Galli takes me back me back to my first days as a student at the seminary I attended, the institution formerly known as Evangelical School of Theology, in 1976.
Galli recalls 1976, when Harold Lindsell's crucially important book, THE BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE, was hot off the press. Lindsell's book was controversial. Galli opines,
Decades ago, Harold Lindsell, then editor in chief of this magazine, called for a “battle for the Bible.” He took to task evangelical institutions whose definition of biblical authority was, in his view, inadequate. His book of that title was divisive and unhelpful.Despite the fact that Galli believes that Lindsell's book was "unhelpful," Galli says,
Today we need a new battle for the Bible—not for a precise definition of biblical authority that all evangelicals can agree on, but a simple return to the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice—and especially Christian doctrine.Galli suggests that, in fact, among Evangelicals today, the battle for the Bible has been lost. The problem Lindsell identified nearly forty years ago was that, even among evangelicals, belief in the inspiration of the Bible had become iffy in too many circles.
Lindsell was correct. And, the CGGC is a case in point. Many of today's CGGCers, even among the community of "pastors" don't realize that there was a time when Death of God theology was being taught at its seminary. In fact, in 1976, Lindsell's the battle for the Bible--for belief in the inspiration of the Bible--was being fought at the seminary and across the denomination. In 1976, that battle was far from being won, though, when the victory came, it came quickly and well within a decade of 1976.
The battle in that Galli calls for the mid 2010s is a different battle for the Bible. Galli points out that, these days, evangelicals readily pay homage to the Bible as God's inspired Word, yet, few evangelicals live under the authority of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. He says,
When it comes to deciding how to follow Jesus Christ in our time, the Bible often takes a backseat even for evangelicals, who have long held a high view of Scripture.In centering in on the core of the issue, Galli makes the point that I have made on this blog time and time again. I have been doing it for years by identifying, as one of the characteristics of the CGGC Brand what I number as characteristic 7: "Mellow Relationships over Truth."
Here's how I have been saying it:
7. Mellow Relationships over Truth. The CGGC has serious issues with truth primarily because it values, to the extreme, human relationships rooted in tolerance of others but does not value hunger and thirst for righteousness. The CGGC no longer holds, as the most important relationship, love for the Lord, which Jesus called the greatest commandment. The CGGC no longer takes firm stands on any biblical truth, as the recently adopted revision of We Believe and the 2013 Statement of Faith make clear.Here's how the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY puts it:
Sometimes the desire to preserve relationships at all costs prompts us to ignore scriptural teachings. Other times, we have an ill-defined feeling of how the Lord is “leading” us, never mind that the leading contradicts scriptural teaching.Preach it, bro!
Can I hear a loud, "Amen!" from anyone in the CGGC?
Forget the Bible. Consider other truths. The CGGC is declining. The latest CHURCH ADVOCATE acknowledged, in strong words from the Lance, that this is so. As I pointed out here, the most recent statistics point out that our numbers last year were horrendous. We dropped nearly 4% in attendance of our Sunday morning shows.
And, as I have also been pointing out, our lukewarmness toward biblical truth achieved new heights/depths in 2013 when under our highest human authority, we made this statement (which, in my opinion, tells an untruth about our history) seriously qualifies the authority of the Word in the CGGC:
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.Galli could have been reading this statement when he said, "Sometimes the desire to preserve relationships at all costs prompts us to ignore scriptural teachings."
Under current "leadership" the Word has authority in the CGGC only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on someone's freedom.
Forget the rest of the evangelicals. The CGGC needs a new battle for the Bible.
Will anyone other than me, stand up for the truth and authority of God's Word?!
Please, somebody.
ANYBODY!
A simple return to the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice is not so simple. Once one rightly recognizes the Bible as such (and I do), the age-old issue of interpretation then comes into play. Once I accept the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice I then have to ask, "Whose interpretation of the Bible do I accept?" Should I accept John MacArthur's? Jim Wallis's? His Holiness Pope Francis's? Bill Sloat's? WHOSE?
ReplyDelete-George C. Jensen
George,
DeleteTo the first part of your comment, I say a hearty AMEN.
At the moment one accepts the authority of the Word, the question of interpretation becomes inescapable.
I'm more than a little concerned by the way you conclude your comment, however.
We should never ask "Whose interpretation...do I accept?"
Rather, we need to ask, "What is my--or, in the case of the CGGC--OUR interpretation?
Tragically, the 2013 General Conference chose to place its stamp of approval on the "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" interpretation. And, that is currently how the CGGC operates.
Interestingly, in 2009 Ed Rosenberry and I were meeting periodically to discuss a variety of issues and the first time we met after he announced the "New Testament plan" Mission Statement, I suggested he call a gathering of the church to.discuss and define our shared meaning of the New Testament plan. He responded as if I had just flatulated out loud.
I would love for us, in community, to take on the issue of interpretation today.
As we all know, there was no problem in agreeing on interpretation in Winebrenner's day, when ours was a growing, Spirit-empowered movement.
I can't see how we will turn this mess around until we put on the "belt of truth."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUm..Uh..OK.....I don't get why you are "more than a little concerned" with the way I concluded my comment. It was a valid question. Whose interpretation do I accept? I could have put any group or name in the list. I didn't put the CGGC in there because we do not have an official, definitive authoritative interpretation of the Bible. We have NO creed or confession of faith. Yes, we have "We Believe" but it claims to be a "teaching tool" to "inform all parties" about "the faith as commonly believed in the Churches of God, General Conference." That, in my estimation, tells me that "We Believe" is not a creed or confession of faith; it is merely reflects a consensus of shared beliefs. This is EXACTLY why I have been calling for the CGGC to go creedal or to craft a true Confession of Faith. Without such, I have the license believe pretty much any INTERPRETATION (including heterodox or heretical ones) of the ultimate authority (the Bible). Yes, "We Believe" does claim that some doctrines are "core" while others are "distinctives." But then, it doesn't define which doctrines are "core" and which are "distinctives!" What a scary thing this is! Again, I suppose, if I were to push the issue, I could argue that I am free to believe anything I want to as a member of the CGGC. Now I know that I could be declared a heretic by a local Conference's Commission on Church Vocations (or equivalent). But then I have to ask "What standard do they use to deem me to be a heretic?" The answer is they use THEIR interpretation. That's why a non-creedal system as our is so messy. So, I don't understand why you are more than a little concerned with what I said. Both parts of my question were completely valid. I stand by it and I won't budge and in fact, I'll ask it again: "Whose interpretation of the Bible do I accept?" Should I accept John MacArthur's? Jim Wallis's? His Holiness Pope Francis's? Bill Sloat's? WHOSE?" Sorry, Bill, but I can't add CGGC to the list - we have an alleged consensus of beliefs but not a final, authoritative interpretation.
ReplyDelete-G.C. Jensen
Eight line down: "it merely reflects" rather than "it is merely reflects." Also, tenth line down: "I have the license TO believe."
ReplyDeleteGeorge
ReplyDeleteWhere have you been?
We have a Statement of Faith dated 2013.
http://www.cggc.org/about/statement-of-faith/
Re: Um..Uh..OK.....I don't get why you are "more than a little concerned" with the way I concluded my comment. It was a valid question. Whose interpretation do I accept?
ReplyDeleteYou stated this in the first person singular. You should accept no other interpretation than your own. You face eternity with it.
I didn't put the CGGC in there because we do not have an official, definitive authoritative interpretation of the Bible.
As I have demonstrated, the Findlay mountaintoppers actually do refer to WE BELIEVE as "the doctrinal statement of the Churches of God, General Conference" and summarize that doctrinal statement as the 2013 Statement of Faith.
However, let me say that I don't buy the definition of the term "interpretation." It was Winebrenner who so strenuously denied that the Church of God has a creed. Yet, he was able to publish a very clear description of the faith and practice of the church, even though he denied the validity of the creed.
Re: We have NO creed or confession of faith. Yes, we have "We Believe" but it claims to be a "teaching tool" to "inform all parties" about "the faith as commonly believed in the Churches of God, General Conference."
As far as I am concerned, there is no clearer evidence of the theological corruption and bankruptcy of CGGC General Conference leadership using the year 2013 as a snapshot than that that it can so easily say of WE BELIEVE:
"The Churches of God, General Conference does not object to publishing, for information, what it believes and practices or to studying historic creeds for personal interest, but it does not create any such statement or receive any historic creed as an authority or test of fellowship" (my emphasis)
and,
then call WE BELIEVE the CGGC's doctrinal statement and summarize it as a Statement of Faith. Imagine! Our noncreedal body produced both a Doctrinal Statement and a Statement of Faith in the same year!
Re: This is EXACTLY why I have been calling for the CGGC to go creedal or to craft a true Confession of Faith.
Have you noticed that it is the Protestant Creedal bodies, the Episcopal Church, the UCC, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans who seem most easily to turn their backs of the historical Christian faith? What have their creeds done for them? Do you really want that for us?
Re: Without such, I have the license believe pretty much any INTERPRETATION (including heterodox or heretical ones) of the ultimate authority (the Bible).
Bingo!
Amen!
Preach it bro.
With or without the Doctrinal Statement cum Statement of Faith, based on the introduction to WE BELIEVE, personal freedom trumps all in the CGGC.
Re: Yes, "We Believe" does claim that some doctrines are "core" while others are "distinctives." But then, it doesn't define which doctrines are "core" and which are "distinctives!" What a scary thing this is!
Theological bankruptcy and corruption--as I have been saying for years.
Re: I could argue that I am free to believe anything I want to as a member of the CGGC.
You absolutely may make that argument.
Bill, you said, "You stated this in the first person singular. You should accept no other interpretation than your own. You face eternity with it."
ReplyDeleteYIKES! Are you serious--that I should accept no other interpretation than MY OWN? You have more faith in me than I do! I did not come to believe in various doctrinal truths such as the Deity of Jesus Christ by someone handing me a Bible and saying, "Here--go sit in a box all by yourself and figure it out." Maybe some people come to various doctrines correctly that way, but I did not. I would bet money that even someone who is much smarter than I am like you (I am serious - I did not mean that as a smarty-pants comment--you are smarter than I am; it is what it is) didn't "figure out" the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ by sitting in a box with a Bible and a flashlight. I was TAUGHT this truth--it was handed down to me through the church and if I were a betting man I'd bet that you were TAUGHT this truth too (as opposed to figuring it out on your own). And thank God the church did teach this to me! The church's role is to do this very thing to teach the truth to the next generation. It is the CHURCH that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). This is why the CGGC needs a DEFINITIVE and BINDING statement of faith (by the way, I was well aware of that statement of faith on the website from 2013. You don't need to worry, "Where have you been"--I know about it. But that statement of faith is a summary of a consensus--We Believe. That is NOT a binding, definitive statement of faith in my opinion).
Did you really think I was suggesting that you engage truth apart from involvement in the community of disciples?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you should simply "accept" any person's interpretation.
I'm not sure where you stand on this issue. Do you think we need to rely more heavily on the authority of the Word?
You are correct - it would not be right for me to simply accept ANY person's interpretation. If I did that, I could certainly accept the wrong one. However, the true church (the Kingdom, the "Invisible" church as some like to call it) has, in my opinion, settled the matter regarding what truth/historic Christian orthodoxy is long before I ever came along. Yes, the Bible is our authority. But it is the church's job, in my opinion, to interpret and hand down that truth to the next generation. That has to be one function of the church since 1 Timothy 3:15 tells us that God's church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it works this way: The Bible is the authority, and the true church is the interpreter (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) and conveyor of that truth. Also you are correct many Episcopalians, the UCC, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have easily turned their backs on the historical Christian faith though they are creedal or confessional. But I would argue that this is not the creed's or the confession of faith's fault that they did so. It's THEIR fault. Had they stuck to their creed or confession, they wouldn't be in such a mess. Other creedal or confessional bodies have done well to uphold orthodoxy. The Presbyterian Church in America has done well to uphold orthodoxy by following the Westminster Confession. the Wisconsin and Missouri Synod Lutherans have also done well following the Book of Concord. Many Baptist Churches - in fact INDEPENDENT non-denominational EXTREMELY Protestant Baptist Churches have upheld truth through affirming the London Baptist Confession of 1689. So, I would argue that it's not the fault of the creed or the confession. Used correctly, a creed or confession is extremely helpful. If the CGGC had a creed or confession that was definitive or final, at least we would have "measuring stick" to help us "blow the whistle" should things go haywire. Right now, if things start to go haywire and someone would appeal to "We Believe," the instigators of the haywire could say, "But We Believe is only a consensus and the consensus is changing." That, you see, is what scares the dickens out of me as a real possibility.
ReplyDeleteYou know, don't you, George, that all the Mellow Relationships Over Truth people are reading this spirited and passionate exchange and are thinking, "See! See! This is why you let issues of truth slide."
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't necessarily agree that a CGGC Creed is necessary, I do agree with the point that I think you are really making about the need for the CGGC to have an authoritative interpretation of truth which must become key to our identity and which must be assertively enforced by CGGC leaders.
I think that that authoritative interpretation existed in our body's first generation and, specifically, around the idea that the Church of God has no Creed.
I will ask you this question:
Don't you think that the CGGC "leadership" model, today is nearly identical to the way the leadership of the UCC, Episcopal Church, Presbyterians and Lutherans understand leadership today? IOW, are we not as shepherd dominated and as committed to the parish priest model of leadership as they are? My answer to those question is that yes.
That being the case, in my opinion, if you gave our current leadership culture a creed--or any other truth-based authority--our leaders would be poor stewards of that authority in the same way those who have gone liberal have. Shepherds are about tolerance and relationship, not about truth and righteousness.
In my opinion, until we demand different things from our leaders, supplying them with a Creed or any other form of authority tied to truth, that authority would be wasted and be a condemnation of our leaders and, ultimately, of us.
---------------------------
As far as 1 Timothy 3:15 is concerned,
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth,"
it seems to me that the truth Paul speaks of is a matter of orthopraxy--"conduct"--not of points of theology.
I caution you not to use a definition of church that resembles Constantine's idea that necessitated the Council of Nicea. If you use Jesus' notion, derived from Matthew 16 and 18, and Revelation 2 and 3, I think you will understand Paul in a different way.
--------------------
Finally, knowing that I agree with you that the CGGC community must have an authoritative interpretation of truth--which the community must demand leaders enforce:
Do you accept my call for a new Battle for the Bible in the CGGC?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI am sticking to my guns about the creed, confession of faith--WHATEVER name you want to call it; I think we need a definitive and binding statement of faith of some sort. If, as you say, the leadership in the CGGC is not strong enough to uphold such a statement/creed/confession/what-cha-ma-call-it, then at least those of us from the ground up would have an authoritative source of biblical interpretation to appeal to when/if things go haywire theologically speaking. Yes, many of the denominations you have mentioned have pitched their creeds/confessions/statements, but the true stalwart believers who compose the "remnant" in those denominations--the "prophets," if you will (and yes, they are there) historically appeal to these same creeds/confessions/statements when blowing the whistle against their leadership when it goes haywire. What a precious gift they have in these statements indeed! And when such stalwarts reach the point that they are forced to leave their beloved denominations, they are comforted during such a tragedy to know that they did their best to uphold the truth as expressed in these statements which ironically, were crafted by the beloved denomination they are forced to leave. As for us, we have NOTHIN' except for a glorious Winebrennerian history and a bunch of statements including "We Believe" that are consensual in nature and not definitively authoritative when it comes to interpretation. For me, the authoritative interpretive sources necessary to be a "whistle blower" do not exist in the CGGC.
(Continued--The blog wouldn't let me put all of this in one post).
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your concern for me via a "caution" regarding the meaning of "pillar and foundation of truth," I have to disagree that Paul is referring to orthopraxy regarding this matter. I am convinced he's talking about orthodoxy. Believing such such does not necessarily mean one is falling into a Constantinian/Roman "trap." The word for pillar (as I am sure you know and probably can define better than I can) is stulos, from stuo, which means a post, something that supports. The word for foundation is hedraioma- which means a support. In other words, Paul is conveying that the purpose of the Church is to uphold the truth that was given to her. From the Scripture we understand that the church is built on the chief cornerstone that cannot be moved - which is Christ. Naturally speaking, pillars are put in a building to support the roof which is above to complete the structure. It is Christ who is the head of the church and the body, He controls us. He is the cornerstone/ foundation that is laid. The church is to uphold the truth for everyone to see. This is a significant purpose of the church – to continue to teach and hand down the biblical doctrines the apostles were given by Christ. The pillar is not the foundation, nor is it the truth but it upholds the truth. This Scripture is not saying it is the church that is the truth (that's the argument of Catholicism). While I am not a fan of Constantine and what happened to the universal church as it became entwined with the state around 315 A.D., I am a HUGE fan of Nicea. The result of Nicea, as I see it, continued to lay the groundwork for orthodox Christianity which we have been blessed with to this day. I don't know all of the history of Nicea as you probably do, and if you gave me a lesson on the politics and gibble-gabble that happened there, the hairs on my neck would probably stand up. However, the result produced a significant standard for Christian orthodoxy. In spite of the church being in "cahoots" with the state at that point in history, the church was acting as the "pillar and foundation of truth" by silencing Arianism and upholding the biblical truths as handed down by the Apostles. To me, this is a very important role of the church. Right now, I am concerned that should the CGGC become in peril of REALLY going the wrong way, theologically speaking, we will have no authoritative interpretive source to appeal to. Johnny W.'s "What it is, what it is not" style of books along with all of the and all of the "consensual" documents are fine, but they are not authoritative.
To answer your final question, I would prefer to have a call for a "new Battle for the TRUTH in the CGGC" which includes the Bible (in addition to a creed/confession/definitive statement/what-cha-ma-call-it).
George C. Jensen
George,
ReplyDeleteWhoa Nelliebelle!
I didn't say that leadership lacks strength. I said those men, and they are men, lack the spiritual gifting and inclination.
That is why a Shepherd Mafia is a bad thing.
George,
ReplyDeleteRe: --WHATEVER name you want to call it; I think we need a definitive and binding statement of faith of some sort.
According to CGGC.org, we have both a Doctrinal Statement and a Statement of Faith dated 2013!
It seems to me that the problem not that we need something definitive. What we need is leadership that cares, even the slightest little bit, about what it true.
Re: While I appreciate your concern for me via a "caution" regarding the meaning of "pillar and foundation of truth," I have to disagree that Paul is referring to orthopraxy regarding this matter.
and your statement,
"...I am a HUGE fan of Nicea."
I disagree with all my heart but, perhaps, that is a conversation we should have later, and, perhaps, face to face.
Re: To answer your final question, I would prefer to have a call for a "new Battle for the TRUTH in the CGGC" which includes the Bible (in addition to a creed/confession/definitive statement/what-cha-ma-call-it).
My initial response was to go along with your call for a battle for truth which includes a battle for the Bible. But, after some thought, I've changed my mind.
Please understand that I don't intend a personal insult in what comes next:
You--and, I suspect, everyone else in the CGGC--are too sophisticated for me.
The more I learn and the older I become the more primitive I want to be.
In that way, I am, more than I have ever been, a person who wants to walk in lock step with the youngish John Winebrenner who declared himself at the formation of the Church of God in 1830 and who, later, described "the faith and practice of the Church of God" in 1844.
I'm happy with the Bible as my "only rule of faith and practice." In fact, at this point in my life, the Bible is more than I can handle.
I want Jesus in the raw. I want the Word alone. I want unadorned truth. I want to rely on the Word and nothing else to rule me in "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," as Paul described Scripture to Timothy.
My sense of CGGC leadership, and, particularly ERC leadership and some high churchers in Findlay, is that it craves sophistication. The leadership culture seems to loathe Winebrenner's primitive war to restore New Testament Christianity. It seems, even, to be embarrassed by it.
I love, with all my heart, what the current CGGC culture, in my mind, loathes.
Give me Jesus. Give me the Word. They are enough for me.
Maybe, after I've mastered those, I'll look elsewhere.
So, since I'm not up to your battle for TRUTH, will you join me, backwoods-bill, in my call for a new Battle for the Bible in the CGGC?