. He alone stands between the people of God and the Father. Apostles and prophets are furthest away, not closest. The role of apostles and prophets is foundational, not mediatorial. It certainly is not priestly.

Apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds and teachers do not stand above the rest of the Body--between the laity and the Lord. Christ gifts the church with the APEST community to "prepare the saints (not laity) for works of ministry." (Ephesians 4:12--the Sloat literal rendering). People with APEST gifting do not mediate between the rest of the church and the Lord, they offer themselves in service to the whole body, serving and equipping God's people--saints, holy people--to live a lifestyle of service.

The pastor/priest/mediator model of leadership in the Body could not possibly be more at odds with what the New Testament teaches and models.

Yet, every time a pastor presumes to offer a prayer to the Lord on behalf of an entire congregation and presumes to tell the Lord what we think or what we ask, s/he is doing something that the Word gives no one except Jesus and the Holy Spirit authority to do. Pastor becomes priest.

When the pastor presumes that s/he can say, "Do this in remembrance of me," with more authority than any other disciple of Jesus, s/he perverts the New Testament plan.

If you are gifted and called by the Lord for ministry, you are not elevated above the Body. You are not a priest. You don't mediate. You are not positioned above the people. You are placed below them as an equipper and a servant.

It is any wonder that our churches are filled with consumers of religious products and services provided by the priestly class? Until we repent of the upside-down, dangerous and false teaching that called people stand between laity and God, the people in our congregations will never be disciples or saints and they will never live in the world as priests of God.

The Sermon as Temple

2011-01-04T09:56:00.008-06:00

There’s a striking passage in 2 Chronicles 6 that powerfully describes the instinct in humans to hijack the ways of God.

After the temple is built, Solomon calls the people of Israel together and prays to the Lord. In his prayer— after years of planning the building of the temple, after the donation of an incredibly large portion of the wealth of the kingdom, after the devotion of what must have been tens of thousands of hours of human labor—Solomon finally speaks to the Lord saying,

“May your eyes be open toward this temple day and night, this place of which you said you would put your Name there. May you hear the prayer your servant prays toward this place. Hear the supplications of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place. Hear from heaven, your dwelling place; and when you hear, forgive.” (20-21)

How quintessentially human!

The Lord had his own paradigm for the way His people would engage Him. He called it the tabernacle.

He designed it. He wrote its dimensions into His very Law. He laid out the whos and the hows of the way His people would meet Him and serve Him and live in relationship with Him through the tabernacle. He designed specifically for that purpose. But Solomon’s father, David, had a better idea. That idea never pleased the Lord. The Lord sent Nathan to David to say,

‘This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’

Yet, because our Lord is merciful and gracious beyond measure, when Solomon took up David’s idea and built the temple and, after completing it, asked the Lord to bless it, the Lord blessed it.

Friends, understand the compelling passion of my heart:

The hijacking of the Lord’s plan for worship in the humble and mobile tabernacle for the sake of a humanly designed, edifice which breeds institutional worship is a metaphor for the way the institutionalized church has debased the Spirit-empowered gatherings depicted in the New Testament.

The cornerstone of that act for today's Evangelicals has become the ‘worship service’ which reaches its apogee with the preaching of the 'sermon' by a priestly mediator given the title, Pastor.

The New Testament describes a different sort of encountering God’s truth—one through which the Spirit Himself spoke truth to disciples as a matter of course.

The Word paints a vivid picture of disciples hearing directly from the Lord through prophecy and words of wisdom and knowledge and revelation and interpreted tongues presented by men and women speaking in and through the Spirit Himself.

Tabernacle!

I think that it was Dan H. who pointed out that God blesses sermons and I know that God does bless sermons.

But, friends, what’s the rationale for thinking that a human design for worship, that has no root in Scripture, is superior to the way empowered by the Lord Himself and depicted on the pages of the New Testament?

What theology supports the planning a sermon preached by a member of the priestly class?

What spiritual end rationalizes not allowing for the Spirit to speak directly to us in the way He once did as a matter of course?

I want the tabernacle. I want the Spirit. I want God's design for the gatherings I attend.

I want to hear from the Spirit directly.

I don’t want to imbibe of a human institution that a gracious and merciful Lord might, nevertheless, honor second hand.

I want His Word first hand. I don’t want left-overs, no matter how gifted the chef who prepared them may be.

And, while I can see from history and from church life all around me that the idea of temple over tabernacle appeals to the human species, I can’t understand why anyone would want temple over tablenacle or sermon over words from the Spirit

Preaching

2010-12-17T08:21:00.003-06:00

I’ve made the point that the Greek verb kerusso, normally translated into English as ‘preach,’ never appears in the New Testament in connection with gatherings of disciples. And, after much study to the best of my knowledge, that is the truth.

While that fact is significant, two others make me seriously question our practice of preaching.

1. What we think of as preaching in the church today is not what preaching was in the New Testament. From my experience, the most usual direct object of the verb preach in the church today is, ‘sermon.’ When you preach or listen to a sermon, you are not approximating anything that the early church did. There was nothing close to the sermon in early Christian worship. In fact, based on only brief study, the sermon was an innovation of the 12^th century. As far as I know, the Christian community functioned for much more than 1,000 years without a single sermon.

What you do when you preach today isn’t what Bible people did when they preached.

2. There are ways of communicating truth that are far more similar to the way Jesus taught than what we do in our churches. I’m not as much against preaching as I am in favor of employing communication strategies that were good enough for Jesus and the first Christians.

Many years ago, when I took homiletics, passing reverence was paid to Jesus as a rabbi whose teachings are as relevant 2,000 years after He spoke them as they were in His own day. Then, the professor proceeded to map out a model of communication that could not possibly have been more foreign to how Jesus taught. How insane! Can you imagine someone 2,000 years in the future grooving on what you preached last Sunday?

----------

Other than the fact that the preaching of sermons, as we currently define them, settled quickly into church tradition, why do we defend the practice?

A Deeply Disturbing Conversation about the Mission Statement

2010-12-16T08:09:00.002-06:00

Recently I had a chat with a guy I know, love and deeply respect who is a CGGC pastor. In my opinion, he is one of the sharpest knives in the CGGC drawer, perhaps the sharpest of all. He’s been in ministry for many years and his ministries have always produced the best fruit.

I said to him, “You were on the General Conference Ad Council when it approved the Mission Statement, right?”

He said, “No.”

Surprised, I said, “You were on Ad Council last term, from 07 to 10, right?”

He said, “Uh huh.”

“Hmmm. According to Ed in the Church Advocate, the Mission Statement was approved in September 08.”

“Well, I don’t remember it.”

-----------------

Now Gang,

I don’t know what to think. But, I have tons of macro-questions.

What does it say about concern for mission in the CGGC that this guy—truly one of our best and brightest—could have been on Ad Council and, barely two years after approving the Mission Statement, not remember that he was on the Ad Council that approved it?

What does it say about the role of truth in our body that this could happen?

What does it say about the CGGC macro leadership culture—not the individual leaders themselves—that something as bizarre as a bright guy being part of the approval of a first Mission Statement in our nearly 180 year history (at the time) and remembering it with no greater clarity than which shirt he had on on that day?

What does it say about our leadership meetings: Conferences, Commission meetings, Ad Council meetings, which are so dominated by shepherd values, that this could happen?

Does the CGGC, as an aggregate whole, even care about mission? Truth?

Does anyone but me think that this conversation points to disturbing realities about who we are and what our future holds?

What does the reality that this conversation actually took place show us that we need to repent of?

Winebrenner: A New Blog

2010-12-11T21:06:00.005-06:00

I need to expose myself to more of John Winebrenner's thought and wrestle with it. And I think many other leaders in the cggc ought to as well - young and old.

In reality, apart from the polity course that credentialed ministers are required to take, we have very little interaction with the thoughts of Winebrenner unless we should choose to.

I thought about putting up a Winebrenner quote here a couple times a week, but that might distract from other conversations. And, honestly, I'd like to have some others interact with the thoughts of Winebrenner who avoid involvement with this particular forum for whatever reason.

So anyway, I just started a new blog www.johnwinebrenner.wordpress.com I hope that other will wrestle with Winebrenner's thoughts with me.

Quote: "Modern-day Preachers"

2010-12-10T12:57:00.001-06:00

" It is true, there are some holy, godly and God-honored ministers here and there in our day who have something like an apostolic unction in their preaching, and who have good success in winning souls to Christ. But then a vast majority of modern preachers are more like "wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest" [1Pe 2:17], than like the ministers of the gospel.

We have a numerous class of man-made ministers, now-a-days, who have both learning and talent, and who preach a great many good things in fine style; but alas! their preaching carries with it no saving knowledge of God and the power of His gospel. Their religion seems to consist entirely of theory and forms; whilst the life and power of godliness they have no concern for, and no belief in at all."

John Winebrenner

Macrorepentance Musings

2010-12-08T07:45:00.002-06:00

"Sometimes to get to the future you must look back. I'm not speaking of Winebrenner, but to where he looked, Jesus and the apostles. What might this mean for us? It means it's time to renew our "first love" and get moving again." -- Ed Rosenberry, The CHURCH ADVOCATE, April/May 2009

House Church: Does Size Matter?

2010-12-03T08:36:00.003-06:00

My wife is always reminding me that size doesn’t matter. Of course she’s talking about the size of our worship gatherings (or our church community in general). You might think she’s trying to stroke my ego to convince me it’s okay to have a small member(ship); but it actually works both ways.

See, I am a proponent of the “house church” movement. I believe it is a viable expression of the body of Christ, and I think it may become a growing force even in North America in the not too distant future (as it already is in other parts of the world). I do not think it is the only way to gather, or that it’s necessarily better than other ways of organizing, and I hope it isn’t just another fad in our attempts to keep up with the Joneses. It just makes sense to me. If you deal with people who want nothing to do with church, it shouldn’t take you long to figure out that they really don’t want anything to do with church as most of us presently know it. But there are a number of people willing to gather for barbecues, or supper, or drinks, or whatever… and most people are not at all opposed to discussing things of a spiritual nature in the right atmosphere and within a certain relational context. So maybe we ought to quit trying to fit square pegs into round holes (or think everybody should think of “church” the same way we do).

But let’s get back to size. I have heard and read in several places that the “N.T. plan” of doing church means we need to go back to small gatherings of people in homes. I don’t know about you, but I often get a mental picture of the number of people who will fit into my living room. So as large gatherings were the measuring stick in the mega-church movement, smaller gatherings are often lifted up as the house-church way. But I’m not so sure that was the point of it during New Testament biblical times. Size may have nothing to do with performance on either end.

I’ve been reading an interesting little church history book from Mindy & Brandon Withrow ‘Peril And Peace: Chronicles of the Ancient Church’ (it’s written with 9 to 14-year-olds in mind, so it’s just my speed), and they point out that even though Christians in the early church met in private homes, they were often remodeled to make room for larger groups. Or they were the homes of wealthier individuals who had large rooms, atriums, or courtyards, where larger groups could easily gather. Sure, there were some that met in smaller settings, but the reason they were meeting in homes wasn’t to limit the size of the gatherings, it was because they weren’t allowed to meet anywhere else. It was either more practical, or in many cases it was illegal for Christians to meet in public at the time. It just made sense to them to meet in homes.

Certainly there are circumstances now where differing sizes might be beneficial from an organizational perspective. I am all for smaller gatherings. Others like them bigger. We all learn in different ways, have different tastes, and live in different cultural environments. But I’m not sure there is a “New Testament Plan” that says smaller is better, anymore than bigger is better. Maybe it’s all good!

I like Paul’s attitude in 1 Corinthians 9 where he “became all things to all people so that by all possible means [we] might save some.” If a large gathering works, so be it; if it’s a small one, then why not? Maybe we shouldn’t get so wrapped up in the size of our gatherings, but just get busy ‘doing it’ (making disciples)… reproducing, however, whenever, and wherever.

Macrorepentance: Authority in Presbyterial Polity

2010-12-03T07:42:00.008-06:00

In Acts 15 the apostles and elders of the early Christian movement gathered to resolve a sharp difference of opinion. Some followers of Jesus were convinced that, in order to be a disciple, a gentile first had to become a Jew. Others disagreed. According to the Acts account of that gathering, there was much discussion. Peter spoke prominently. Barnabas and Paul reported the amazing ways that the Lord had blessed their missionary efforts. Then James, the half brother of Jesus, crystallized the leading of the Spirit. He articulated an opinion that was embraced by the entire assembly.

The apostles and elders then sent a letter to the congregation in Antioch, the church whose radical missionality had evoked the issue in the first place. The writing and sending of that letter is one of the most important events in the history of our movement.

That letter established a new ultimate authority in the Jesus movement.

As difficult as it may be to comprehend, that letter became an authority even greater than that of the teachings of Jesus because it articulated the common understanding of all the Jesus’ apostles and the church’s elders on how the teachings of Jesus are to be applied.

From that day on no one citing even the teachings of Jesus Himself in a way that contradicted the letter would be accepted.

The biblical reality is that when the elders of the church speak what they say becomes the highest authority in the church.

In the New Testament era no person, no matter what his position or authority, could teach or preach or minister in a way that contradicted the letter: Not James, whose insight inspired the letter, not Peter, not Paul, not Barnabas. No one and no thing possessed higher authority, even in the New Testament era, than the proclamation of the apostles and elders.

From the day the Church of God was formed in October 1830, it has defined as an Eldership. To this day, the Church of God operates with the understanding that its ultimate authority lies in community of the called in exactly the same way that the authority of the apostles and elders was the ultimate authority among New Testament disciples.

As was the case in the New Testament, each CGGC congregation is, according to what we believe, accountable to the authority of the Eldership. We are not Congregational.

More to the point, people who hold positions of authority in the church are also accountable to the authority of the Eldership. They are not Bishops and Cardinals and Popes. We are not Episcopal.

It is with that understanding of our polity based in the “New Testament plan” that I have been making so great an issue of the CGGC Mission Statement.

When the Executive Director, the members of the General Conference staff and of the General Conference Administrative Council gathered in September 2008, they created, for the first time in 178 of our history, a document that purports to speak for our entire body and to which all of us are accountable. They did nothing short of writing an Acts 15 letter to the whole church.

Unbidden, a relatively small group of our assembled elders asserted their right to pen a document that provides the lens through which we all must understand the teachings of Peter and James and John and Paul—even the teachings of Jesus Himself. The existence of this document—this Mission Statement—was then announced in the Church Advocate. And, all of us in the community of the called rolled with that punch as we roll with every punch thrown at us by those on top of the CGGC food chain. No one questioned the Ad Council or the Mission Statement. As far as I know, apart from me, no one ever thinks theologically about what they have done to us.

But, because we are Presbyterial, the Mission Statement supplants even Scripture as our highest authority because it interprets Scripture for us. According to what we believe about the church, all of us are accountable to it, even Ed Rosenberry and his staff are, even our regional directors and their staffs, if they have them are, even our most wayward congregations are.

Here are some thoughts I have about our polity:

1. Presbyterial polity is extremely unstable. It naturally breaks down.

While it will continue to function in theory, congregations begin to operate on their own authority. They cease to be accountable to the larger body. They behave as if their “Eldership” doesn’t exist and the Eldership accepts their autonomy.

Not only does Presbyterial polity deteriorate toward Congregationalism, it also deteriorates in the direction of Episcopacy.

The body becomes increasingly institutional and hierarchical. The size of the ruling class increases at an exponential rate. People in positions of authority function in a way that is increasingly authoritarian.

And, not only do congregations begin to function congregationally and denominational leaders episcopally, the presbytery/eldership/community of the called itself accepts its subordinate role and submits to the authority of both congregations and leaders.

CGGC Presbyterianism has deteriorated. It exists today only in theory.

We, for example, don’t even think about holding individual congregations accountable to the Mission Statement. In practice, our congregations are freer from their Conference’s authority than any Southern Baptist congregation is from its Convention.

What is most disturbing to me, however, is the authoritarian way CGGC leadership now functions. Our leaders, quite gently and tenderly, assume their right to outpope the Pope. CGGC leadership holds itself in so high an esteem that it doesn’t even accept its accountability to itself!

CGGC leadership recently reached new heights (depths?) in asserting unbounded authority when the same Administrative Council that produced a Mission Statement, produced a credentials document and a revision of We Believe that defies that very Mission Statement. In doing so it was, for all intents and purposes, telling the CGGC Body:

“We assert ongoing ex cathedra authority. We are not accountable to the body. In fact, we are not even accountable to any previous incarnation of ourselves.”

The Pope doesn’t even think he possesses the authority in Roman Catholicism to do the things that our Ad Council and Executive Director and his staff have done in the past few years. He, at least, believes that he is accountable to previous Popes.

These are good people. This is, very simply, what happens when presbyterial polity breaks down. We need macrorepentance.

2. The leadership of the CGGC—the Executive Director and his staff and the Ad Council—need to be disciplined not for creating the Mission Statement, though I think they’ve done us harm by writing it, but for defying the Mission Statement in the revision of We Believe and in the credentials document they reported/sent to General Conference sessions—both of which defy the “New Testament plan.”

3. The Mission Statement should be rescinded. I’m certain that John Winebrenner is spinning in his grave knowing that our only rule of faith and practice is a Mission Statement.

4. Leaders must be de-poped. Congregations must be de-congregationalized. The authority of the body, as it is modeled in the New Testament, must be reasserted.

5. We need to begin to think theologically before we act on whims and embrace new fads. We need to think the way we thought in the days of John Winebrenner.

A Radical Mission for a Moderate Church?

2010-11-23T07:51:00.002-06:00

Gang,

It may be that my biggest problem with the CGGC Mission Statement is that I believe, in my heart, that it is a lie.

Here's the Statement:

As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world.
(Matthew 28:16-20, Ephesians 3:8-11, Acts 1:8)

The lie is in the present tense, active mood verb "commit."

I don't believe that we do commit ourselves to the 'establishing churches on the New Testament plan' part. I think that to say that we do breaks one of the Ten Commandments.

But, believe me: I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. More than that, I very truly and sincerely want to be convinced that I'm wrong. I want to have to enter a post on this blog in the future tearfully confessing my error. So, if you think I'm wrong and if you love me as a brother, for the good of the Body and my role in it, please convince me I'm wrong if you think I'm wrong.

Here's a scenario that I believe will demonstrate that the Mission Statement is a lie.

A new family begins to attend the XYZ Community Church of God in your Region. You attend, perhaps lead, that congregation. These new people like what they see at WYZ. They check out the church and the denomination. They see the Mission Statement at the top of the Web page and show up at the next worship gathering and, taking 1 Corinthians 14:27 and the New Testament plan Mission Statement claim at face value, one of them speaks in tongues and another member of the family offers an interpretation.

Here are some questions I'd love you to answer:

1. Would you personally be able, with commitment, to practice the New Testament plan and regard the speaking in tongues and its interpretation according to the pattern described in 1 Corinthians 14:27 as an act of worship that must be accepted, embraced and encouraged in your congregation's gatherings?

2. Would the attenders of the congregation with which you gather accept, etc. speaking in tongues and its interpretation? How would the claim of the CGGC Mission Statement fold into how the congregation responds?

3. How would the larger faith community in your CGGC Region respond when it became aware that tongues is being spoken and interpreted in a New Testament way in the congregation where you gather?

Because I think that the Mission Statement is a lie, my guess is that many of you would have serious reservations about the tongues/interpretation practice but that some of you would allow it, even if you didn't embrace it. But, that in the great majority of our congregations, the practice would not be permitted and that this new family would be instructed not to literally practice 1 Corinthians 14:27 in your gatherings. And, I suspect that in most, if not all, of our regions, this practice would be, at the very least, highly controversial and that, if tongues was either tolerated, accepted or, God forbid, embraced in your congregation it would be divisive in your region.

If I'm correct, the claim of the Mission Statement, well, bears false witness, of who we are and what we do.

Now, as I said, I sincerely hope that you can convince me that I'm wrong. I want you to convince me that I'm wrong.

If I am wrong, please convince me.

Measurable Values of a Disciple

2010-11-13T20:13:00.000-06:00

I just returned from the Right Now Conference in Dallas, TX. As we have been talking about core values and mission statements, here is their mission statement and four measurables to define what success would look like.

Mission Statement -- Our Mission is to help people trade in the pursuit of the American Dream for a work that desperately needs Christ.

A Trader is a new kind of missionary, not defined by geography, but defined by a resolve to...

Choose Daily to sacrifice our time and money to apply The Parable of the Good Samaritan and to "go and do likewise."

Hate Injustice and find specific ways to bring the hope found in Jesus to desperate situations.

Work as Worship because God is glorified when we use our God-given passions and skills with excellence.

Act Swiftly because the time is Right Now!

I sat in on a breakout led by Will Mancini (www.willmancini.com, www.churchunique.com. He is a clarity evangelist and wants us to all have precise clarity about why our individual church exists. He helped Right Now develop these statements. He lays it all out in Church Unique.

Here's my question for discussion: Do you agree that an individual church should have a unique existence and calling? Why don't many churches have such clarity?

COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER

2010-11-11T19:17:00.000-06:00

I have really not been closely following the postings on the blog these past 30 days. Not to sound self righteous, but I simply have been too busy trying to help lead a congregation to be faithful to its calling to help reconcile people to God. To borrow Dan Kimball's expression "to be the bridges to the bridge." And creative energies have been focused on connecting with unchurched people to engage them in a dialogue that would help open their hearts and minds to Jesus Christ. I think the word still is evangelism.

I know this is a blog that is basically "in house" and is trying to create a sense of receptivity towards emerging generations (at least that was my understanding when I began reading the blog). The question is "are we dialoguing with all the brethren who make up the Church of God today?" For a variety of reasons, that dialogue appears not to have happened. But when that time comes, what will be our purpose? To convert previous generations to "our way" of viewing the church (including categorizing people in their APEST streams) or will it to be to build a unity of the Body that honors Christ and presents a life-transforming gospel to the world.

It is my experience lately that many traditional pastors and church leaders really want to do ministry that honors Jesus Christ and makes new disciples, but feel tied down by local congregational expectations and denominational comparisons and equipping that has not even begun to recognize what it means to do ministry in an unchurched culture.

Mission statements and motivational slogans do not define or empower the church. People seeking to open and obedient to the Holy Spirit are what enables the church to be fruitful in its mission. If that does not always have precision in mechanics or conformity to every doctrinal iota--will the church fail to be faithful? I think not. It has been reported that on his death bed that John Winebrenner implored the brethren to do everything necessary to preserve the unity of the Body.

How do we go about discovering and embodying that unity as the Churches of God in 2010? I would be interested in your thoughts. - Steve Dunn

Macrorepentance Musings

2010-11-11T05:03:00.000-06:00

"To accomplish all this will require another great reformation." -- John Winebrenner, 1830

Prescriptive/Unprecriptive? Or is there Another Question?

2010-11-09T05:40:00.002-06:00

In our discussion of the CGGC Mission Statement to “establish churches on the New Testament plan” the issue of what the New Testament prescribes has been raised.

The question, as I understand it, is:

In our place and time are we required to do everything that early Christians did or do we have freedom to adapt to our culture so that only what is directly commanded by Scripture is required of us?

This question is as old as the Reformation. Zwingli’s and Luther’s differences trace essentially to the fact that they answered this question differently. In breaking away from Rome, Zwingli was radical. He argued that anything that was of Rome that is not rooted in the New Testament must be abandoned. Luther was far more moderate. He believed that Protestants can maintain many traditions from Rome and that only what defies a direct New Testament command is forbidden. (Zwingli found himself deeply conflicted when some of his associates took a more radical view of what must be abandoned and became the first Anabaptists. Zwingli ultimately executed them.)

If we take the CGGC Mission Statement seriously, it may be that we struggle through the prescriptive/unprescriptive question ourselves. If we do, we will have a lot of company.

But, if we do, I think we will be asking the wrong question. I think that the prescriptive/unprescriptive question was wrong 500 years ago. I think it always will be the wrong question.

Recently, I viewed, for about the dozenth time, Reggie McNeal’s video “It’s AD 30 All Over Again,” which is available on line. On the video, McNeal makes this assertion:

In many places of the world (today) there is a Pentecost every single hour.

McNeal seems not to be exaggerating. People are flooding into the body of Christ in China and India and Indonesia and Africa and Central and South America in numbers that are historic and harken the spread of Jesus-following in the days before Constantine. McNeal describes what’s going on as a movement of the Spirit—and I can’t argue with that. Who can?

But, McNeal also says,

Everywhere the Western Church has put its footprint…the church is struggling…You and I are on the backwaters of the Christians movement on planet earth.

He’s correct. In Europe and North America Christianity is losing the culture. The church in the West is anemic at best compared to the church nearly everywhere else in the world.

And, with McNeal, I believe our problem is spiritual. The Spirit is not empowering the western church. And, He is empowering the church elsewhere.

That’s precisely why I think the question of what is prescriptive and what is unprescriptive in the New Testament is the wrong question. That question leads us to an answer that has no spiritual meaning.

A better question is: What does the Spirit bless?

I have begun no longer to wonder what we should do in our ministry because it is directly commanded in the New Testament. I now only ask myself:

“How can I live in a way that connects me to the powerful intimacy with the Holy Spirit evidenced in the New Testament—and is present in other places in the world at this moment?”

We don’t need to be parsing verbs to discern what is and what is not a New Testament command. We need to begin to “parse” the interaction between human beings and the Holy Spirit in the Word and in our world. We need to seek Him.

It was with that mindset that I began a journey that led me to the Eight Characteristics that I set down in the other thread. I try no longer to think in terms debated in the Reformation. It is a nonissue for me if Zwingli or Luther was correct about how much freedom we have in tweaking the Roman Catholic religion of 1516.

I want the Spirit. I want His power. I want His blessing to flow through me into the hearts of people who don’t have Him.

And, so I ask a different question.

To me, the New Testament plan has nothing to do with where believers meet. It has to do with how believers meet the Spirit.

The State of the Conversation

2010-11-05T22:17:00.003-05:00

What is the state of this ongoing conversation?
I'd love to hear what some folks think.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

I joined the conversation late. I've appreciated the candor with which people have been able to raise important issues.

I've been personally challenged and stretched as a result of this conversation. I've also 'met' many people I did not know previously.

At this point, I am interested in the conversation partners and the next steps. I've been told that there are many 'readers' of the blog who do not participate, or if so, very occasionally. Additionally, there are some who are busy or don't check back often but weight in when they do. Others are more actively involved.

I think for the future, it would be nice to see more voices. Voices from different backgrounds and gifting willing to be honest and to be challenged bluntly without being personally offended.
________________

I believe that it is time for this conversation to become constructive in the sense of building consensus about some core values, even if building one at a time.

Does any of us doubt that change is needed? Is not the whole Christian life one of repentance?

Let us repent of any sins of our past and present together and move into a more faithful future.

What core can be agree on? Then let's engage in discussion on applying it together.

That's where I want the conversation to go, but like most real life conversations, planning can be futile.

Eight Characteristics of New Testament Plan Congregations

2010-11-04T05:08:00.002-05:00

I meet regularly with a group of people who determined about a year ago to go on a journey whose intended destination was rather carefully envisioned. We decided to function as faithfully according to the New Testament model as possible. Since then, we have determined always to do what is modeled in the New Testament no matter what our church traditions demand.

This has been a mind-blowing journey. A few days ago we met to take stock of the conclusions we have reached together at this stage of our uncompleted journey. We identified eight truths about the way New Testament congregations would function in our time and place. We have no notion that these eight tell the whole story. We know that these eight are a small fraction of the total. With that in mind, here’s what we agreed to.

New Testament plan congregations:

1. Gather in community in numbers of people who can meet in a home.

2. Grow numerically through multiplication, not addition.

3. Do not invest in elaborate facilities.

4. Are shepherded by elders.

5. Grow numerically through the ministries of apostles, prophets and evangelists who function as itinerants and move among many congregations.

6. Expect that disciples will live out the Gospel as a lifestyle, not only through organized programs.

7. Anticipate that all who gather for worship come prepared to participate.

8. Require that all people fully connected to the congregation understand that following Jesus involves a total commitment to Him.

What is a Pastor?

2010-11-03T11:45:00.003-05:00

This was a question way down a previous thread - let's bring it to the top. Much like in most Christian denominations as well as in independant churches, in the CGGC we commonly refer to our local church leaders as pastors.

What is a pastor? Here's the deal though - we are only allowed to use what the New Testament says. No secondary books, no personal experiences, etc.

If you call yourself a pastor, where does this role come from biblically? If you've been reading the blog but never commented, please consider jumping in on this one.

Clear enough?

Macrorepentance Musings

2010-11-03T10:45:00.002-05:00

It is necessary to schedule when a worship gathering will begin. It is a sin to think that you can schedule when a gathering of Jesus followers will end.

Neil Cole: Church As A Living System | VIDEO « Verge Network

2010-10-26T11:28:00.000-05:00

Neil Cole: Church As A Living System | VIDEO « Verge Network

Check out this and the other videos from the Verge conference now online.

Ten Characteristics of a Spiritually Plateaued Leader

2010-10-25T08:47:00.003-05:00

I recently started reading Neil Cole's book, Organic Leadership. In the introduction (pp.22-25) he has a list of 10 characteristics of a spiritually plateaued leader that he borrowed from Terry Walling and adapted and elaborated on. They are...

1. A spiritually plateaued leader avoids relationships of personal accountability. These leaders are removed from people. They have a degree of separateness that keeps them unaccountable to anyone. Often Christendom has reinforced such a separation and tried to justify it as biblical, to the detriment of the church, the world, and especially the leader...

2. A spiritually plateaued leader rarely applies the truths of God's Word to him or herself personally. Many Christian leaders have pursued education and have become experts on the Bible, thus believing they have no more to learn. These leaders no longer read the Word for insight into their own lives, but rather apply it to the problems others have. They read the Bible only to find solutions to other people's issues rather than with their own needs in mind.

3. A spiritually plateaued leader has replaced his or her joy, peace, and love with envy and resentment. People cannot simply manufacture godliness by modifying their behavior to conform to Christ's ideals. The fruit of God's Spirit, seen in every aspect of our lives, is evidence of our redeemed character, not the works we force ourselves to perform to demonstrate our religious behavior. Where the Spirit is not in control, the fruit is not evident, and no amount of hard work can make it so. Leaders who are no longer growing in their pursuit of the Lord cannot display the fruit of the Spirit and often exhibit instead sour religious attitudes. It's amazing how these ugly ways of thinking, when enough leaders display them, are accepted as the norm...

4. A spiritually plateaued leader frequently looks for greener pastures in other places. Often Christian leaders blame their church or organization for the lack of fruitfulness in their ministry. They attribute the success others have to the luck of landing in the right place at the right time. Leaders who think like this are always looking to move to a better place where their ministry will be truly appreciated and the success they deserve will finally come. This means that many pastors move frequently from one church to the next looking for success.

5. A spiritually plateaued leader finds faults in others more often than in self. The leaders find introspection difficult and rarely evaluate themselves, though they are often busy evaluating everyone else. They "find the speck in their brother's eye but do not notice the plank protruding from their own" (Mt. 7:3)...

6. A spiritually plateaued leader is burned-out from lots of busyness that has been substituted for simple intimacy with Christ. Spiritually plateaued leaders are exhausted because they are usually deceived into thinking that more effort and more activity are ways to gain closer access and blessing from God. This is a devastating lie from hell itself. There is no substitute for intimacy with Christ. More activity will never satisfy our deep need to connect with God and usually prevents us from having the intimacy we so desperately require... While carrying out religious busyness may grant us a sense of importance, it does not renew our hearts with joy and purpose. Instead it robs us of the strength we need...

7. A spiritually plateaued leader compromises on ethical principles once held dear. It is not uncommon to find such leaders have fallen deep into patterns of hidden sin. Using grace and liberty as excuses, they continue to function publicly without regret or remorse, while behind closed doors they carry out sinful practices...

8. A spiritually plateaued leader stays within safe areas of expertise rather than branching out into new learning endeavors. This sort of leader wants to be seen as an expert rather than a learner and therefore has no intention of exploring new fields or gaining new understanding... The idea of learning something new is scary because it implies that the leader does not have the expertise that has been part of his or her identity.

9. A spiritually plateaued leader is unable to acknowledge the wisdom of others. This leader talks more often than listens, is uninterested in what others have to say, and is easily offended if someone contradicts his or her idea. It is almost impossible to tell this person anything new...

10. A spiritually plateaued leader has reduced the Christian life to a routine. The plateaued leader is in a kind of holding pattern and is not moving forward in his or her walk with Christ. For this person life is a routine, trying to live the Christian life in the right Christian way. It is a static existence of maintaining what is, rather than developing anything new. It is a life of a few dos and many don'ts.

Neil suggests at this point that we might need to put the book down and spend some time alone with the Lord. I was already thinking that when I first read through it. I believe it does us all good to spend some time thinking about our own soul from time to time. Perhaps some of you might find this list as difficult, and helpful, as I did.

Peace out; and in.

Alan Hirsch: Intro to The Forgotten Ways, the mDNA, the Apostolic Genius

2010-10-10T02:46:00.000-05:00

Introducing the Missional Church - a review

2010-10-06T09:30:00.006-05:00

I recently read Introducing the Missional Church by Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren. I think this is perhaps the best book on the subject I have read so far. They've taken the work of Leslie Newbigin and made it easier to understand and more readable for simple folk like me. In fact, the point of the book is phrased in three questions: What is the missional church, why does it matter, and how does a church become missional?

I thought the first part of the book - where they explain the concept of "missional" - was the best. My only complaint is with the last section. It seems to become a bit of a sales pitch for the author's resources in helping your church become missional. There is still useful information though.

The book is broken into three parts, like so...

Part 1: One Missional River
Ch. 1 - Not All Who Wander Are Lost: Stories of a Church In Between
Ch. 2 - Just Give Me A Definition: Why Missional Church Is So Hard to Define
Ch. 3 - Does Missional Fit? Can My Church Be Missional

Part 2: Three Missional Conversations
Ch. 4 - What's Behind the Wardrobe? The Center of the Missional Church
Ch. 5 - We're Not in Kansas Anymore: Missionaries in Our Own Land
Ch. 6 - Why Do We Need Theology? Missional Is about God, Not the Church
Ch. 7 - God's Dream for the World: What Is a Contrast Society?

Part 3: Countless Missional Journeys
Ch. 8 - The Journey Ahead: Following the Winds of the Spirit
Ch. 9 - Starting from Here: Where is Your Church Now?
Ch. 10 - The Missional Change Model: Getting There from Here
Ch. 11 - The Awareness Stage: Staring Reality in the Face
Ch. 12 - The Understanding Stage: Can We Really Talk about These Things?
Ch. 13 - The Evaluation Stage: A Snapshot of the Church
Ch. 14 - The Work of the Church Board: How Do Innovators and Traditionalists Work Together?
Ch. 15 - The Experiment Stage: Little Steps toward Something Big

There were a few quotes that particularly stood out to me. The book starts out with this very nice paragraph on what being missional means...

There once was a people who were neither significant nor exceptional nor privileged. In fact they did what most people of the time did: worked, married, raised children, celebrated, mourned, and carried out the basic stuff of life. You would not think them unique, because their dress, homes, and professions were much like that of everyone else. What was different about them, however, was their strange conviction that they had been chosen by God to be a special people, a journeying people who were forced to discover again and again what God wanted them to be doing in the world... At every stage in the biblical narratives is hope for a future reality toward which the people are moving. Being missional means we join this heritage, entering a journey without any road maps to discover what God is up to in our neighborhoods and communities.

On p. 21 was this insightful little ditty which might differ from the "getting back to the NT pattern"...

As an alternative to the attractional, some take up a contrarian stance. They become anti-building, anti-clergy, anti-denomination, anti-megachurch, anti-tradition, and anti-structure. They point fingers at what is now in place and tear it down. Many are stuck on the negative, and they know how to write blogs that deconstruct and talk about what is wrong. Who doesn't know how to do that? There's nothing creative about it, even if the media is used well. Others move past the negative by elevating an ideal or dream of what the church should be. This is understandable, but it is not helpful. As counterintuitive as it may sound, we don't cultivate a missional imagination by setting up some ideal type of the church or telling people what we should be. There are different forms of these dreams. They often come in some form of getting back to New Testament patterns or describing some point in the church's history that we need to recover. Some use quite strange, almost nonsensical language about how the church must become deinstitutionalized (we actually haven't come across any human system that isn't institutionalized in one form or another) and that it needs to return to a preinstitutionalized state of organic life. None of this is helpful, because it fails to recognize where the Spirit is actually at work in shaping a new imagination.

On p. 24 they state clearly three perspectives they are hoping to challenge with the book...

First, we are challenging the elevation of any model as the way to do church... Second, we challenge arguments that the Bible reveals a missional secret or formula that provides twenty-first century Christians with a magic pill for entering missional life... Third, we are challenging the idea that there is some point in history of the church that provides us with just the right pattern and formula for creating missional churches...

As you can tell there are some fairly provocative ideas in this book. I thought it was quite good, and I would recommend it for any church leader or anyone interested in the missional conversation.

Interesting..

2010-10-04T21:33:00.003-05:00

Francis Chan was the pastor of a large and growing California church and author of a couple of best-selling books. He resigned from his position.

In an interview with Christianity Today, he mentions spending some time in Asia. He says this:

"I like what they are doing in Asia with smaller churches, multiplication, and discipleship, whether it's house churches or tons and tons of smaller church plants. That's what I believe the Lord is going to have me working on."

Organic Discipleship

2010-10-04T09:33:00.000-05:00

In the Missional Leadership Initiative in the CGGC, we are finishing out the first year of a two year process.

We are currently being challenged very heavily to "change the scorecard."

This has proven to be a more challenging task than I expected. It is a fact that at our church, The Crossover, we count two things --
1. Do you attend the Sunday morning service?
2. Do you attend a home group?

My desire is that The Crossover be about two very focused things --
1. Find ways to introduce people to Jesus Christ.
2. Create regular discipleship opportunities for people who know Jesus (and maybe even for those who don't)

So we are finding that what we are counting isn't creating our desired intentions for people. We have a lot of questions we need to be asking ourselves. Again I will give two.
1. In what context would it be our best opportunity to introduce people to Jesus? And then how can we count the people who take this opportunity to share and the number of people who respond positively?
2. How do we define a disciple? What should be the expectations of a disciple? And then how can we count people who meet these expectations?

As Bill looks for a model to implement, I think these are the two key questions that must be answered before we create a model.

The Theo-Mathematics of New Testament Plan Gatherings

2010-09-17T07:32:00.005-05:00

Dan Horwedel has raised a profound point. Based on the direction our conversation has gone lately, it is one that needs to be addressed in our blog community, in the CGGC and in all of Christendom-dominated Christianity.

Dan said,

“I've always been somewhat confused as to why some think the denomination at large needs to embrace many of the things talked about on this blog.”

Doug has given his answer. I need to give mine. My answer is rooted in New Testament truth. It is theological. It is connected to the Mission Statement which holds us accountable to be building churches on the “New Testament plan.”

I believe, our Mission Statement notwithstanding, that the denomination continues to embrace very serious error in its teachings and practices regarding the Holy Spirit and the Church.

For the past few years, I have been studying the gathering of Christians in the New Testament with great care. That study has transformed my understanding of what it means to function in the Body of Christ. Most, but not all of my study has focused on 1 Corinthians 11-14.

I’ve reached two conclusions.

1. The way we worship is very different from the way early believers worshiped. And,

2. The root of those differences is theological not cultural. The reason we worship differently than the first Christians did is that we believe different things about the Holy Spirit and the Church. We believe things that are, at the very least, theologically corrupt. At worst, they are outright heresy.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26 Paul asks a question and describes the situation that exists in Corinth that stirred the question. This is what he asks and what he describes:

“What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.”

The difference between the “the denomination at large’s” answer to the question and Paul’s answer disturbs me.

This is what I think the denomination at large’s answer is:

“You want to come to worship services with a hymn or a teaching, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation? Well, get over it!
We are people of faith. We expect God to grow this church. We believe that this church soon will have hundreds, perhaps someday thousands sitting in its seats/pews, attending worship services every Sunday morning. And, you want to contribute to our music ministry? Fine.
If you’re interested in music, audition for the worship team and if you’re really good they’ll take you—if they have room. If you just have a suggestion about a song you want to sing, talk to the Worship Pastor. S/He might be able to work your song in to a worship service.
You have a word of instruction? Well, we have preaching, not teaching, in our worship services. If you want to become a pastor, we’ll take you to the Conference and help you get credentials. If you’d like to teach a Sunday School class you can talk to the Christian Ed pastor. If you want to lead a small group, we can direct you to the Director of Small Group ministries.
Did you say you have a word of revelation? Sorry, we think revelation ended with the writing of the New Testament.
You have a word in tongues? You believe you have the gift of interpretation of tongues? We’ll just pretend you didn’t say that. But, here, read our Doctrinal Statement. It’s called We Believe.”

That, from my experience, is the denomination at large’s response to the first part of 1 Corinthians 14:26. Here’s Paul’s answer:

“All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.”

To Paul, it was normal and appropriate and right that everyone would participate in a gathering of believers.

The one guideline he placed on participation did not limit participation. He didn’t require formal academic training and credentials. He did not assume professionalism in the leading of gatherings. Rather, his theology of the Spirit and of the Church led Paul to the conviction that the Spirit would be leading, to use his word, “everyone” to participate.

Later on, in verses 29-31, the mathematics of gathering gets problematic according to the way the denomination at large thinks. (I’ll highlight to make the point clear.)

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

Paul didn’t limit the number of people who would prophecy. For him, that two or three would prophesy and that all who were called to prophesy are the same number. Obviously, if everyone comes to a gathering led by the Spirit to participate in that gathering and if two or three prophesying is everyone led to prophecy, do the algebra. “X,” the total number of people in the gathering, has to be a small number.

It is one of our longest running current fads to talk about growing “healthy” churches. The “healthy church” paradigm is not biblical. However, a paradigm that is biblical is the one found in 1 Corinthians 14:26. Paul never talks about growing healthy churches but he does employ the strong/weak way of thinking about a church. Paul says that participation in Christian gathering should make the church strong.

Friends, we don’t have unhealthy churches. We have weak churches. Based on my contact with the churches in the ERC in my eight years on the Renewal Commission, many more than half of our churches are weak. Many of them are absolutely feeble!

Why? The body parts have atrophied.

We believe that the church is the Body of Christ. We believe that every follower of Jesus possesses the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Spirit gives spiritual gifts to all Jesus followers.

Yet, when we gather, we make Jesus followers who possess the Holy Spirit stifle His gifts. We say to people to whom the Spirit gives a hymn that the worship team will decide what hymns they will sing, no matter what the Spirit says. We tell Spirit-empowered believers that the pastor will preach no matter what teaching the Spirit sanctions. We cringe at the very notion that one of us might receive a word of revelation. We treat prophesies with contempt. (1 Thess. 5:20). We suppress tongues and its interpretation.

We tell the Spirit that we know better.

We tell people empowered by the Spirit, “We don’t believe in those things.” We turn God’s people whom the Lord intends to participate in worship into audience members who are given narrow windows to participate in worship services in very limited ways, as singers of songs the professionals choose and, perhaps, we permit them to be requesters of prayer. But, we diminish their participation in prayer by demanding that listen while a priestly mediator—a pastor—prays on their behalf.

We defy important biblical truth. We create a clergy class. We quench the Spirit. We elevate a few in worship. And, then we wring our hands because we have unhealthy churches where people merely come on a Sunday morning to sit in the seats/pews.

All these are practices we inherited from the Christendom myth. There is no authority for them in the Word, in fact, much of what the Word teaches we reject and find offensive. We have turned people filled with the Holy Spirit into consumers of professionally directed worship services. We demand that they be passively listen to sermons when the Word creates the expectation that everyone who gathers will be leaders of hymns and speakers of instruction, revelation, tongues and their interpretation.

Why do I think the denomination at large needs to embrace many of the things talked about on this blog?

For me, it’s a truth thing. I believe we are disobeying the Word. I believe we are quenching the spirit. I believe our theology of the Spirit and the Church is, at the very least, flawed.

I believe that the pathetic level of discipleship among our people is, in part, a result of the fact that we teach people in our churches to resist the leading of the Spirit when they gather with other believers and that we force them to consume the ministry of the professionals on Sunday morning. It stands to reason that they will do that all through the week.

Do I think simple/organic is the only answer? No.

Do I think that we have faulty beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ? Yes!

That’s why I think the denomination at large needs to embrace what we talk about on this blog.

Mission Statements?

2010-09-13T20:28:00.002-05:00

Are mission / vision statements a fad or an adoption from business and industry?

Or are they a helpful tool for communication / direction of ministry?

Does your church have a mission or vision statement and if so is it helpful?

Thanks for the input.

We Covet Your Prayers

2010-09-13T06:53:00.003-05:00

Friends,

Tomorrow is the big day.

Evelyn's surgery is scheduled for early in the morning. As we understand it, hers will be the first surgery in the operating room she's scheduled for.

The surgeon is very optimistic about what she will find. We know that one tumor has disappeared and that the other had shrunk about 80% a few days after the last chemo session and it may have shrunk more since then. The one lymph node that was involved appears to be clear of cancer. If the remaining tumor is small and the tissue surrounding it is unaffected and the key node is clear, the surgeon will perform a 'lumpectomy' and send Evelyn home later in the day.

If what she finds is something slightly less than that optimum case, more will be done as appropriate but the surgeon will still perform a lumpectomy and keep Evelyn in the hospital over night.

If what she finds is significantly worse than what she expects, she will perform a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery will be required. Evelyn will probably be hospitalized several days and recovery will be a much more lengthy and painful process.

Please keep us, the surgeon and the whole situation very much in your prayers.

Thanks,

bill

2010-09-08T15:13:00.002-05:00

I believe that all types of church that build the kingdom of God and make disciples of Christ are good. However as a missionary I want to find ways to reach the culture I am in. I have started a network in Sweden called SMOC (Simple, Missional, Organic Communities). Our goal is to build a network of this kind of Church in our city through multiplication.

Watch the following video and let me know what you think and how or if this form of church could function in the CGGC.

Going Organic

2010-09-07T08:46:00.004-05:00

At Faith Community Church of God we are treading ground that, to my knowledge, is unique among CGGC congregations.

When I read the CGGC Mission Statement in the Church Advocate I was thrilled and I decided to take it to heart and to start leading our ministry, to the best of my ability, according to what is modeled in the Book of Acts and in the Epistles. To use Stephen Covey’s language, the end I began with in my mind was achieving a New Testament community of Jesus followers in my time and place. I had—still have—no idea what that finished product might look like.

I implemented some changes in the way I participated in worship and, after a short time, explained to leadership the difference between Seeker Sensitive worship and changes I had recently introduced. I asked leadership to decide—without my participation in the conversation—if it wanted to abandon seeker sensitive worship for what I described to them as an organic/simple approach to being the church. That group met a number of times over the course of several weeks. On its own, it focused its decision process on a threefold foundation:

1. Diligent prayer.
2 Asking the question: Is what we have begun to do consistent with what the Bible teaches? (Obviously, they were already oriented toward living out the New Testament plan.)
3. And also asking the question: Is this of the Spirit?

All but one person in that group affirmed that the path we had begun was biblical and Spirit-guided. They reported that result to me in November of 2009. Since then we have continued the journey. There have been and continue to be many twists and turns on that path.

But, these past two Sundays have taken us to spiritual places I could not have imagined.

Two Sundays ago, the worship ministry put the following schedule of our worship time in the bulletin:

“A Time of Prayer and Praise.” That was the order of worship.

They also handed out to every participant in worship an 8 ½ x 14 inch sheet of paper that listed 112 hymns, gospel songs, Scripture songs and choruses they felt proficient enough to lead without rehearsal. At times during the gathering when the team felt led, they asked if someone from the congregation had a song they wanted to sing. (One suggestion was not on the list and it turns out that we can sing a cappella as poorly yet joyfully as we sing with instruments.) Prayer time consisted of everyone physically able standing and forming a large circular hand-holding mass of people. Unbidden, the people positioned themselves so that those who remained seated could also join hands. Prayer needs were shared and then worship gatherers were invited to pray as they felt led. I was instructed to close. I lost count of the number of individuals who prayed out loud. It was powerful.

Labor Day Sunday others in the congregation besides me scheduled a ‘Lord’s Breakfast’ gathering in which everyone who was able was invited to bring a breakfast food item for a communal meal. The leader of the gathering directed us in singing a few songs. One of the congregational members offered a meditation on prayer in which he instructed us to pray, not talk about praying. We formed a circle again. The time invested in actual praying lasted, as far as I can tell, about 20 minutes. Friends, the power of the Spirit’s presence was amazing. I had a word of instruction/prophecy which I gave to the people gathered. My notes consisted of four Scripture references. One person from the congregation chimed in twice to affirm that things I said were biblically accurate. I/We spoke for about a half hour then I asked if anyone wanted to pray over the truth I spoke. One of our women did so— energetically. Then, the guy who directed prayer time led us in taking the bread and the cup. After that, we ate our meal. The fellowship was sweet.

We’ve achieved a degree of participation in our gatherings that I could not have imagined two years ago. People who at one time sat on their hands in worship are now praying aloud. Some of them are speaking words of revelation, knowledge, prophecy or instruction that contain wisdom and power my words cannot.

To be honest though, using Christendom, Church Growth Movement metrics, we’re failing. Average Sunday morning worship attendance has fallen and total financial giving has declined, though I suspect that giving per attender has remained constant, even though the downturn in the economy has het us hard.

One thing I can tell you is that none of us are bored.

I’m curious: How does what I’ve written make you feel? What do you think about it?