A Question about Evie's Heart Surgery

A male friend emailed me this question:

Now that Evie has a porcine valve, can she understand men better?

ROTFLOL

Sadly, though, the valve is bovine.

But, it always helps to laugh.

Being CGGC-Catholic in the ERC

I've been chatting off the blog with someone, making the point that the founders of our movement were very careful to declare that they were not Protestants. They hoped that their efforts would be part of, as Winebrenner said it, on the very day the Church of God was formed, "another great reformation."

And, we've trashed that founding vision. We've become blatantly and blandly Protestant. And, we're, as we all know, declining.

----------------

Having made that point, I'll go a step beyond to note that, in my ERC, we've become more than a little too Roman Catholic.

If you're a Roman Catholic, you define righteousness in terms of your involvement in your local parish and of receiving the sacraments provided by your parish priest and by faith in the doings of the church's institutional hierarchy from your Bishop up to the Pope.

If you're ERC CGGC, think about the new New Strategic Plan.

In the ERC these days, you define, well, righteousness by involvement in your local healthy, life-giving church whose leadership is provided by your healthy, life-giving pastor and by your healthy, life-giving Conference leadership.

The parallel is stunning.

I often remark that CGGC pastors function as parish priests, as providers of religious products and services to be consumed by a passive laity.

And, that's true.

We don't call the religious products and services provided by our parish priests, sacraments...

But, they really are CGGC sacraments.

In the ERC way of thinking, the goal is to get people to consume our pastors' religious products and services in the same way Roman Catholics want good Catholics to participate in the sacraments.

These days, the most important CGGC sacrament is the sermon.

We don't ask our people to take the Eucharist weekly but we do want the laity to take to heart their pastor's sermon.

------------------

There are many ways that the ERC's new New Strategic Plan is theologically bankrupt.

Perhaps the most dangerous is in its definition of righteousness in terms of involvement with the church, the parish priesthood and the institutional hierarchy.

This is so un-Jesus.

Read the Gospels.

We must repent.

The Church of God is Not Protestant but the CGGC most definitely is

In an important and, to me, intriguing off blog exchange, I recently quoted a crucial phrase from Winebrenner's speech which launched the Eldership of the Church of God in Harrisburg in 1830.

Winebrenner declared that, in order for the vision of Church of God founders to be accomplished, there will have to be "another great reformation."

In that statement, embraced by everyone present, and lived out for a generation plus, Winebrenner declared that the Protestant Reformation had failed.

What the men and women who were gathered in that room were a part of was intended to move beyond the Protestant brand of Christianity.

There are many ways in which the declining and decaying CGGC in 2018 is decrepit. No one denies that our congregations are becoming old and that we're not reaching millennials.

We thrash about spouting new ideas, yet, none take hold. Not one, to this point, has made the slightest positive difference.

And, one way to understand how the once dynamic Church of God has come to this state is that, in defiance of its founding vision, it has become Protestant.

The Winebrenner generation was convinced and passionate in its conviction that being Protestant was a bad thing. They refused to give into that temptation.

Today's CGGC is, despite the intense conviction of Church of God founders, unashamedly and very blandly Protestant...Evangelical Protestant.

And, if we're honest, Winebrenner was right. Being Protestant has not worked for us. We have become conventional where, in a very positive way, we once were weird.

We are, as we all know, declining and decaying to the point that we're becoming desperate.

-----------------

On a side note, I'm convinced that it's when we abandoned Winebrenner's reasoning for observing Feet Washing, in favor of Forney's, that we stepped over a very dangerous line.

I believe nearly all the official doctrinal talk in We Believe. And, unlike many, I live it.

The one meaningful exception is on our rationale for observing Feet Washing.

We've trashed Winebrenner on that point. That act is more significant, I think, than anyone else realizes.

----------------

There are many ways in which we must repent.

We must repent of being Protestant.

Scuttlebutt on the ERC E. D. Search

I've heard from multiple sources by now that the search has been narrowed down to two candidates. And, if I know that, I'm guessing most people do.

I'm interested to see what the searchers, who framed the search, value. It has to have been a bit of a Rorschach test for them, eh?

I don't know who the finalists are. I haven't asked.  I do know about some who applied and didn't make the cut.

------------------

I have been very clear about the ways I consider the ERC's new New Strategic Plan to be theologically corrupt and theologically bankrupt.

It's all about healthy, life-giving pastors, churches and institutional leadership. Yet, in three of the four Gospels, the word church doesn't appear and there isn't one congregational pastor anywhere in the whole Bible and there is no such thing as an institutional leadership hierarchy to be found in the New Testament. The plan, therefore, is based kn what is obviously unbiblical.

Our body has always claimed as its central belief that, "The Bible is our only rule of faith and practice."

I wonder how someone who submits to and embraces that core belief can wish to be associated with the new New Strategic Plan.

Or will he...I expect it will be a he...plan to use his position to actually be a man of the Word, in spite failings of the new New Strategic Plan...and go above and beyond the plan?

One can but hope and pray.

A Facebook Comment to Brent

In the Facebook conversation of my Brent Sleasman post, I made this observation to Brent:

"In the CGGC, in the last decade or so, what we say in a moment has come to mean everything and what we do over a period of time has come to mean very little."

That comment was intended to accomplish two ends:

First, to explain why I'm convinced that Brent's call for the people of the CGGC to engage in important conversations will come to nothing.

Brent was deputized to announce this vision but, for many years now, we've cast numerous worthwhile, even exciting, visions without a scintilla of an effort to live out that vision.

Unless things are about to change radically, there will be no attempt from the people who produce the eNews to provide practical and useful ways for CGGC people to make this really nice idea a reality.

Second, the comment serves as a definition of my To Talk is to Walk-ism characteristic of the CGGC brand.

We value talk. We are fast talkers.

But, the absolute truth is that what we do has come to mean very little and, if anything, to mean less and less as time goes on.

We won't do what Brent suggests not because Brent has failed in any way. We won't do it because we don't DO anything.

For us, sometime in the last decade, or so, talk became walk.

A Long-Term Dysfunction in the CGGC Leadership Culture

"I don't need a response and I have no interest in another email correspondence that doesn't go anywhere helpful."

------------------

These are words contained in an email I received not so long ago from someone who, by any definition of the term, would be considered to be a "mountaintopper" in the broad CGGC community.

Please don't attempt to figure out who. More about that later.

The email I received, as is clear from the quoted sentence, was intended to be a one-way rant,...

...and, earlier on it says, "It's come to my attention..."

By the mountaintoppers' admission, then, it's based on gossip and second hand knowledge.

I considered carefully if I should address the issues this email illustrates and, if I do address it, how to address it.

Here's what I'm coming up with:

1. This isn't the first time I've received this sort of comment from the CGGC mountaintop.

It's been going on for a while. I'm no longer startled. And, therefore, it's become possible for me to see these things from 40,000 feet.

The reason I hope you don't attempt to figure out who the author of the email is, precisely, because this isn't the first note of this sort that I've received from on high, CGGC speaking, over the years.

(It is the first, though, that STARTED OUT telling me the conversation is already over. It's also the first that I can recall that was based on what someone else told the mountaintopper about me.)

To be fair, when I say these notes are fairly common I'm, perhaps, overstating. Over the last decade or so, I've seen comments similar to this several times.

CGGC Mountaintoppers seem to feel empowered to make this sort of statement within the CGGC community. More about that later.

And, I think there's something noteworthy there.


2. As many of the readers of this blog know, there was a time, decades ago, when I was on staff at Winebrenner and that Evie was on General Conference staff as the Director of Denominational Communications during the Draper and Boyer regimes.

I'd never suggest that I was an insider in Findlay and I'd certainly never suggest that I was a mountaintopper.

But, as difficult as it is for me to even think about it, even in passing, Evie was a mountaintopper.

Evie's extremely bright. And, she's unbelievably likable. She held a Director level position on General Conference staff. Her position as a leader of the denomination was embraced and accepted unquestionably during those days.

And, as a CGGCer on staff at Winebrenner, and as her spouse, I rubbed elbows with the people who were the movers and shakers of the CGGC world at the time.

And,...

...at that time, I was also a CGGC good guy, attempting to fit in, fully and enthusiastically supporting the 35,000 X 2000 initiative and doing everything in my power to contribute to its success.

As a good guy, if not a mountaintopper, I'd hear dismissive comments spoken by various mountaintoppers of that day about the people who didn't kowtow to the wisdom and authority of the mountaintop. 

"Don't even talk to him. You'll never convince him." 

The point there was that anyone out of sync with the vision on the top of the CGGC could and should be dismissed, disrespected, even.

The point of that attitude being that the mountaintoppers know, for certain, that they are the spiritual end all and be all in the CGGC world. They're not to be challenged, even questioned.

And, as a point of history that can't be denied:

Remember, looking back nearly three decades, that, in the end, 35,000 X 2000 has proved to be a monumental disaster that continues to this day to threaten the CGGC's future existence!

And, that the people shunned and dismissed by the mountaintoppers turned out to be exactly correct! 

And, the mountaintoppers exactly, precisely and entirely and disastrously wrong!

Here's the absolute truth. The same attitude that produced the sentence that opens this post goes back at least as far as our days in Findlay.

Our leadership problems come from cultural values embraced by the mountaintoppers for many decades.

The attitude that generated that sentence was rampant when the person who wrote the sentence to me was active in the CGYA.


3.The sentence I quoted to begin this post has particular meaning in light the the eNews posts Lance invited Brent to write on having difficult conversations.

The sort of difficult, important conversation these guys advocate doesn't happen in five minute's time, chatting with a stranger whilst chewing on a Snickers bar.

Brent makes that precise point in declaring that, in order to have important conversations, you must take time.

Those conversations do, indeed, take time to develop. And, while the hope is that, over the passage of time, they will end well,...

...they begin in the context of passionate and vehement difference. That's what makes them difficult.

They require the establishment of some kind of common ground and the building of trust...

...and of mutual respect.

They, frequently, involve the overcoming of a difficult history.

More than that, they may make it necessary for prejudices to be set aside, often by both parties...as Brent also makes clear.

It seems to me, a person who could write the sentence that begins this post may not capable of the patience and longsuffering and respect for a person who thinks and feels differently that difficult conversation requires.

I am absolutely certain, however, that the person who wrote the sentence supports, intellectually and theoretically and hypothetically, the concept of CGGC people engaging in the rigorous spiritual and emotional demands placed on someone engaged in difficult conversation.

But, I can't see that happening, for him, at least...

...at least until he repents.

In my opinion, the sentence, and the attitude it is fruit of, leads the people of the CGGC back to the...

...FOLLOWERSHIP CRISIS...

...we've been in for at least a decade.

We don't lack for people who think of themselves as leaders.

What we lack, from mountaintoppers, is action to follow.

As I often mention, I gave up life as a CGGC pastor/parish priest. I'm working full-time in the world and live intentionally as an ambassador of Christ's Way.

A goal of my daily life, as a result of my own act of repentance, is to create the opportunity for me to have precisely the difficult and important conversations Lance and Brent advocate.

I'm DOING it,...

...certainly not perfectly...

...But, I'm DOING it.

I've created a walk which came before my talk.

But, all I'm getting, so far, from the mountaintop, is talk.

It may be that a description of the walk is planned for future eNews articles. That would be a blessing.

But, in recent years, we've had more than enough talk, about an uncountable number of good ideas, unaccompanied by action.

As Eliza Doolittle sang, "Show me."

The "Brent Sleasman" Post: The 2nd most Viewed of all Time here

I've been running this blog since 2013. Readership has increased and decreased in waves over the course of those five years.

The month in which readership reached its peak was, actually, January of this year, when I was commenting on the meeting to approve the ERC's new New Strategic Plan...and commenting on the plan itself.

The post which has had the largest readership, by far, is from 2014. It's title is, MY PERSONAL MISSIONAL MYTH: BUSTED.

I re-read the post before beginning this one and I was impressed because the post itself was decent enough but it generated a conversation similar to what might have appeared on Brian Miller's Emerging CGGC blog back in the day. People whose comments appeared in that conversation include current ERC staffer, Dave Williams, Western Region sage Phil Wilson plus Dan Horwedel from the Midwest Region and Jack Guyler and Dan Masshardt from the ERC.

Until this past week, the number of hits on that post was almost exactly double the hits on the second most read post on this blog.

However, Brent put, on Facebook, a link to my post on how his eNews article on Important Conversations will come to nothing. That link created oodles of interest...and a decent conversation on Facebook, though no comments were entered here.

Thanks to Brent, that post is now the second most viewed post on this blog, though still far from the most viewed post.

One comment: Brent is rare, if not unique, among CGGC people of significance in that he's open to conversation. Not only does he not seem to fear it, he encourages it.

There's some conversation on Facebook about where or not he's actually a CGGC mountaintopper.

I argue, rather convincingly, I think, that he is...and, that he's emerging as Lance's unofficial Director of CGGC Theology and Philosophy.

And, I'm comfortable with that. We could do far worse.

If you haven't seen the Facebook dialog, I recommend it to you.

Hearing Nasty or Untrue things said behind my Back

Just recently someone passed on to me, quite accidentally I'm certain, some either untrue, nasty or both, things that have been said about me behind my back.

This was in a CGGC context. Don't try to guess if it was you who alerted me to them. I won't say. This has happened several times.

And, here's the thing.

What I heard said about me doesn't bother me precisely BECAUSE it's being said in a community of people who identify themselves with the church and with Jesus...and it's become so normal for it to happen.

I got used to sniping and exaggerations and, well, lies spoken behind my back shortly after I committed to live as a prophet. It surprises me how little I care, and how easily I can forgive when forgiveness is sought.

What's new in this is that it occurred to me that, if the same thing happened on my real-life job, I'd be devastated.

I'm going to be thinking this through for a long time. I don't know exactly what to make of it, but there is significance here...about being part of an institutionalized church, and living in the world.

Why Brent Sleasman's Call to "Important Conversations" will come to Nothing

Apart from the brouhaha over why my eNews comment on Brent's guest article in the eNews, SETTING THE STAGE FOR IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS: HUMAN SEXUALITY, was not published, I want to make a predictive prophecy about it.

I don't do the predictive part of prophecy often. In this case, as is usually the case, when I do it, I'm slightly embarrassed because I suspect everyone who reads it will think, "Well, duh! Who doesn't already know that?"

Yet, what seems obvious to me usually isn't to everyone. 

So, in case you haven't realized it, what Brent and Lance want to happen in the CGGC...with CGGC people setting the stage for and having important conversations about difficult issues...isn't going to become the way of the CGGC future.

Unless, of course, we repent. 

It's the reasons I see for that reality that leads me to type this out even though you probably already know it. There are several reasons and they're not all that profound. 

1. They want our parish priests to be the people leading these conversations. 

This is a mistake that we started making at least 80 years ago and we continue to make and it ALWAYS leads to failure. ALWAYS. 

In Church of God movement days, our minute handful of ministers, they weren't called pastors until very recently, did not provide religious products and services to be consumed by a passive laity. 

In Church of God movement days, we didn't have a clergy and we most certainly didn't have a laity.

In Church of God movement days, it was understood that the work of the Kingdom was done by the people of the congregations and that the ministers were servants of the Lord whose role was to prepare the saints for works of ministry, as Paul describes the role of APESTs in Ephesians 4:11-13.

It's become our way constantly to tweak the role of the parish priest, to add just one more little duty to the job description to suit changing times or to follow fads. 

And, that's what's being done here. 

Let's have our parish priests devote a nice chunk of time, emotion and energy to setting the stage for important conversations...and, then, of course, to having those conversations. 

And why not!??!!?!! 

Church pastors don't have nearly enough to do now. It's long past time that we asked to work a full-time schedule. 

In Church of God movement days, our people...our PEOPLE...were having the important conversations...about slavery, about war, about alcohol abuse. 

And, our ministers were empowering those conversations. But, they weren't being paid to be the people who invested time and established space for those conversations to take place. 

We always do this these days. 

We talk about discipling but we walk the system in which our pastors are parish priests who provide religious products and services to be consumed by our passive laity...and, now, apparently, by the unchurched world.

We always do this. It always fails. 

It will fail again.

2. More at the place where parish priest ministry meets the road...

...what are the people of our aging congregations expected to think when their pastor adds setting the stage for important conversations to his/her schedule and has less time for sermon and Bible Study preparation and home and hospital visitation?

What does the laity always think!

The time and energy invested in setting the stage for important conversations breaks the unspoken agreement between pastor and church and the laity, justifiably, becomes angry.

And, when the people of the laity, who pay the Conference tithe, complain to regional leadership and demand that their pastor either spend more time with the old people, or get them a pastor who will, what's regional leadership always do?

And, what happens to all the important institutional obligations a parish priest attends to? The church and regional meetings?

What happens to the time the parish priest needs to devote to his/her family?

This setting the stage for important conversations is a big task. It involves the investment of time and emotion for a parish priest. 

What's the consumer of the parish priest's more traditional products and services supposed to do? Those consumers are paying good money for the services that they expect to receive. What's the pastor's family supposed to do?

What does the parish priest stop doing to start preparing for important conversations?

CGGC mountaintoppers created our laity. They've created the expectation that churches consume religious products and services. CGGC mountaintoppers created, from Winebrenner's movement, the notion of credentialed priestly leadership in the place of Winebrenner's universal priesthood.

For this setting the stage for important conversations vision to work, the roles of the parish priest and the consuming laity will have to be adjusted, at the very least.

They won't be. 

3. One of my Characteristics of the CGGC Brand is, Cynicism. 

Despite the fact that I regularly denounce the cynics, I suspect that many who read my blog are cynics. If you're not already a cynic, imagine being a cynic reading these articles by Brent...

...or, more likely, reading about them on this blog because you probably wouldn't waste your time reading the eNews blog. 

How many times have you heard, or heard of, these ideas and initiatives rolling down from the CGGC mountaintop?!!!?!

Are you even going to bother to moan at this one?

There's nothing in what Brent's suggesting that will soften the hearts of our many cynics.

------------------ 

So, the SETTING THE STAGE FOR IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS thing will go nowhere. 

And, I need to be clear about one thing: In my opinion, that's a bad thing.

By leaving the parish priest ministry to live in the world as an ambassador of the Kingdom of God, I actually have the conversations Brent advocates.

Having those conversations has become my life in a significant way. I live for the moments those conversations happen.

But what the eNews has in mind? It's not going to happen.

A significant theme in my lost comment to Brent's post was my call, again, to turn from the belief in the church as an institution led by a clergy class...

...and to empower every believer to be a priest.

So far, CGGC mountaintoppers refuse to do that.

What Brent and Lance propose is impractical for life in the real world.

It can't work. It won't happen, no matter how valuable the core idea may be.

Until the mountaintoppers repent of and turn from their institutional vision of the church with its stark clergy/laity divide, it can't happen.

LANCE WROTE TO ME ABOUT MY eNews COMMENT

Only moments ago, I sent off a reply to an email Lance sent me regarding the nonpublication of my comment on Brent's guest article in the eNews.

Lance explained to me, very vigorously, that he didn't receive the comment I described, two posts ago, on this blog.

He noted that he's always published my comments in the past. He assured me that he would have published this one, if he had received it.

Neither of us understand what happened.

Lance accepts the fact that I did write a comment.

And, I take him at his word that my comment never appeared on his end.

When someone submits a comment to a moderated blog, based on the blogs I comment on, a note appears saying that the comment will appear after it is accepted by the moderator.

As I recall, all of my comments on the eNews blog, until the one in question, appeared precisely as I submitted them.

I RECALL RECEIVING THAT MESSAGE WHEN I SUBMITTED THE COMMENT IN QUESTION.

Lance assures me that he didn't receive it. I believe him.

Apparently, the actual comment is lost.

------------------

My second blog post on the nonpublished comment expressed my sense of the irony that a comment on an article about preparing for important conversations would be rejected for publication.

Obviously, since the comment was not received, it was not rejected. I considered deleting that post but I won't. Let it serve as a testimony to the folly in which, I'm ashamed to admit, I sometimes engage.

I wrote to Lance saying that I deeply regret acting on my conclusion that the nonpublication of my comment was intentional.

I do regret it.

I apologized to Lance and I hope he will accept my apology...

...and I apologize to the readers of this blog.

Not Publishing a Comment on an Article on Difficult Conversations

The irony is staggeringly dumbfounding!

There were many eNews comments I entered in the past that I suspected would not get past whomever the moderator is.

But, to write an article about the importance of preparing for and having difficult conversations and choosing not to publish a comment on that particular issue?!

Yeah!

Let's talk about talking about things that are hard to talk about. Let's dialog.

NOT

Can the characteristic of the CGGC brand, To Talk is to Walk-ism, be illustrated more vividly!

I assure you all that there were no curse words or politically incorrect terms in what I wrote. Everything in my comment supported and embraced CGGC teaching and practice!

I wish I had insight.

But, I'm dumbfounded. Flabbergasted!

Well, the eNews didn't Publish My Comment

As I noted in my last post, I did comment on Brent Sleaseman's latest guest article in the eNews.

His article was brainy and thought-provoking, as you might imagine. It followed up an earlier article in which, at the invitation of Lance, he suggested that we need to be having important conversations with people whose opinions are at odds with ours but that to do so, we need to invest time and create space to make those conversations possible.

This article chose a specific issue on which we could have such a conversation: human sexuality.

My reply, I think, was direct.

And, like Brent's article, rather lengthy.

I didn't save it, so I'm recounting it from fading memory.

------------------

I suggested that it was not a quibble to challenge Brent's claim that, as followers of Jesus, we are "to engage the world." I recall noting that Jesus told us "to go" into the world.

To me, that's a huge point. Once we've gone, we may, in fact, engage the world. We may, on the other hand, confront evil. But, Jesus told the apostles, simple, "go."

And, I pointed out that I have given up my role as a CGGC pastor/parish priest in order to "go" into the world.

And, honestly, as you have realized no doubt, one theme of this blog is that I actually DO what CGGC leaders talk about...

...even, ironically, in this case, on the level of talking.

I actually do walk the talking of their talk while, they're still merely talking about talking.

Amazing. Typical.

For years, I actually have been taking time and creating space to have important conversations...as Brent's articles admonish all of us to do.

And, in my comment describing what I've done, the moderators of the eNews blog, for the first time, declined to publish my comment.

Fascinating. Ironic.

------------------

Brent notes, at the end of the blog, that many people who have strong opinions about homosexuality have never, to their knowledge, met a gay person, let alone have had a conversation with someone who is gay...and, no doubt, Brent's correct.

I pointed out that I myself do know gay people and regularly converse with them in the context of an ongoing relationship based in mutual concern and respect.

Again, it seems to me that I'd be the Poster Boy for what Lance wants Brent to convince us of because I've been walking the talking, even walking the talking talk...for years!

------------------

One other theme in my comment was to stress the importance of the so-called Priesthood of all Believers.

Brent wants our leaders to be preparing to have important conversations.

I made the point that, in our dynamic, movement days, we had a small number of "ministers" (that word means servant, not leader), as Hebrews 10 suggests, spurring Church of God people to love and good works.

I suggested that, in order to accomplish the Lance/Brent vision, pastors will need to repent of their clergy role and be disciples of Jesus in the world...and that our ministers need to cease providing our laity with religious products and services and that we need to spur each other on to love and good works.

-------------------

Anyway, this is a description of what I remember.

The nonpublication of my comment has intrigues me.

How to understand silence in the context of a call for conversation? Seems almost hypocritical, doesn't it?

Honestly, by the way, my sense of the tone of my comment is that it was respectful, certainly not as confrontational as my comment on Brandon's most recent post.

Ironic. Baffling...to say the least.

Not publishing a comment on having important conversations...

Oi...

Three Weeks Past Evie's Open Heart Surgery

Her heart continues to go into an irregular beat from time to time.

We're told this is not atrial fibrillation, which is dangerous. We're told, at every turn, that this is not life-threatening and that it's to be expected.

She's been released by her home physical therapist.

And, she's getting bored and frustrated. She doesn't handle boredom well. It will be a long haul.

We both thank all of you who continue to pray.

Brent's Very Provocative eNews Post

I responded to it. I assume my response will be published.

I recommend his article and my reply...

...and encourage you to enter into this important conversation.

Institutionalizing...and Sacramentalizing...Repentance

Did you know that in his initial translation of the Bible into German, Martin Luther translated the Gospel passages which we now agree go, "Repent and be baptized..." as, "Do penance and be baptized."

What follows here is an idea that I've actually been musing over for some time and trying to figure out what to do with.

Institutionalized, parish priest-dominated, Christianity has normally, but often begrudgingly, been honest enough with the teachings of Jesus and His early followers to acknowledge that repentance is central to being a disciple of Jesus.

But, what?

Finds the way evangelists and prophets and apostles call for repentance too black and white and too harsh and judgmental and the act of real people actually repenting too undignified and emotionally messy to fit into their tidy vision of proper, dignified and somber churchianity?

So, shepherd mafia churchianity handles repentance in two ways:

1. It institutionalizes it. It places the means by which a person turns from sin...and enters the CHURCH... into the hands and programs and plans of its institutional hierarchy...

...through, for example, the writing of creeds and cathecisms...or even just new member classes and small groups.

2. It creates sacraments, or ordinances, to process repentance.

It's interesting that Luther originally relied on two sacraments to initiate people into the church, penance and baptism.

Did you know that, in its earliest days, Luther saw three sacraments? Baptism, Communion...

...and Penance?

But the way of Jesus is much more simple and direct. It doesn't demand the creation of an organized church or of an institutional hierarchy.

It doesn't require the involvement of pastors and parish priests. In fact, it involves something quite the opposite--the Priesthood of all Believers.

Paul, as I say often, noted that the household of God has been built, humanly speaking, on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

And, read the Book of Acts.

Peter and Paul could barely open their mouths without commanding people to repent.

It's time for God's people to let raw and primitive calls for repentance to be made, without institutional involvement or interference, by apostles, prophets and evangelists...

...the men and women gifted and empowered by the Spirit to bring people from sin and to the Lord.

We must repent.

A Trend in Brandon's APEST Posts

The latest of Brandon Kelly's APEST posts appeared in Friday's eNews.

It will be the first of two on evangelists.

If you're paying attention, you've observed that the first of the two posts on the individual gifts always focuses on how the people with that gift can be immature, or deficient or flawed or weak or ineffective or foibled in living the gift. And, on why your church should be patient, tolerant even, in dealing with these people.

Here's the comment I'm going to put on the eNews blog. It's a tad generalized but, essentially, true:

------------------

Brandon,

Thanks again for highlighting APEST and for drawing the attention of the readers of this blog to this essential Kingdom reality.

I have noticed a pattern, however, in your, now, three articles which draw our attention to the immaturities, and foibles and failings of people who strive to live within these gifts.

In each of these articles, you describe, in one or more ways, weaknesses in people who live in these gifts that, when they are immature:

1. Make them different from shepherds, and,
2. Make it uncomfortable for them to function as the pastor, or parish priest, of a church.

In doing so, you seem, accidentally I'm certain, to imply that shepherd is the central, core APEST gift. And, that the role of the pastor/parish priest is important in the Bible's teachings on Kingdom leadership.

I don't see those teachings in the Word.

------------------

The truth is that it's not a weakness of an APE to lack the characteristics of a shepherd.

It's not true that the shepherd gift and pastor's role are the end all be all in Kingdom living.

As 1 Corinthians 12 makes clear, all gifts are incomplete. The incompleteness is not necessarily an indication that the person with the gift is flawed.

The incompleteness itself is essential in God's plan for the gifted and called servants of the Kingdom.

The incompleteness is not remedied when APEs mature and become more like shepherds.

It is remedied when all APESTs, as Paul says it in Ephesians 5, "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

And, remember, there's not a single pastor/parish priest in the New Testament.