The currently running, year-long, emphasis of CGGC General Conference leaders on APEST and the recent "double down" of ERC leaders on pastor-dominated leadership, may, in the end, expose, in ERC leaders, the insubordination that, for years, has been the hallmark of their leadership philosophy.
As the ERC has placed greater and greater emphasis on the pastor/parish priest as a provider of religious products and services to be consumed by a passive laity, it has been defying what everyone has to agree is the core belief of the Church of God which is stated repeatedly in its Faith documents, that is, that the Bible is our only authority, our only rule of faith and practice.
The ERC's emphasis on the local congregation being shepherded by its pastor(s) who look to the Conference hierarchy as his/her/their leader doesn't come from the Word.
For generations, ERC leaders have ignored the authority of CGGC faith statements to follow their own traditions...
...and, during those generations, the ministry of the Conference has declined numerically and it has decayed spiritually.
Then, nearly a decade ago, the CGGC General Conference in session upped the biblical ante by reclaiming the vision of the founders of the Church of God. The delegates created a Mission Statement for the whole CGGC body, the ERC included. That Mission Statement demands that, as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, we establish churches on the New Testament plan.
Now, in 2018, beginning with the February/March issue of The CHURCH ADVOCATE and with the latest installment of the CGGC eNews, the leaders of the entire CGGC body, the CGGC Executive Director and his staff are:
1. Calling on the CGGC body to practice APEST, or Fivefold Ministry, in place of the pastor-dominated approach to church leadership, and
2. Making an intelligent, even compelling case, from the Word, that APEST is based on the teaching of the Bible, our only authority and our only rule of faith and practice...that APEST is, actually, important to the New Testament plan.
So, according to multiple authorities, ERC leadrrs are off-base. The CGGC Statements of Faith, the Mission Statement and, now, General Conference leaders call for the ERC to stop doing what it now plans to do by focusing, more than ever, on pastoral leadership.
What's the ERC going to do about this?
If the ERC hierarchs do nothing, what's the General Conference going to do about it?
----------------
In the past, I've pointed out what no one disputes: There's a great deal of cynicism among the people of the CGGC toward leadership.
And, as time moves forward, and the people of the CGGC become aware of the APEST/pastor as parish priest divide between multiple CGGC authorities and what the ERC's planning they'll be looking for integrity on the mountaintops.
They'll be looking for CGGC leaders to do what they haven't done for some time: Practice what they preach, and, since they fancy themselves leaders, to lead.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Will ERC Leaders Follow?
If you've been reading the CGGC eNews and The CHURCH ADVOCATE, you know that CGGC leaders at the General Conference are devoting this year to a strong emphasis on Fivefold Ministry, or APEST.
And, as Dan Masshardt has pointed out in a comment on this week's eNews , the ERC has recently "doubled down" on the pastor as the leader of the local church.
The ERC did this, of course, in the approval of the new New Strategic Plan which is built significantly on the role of the healthy, life-giving pastor.
The two leadership models, as Dan suggests, are at odds with each other.
One important question, then, at this point has to do with ERC leaders submitting to the authority of the General Conference leaders...the people who have authority over our entire body...even ERC leaders.
Will they submit or will they defy?
My personal story suggests that ERC leaders want, very much, to be submitted to.
Yet they don't submit to any authority in the CGGC...something I have pointed out repeatedly on this blog.
What they do at this point will be important.
Will they hold their own traditions and plans above the authority of their denominational leaders?
Or will they, as the Word admonishes, "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ?"
And, as Dan Masshardt has pointed out in a comment on this week's eNews , the ERC has recently "doubled down" on the pastor as the leader of the local church.
The ERC did this, of course, in the approval of the new New Strategic Plan which is built significantly on the role of the healthy, life-giving pastor.
The two leadership models, as Dan suggests, are at odds with each other.
One important question, then, at this point has to do with ERC leaders submitting to the authority of the General Conference leaders...the people who have authority over our entire body...even ERC leaders.
Will they submit or will they defy?
My personal story suggests that ERC leaders want, very much, to be submitted to.
Yet they don't submit to any authority in the CGGC...something I have pointed out repeatedly on this blog.
What they do at this point will be important.
Will they hold their own traditions and plans above the authority of their denominational leaders?
Or will they, as the Word admonishes, "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ?"
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Adopting the Dog formerly known as Snoop
In an effort to fill our house with the pitter patter of little canine feet, we made an appointment to meet a few more dogs at Delaware Valley Golden Retriever Rescue.
We were formally scheduled to meet three though, as we entered, we walked past a door that opened to a room where four smallish dogs were playing. Our host told us that any of those four dogs were available to us. When we started to warm up to one of them...he amended his offer and said, "But not her." That one, they determined, needs to go to a home where there is a mentor dog, that is, a dog that can model how to be a pet in a human home.
So, we passed an went on to meet the dogs we had arranged to meet.
The staff people we met were clear that they wanted us to choose one particular dog, and we were willing to oblige. However, she didn't seem very interested in us.
We met two others, both of whom we loved. However, the third of the three we met, a dog who'd been found as a stray in Puerto Rico after the hurricane, fit us best.
One of the reasons we're getting a dog is so my mom can have a dog in her life. Of the three, the Puerto Rican dog, they'd named Snoop was, by far, most mom- appropriate.
He's four years old and a Golden mix, probably with a collie. His temperament is very Golden. Every stranger is, to him, simply a friend he hasn't made yet.
After trying four names in four days, it seems we'll call him Laddie.
He's settling in fairly well.
He's got some health issues that we hope we can work through and literal scars from abuse from some point in his past.
We'll see how it goes but we adopted him. This is not a foster situation.
We were formally scheduled to meet three though, as we entered, we walked past a door that opened to a room where four smallish dogs were playing. Our host told us that any of those four dogs were available to us. When we started to warm up to one of them...he amended his offer and said, "But not her." That one, they determined, needs to go to a home where there is a mentor dog, that is, a dog that can model how to be a pet in a human home.
So, we passed an went on to meet the dogs we had arranged to meet.
The staff people we met were clear that they wanted us to choose one particular dog, and we were willing to oblige. However, she didn't seem very interested in us.
We met two others, both of whom we loved. However, the third of the three we met, a dog who'd been found as a stray in Puerto Rico after the hurricane, fit us best.
One of the reasons we're getting a dog is so my mom can have a dog in her life. Of the three, the Puerto Rican dog, they'd named Snoop was, by far, most mom- appropriate.
He's four years old and a Golden mix, probably with a collie. His temperament is very Golden. Every stranger is, to him, simply a friend he hasn't made yet.
After trying four names in four days, it seems we'll call him Laddie.
He's settling in fairly well.
He's got some health issues that we hope we can work through and literal scars from abuse from some point in his past.
We'll see how it goes but we adopted him. This is not a foster situation.
Monday, February 19, 2018
What will be Dave Williams' Definition of a Life-Giving Church?
The ERC's annual Evangelism Summit is set for next Saturday, February 24 and I'll be working at the store until 10:00 that evening and, therefore, unable to attend.
I've been looking over the material the Conference has published about it and am particularly interested in the workshop Dave Williams will be leading entitled,
What is a Life-Giving Church?
As far as I can tell, nowhere in the Old or New Testaments, is there a command for a (the) church to be life-giving.
Interestingly, from the description, it seems Dave's workshop might either provide an assessment of how life-giving your church is, or, at least, promote an assessment tool for the life-giving-ness of your church, which, apparently, will then be provided by the hierarchs of the ERC.
So, I'm asking you, off the blog if you wish, to give me some information:
1. What Scripture does Dave cite in his definition of a life-giving church? (You know, New Testament plan...only rule of faith and practice.)
2. What Scripture that he uses is actually taken in context (i.e., it is actually, in context, a part of a biblical discussion about church)?
3. Since the church is virtually unmentioned in the Gospels, what legitimate authority, if any, does he cite from Jesus to define and assess the life-giving-ness of a church?
----------------
Honestly, while I can't see authority in the New Testament for emphasis on churches, pastors and institutional hierarchy, I hope I'm still humble enough, in my tender moments, to acknowledge that I might be wrong.
Please fill me in.
I've said previously that, in my opinion, Dave's the most gifted theologian among the ERC hierarchs.
If there's going to be biblical integrity in how this gang does things, it is, most likely, going to have to come from Dave.
I've been looking over the material the Conference has published about it and am particularly interested in the workshop Dave Williams will be leading entitled,
What is a Life-Giving Church?
As far as I can tell, nowhere in the Old or New Testaments, is there a command for a (the) church to be life-giving.
Interestingly, from the description, it seems Dave's workshop might either provide an assessment of how life-giving your church is, or, at least, promote an assessment tool for the life-giving-ness of your church, which, apparently, will then be provided by the hierarchs of the ERC.
So, I'm asking you, off the blog if you wish, to give me some information:
1. What Scripture does Dave cite in his definition of a life-giving church? (You know, New Testament plan...only rule of faith and practice.)
2. What Scripture that he uses is actually taken in context (i.e., it is actually, in context, a part of a biblical discussion about church)?
3. Since the church is virtually unmentioned in the Gospels, what legitimate authority, if any, does he cite from Jesus to define and assess the life-giving-ness of a church?
----------------
Honestly, while I can't see authority in the New Testament for emphasis on churches, pastors and institutional hierarchy, I hope I'm still humble enough, in my tender moments, to acknowledge that I might be wrong.
Please fill me in.
I've said previously that, in my opinion, Dave's the most gifted theologian among the ERC hierarchs.
If there's going to be biblical integrity in how this gang does things, it is, most likely, going to have to come from Dave.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Returning Charlie to the Shelter
I've already Facebooked this but several days ago we returned Charlie, the dog we were fostering, to the Delaware Valley Golden Retriever Rescue.
Charlie'd had a troubled past and, as it turned out, serious temperament issues.
He became profoundly bonded to Evie but increasingly distrustful and hostile and aggressive toward me, and eventually attacked me, without injuring me, twice.
It was a sad moment for us to decide to return him.
But, during and since, I've been reflecting on choosing to show mercy.
Mercy is a choice.
Charlie, from the moment we met him, clearly was not the dream pet. As I've mentioned, he had been severely abused before ending up in his first shelter.
It was always clear that it would be a long and difficult journey if we were going to succeed in making him a part of our family.
I was willing to do that because I am convinced that a life of mercy requires continuing effort.
Back in the days when Faith was a traditional, old-fashioned Seeker Sensitive church, and we were attempting to transition into a missional type of ministry, when we did our frequent community service projects, I tried, always, to impress on our people that what we did as a group only served as an example of the way each of us should be living as individuals all the time as ambassadors of the Kingdom.
The Charlie thing worked in the same way for me, at least, in reminding me that it is the choices we make in responding to the "least of these" of any species that identifies us as followers of Jesus.
As I said, reaching out to the least of these often results in the failure to make a permanent impact on the one to whom we show mercy...
...but the act of showing mercy itself is its own achievement.
Charlie'd had a troubled past and, as it turned out, serious temperament issues.
He became profoundly bonded to Evie but increasingly distrustful and hostile and aggressive toward me, and eventually attacked me, without injuring me, twice.
It was a sad moment for us to decide to return him.
But, during and since, I've been reflecting on choosing to show mercy.
Mercy is a choice.
Charlie, from the moment we met him, clearly was not the dream pet. As I've mentioned, he had been severely abused before ending up in his first shelter.
It was always clear that it would be a long and difficult journey if we were going to succeed in making him a part of our family.
I was willing to do that because I am convinced that a life of mercy requires continuing effort.
Back in the days when Faith was a traditional, old-fashioned Seeker Sensitive church, and we were attempting to transition into a missional type of ministry, when we did our frequent community service projects, I tried, always, to impress on our people that what we did as a group only served as an example of the way each of us should be living as individuals all the time as ambassadors of the Kingdom.
The Charlie thing worked in the same way for me, at least, in reminding me that it is the choices we make in responding to the "least of these" of any species that identifies us as followers of Jesus.
As I said, reaching out to the least of these often results in the failure to make a permanent impact on the one to whom we show mercy...
...but the act of showing mercy itself is its own achievement.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Big Picture Thoughts: Why MLI Has Failed and Will Fail
There are several insights I've had and have been working through and holding on to for some time. All of them seem important to me.
I've tried blogging these things in the past, but have not succeeded because they seem too big for me to fit into a blog post.
So, I'm going to simply lay them out with broad brush strokes. Perhaps I'll add detail later.
One of these has to with the waste of time and resources that has been the disaster the CGGC calls, the Missional Leadership Initiative.
Please understand that what follows describes broad principles and that I'm certain that my observation is essentially correct.
----------------
I was one of the participants in the first cycle of MLI. I recall the excitement and expectation that accompanied that program's launch.
Yet, not a single thing that was in my mind regarding what MLI might achieve has come to fruition.
Certainly, some individuals within the CGGC now have a new understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. And, the ministries of some churches have been altered.
Yet, as Brandon Kelly recently acknowledged in his fill-in-for-Lance eNews article, becoming missional is not adding to Sunday morning numbers and it, certainly, has not made disciples of Jesus out of people served by CGGC missional activities.
Reggie envisioned to us in the first cycle of MLI his hope that MLI would create three realities in the CGGC:
Frustration,
Agitation, and
Critical Mass. (Critical mass being the smallest amount of material necessary to maintain a nuclear reaction.)
Ironically, in the eNews article, Brandon acknowledged that people are frustrated WITH MLI and its failings.
Sadly, MLI has not created frustration over the CGGC's broken and dysfunctional ways. It has not sparked the existence of a critical mass remnant to push the whole body to transformation.
And, I see now that this tragic reality was always inevitable...
...because CGGC leaders and CGGC people are not interested in repenting of CGGC sin.
----------------
Reggie McNeal changed my life through his book, The Present Future.
It is the vision described in that book that lays the theological foundation of MLI.
However, Reggie is a Baptist. As such, his polity...his understanding of how the Kingdom functions...is centered on the local church.
In MLI, the application of the truth priniples is very much centered on the church.
According to Reggie's vision, it is the CHURCH that should be outward focused and Kingdom oriented.
In MLI, Reggie planted the seeds of missional living among the churches of the CGGC. However, while CGGC soil may resemble Baptist Congregational soil, CGGC soil is neither Baptist nor is it Congregational.
CGGC soil is not actually CHURCH focused...
...as much as it is PASTOR and FLOCK oriented.
So, the failure of MLI can be understood as being the result of this real-life equation:
Baptist Congregationalism + CGGC Flockism --> Disaster
----------------
In the end, what has worked marvelously and has transformed many Baptist (and other) congregations has failed in the CGGC...
...as has every other CGGC program and strategy.
----------------
To tweak the parable of Jesus, the failure of MLI is not with the seed that has been sown. It is with the CGGC soil on which the seed landed.
The Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing is not blessing us. And, He will not.
WE are the problem.
We must repent.
I've tried blogging these things in the past, but have not succeeded because they seem too big for me to fit into a blog post.
So, I'm going to simply lay them out with broad brush strokes. Perhaps I'll add detail later.
One of these has to with the waste of time and resources that has been the disaster the CGGC calls, the Missional Leadership Initiative.
Please understand that what follows describes broad principles and that I'm certain that my observation is essentially correct.
----------------
I was one of the participants in the first cycle of MLI. I recall the excitement and expectation that accompanied that program's launch.
Yet, not a single thing that was in my mind regarding what MLI might achieve has come to fruition.
Certainly, some individuals within the CGGC now have a new understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. And, the ministries of some churches have been altered.
Yet, as Brandon Kelly recently acknowledged in his fill-in-for-Lance eNews article, becoming missional is not adding to Sunday morning numbers and it, certainly, has not made disciples of Jesus out of people served by CGGC missional activities.
Reggie envisioned to us in the first cycle of MLI his hope that MLI would create three realities in the CGGC:
Frustration,
Agitation, and
Critical Mass. (Critical mass being the smallest amount of material necessary to maintain a nuclear reaction.)
Ironically, in the eNews article, Brandon acknowledged that people are frustrated WITH MLI and its failings.
Sadly, MLI has not created frustration over the CGGC's broken and dysfunctional ways. It has not sparked the existence of a critical mass remnant to push the whole body to transformation.
And, I see now that this tragic reality was always inevitable...
...because CGGC leaders and CGGC people are not interested in repenting of CGGC sin.
----------------
Reggie McNeal changed my life through his book, The Present Future.
It is the vision described in that book that lays the theological foundation of MLI.
However, Reggie is a Baptist. As such, his polity...his understanding of how the Kingdom functions...is centered on the local church.
In MLI, the application of the truth priniples is very much centered on the church.
According to Reggie's vision, it is the CHURCH that should be outward focused and Kingdom oriented.
In MLI, Reggie planted the seeds of missional living among the churches of the CGGC. However, while CGGC soil may resemble Baptist Congregational soil, CGGC soil is neither Baptist nor is it Congregational.
CGGC soil is not actually CHURCH focused...
...as much as it is PASTOR and FLOCK oriented.
So, the failure of MLI can be understood as being the result of this real-life equation:
Baptist Congregationalism + CGGC Flockism --> Disaster
----------------
In the end, what has worked marvelously and has transformed many Baptist (and other) congregations has failed in the CGGC...
...as has every other CGGC program and strategy.
----------------
To tweak the parable of Jesus, the failure of MLI is not with the seed that has been sown. It is with the CGGC soil on which the seed landed.
The Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing is not blessing us. And, He will not.
WE are the problem.
We must repent.
Thursday, February 8, 2018
"Least of These" as Lifestyle
We're nearly two weeks into our attempt to make a pet out of Charlie, the seven year old Golden Retriever mix who we have on a foster-to-adopt basis.
So far, it's uncertain if this experiment will succeed.
Charlie has been abused and, as far as we can tell, lived in two shelters for more than a year total without anyone adopting him.
When we met him and appeared to be interested, the guy from the shelter showing him to us offered to let us foster him for a month. We didn't know, to that point, that fostering would be an option.
The shelter gave us a month's supply of food and free veterinary care for a month and, later, offered us a crate for free.
And, as we were preparing to drive him home, employees and volunteers of the shelter came out of the woodwork to thank us for giving Charlie a chance. My guess is that Charlie was starting to get close to being put down because he was considered unadoptable.
He was/is shy and skittish.
His veterinary records make it clear that he was seriously abused before he was taken into the first shelter...and, apparently, by a man or men...because he is a lovable dog around women but fearful, even sometimes aggressive, toward men.
Evie and Charlie immediately bonded. Charlie and I are making progress, though there are still moments when he growls, even snaps, at me.
And, there's a young man who rents part of our condo and Charlie and he still have a long way to go and it is by no means certain that their relationship will be a success.
And, Charlie can be even worse with other men.
Evie and I had our first serious chat this morning about sending Charlie back to the shelter. Doing so will be tough because it's reasonable to suspect that he'll never get another chance if he doesn't succeed with us.
----------------
I've been thinking in big picture, philosophical terms about what all of this means.
I've concluded that our experiment with Charlie:
1. Fits a pattern long established in our lives, and
2. The pattern is fruit of our understanding of what it means to walk in the Way of Jesus.
Jesus teaches that, in the end, it will be what people do among the "least of these" that will determine how we spend eternity.
And, certainly, we are intentional about stuff like, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink..."
I've just realized that the Charlie thing fits a pattern, with Evie especially, where the best available choice...in all of life...is the one where showing mercy as much as possible is the preferred option.
It's become her way...OUR way...to seek out the least of these as a general rule, no matter what the context.
It's hard work.
It's exhausting.
And, honestly, it almost never succeeds.
It's almost always gruelling and painful and frustrating. It almost always fails and usually breaks your heart...
...but it is exactly what Jesus did.
What we're attempting with Charlie we've attempted, in one way or another, with dozens of people over our years together.
In those efforts, there is a profound sense of connection to Jesus. And, there is understanding of His prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing," which He prayed as people were mocking Him.
----------------
As is so often the case, success in these "least of these" adventures is a matter of walking in His steps, not in the real-life achievement.
We may very well, take Charlie back to the shelter in the end. If that happens, it may be more difficult than putting a dog down. We are, very probably, Charlie's last chance and he really is doing the best he can to live in the world.
The odds are against him. He's an innocent victim of life in this fallen world. We're doing our best for him...and our best may not be good enough.
But, we've had to admit failure with "least of these" human beings in the past.
Now, THAT is heartbreaking.
So far, it's uncertain if this experiment will succeed.
Charlie has been abused and, as far as we can tell, lived in two shelters for more than a year total without anyone adopting him.
When we met him and appeared to be interested, the guy from the shelter showing him to us offered to let us foster him for a month. We didn't know, to that point, that fostering would be an option.
The shelter gave us a month's supply of food and free veterinary care for a month and, later, offered us a crate for free.
And, as we were preparing to drive him home, employees and volunteers of the shelter came out of the woodwork to thank us for giving Charlie a chance. My guess is that Charlie was starting to get close to being put down because he was considered unadoptable.
He was/is shy and skittish.
His veterinary records make it clear that he was seriously abused before he was taken into the first shelter...and, apparently, by a man or men...because he is a lovable dog around women but fearful, even sometimes aggressive, toward men.
Evie and Charlie immediately bonded. Charlie and I are making progress, though there are still moments when he growls, even snaps, at me.
And, there's a young man who rents part of our condo and Charlie and he still have a long way to go and it is by no means certain that their relationship will be a success.
And, Charlie can be even worse with other men.
Evie and I had our first serious chat this morning about sending Charlie back to the shelter. Doing so will be tough because it's reasonable to suspect that he'll never get another chance if he doesn't succeed with us.
----------------
I've been thinking in big picture, philosophical terms about what all of this means.
I've concluded that our experiment with Charlie:
1. Fits a pattern long established in our lives, and
2. The pattern is fruit of our understanding of what it means to walk in the Way of Jesus.
Jesus teaches that, in the end, it will be what people do among the "least of these" that will determine how we spend eternity.
And, certainly, we are intentional about stuff like, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink..."
I've just realized that the Charlie thing fits a pattern, with Evie especially, where the best available choice...in all of life...is the one where showing mercy as much as possible is the preferred option.
It's become her way...OUR way...to seek out the least of these as a general rule, no matter what the context.
It's hard work.
It's exhausting.
And, honestly, it almost never succeeds.
It's almost always gruelling and painful and frustrating. It almost always fails and usually breaks your heart...
...but it is exactly what Jesus did.
What we're attempting with Charlie we've attempted, in one way or another, with dozens of people over our years together.
In those efforts, there is a profound sense of connection to Jesus. And, there is understanding of His prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing," which He prayed as people were mocking Him.
----------------
As is so often the case, success in these "least of these" adventures is a matter of walking in His steps, not in the real-life achievement.
We may very well, take Charlie back to the shelter in the end. If that happens, it may be more difficult than putting a dog down. We are, very probably, Charlie's last chance and he really is doing the best he can to live in the world.
The odds are against him. He's an innocent victim of life in this fallen world. We're doing our best for him...and our best may not be good enough.
But, we've had to admit failure with "least of these" human beings in the past.
Now, THAT is heartbreaking.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Repent OR Be Baptized
In Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit filled the 120 remaining disciples of Jesus and they began to declare the wonders of God in the languages of the people gathered, from many places, in Jerusalem, Peter raised his voice and addressed the crowd, and, referring to the writings of the prophets, declared that God had made Jesus, whom they'd crucified "both Lord and Messiah." (NIV)
People in the crowd were cut to the heart by the message and asked, "What shall we do?"
Peter replied:
"Repent and be baptized..."
----------------
It seems to me that, in the centuries that have followed, one of the dysfunctions among followers of Jesus is that, while Peter was clear that both repentance and baptism are essential to inclusion among the people of the Kingdom,...
...people of the church have normally tended to emphasize either repentance or baptism.
The ancient Christian truth is that the two must exist as an organically connected whole.
Tragically, some make the act of repentance everything...
...while others yearn to see men and women participate in the ritual of baptism and, ultimately, other rituals as well, without the raw and untidy emotionalism connected to the godly sorrow that produces a repentance that leads to salvation.
Both are dysfunctions, corruptions...sins.
----------------
If you read this blog regularly, you might conclude that I'm one of the people who beats his drum for repentance to the exclusion of baptism.
However, that's not true.
The truth, as I see it, is that, in my faith tradition, I see little, perhaps no, awareness of the need for repentance at all, and, on the other hand, a growing passion for participation in ritual.
----------------
There was a time, not even so long ago, that here in the Churches of God, General Conference, (which, I believe, is typical of many small, now declining, Protestant denominations) that observance of Advent, for example, and Lent was virtually nonexistent.
These days, however, these observances are commonplace.
And, calls for repentance, now, are nonexistent.
-----------------
Oddly, and to add to the dysfunction,...
...while the body has been adopting formerly High Church practices, at the same time...in the past decade, in particular...
...the church has formally reaffirmed its founding vision, which was vehemently and radically Low Church...
...and, very much on the side of the "repent only," "Repent and be baptized" dysfunctional divide.
And, so, today, the body is a:
Confused,
Self-conflicted,
Visionless,
Muddled...
...mess.
And, as must follow, it is declining numerically and decaying spiritually.
----------------
In an age of decline and decay of God's Kingdom in the West, it's time to reverse course...
...to call for repentance and to accept that the emotional messiness of repentance is a part of the way of Jesus who declared as blessed, the poor in spirit, those who mourn, are meek and who hunger and thirst for righteousness...
...and it is also time to see the organic connection of the process of repenting to, well, call it, ritual...
...but with the understanding that ritual only operates in a way that is true to Jesus when every disciple is empowered to function as a member of what Peter labeled the "royal priesthood."
We must turn from the dysfunction that separates repentance from baptism.
We must repent.
People in the crowd were cut to the heart by the message and asked, "What shall we do?"
Peter replied:
"Repent and be baptized..."
----------------
It seems to me that, in the centuries that have followed, one of the dysfunctions among followers of Jesus is that, while Peter was clear that both repentance and baptism are essential to inclusion among the people of the Kingdom,...
...people of the church have normally tended to emphasize either repentance or baptism.
The ancient Christian truth is that the two must exist as an organically connected whole.
Tragically, some make the act of repentance everything...
...while others yearn to see men and women participate in the ritual of baptism and, ultimately, other rituals as well, without the raw and untidy emotionalism connected to the godly sorrow that produces a repentance that leads to salvation.
Both are dysfunctions, corruptions...sins.
----------------
If you read this blog regularly, you might conclude that I'm one of the people who beats his drum for repentance to the exclusion of baptism.
However, that's not true.
The truth, as I see it, is that, in my faith tradition, I see little, perhaps no, awareness of the need for repentance at all, and, on the other hand, a growing passion for participation in ritual.
----------------
There was a time, not even so long ago, that here in the Churches of God, General Conference, (which, I believe, is typical of many small, now declining, Protestant denominations) that observance of Advent, for example, and Lent was virtually nonexistent.
These days, however, these observances are commonplace.
And, calls for repentance, now, are nonexistent.
-----------------
Oddly, and to add to the dysfunction,...
...while the body has been adopting formerly High Church practices, at the same time...in the past decade, in particular...
...the church has formally reaffirmed its founding vision, which was vehemently and radically Low Church...
...and, very much on the side of the "repent only," "Repent and be baptized" dysfunctional divide.
And, so, today, the body is a:
Confused,
Self-conflicted,
Visionless,
Muddled...
...mess.
And, as must follow, it is declining numerically and decaying spiritually.
----------------
In an age of decline and decay of God's Kingdom in the West, it's time to reverse course...
...to call for repentance and to accept that the emotional messiness of repentance is a part of the way of Jesus who declared as blessed, the poor in spirit, those who mourn, are meek and who hunger and thirst for righteousness...
...and it is also time to see the organic connection of the process of repenting to, well, call it, ritual...
...but with the understanding that ritual only operates in a way that is true to Jesus when every disciple is empowered to function as a member of what Peter labeled the "royal priesthood."
We must turn from the dysfunction that separates repentance from baptism.
We must repent.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Forceful Pushback on the Lutheran Wannabe-ism thing
I was not surprised to receive, off-the-blog, some pretty strident opposition to my suggestion that Brandon Kelly was being high church and sacramental, in his recent eNews article, by describing the frustration he's picking up across the CGGC after 10 years of the mountaintoppers' push to be missional.
And, I stand by my observation.
But, I'll add three comments.
1. I entered ministry in the Churches of God in 1976 and, from the first day, noticed that people in our ministry were concerned that the attenders of our congregations were not advancing in their commitment to the Lord to the point that they were producing fruit in keeping with repentance and living righteously.
Never, however, in all of those years, was I, personally, involved in a conversation in which someone expressed their concern over the fact that our people don't walk in righteousness by lamenting that new people don't want to be baptized.
In my time, we've always had that concern, but this is the first time, in my own experience, that this concern has been expressed in terms of a sacrament/ordinance.
2. I learned decades ago that Findlay is a place where high church-ism reigns in CGGC circles to a degree that is extraordinary and rare. I believe that Brandon's connection to the CGGC has been mostly, if not exclusively, in the Findlay area. It may very well be that, in Brandon's part of the CGGC world, there is a ongoing frustration over the fact that being missional isn't bearing fruit in the form of righteousness that expresses itself in a desire to participate in the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.
Still, my sense is that, in the broader CGGC world, most of us are not, first and foremost, bleeding over the lack of baptisms when we chagrin over the failings of the press toward being missional.
3. One of my Characteristics of the CGGC Brand is Creeping High Church-ism. The essence of my concern about that trend is that, key to high church Christianity, is a stark separation between the roles of the clergy and the laity. Even though high church-ists embrace the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers, the historical truth is that they've never successfully empowered it. Rather, it is from high church-ism that comes the idea that the clergy produces religious products and services to be consumed by the laity.
In my opinion, baptism, as practiced in the New Testament, is not what it has become and, today, when churchmen chagrin over the fact that being missional isn't bearing fruit in people wanting to be baptized, they are expressing frustration that people don't want to become consumers of a product provided by the clergy.
-----------------
There are many ways to express concern that being missional is not bringing people to repentance. In fact, a very Jesus and New Testament apostle way of expressing it is to say just that:
"People are not repenting of sin and believing the gospel when disciples live out today's definition of being on mission."
But, to lament that being missional isn't bearing fruit in people wanting to be baptized concerns me as being too focused on the sacramental, and too concerned with involving people in the definition of church life that allows clergymen to be providers of religious products and services to be consumed by the laity.
In my opinion, we need to radically repent of the religious products and services method of defining righteousness.
Don't hear what I'm not saying:
Even if Brandon didn't mean to suggest it, I believe many in the CGGC read it that way.
And, I stand by my observation.
But, I'll add three comments.
1. I entered ministry in the Churches of God in 1976 and, from the first day, noticed that people in our ministry were concerned that the attenders of our congregations were not advancing in their commitment to the Lord to the point that they were producing fruit in keeping with repentance and living righteously.
Never, however, in all of those years, was I, personally, involved in a conversation in which someone expressed their concern over the fact that our people don't walk in righteousness by lamenting that new people don't want to be baptized.
In my time, we've always had that concern, but this is the first time, in my own experience, that this concern has been expressed in terms of a sacrament/ordinance.
2. I learned decades ago that Findlay is a place where high church-ism reigns in CGGC circles to a degree that is extraordinary and rare. I believe that Brandon's connection to the CGGC has been mostly, if not exclusively, in the Findlay area. It may very well be that, in Brandon's part of the CGGC world, there is a ongoing frustration over the fact that being missional isn't bearing fruit in the form of righteousness that expresses itself in a desire to participate in the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.
Still, my sense is that, in the broader CGGC world, most of us are not, first and foremost, bleeding over the lack of baptisms when we chagrin over the failings of the press toward being missional.
3. One of my Characteristics of the CGGC Brand is Creeping High Church-ism. The essence of my concern about that trend is that, key to high church Christianity, is a stark separation between the roles of the clergy and the laity. Even though high church-ists embrace the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers, the historical truth is that they've never successfully empowered it. Rather, it is from high church-ism that comes the idea that the clergy produces religious products and services to be consumed by the laity.
In my opinion, baptism, as practiced in the New Testament, is not what it has become and, today, when churchmen chagrin over the fact that being missional isn't bearing fruit in people wanting to be baptized, they are expressing frustration that people don't want to become consumers of a product provided by the clergy.
-----------------
There are many ways to express concern that being missional is not bringing people to repentance. In fact, a very Jesus and New Testament apostle way of expressing it is to say just that:
"People are not repenting of sin and believing the gospel when disciples live out today's definition of being on mission."
But, to lament that being missional isn't bearing fruit in people wanting to be baptized concerns me as being too focused on the sacramental, and too concerned with involving people in the definition of church life that allows clergymen to be providers of religious products and services to be consumed by the laity.
In my opinion, we need to radically repent of the religious products and services method of defining righteousness.
Don't hear what I'm not saying:
Even if Brandon didn't mean to suggest it, I believe many in the CGGC read it that way.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Theologically Conservative Lutheran Wannabe-ism in Charting the Failure of MLI
As I recall, Brandon Kelly was in the first cycle of MLI along with me. And, if that's so, to my knowledge, we never chatted more than to greet each other when we crossed paths.
I don't claim to know him at all. As a result, his words in that historic eNews blog last week hit me with more impact than they would have if there was a personal relationship.
Did you notice that, as he detailed the two reasons that frustration over being missional is welling up in the CGGC, he noted:
"There aren't any new baptisms taking place."
No biggie, really, except that I've been pointing out that one characteristic of the leadership culture that has charted our course during the generations of our numerical decline and spiritual decay is its Lutheran Wannabe-ism, or love for high-churchiness.
----------------
Once, in the Church of God, we panted to see Christ's righteousness rule in the hearts of converted sinners. Now, it seems, we chagrin over the lack of observance of a sacrament/ordinance.
And, of course, you have to take Brandon at his word and accept the fact that leaders, or pastor/parish priests, are saying to him,
"Dernit, man, the people in the community just don't want to be baptized!"
If that's the case, theologically conservative Lutheran wannabe-ism has taken over the CGGC body in a way that I, residing here in this dark and distant valley, am not seeing.
So...and I understand that it will be off-the-blog...please give me some feedback:
Do you, do others, really evaluate the effectiveness of being missional by the degree to which new people participate in CGGC sacraments/ordinances?
I don't claim to know him at all. As a result, his words in that historic eNews blog last week hit me with more impact than they would have if there was a personal relationship.
Did you notice that, as he detailed the two reasons that frustration over being missional is welling up in the CGGC, he noted:
"There aren't any new baptisms taking place."
No biggie, really, except that I've been pointing out that one characteristic of the leadership culture that has charted our course during the generations of our numerical decline and spiritual decay is its Lutheran Wannabe-ism, or love for high-churchiness.
----------------
Once, in the Church of God, we panted to see Christ's righteousness rule in the hearts of converted sinners. Now, it seems, we chagrin over the lack of observance of a sacrament/ordinance.
And, of course, you have to take Brandon at his word and accept the fact that leaders, or pastor/parish priests, are saying to him,
"Dernit, man, the people in the community just don't want to be baptized!"
If that's the case, theologically conservative Lutheran wannabe-ism has taken over the CGGC body in a way that I, residing here in this dark and distant valley, am not seeing.
So...and I understand that it will be off-the-blog...please give me some feedback:
Do you, do others, really evaluate the effectiveness of being missional by the degree to which new people participate in CGGC sacraments/ordinances?
Thursday, February 1, 2018
The General Conference Acknowledges Failings of MLI
If you haven't already read Brandon Kelly's guest post on the CGGC eNews blog from last week, take a gander.
It's historic.
Brandon talks about the fact that, in the last ten years, many of our churches have bought into the missional mantra coming down from the denomination's highest peaks.
But, he continues, ten years of experience shows that going on mission, as they're teaching it, isn't making a difference.
I'll interject here that it's not making a difference by the, to use our fad word, "metrics" embraced by CGGC people.
As Brandon says it:
-New people aren't showing up on SUNDAY MORNINGS, and
-There aren't any new baptisms taking place.
Brandon notes that frustration in the CGGC is starting to well up.
In the article, uh, Pastor, Kelly, follows up his assessment of our missional woes by explaining what the people in the CGGC walking the missional road are still doing wrong.
Read that for yourself.
I'll note that, as a participant in the first round of MLI, what Brandon's preaching now was not preached to us.
The mountaintoppers have already acknowledged that they've learned a few lessons since the early days of their missional journey.
As a participant in MLI and as someone who bought into the whole thing hook, line and sinker, I have lots of thoughts. MLI, as it was taught to me, and as we put it into practice here, did not work and, I believe, does not work.
(I do believe, though, much of what's core to MLI is faithful to Jesus and His teaching, i.e., the theology is sound, the application is not.)
----------------
But, for now, I think it's worth noting that there's direct word, from our highest mountain, that MLI is not living up to its promises...
...and that Brandon's acknowledging that there's more to being on mission than MLI first taught.
This sort of admission is rare coming down from any mountaintop of the CGGC.
And, while the acknowledgement of failure is not accompanied by the godly sorrow that produces a repentance that leads to salvation,...
...it could suggest a preliminary stage of repentance.
That would be a good thing.
WE MUST REPENT.
It's historic.
Brandon talks about the fact that, in the last ten years, many of our churches have bought into the missional mantra coming down from the denomination's highest peaks.
But, he continues, ten years of experience shows that going on mission, as they're teaching it, isn't making a difference.
I'll interject here that it's not making a difference by the, to use our fad word, "metrics" embraced by CGGC people.
As Brandon says it:
-New people aren't showing up on SUNDAY MORNINGS, and
-There aren't any new baptisms taking place.
Brandon notes that frustration in the CGGC is starting to well up.
In the article, uh, Pastor, Kelly, follows up his assessment of our missional woes by explaining what the people in the CGGC walking the missional road are still doing wrong.
Read that for yourself.
I'll note that, as a participant in the first round of MLI, what Brandon's preaching now was not preached to us.
The mountaintoppers have already acknowledged that they've learned a few lessons since the early days of their missional journey.
As a participant in MLI and as someone who bought into the whole thing hook, line and sinker, I have lots of thoughts. MLI, as it was taught to me, and as we put it into practice here, did not work and, I believe, does not work.
(I do believe, though, much of what's core to MLI is faithful to Jesus and His teaching, i.e., the theology is sound, the application is not.)
----------------
But, for now, I think it's worth noting that there's direct word, from our highest mountain, that MLI is not living up to its promises...
...and that Brandon's acknowledging that there's more to being on mission than MLI first taught.
This sort of admission is rare coming down from any mountaintop of the CGGC.
And, while the acknowledgement of failure is not accompanied by the godly sorrow that produces a repentance that leads to salvation,...
...it could suggest a preliminary stage of repentance.
That would be a good thing.
WE MUST REPENT.
What makes a Church Institutional
That post, from a few days ago, on people who believe in Jesus but who also reject organized religion created, as my posts here often do, a conversation more interesting, to me at least, than the post itself.
In the off-the-blog exchange I was challenged with a number of questions, one of which was:
What makes a church institutional?
The question came in the context of that discussion and the answer I gave fit that context. It's not an all-inclusive answer but it's worth mentioning because, as far as it goes, I believe it's accurate and important.
An institutional church is a church with a laity.
Among the other questions asked of me in that off-the-blog chat was if our churches in Winebrenner's day were institutional.
By this definition, they weren't.
----------------
As I read the ERC's new New Strategic Plan, the plan is ripe with theological corruption and error.
Most of all, the plan stinks theologically because of its emphasis on pastors and hierarchical leadership...
...and its lack of emphasis on life in the Spirit and the priesthood of every disciple.
The New Testament says that Jesus made us to be a "kingdom and priests."
The ERC's new New Strategic Plan makes most of the people in the Conference followers, not priests...
...and followers not of Jesus...
...but of healthy, life-giving pastors and Conference leaders.
----------------
Because of the emphasis on pastors and hierarchical leaders, the new New Strategic Plan is, really, all about laity.
It is institutional.
Check out the history of the Kingdom of God:
Spiritual growth and numerical expansion comes where there is no concept of a laity, and where the whole body consists of men and women who are empowered to minister and who are zealous for, as early Church of God people said it, "the conversion of sinners."
Whether it meant to or not, through the new New Strategic Plan, the ERC has chosen to place its hope for the future, not in its whole body of saints empowered by, and walking in, the Spirit, but in a more effective community of pastors and the members of the hierarchy that leads it.
Said differently, the new New Strategic Plan has increased the degree to which the ERC is organized religion. It makes the gospel about the church, pastors and leadership, not about Jesus and the Father. As such, it will have nothing to say to the growing universe of people who:
1. Believe in God but reject organized religion, or
2. Love Jesus but hate the church.
The Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing has never blessed the sort of thing the 2017 ERC new New Strategic Plan envisions.
Before it's too late, we must repent.
In the off-the-blog exchange I was challenged with a number of questions, one of which was:
What makes a church institutional?
The question came in the context of that discussion and the answer I gave fit that context. It's not an all-inclusive answer but it's worth mentioning because, as far as it goes, I believe it's accurate and important.
An institutional church is a church with a laity.
Among the other questions asked of me in that off-the-blog chat was if our churches in Winebrenner's day were institutional.
By this definition, they weren't.
----------------
As I read the ERC's new New Strategic Plan, the plan is ripe with theological corruption and error.
Most of all, the plan stinks theologically because of its emphasis on pastors and hierarchical leadership...
...and its lack of emphasis on life in the Spirit and the priesthood of every disciple.
The New Testament says that Jesus made us to be a "kingdom and priests."
The ERC's new New Strategic Plan makes most of the people in the Conference followers, not priests...
...and followers not of Jesus...
...but of healthy, life-giving pastors and Conference leaders.
----------------
Because of the emphasis on pastors and hierarchical leaders, the new New Strategic Plan is, really, all about laity.
It is institutional.
Check out the history of the Kingdom of God:
Spiritual growth and numerical expansion comes where there is no concept of a laity, and where the whole body consists of men and women who are empowered to minister and who are zealous for, as early Church of God people said it, "the conversion of sinners."
Whether it meant to or not, through the new New Strategic Plan, the ERC has chosen to place its hope for the future, not in its whole body of saints empowered by, and walking in, the Spirit, but in a more effective community of pastors and the members of the hierarchy that leads it.
Said differently, the new New Strategic Plan has increased the degree to which the ERC is organized religion. It makes the gospel about the church, pastors and leadership, not about Jesus and the Father. As such, it will have nothing to say to the growing universe of people who:
1. Believe in God but reject organized religion, or
2. Love Jesus but hate the church.
The Lord of all authority and power and grace and mercy and blessing has never blessed the sort of thing the 2017 ERC new New Strategic Plan envisions.
Before it's too late, we must repent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)