My Personal Missional Myth: BUSTED

A few months ago I was exchanging a wide-ranging series of emails with a member of the ERC staff on topics covering, among others:

• the Region's Sexual Misconduct Policy,
• the differences between Organic/Simple/House Churches and the typical Evangelical Christendom congregation that is the norm in the CGGC and
• the so-called "metrics" included in the latest CGGC "Scorecard," AKA Statistical Report, (most of which are not actually metrics because metrics are quantitative measures and most of what the CGGC tries to assess are issues of quality--i.e., attributes that can not be counted).

In doing so, the staff member raised the question of how the group with which I gather, still calling itself Faith Community Church of God, is actually doing.  And, I entered in writing, for the first time, thoughts that had been dancing through my mind for some time.

I admitted, and not happily or joyfully, that we are not doing well--in two ways.

First, we are not doing well in terms of the values touted by CGGC and ERC leaders which we reject.  But, of course, that is to be expected and that doesn't bother me at all. 

For instance, our worship attendance is not increasing, though we never, ever count the number who attend our version of the Sunday morning show.  We dedicated no infants last year and would have spurned any request to do so because to do so would absolutely violate the  CGGC's Mission Statement's claim that our gathering is based on "the New Testament plan" and because to do so would violate the new We Believe's assertion that the Bible is our "only" "rule."

Second, what does irk me, hurt and concern me, however, is that we are also not doing well in terms of what we do believe in and value.  To use language that drove the conversation on Brian Miller's blog, we are not turning out to be externally focused. 

Far from it, in fact.  In fact, we appear to be increasingly internally focused--at least as a group. 

It stuns me and befuddles me that what I was certain would make us externally-focused hasn't done that at all.

I still embrace a goodly portion of what I was taught in the Missional Leadership Initiative and in what is asserted in missional literature.  Because of that, I began by redefining righteousness in our gathering. 

I abandoned, intentionally and verbally, the CGGC's conventional wisdom that I have describe in my Characteristics of the CGGC Brand as "False, Flock-Based Righteousness" in favor of biblical teachings from three sources:

1. The "Sermon on the Mount,"
2. Jesus' teaching about the Day of Judgment in His sheep and goats prophecy in Matthew 25, and
3. James' definition of "religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless" in James 1:27.

Doing so was a radical change in my teaching and unsettling for others in the group. 

Up to that point, I had towed the CGGC line.

I had actually once promoted growth in numbers at the Sunday morning show as a sign of a legitimate growth in righteousness.  I once encouraged people, for instance, to invite others to "church" on Sunday.  I once defined success by increasing participation in small group involvement, e. g., the size of the Youth Group or Women's Fellowship or a midweek Bible Study...

...but then, I repented of all of that thinking and I turned away from it.

The time came when I began to teach that many people who are preparing for the Day by doing those things will be counted among those stunned to hear Jesus say to them, "away from me you evildoers."

There were two responses to that abrupt and radical change in teaching.

1.  Many people at Faith rejected the new teaching.  They wanted to believe that the Lord is really glorified by church attendance and that small group attendance is fruit of sanctification.  In time, those people vamoosed.

2.  Others, a smaller number, were convinced by the simple arguments for the new teaching from the Gospels and from James.

You might very well be amazed by the lives that some of the people who remain at Faith are living:  Lives lived straight from the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5-7 and from Matthew 25 and from the Epistle of James.  These are people who add verse 10 when they cite Ephesians 2:8 and 9.

They are people of Micah 6:8 who act justly and love mercy and walk humbly with their God.  They live radical lives of repentance which bear fruit, not in flock-based faux righteousness but in the righteousness Jesus taught and lived.

However, here's the shocking truth about those same people:

If anything, they are more inward-focused as a group than they were when they were people who lived the values embodied in the CGGC Statistical Report.

They have busted to pieces my personal missional myth.

I believed that if they grew in personal righteousness that, as a result of that act of conversion they would, naturally, become people of the so-called Great Commission.

Very simply, they have not.

They do meet to encourage the others among us to grow in lives of mercy, grace, love and forgiveness.  They confront each other over sin and help each other understand what the life lived and taught by Jesus looks like...

...but they actually resist bringing others into the koinonia they share.

They are as a group, more internally-focused than ever, though, oddly, as individuals, they are very kingdom-oriented.

Why?

I can't say for certain.

I'm playing with the idea that they have become what my own APEST equipping (which is extremely prophetic) produces. 

Prophets lead repentance and preach righteousness--and that's what we do.  We are unbalanced in the way shepherd-dominated, parish priest, pastor led congregations are.  The specific abuses are different in the end, but they are abuses nonetheless.

I have hoped, for some time, that a genuinely apostolic person would take interest in us.  But, if the Lord has called any to us, s/he has declined His leading.

At any rate, we are at a bit of an impasse.  We've gotten to where our journey has led but not to the place we hoped to be.

Interestingly, we have asked the appropriate renewal people in the ERC and CGGC for assistance only to be told that they have nothing available that will assist us.

I am at a loss.

The Whitewashing of the Story of Midwest Regional Conference Sessions

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness."  (Jesus, Matthew 23:27)

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

We are well into the CGGC's Yay God Tour 2014.

The eNews has reported on the goings on in the ERC, ARC, GLRC and MRC plus the California Eldership in a way that could make anyone want to add those accounts to the end of Acts 2.

Same old, same old.

About the time of the meeting of my own ERC this May, I picked up an old ERC Conference Journal from about five years ago and skimmed through that docket which projected the same tone of awe and praise for the Lord's amazing blessing on the Conference that we read this in this year's eNews articles. Interestingly, Conventional Wisdom today is that five years ago things were really not so grand, after all...

...but, of course, all is groovy now!

Because I could not attend ERC this year, I asked several others who did attend to give me their impressions. 

After highlighting many of the reports by Commissions, staff people and one member of the Conference invited to give a testimonial to the effectiveness of a leadership program in transforming his congregation, one of my friends said with intense frustration, "I’m tired of the Hype..."

My sense is that many in the CGGC are tired of it, too.

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

I was particularly struck by the totality of what I read about the Midwest Regional Conference gathering.

The first thing I read about it was not in the eNews.  It from a blog posting of a CGGC friend who is a member of that Conference.  Like me, my friend is no longer draws a salary from his calling.  And, like me, his current job kept him away from his Conference's sessions.

In his post entitled "Missing Conference," he articulated much of what is in my heart but with a feeling and sensitivity that is beyond my gift and calling.  His words are poignant to me.  I feel them deeply.  Because he also speaks for me, I quote him at length.  Consider his words as coming from me, if I had his tender heart.

Among other things,  he said:

"... like my friend [i.e., me] who wrote a similar post, I too wish I were there. . .There is that group of people (usually found at the top of the leadership structure) who have this total disdain for anyone with even a smidgen of prophet in them. They don't like to be challenged, don't want to hear truth, and mostly they probably just have a giant fear of conflict. . .Contrary to what many people think, people like me are not really angry at others, and we don't want to be troublemakers. We're actually trying to be helpful! There are things that we feel need to be said.  Personally, I really WANT to fit into the group and be a part of discussions and help try to make things better.  But it's frustrating. And I can't explain it very well. . . I'm tired of fighting the battle. I'm tired of caring. I'm tired of trying."

I, for one, think he explained it VERY well.

Can you feel the despair, the anxiety in those sentences--the yearning for a genuine fellowship that is in the Spirit, rooted in passion for commonly embraced truths.  Can you feel the love for Jesus?  Can you feel the pain of separation?

I can sense, in those words, similar moments when Elijah and Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul felt their own longing for fellowship in the Lord with the religious institutionalists in their own times and places.

Now, contrast the passions, sorrow and laments contained in my friend's sentences with the jubilant, gleeful account of Midwest Regional Conference sessions contain in Ed's eNews published on June 27. 

As is the case with all of Ed's accounts of the gatherings of the institutional CGGC, Ed's account of MRC is absolutely pentecostal.  According to Ed, the Word was preached with clarity.  The Ordinances were celebrated with authenticity and power.  Reports of God's blessing on renewal efforts were promising.  Accounts shared regarding church planting and the growth of the seminary were exhilarating.

You'd think that if there are tears shed among the people of the MRC, they can only be tears of joy.

But, that is not the whole truth, as my friend's yearning, anxiety and despair make clear.

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

One surprising characteristic of the CGGC Shepherd Mafia is that when members of our body are hurting--as my friend is--those people are not reached out to with compassion.  They are not nurtured.  They are not encouraged.  They are not restored.

Their suffering is pretended away.

Their existence is whitewashed, expunged from the CGGC record.

I trust that there is much truth in Ed's account of the goings on at MRC sessions.  But, as always, I know that Ed's truth is far from the entire truth.

It strikes me that, in Jesus' description of Judgment Day in which He likens that Day to the day that a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, Jesus says that it is not only what we do in His Name that will matter, it will also matter whom we do it. 

He promises to say, "Whatever you did to the least of these brothers and sisters of mine you did to me."

Yet, in the eNews CGGC today, there are no least of these remaining among us.  All is joy.  All is blessing.  All is peace.  All is strength and growth and power. 

The existence of those in despair has been covered over with whitewash that dazzles the eye.

Like my ERC friend, I am tired of the hype. 

Like my MRC friend, "I really WANT to fit into the group and be a part of discussions and help try to make things better."

Awaiting the day that the CGGC feels the godly sorrow that produces repentance that leads to salvation without regret.

Ed Rosenberry Trashes the Thesis of Jim Moss' RETURNING TO OUR FIRST LOVE

FYI, I attempted weeks ago, privately, to engage Ed in conversation about what he has said.  To this point, he has ignored that invitation.

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

In my Same Sex Marriage thread, I passed on this comment by one of several people who responds to this blog under the radar and away from the gaze of the dons of the CGGC Shepherd Mafia:

"I would think with all those who have a Dr. degree in the conference there would be more Theological treatises coming out."

I agree entirely.

It is a historical reality that, when the Body of Christ is thriving, issues of theology, even philosophy, are discussed energetically, vibrantly.  Consider, for instance, the philosophical and theological tones Paul strikes in Romans and Galatians, in which he explores the meaning of the Gospel in terms of secular Roman law and its concepts of condemnation and justification.  Read Hebrews for theology and philosophy.  Consider the many volumes that comprise the Works of Luther and of Calvin from the age of the Reformation.

Or, much closer to our theological home, read through the writings of John Winebrenner and C. H. Forney which, these days, are still mentioned in CGGC polity classes but which are deemed too deep today for any setting that is not academic.  (And, note that we have to reach 100 to 150 years into our past in the CGGC to find important works with theological significance.)

The one person who is the exception to the death of serious thinking and writing in the CGGC in recent decades has been James Moss, Sr., who is now retired yet is still producing provocative works that attempt to keep thought alive in the CGGC.

There are two reasons very close to my heart that I consider Jim's book, Returning to our First Love to be his most important work. 

First, the book is rooted in the study of CGGC history.  It is a careful examination of "church planting" in the Church of God from our movement's first days up to the date of the books publication in 1995. 

Second, the book is, the most rare of all rarities in the CGGC, a call to repentance--a call to change who and what the CGGC has become and to return to the spirituality, vitality and obedience that once were the core realities that drove the Church of God.

Because I love Moss' book so dearly for those reasons so important to me, when I read the recent issue of The Church Advocate I immediately noted that, in his brief article at the beginning of the issue, Ed Rosenberry--in a single sentence--thoroughly discounted and trashed the central idea in Jim Moss's great and important book. 

Say what you might say in favor or in criticism of Ed Rosenberry, you must acknowledge that he is a powerful writer who possesses the ability to write, as he did here, in a single sentence, what requires others an entire book to write. 

But then, uprooting and tearing down, destroying and overthrowing and more easily done than the building and planting Jim attempted.

The offending sentence (in its context):

"(John Winebrenner and other Church of God founders) wanted to see a Church committed to making disciples and establishing congregations in Jesus' name. [This sentence itself is a subtle, clever and, in my opinion, devious misrepresentation of the truth.  (Now here is Ed's devastating sentence:)]  That mission has remained the prime objective of the CGGC to the present day."

The very title of Moss' book, which argues that what once was the prime objective of the Church of God is something that must be returned to, reveals what Jim attempted to build and what Ed is dismantling.

Moss' book is clear in demonstrating that our body had lost its founding vision/first love/prime objective and, for a time, completely abandoned all attempts to establish churches in Jesus' name or for any other reason. 

Moss includes one chapter explaining, with great insight, twelve reasons why so many CGGC churches have closed and another chapter offering twelve additional reasons why our body stopped planting churches.  Included in this list is, "A turning aside from our first love" (p.113), something Ed Rosenberry now asserts the CGGC never did!

Everyone who has even a modest knowledge of CGGC history knows that Jim Moss is correct.  And, the truth is that, if any person living today knows CGGC history better than Jim Moss, it is Ed Rosenberry.

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

Oddly...

...I vividly recall a conversation that Ed and I had about CGGC history during the days when we still held two-sided conversations.

I had just led a break-out session on Church of God history during the annual sessions of ERC several years ago and Ed, Linda and I chatted casually after long everyone else moved on.

Ed told me that he had, by that time, put together an outline for a History of the Churches of God. 

I told him to his face that the outline he described was impressive and timely and I strongly encouraged him to write the book because I am, to this day, convinced that our body could benefit from his insight.

His outline is simple:  The Church of God began as a movement; it changed and became an organization and that it has ultimately become an institution.

Ed described his purpose in writing such a history of our body as a call to return to our movement days.

Implicit in his outline is the very argument Jim Moss makes in Returning to our First Love, that is, the CGGC did really lose its first love and that it must become what it used to be. 

That being the case, clearly, there was a time that Ed rejected his recent assertion, "That mission has remained the prime objective of the CGGC to the present day."

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

I think it is time that I be clear about what is implied in much of what I write here:  Ed Rosenberry is a problem for the CGGC but Ed is not our most serious problem. 

Ed is a problem because he has, for instance, stated that he (now apparently) believes that the church is an institution and that leading the institution of the church is very similar to leading an institution like a bank! 

Ed pushed for nearly six years for a revised We Believe which affirms that the Bible is our "only" "rule" and then advocated the observance of Lent, something foreign to the pages of the Bible. 

Last December, he donned a priestly collar and to lead a high church Advent Mass from the Episcopal tradition at Winebrenner Seminary.

Ed regularly flaunts his opposition to long-established and to recently affirmed teachings and practices of the CGGC and he does it, apparently, without shame or guilt.

But, the real problem in the CGGC today is that the CGGC body, as a whole, allows Ed to make these theologically corrupt and inconsistent statements and take these actions without a word of admonition. 

Ed incarnates To Talk is to Walk-ism.  But, he does it with permission.  And, not only permission.  He does it with support.  Everyone who reads this and is a part of the CGGC, apart from me, is Ed's accomplice.

Our problem is with Ed only to the extent that he incarnates the dysfunctional CGGC culture.  But, truly, our greatest spiritual issue is with the lack of love for--and obedience to--truth.