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.
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.
2 comments:
I've not been a pastor for very long, and I'm extremely inexperienced on these matters. That being said, could the reversion of negative congregationalism be initiated not through a national process but instead through grass-roots inter-congregational programs that eventually grow into national entities? It seems from the discussions I've read so far that the struggle is between the ideas of a centralized, top-down structure versus an autonomous, individualistic structure, as though those two ideas were mutually exclusive. Would it be possible to have both?
Right now, we're clearly master of the latter. Without abandoning the history and traditions of the Church of God, could we start a few inter-church programs voluntarily? I'm not talking about programs that occur once or twice a year (although these are great to have). Rather, something that ties the churches together regularly throughout the year.
One possible example might be an inter-generational, inter-church Bible Quizzing program. It could start with as few as three or four churches committing to involvement. It wouldn't reduce in any way the autonomy of these churches; it would only serve to link these churches together in fellowship, ministry, and relationship.
As this and other programs grow, it would serve to more closely bond together the regional church. Layering, replication, and intrinsic growth would eventually lead national, and the change would be gradual, iterative, independent of fear of extra-church authoritative edict.
Of course, most pastors are already overburdened. These sorts of things would have to be encouraged by pastors but carried out by the lay ministry.
Our Church at New Horizons started a Bible Bowl with area COG congregations when they first planted the church. We were up to 300-400 people attending the events. When our pastors moved onto other minitries the program died. It died not because it wasn't a great program, but due to lack of training. We need to train more than one person on the programs that are working. We don't know when God will call us to move some where or take us home. Since moving to IN our church is involving area churches (not just COG) in programs of out reach to communities. This cuts down on financial burdens for one church, allows for more people to get to know each other, promotes unity, and reaches more people for christ. We are excited about what God is doing in New Castle.
Deb Losch
Post a Comment