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.
Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An archived blog pertaining to the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), with the intent of provoking constructive discussion related to our theology and mission, within broad contexts. The intent is to see our emphases on holiness and unity become more meaningful and practical for the complex world in which we live. NOTE: This blog is not associated with a similarly named blog located at www.chogblog.com
9 comments:
That's quite a legacy that has been entrusted to us. So who are our doctinal leaders today? I feel comfortable saying that Bro. Stafford was one of our finest in the modern era. But who else? I'd put Arlo Newell in there, myself, but I draw a blank on anyone other than him.
stephen, i would have to say that our doctrinal leaders, the ones pastor's are using for study and growth are primarily outside the chog. just take your own study material and sermon helps. are they from warner press? yeah, mine either...
Rusty,
You're right, but this post concerns doctrinal leaders within the Church of God. You're right in that most of my stuff isn't from WP. Most of our material does come from many other outside sources. I think that's why many of our pastors have no idea what the Church of God actually stands for, too.
(This isn't to suggest that outside sources are bad, but if we're going to learn and be be able to communicate CHOG doctrine, we need to know what the Church of God, not Rick Warren, not Brian McLaren, not Rob Bell, etc...believes.)
hello all,
until dr. cliff sanders finishes his "biblical life & witness" text book (over 10 years in the making) or dr. greg robertson writes an updated theology of missions or systematic theology, i doubt we will have any new quality chog reads.
i would love to see a someone write a theology of pacifism dealing with our current foreign policy, thus returning to the roots of the chog, before the free-market agenda, hyper-capitalist took control of evangelicals political opinions. but hey, maybe i'm the only one that would enjoy that read.
Rusty, Check out http://walkingwithwarner.blogspot.com/. This new blog of Wayne Warner will deal with pacifism from a Church of God perspective.
Hey Rusty,
What's up with the "free-market agenda, hyper-capitalist" thing?
anonymous,
im not sure if i worded it right but basically there is a train of thought that seems to mix the "american dream" with a version of christianity. the results are lethal to authentic christian beliefs. for example, anybody that is for increasing the resources of the poor is labeled a socialist by these money first individuals. i started calling them hyper-capitalist after realizing that capitalism isn't bad until it promotes injustice. i wanted to distinguish between the two. as far as the free market agenda goes, it is the mindset of christians that judge the poor and label them as lazy and unwilling to join "rat race" that they are so fond of.
historically, evangelicals were opposed to the conservative policy of tax breaks to the rich, larger military, educational cuts, etc.. but a few christian leaders that hated bill clinton rallied their troops to join the republican party and deemed it the "moral" party. there is NO moral party. they are both outrageous!
Hi Rusty,
I couldn't agree more. The outrageousness of the two parties has left me with nobody worth voting for in this next election.
I was a bit concerned about your explanation. It doesn't seem to me that tax breaks, larger military, and education should have any hearing at all in the church. These are not moral issues but rather neutral. People's opinions could go either way depending upon their own understanding of economics, and they could not be Biblically incorrect either way. I don't see that the Bible addresses any of these issues, so why is the church weighing in on them?
Other issues, however, seem to be huge moral issues, but historically, the church has done and said little - abortion, the homosexual agenda, sex outside of marriage, prayer in public (schools and now other places, too), etc. The church even abdicated its role to provide for the poor, so the government took it over. If we hadn't given it up, the poor would be better provided for, and there would be better accountability.
If the church would get back to being the church, I think we would be better off.
anonymous, i ran across this today in an email advertising a new bible study for small groups:
"The average American encounters more than 3000 advertisements each day.
The formula for most ads is:
1. You are not happy
2. You will be happy if you purchase this product.
How has this overwhelming commercial message shaped our view of spirituality, the church and Jesus? In Free Market Jesus, Donald Miller illustrates how culture always serves as a lens for our understanding of Christianity. He then addresses how scripture defines spirituality and why the scripture is still relevant in our modern culture."
back to your post though, i don't think elected officials are supposed to dictate morality to the church. it is dangerous to vote for someone based on their moral stance because history shows us that morality is simply a platform used to win elections. i.e. we have had a conservative president for 8 years that has done nothing to limit, reduce, or outlaw abortions. it was simply a platform he said he opposed. but did he oppose it enough to do anything about it? no. i am enjoying the book "the myth of a christian nation" right now. you might really enjoy it. i think we are pretty much in agreement on the role of politics in the church but it's hard to express/explain via text on a blog. please feel free to leave a comment on my latest post on my page.
Post a Comment