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?
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?
8 comments:
Just got in from spending the day with my dad and his brother- both retired church of God pastors- both in their 90's- both can sit and tell stories of times together with our earliest pioneers. Today I learned alot more about D.O. Teasley and A.L. Byers. We spent the afternoon talking about the church- her changes- singing: Churches Jubilee, Church of God Thou Spotless Virgin, I'm Going On... the song... but I could go on, we sang. Then came home and read your blog... nicely done, again. But after so much singing- I might say the church was united by what we were for - Jesus... The Jesus Who wanted His church to be ONE - and what we were against -the people who had destroyed unity in God's church- the denominations, their rules, their creeds... them. We believed God had a special purpose for us- to unite His Entire Church into ONE. Not many of us believe that any longer. Your book may need to be about our redefined role... but Dr. Stafford covered that topic pretty well.
Eric
You raise some important issues... while I don't have specific answers to your questions, here are a couple of thoughts:
First, asking "What is it about the Church of God that is unique? What is it that should unite us and draw us together?" already assumes that the Church of God is, as you put it, "another denomination." If we focus on characteristics that make us unique from other Christian groups, then we run the risk of separating ourselves and dividing the church yet again. So we need to be very careful in phrasing and thinking about the questions you ask (which are necessary to ask!).
Another thought... you wrote, "I believe the answer we are seeking for can be found looking back to the beginning of our movement." Dr. Walter Froese, the church history professor at the AU seminary, has said on multiple occasions that a movement like the Church of God must, in an overall sense, be forward-looking. Otherwise, it's not much of a "movement," more of a "stuckment" (my term). Granted, Dr. Froese teaches church *history*, so obviously he cares about learning from and respecting the past. But at the same time, the past (in this case, the Church of God pioneers) exists in order to help guide us in our work today. As we reflect on the beginnings of this movement/denomination, it's good to bring to mind the motivations of its early leaders. But then we have to ask, is our world the same as their world? Do their motivations apply? Are our goals the same as theirs? Do we believe that the return of Christ could happen at any time? Do we have the same sense of urgency as Warner and the others?
Again, no answers... just lots to think about. Thanks for bringing them to mind here.
--Dave (SeminaryBlog)
Dave,
Good comments.
Yes, there is a danger in distinguishing ourselves so much that we create the division that is contrary to our unity ideal. But, there is a difference between knowing our identity and asserting it above others.
I fully agree that we need to be forward looking. We need to get beyond the past and find where God is leading us in the future. Having said that, however, we can learn from our past (both the positive and negative). I was pointing out that the clear mission praxis of our pioneers is one element missing today and perhaps something we need to recapture as we move forward.
I found good in each of the several comments.
What has God called us to do? Eric sounded a clear note: Jesus.qeuoy God calls all of us to Himself via Jesus (Jn 3:16) et al). In turn, the call for us individually and corporately is to go into all the world (Mt 28). That call does not differ from Methodist, Baptist, or Chog; that is God's mission in the world (2 Cor 5:16-20 or so). We need to come out of our exclusiveness and secludedness and pursue God's mission in the world--go with God. I accept our forefathers quest for holiness and unity, their sense of a call from God as one blogger mentioned, and that should drive us individually and corporately to cooperate and complement as much as possible, that the world might believe. Sufficiently pursued, this should keep us occupied and busy, it should keep us accountable to each other--a theme Ed Foggs was exclaiming 20 years ago. Wayne
Thanks Lloyd. You are a refreshing voice to me. And such questions. Questions I haven't heard from very many people older than me(31). I do see/hear more and more of us talking about mission. It gives me hope that I can hang in there with ChOG. For a while yet anyway.
I think we must each ask the mission question. Starting with my house, my neighbors, my neighbor hood, my city and so on. God has asked us to be Him to the world around us.
here lies my angst: singing songs, preaching unity, reaching out to every blood washed one, but I only see is sound waves. Exactly, you can't see them. I don't see us, by in large reaching out to the world around us in the sense of mission. I'll now refer back to my hope that I'm seeing some of this happening. We hang out and listen to inspiring messages about what we have in common, but as Ron Martoia said, "information in, does not equal transformation out." (MI GA 2006)
I love history. When on vacation I can sit and watch the History Channel for days. History has repeated itself in us. In many ways we have become what the "founders" were trying to change about the church. What helped our movement spread so widely, was that in our beginnings we used innovative ways, and by whatever vehicle we had at our disposal. [Trains, printing, barges, stage coaches, nearly worn out shoes, etc.] I read about stories of mission. The Good News + meeting needs/bringing healing/hope/etc = Changed lives/families/cities///world.
nice ending:
"This mission must be more than a stated ideal, but a commitment to Christ that expresses itself in practical action..."
nail on head.
I'm headed to bed.
my names not Fred.
[Sorry, I'm delusionaly tired right now.]
It is interesting the concern over becoming just another denomination. The current online poll at the Church of God Ministries' website asks the question, "Do you consider the ChoG a denomination?" Interesting enough the response rate to this question has been the highest since they started asking a weekly question. Also of note is the fact that 2/3 of the respondents think the ChoG is a denomination. While this is obviously less than a scientific research project, it does provide a snap shot for consideration.
What does this mean? One can only speculate at this point. However, Ron Duncan's paper does call us into a covenantal relationship where accountability must exist. Do we need a denomination structure to do this? I think not, but there does need to be a change in our attitudes and practices concerning how we maintain our connectivity and our accountability with each other and to the movement itself.
i find it strange that as we speak about unity and uniting the entire church to be ONE, that we have a list of 'things' that we are against...including 'them', as pastor eric stated.
if we are to be successful in our mission of unity, we need to stop alienating people and categorizing others as 'them'.
could 'we' be 'them'?
The movement I am a part of (Stone Campbell Restoration Movement) has long affirmed unity as one of its high ideals (the other being restoration of New Testament Christianity). Of the three American branches of this movement, each has taken these principles in different directions. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) organized as a denomination, all but abandoned "restoration" and pursued ecumenical relations with other denominations. The a cappella Church of Christ interpreted "unity" to mean joining them and embraced a radical restorationism. Finally, the independent Christian Churches sat confused for decades affirming both but not quite knowing what to do about either.
From what I've read (an its been a while) the two greatest features of the CHOG movement were unity and holiness. My question would be this: What should that unity look like? Do the various Christian denominations need to adopt the CHOG way of believing and practicing? Should they seek to exist and merge into the Church of God reformation movement?
Post a Comment