Tuesday, November 12, 2013

A Classic Democrat Party Liberal Leadership Model

Consider this:

A people with a history and a vision which value equality and respect for all--even, ESPECIALLY, for those people who might, by others' standards, be viewed as powerless and common.  That people's history and their vision demand that interaction among the people be rooted in equality and be driven by respect for all because all of them are equal in the eyes of God. 
 
Now, however, the vision of the founders is threatened by an increasingly authoritarian and powerful elite located in its capital city.  This powerful elite has become far more authoritarian than it was originally intended to be.  It is a power base which is now seeking to strengthen, more than ever, its control over the actions of the people.

The claim for increased centralized authority comes through the introduction of yet another PROGRAM, a program which no one asked for nor is it wanted by most of the people! 
 
This new program was specifically designed to address the issue of health.  It was devised, in secret, by the powerful elite, which is convinced--more than ever--that it alone knows what's best for their unwarshed masses.

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

This is not a description of Obama Care.

It is a description of the latest CGGC church health denominational program devised in Findlay by a small group of CGGC elites who determined that the time has come for another centrally planned  CGGC program. 

The creators of the program sought absolutely no input nor did they provide any opportunity for feedback from outside the leadership core--either from the "laity" or even non-elite clergy--before they launched the program as a finished product.

If Americans know the Affordable Care Act as Obama Care, it is, then, appropriate to call this latest Findlay-based, church health boondoggle, i.e., Transformational Church, Rosenberry Care.

The vision the founders of the Church of God embraced for our movement has been stolen to the degree that none of that vision now remains among the powerful. 

While John Winebrenner's Church of God once maintained that every believer is a priest; while the movement once operated as a radical democracy in which it was assumed that all of its members were merely sinners saved by faith in Jesus Christ; while the Church of God once embraced the belief in spiritual equality among all of saints, the CGGC no longer practices those core beliefs--especially not in Findlay.

The CGGC now possesses an ever-increasingly steep leadership hierarchy in which those who reside in the highest positions of power function as privileged elites without regard for the gifts and wisdom the Holy Spirit provides to those outside of their small circle. 

The elite do this with an unabashed sense of entitlement.

They seem to feel no shame.

They offer no apology.

They sit, contentedly, in their offices and gather in their committee rooms.  From their lofty perches, they devise programs, convinced that they know better and that they can determine what is best for the rest.

Dangerously, however, unlike the US President and his cabinet and members of the US House of Representatives and Senate, the CGGC elite never stand before the unwarshed to face reelection.

And, based on the recent role out of Transformational Church as a done deal, they have no interest in the cares and the opinions of the unwarshed.

In truth, CGGC elites are in a position to dictate.  And, dictate is what they have recently done in announcing our own Obama Care--Transformational Church, i.e., Rosenberry Care--as a finished product. 

Their message? 

"You can take it or leave it but you can't stop us from doing it."

The truth is that, no matter what the political convictions of the individual members of the CGGC's shepherd-dominated leadership culture may be, when our shepherd mafia is permitted to function unchecked by the Holy Spirit-created 'checks and balances' of the rest of the Body of Christ in the CGGC, it always leads in the way American liberal Democrats do when the Democrats have a stranglehold on political power in Washington.

Think of the numerous programs FDR and the Democrats created in the 30s when there was no effective opposition.  Think of LBJ's War on Poverty, passed after his landslide in 1964.  And, of course, consider the manner is which the current President was able to foist Obama Care on the American populace over the strenuous objections of tens of millions.

Now, look at the latest CGGC news. 

It seems that shepherds feel obligated to lead as liberals in the American  Democrat party govern.  When they feel the whim, the shepherds inevitably create new programs which make themselves--and not Jesus, not His entire Body--central to what the CGGC does.

With the creation of Transformational Church they prove again that they mimic liberal American Democrats and that they don't submit to the authority of Jesus or of God's Word.

Jesus never devised a program.  There is nary one program in the Book of Acts.  But FDR, LBJ and Barack Obama produced central-planning programs as naturally as they breathe--as does the CGGC's shepherd-dominated leadership.

How John Winebrenner and his brothers and sisters who founded the Church of God with a radical New Testament vision must be spinning in their graves! 

Just where in the New Testament is the authority for elites to create programs for the consumption of others in Christ's Body? 

Where did our elites even attempt to provide a biblical basis for what they've done?

No one I know of in the CGGC was asking for another program.  In fact, many CGGC people I know have a terminal case of program poisoning. 

Some of us--perhaps many of us, perhaps even most of us--reject the very notion of elites foisting any program on the body.

Many resent the fact that the people in our seats of power now seem to be patting themselves on their backs for devising this clever new church health program, supposing that they've done the rest of us a favor.

Ask yourself:  Have any of the programs devised by our elites in the past ever achieved their goals?

We should reject Rosenberry Care.  There is no authority for it in "the New Testament plan."

We should also, finally and forcefully, reject the leadership culture, as well as the leaders, who think they are helping us by producing the denominational program, Transformational Church.

We must turn from their sin. 

We must turn from them.

We must turn to the Word of God.

We must repent!

5 comments:

  1. Gang,

    I'm currently engaged in two private conversations that have developed in response to my "A Dangerous Truth About how CGGC Leadership Leads--A Classic Democrat Party Liberal Leadership Model" blog.

    Why don't people respond openly? I don't know. I never ask. But, I wonder if the reason has to do with the power of the CGGC Shepherd Mafia? All I know is that I often receive private replies to what I write here.

    I will refer to this conversation as "THREAD 1." The comments of the person writing to me will be in italics, mine in bold:

    Obama seems truly committed to Obamacare.

    My hunch is that transformational church is - one of your major themes in the past - A fad.


    I think that Transformational Church is an interesting and important example of the CGGC practice, honed over the past 25 years, give or take a few, of following after fads.

    One thing that interests me is that we have normally adopted a fad when that particular fad had nearly faded in the rest of the American church. We are relatively early in embracing this one.

    What does this suggest? Are we becoming more faddish than we have been in the past?

    My guess is that the Shepherd Mafia has subjugated people who think of themselves as apostles but who now, because they have been whacked by the shepherd leaders, are only innovative in the context which their shepherd masters permit. So, they embrace fads because shepherds permit the embracing of fads but, because they are apostles, they lead us into embracing the latest Christendom whim more quickly than shepherds have done in the past. This an example of how dysfunctional a twisted version of APEST can be.

    You and I are probably both confident that Transformational Church will do no more for the CGGC than any example of fad following has done in the past. I don't think that Ed or Lance or any of the others are truly committed to it per se. And, I suspect that they'll follow their fad orientation and embrace the next one easily when it comes along and that they will do it without any qualms.

    This is an important reason why there is, and has been, so much cynicism toward the whims and ways of leadership among those who don't receive invitations into the hallowed halls located on Melrose Ave. in Findlay.

    I suspect that, while they are not devoted to Transformational Church, our leaders are still profoundly committed to fad following. It is the fad following that is the macro issue and the switching out of a new fad for an old one is a example of fruitless micro repentance.

    In the past, I've talked about macro repentance. In this case, that means to turn from running after fads and jumping on bandwagons. I see no seeds of what Paul calls the 'godly sorrow' that could produce fruit in repentance from running after the latest great, new idea.

    Our leaders, to my chagrin, seem happy to be jumping on this latest bandwagon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (Continued)

    Sounds right.

    I resonate strongly with the call to repent of following fads.

    It's one thing to see some merit in a program and say here is something congregations may want to consider thinking about vs saying here's what were all embracing as our model of ministry....

    What's the difference between this and natural church development really?

    One thing that I personally hate is anything that starts with statistics as the foundation and builds theology and practice on that. This smells like that to me.

    Stats are interesting and useful as far as they go, but they are in my estimation sand as a foundation to build on


    Later, I added these comments:

    Two other thoughts:

    1) It is the return to Leadership by Centrally Planned Program that is a serious issue. It is a turn back to an old paradigm that I had allowed myself to think our leaders had abandoned. The fact that this one is being championed by the new guard in leadership, i.e., Lance Finley and Justin Meier, suggests that the old paradigm is going to dominate the CGGC for many years to come--for many years after I've passed from the scene. I honestly had been hoping that those two guys would, some day, lead us to turn from old, Christendom-oriented, institutional, ways and into ways of taking Jesus into the world that would be meaningful to the post baby boom generations.

    2) I am distressed by the adoption, once again, of practice of mimicking the leadership style of Roosevelt and LBJ and, now, Obama. This has not really worked for America and it CERTAINLY has only led to spiritual decline in the American church. What I see in the hearts of younger American generations is not hearts attuned classic liberal ways but to, politically speaking, libertarian ways. I also see those ways being the ways of Jesus whose teachings do not empower the creation of a strong institution but said to all who followed Him, "you will receive power." If we don't soon uproot and tear down, destroy and overthrow the CGGC institution, what we do will be entirely irrelevant to most post-boomers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. THREAD 1 Continued:

    One program that they appear to be behind and staying behind thus far is the MLI.

    That seems like a potentially positive thing to have stood behind for a few years straight now. Not sure though.

    Still, I'm not clear on your critique because I'm hearing that you are criticizing leadership for making decisions that affect is all without input or buy in and then today saying that it doesn't necessarily affect us (local congregations).

    I still acknowledge the issues with the programs and the fads etc, but your claim if the audacity of the actions etc loses its bite a bit for me.

    This is different than Obamacare. That is forced on everyone - On individuals and employers to comply whether they want to or not.

    For this to be Rosenberry care, it would be a top down decision that would be forced upon us without input or agreement.

    It seems to me like its one idea that have have a bit of impact or may just fade away.

    Many, like myself, probably won't even take notice unless someone else highlights it.



    The MLI thing you mention is an important illustration of the dysfunction that drives the CGGC today. Here's how that works:

    One foundational core of Reggie McNeal's teaching is the necessity of abandoning the traditional Medieval parish priest/pastoral model of leadership which the shepherd mafia in the CGGC has adopted, for the CGGC, in recent generations. (This is a leadership model from the German Reformed Church that Winebrenner rejected when he formed the Church of God and called for "another great Reformation.") McNeal, the MLI resource person, demands shifting to what he calls 'apostolic leadership' by which he, essentially, means APEST.

    McNeal is very clear and specific about what is wrong with parish priest/pastoral leadership. One thing he says is wrong with it is that it allows denominations to create programs and makes one of the roles of the parish priest the role of mere 'program director.'

    Making our parish priest/pastors program directors is precisely what Transformational Church would do. It, therefore, is a rejection of a foundational principle necessary for MLI to thrive in the CGGC.

    So, then, how does continuing MLI, yet implementing TC, suggest that our institutional leaders are serious about being missional and not institutional? My answer is that it reveals that they are not serious at all.

    This is my 'characteristic of the CGGC brand:' " To Talk is To Walk-ism" in as pure a form as I can imagine.

    In reality, our leaders function in classically institutional ways and, at the same time, embrace mission. They do both without shame.

    How can they do that? They can do that because, for them, talking is walking--speaking is acting. They talk mission. Hence, they live mission.

    I can see no alternative explanation.

    I'll address the Rosenberry Care question separately.

    ReplyDelete
  4. More from THREAD 1:

    Doesn't it seem silly that they would continue to promote a program that undermines the other programs and activities being promoted? And encouraging as many next generation leaders as possible to participate.

    My friend, this is the frustration that I live with daily.

    And, I can see no other explanation than that--for ED especially--talking is walking.

    Remember: For shepherds, relationship is everything. Truth and the principles that derive from them are virtually nothing. That's why having APEST-unbalanced, shepherd mafia-dominated leadership is an invitation to decline, demise and disaster. That's why the CGGC is in the place it's in.

    From a shepherd perspective: To placate people like the two of us, investing in a program that promotes missionality, e.g., MLI, will keep us progressives happy. And, honestly, it seems to have kept some in my MLI group happy.

    Then, to give others who still groove on NCD happy, TC is a useful peace-keeping tool (for part of the flock). I don't think our leaders--ED, especially--want to accomplish anything from MLI or TC other than to keep the sheep content because keeping sheep content is what the shepherd KNOWS to be most important.

    The problem is that what they are doing only frustrates people like you and me and the person whose email inspired THREAD 2.

    And, there are so many in the CGGC who are throbbing with cynicism about what comes from leadership that they simply sneer at both MLI and TC. And, they will sneer at everything in between.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Conversation on Rosenberry Care:

    Still, I'm not clear on your critique because I'm hearing that you are criticizing leadership for making decisions that affect is all without input or buy in and then today saying that it doesn't necessarily affect us (local congregations).

    I still acknowledge the issues with the programs and the fads etc, but your claim if the audacity of the actions etc loses its bite a bit for me.

    This is different than Obamacare. That is forced on everyone - On individuals and employers to comply whether they want to or not.

    For this to be Rosenberry care, it would be a top down decision that would be forced upon us without input or agreement.

    It seems to me like its one idea that have have a bit of impact or may just fade away.

    Many, like myself, probably won't even take notice unless someone else highlights it.


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

    Re: "I'm hearing that you are criticizing leadership for making decisions that affect is all without input or buy in and then today saying that it doesn't necessarily affect us (local congregations)."

    That's not my core critique. My core critique is that they sit in their fancy offices and meet in the comfy meeting rooms in the CGGC Holy City and lead in a way that mimicks secular liberal goverance and they they don't obey Scripture or follow the pattern of Jesus and the early Christians--i.e., "the New Testament plan" of Winebrenner as well as of the Mission Statement which THESE LEADERS themselves wrote!

    I will say that, in a sense, they did make a decision that affects us all in that we pay them huge salaries that they chose to use their time in mimicking Barack Obama and rejected the New Testament plan's leadership model.


    Re: "This is different than Obamacare. That is forced on everyone - On individuals and employers to comply whether they want to or not."

    Considering developments in D. C. in the past few days, I'm not so sure. It seems that the Obamaites didn't care to understand the implications of the content of the program they wrote up and it's very likely that it will not be forced on everyone.

    It's very much the same with the Rosenberrians in that way. They put together a doozy of a program, just like the liberal Dems in Washington did but, in the end, without much real-life impact.

    What both groups have done is pursue their own agendas which do not reflect the will of the people they are in place to SERVE.


    Re: "Many, like myself, probably won't even take notice unless someone else highlights it."

    This is a stunner because I know who I am writing this to. I know who you are. I know that you are involved in the CGGC. I know that you are alert and aware to a much higher degree than probably 80-90% of the other CGGC, um, "pastors." And, even YOU can say you won't even take notice. This is as meaningful testimony to the extent of CGGC cynicism as I can imagine! That you can say this, says it all!

    But, by your own testimony, it is the truth.

    ReplyDelete