We're not Writing on a Blank Slate

A while back, I responded to Lance's eNews, Where are We Now, Part 8, which was about the fact that our denominational body doesn't do "leadership" transitions well.

The primary points I made in the response I entered on the blog are that we've been doing transition poorly for a long time and that we're wrong in thinking about transition taking place in "leadership." This one is a soap box I stand on frequently.

I pointed out that the word "ministry" refers to someone serving, not to someone leading.

Not so long ago, we still thought of people in congregational ministry as serving the church, not leading it.

And, that is, of course, an undeniable historical fact.

One other thought was in my mind as I read Lance's post.

Lance said, early on in his article, that part of our problem in transitioning is, "probably related to our lack of embracing APEST callings..."

I have two comments on Lance's statement:

1. It's certainly accurate. For generations, we've focused on people called to be shepherd/teachers. What's more, we've not empowered those people to function in their APEST callings, as actual shepherds and teachers. Instead, we've foisted on them the role of the low-church parish priest, or provider of religious products and services to be consumed by a passive laity.

2. Lance is being naive. The naivete is common among CGGCers and it's, also, dangerous and destructive: a primary cause, I believe, of our decades long numerical decline and spiritual decay.

Lance seems to be assuming that, within the CGGC, there's a representative universe of people with all of the APEST gifts.

There ain't. Not these days, anyway.

There hasn't been, in fact, for generations...

...and, not because the Lord has broken His promise to give APESTs "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God..."

There ain't because long before Lance was BORN, yikes!, quite a while before even I was born, the CGGC had created and embraced a institutional culture that may not have been openly hostile to apostles and prophets and evangelists...

...but which...

1. Made it uncomfortable for APEs to function in their gifts in the CGGC, and,
2. Failed to reward APEs when they did walk in the Spirit and exercise their gifts.

How this has been done in the CGGC could be the focus of a fairly lengthy book, a book this geezer is too old and tired to write.

But, bottom line:

There are no men or women that I know of being empowered by the CGGC to function as an apostle, as Paul did in the New Testament or as a prophet, as Agabus did in the Book of Acts or as John did in writing the Book of Revelation or as an evangelist, as Philip did in Acts.

Today in the CGGC, we have parish priests and institutional hierarchs.

In the CGGC today, there are many people who are gifted to be shepherds and many more gifyed to be teachers, most of both operating as parish priests in local congregations. Of course, some of the shepherds and teachers have attained power on the institutional mountaintop.

In the CGGC, we always do have a few APEs.

In the CGGC, there will always, in fact, be a few APEs pressed into the parish priest role. Most of them doing the parish priest job very poorly and uncomfortably, often hurting the churches they're appointed to and, normally, burning out ahead of their time...

...and, in the end, either leaving our body for another ministry, or leaving ministry altogether...

...and, sadly, all too frequently, in the end, in frustration, abandoning the faith completely.

All of this is to say that when Lance suggests that part of our problem in transitioning is our lack of embracing APEST callings, he's being accurate, but naive.

APEST callings are no longer well represented in our body though they most certainly were in our movement days. The CGGC today is unbalanced and out of kilter.

The truth is that, the CGGC has no APEs living as APEs.

Further, we have no means to allow a man or woman, immature in an APE gifting to be discipled by men and women who are practiced and mature in living in those gifts.

All we do have is a denominational culture that, at best, tolerates APEs, but only to the degree that APEs are willing to accept the parish priest-dominated clergy, laity divide.

Si, while, in theory, Lance is correct about APEST, in our real world, his point is meaningless.

We are not writing on a blank slate. 

All of these problems are of our own making. We created them generations in our past and have been perfecting our dysfunction ever since.

There is much rethinking, i.e., repenting, we need to do.

Then, after we renew our minds through repentance, we must turn from our sin in diminishing the importance of the APE gifts.

We must uproot and tear down and destroy and overthrow the church's pastor dominated leadership culture and walk in the Spirit and empower APEST. Then we will be able to, as
Lance suggests, embrace APEST callings.

We ain't writing on a blank slate. We need to clean the slate.

Then we can begin, as we once did, to walk in the power of the Spirit.