I remember where Eastern Regional Conference delegates met to choose its Executive Director when Dr. Kevin Richardson was selected. I even remember the margin of victory in percentages.
And, being a geezer, I even remember being a delegate when the members of the Conference assembled in the, uh, sanctuary of the New Providence Church of God and selected Ed Rosenberry to be the successor to Dr. A. Gail Dunn. I also remember who the delegates chose between when Pastor Ed was elevated to be what then was called the Conference Minister.
------------
And, I remember the section of the Book of Acts, though the exact chapter doesn't come to mind, where the apostles appointed a Search Committee to choose the person whom the early church would designate as the Apostle to the Gentiles.
And, I recall that all those interested in the position submitted resumes and filled out questionnaires and that the Search Committee narrowed the field of candidates and ultimately selected a man whose name they submitted to the apostles for their approval.
And, I vaguely recall the text of the letter, written by the apostles to the churches and included in the Book of Acts, announcing the choice of Saul (AKA Paul) of Tarsus, of the Tribe of Benjamin, to the position, Director of Gentile Ministries. Though, I can't cite chapter and verse, I know it's in there.
----------------
As a member Region of the CGGC, the ERC commits itself to "establish churches on the New Testament plan" and holds the Bible as its "only rule of faith and practice."
So, we all know that Search Committees must be integral to the operation of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament.
And, we know that the current plan, as I understand it, to have the selection of the new ERC Executive Director lie in the authority of the Administrative Council...
...not in the hands of the Eldership...
...has to be modeled in the Word...
...because there is no hypocrisy in the CGGC.
In the ERC we scrupulously walk our talk.
So,...
When the General Conference in session creates a Mission Statement and when it sets forth not only a Doctrinal Statement but also a Statement of Faith declaring obedience to the authority of the Word, and especially the New Testament, the hierarchs of the ERC take the authority of the Word...
...and the power of our body's highest human authority, the Eldership, to heart!
And, our leaders submit...
...to the Word...
...and, to the wisdom of their brothers and sisters in the Eldership, the community of the called.
---------------
NOT
----------------
So, the ERC hierarchs are searching for their new Executive Director...
...through a process entirely divorced from what the Word teaches and demonstrates.
And, as a person of the Word, who honestly does buy into the New Testament plan idea and the Bible as our body's only rule of faith and practice, I'm appalled.
And, I'm convinced that the Lord of all authority and power and blessing will not bless these very human, hierarchical and institutional plans and schemes.
----------------
But, more than that, I want to make the point that, in the years since Ed and Kevin were selected to lead the Conference, the Conference has actually moved further than ever away from Word-rooted ways...
...and toward ways that have their roots in Roman Catholicism in the Middle Ages.
And, please observe the hypocrisy.
Since Kevin was selected, the CGGC has seriously hyped up its Bible talk.
It's in those years that we put John Winebrenner's "New Testament plan" language in a Mission Statement.
It's since then we freshened up We Believe and created that Statement of Faith and proclaimed the Bible as our ONLY...RULE...of faith and...
...PRACTICE.
----------------
Two thoughts and then I'm done:
1. The large number of cynics in the ERC...the people who either mumble in favor of every one of the hierarchs' schemes or remain silent, and then do nothing...see the radical Bible talk of recent years matched with the move toward an even more tradition-bound, Middle Ages walk...and they will be more convinced than ever that cynicism is their best, and only realistic, choice. They will, again, nod and do nothing. But, be more disgusted than ever.
2. Paul says, in Romans 14:23, "For everything that does not proceed from faith is sin."
Sin.
It's important to look at this from a spirtual point of view.
We're sinning.
This Bible talk matched with Middle Ages Roman Catholic, Ad-Council-as-College-of-Cardinals walk is exactly and precisely sin.
It's typical twenty-first century CGGC behavior.
And, it's sin.
The Lord of all authority and power and blessing doesn't bless sin.
He hasn't been blessing us.
He will not bless this.
We must repent.
There are, of course, many statements that you made that could be commented on.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I don’t follow your application of Romans 14:23 into this context.
I tend to be of the interpretive mindset that we ought to understand the context of scripture before bringing it to bear on a situation different from that originally given.
In context, Paul’s discussion in Romans 14 is about whether or not to eat meat sacrificed to idols and how to respond to and live with those with a different conviction than you.
In this case, the truth that you point two is multifaceted.
Paul says that he is convinced that no food is actually unclean (14:14) but that even those who agree should be aware of those whose conscience does not allow them to eat certain meats.
Furthermore, the context of the half verse you quoted regards those who don’t believe that food is okay to eat.
“But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” 14:23
You took that second statement and dropped it into a post about choosing an executive director and made a bold application / rebuke from it.
So, I’d be curious to know how you got from Romans 14 to our search…
Because honestly, your use of that scripture didn’t strike me as effective or convicting at all.
And, as someone who believes I will be held accountable for my use of Scripture, I have no desire to ignore relevant material.
Dan,
DeleteThanks for engaging me on this issue of biblical interpretation.
The CGGC in the 21st century is different from the Church of God in its movement days in many ways. In my opinion, one of the most important of the differences is that discussion of biblical truth is virtually nonexistent today outside of a classroom. When we were thriving, our people couldn't stop themselves from engaging each other in vigorous and passionate discussions, sometimes disagreements, over the truth.
I embrace you as a brother, even though I'm certain you are wrong in this case. ;-)
As I read this very important chapter, I can't see the topic being about what a person eats. In fact, the real issue is illustrated in two ways. One is your eating meat concern. Another illustration of issues relevant to the Roman believers was whether or not one day is more sacred than another. (Vs. 5 & 6a).
But those two concerns serve only to illustrate a more profound issue, the one Paul mentions at the beginning of the chapter, the fact that there are some matters of our faith that are disputable and others that are not. (Interestingly, the Greek word for disputable is dialogismos...from which our word "dialog" comes.)
Two examples of disputable (dialog-able) matters are what a believer may eat and whether one day of the week is more sacred than another.
Paul's punch line, coming at the very end of the chapter, is the universal truth that we can always depend on: "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."
If a believer is convinced in his/her heart that, for example, it is wrong to eat meat and that believer eats meat, that person's own opinion declares him to have sinned, even though the issue of what one eats is not a spirtual matter...it is disputable.
My point in applying the truth to the CGGC is that, in community, we have declared an usual and, based on what others say and do, EXTREME and RADICAL connection to the Bible and particularly to the New Testament.
We have agreed together that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice and that we establish churches on the New Testament plan.
Do I think we need to be that extreme? No, I don't. But, we have made that commitment together.
And, based on Romans 14, I believe that to seek any authority other than the Bible and to establish churches on any other plan than that found in the New Testament is...
SIN.
It wouldn't be sin for others but, because of what we believe and put into mission and faith documents, for us, it is sin.
The Lord of all authority and power and blessing isn't blessing us and this sin of ours, I'm convinced, is part of the reason why.
Interesting Thank you for making the connection in your thinking and application of the particular scripture
ReplyDeleteI still think it only - and still then only maybe - works IF we all share not only an agreement about the ‘New Testsment Plan’ priority, But also our interpretation of what that means.
As of yet, I’ve not met a soul, including those who suggested the language of the mission statement, who think it means what you think it means. I’m not saying that your view of it is wrong, but that others have a more specific view of what the NT plan means than your wide view. I’d this is the case, they are not necessarily in violation.
The point that you’ve made repeatedly about our too casual use of words is very I,portent though and we need to think much more about this.
Furthermore, in Romans 14, the context seems to be most specifically about person to person rather than group statements
So, it still feels like a stretch to me to apply this to others, not knowing what their beliefs are relative to this statements and how they think about them
Again, the fact that we’ve not thought deeply about these things is a big problem.
The approach we are taking would certainly be sin for you to participate in Bill
Whether it is sin for others would depend on what they believe about our statements and what they understand them to entail.
Thanks
As far as Romans 14 applying only if we agree on what New Testament plan means, I think the fact that the CGGC has had no conversation, except on this blog, about its meaning condemns us.
ReplyDeleteSo much of our most grievous sin is on the macro level and we give it no thought at all.
I'd love to know what you think I believe New Testament plan means. I'm not certain that I know.
Other than noting, very generally, that Jesus emphasized servanthood, not leadership, and Kingdom, not church, and trained apostles, not pastors...and that living the New Testament plan demands seeking New Testament authority for what we believe and do, I don't have much of a specific idea.
As far as Romans 14 pointing to the person to person, not group level, I agree. Except...
...we have, in the CGGC, agreed to create human authority, in addition to the authority of the Word. We did that from day one. That authority is the Conference, the Eldership. We have decided to operate as a group.
You, I'm certain, vowed to the Body, and to the Lord, to submit to the authority of the Body when you were credentialed.
As did I.
So, we/you/I by virtue of our own "disputable" beliefs, have made group statements our concern, i.e., submission to the Eldership is an equivalent to making what one eats a spiritual issue.
The, in our case, ERC Eldership, asked us to submit to it, and we willingly agreed.
After I clicked "publish" on my reply to your first comment, it occurred to me that I might have summarized Paul's principle, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin," as:
HYPOCRISY IS ALWAYS SIN.
And, hypoctites is what we, in the CGGC and ERC, are.
In the CGGC Mission Statement, we invoke the name of Jesus Himself...
We vow, "As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ,..."
And, made, in His Name, a promise we now ignore.
HYPOCRISY IS ALWAYS SIN.
Both of us vowed before the Lord to submit to the authority that created that promise...to HIM, directly in His Name.
We are accountable to vow because everything that does not proceed from faith is sin.