I'm still thinking about Lance's eNews article on the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and of radicalism in the history of the Church of God and of the possibility of radicalism in the CGGC today...and of Lance's own ability, or inability, to be a radical voice and to live a radical life.
And, I'm tweaking what I said in my initial post.
It's true that, at this relatively late stage in his life, Lance has not yet spoken or lived radically. (Though I do believe that Lance often does think radically.)
I still think that there is a price to pay for being radical...the price of being willing to be hated, and to, in all probability, actually BE hated, and that Lance has not paid that price and doesn't seem to be willing to pay that price.
My tweaking has to do with this:
I suspect that Lance should not be a radical voice and live a radical life because it's probably true (I say probably) that, in the Lord, Lance is not a radical. (Again, I say probably.) And, that there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.
In the history of the people of God, radicals are important but their number is few.
----------------
As Lance pointed out, in his quote of Richard Kern from General Eldership sessions in 1968, John Winebrenner was a radical. As Lance also demonstrates, Winebrenner's words and lifestyle generated extreme, nasty and even violent opposition.
In its early days, the Church of God movement, as a whole, was, unquestionably, radical...
...however, while the body itself was radical, not every person in the Church of God was a radical.
In its movement days, the people of the Church of God accepted and empowered the relatively small number of radicals who were a part of the body.
----------------
And, as Lance points out in his article, it is at this point that today's CGGC is precisely unlike the Church of God in the days that it was a Spirit-empowered, dynamic and growing movement.
As Lance says it, "We don't like radicals."
In our movement days, we loved and empowered our radicals and, even the members of the movement who were not radical themselves, followed our radicals' radical ways.
----------------
It seems to me that Lance, and the others who were on the top of the CGGC mountain ten years ago, appreciated and, even loved, the radical words and ways of the first members of the Church of God.
They slightly tweaked and de-Kingdom-ified...
...and, therefore, churchified...
...the founding vision of the Church of God spoken by Winebrenner on its very first day...
...and, adopted its radical words as the official Mission Statement of the CGGC in 2010.
But, what about our founders' radical ways since then?
Lance said it well, "We don't like radicals."
We can easily adopt a slightly domesticated version of the movement's radical words...
...so long as it's understood that the words are only official CGGC Talk-ism.
But, putting those words in action?
Uh uh.
My own experience suggests that the person who attempts to walk that talk is treated harshly.
----------------
As a matter of history, Lance was high up on the mountain when the Mission Statement was penned and approved and he has been on the highest peak now for several years.
Lance has not been a radical voice nor has he lived a radical life.
And, Lance's modest and moderate talk and walk are not a problem.
The fruit of Lance's life proves that Lance is not radical.
Either Lance is not radical in the Lord or he likes being liked too much to pay the price of hatred for being radical.
Either way, Lance is a moderate, not radical voice.
His is a white bread lifestyle, not the on-the-edge life of people like John Winebrenner.
And that is obvious. And, for now, it will have to be enough.
----------------
Here, in my opinion, is what is not enough...
...and, why we will continue to decline and decay.
What Lance has not done, at least from what I can see, is empower the small number of CGGC radical voices and seekers of a radical way.
Those people languish, they are weakened, with Lance on the top of the mountain...
...and, that is the case despite Lance's appreciation for radicals which he expresses so eloquently in his eNews article.
In my opinion, it's not a bad thing at all that Lance is not a radical voice and that he fails to live a radical life.
What's bad for the CGGC and for the cause of the Kingdom is that Lance has, as far as I can tell, done nothing that would empower the radicals whom the Spirit has given to the CGGC.
We continue to be moderate and mellow. We continue to decline and decay.
We must repent.
No comments:
Post a Comment