What follows is what, from 40,000 feet, is, in my opinion, the most critical--actually deadly--flaw in HERE WE STAND. Because I am always inclined to look at the present in the context of history, I saw this immediately but have allowed the thought to percolate before writing it out.
If you lived among the people of the Church of God in its movement days, you would have known where it stood in terms of the social challenges of the day even if you were an outsider. You'd have been able to see it in action among all Church of God people in all the congregations. In fact, you would not have been able not to miss it. Where our mothers and fathers stood would have been glaringly obvious. It would have been offensively apparent to you if you were on the other side of the issues. You wouldn't have had to look for a document from, uh, leadership stating theoretical positions on, say, slavery. Those people produced fruit in keeping with repentance. The fruit of the ministry of the Church of God would have been abundant and obvious and ripe. We stood where we stood boldly and radically in the real world, not merely on paper. And, everybody knew it.
In 2016, however, no matter how intelligently the writing committee of HWS states its views, no matter how eloquently they express themselves, they can't change the reality. The CGGC doesn't really stand where the committee says we do.
How many sermons do you imagine mentioned the abomination of slavery in our first days? How many are preached on human trafficking, or abortion or any other HWS issue these days when you gather with a CGGC congregation today?
We know that, for John Winebrenner, calling sinners to repent of sin and demanding the end of the sinful institution of slavery were a part of the preaching of the message of the gospel. Those causes were one cause in his mind and others in the movement believed what he believed and preached the same message.
But, take a run through the archives of the eNews. How often did Ed Rosenberry tell us that, during his frequent travels through the CGGC, he addressed even ONE of the positions described in HWS? Does Ed actually, in the real world, stand where we allegedly stand? Not in what he tells us he said and did.
Now, take a gander at the eNews in the Lance era. Same questions. Same answer.
Our fathers and mothers actually LIVED the faith they described. We don't. As far as I know, none of us do.
We practice To Talk is to Walk-ism. They walked first and, often, their only talk was the walk itself. They were walking their talk before the church was organized in 1830. It took them 15 more years to put what they had always been doing into writing. How different could we be than they were?!
If the writers of HWS were honest, they would have examined what they themselves actually do and they would have scanned our congregations to see what they are doing and they would have put on sackcloth and fallen on their faces in shame and begged a merciful God for forgiveness. They would not have written a series of position papers claiming things to be true about themselves and the rest of us which have no connection to reality...
...and which condemn us as a people of lukewarm faith.
Shame on them for the untruths they have written. Shame on everyone in the CGGC who is not convicted by it.
We must repent.
No comments:
Post a Comment