In the next two posts I want to declare and elaborate on some of my thoughts concerning the recent discussion on congregationalism.
Interestingly, some of the opposition to Dr. Duncan's paper I've heard is based on the assertion that autonomy is not a bad thing and is a safeguard from the hierarchical, denominationalism that we have traditionally resisted.
While I have trouble finding this counter-argument promoted in Scripture, I easily understand why many have bought into it outright or have been strongly influenced by it. We live in a society that has elevated the individual to the highest position. "I" am the most important entity, and everything is viewed through this ego-centric filter. As a result, congregations are also seen as autonomous and independent.
Sadly, this heightened individualism and independence has been adopted by much of Western Christianity. Spiritual narcissism places the emphasis on "Jesus and me", with community values downplayed or almost ignored. Worldly values have crowded out biblical ones. It is no wonder autonomy is so highly regarded.
Certainly, our faith is personal, but it should never be private. Scripture consistently paints a picture of individuals as part of God's larger collective people: Israel, Kingdom of God, Church, Body of Christ, etc. While we encounter God as individuals, we live out our faith through our participation with and through God's People. As individuals our lives are to be interwoven with those of others: "each member belongs to all the others" (Romans 12:5b NIV).
The Church of God emphases on holiness and unity express an essential balance between the life of the individual and God's vision for the church. I believe, however, that we have had trouble fully developing our ecclesiology in practical ways. We were good at deconstructing the church as it was in the late 19th century, but poor at translating our ideals into tangible forms. Our abhorrence to organization prevented intentional developments, and instead resulted in haphazard creations that often lacked effectiveness. And it is not only with our national and regional structures that we have struggled to find ourselves, but even at the congregational level itself. It is important to remember that at the beginning of the Reformation Movement there was virtually no form to local congregations. Local church structures themselves were perceived as part of the problem, and this coupled with our eschatology and enthusiasm negated the formal establishment of congregations. Over time, however, the need for congregational structures became apparent and were developed, although as a reaction to necessity instead of proactive design for mission.
If we are going to grapple with the issue of congregationalism we must honestly address the underlying assumptions that have shaped our beliefs and practices. Then we can begin to find healthy expressions for church life. More on that in my next post...
Interestingly, some of the opposition to Dr. Duncan's paper I've heard is based on the assertion that autonomy is not a bad thing and is a safeguard from the hierarchical, denominationalism that we have traditionally resisted.
While I have trouble finding this counter-argument promoted in Scripture, I easily understand why many have bought into it outright or have been strongly influenced by it. We live in a society that has elevated the individual to the highest position. "I" am the most important entity, and everything is viewed through this ego-centric filter. As a result, congregations are also seen as autonomous and independent.
Sadly, this heightened individualism and independence has been adopted by much of Western Christianity. Spiritual narcissism places the emphasis on "Jesus and me", with community values downplayed or almost ignored. Worldly values have crowded out biblical ones. It is no wonder autonomy is so highly regarded.
Certainly, our faith is personal, but it should never be private. Scripture consistently paints a picture of individuals as part of God's larger collective people: Israel, Kingdom of God, Church, Body of Christ, etc. While we encounter God as individuals, we live out our faith through our participation with and through God's People. As individuals our lives are to be interwoven with those of others: "each member belongs to all the others" (Romans 12:5b NIV).
The Church of God emphases on holiness and unity express an essential balance between the life of the individual and God's vision for the church. I believe, however, that we have had trouble fully developing our ecclesiology in practical ways. We were good at deconstructing the church as it was in the late 19th century, but poor at translating our ideals into tangible forms. Our abhorrence to organization prevented intentional developments, and instead resulted in haphazard creations that often lacked effectiveness. And it is not only with our national and regional structures that we have struggled to find ourselves, but even at the congregational level itself. It is important to remember that at the beginning of the Reformation Movement there was virtually no form to local congregations. Local church structures themselves were perceived as part of the problem, and this coupled with our eschatology and enthusiasm negated the formal establishment of congregations. Over time, however, the need for congregational structures became apparent and were developed, although as a reaction to necessity instead of proactive design for mission.
If we are going to grapple with the issue of congregationalism we must honestly address the underlying assumptions that have shaped our beliefs and practices. Then we can begin to find healthy expressions for church life. More on that in my next post...
Posts
5 comments:
I don't want like to be a yes man, but I feel like I could have writen this post. Amen, keep it coming!
Lloyd, i wonder if your thoughts might have been different if you were still a pastor and not an area admin.
i find it interesting that while you cannot find the "counter-argument" in scripture, you did not comment on the paper itself, its scriptural basis (or lack thereof). i think you (and Ron Duncan)have hit upon a problem. i do not think we can swallow just any pill to correct it.
David,
Actually, my thoughts have emerged largely from my pastoral experience. It is at the local church level where we see individualism run most rampant. People want a "personal relationship with Jesus", but resist accountability and interdependence as part of their discipleship, or see these as valuable options, but nevertheless optional. This same attitude easily transfers over to how the congregation is viewed within the larger church.
I have intentionally not exegeted Dr. Duncan's paper. I agree with his basic argument, including his scriptural basis. You will find, however, that when it comes to implementation there will be more divergence between my position and his. Watch for that in my next post.
Reviewing this blog, I was reminded of my major contention with individualism,autonomy,and "Jesus and me" faith. The cross, which is at the core of our faith, condenses our faith into the vertical and the horizontal relationships. Christianity is relational at the core. The vertical relationship between God and me tells me to love God suplremely, heart, soul, mind, and body. The horizontal bar is our human relationships. To illustrate this, Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan and then told the inquiring lawyer go and do likewise. Wayne
Lloyd, looking for one place to make a pertinent comment re congregationalism, it would seem that this is the place. 2 comments:
(1) There is little doubt about our uninimity on congregationalism. At its core, it is not an issue with us.
But...
(2)It appears to me that Dr Duncan has used Congregationalism as a bridge to bring together the elements between come-outism and the mainstream church without meeting the issue directly. It is my belief that the "come-out" theology leads the conservative charge today, realized and unrealized. Come-outism has been the underlying current in every splinter probklem we have had. It is at the core of most of the charges of "lioberalism" in the church and Anderson, AU et al.It is the major point of our splinter groups today. Moreover, it is a large part of PF altho I do not believe many in PF see the inconsistency of "buying McCutcheon or Dick Bradley" while trying to eome to grips with C E Brown's historical approach (Brown's library being at MACU).Wayne
Post a Comment