What Some ERC Congregations are Looking for in a "Leader"

Gang,

I was reading the ERC Newsletter recently and clicked on "Employment Opportunities" to assess the mindset of ERC Congregations who are looking for new leadership. 

(Question:  What better evidence could demonstrate that we are now attempting to operate Christ's church as  a business--and not a Spirit-led, living organism--than to advertise openings for "Employment?"  How the Lord must be weeping over us!  At how many RPMs must John Winebrenner be spinning in his grave?!)

The first three ads cited below are from small congregations which have been declining and, realistically, are, very likely, on their last legs.  Their ads were still running at last check.

The fourth ad is from a congregation which, later in its ad, boasts average attendance in excess of 300.  Very far down in its ad is the mention that the successful candidate should be an 'evangelizer.'  (Note that this congregation doesn't want to be discipled in evangelism!  It wants to consume the evangelistic gift of its leader.) 

The fifth ad is from what once was one of the largest congregations in the whole denomination but which has not thrived in recent decades.  This church, apparently, did not read the latest ERC "to talk is to walk" memo and, therefore, makes no mention whatsoever of outreach or mission or "evangelizer-ing."

I highlight the common desire of each.

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

   We desire someone who is a Bible preacher and teacher and someone as a Shepherd who will lead us toward a mission outreach focus and willing to work with and guide a small traditional church into a larger congregation.

---

   The __________ First Church of God is looking for a part‐time, Bible teaching pastor who is willing to shepherd a small, traditional congregation in our journey of faith and in our outreach ministry.

---

   We are looking for a Shepherd who will lead us toward a missional, outward focus. If God is calling you to serve with a small, traditional congregation, please consider submitting your resume to...

(Considering what Jesus says about tradition in Mark 7:9, you'd think that ERC congregations wouldn't be lining up to be in front of the line that claims that description, would you?)

---

   The __________ First Church of God, __________, Pennsylvania, is seeking a Senior Pastor to shepherd the Lord’s Church.

---

   The __________ First Church of God is seeking a Senior Pastor called by God to serve as the spiritual leader of the congregation. The senior pastor's responsibility is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, to teach the Bible, to provide, train, and work with Christian leadership, and to engage in pastoral care for the congregation.

 
Try this theological thought experiment in two steps:

1. Think about what the role of a pastor is in the church today.
2. Find even one person who did that job in the New Testament church.

(Over the years, I have challenged people of "traditional" ways to show me a pastor in the New Testament.  To this point, three things have been true about the people to whom I have given that challenge.  First, none of them have ever identified a pastor in the Word.  Second, not a single one of them has even been disturbed by that fact.  And, third, none has repented of his/her traditional ways.)

Two realities unite each of these five congregations:

First, none of them is thriving. 

Second, they are all looking to improve their future by employing the same unbiblical leadership model that created their current state:  They still want to be shepherded/pastored by a "leader" in the role of parish priest.

As a prophet, I ask:  Why bother keeping these churches afloat?

Followers of Jesus are sent into the world to make disciples.  They are to care about obedience to our Lord's "Great Commission."  They are not to be concerned with being taken care of.  They are to go into the world loving the Lord, their neighbor, their enemy and one another.

Does the fact that the ERC condones this congregational narcissism by printing these ads in its Newsletter grieve anyone else?

There is a third reality that unites these congregations:  None of them are engaged in repentance of old and failed ways.

We most certainly need to repent!

A "Standing Stone," Laid in 2010, from the Kingdom-Focused, "CGGC in the Emerging World" Past

My friends,

(To my surprise, I found the link below while doing some googling.)

CGGC people concerned with our body's place in the future of the Kingdom of God really did have the following conversation only three years ago: 

http://emergingcggc.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-testament-plan-in-thinking-of-john.html

I think my article, which prompted the conversation, is a decent portrayal of early Church of God history.  I think it helps define what is meant in our body by the phrase, "the New Testament plan."

Please, however, read the many comments made in response to it.  Observe, for example, how quickly it became a conversation about APEST.

Note that, just three years ago, there was an enthusiastic community of CGGCers convinced:

1. that APEST is biblical,
2. that it is necessary that APESTs be encouraged and empowered if the CGGC is to have a future for the Kingdom.

Note also that Don and Lance, today's prime definers, at the General Conference level, of what it means today to be on mission were mute on these subjects, even back then.

Compare the vision shared on the blog in 2010 with the credentials proposal accepted at 2013 General Conference sessions.

Then, chart the direction, on APEST and Kingdom, that the CGGC has moved and is moving, with increased momentum, since 2010.

Finally, guess where we might be by 2016 as far as APEST and Kingdom focus are concerned, unless we repent.

The Problem with Leadership's Promotion of "SEEK GOD FOR THE CITY"

Last week I received, from General Conference headquarters, my copy of the Lenten devotional, "SEEK GOD FOR THE CITY" along with the promotional material from CGGC headquarters that accompanies it.

Providentially, it arrived just as I was publishing my Thirteen Characteristics of the CGGC Brand post.  As a result, I was offended in a particularly harsh way.

Five of those 13 characteristics make the point that our General Conference higher ups have the Roman Catholic view of the church, not the Bible's view, as the point from which they jump off. (See characteristics 2, 3, 6, 7 and 12):

http://anti-flockist.blogspot.com/2013/11/thirteen-characteristics-of-cggc-brand.html

And so, as if the Lord in His sovereignty wanted to put his stamp of approval on my take on the CGGC Brand, what do our higher ups push on the body at the same time I make the point that we are being led back into Roman Catholicism?

A Lenten Devotional!

The Lord is mysterious in His ways.

 

To be fair, I've looked the Lenten devotional over and I must admit that, if I were a Roman Catholic priest leading a Roman Catholic parish, I'd love SEEK GOD FOR THE CITY!  I'm certain Pope Francis, "the Slum Pope," would love it!

The problem?  I am not a Roman Catholic priest, I don't lead a Roman Catholic parish.  However, I am ordained in a body which has committed together to the very radical mission of establishing churches on "the New Testament plan."

For those very few of us who submit to the CGGC vision and remain true to it, there is no such thing as a Lenten devotional because there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that even faintly hints at the observance of Lent, let alone investment in a devotional book to aid in the observance of Lent.

A few thoughts inspired by the higher ups' promotion of SEEK GOD FOR THE CITY:

1. It is one more example of the insubordination of our leaders to CGGC authority to which, according to our polity, they must submit.
     As only one example, We Believe (2013) says, "We believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, "our only rule for following Jesus in every aspect of our life." (my emphasis)  This is strong and radical language.  It is language we did not have to choose.  But, it is language that allows for observance of Lent only if the Bible creates that "rule."
     As a second example of the many authorities superior to GC staff, the General Conference in session--the highest human authority in the CGGC--approved that statement in We Believe and stamped it with an authority to which our Findlay higher ups absolutely must--but don't--submit.
2. It demonstrates the degree to which General Conference leadership is drawing the CGGC to a way of following Jesus that is rooted in Roman Catholic practices from the Middle Ages and not in the Word of God.
     I read the promotional material for the Lenten celebration our denominational higher ups are recommending.  The second sentence of the letter is blatant!  It says: "The prayers are freshly designed to help re-ignite and sustain prayer for others."
     Designed prayers?
     Question:  Where do you go to find designed prayers: The Bible or Dark Ages Roman Catholicism?
3. It brings to life the thirteenth characteristic of the CGGC Brand, "Incoherence."
     Incoherence says this:  "There is illogic and outright contradiction among the things the CGGC claims to be true about itself.  There is also lack of consistency between what it says and what it does."
     It was mere months ago, in the summer of 2013, that the CGGC's highest human authority--the delegates to General Conference session--approved the statement about the authority of the Bible in We Believe.  Now, the higher ups are promoting a Lenten devotional--something for which there is no authority in the Bible.
     Truly, "There is illogic and outright contradiction among the things the CGGC claims to be true about itself.  There is also lack of consistency between what it says and what it does."
4. It accounts for the eighth characteristic of the CGGC Brand, "Cynicism."
     Cynicism is, "An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." 
     Can there be any question why so many in the CGGC are cynical about those who sit their fannies in comfy seats in offices in headquarters buildings?
     Conventional wisdom among the people of the CGGC is that distrust of higher ups is justified.  Indeed, how else could the people of the CGGC guard their own spirituality?

Several years ago I began to use the word macrorepentance.  I believe that the Lord gave me that word. 

To macrorepent is to change your thinking at the big picture level--i.e., to change the values from which particular (micro) thoughts come.

Based on the fruit they produce, It a well accepted value, among CGGC higher ups, that they can defy, apparently at their whim, the New Testament and, in this case, the CGGC Eldership's claim that the Bible is "our only rule for following Jesus in every aspect of our life."

The time has come for the whole CGGC to repent of fallen values and to demand that its leaders submit to the Bible.  It's time that the people of the CGGC confront higher ups who hold themselves above both the Word of God and the CGGC Eldership.

All of us must repent!

Commentary on The Very Crucial Last Sentence of THREAD 2

Gang,

In my blogs, I point repeatedly to the tenth characteristic of the CGGC brand:

10.  To Talk is to Walk-ism.  According to the New Testament, a follower of Jesus is one who possesses a faith that organically produces acts of obedience to God's will. (Matthew 7:21-23, 24-26, 25:1-46; John 14:15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 2:8-10; Jas. 2:12-26; Rev. 2-3).  However, CGGC faith is disconnected from action.  It is possible to talk CGGC talk without walking it.  Hence, for example, the GC Mission and Vision Statements that are not lived out--and virtually no one notices.

This may very well be the most pervasive flaw in the CGGC today.

And, it's a flaw that others, besides me, see--as is clear from the last sentence of the proposal in THREAD 2:

Perhaps the time has really come in the CGGC to stop talking about how good Reggie's recommendations are (The Present Future- 6 Tough Questions For The Church), and to begin a concerted effort to put them into practice ("Now that you know these things, you will be blessed IF YOU DO THEM" --John 13:17).

See:  http://anti-flockist.blogspot.com/2013/11/tread-2-innovative-constructive.html

That statement is describing one concrete and tragic example of how To Talk is to Walk-ism functions in the CGGC.  (There are, of course, more examples than can be enumerated.)

Is the CGGC missional?  Well, of course it is!  It is, at least, in a church culture in which making an statement is the same thing as faith in action.  In the To Talk is to Walk universe, the CGGC is perfectly missional.

After all, we pay Reggie McNeal to lead the Mission Leadership Initiative.  We encourage our so-called 'pastors' and what the new We Believe defines as CGGC 'laypersons' to participate in it.  We speak words of praise about MLI and all that it stands for.

In the CGGC, this is missionality in vibrant action!

However, where the rubber meets the CGGC road, we do nothing more than talk Missional Leadership. 

In fact, by promoting and enacting the headquarters-developed denominational program, Transformational Church, we walk the exact opposite sort of walk than the missional walk.  (This is also the thirteenth characteristic of the CGGC brand, "Incoherence," in action.  At least the CGGC is consistent.) 

And, our leaders do both MLI and TC with no compunction at all.  (FYI: Compunction is "anxiety arising from awareness of guilt.")

Therefore,...

...What follows is a summary of six "New Realities" McNeal identifies and the six wrong and six tough questions that accompany them.  As you read this, note the six WRONG questions and note how they are core to describing the walk CGGC leadership walks, no matter what its talk may be:


New Reality Number One:  THE COLLAPSE OF THE CHURCH CULTURE

Wrong Question:  How do we do church better? [Think about Transformational CHURCH!]

 Tough Question:  How do we deconvert from churchianity to Christianity?

New Reality Number Two:  THE SHIFT FROM CHURCH GROWTH TO KINGDOM GROWTH

Wrong Question:  How do we grow the church? (How do we get them to come to us?)

Tough Question:  How do we transform our community?  (How do we hit the streets with the Gospel?)

New Reality Number Three:  A NEW REFORMATION:  RELEASING GOD'S PEOPLE

 Wrong Question:  How do we turn members into ministers?

 Tough Question:  How do we turn members in missionaries?

New Reality Number Four:  THE RETURN OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION

Wrong Question:  How do we develop church members?

 Tough Question:  How do we develop followers of Jesus?

New Reality Number Five:  THE SHIFT FROM PLANNING TO PREPARATION

 Wrong Question:  How do we plan for the future? [See Ed's touting of 'godly planning' in the recent CHURCH ADVOCATE.]

 Tough Question:  How do we prepare for the future?

New Reality Number Six:  THE RISE OF APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP

Wrong Question:  How do we develop leaders for church work?

 Tough Question:  How do we develop leaders for the Christian movement?

Read those six wrong questions again and again.  Note how feverishly the GC leadership team is devoting the CGGC to answering those wrong questions.

I believe that historians in 100 years will understand the current CGGC leadership team's strongest achievement to be to take the CGGC which had a small, but growing, core of people committed to answering McNeal's six tough questions and de-penting nearly all of that core group into becoming people who care only about answering the wrong questions.

How have they accomplished that?  They did it, precisely as THREAD 2 implies, through practicing and promoting To Talk is to Walk-ism.

We must repent.