As someone who only 85 days ago had the Administrative Council of his Region vote unanimously (and, as far as I can tell, illegitimately) to recall his ministerial credentials, I have not been accustomed to receiving praise for the things I say and do, especially from individuals who are from my Region.
Nevertheless, since I entered my raw reflections some praise has come my way, some of it from a decent distance up the ERC mountain though, by no means, from one of its peaks.
Two members of the ERC clergy have contacted me by email with positive comments and constructive conversation and one of those (the surprises continue) has authorized me to include his comments--AND NAME!!!-- on this blog.
And, so I will do that.
I have already offered some preliminary comments in response but will enter some further comments at the end of this post.
My deepest gratitude to George Jensen for his email and my deepest admiration for his uncommon courage in engaging me in conversation and authorizing me to publically identify his comments with his name.
-------------------------------------
Bill,Connecting your original posting in “Raw Reflections” (which was good – I think what you and Evie did for “Ann” was spot on) with your comments to Dan’s deleted comments, am I correct in concluding that you think that the CGGC is guilty of only addressing the whole LGBT issue by banning same-sex couples from being married in our sanctuaries? While that may be the only response some congregations have considered concerning this issue, is it not true that our leadership is encouraging a ministry mindset that is consistent with what you and Evie did for “Ann” while at the same time recommending that we codify the banning same-sex union services in our churches (for our legal protection)? One only needs to read Lance’s first e-news as Executive Director (sent out July 2) to see this is the case. So, if I am correct in concluding that you have a “beef” with the CGGC as a whole concerning how it is responding to the LGBT issue, especially when the leadership has encouraged and recommended a “like Evie-responded-to-Ann” mindset (for lack of a better terminology) for ministry, why so (that is, what is the basis of your “beef”)? Feel free to copy this onto your blog if you want to. I don’t’ have a blog account and I don’t have time to set one up today.-George C. Jensen
George is correct is describing my, as he calls it, "beef."
Based merely on the response that I have received personally to my characteristics of the CGGC Brand, the one Characteristic that I identify which resonates most powerfully with people who hope for repentance in the CGGC is To Talk is to Walk-ism.
Within the last decade, especially, within the CGGC, we seem to have become convinced that to say something is actually to do it. I have provided numerous real-life examples of how the works. The most irritating of these to me is the Mission Statement's assertion that we establish churches on the New Testament plan when, in fact, we never exegete the New Testament in determining how we will move forward and, in fact, mine the traditions of the Middle Ages more than ever as we develop new policies and programs.
It surprises me that George, who has a significant prophetic streak in him, would be satisfied with the, admittedly, articulate, wise and, certainly, very sincere words that Lance published two weeks ago. For all of the wonderful things you can say about Lance and what he has written,...
...as the Bee Gees sang, back in 68, "It's only words."
And, words, these days, far too easily pass for real-life action in the CGGC.
The truth remains that the sum total of what the CGGC has done in response to the rise of hedonism and its fruit, the recent SCOTUS decision legalizing same sex marriage, is to take action insulating members of the CGGC clergy and CGGC sanctuaries from participating in and hosting same sex marriage rituals.
The CGGC has yet to do anything flavored with grace, mercy and love toward people who embrace hedonism in any form, and, particularly, homosexuality.
Based both on what we have done and not done, I am appalled and profoundly opposed.
I am angry at our leaders and I am also angry with the complacency of our entire body. My heart breaks from those all around us who are dying in their sin.
---------------------------------------
I have three comments about what has come from CGGC mountaintops:
1. It is compromised to the point of meaninglessness by WE BELIEVE's absolute proclamation of universal CGGC tolerance.
I've quoted this foolishness earlier and have pointed out that I opposed it from the beginning. WE BELIEVE says
From its formation, the Churches of God stressed the importance of unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. The Church seeks to uphold biblical truth while respecting personal freedom.With that understanding, any declarations we publish about same sex marriage, no matter what policies we establish, we now declare, by the authority of the General Conference in session, our highest human authority, that our body has always held, as its most important absolute, tolerance of diversity in all things.
We stress unity in some things, liberty in others but, in all things, we stress charity. We seek to uphold the Bible's truth only the extent that, in doing so, we don't show a lack of respect for the exercise of personal freedom. (To this day, the General Conference's approval of that sentence leaves me weak in the knees! What could the delegates possibly have been thinking?)
2. In action, it is purely institutional.
What we have actually done is focused on insulating members of the CGGC clergy and CGGC real estate.
In the spirit of Talk-ism, we claim to be kingdom-oriented and externally focused but, as has been the case for nearly ten years, when we actually do something, we turn inward and we think about church--worse than that, INSTITUTIONAL church--not kingdom.
We don't do anything focused on the world that God loved so much that He gave His only begotten Son to.
3. It is heartless and intellectual.
What we have gone to the trouble actually to do is of the human mind, not of God's heart.
In the note I copied from George and in the other conversation I have had about Raw Reflections, the act of mercy that Evie practiced, with me in a supporting role, was praised. None of the heart that produced our action toward "Ann" is reflected in what the CGGC has done to this date regarding homosexuals or same sex marriage rituals.
As I read what is coming down from the mountaintop, to the point that it produces action, is extremely legalistic, and not in a pharisaical way. At this point, I'd be blessed by good, old-fashioned biblical phariseeism in comparison to what the mountaintoppers are doing.
When I read action-oriented content coming out of Findlay, my sense is that it is not written for my consumption. It is written with an attorney's approval to be read, not by people seeking Christ or by followers of Christ, but by judges.
This offends me. I hope it offends others who pray, "Your Kingdom come, your will be done...."
--------------------------------------
Anyway, George, I am with you to the extent that I am a fan of what Lance, only one person, has written.
I am encouraged, as some of you may know, that Dr. Richardson has endorsed it from the top of the ERC mountain.
But, the New Testament truth is that, one day, all of us will be judged by the King and, as the King tells it, we won't be judge by our words, much less by words of others that we like.
He will identify His own by what they have done--by the fruit their lives have produced.
So far, based on what we have done, there is no Jesus in us on this matter. No mercy. No love. No grace.
As far as this is concerned, we could be offering seminars to the Amish in keeping the world at bay.
We must repent.
No comments:
Post a Comment