Virtues & Practices in the CGGC Tradition

The fact that so much time has been dedicated to debating and revising a doctrinal statement could be taken as a sign that the pastor-focused culture is still dominating this blog, even in their absence from the conversation. Arguing over a doctrinal statement is like playing on their home field, playing their style of the game, and using their ball. We've already lost the conversation; the best we can do is walk away with a "moral victory." So...I'll let others decide whether or not the time invested in these conversations was well-spent. But now that I have your attention, let me continue to build an alternative approach to how transformation could occur in the CGGC. The three key terms in the title of this post [virtues, practices, tradition] will serve as the framework for refocusing the conversation that has been taking place in response to my previous post, "Starting Points (aka Describing Postmodern: The Sequel)."

Tradition
In many circles, this is still a negative word. But, let's face it, there is a distinct CGGC tradition (I was using the term "narrative" in the previous discussion). Most of the questions here were raised by Fran, Brian, or Bill in the previous discussion, including:

- How can a diverse group like ours recapture a common cultural story?
- What is the new story that binds us together?
- Whose version of the CGGC tradition are we going to embrace?
- Who are the major characters and story-teller(s) of the story?

When viewed against the backdrop of the version of postmodernity I was describing, the importance of these question begin to emerge.

The key point I want to make here, though, is that regardless of the specifics of the tradition, a tradition cannot exist on its own merits. In order to be sustained a tradition must be supported by a variety of social practices that promote, challenge, and contribute to the tradition. When the practices that sustain a particular tradition change, it will eventually change the tradition. Therefore, we must look at this second key element of transformation next.

Practices
Over the past 15 years, there have been multiple events within the CGGC (on both the regional and denominational level) that have seen declining attendance and/or outright cancellation. One way to react to these changes is by challenging people to return to "the good old days" where people flocked to Findlay or the regional conference sessions in eager anticipation of what would occur. But, clearly, those days are over. The key questions here include:

- What type of practices does the CGGC need to implement and promote to sustain the CGGC tradition?
- If transformation is the goal, what new practices need to be created that will, in turn, create and sustain a new tradition?
- What current practices are sustaining elements of the tradition that need to be eliminated?

This is where things begin to create friction. Most won't clearly understand what is happening through these changes. But many will begin to sense the changing winds. In a similar way to the practices sustaining the tradition, there are certain characteristics that are necessary for people to sustain the practices. This leads us to the most contentious part of the conversation.

Virtues
I'm going to use the word "virtues" here instead of characteristics, although either one makes sense. Some of the key questions here include:

- What habits are necessary in order to be an active participant in the practices that have been established?
- If the CGGC is diversifying, how consistent an experience should people have across the different regions?
- Are denomonational events necessary, or can each region provide these experiences?
- What types of training and resources are necessary to equip people to be able to actively participate in the practices?
- What will a disciple look like who embodies this new tradition and embraces these new practices?
- Instead of a conversation about "core values" do we need a conversation about "core virtues"?

There are many more questions for each section, but this gives you an idea of what I'm thinking.

Making the Connection
If you are following my line of reasoning, you are beginning to notice where the points of frustration will emerge. What happens to a seminary-trained pastor who no longer sees practices that are suitable for his/her skill set? What happens to a church that is promoting a different set of virtues from what is supported by the CGGC administration? What role does the CGGC main office play in promoting this version of the CGGC tradition?

You can begin to make these changes from the top-down or from the ground up. Either way, until a group of decision-makers embody this new tradition any conversation about "We Believe" is going to play into the hands of the pastor-dominated culture.

I always liked the original title of this blog, "Emerging CGGC." This is my official request to return to that title. I think it captures the spirit here and also is a more honest observation about the current state of our denomination. We are in a moment of transition. Feel free to agree, disagree, debate, and/or add to my list of questions. Only through prayerful interaction will any new changes emerge.

Starting Points (aka Describing Postmodern: The Sequel)

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.