What follows is some thoughts about Lance's February 17, 2017 eNews.
In this one, Lance addresses the reality that most churches, particularly CGGC churches, are not making disciples even though it is widely understood among Evangelicals that it is our purpose to make disciples.
Lance refers to the CGGC annual Ministry Review form which has a section that raises the question of how well a congregation is making disciples.
Lance notes, with chagrin, that many CGGC congregations that claim to be making and mentoring disciples claim to do so because, as he says, "Our doors are open."
Lance argues against that line of thinking by pointing out that a worship service is not a disciple making tool.
And, while I would not agree with Lance in terms of the make up and purpose of our gatherings here at Faith, I agree with Lance in terms of what a typical CGGC congregation's worship service is.
On the other hand though, in suggesting that a worship service is not a disciple making tool, Lance is arguing against established CGGC wisdom that has been in place for nearly 30 years and, as far as I know, still stands.
The latest statement from CGGC leadership on what discipleship is dates from the early 1990s and leadership's goal:
MORE AND BETTER DISCIPLES: 35,000 in Worship by 2000
So, while I agree with Lance in his frustration, I can't take issue with the people in CGGC congregations who claim to be making disciples by having open doors. To a degree, I feel sorry for the churches Lance criticizes. They're simply following a long-established CGGC game plan.
Lance, nor any one else in the CGGC hierarchy, has supplied our churches with any other definition of what a disciple is since the 20th century!
I'll say this to the men and women on the peaks of the CGGC mountain: The discipleship ball is in your court. This problem is not a problem for the churches to solve.
It's time for you to step forward on the issue of truth. Give our churches some truth that they can sink their teeth into!
You need to supply our people with a concrete definition of who a disciple is and what a disciple does that replaces the false definition the mountaintoppers of the last century provided.
And, here, I think, is a big picture problem we have:
The people in our hierarchy will not challenge the ways, or the thinking, of the past.
Until they do, they will not lead change.
We need you, Lance, to lead us to a different definition of discipleship, one that is built on the teachings and way of Jesus.
We don't need you to chastise churches who are simply being faithful to our vision that has been long-established and widely praised.
It's not enough for you to chastise people because they are living faithfully according to the unchallenged definition of disciple-making from the last century.
So, while I agree with Lance, I can't help but feel compassion for the people he, well really, attacks. They are innocent victims of a failed theology created by the last CGGC generation.
---------------
A comment on the title of this blog post:
At the end of Lance's article, he encourages attendance at workshops in the ERC and, later, in the Midwest, on "Discipleship and Mission" conducted by 3DM.
I'll make two predictions about the workshop.
1. The material will be good.
2. It will fail to bring change in the CGGC because we need to change who we are before we can put useful knowledge into action.
When I came into the East Pennsylvania Conference 40 years ago, the hierarchy was always thinking that having the right workshop will solve our problems. It never has. It won't this time.
We need to change in our hearts.
We must repent.
IN DEFENSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SAY, "OUR DOORS ARE OPEN."
ReplyDeleteI actually can't believe that I am defending the CGGC congregations, criticized by Lance for suggesting that they are making disciples by virtue of the fact that their doors are open. But, I am.
I'm a geezer.
I entered the parish priesthood in the Churches of God in the mid 1970s.
And, as much as I rebuke the definition of discipleship that the CGGC still takes from the 35,000 by 2000 fiasco for being bad theology, I can attest to the fact that it accomplished some good. And, Evie, who was on General Conference staff, during much of that time, often puts things into perspective for me.
Before the era of "Our doors are open," our doors were not open to the point that the very people around whom Jesus focused His ministry would not have been welcomed if they tried to open a Churches of God door.
Back then, if, say, a single mother of three, whose children each had a different father, tried attending one of our churches and to make friends and become active in ministry, virtually none of our churches would have tolerated her and very possibly none of our congregations would have welcomed her and her children.
The people with whom I live out my faith today would not even consider turning that woman and her children away.
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, CGGC congregations today would still reject these people.
And, I guess, that is actually my point.
Some of our churches do really have doors that are open and,considering our not too distant past, for a CGGC church to have genuinely open doors is a major move toward ministry in the spirit of the ministry of Jesus.
Is it enough? Of course not.
But, there is something that is very praiseworthy in it. And, in the case of many of the churches who boast open doors, it's something that can be built upon.
As our Findlay hierarchs seem to know, we have a long way to go. But, some of our people have made part of the journey already.
Let's not ignore victories already won.