Congregationalism paper - responses

I am somewhat surprised with the dialog that has been going on in response to Dr. Duncan's paper concerning congregationalism. I will write my personal comments on all of this in a subsequent post, but for now I want to share the buzz that I have been hearing on the matter.

Since posting the notification of the paper a few weeks ago, I have been involved in a number of conversations with people. You can read for yourself the various comments that were posted on this blog, but as you probably know only a very small percentage of readers ever take the time to actually post a comment. Some have e-mailed me privately, and I have been involved in several verbal discussions as well.

Overall, most people I've had contact with agree with Dr. Duncan's general premises. But, the stumbling block that I hear most people facing are the potential practical implications of all of this. There is a recognition that something must be done to overcome rugged congregational individualism, but naturally, considering our heritage, virtually no one wants to create a denominational monster complete with top-down hierarchy and rigid structures of accountability.

There are, however, other views as well. Certainly I have heard a couple of rare individuals who have expressed that maybe we need to become less congregational and adopt a more presbyterian (small "p") polity.

And, there are those who think Dr. Duncan is leading us down the wrong path. Some, it appears to me, are just plain suspicious of anything that comes out of Anderson, believing that this is an attempt to center more control in our national offices. Others, believe that there is nothing wrong at all with our congregationalism, and therefore this discussion is a waste of time.

Of course, there is large apathetic group that are so preoccupied with their own stuff that they don't care or see any value in the matter. Nevertheless, based on what I am hearing so far, this is an issue that touches a nerve for many people.

I think it is extremely healthy that we engage in this dialogue and confront head on some of the assumptions, both right and wrong, that have shaped our beliefs and practice.

More to come.

Doctrinal Leaders

In light of Gilbert Stafford's recent death, I was intrigued with an insightful post at Seminary Blog regarding "Doctrinal Leaders" in the Church of God.

Check it out.

Congregationalism paper

Several months ago I posted on the draft edition of a paper that General Director Ronald Duncan wrote concerning congregationalism. In case you have not already received a copy of the final edition, you can download it from the Church of God Ministries website.

I'd be interested in your comments.

Labeling

One of the most tragic results of a divided universal church is the increased tendency toward using labels as a way to perpetuate disunity. And, I am not just talking about denominational labels.

A sign of our times, particularly in the polarized political climate of the United States, is the large chasms that are created by using the labels "conservative" and "liberal" in political, social and religious settings. As a movement which has resisted dividing the church based on human categories, we too have easily succumb to this form of divisiveness.

Labels themselves are not evil. They are useful to describe things. The danger comes, however, when we use labels as a simplistic way to set ourselves over and above others, and to attack people who differ with us by resorting to pejorative attacks based on nomenclature. It is too easy for a liberal to put down a conservative, or a conservative to attack a liberal. It's a great way to shut someone up, instead of really getting to know them and their ideas.

Few even understand these designations. Many assumptions and prejudices are formed in people's minds surrounding these labels, and most are not grounded on any real understanding of the issues.

It should be no surprise to most reading this that the Church of God predominately tends toward conservatism. There are very few real liberals among us. But, of course, for staunch conservatives anyone who does not agree with their worldview must be a liberal. The fact is that most of the schisms and splits that have occurred in our movement are the product of conservative factions that have emerged.

Interestingly, Scripture promotes neither a conservative nor a liberal agenda, at least by current standards. These are human perspectives that are imposed upon the message of Jesus. What people fail to see is that liberals and conservatives are simply flip sides of the same coin. That is, they are actually more similar than they are different, simply because they share the same modern philosophical roots. While they appear to have different worldviews, looking beneath the surface it becomes clear that both liberals and conservatives are products of the Enlightenment, bowing at the altar of reason to the point of extinguishing the flame of the Spirit.

I consider myself as neither liberal or conservative. But, as a follower of Jesus I recognize that I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who might fit into either the conservative or liberal camps. Our goal should be to rise above the rhetoric and find our center and ground in Christ, and to avoid being taken in by those who promote a lordship outside of Jesus, such as conservatism or liberalism.

For us in the Church of God it is especially important that we put our unity teachings into practice and avoid labels that fracture the Body of Christ. Do we really extend our fellowship to "every blood washed one"?

As traditional denominational loyalty disintegrates in our society, perhaps ideological labeling is the new denominationalism that is dividing the church.

How committed are we to our message to do something about this?