What draws us together? - II

Last week I had the privilege to spend some valuable time with one of our African American ministers. It was a good discussion on a number of levels, but one matter in particular caught my attention, especially in light of a my previous post, "What draws us together?", and the discussion that followed.

We talked about how our four African American congregations could be better drawn into the overall fellowship of our district. The reality, however, is that it is not only a black-white issue. The Pacific Northwest Association is probably the most diverse regional district within the Church of God, and I'm not just talking about race. Beyond the diversity represented in African American, Hispanic, and Native American churches, we also have a very wide spectrum of congregations in terms of ministry philosophy and, dare I say, even theological perspective. Much of this can be attributed to the unique challenges we face living in the most unchurched and highly secularized area of the country.

The tentative solution we explored in our talk is that our unity is likely not going to be achieved merely by trying to get everyone to participate in common events and programs. While such corporate practices are ways that we can tangibly experience our togetherness, the reality is that even when we come together it is almost impossible to find fully meaningful expressions that truly take into account the diverse cultures across our expansive region, which covers portions of three states. Some bemoan the fact that there is less of a Church of God "style" in language, worship, etc. than in past generations, but this is a reality of the diverse nature of the Body of Christ at large, of which we are committed to uphold over our "denominational" provincialisms.

We must be reminded that our unity is first and foremost in Christ. But, we must even be reminded what that means. This unity in Christ is not just a sterile assent to certain doctrinal beliefs concerning Christ. It is recognizing that as a result of the sacrificial life of Jesus we are also to take up the cross and follow him. That is, through the church to join his Kingdom effort within the world.

In other words, mission is the primary way that we are to express our unity. More often than not we have been distracted by other attempts at uniformity and conformity merely through doctrine and corporate practices, and have failed to demonstrate the most important way that we can rally together under the lordship of Christ.

NAC changes

I recently received a packet of materials from Church of God Ministries pertaining to this summer's North American Convention.

Two things in particular stood out to me:

1. This year's preaching schedule from Monday through Wednesday appears to have the same speaker and sermon each day. In other words, two identical? services each day but at different times. This is a radical departure from the previous format, but in truth the morning services have not been well attended in recent years. I'd be interested to hear the rationale for this change, but it is evident that they are experimenting with changes because of new realities.

2. I was very disappointed to see that this year there is no guest speaker from outside our movement. This has been a personal highlight for me in recent years (e.g. Reggie McNeal and Jim Wallis) and is important for us to have input from the outside.

As I've indicated before, we need to rethink the role of the NAC and be willing to think outside the box. The changes proposed this year are hardly steps in that direction.

What draws us together?

The matter of autonomy versus accountability is a significant discussion topic right now in the Church of God. This was evidenced in my recent post, "Congregationalism", and in the comments that followed. And, I hear this discussion coming up in many other settings as well.

As a movement we struggle because we are wanting to affirm our identity, but are frustrated because we have been largely stagnate, as one commenter noted.

Some are concerned that the move toward greater structural accountability is a move away from our core beliefs and values, and that we will become another denomination. I understand the concern, but I think it misses the point, and is a hyper-spiritualized smokescreen that avoids our sinful independence.

All of this seems to beg some more foundational questions that we must ultimately address: What is it about the Church of God that is unique? What is it that should unite us and draw us together?

The answers cannot be fully explored in this one post (and may require several, and even a book!), but some basic observations can be made.

For the most part, and in real terms, we have found our commonality in our doctrines and practices. Gilbert Stafford, in his two Crossroads books, asserted this and bemoaned the dilution of these two elements within our movement. Certainly, when we grasp for ways to define ourselves we tend to end up at our doctrinal distinctives (i.e. holiness, unity, healing, amillenialism, etc.) and corporate practices (i.e. campmeetings, music, publications, institutions, etc.). I believe, however, that Stafford's solution is far too shallow and misses the dynamic that was at the genesis of the Church of God. Yes, our doctrines and practices are markers of who we are and have importance. But, I would contend that they are themselves inadequate foundations for making us the movement we believe God wants us to become.

I believe the answer we are seeking for can be found looking back to the beginning of our movement.

The energy that drove the earliest pioneers was a sense of mission. They were enthusiastically convinced that God was using them to draw His church together in holiness, and they were prepared to radically deliver that message everywhere and using virtually any available means. They allowed themselves to be directed by the Spirit in amazing ways.

As with any reformation movement, the brazen energy of our founders began to fade after the first decade or so. Some self-doubt set in, and the saints themselves settled into more routine and structure. Soon the mission itself was gradually replaced with talking about the mission and glorying in past accomplishments. Doctrine and practices became our rallying points. We also bought into the rational Christianity of Evangelicalism, and were largely constrained by Midwestern Christian culture.

If we are to recapture our place as a movement it must be around a clear mission of what it is we believe God has called us to do. This mission must be more than a stated ideal, but a commitment to Christ that expresses itself in practical action. As I see it, our sense of and involvement in mission is the element that will revitalize the Church of God. Fortunately, there are signs here and there of that already beginning to happen.

What exactly, then, is our mission today?