As the day of our gathering approached and we touched base with the regulars, we found out from one of our people that her mid 1990s Ford Escort had died in the parking lot of her employer and that the car wouldn't even be looked at until Monday.
Evie planned out a way that we would provide transportation for some others and gather at a restaurant very close to the home of the woman with the dead car and her son and that I would pick them up and drive them home and that we would cover all the expenses.
We had a decent meal, though this is not the best restaurant.
It's hard having Word time in these settings but I often tell the gang about what Paul reminded the Corinthians was the gospel he preached to them and Evie recounted that:
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures
That He was buried,
That He was raised on the third day according to the Scripture,
That He was seen...
And that He will return.
I led prayer time.
We ate the meal in a very crowded and noisy setting.
This wasn't the most edifying gathering but we were glad to be able to meet. It blessed us to make a sacrifice to make the gathering happen.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
CGGC's HERE WE STAND: Immigration
Nothing has provoked righteous indignation in me more in recent years than CGGC mountaintoppers' writing of and the mindless approval by the General Conference in session in 2016 of the HERE WE STAND document.
HERE WE STAND pretends to declare and define the position of the CGGC on a number of touchy, contemporary, hot button issues and prescribes action that, it says, we, in our churches, are to take in regard to those issues.
One of those issues is immigration.
Well, with the election and subsequent actions of Donald Trump as President, the proverbial poop has hit the ventilation device as far as the issue of immigration is concerned and it's now the moment for the people of the CGGC to stand up exactly where we, on the authority of our highest human authority, the General Conference in session, say we stand.
More importantly for the eternal souls of the people in CGGC congregations, it's time to do what our Eldership says we should do.
---------------
Jesus is very clear that when we speak we must let our yes be yes and our no, no. It is absolutely a sin to speak and act in any other way.
The CGGC tendency to suppose that to speak assertively, even radically, about issues that face us amounts to action is the gravest sort of sin.
If I had been a delegate to General Conference in 2016, I would have voted against HERE WE STAND for many reasons. The most compelling of them is fear for the souls the people in CGGC congregations who were being bound to let our collective yes and no on immigration, and other issues, be what they actually do in real life.
Shame on you writers of HERE WE STAND and on the delegates to General Conference.
You lied, in HERE WE STAND, about what our people believe and put them in a position to live prophetically in the world when most of them think being a disciple is nothing more than sitting their fannies down in a sanctuary once a week or so.
May the Lord have mercy on your souls, and theirs.
My heart goes out to CGGC mountaintoppers who are now accountable before the Lord to lead the body according to the principles declared in HERE WE STAND.
Because of the, well, polity they participate in, my heart breaks for the uninformed and innocent souls of CGGC people who are now, unwittingly, bound to the fairly radical assertions of HERE WE STAND on the issue of immigration.
Rest assured. When Jesus spoke, He meant His Words. And when He commanded us to let our yes be yes and our no, no, He was perfectly and completely sincere.
Questions:
Who reading this knows where CGGC leaderd say we stand on immigration?
Who in the Church of God didn't know the body's position on, say, slavery back in the day.
Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy!
We must repent.
We must turn from our lukewarm ways.
HERE WE STAND pretends to declare and define the position of the CGGC on a number of touchy, contemporary, hot button issues and prescribes action that, it says, we, in our churches, are to take in regard to those issues.
One of those issues is immigration.
Well, with the election and subsequent actions of Donald Trump as President, the proverbial poop has hit the ventilation device as far as the issue of immigration is concerned and it's now the moment for the people of the CGGC to stand up exactly where we, on the authority of our highest human authority, the General Conference in session, say we stand.
More importantly for the eternal souls of the people in CGGC congregations, it's time to do what our Eldership says we should do.
---------------
Jesus is very clear that when we speak we must let our yes be yes and our no, no. It is absolutely a sin to speak and act in any other way.
The CGGC tendency to suppose that to speak assertively, even radically, about issues that face us amounts to action is the gravest sort of sin.
If I had been a delegate to General Conference in 2016, I would have voted against HERE WE STAND for many reasons. The most compelling of them is fear for the souls the people in CGGC congregations who were being bound to let our collective yes and no on immigration, and other issues, be what they actually do in real life.
Shame on you writers of HERE WE STAND and on the delegates to General Conference.
You lied, in HERE WE STAND, about what our people believe and put them in a position to live prophetically in the world when most of them think being a disciple is nothing more than sitting their fannies down in a sanctuary once a week or so.
May the Lord have mercy on your souls, and theirs.
My heart goes out to CGGC mountaintoppers who are now accountable before the Lord to lead the body according to the principles declared in HERE WE STAND.
Because of the, well, polity they participate in, my heart breaks for the uninformed and innocent souls of CGGC people who are now, unwittingly, bound to the fairly radical assertions of HERE WE STAND on the issue of immigration.
Rest assured. When Jesus spoke, He meant His Words. And when He commanded us to let our yes be yes and our no, no, He was perfectly and completely sincere.
Questions:
Who reading this knows where CGGC leaderd say we stand on immigration?
Who in the Church of God didn't know the body's position on, say, slavery back in the day.
Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy!
We must repent.
We must turn from our lukewarm ways.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
A Report to My Commission
Finally there is a new chapter in the continuing saga of the ERC's tenuous relationship with the people of Faith Community.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog here, the guy who holds the FCC check book recently wrote out a check to the ERC to assist in paying for insurance for ERC pastors' widows.
That act has become a part of the ERC/Faith Community story.
---------------
After, according to rumors/gossip and other informal communication, the ERC removed my ministerial credentials, the Conference's Commission on Church Renewal asked George Jenson to email me to request, from me, the names of leaders within the congregation so there could be a conversation between the people of Faith and the Commission about the future relationship between Faith and the Conference.
The premise of that request was that my credentials had been removed.
In my response to George, I noted that I had not received word from anyone who has authority that action had been taken regarding my credentials.
I wrote to George that I would honor the Commission's request only when the status of my credentials was properly addressed.
As I've noted in previous reports to my Commission, no one from the Conference had discussed the recall of my credentials by that late point. To this date, no one has.
---------------
So, the guy who holds the FCC check book (I'll call him Drew), sent a check to the ERC to assist in paying for insurance for ERC pastor's widows.
Apparently, the ERC Administrative Council took advantage of the information on the check to contact the people of Faith by going over my head and sending a letter directly to Drew.
The letter, written by Dave Williams, says that the Commission on Church Renewal has recommended to the Administrative Council that the Conference sever ties with Faith Community as a member congregation of the ERC.
Dave's next sentence in the letter is crucial. He says,
"We have contacted Bill Sloat to secure contact information of leaders within the congregation, but he refused to supply it."
(Dave goes on to say that the Ad Council decided to delay action pending communication from Drew or someone else from Faith. But if they hear nothing from Drew or someone else prior to the next Ad Council meeting, the Council will sever its relationship with Faith.)
---------------
As I noted in an email I sent to Dave, he has born false witness against me in his letter.
I most certainly didn't refuse the request.
Dave's misrepresentation about me, TO THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM I LIVE OUT MY FAITH, is a very serious matter.
---------------
For the moment, I will repeat an observation I have made a few times in the past:
Shepherd dominated leadership cultures, have serious problems with truth in two ways.
First, they are quick to disregard doctrinal truth when relationship problems appear.
Second, they have difficulty telling factual truth, as Dave demonstrates in his letter to Drew.
It was, well, a lie for Dave to claim that I refused to supply the information requested by the Commission. The truth is that I expressed that the concern that the issue of the status of my credentials should be addressed before the future of the relationship between Faith and the Conference be addressed.
---------------
In my note to Dave, I pointed out that the Commission was suggesting the bizarre circumstance in which members of the Conference would share details relating to the status of my credentials in a face to face meeting with third parties before having that face to face meeting with me!
Does this amaze anyone other than me?
I asked Dave where he finds the biblical wisdom and obedience in that.
---------------
If God is willing, I'll share more details and reflections at a later time.
---------------
Please understand my reason for writing these posts. It has been the practice of the ERC to do all of these things in secret, under the cover of darkness. I am seeking to bring these events into the light.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog here, the guy who holds the FCC check book recently wrote out a check to the ERC to assist in paying for insurance for ERC pastors' widows.
That act has become a part of the ERC/Faith Community story.
---------------
After, according to rumors/gossip and other informal communication, the ERC removed my ministerial credentials, the Conference's Commission on Church Renewal asked George Jenson to email me to request, from me, the names of leaders within the congregation so there could be a conversation between the people of Faith and the Commission about the future relationship between Faith and the Conference.
The premise of that request was that my credentials had been removed.
In my response to George, I noted that I had not received word from anyone who has authority that action had been taken regarding my credentials.
I wrote to George that I would honor the Commission's request only when the status of my credentials was properly addressed.
As I've noted in previous reports to my Commission, no one from the Conference had discussed the recall of my credentials by that late point. To this date, no one has.
---------------
So, the guy who holds the FCC check book (I'll call him Drew), sent a check to the ERC to assist in paying for insurance for ERC pastor's widows.
Apparently, the ERC Administrative Council took advantage of the information on the check to contact the people of Faith by going over my head and sending a letter directly to Drew.
The letter, written by Dave Williams, says that the Commission on Church Renewal has recommended to the Administrative Council that the Conference sever ties with Faith Community as a member congregation of the ERC.
Dave's next sentence in the letter is crucial. He says,
"We have contacted Bill Sloat to secure contact information of leaders within the congregation, but he refused to supply it."
(Dave goes on to say that the Ad Council decided to delay action pending communication from Drew or someone else from Faith. But if they hear nothing from Drew or someone else prior to the next Ad Council meeting, the Council will sever its relationship with Faith.)
---------------
As I noted in an email I sent to Dave, he has born false witness against me in his letter.
I most certainly didn't refuse the request.
Dave's misrepresentation about me, TO THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM I LIVE OUT MY FAITH, is a very serious matter.
---------------
For the moment, I will repeat an observation I have made a few times in the past:
Shepherd dominated leadership cultures, have serious problems with truth in two ways.
First, they are quick to disregard doctrinal truth when relationship problems appear.
Second, they have difficulty telling factual truth, as Dave demonstrates in his letter to Drew.
It was, well, a lie for Dave to claim that I refused to supply the information requested by the Commission. The truth is that I expressed that the concern that the issue of the status of my credentials should be addressed before the future of the relationship between Faith and the Conference be addressed.
---------------
In my note to Dave, I pointed out that the Commission was suggesting the bizarre circumstance in which members of the Conference would share details relating to the status of my credentials in a face to face meeting with third parties before having that face to face meeting with me!
Does this amaze anyone other than me?
I asked Dave where he finds the biblical wisdom and obedience in that.
---------------
If God is willing, I'll share more details and reflections at a later time.
---------------
Please understand my reason for writing these posts. It has been the practice of the ERC to do all of these things in secret, under the cover of darkness. I am seeking to bring these events into the light.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
God's Righteousness vs. My Righteousness
This is the Sunday after the inauguration of Donald Trump as the President of the United States.
So, it's two days after his supporters celebrated his victory and it's the day after many of his opponents gathered in the nation's capital and in other cities to demonstrate or protest and some even to riot in the wake of Trump's election.
This election has provoked unusual passion in people on both sides of the political fence and driven many to action.
On both days, but yesterday in particular, many people traveled great distances and many thousands of people performed acts of civil disobedience which threatened their safety and even their liberty.
Those people did so convinced that they were doing the right thing...
...that they were doing the right-eous thing...
...that they were performing an act, or acts of righteousness, no matter what the personal cost.
This is a moment in which, I think, it is important to note that Jesus came preaching the importance of righteous living and that He went to great lengths to define and describe true righteousness or, as He called it in Matthew 6, God's righteousness.
Our passion can move us to behave sacrificially, courageously, even heroically. Indeed, Jesus Himself lived sacrificially and courageously and heroically.
But, the message of Jesus is that only sacrificial, courageous, heroic acts according to God's will count as righteousness in God's eyes.
The biblical era in which everyone did what was right, or righteous, in his own eyes was an evil age.
Doing the right thing as it is defined by our own passion is sin. Doing the right thing as it aligns with the will of God is righteousness.
---------------
So, it's Sunday.
Today, in the name of Jesus, gazillions of people who think of themselves as disciples of Jesus will, to use grossly un-Jesus-like language, "go to church."
They will do so to do what they think of as worship, even though Jesus never led a so-called worship service and He didn't disciple His disciples in participating in or leading worship services.
And, they will think of what they do in going to church as an act of righteousness even though, in His very vivid teachings about righteousness, Jesus never got close to describing what will take place today in worship services of any variety today.
At the beginning of Romans 12, Paul of Tarsus, in language that shares the spirit of the life Jesus lived and of what Jesus commanded and taught, said that true and proper worship is to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice.
True and proper worship has nothing to do with church services or singing hymns and spiritual songs. It has nothing to do with preaching or listening to preaching. It doesn't, it cannot take place in a so-called sanctuary.
True and proper worship is living a life of righteousness. It is denying self and following the example of Jesus.
As the Western church declines, it seems to me, that the people of the church define righteousness more and more in terms of church and less in terms of what Jesus and His early disciples taught and did.
The decline is becoming decay.
We need to live God's righteousness. We need to turn to Jesus to rediscover what right living is. We need to seek and do the will of God.
To do that, we must repent.
So, it's two days after his supporters celebrated his victory and it's the day after many of his opponents gathered in the nation's capital and in other cities to demonstrate or protest and some even to riot in the wake of Trump's election.
This election has provoked unusual passion in people on both sides of the political fence and driven many to action.
On both days, but yesterday in particular, many people traveled great distances and many thousands of people performed acts of civil disobedience which threatened their safety and even their liberty.
Those people did so convinced that they were doing the right thing...
...that they were doing the right-eous thing...
...that they were performing an act, or acts of righteousness, no matter what the personal cost.
This is a moment in which, I think, it is important to note that Jesus came preaching the importance of righteous living and that He went to great lengths to define and describe true righteousness or, as He called it in Matthew 6, God's righteousness.
Our passion can move us to behave sacrificially, courageously, even heroically. Indeed, Jesus Himself lived sacrificially and courageously and heroically.
But, the message of Jesus is that only sacrificial, courageous, heroic acts according to God's will count as righteousness in God's eyes.
The biblical era in which everyone did what was right, or righteous, in his own eyes was an evil age.
Doing the right thing as it is defined by our own passion is sin. Doing the right thing as it aligns with the will of God is righteousness.
---------------
So, it's Sunday.
Today, in the name of Jesus, gazillions of people who think of themselves as disciples of Jesus will, to use grossly un-Jesus-like language, "go to church."
They will do so to do what they think of as worship, even though Jesus never led a so-called worship service and He didn't disciple His disciples in participating in or leading worship services.
And, they will think of what they do in going to church as an act of righteousness even though, in His very vivid teachings about righteousness, Jesus never got close to describing what will take place today in worship services of any variety today.
At the beginning of Romans 12, Paul of Tarsus, in language that shares the spirit of the life Jesus lived and of what Jesus commanded and taught, said that true and proper worship is to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice.
True and proper worship has nothing to do with church services or singing hymns and spiritual songs. It has nothing to do with preaching or listening to preaching. It doesn't, it cannot take place in a so-called sanctuary.
True and proper worship is living a life of righteousness. It is denying self and following the example of Jesus.
As the Western church declines, it seems to me, that the people of the church define righteousness more and more in terms of church and less in terms of what Jesus and His early disciples taught and did.
The decline is becoming decay.
We need to live God's righteousness. We need to turn to Jesus to rediscover what right living is. We need to seek and do the will of God.
To do that, we must repent.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Praying Through My Calling
I'll admit that praying doesn't come easy to me and that, left to my own devices, I could not and would not have a robust and powerful prayer life. And, I suppose that other people may be like me at times.
So, in order to have a prayer life that has meaning, I have employed techniques, normally taken from what I've read or things that have been said to me by other people who couldn't pray as well as they would have liked without those techniques, or perhaps I should say, disciplines.
Over the years, the most helpful techniques I've learned from others have been to meditate on Scripture and to pray Scripture. Over the many decades of my life, I have committed, I suppose, hundreds of verses and passages of the Word to memory. This is not a boast. In order to meditate on and pray Scripture, you need to know Scripture.
Honestly, for about the past 40 years, the largest portion of my praying has come through meditating on Scripture and putting the words of the Word into the words of prayer.
However, in about the past five years, I have developed another discipline on my own which derives from the other two.
It is to pray through my calling.
I've stated what I believe my calling is a number of times on this blog. I've been able to put it in exact words since before Evie was diagnosed with cancer nearly seven years ago so, I'd say I've known it in precise words for nearly ten years. In that time, I tweaked it once when I came to understand the day to day activity which is its goal. Apart from that, I've only modified it grammatically, because I have a touch of OCD.
The calling makes a lengthy sentence of about 70 words.
My understanding of my calling is hyper biblical. It is nearly all Bible quotations linked together and includes all or part of Jeremiah 1:10, Romans 1:1 and Ephesians 4:11 and 12.
When I reach a crossroads in life, one of the first things I normally do is to pray through my calling, in the form of a prayer, with the crossroads circumstance in mind. And, normally, I repeat that prayer many times over a long period of time.
What normally happens is that one phrase of my calling assumes a place of primary meaning. And, I, then, approach the crossroads from the perspective of that phrase.
I'm at two crossroads these days. One has been in my mind for about six months, the other became known to me only yesterday.
As I've prayed through my calling, different phrases have jumped into the primary position and I will approach them very differently.
In the more recent of the two, the phrase that instructs me that I am to be "a servant of Christ Jesus" has assumed primacy.
It is likely that I will soon be reporting to my Commission and, when I do so, it will be with that understanding of my calling in mind.
Please pray for me as I pray through my calling.
So, in order to have a prayer life that has meaning, I have employed techniques, normally taken from what I've read or things that have been said to me by other people who couldn't pray as well as they would have liked without those techniques, or perhaps I should say, disciplines.
Over the years, the most helpful techniques I've learned from others have been to meditate on Scripture and to pray Scripture. Over the many decades of my life, I have committed, I suppose, hundreds of verses and passages of the Word to memory. This is not a boast. In order to meditate on and pray Scripture, you need to know Scripture.
Honestly, for about the past 40 years, the largest portion of my praying has come through meditating on Scripture and putting the words of the Word into the words of prayer.
However, in about the past five years, I have developed another discipline on my own which derives from the other two.
It is to pray through my calling.
I've stated what I believe my calling is a number of times on this blog. I've been able to put it in exact words since before Evie was diagnosed with cancer nearly seven years ago so, I'd say I've known it in precise words for nearly ten years. In that time, I tweaked it once when I came to understand the day to day activity which is its goal. Apart from that, I've only modified it grammatically, because I have a touch of OCD.
The calling makes a lengthy sentence of about 70 words.
My understanding of my calling is hyper biblical. It is nearly all Bible quotations linked together and includes all or part of Jeremiah 1:10, Romans 1:1 and Ephesians 4:11 and 12.
When I reach a crossroads in life, one of the first things I normally do is to pray through my calling, in the form of a prayer, with the crossroads circumstance in mind. And, normally, I repeat that prayer many times over a long period of time.
What normally happens is that one phrase of my calling assumes a place of primary meaning. And, I, then, approach the crossroads from the perspective of that phrase.
I'm at two crossroads these days. One has been in my mind for about six months, the other became known to me only yesterday.
As I've prayed through my calling, different phrases have jumped into the primary position and I will approach them very differently.
In the more recent of the two, the phrase that instructs me that I am to be "a servant of Christ Jesus" has assumed primacy.
It is likely that I will soon be reporting to my Commission and, when I do so, it will be with that understanding of my calling in mind.
Please pray for me as I pray through my calling.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
A State of the Blog Address
I have been doing some thinking about this blog lately, figuring out what I understand and what I don't understand about it.
Honestly, I don't understand much about who reads it and what impact, if any, it has.
About a month ago, I received an email from a millennial with whom I'd had no contact with for many years in which s/he talked about reading the blog and empathizing with the lack of response to my calls for repentance and thanking me for "every word you have put on your blog."
This is the same person I referenced in a recent post.
That email got me thinking about what I don't know about the impact of what I write.
In the past year, I have reduced the number of people to whom I send notices of my blog posts by about 75% and the readership of the blog has decreased to a small degree but by far less than 75%.
Google supplies me with information on what blog posts are being read and I'm surprised at what people look at from the past.
The old post that people go back to repeatedly is the DEAR DR. SLOAT post which is merely the text of the letter Jack Selcher sent me on behalf of the ERC, informing me that I had been defrocked that one is from nearly two years ago and it's being read by at least someone nearly every week. I'm not certain what to make of that.
Others posts from the distant past that spark continuing interest include the JASPERISM post in which I explain the previous name of this blog and my assertion that church leaders plant churches to have flocks to tend, not to make disciples.
Another old post that receives continuing attention is my SIXTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CGGC BRAND post, which I entered just as Lance Finley was taking possession of the corner office out in Findlay.
Other posts from the past that people continue to read are those that detail the process of my defrocking and the one that I wrote at the time the rumor appeared, yet unsubstantiated by anyone in authority, that I had been defrocked during ERC Conference sessions and how it felt to me to be defrocked.
As I enter new posts, it seems to me that those that draw the most attention are the ones in which I reflect on what I believe to be flaws in institutionized Christianity in the West and, in particular, in America. The recent MORE SERVANTS, FEWER LEADERS post has been very well read as has the one on the emotional problems of the institutionized church.
Based on what people are reading, I'm encouraged.
I suspect that I'm being read by people who are younger rather than older and that the readership of the blog is heavier among those who are called to be apostles and prophets than among those who groove on the ways of the, uh, shepherd mafia and its parish priest-centered leadership culture.
And, I'm content with that.
These days, for whatever reason, I get less off-the-blog feedback than I used to. But, as I say, I'm more than content with the number of hits my posts generate.
So, as the Lord gives me strength, I will continue.
Blessings to all of you who continue to read.
Honestly, I don't understand much about who reads it and what impact, if any, it has.
About a month ago, I received an email from a millennial with whom I'd had no contact with for many years in which s/he talked about reading the blog and empathizing with the lack of response to my calls for repentance and thanking me for "every word you have put on your blog."
This is the same person I referenced in a recent post.
That email got me thinking about what I don't know about the impact of what I write.
In the past year, I have reduced the number of people to whom I send notices of my blog posts by about 75% and the readership of the blog has decreased to a small degree but by far less than 75%.
Google supplies me with information on what blog posts are being read and I'm surprised at what people look at from the past.
The old post that people go back to repeatedly is the DEAR DR. SLOAT post which is merely the text of the letter Jack Selcher sent me on behalf of the ERC, informing me that I had been defrocked that one is from nearly two years ago and it's being read by at least someone nearly every week. I'm not certain what to make of that.
Others posts from the distant past that spark continuing interest include the JASPERISM post in which I explain the previous name of this blog and my assertion that church leaders plant churches to have flocks to tend, not to make disciples.
Another old post that receives continuing attention is my SIXTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CGGC BRAND post, which I entered just as Lance Finley was taking possession of the corner office out in Findlay.
Other posts from the past that people continue to read are those that detail the process of my defrocking and the one that I wrote at the time the rumor appeared, yet unsubstantiated by anyone in authority, that I had been defrocked during ERC Conference sessions and how it felt to me to be defrocked.
As I enter new posts, it seems to me that those that draw the most attention are the ones in which I reflect on what I believe to be flaws in institutionized Christianity in the West and, in particular, in America. The recent MORE SERVANTS, FEWER LEADERS post has been very well read as has the one on the emotional problems of the institutionized church.
Based on what people are reading, I'm encouraged.
I suspect that I'm being read by people who are younger rather than older and that the readership of the blog is heavier among those who are called to be apostles and prophets than among those who groove on the ways of the, uh, shepherd mafia and its parish priest-centered leadership culture.
And, I'm content with that.
These days, for whatever reason, I get less off-the-blog feedback than I used to. But, as I say, I'm more than content with the number of hits my posts generate.
So, as the Lord gives me strength, I will continue.
Blessings to all of you who continue to read.
No Gathering: 1-15-17. Sickness
We won't meet today because I've been fighting a snot issue since shortly after the last gathering two weeks ago and I need a day to rest up to keep up with the demands of my job and because we don't want to expose the older people to my germs.
[Lizzie and I just returned from our Sunday morning drive. We got off to a late start and saw only 38 horse and buggy teams.]
There was a brief time when I was in love with the idea of a house church for its own sake. That was about the same time that there was genuine enthusiasm for house churches and a house church movement in the U. S. which believed that an important spiritual movement was about to take place led by groups of committed disciples meeting in homes.
My guess is that that sentiment peaked in 2009-2010. And, it's fizzled since then.
Honestly, I never bought into it entirely.
I was impressed by the fact that early disciples met in homes but I never really believed the house meeting was the point per se.
I remember, even before we began meeting in homes, exchanging a series of emails with Fran Leeman in which I said that the important thing for primitivists, which is how I think of myself, is to "exegete the actions of early disciples" or to "notice the fruit they produced" and to search for the truth that guided it and then to live from that truth in one's own time and place.
There was always something that bothered me about house church movement leaders talking about participating in a "church planting movement." It's never about having a church. It is about being disciples and discipling.
One of the characteristics of the institutionized church today which concerns me is what I label Ecclesiolatry, or venerating and serving the church, not the Lord of the church. I saw too much of that attitude among house church people about gatherings in homes.
Having said that, I have never seen people produce the fruit early disciples produced in their gatherings when they were meeting in a so called church building.
Anyway...
...one issue unique to a gathering in a home is that when someone who lives in the home becomes ill that illness put the kibosh on the gathering.
That's what happened today here.
I have to admit to being conflicted over cancelling the meeting because I wanted to have a day of peace and rest but knew that people who thrive on the fellowship of these gatherings would lose out.
In the end, we all took the day off because of me.
Tough.
[Lizzie and I just returned from our Sunday morning drive. We got off to a late start and saw only 38 horse and buggy teams.]
There was a brief time when I was in love with the idea of a house church for its own sake. That was about the same time that there was genuine enthusiasm for house churches and a house church movement in the U. S. which believed that an important spiritual movement was about to take place led by groups of committed disciples meeting in homes.
My guess is that that sentiment peaked in 2009-2010. And, it's fizzled since then.
Honestly, I never bought into it entirely.
I was impressed by the fact that early disciples met in homes but I never really believed the house meeting was the point per se.
I remember, even before we began meeting in homes, exchanging a series of emails with Fran Leeman in which I said that the important thing for primitivists, which is how I think of myself, is to "exegete the actions of early disciples" or to "notice the fruit they produced" and to search for the truth that guided it and then to live from that truth in one's own time and place.
There was always something that bothered me about house church movement leaders talking about participating in a "church planting movement." It's never about having a church. It is about being disciples and discipling.
One of the characteristics of the institutionized church today which concerns me is what I label Ecclesiolatry, or venerating and serving the church, not the Lord of the church. I saw too much of that attitude among house church people about gatherings in homes.
Having said that, I have never seen people produce the fruit early disciples produced in their gatherings when they were meeting in a so called church building.
Anyway...
...one issue unique to a gathering in a home is that when someone who lives in the home becomes ill that illness put the kibosh on the gathering.
That's what happened today here.
I have to admit to being conflicted over cancelling the meeting because I wanted to have a day of peace and rest but knew that people who thrive on the fellowship of these gatherings would lose out.
In the end, we all took the day off because of me.
Tough.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Creeping High Church-ism and the Decline of the CGGC
A few weeks ago, I referenced the Pew Research Center report that noted the increase of the category known as the Nones, people in America who describe themselves as having no religious affiliation.
According to that report, the percentage of the Nones increased by about the same percentage as the decrease in the number of people who call themselves Christian.
Breaking down the data more finely, Pew found that the decline in people who identify themselves as Christian is almost exclusively among Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations.
Evangelicals and traditional African-American Christian groups actually held their own according to the study.
---------------
The last of the Sixteen Characteristics of the CGGC brand to be added to my list is Creeping High Church-ism.
And, it strikes me as being far more than interesting and ironic that, as the decline of the CGGC continues, there is a noticeable movement, within the CGGC among its leaders, toward the very sort of high church Christianity practiced among Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestants--the groups in decline in the United States today.
The truth is that, even in a moment of decline, there are some strains of Christianity in America which are proving to be resistant to the trends that debilitate the work of the influence of the church.
And, at the very time when it is high church Christianity that is reeling and low church Christianity that is, at least, holding its own in a hostile environment, more CGGC leaders are becoming high church as they sport clerical collars, hang crosses around their necks and as more CGGC pastors promote observance of the liturgical calendar.
---------------
The CGGC was born in an era when it was riding a wave of the working of the Holy Spirit. It was growing in number and in spiritual power and was a leading light in moving the culture forward.
Today, as it declines, it is embracing everything that is lifeless and dying and failing.
We so need to repent.
According to that report, the percentage of the Nones increased by about the same percentage as the decrease in the number of people who call themselves Christian.
Breaking down the data more finely, Pew found that the decline in people who identify themselves as Christian is almost exclusively among Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations.
Evangelicals and traditional African-American Christian groups actually held their own according to the study.
---------------
The last of the Sixteen Characteristics of the CGGC brand to be added to my list is Creeping High Church-ism.
And, it strikes me as being far more than interesting and ironic that, as the decline of the CGGC continues, there is a noticeable movement, within the CGGC among its leaders, toward the very sort of high church Christianity practiced among Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestants--the groups in decline in the United States today.
The truth is that, even in a moment of decline, there are some strains of Christianity in America which are proving to be resistant to the trends that debilitate the work of the influence of the church.
And, at the very time when it is high church Christianity that is reeling and low church Christianity that is, at least, holding its own in a hostile environment, more CGGC leaders are becoming high church as they sport clerical collars, hang crosses around their necks and as more CGGC pastors promote observance of the liturgical calendar.
---------------
The CGGC was born in an era when it was riding a wave of the working of the Holy Spirit. It was growing in number and in spiritual power and was a leading light in moving the culture forward.
Today, as it declines, it is embracing everything that is lifeless and dying and failing.
We so need to repent.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Do Our Congregations Really Want Millennials?
In the recent past I've been in conversation with millennials even more than usual through Facebook and this blog.
Not too long ago, I received a poignant and powerful email from a member of that generation which profoundly impacted my understanding of the challenge millennials present to the American church. S/He has understanding of my walk through reading this blog.
S/He has a connection to the denomination that I am a member of. Despite the considerable difference in age between us we share many beliefs.
One thing that impressed me about the email is the passion this person has for the faith tradition we have in common.
S/He expressed love for our tradition similar to my love for the denomination that I mention here frequently.
The fact is, however, that s/he hasn't been able to find a place in the body despite actively pursuing ministry opportunities.
As I mentioned, we share many beliefs. Unsubstantiated rumor has it that I have been defrocked by my body and my much younger friend can't find a place in it despite the fact that s/he has considerable gifts.
Here's a conclusion I am reaching about my body and millennials based on its treatment of me and my millennial ways and the fact that my very gifted millennial friend can't find a comfortable place to land here:
My body wants people between the ages of 18 and 40 but only if they are clones of their 60something and 70something parents and grandparents.
The truth is, however, if the church wants to be relevant, it is going to have to empower people who are of the coming generations to live out and proclaim the gospel to those generations. The people who lead us, even the youngest of them, are geezers and out of touch with those generations.
---------------
My tradition is declining because it, in effect, won't allow people who are passionate about and committed to Jesus but are millennials to be millennials.
We must repent.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
More Servants, Fewer Leaders
One of the fads many in the institutionized church pursue today is Leadership Development. And, as is typical of these fads, nothing good is happening and spiritual and numerical decline continues.
As is the case with many fads, this one copies the world and has no root at all in the way Jesus lived or in the things Jesus taught. More to the point with Leadership Development, this fad spits in the face of Jesus.
When Paul wrote to the disciples in Rome, whom he'd not yet met, he didn't introduce himself as a leader of the church.
These are his opening words to the Romans:
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus..."
If, according to the way people in the institutionized church think, anyone in the early days of the Christian movement could have thought of himself as a leader of the church, Paul could have claimed that status.
What's crucial for people in the institutionized church today to understand is this: While Paul could have thought of himself in terms of his relationship to the church, that's not at all how he thought of himself.
Paul thought of himself in terms of his relationship with Jesus and with God.
Long before Paul thought about his relationship with the church, he thought of himself in terms of his relationship with Jesus as his first words to the Romans make clear.
So, he wanted the disciples in Rome to know him not as Paul who was leader of the church but as Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus.
---------------
This Leadership Development fad must hold a power attraction to people who hold positions of authority in the institutionized church. They count themselves as leaders of the church. How wonderful would it be to develop more leaders so they could be leaders of leaders.
But, the Jesus-truth is that when, in Mark 10, James and John approached Jesus and asked Him, essentially, to allow them to be the highest ranking leaders among other leaders, Jesus came down on that suggestion like a ton of bricks.
He told James and John and the other ten, that, among Gentiles, rulers exercise authority over people they rule but He said:
"Not so with you...whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant." He added that whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
Then He added that even He, the Son of Man, did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.
Based on the way of Jesus, the community of disciples doesn't need to develop leaders these days. In fact, more leaders is the very last thing it needs. What the people of the Way need today is more servants: Not leadership development but servant development.
---------------
Recently, I noted that I know of people who want to pursue the Kingdom but that they, very simply, don't know how to do it.
The emphasis on Leadership Development is one point of proof of that reality.
One reason they don't know how to pursue the Kingdom is that they think of themselves in terms of their relationship with the church. And, they think of others in terms of their relationship with the church.
Not in terms of their relationship with Jesus, who came into the world preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God, not the coming of the church.
Until they understand themselves and others first of all in connection to Jesus, they will never know how to pursue Kingdom.
We need fewer who fashion themselves as leaders of the church. We need many, many more who regard themselves, first and only...
...as Paul did...
As servants of Christ Jesus.
We must repent.
As is the case with many fads, this one copies the world and has no root at all in the way Jesus lived or in the things Jesus taught. More to the point with Leadership Development, this fad spits in the face of Jesus.
When Paul wrote to the disciples in Rome, whom he'd not yet met, he didn't introduce himself as a leader of the church.
These are his opening words to the Romans:
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus..."
If, according to the way people in the institutionized church think, anyone in the early days of the Christian movement could have thought of himself as a leader of the church, Paul could have claimed that status.
What's crucial for people in the institutionized church today to understand is this: While Paul could have thought of himself in terms of his relationship to the church, that's not at all how he thought of himself.
Paul thought of himself in terms of his relationship with Jesus and with God.
Long before Paul thought about his relationship with the church, he thought of himself in terms of his relationship with Jesus as his first words to the Romans make clear.
So, he wanted the disciples in Rome to know him not as Paul who was leader of the church but as Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus.
---------------
This Leadership Development fad must hold a power attraction to people who hold positions of authority in the institutionized church. They count themselves as leaders of the church. How wonderful would it be to develop more leaders so they could be leaders of leaders.
But, the Jesus-truth is that when, in Mark 10, James and John approached Jesus and asked Him, essentially, to allow them to be the highest ranking leaders among other leaders, Jesus came down on that suggestion like a ton of bricks.
He told James and John and the other ten, that, among Gentiles, rulers exercise authority over people they rule but He said:
"Not so with you...whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant." He added that whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
Then He added that even He, the Son of Man, did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.
Based on the way of Jesus, the community of disciples doesn't need to develop leaders these days. In fact, more leaders is the very last thing it needs. What the people of the Way need today is more servants: Not leadership development but servant development.
---------------
Recently, I noted that I know of people who want to pursue the Kingdom but that they, very simply, don't know how to do it.
The emphasis on Leadership Development is one point of proof of that reality.
One reason they don't know how to pursue the Kingdom is that they think of themselves in terms of their relationship with the church. And, they think of others in terms of their relationship with the church.
Not in terms of their relationship with Jesus, who came into the world preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God, not the coming of the church.
Until they understand themselves and others first of all in connection to Jesus, they will never know how to pursue Kingdom.
We need fewer who fashion themselves as leaders of the church. We need many, many more who regard themselves, first and only...
...as Paul did...
As servants of Christ Jesus.
We must repent.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Seek First His...Righteousness
According to ERC Conference session docket information, members of the Conference staff have set a goal to travel to and meet with people from each and every conference congregation over a period of three years. The meeting at Faith has not been scheduled yet so what I know about those meetings I know second hand.
One thing I know about those meetings is that, apparently, in the opinion of Conference staff, the height of righteousness for an ERC congregation is achieved when it pays its full Conference tithe and, perhaps, exceeds the tithe with additional gifts.
I'm not joking. Neither, I'm certain, are the members of ERC staff.
I have to repeat what I've said recently about how the emotion of fear has begun to affect me. Paul speaks about the need for believers to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. And, I do that.
But, I also have profound and genuine fear for the souls some of the leaders of the CGGC and for the people who trust in their teaching and leadership.
Jesus talks about God's righteousness as being crucial to the life of the person who follows Him and who will be welcomed by Him on the Day.
When I compare the life Jesus modeled and the way of living He commanded with the teachings and the way of many church leaders and church people, I do fear for their souls.
Please grab a red letter Bible and read the Gospels. If you are a Christian, please note how Christ, the Living Word, lived. Then focus, in on the red print, on the way of living He commanded.
One of my characteristics of the CGGC brand is, False, Flock-Based Righteousness.
Please look to Jesus, not church leaders, and hunger and thirst for righteousness as Jesus lived and commanded it.
We must repent.
One thing I know about those meetings is that, apparently, in the opinion of Conference staff, the height of righteousness for an ERC congregation is achieved when it pays its full Conference tithe and, perhaps, exceeds the tithe with additional gifts.
I'm not joking. Neither, I'm certain, are the members of ERC staff.
I have to repeat what I've said recently about how the emotion of fear has begun to affect me. Paul speaks about the need for believers to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. And, I do that.
But, I also have profound and genuine fear for the souls some of the leaders of the CGGC and for the people who trust in their teaching and leadership.
Jesus talks about God's righteousness as being crucial to the life of the person who follows Him and who will be welcomed by Him on the Day.
When I compare the life Jesus modeled and the way of living He commanded with the teachings and the way of many church leaders and church people, I do fear for their souls.
Please grab a red letter Bible and read the Gospels. If you are a Christian, please note how Christ, the Living Word, lived. Then focus, in on the red print, on the way of living He commanded.
One of my characteristics of the CGGC brand is, False, Flock-Based Righteousness.
Please look to Jesus, not church leaders, and hunger and thirst for righteousness as Jesus lived and commanded it.
We must repent.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
Seek First His Kingdom and His Righteousness...
Surprisingly to some, no doubt, the number of people practicing Christianity near the beginning of the 21st century is growing, and it is growing rapidly.
In parts of Asia and in Africa and in Central and Latin America, the number of new disciples is expanding in proportions that make the Awakenings in the West in recent centuries seem like times of spiritual lethargy.
I've heard it reported that at the beginning of the 20th century 80% of Christian lived in Europe and the Americas but by the beginning of the 21st century 20% of Christians were in the West and 80% were outside of it.
Those of us in the west watch an increasingly institutionalized version of Christianity consume the resources accumulated by the church in previous generations as the Christian movement decays and putrifies as it also becomes increasingly irrelevant to the culture.
And, why?
The Lord the institutional church lifts up is the One it claims created all things. When He sent disciples into the world to make more disciples, He said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore go..."
But, in the institutional church there is no power from the Lord.
Again, why is that so?
Taking my own tradition, with which I am most familiar, as an example, I believe it is because we disobey Jesus' command to seek God's Kingdom and righteousness before anything else. Clearly, some in the body want to be devoted to the Kingdom but, equally clearly, they only know how to focus on the flock, the church.
In our Mission Statement, we take a vision once focused first on the Great Commission and the "conversion of sinners," and make it about making disciples through the establishment of churches.
At our General Conference level, when we devote ourselves to expanding, it is through the department called, New Churches. Where is the Kingdom first thinking there? Our General Conference, where there is, I believe, sincere concern for the Kingdom, is actually organized around an intense church focus. The General Conference staff must repent.
In my own ERC, disobedience to the command to seek first God's Kingdom and righteousness is unabashed and blatant. It is organized entirely around the flock. It has, among others, Commissions on CHURCH Renewal, CHURCH and Pastor, and CHURCH Vocations.
It is any wonder that the Lord who commanded His people to seek first God's Kingdom and righteousness fails to bless this disobedience?
Taking my own tradition as an example, is there a mystery why the Western church is in decline and is at the point of decay?
Is it a wonder that it functions without the Lord's blessing!?
Jesus said that people who love Him will keep His commands. We can't even keep the commands about what come first.
We must repent. Why won't we?
In parts of Asia and in Africa and in Central and Latin America, the number of new disciples is expanding in proportions that make the Awakenings in the West in recent centuries seem like times of spiritual lethargy.
I've heard it reported that at the beginning of the 20th century 80% of Christian lived in Europe and the Americas but by the beginning of the 21st century 20% of Christians were in the West and 80% were outside of it.
Those of us in the west watch an increasingly institutionalized version of Christianity consume the resources accumulated by the church in previous generations as the Christian movement decays and putrifies as it also becomes increasingly irrelevant to the culture.
And, why?
The Lord the institutional church lifts up is the One it claims created all things. When He sent disciples into the world to make more disciples, He said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore go..."
But, in the institutional church there is no power from the Lord.
Again, why is that so?
Taking my own tradition, with which I am most familiar, as an example, I believe it is because we disobey Jesus' command to seek God's Kingdom and righteousness before anything else. Clearly, some in the body want to be devoted to the Kingdom but, equally clearly, they only know how to focus on the flock, the church.
In our Mission Statement, we take a vision once focused first on the Great Commission and the "conversion of sinners," and make it about making disciples through the establishment of churches.
At our General Conference level, when we devote ourselves to expanding, it is through the department called, New Churches. Where is the Kingdom first thinking there? Our General Conference, where there is, I believe, sincere concern for the Kingdom, is actually organized around an intense church focus. The General Conference staff must repent.
In my own ERC, disobedience to the command to seek first God's Kingdom and righteousness is unabashed and blatant. It is organized entirely around the flock. It has, among others, Commissions on CHURCH Renewal, CHURCH and Pastor, and CHURCH Vocations.
It is any wonder that the Lord who commanded His people to seek first God's Kingdom and righteousness fails to bless this disobedience?
Taking my own tradition as an example, is there a mystery why the Western church is in decline and is at the point of decay?
Is it a wonder that it functions without the Lord's blessing!?
Jesus said that people who love Him will keep His commands. We can't even keep the commands about what come first.
We must repent. Why won't we?
Saturday, January 7, 2017
The Institutionized Church's Emotional Problem
As I've noted in the past, I was among the first crop of CGGC, uh, leaders (Oi! How times have changed.) to be invited to participate in the General Conference's Missional Leadership Initiative resourced by Reggie McNeal. I enthusiastically accepted that invitation and completed the two year program.
At one point, during a question and answer time between participants and Reggie, I asked what the MLI program was intended to accomplish.
McNeal's answer was so unexpected to me and it was so profound that I still remember it vividly. He used three terms to describe what he intended to achieve through MLI: Frustration, Agitation and Critical Mass.
By that time I was already meditating on Paul's assertion, contained in 2 Corinthians 7, that it is godly sorrow that produces a repentance that leads to salvation.
I was struck by McNeal's insight that the CGGC's most basic problem was--IS--emotional, and that the emotions we need to experience in order to become missional are frustration and agitation.
What are the components of godly sorrow? In the face of the spiritual decline taking place in the CGGC, frustration and agitation certainly must be present, as at least a starting point, if our body is to reverse course.
What is critical mass? In physics, critical mass is the smallest amount of material necessary to create a nuclear reaction. It strikes me that, in the way McNeal was using the term, he was describing the formation of a remnant in the CGGC which, though it was small in number, would transform the body with the force contained in a nuclear reaction.
When I returned home from that MLI retreat, I sent an email to Lance in which I said that if frustration and agitation are the goal of MLI, then I should be its Poster Boy. My participation in MLI had created frustration in me on two levels. And, I was becoming increasingly agitated.
First, I was more frustrated than ever with the value system embraced by many CGGC congregations in which, to use language I first heard from Reggie, the laity wanted nothing more than to consume religious products and services provided by its pastor/staff.
Second, though I had not yet coined the phrase, To Talk is to Walk-ism, I was becoming aware that talking a radical talk without taking corresponding action is a core reality among some who were on the CGGC mountaintop at the time.
[I need to stop here and note that Lance, in my opinion, does not, and never has, practiced Talk-ism but that Talk-ism is part of the CGGC leadership culture.]
My frustration produced the agitation that motivated the writing of my email to Lance.
Lance's reply was gracious, as it always is. He described his reply as a "push back." And, it was an intelligent and extremely thoughtful push back.
That said, it was a push back that had the goal of easing, not feeding, my frustration and quelling, not intensifying, my agitation.
And, therefore, it did nothing to increase the likelihood that there would be critical mass to transform the CGGC.
This is a core problem in any shepherd dominated leadership culture. Any tension must be soothed by shepherds, even though godly sorrow produces a repentance that leads to salvation.
---------------
And, now, about six years down the road, we, across the CGGC, are neither frustrated nor agitated and there is no critical mass. But there is continuing decline.
Yet, I, personally, am more frustrated and agitated than ever and, if the gossip is correct, I have been defrocked, if the gossip is true, for actions that are fruit of my frustration and agitation and my efforts to form critical mass which is what Reggie McNeal said was his intention in MLI.
I am, as far as I can tell, what MLI, or Reggie McNeal at least, wanted. And, in the CGGC, I am, if the gossip is true, in poop up to my eyeballs.
And, some wonder why the spiritual decline continues.
There must be repentance.
At one point, during a question and answer time between participants and Reggie, I asked what the MLI program was intended to accomplish.
McNeal's answer was so unexpected to me and it was so profound that I still remember it vividly. He used three terms to describe what he intended to achieve through MLI: Frustration, Agitation and Critical Mass.
By that time I was already meditating on Paul's assertion, contained in 2 Corinthians 7, that it is godly sorrow that produces a repentance that leads to salvation.
I was struck by McNeal's insight that the CGGC's most basic problem was--IS--emotional, and that the emotions we need to experience in order to become missional are frustration and agitation.
What are the components of godly sorrow? In the face of the spiritual decline taking place in the CGGC, frustration and agitation certainly must be present, as at least a starting point, if our body is to reverse course.
What is critical mass? In physics, critical mass is the smallest amount of material necessary to create a nuclear reaction. It strikes me that, in the way McNeal was using the term, he was describing the formation of a remnant in the CGGC which, though it was small in number, would transform the body with the force contained in a nuclear reaction.
When I returned home from that MLI retreat, I sent an email to Lance in which I said that if frustration and agitation are the goal of MLI, then I should be its Poster Boy. My participation in MLI had created frustration in me on two levels. And, I was becoming increasingly agitated.
First, I was more frustrated than ever with the value system embraced by many CGGC congregations in which, to use language I first heard from Reggie, the laity wanted nothing more than to consume religious products and services provided by its pastor/staff.
Second, though I had not yet coined the phrase, To Talk is to Walk-ism, I was becoming aware that talking a radical talk without taking corresponding action is a core reality among some who were on the CGGC mountaintop at the time.
[I need to stop here and note that Lance, in my opinion, does not, and never has, practiced Talk-ism but that Talk-ism is part of the CGGC leadership culture.]
My frustration produced the agitation that motivated the writing of my email to Lance.
Lance's reply was gracious, as it always is. He described his reply as a "push back." And, it was an intelligent and extremely thoughtful push back.
That said, it was a push back that had the goal of easing, not feeding, my frustration and quelling, not intensifying, my agitation.
And, therefore, it did nothing to increase the likelihood that there would be critical mass to transform the CGGC.
This is a core problem in any shepherd dominated leadership culture. Any tension must be soothed by shepherds, even though godly sorrow produces a repentance that leads to salvation.
---------------
And, now, about six years down the road, we, across the CGGC, are neither frustrated nor agitated and there is no critical mass. But there is continuing decline.
Yet, I, personally, am more frustrated and agitated than ever and, if the gossip is correct, I have been defrocked, if the gossip is true, for actions that are fruit of my frustration and agitation and my efforts to form critical mass which is what Reggie McNeal said was his intention in MLI.
I am, as far as I can tell, what MLI, or Reggie McNeal at least, wanted. And, in the CGGC, I am, if the gossip is true, in poop up to my eyeballs.
And, some wonder why the spiritual decline continues.
There must be repentance.
Thursday, January 5, 2017
The Role of Shepherds and Teachers: (I Think this is) A Word of Wisdom
The Gospels include a parable known as the Parable of the Sower, or the Soils, where Jesus describes a man who tosses seed that lands on four different types of soil. The seed that lands on three of the soils, in the end, fails to produce fruit. The other seed produces fruit abundantly.
I've always found this truth to be daunting and grim. Left to itself, it offers no hope for most people. And, believing in a Lord who came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many, I have always been uncomfortable with the seeming coldness of Jesus' teaching.
And, I've also wondered how the Body of Christ fits into this teaching now that the death and resurrection of Jesus is an accomplished reality.
Lately, without a conscious effort to understand it, I've been having insights about this teaching of Jesus.
---------------
Here's how I understand what the Spirit has been saying to me:
Apostles, prophets and evangelists are all gifted by the Spirit, in one way or another, with the, to use the image of the parable, spreading of truth--to the world and to and through the Body.
Shepherds and teachers, to use the image of the parable, have been placed by the Lord to farm--to tend, to nurture and care for the souls who have received the truth.
---------------
The problem, then, with institutionized Christianity, is that it doesn't function in the plan and power of the Spirit.
The institutionized church has its own way, disconnected from the will and way of the Lord.
The institutionized church doesn't empower apostles, prophets and evangelists to pursue their callings in the way the first disciples did. Nor, in fact, does it empower shepherds and teachers to walk in the Spirit.
In the institutionized church, a hierarchy, topped by people often functioning in a CEO role and bottomed by people working as parish priests, provide religious products and services to be consumed by the laity many of whom are essentially passive consumers of the institutional spiritual product.
The hierarchy assumes the role of the Holy Spirit and confines APESTs. It doesn't empower them.
The result is that soils that might have produced fruit, through the nurturing of shepherds and teachers, produce nothing.
---------------
We must repent.
I've always found this truth to be daunting and grim. Left to itself, it offers no hope for most people. And, believing in a Lord who came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many, I have always been uncomfortable with the seeming coldness of Jesus' teaching.
And, I've also wondered how the Body of Christ fits into this teaching now that the death and resurrection of Jesus is an accomplished reality.
Lately, without a conscious effort to understand it, I've been having insights about this teaching of Jesus.
---------------
Here's how I understand what the Spirit has been saying to me:
Apostles, prophets and evangelists are all gifted by the Spirit, in one way or another, with the, to use the image of the parable, spreading of truth--to the world and to and through the Body.
Shepherds and teachers, to use the image of the parable, have been placed by the Lord to farm--to tend, to nurture and care for the souls who have received the truth.
---------------
The problem, then, with institutionized Christianity, is that it doesn't function in the plan and power of the Spirit.
The institutionized church has its own way, disconnected from the will and way of the Lord.
The institutionized church doesn't empower apostles, prophets and evangelists to pursue their callings in the way the first disciples did. Nor, in fact, does it empower shepherds and teachers to walk in the Spirit.
In the institutionized church, a hierarchy, topped by people often functioning in a CEO role and bottomed by people working as parish priests, provide religious products and services to be consumed by the laity many of whom are essentially passive consumers of the institutional spiritual product.
The hierarchy assumes the role of the Holy Spirit and confines APESTs. It doesn't empower them.
The result is that soils that might have produced fruit, through the nurturing of shepherds and teachers, produce nothing.
---------------
We must repent.
Sunday, January 1, 2017
Gathering 1-1-17: Are We a Gathering of the Nones?
According to the Pew Research Center, the "Nones," i.e., people who are religiously unaffiliated is growing rapidly as a percentage of the U. S. population, growing by by 22 million between 2007 and 2014.
The Nones are comprised of atheists and agnostics and people who describe their religion as, "nothing in particular."
Our gatherers are made up of people who are naive and uninformed about matters of religious affiliation and it's never mattered much to Evie and me so we've not ever talked about it, though some of our people have been in conversation with denominational muckety mucks over the years. Those people know about CGGC and ERC. In fact, the guy who holds the FCC check book just wrote out a check to the ERC to assist in paying for insurance for ERC pastors' widows.
While I, and, to a lesser extent, Evie love the CGGC and cherish our connection to it, as we met today, the first day of 2017, I was thinking about how our gathering has changed in the last year.
And, it strikes me that, in a very real and unusual way, we have become a gathering of Nones in the past 12 months.
We are Nones because, against our will, the people with whom we were affiliated, well, Noned us!
Rumors, still unsubstantiated by anyone with authority, persist that I was defrocked by the ERC at its last Yay God session.
And, I have been informed that, even though our gathering embraces CGGC doctrine and its Mission and Vision Statements, the ERC Commission on Church Renewal, has begun a discussion about depantsing us, that is, removing our status as a group of people affiliated with the ERC.
So, I was wondering, as we met today, if we are nones and I was also testing out how I feel about the way the CGGC has behaved toward us in the past few years.
Fortunately, no one else in our number was plagued by these thoughts.
Our gathering was, perhaps, more pleasant than it should have been. The New Testament commands the we spur each other on to love and good works. The verb there might more literally be translated "provoke." Gatherings of disciples are not to be pleasant. They are to provocative of a lifestyle of love. This one was way too pleasant for that.
In our defense, our friend Ward was with us for the first time in quite a while, having just returned from a nursing home as the result of a stroke.
I had doubted that Ward would ever gather with us again and we were all very pleasantly surprised to see him.
As always, we took the bread and cup and, while there was nothing extraordinary about it today, I was especially thankful that obeying His command to do it in His memory is taken for granted among us.
The meal was our take on the traditional Pennsylvania Dutch New Year's meal: Chicken and saur kraut and mashed potatoes.
The fellowship was, easy, moreso than usual because Ward was present.
Word time centered on a discussion of Galatians 4:4-7 led by Evie.
The Nones are comprised of atheists and agnostics and people who describe their religion as, "nothing in particular."
Our gatherers are made up of people who are naive and uninformed about matters of religious affiliation and it's never mattered much to Evie and me so we've not ever talked about it, though some of our people have been in conversation with denominational muckety mucks over the years. Those people know about CGGC and ERC. In fact, the guy who holds the FCC check book just wrote out a check to the ERC to assist in paying for insurance for ERC pastors' widows.
While I, and, to a lesser extent, Evie love the CGGC and cherish our connection to it, as we met today, the first day of 2017, I was thinking about how our gathering has changed in the last year.
And, it strikes me that, in a very real and unusual way, we have become a gathering of Nones in the past 12 months.
We are Nones because, against our will, the people with whom we were affiliated, well, Noned us!
Rumors, still unsubstantiated by anyone with authority, persist that I was defrocked by the ERC at its last Yay God session.
And, I have been informed that, even though our gathering embraces CGGC doctrine and its Mission and Vision Statements, the ERC Commission on Church Renewal, has begun a discussion about depantsing us, that is, removing our status as a group of people affiliated with the ERC.
So, I was wondering, as we met today, if we are nones and I was also testing out how I feel about the way the CGGC has behaved toward us in the past few years.
Fortunately, no one else in our number was plagued by these thoughts.
Our gathering was, perhaps, more pleasant than it should have been. The New Testament commands the we spur each other on to love and good works. The verb there might more literally be translated "provoke." Gatherings of disciples are not to be pleasant. They are to provocative of a lifestyle of love. This one was way too pleasant for that.
In our defense, our friend Ward was with us for the first time in quite a while, having just returned from a nursing home as the result of a stroke.
I had doubted that Ward would ever gather with us again and we were all very pleasantly surprised to see him.
As always, we took the bread and cup and, while there was nothing extraordinary about it today, I was especially thankful that obeying His command to do it in His memory is taken for granted among us.
The meal was our take on the traditional Pennsylvania Dutch New Year's meal: Chicken and saur kraut and mashed potatoes.
The fellowship was, easy, moreso than usual because Ward was present.
Word time centered on a discussion of Galatians 4:4-7 led by Evie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)