A Sin that is Killing the CGGC: Lowest-Common-Denominator Righteousness

Gang,

Shortly before the 2013 General Conference sessions, I posed this rhetorical question in reference to the credentials proposal that was about to be considered.  Alluding to the proposal, with my emphasis, I asked:

Where in the New Testament plan are "provisional" "ministerial licenses" which are "renewable annually" "granted by apostolic teams of leaders who operate translocally"? 

The answer to the question, as far as the rhetorical question is concerned, is obvious.  There is no place in the New Testament that this happens.

At the time I posed the question, I received one private, very cordial, open, well-composed, positive and constructive response from a member of the committee which produced the credentials proposal.

S/he wrote:

"...the denomination is not ready to grant anyone other than a regional vocations committee the authority to confer ordination.

...you and I both know that groups which have become very comfortable with institutional control will not make (a dramatic change) in one fell swoop.

...here we are, with a denomination we would like to see recover a more New Testament ethos and practice.  I cannot speak for the rest of the credentialing team, but for me the current proposal is simply an attempt to take a step away from institution and toward New Testament.

I am okay with getting back to some New Testament things in "steps" because in my mind this equates to giving my more institutional brethren a little time to process the difference and open up to it (or as you might say, repent of the way they have done it in the past).  However, sometimes the desire to only take small steps betrays an intent to never go all the way.  We can have long discussions about what it means to "be New Testament", but the CGGC is either going to become a Body of leaders who desire that, or not, and only time will tell."

And, I believe that this attitude to move toward obedience only at the rate the institutionalists will allow is--according to the teaching of Jesus--a gross sin.

It is the sin Jesus described when He said,

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sister, yes, even his own life cannot be my disciple." (emphasis mine)

The taking of small steps toward obedience to the Lord is continued disobedience.  It is unrighteousness.  It is fruit of the lukewarmness the Laodicans practiced, which Jesus promised to punish--unless they'd repent.

As some know, for a time, I was a member of the committee that produced the credentials proposal.  I withdrew from participation so that my last meeting with the committee was the last meeting prior to the Symposium held in March 2012.

My decision to leave the group came suddenly in the last few minutes of the last meeting I attended when I believe the Lord told me that the message he had for me to speak to the group had been spoken, that the committee would not accept the message and that His work for me on the committee, as a prophet, was finished.

I want to say that my friend, whose note I have quoted in part in this post, was the most receptive, of all the people on the committee, to the message I spoke--and that we are in very substantial agreement in our theologies of what the CGGC today calls "leadership."

Where my friend and I profoundly disagree is with his willingness to take baby steps according to what the institutionalists in the CGGC are willing to permit.  I am afraid that he is making the CGGC institution, not Jesus, his lord.
 

There is no such thing in the Word as baby-stepping with the unrighteous toward repentance!  

Read the stories of the lives of the OT prophets and the books that record their writings. 

Read the stories of John the Baptist and of Jesus and of the Apostles.
 

The prophets, Jesus and the Apostles told God's people that

repentance must be instantaneous and complete.
 

In fact, the response of the unrighteous
 who rejected the prophets, Jesus and the Apostles often was,
"Okay.  But let us do it slowly. "

In the word, God NEVER accepted baby-stepped, partial righteousness.

His greatest command is that His people must love Him with ALL

their hearts, soul and strength.

Anything less than that is sin against the greatest of God's laws.

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

According to the message of the Word, the righteous are to contrast themselves to, to stand against, to resist and to fight the unrighteous, particularly the unrighteous among the religious.  As Matthew tells the gospel story, he has Jesus saying early on:

"...unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mt. 5:20, ESV)

It is spiritually perilous for a person attempting to be a follower of Jesus to define his/her own righteousness according to what the scribes and Pharisees of one's own day are, as my friend says, "ready" to do.  See:

"...the denomination is not ready to grant anyone other than a regional vocations committee the authority to confer ordination,"

with what religious institutionalists, such as scribes and Pharisees are comfortable with"

 "...you and I both know that groups which have become very comfortable with institutional control will not make (a dramatic change) in one fell swoop."

or with taking steps which institutionalists will be willing to take:

"I am okay with getting back to some New Testament things in "steps" because in my mind this equates to giving my more institutional brethren a little time to process the difference..."

The biblical truth is a hard truth but it is vividly clear and undeniable.  The behavior of the righteous must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees.  This is the biblical truth in the very words of Jesus.

This value that the church can repent and obey on to the extent that the institutional church will permit may be the most dangerous value that defines the CGGC today.

Jesus came to violently separate the righteous from the unrighteous such as institutionalists:

"His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (John the Baptist, Matthew 3:12)

"Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." (Lk. 2:34-35)

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—'" (Jesus in Mt. 10)

But, this is not only the teaching of and about Jesus, it the the testimony of all of Scripture.  When Moses spotted the golden calf, his action toward unrighteousness foreshadowed the life and teaching of Jesus:

27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.” (Ex. 32)

The story of the call of Isaiah in Isaiah 6, much in the CGGC conversation since General Conference, is the story of a prophet called, not to move forward at the pace the religious mainstream sanctioned, but to taunt it because of its unrighteousness until God's judgment against it was fulfilled.

Here's how Jeremiah described his call to be a prophet:

9 Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” (Jer. 1)

The first word that I recall receiving from the Lord when I accepted His call to function as a prophet told me that I would have to behave in a way that defies the values of the shepherd dominated leadership culture, that I would have to act as the men and the women of the Bible acted and that, the way I behave will be more offensive that the hard messages I speak.

It is uncomfortable for me to say the things that I say to the people of the CGGC.  But, I know this:  How I do what I do is consistent with the attitude and actions of Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah and John and the apostles and even, and especially, Jesus.

The universal testimony of the New Testament is that all of God's Law hangs on and is fulfilled in the commands to love the Lord with ALL one's heart, soul and strength and to love one's neighbor as one's self.

That is a 'highest common denominator' form of righteousness.  The lowest common denominator form of righteousness so much in vogue in the CGGC today is sin!  It is death!

Unless it is repented of, all who practice that form of righteousness will be judged.

The New WE BELIEVE is Posted on CGGC.org

http://www.cggc.org/about/what-we-believe/

Comments I've Received on the General Conference WE BELIEVE Debate

I became curious by Ed Rosenberry's passing comment in eNews,

"The (General Conference) assembly also approved the We Believe and credentialing documents with minor revisions." 

Ed's account of the entire gathering was extremely upbeat and I wondered at the 'minor revisions' comment..  So I asked around. 

My question was,

"I noted from Ed's eNews that We Believe and the credentialing documents were approved with 'minor revisions.'  Can you tell me what those minor revisions are?"

Below is some of what I received in response to my query.  The comments are in bold.  My thoughts and questions in italics:

"I didn't keep track of that, I had decided to vote against it, so I didn't write those down, sorry." 
I think that it is noteworthy that this person was a delegate to General Conference.  People who get to be delegates to General Conference are thought of well enough by the people of their region to be elected to be delegates.  Yet, this person had so high a level of dissatisfaction that s/he arrived at the sessions with a mind already closed to the proposals being presented.

Item 8 of my Thirteen Characteristics of the CGGC Brand is:

"8. Cynicism.  As much as our leaders are shepherds seeking peace, calm and quiet among the pastors and congregations of the CGGC, there is a stifling sense of cynicism among our pastors and congregations toward those in CGGC seats of power. As a result, new initiatives, such as MLI, are scoffed at and avoided."

As I see it, the amount of cynicism and the passion with which people feel it is increasing rapidly.  This cynicism has been present since I entered CGGC ministry in 1976 but I believe that it has increased remarkably in the past six years.  I can only imagine the divisions among us in another six years unless there is repentance across the whole body.

If this General Conference delegate is closed off to this degree from the wisdom that comes down from the CGGC mountaintop, what do you suppose is the attitude of the many who are not even considered as possible delegates to General Conference gatherings? 

Note, based on the next comment, This delegate was not alone in his/her rejection of the proposals.

"The votes for both were like 215 for and 50 against."

Imagine! 

General Conference staff has been working on these two documents for what?  Five years?  And, after all that effort, their work products were rejected by approximately 50 GENERAL CONFERENCE DELEGATES? 

Again, people who are delegates to these meetings are, generally speaking, popular within the shepherd culture.  They certainly are more inclined to support what leadership is doing--BECAUSE MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE VOTING WERE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS BEING VOTED ON.

How much support and agreement do you suppose there is across the entire CGGC body, if there was much opposition in General Conference sessions?

How much cynicism do you suppose is already in place across the CGGC?

We Believe uses the pronoun 'we.'  Does anyone beside me think that there's some prevarication in the use of that word, now that about 50 General Conference delegates rejected it?  From this point, I believe I will refer to it as:

 S.o.u. Believe, i.e., Some of us Believe.

Clearly, WE do not believe this stuff!

It seems to me that it's time for us all to acknowledge that we are a divided body--and that we are becoming increasingly divided body.

"There were a lot of good comments and about an hour and 1/2 to do it."

"Minor revisions," eh?

"I decided I will use the old Green book and not get into either of the We Believe books."

This is an insightful and telling response.

The "Green Book" is The Teachings and Practices of the Churches of God in North America (1959).  I'm not certain all that this person's decision to go green implies for him/her but, because I view these things through the lens of history, I see an important reality here.

The Green Book was produced right before our body began to create its present increasingly hierarchical leadership structure which has resulted in a whole slew of Executive Directors and Directors who function, more and more, as Pope, Cardinals and Bishops.

There are many more people than I who, in tangible ways, are seeking ways to connect to a more pure Church of God past than what many see as an increasing theologically bankrupt and corrupt CGGC present and future. 

I wonder how many "Green Book CGGCers" there will be once the WB 2.0 debacle hits the light of day and the whole body encounters its folly and weakness?

By the way, since I received the green book comment, I've been looking through my copy of it.  Two comments about it:

1. It is very well done.
2. It is out the S.o.u. Believe's league.  If you can, read the green book and tell me why anyone would use S.o.u..  There is no comparison between the two books.  A lot has changed in the CGGC in the past 50+ years but, if I used either, I'd use the 50 year out of date book myself.

"(Pastor Hoozitz) said the book is suppose to be used to teach lay people in our churches, and the wording is for college grads not regular people.  And I agree with that 100%."

For what it's worth, early in the rewriting process--before the LAST General Conference--I suggested to Ed Rosenberry that the writing committee bring in CGGC professional educators as consults if WB was to be, as he claimed, a "teaching document."  However, as we all know by now, he didn't do that. 

Pastor H. is correct.  As a teaching document, WB 2013 is a disaster--especially for those who do not have theological education.  My guess is that it is written at a reading level rated at college age.  Considering the make up of the people of our body, that it grossly inappropriate.

"Several others talked about words that were not even understood."

Except, of course, they can be understood by the people who dwell on the mountaintop in the CGGC, most of whom have at least a Master's degree.  S.o.u. is written for the well-educated!  It will be dense and unreadable for most in the CGGC.  One of my continuing criticisms of this regime of CGGC leaders is that they are hyper-elitists.  And, this observation points to that reality. 

"Those that had worked on it, whined about how it had been in process for 5 years, which meant to them it was time to accept it."

"Whined."  I wasn't present but I can easily imagine the debate taking that tone.

This also points to elitism at the top of the mountain--and to the sense, among the people who dwell there, that the CGGC body is obligated to place its stamp of approval on everything our leaders do because the CGGC serves its leaders, not vice versa.  Our leaders would, indeed, see themselves as being wronged if, after five years, their hard and diligent work didn't receive the body's blessing.

How unchristlike! 

Jesus said that those who would be great among us must be like servants.  Servants are NEVER in the position to whine.

This attitude among CGGC leaders will always be a serious problem for the CGGC until we demand a different sort of leader.

"I think many voted for it so they didn't have deal with it any more..." 

I hope this is not true.  But, my guess is that it is exactly true.

"...and the ad council had already approved it and the Winebrenner staff that were delegates already were going to vote for it.  And those who had worked on it were for it."
Theologically, this is profoundly disturbing.

It demonstrates that a large number of our people misunderstand the CGGC teachings about the Church. 

We are, by design, spirit-led and, on the human level, extremely democratic.  We say that we believe that the eldership is our ultimate human authority and that the Commissions and Councils and Directors and Executive Directors serve the body.  We teach that our greatest human wisdom exists in the collective wisdom of the eldership, not among the Executive Director's inner circle.

My sense is that our leaders have, in the past few years, rejected their servant role and that, now, too many in the Eldership have abdicated their position of ultimate authority.

But we must remember that the Church of God prospered in the days when the eldership ruled and so-called leaders understood that they were servants of all, to use the words of Jesus.

Woe to us.


This entire blog post is of a type that is the most dangerous to me personally among the posts I send out to CGGCers.  It is of the type that demonstrates that I am not alone, that others think things I think and, sometimes, think things more radical and more critical of the Shepherd Mafia than even I think.

And, that is the case.  Fifty General Conference delegates share my ultimate view of S.o.u. Believe.

We must repent.  Time is running out. 

John Winebrenner on Discipling

Below is part of an email I recently sent to some of the movers and shakers in the world of CGGC discipling.  The email was inspired by the recent Church Advocate article, "A Conversation on DISCIPLESHIP with Lance Finley and Bill Shoemaker"  The email is minimally edited for inclusion here.

 

For what's it's worth..., I am sending you these thoughts as a part of what I hope will become a vigorous and ongoing conversation in our body about who a disciple is and how men and women are discipled....

 

A study of the little Jesus said about the church and of how John Winebrenner defined the vision of the Church of God in its first years has convinced me that we need to make radical macro shifts in our definition of the church and of who a disciple is if we are to be successful in discipling.

 

...The 2009 CGGC Mission Statement pays homage to Winebrenner's vision for the Church of God which he announced on the day the Eldership was formed in October 1830 and which he printed three times in the book, History of all The Religious Denominations in the United States. 

 

The reality is, however, that the CGGC Mission Statement turns Winebrenner's vision upside down.

 

Winebrenner was very clear. 

The primary goal of the Church of God was "the conversion of sinners."  (Winebrenner's actual words are, "The conversion of sinners is the paramount object contemplated by the preaching of the gospel.")

The secondary goal--which could only be pursued as the first goal was being accomplished--was the establishment of those converted sinners into churches organized according to "the New Testament plan." 

Winebrenner's third goal, dependent on the achievement of the first two goals was "The supplying of the destitute with the preaching of the gospel."

Therefore, for Winebrenner, the converted sinner, not the church, is the core of the Church of God.

 

The 2009 CGGC Mission Statement has an entirely different understanding of what our body does.  It states,

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.

There is, of course, no mention of converting sinners in the Mission Statement.  It's equivalent in the Mission Statement, drawn from the 35,000 by 2000 program, is the phrase 'more and better disciples,' or, More and Better Disciples: 35,000 in worship by 2000.

 

The difference in visions is actually stark and complete.  For Winebrenner, the first and foundational work of the church is to convert sinners.  According to the CGGC Mission Statement, making more and better disciples (officially defined as getting people into a "worship" "service") is the end product of what our body does.

 

For Winebrenner, saved sinners are organized into churches which take the gospel far and wide.  For the CGGC today, churches are established on the New Testament plan, the gospel is proclaimed around the world and, in the end, the CGGC makes more and better disciples.

 

These two visions could not possibly be more at odds with each other.  ....What Winebrenner put first, today's CGGC puts last.

 

I'm certain that you...understand that, in Winebrenner's day, we were a veritable disciple-making organism.  We converted sinners into disciples like bees make honey.  In that day, the Church of God's ministry radically transformed the lives of the people who joined it.  Our many converted sinners lived in the world radically, converting other sinners and transforming American society.

 

(The Church Advocate) article, on the other hand, is powerful testimony to the haplessness of what the CGGC does today.  ...We do have 'worship' 'services,' Sunday School classes, Bible studies and small groups.  You ask the rhetorical question..., "Is it working?  Are we making disciples?"

And, your answer is that it is not working and that we are not discipling.

 

(In the article Lance says,) "I'm not sure these are producing the fruit we think they're producing."  And, of course, (this is) correct.

 

 But, here's what I want to say: 

For Winebrenner, the 'worship' 'services,' Sunday School classes, Bible studies and small groups were to be the fruit of the conversion of sinners, not vice versa.   

With all the meager gentleness I can muster, I'm (saying) that Winebrenner and our first brothers and sisters would be confused, and even appalled, by the idea that a disciple could be made from the performance of a 'worship' 'service' or the meeting of a Sunday School class, Bible study or small group. 

In fact, the idea that a 'worship' 'service' or the meeting of a Sunday School class could make disciples was core to the thinking of the German Reformed Church, which Winebrenner left.

As I consider the differences between Winebrenner's church and the CGGC today, I ask myself the essential question:  Which side of this difference in thinking is the side of Jesus?

 

And, as I read Matthew, Acts and the Epistles, it's clear to me that Winebrenner, not today's CGGC, was operating from the New Testament perspective.

 

Jesus only spoke the word 'church' twice in the Gospels, both times in Matthew.  In the punch line of the second of those passage, Jesus gives a definition of the church.  And, Jesus' definition is the definition demanded by Winebrenner's vision for the Church of God.  Jesus said simply, " For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them."  (Mt. 18:20)

 

For Jesus, the disciple was the key unit of the Kingdom, not the church.  For Jesus, the church...exists any time even two or three come together in His name."

 

This is crucial.  For Jesus:

DISCIPLES MAKE UP CHURCHES.  CHURCHES DO NOT MAKE DISCIPLES.

And, this was exactly Winebrenner's idea.  For Winebrenner, our first task in to turn sinners into saints.  Only after we've done that can we 'establish churches on the New Testament plan.'

 

I believe that until we understand how Jesus defined the church and then, in the CGGC, realize that Winebrenner got Jesus right, we will never succeed in making disciples.  We can't start churches to make disciples.  We must convert sinners to establish churches.

 

In our 2009 Mission Statement's desire to pay homage to Winebrenner's vision, we have actually turned Winebrenner's (vision) upside down.  Until we understand what we have done, and repent of it, we will not make disciples.

 

Truly, from the New Testament to today, disciples make up churches; churches do not make disciples.

 

Blessings on you as you seek to live out the Great Commission.

What Isaiah Said AFTER he said, "Here am I. Send me!" and how the New CGGC Priorities Mock both the Lord and Isaiah

According to Ed Rosenberry, during the recent General Conference sessions the new CGGC theme, "ONe Mission" "pervaded" the entire gathering.  In light of that, Ed said that God's call of Isaiah and Isaiah's willing response, "Here I am.  Send me!" "figured prominently."  In his last eNews prior to the sessions, Ed prepared our body for what was to come.

Ed did it in a way that, in my mind, defies biblical truth by taking out of context the Lord's call of Isaiah and Isaiah's acceptance of that call.  Previously, I noted how Ed ignored what took place before the Lord's call.  Here I note what took place after Isaiah accepted the call.


The only words Isaiah tell us that he spoke to the Lord after he accepted the call to be the Lord's prophet (in Isaiah 6) are:

“For how long, Lord?”

So, backtracking:

• Isaiah's account of his call begins when Isaiah enters the temple.
• He encounters the Lord in His purity and holiness.
• He experiences the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom.
• He cries out in despair over his sinfulness and says:
    "Woe to me!  I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty." (v. 5 NIV)
• Because Isaiah's description of himself is accurate and he is a sinful man in the presence of the Lord, Isaiah is offered, and accepts, an act of atonement for his sins:
    "Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, 'See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.'" (vs. 6 and 7)
• Only then, after Isaiah expressed despair over his sin and after his sin was taken away, did the Lord call Isaiah to be His prophet and to say to Him:
    "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (v. 8)
• And, only then, after his painful atonement, did Isaiah stop saying "Woe is me for I am a man of unclean lips...,"  and say,
    "Here am I. Send me!" (v. 8)
• And then, only after Isaiah's fearful and despairing confession of sin and only after Isaiah offered, without condition, to go for the Lord, did the Lord send him.

Now, be very careful to understand the absolutely horrid message the Lord gave Isaiah to "tell the people:"

[and note--based on their fruit--how unwilling the shepherds who lead the CGGC have been, in recent generations, to speak this message.  But also be aware, with crystal clarity, that John Winebrenner and the first members of the Church of God were perfectly willing to speak that message and did, truly, make this their core message.]

This is the message the Lord commanded Isaiah to "Go and tell this people:"

“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
    be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

Make the heart of this people calloused;
    make their ears dull
    and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.” (v. 9-10)

How would you characterize the tone of this message?  Confrontational?  Condemning? Taunting?  Ridiculing?  Mocking?

Understand this:  

The only words that Isaiah utters in his account of his calling AFTER he said, "Here am I.  Send me!" and after the Lord gives him this divisive message to speak are the next words in the passage.
 
Isaiah simply and submissively asked, “For how long, Lord?”

Isaiah raised no questions about the content of the message.  No objections.  No fretting over fear that this message will make him unpopular and the object of scorn from the religious people of his day.

Isaiah accepted the message--even the tone of the message.

He only asked how long he'd be entrusted with speaking the message.

And, the Lord's answer was grim.

The Lord said,

“Until the cities lie ruined
    and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
    and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the Lord has sent everyone far away
    and the land is utterly forsaken.  And though a tenth remains in the land,
    it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
    leave stumps when they are cut down,
    so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.” (vs. 11-13)

 And, perhaps most remarkably, Isaiah said nothing else.  

Isaiah's acceptance of the Lord's call, the awful message the Lord commanded him to preach and the life sentence he received in preaching the message was total.

Isaiah completely submitted to the will of the Lord.  He didn't speak another word.

What he DID was obey.  What he did, obeying the Lord's call, was, day after day and year after year, denounce the people of the Lord in the Name of the Lord.  He never stopped.  He spoke the message in many ways, each and every time the Lord called on him to denounce His people for their sin.

It angers and saddens me that, from this exchange between the Lord and Isaiah which culminates in the Lord commanding Isaiah to convey His wrath and to speak judgment on His people, Ed Rosenberry says, in his July 19, 2013 eNews, that from this passage our leaders derive these four "priorities:" 

1. Always we must hold to our first love, namely Jesus. This will require a radical commitment of heart, mind, soul, and strength to the message and ministry of Jesus (Mark 12:30). It is possible to be busy about many things, and neglect that which is better (Luke 10:42). Sadly, a disciple, or even the Church, can loose sight of its “first love” when engaged in ministry and thereby lose sight of its calling.
2. We must be ONe Mission in the world, seeking the lost and serving the least. Jesus ministered to people’s spiritual and temporal needs. As his disciples the Church can do no less (John 20:21). The CGGC has but one mission: to help people everywhere experience life abundant in Christ Jesus. This means walking in the way of Jesus and sharing his gospel in ways that bring deliverance from bondage (Luke 4:18-19).
3. We must work together and stand against the adversary. His attacks often come externally, but sometimes he works from within. Always the Church must be ready to stand! (Ephesians 6:10-13) Since his tactic is to divide and destroy, unity of the Spirit is a must (Ephesians 4:3) as is the love of Jesus in all things or all is naught. (1Corinthians 13)
4. We must pray on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests (Philippians 4:6). Without the prayers of God’s people nothing of lasting merit can be accomplished. Prayer has the power to unleash the forces of heaven against the forces of darkness (Matthew 16:19). The Bible is replete with examples! May the CGGC pray prayers that shake the cosmic order, seeing lives and communities delivered and transformed (Matthew 7:7).

I have never, in my life, seen a more appalling example of eisegesis.

There is nothing of these four "priorities" in this passage.

The passage in which the Lord asks, "Whom shall I send?  And who will go for us?" to which Isaiah responds, "Here I am.  Send me!" speaks: 

• of the holiness and purity of God, 
• of the abject sinfulness of humanity--even of Isaiah, 
• of the need for atonement among those who would serve the Lord, 
• of the pain a human being must endure in order to be cleansed of sin, 
• of the unconditional terms under which a man or woman must answer the Lord's call, 
• of the very harsh message the Lord often speaks to those who sin against Him and 
• of the unpopularity among people a servant of the Lord must experience in order to please and serve the Lord,
• of the absolute unconditional subjugation His servants must accept in order to serve the Lord among sinful people.

Ed's four "priorities" are nowhere to be found in this passage.  In fact, priorities that stand at odds with Ed's are present in the passage. 

God's call on Isaiah was to confront the body's immense sin, not to encourage it.

The plan Ed--and our planting team--has laid out for our body defies the spirit of the truth of the passage from which Ed purports to find it.

 

Ed, and the people who created these priorities, have created those priorities on their own--in defiance of the message of Scripture.  

 

They derive their priorities from Shepherd Mafia values, not from the truths of Scripture. 

As they often do, they hijack the message of this Old Testament passage, very important to the New Testament which, Jesus points out foreshadowed His own ministry and was fulfilled in His ministry.  

 

Our Shepherd Mafia has turned that passage's message against itself.  To use Isaiah's word, "Woe" to them.

 

And, they are offering to lead the entire CGGC body in participating in their evil.

 

Please open the Word, read Isaiah 6 and ask its Lord to show you its truth.  What our leaders find in Isaiah 6 is not present there.  

 

The path these leaders offer the CGGC, based on this powerful and important passage, is a Shepherd Mafia path--one in which shepherd values supersede truths conveyed by the Word.  Values that, in fact, pervert the truth.

 

Let me say again--as I often do--that I'm absolutely certain that, in doing this, the made men and women of our Shepherd Mafia are well-intentioned.  But, this is evil.

 

This is a very serious moment in the CGGC.  It is--as it was for Isaiah when he accepted the Lord's call--a black and white moment.  There can be no middle ground.

 

This is a moment in which the people of the CGGC must choose:  Either the Lord's truth or the message of the CGGC Shepherd Mafia.

 

We must repent.