It's time to get back to my ongoing (but only occasional!) series on diversity within the Church of God. So far I've examined ethnic and regional diversity, and most recently I began looking at theological diversity.
In my last post on the subject I pointed out that there is an important distinction between doctrine and theology. Doctrinally, the Church of God is quite uniform (more so than many recognize). But, theologically, we exhibit considerable diversity. To be sure, what we believe is important. A solid doctrinal foundation is essential. Nevertheless, how we interpret, express and apply those doctrines will vary from person to person, from culture to culture, and from generation to generation. That's theology.
This understanding actually fits well with the Church of God. As a holiness group that emerged out of Wesleyan pietism we have always held that faith is to be lived, not just believed. In essence, we have valued orthropraxy (i.e correct practice) over orthodoxy (i.e. correct teachings), although we recognize the importance of both. In other words, despite occasional excesses in either direction, we maintained a fairly healthy relationship between doctrine and theology.
Unfortunately, however, the liberal-fundamentalist battles of the early 20th-century influenced us to take our eyes off the ball. In the effort to uphold doctrinal integrity we unknowingly bought into rational modernism, a world-view that ultimately is at the core of both liberals and fundamentalists/evangelicals. Church of God leaders and congregations increasingly got caught up in this debate, and in the process moved away from practical holiness and toward propositional faith (an emphasis more representative of Calvinism). Doctrine quickly began to crowd out theology.
We bought into truth as purely doctrinal, using logic, rational argument and philosophy to convince people to accept correct belief. This goes against our theological DNA, where truth is in Christ and a living experience of God's presence expressed in personal, and even social, holiness. Jerry Hickson, in his 2006 Warner Press book Are You Right? Evangelicals and the Church of God, identified this shift and the resulting theological struggles we face as a movement.
What's my point in all this?
The rigid fixation on doctrine (and the resultant disregard for theological engagement) prevents us from seeing the living, dynamic nature of our faith directed by the Holy Spirit. And, as a result, makes it difficult for us to admit that theological diversity is a reality within our own movement, and in fact, is consistent with the New Testament and something to be desired.
In part 3 I will illustrate where this diversity is expressing itself today within the Church of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
An anonymous reader recently posted a comment on my diversity series, but unfortunately, in an unrelated post. Since it is a rather significant writing presenting a somewhat different point of view I am providing a link for it here: LINK
Wow, thanks for including that link. I see d. Diversity in a more positive light. With a group the size of our, which isn't actually that big, it's hard to keep uniform beliefs or orthodoxcy without strong leadership. Great verbage on a transition out of prophet leadership. Although most CEOs are strong leaders, not just communicators. Able to influence and move people the direction that want to go in, so I don't completely track with that. But I see what "anonymous" is getting at.
Good thoughts too Lloyd. The belief and life issue was a topic hit upon at the MI GA in November [Ron Martoia was the speaker]. We think that if we inform people and they know differently and that knowledge will transform them. "knowledge in, does not equal transformation out." We've got to rethink and reshape some things. [Well, probably most things.]
Diversity Options
Diversity is an interesting phenomenon. It implies individual differences which, by definition, create the possibility of self-destruction.
In the realm of the spiritual, which is after all what the church is all about, there are infinite ways to define and describe diversity. By definition, diversity can include both positive and negative poles, thus creating the spark which drives the church forward (or backward). Diversity can thus become the scapegoat by which people can both praise and blame any change in religious practice (orthopraxy) or belief (orthodoxy).
Likely there are persons reading this who proudly wave the banner of diversity, just as there are others who decry its very existence. Before we choose sides, let us consider the alternatives. If we are not diverse, what are we? What is the opposite of diversity?
Two possibilities arise – uniformity and unity. Jesus prayed for unity. Which do we seek?
In actual fact, neither option denies the reality of individuality. The key difference between uniformity and unity is found in the manner of their cohesiveness.
Uniformity exists where people are bound together by external restraints. They may appear to be “like peas in a pod,” but eventually the “pod” hardens, breaks, disintegrates, disappears, and allows the “peas” to scatter and do their own thing. By its very nature, uniformity is only a temporary restraint upon diversity.
Unity exists where people are bound together around a central core. They are like the meaty flesh of a peach, surrounding the central seed. They are the protection, the attraction, the nourishment by which the seed will be transported and planted. Their sole existence is to promote that single purpose of bringing to life the tree which is inherent in that one seed. In that single purpose is found their unity.
So diversity exists. It defines the church. It is an obvious reality within the Church of God. Diversity has always thrived within God’s church. And in our “reformation movement.” In spite of our claim on the doctrine of unity, we are still trying to understand it. And accept it.
Many well-meaning Christians would take us down the road of legalism, seeking to deal with our diverse opinions by limiting our choices, silencing our voices, shaping us like “peas in a pod.”
Many praise our diversity, flaunting slogans like “a personal God” or “congregational autonomy” or “open communion” or “no creed but the Bible.” They decry the accountability which Christian unity requires.
Someone talked about the man who climbed on his horse and rode off in all directions. I fear that describes the Church of God, for we abhor the legalism which would bind us together, but we lack neither the uniting message or mission which could hold us together.
That is why I pray for a prophet – someone who proclaims our message so clearly that we will rally, not by ruling force but by religious fervor, and truly work together in unity. That may be too much to ask, but we should remember that our pioneer ministers knew real unity – the cure for destructive diversity – could not exist apart from holiness. Ah, there’s a truth to explore!
"anonymous",
Thanks for your additional clarifications and comments. Well-stated. I agree wholeheartedly that diversity can be either abused or ignored. Your distinction between uniformity and unity is also very valid.
You talk about "the united message and mission". Again, you are spot on. That is what is being ignored, either by legalism or relativism.
The only point at which I would disagree with you is in the calling for a prophet, at least in the singular sense. In the midst of our diversity there already are several prophets within our movement calling us back to our message and mission. Unfortunately, however, they have been largely ignored, discounted, or even badgered because they do not conform to the uniformity that many insist upon. God has and continues to raise such individuals but are our hearts hardened to hear?
Anonymous said:
"I pray for a prophet – someone who proclaims our message so clearly that we will rally, not by ruling force but by religious fervor, and truly work together in unity."
I question that desire for two reasons.
First, biblical prophets were seldom known for "proclaiming a message clearly." Read Isaiah or Jeremiah (or, for that matter, the endtime prophecies of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Matthew). They spoke in symbols, figures, and allegories that people are still trying to understand. In fact, God more often sent prophets (including Jesus) so that "hearing, they might not understand." The prophet winnowed and separated people, instead of unifying them.
In biblical times, about the only reason people rallied around a prophet was...to stone the prophet!
So if we want a clear, persuasive communicator to motivate people and inspire them to work toward ambitious goals, let's pray for that. But let's realize that's not a prayer for a prophet---at least not in the biblical sense.
Second, I question the desire for a Church of God prophet, because a person who proclaims the message of a group (however attractive that message might be) tends to produce a cult instead of a revival. Great evangelists such as George Whitefield, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham called people to a life-changing personal relationship with God. But Christian leaders who have attempted to gather a group of Christians by prescribing a profile of acceptable thought and behavior ("our message") are remembered as cult leaders instead of evangelist. They spread the "bad news" of sectarianism instead of the good news of Jesus Christ.
As Lloyd said, Christians can work together even though we disagree about theology, because we serve the same Lord. I believe the desire for a central leader to rise up and expound "our message" is not a desire for Christian unity, but a desire for sect-building.
Joe Allison
Fishers, IN 46037
Diversity and the Scourge of Spiritual Semantics
Thank you, Joe Allison, for providing such an excellent exposè of the reasons the church has such difficulty finding good leadership. No one wants to stand up in the line of fire to become the target of stones thrown by critics. Is that why I’m writing anonymously?
How we use words certainly affects how we are heard and how people respond. Please grant me a few moments of rebuttal for your comment:
DIVERSITY – Acknowledging that diversity exists is to admit that a divergence from what once was has already occurred. The fact that we are having this verbal jousting match implies in itself that all of us are concerned about the future of our Reformation Movement. Unless something creative is done to deal with our diversity, we shall disintegrate. Gilbert Stafford has already cautioned us against becoming a collection of loosely-linked congregations who have little in common. None of us want that.
PROPHET – I’m surprised, Joe, that someone with your experience would so readily relegate the role of biblical prophets to the realms of religious redundancy. I chose Samuel to represent the kind of prophet we need. Unlike Ezekiel or Daniel, Samuel spoke plainly. People understood him and trusted him. Even so, perhaps Nathan would have been a better choice. When the meaning of his parable escaped David, Nathan pointedly told him You’re the Man! And the result was the beautiful fifty-first Psalm. Yes, we could use another Nathan.
SECT – Your second reason to avoid a prophet seems strange, Joe, considering how often the Church of God Reformation Movement has been called a sect. We have suffered such complete paranoia against becoming a “denomination” that we have been quite quick to condemn any of our members or ministers who “dabbled very deeply in Babylon.” Such separatism certainly smacks of sectism. Even today, as we struggle with our diversity, we are loathe to learn the lessons already tested and proven by other groups. Why do we insist on re-inventing the wheel?
– For you to say that a prophet is a “cult leader” is to miss the point completely. Remember that I began with Samuel as my example. I chose to use him because God called him to serve in a time of extreme diversity among God’s people. Samuel was certainly not of the same ilk as Jim Jones or David Keresh. Your rationale is a perfect example of the situation in Judges 17:6 reborn.
– I repeat: Our pioneer ministers knew that unity … can not exist apart from holiness. It is God’s gift to protect us from false-prophets, cults, sectism, and the disarray of debilitating diversity. Perhaps our study of diversity ought to have begun as a conversation with the Holy Spirit and his ideas on unity.
If anyone – Lloyd, Randy, Joe, or ? – has a better suggestion, I will quickly cancel my call for prophet, but please don’t allow our diversity to become disintegration!
I just wanted to add that I appreciate this topic. I have been following it intently. I am convinced that the answer to the question of how we balance our diversity will determine how our movement proceeds (or if it proceeds). I respect both point of views. I personally can see an argument for a central "spokesman" that would be a rallying point for our movement. This seems to be how we formed and flourished through the first 2 or 3 generations of our movement. On the other hand, its clear that dependence upon a personality has proven to create an unstable situation for the longterm health of our movement.
I admit that through most of my time in the COG growing up, I was sheltered from this entire conversation. I am only recently becoming aware of it. Thus, I am quick to admit that I do not have the answer. I think my story in itself is indicative of some of our problems. We have some serious issues to pray through, and work through, yet a large portion of our young pastors are oblivious to the whole conversation.
Another book I highly recommend is by C. Vaughn Doner "The Late Great Evangelical Church" This book show the shift and theological struggles of the Evangelical church as a whole. I was part of the COG movement for 11 years. I now found my anchor from every wind of doctrine by taking hold of Reformed Theology.
Post a Comment