Commentary on The Very Crucial Last Sentence of THREAD 2

Gang,

In my blogs, I point repeatedly to the tenth characteristic of the CGGC brand:

10.  To Talk is to Walk-ism.  According to the New Testament, a follower of Jesus is one who possesses a faith that organically produces acts of obedience to God's will. (Matthew 7:21-23, 24-26, 25:1-46; John 14:15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 2:8-10; Jas. 2:12-26; Rev. 2-3).  However, CGGC faith is disconnected from action.  It is possible to talk CGGC talk without walking it.  Hence, for example, the GC Mission and Vision Statements that are not lived out--and virtually no one notices.

This may very well be the most pervasive flaw in the CGGC today.

And, it's a flaw that others, besides me, see--as is clear from the last sentence of the proposal in THREAD 2:

Perhaps the time has really come in the CGGC to stop talking about how good Reggie's recommendations are (The Present Future- 6 Tough Questions For The Church), and to begin a concerted effort to put them into practice ("Now that you know these things, you will be blessed IF YOU DO THEM" --John 13:17).

See:  http://anti-flockist.blogspot.com/2013/11/tread-2-innovative-constructive.html

That statement is describing one concrete and tragic example of how To Talk is to Walk-ism functions in the CGGC.  (There are, of course, more examples than can be enumerated.)

Is the CGGC missional?  Well, of course it is!  It is, at least, in a church culture in which making an statement is the same thing as faith in action.  In the To Talk is to Walk universe, the CGGC is perfectly missional.

After all, we pay Reggie McNeal to lead the Mission Leadership Initiative.  We encourage our so-called 'pastors' and what the new We Believe defines as CGGC 'laypersons' to participate in it.  We speak words of praise about MLI and all that it stands for.

In the CGGC, this is missionality in vibrant action!

However, where the rubber meets the CGGC road, we do nothing more than talk Missional Leadership. 

In fact, by promoting and enacting the headquarters-developed denominational program, Transformational Church, we walk the exact opposite sort of walk than the missional walk.  (This is also the thirteenth characteristic of the CGGC brand, "Incoherence," in action.  At least the CGGC is consistent.) 

And, our leaders do both MLI and TC with no compunction at all.  (FYI: Compunction is "anxiety arising from awareness of guilt.")

Therefore,...

...What follows is a summary of six "New Realities" McNeal identifies and the six wrong and six tough questions that accompany them.  As you read this, note the six WRONG questions and note how they are core to describing the walk CGGC leadership walks, no matter what its talk may be:


New Reality Number One:  THE COLLAPSE OF THE CHURCH CULTURE

Wrong Question:  How do we do church better? [Think about Transformational CHURCH!]

 Tough Question:  How do we deconvert from churchianity to Christianity?

New Reality Number Two:  THE SHIFT FROM CHURCH GROWTH TO KINGDOM GROWTH

Wrong Question:  How do we grow the church? (How do we get them to come to us?)

Tough Question:  How do we transform our community?  (How do we hit the streets with the Gospel?)

New Reality Number Three:  A NEW REFORMATION:  RELEASING GOD'S PEOPLE

 Wrong Question:  How do we turn members into ministers?

 Tough Question:  How do we turn members in missionaries?

New Reality Number Four:  THE RETURN OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION

Wrong Question:  How do we develop church members?

 Tough Question:  How do we develop followers of Jesus?

New Reality Number Five:  THE SHIFT FROM PLANNING TO PREPARATION

 Wrong Question:  How do we plan for the future? [See Ed's touting of 'godly planning' in the recent CHURCH ADVOCATE.]

 Tough Question:  How do we prepare for the future?

New Reality Number Six:  THE RISE OF APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP

Wrong Question:  How do we develop leaders for church work?

 Tough Question:  How do we develop leaders for the Christian movement?

Read those six wrong questions again and again.  Note how feverishly the GC leadership team is devoting the CGGC to answering those wrong questions.

I believe that historians in 100 years will understand the current CGGC leadership team's strongest achievement to be to take the CGGC which had a small, but growing, core of people committed to answering McNeal's six tough questions and de-penting nearly all of that core group into becoming people who care only about answering the wrong questions.

How have they accomplished that?  They did it, precisely as THREAD 2 implies, through practicing and promoting To Talk is to Walk-ism.

We must repent.