The announcements of layoffs and budget cutbacks at Church of God Ministries have generated considerable concern in recent discussions in which I have been involved. The news is somewhat unsettling, although not everyone is panicked. Some see this merely as a necessary adjustment that organizations need to regularly go through as they rationalize their activities, especially in a time of economic downturn. I am not convinced it is that simple.
These financial challenges, as Dr. Duncan pointed out in his recent letter, have been developing for quite some time and are reflective of much more profound challenges facing us.
First, I believe this is indicative of the bigger struggle that we continue to have over becoming a "denomination", even though we tend to deny that this remains an issue. C. E. Brown's suggestion that there is a difference between "organizing the church and organizing the work of the church" is true, but we nevertheless remain uncomfortable with intentional structure and organization, even to the point of this attitude being detrimental at times. The debates earlier this year over our hyper-congregationalism illustrates this. Sadly, however, we tend to divide on this issue at the extremes, and fail to see more reasonable solutions that both respect the dynamic nature of the church, and insure cooperation and accountability. The result of all this internal tension is a relatively low level of commitment to national and, in some cases, district organizations.
Second, these struggles with centralized organization are not just limited to the Church of God. There are also some broader trends at play here. The wisdom of centralization is increasingly questioned and dismantled across many sectors of our society, including government, business and religion. Our information age has spawned a new approach for cooperation: non-hierarchical networks. For example, at one time it made perfect sense for centralized, denominational missions organizations as missions endeavors were very complex and costly for individual congregations. But now, churches want to get personally involved in missions, even sending their own missionaries and establishing direct contact with churches and ministries in other lands through regular communication, direct giving, and missions trips. Merely sending money to a national mission organization does not have the appeal it once did. The lesson in all of this could be that an organization like Church of God Ministries may have a greater role in facilitating networks than actually delivering services. As simple as this sounds, it would be a radical change.
Third, the challenges we face can also be attributed to the lack of a coherent, consistent, and compelling vision for our movement. This is not any one particular person's fault (or responsibility), although it does reflect our current lack of and distrust of strong leaders. All of this reflects a steady erosion of purpose since our founding almost 130 years ago. Our movement was based on some very clear ideals, and was later reinforced by a church-historical eschatology. Since that time we have become much more geographically and sociologically diverse; our theological positions have been refined; there has been a great urge to identify with mainstream Evangelicalism; and there are other voices and groups effectively proclaiming aspects of our message. Certainly attempts have been made to cast a new vision for the movement, but none have captured widespread enthusiasm or acceptance.
In light of these reflections I believe that this is a critical time for Church of God Ministries to continue the process of reinventing itself. Or even better, for our movement to define itself and then reinvent Church of God Ministries to serve that purpose. Obviously this is a grand challenge, and not one that can happen in a short amount of time. But, it needs to happen, and we must be committed to it now.
These financial challenges, as Dr. Duncan pointed out in his recent letter, have been developing for quite some time and are reflective of much more profound challenges facing us.
First, I believe this is indicative of the bigger struggle that we continue to have over becoming a "denomination", even though we tend to deny that this remains an issue. C. E. Brown's suggestion that there is a difference between "organizing the church and organizing the work of the church" is true, but we nevertheless remain uncomfortable with intentional structure and organization, even to the point of this attitude being detrimental at times. The debates earlier this year over our hyper-congregationalism illustrates this. Sadly, however, we tend to divide on this issue at the extremes, and fail to see more reasonable solutions that both respect the dynamic nature of the church, and insure cooperation and accountability. The result of all this internal tension is a relatively low level of commitment to national and, in some cases, district organizations.
Second, these struggles with centralized organization are not just limited to the Church of God. There are also some broader trends at play here. The wisdom of centralization is increasingly questioned and dismantled across many sectors of our society, including government, business and religion. Our information age has spawned a new approach for cooperation: non-hierarchical networks. For example, at one time it made perfect sense for centralized, denominational missions organizations as missions endeavors were very complex and costly for individual congregations. But now, churches want to get personally involved in missions, even sending their own missionaries and establishing direct contact with churches and ministries in other lands through regular communication, direct giving, and missions trips. Merely sending money to a national mission organization does not have the appeal it once did. The lesson in all of this could be that an organization like Church of God Ministries may have a greater role in facilitating networks than actually delivering services. As simple as this sounds, it would be a radical change.
Third, the challenges we face can also be attributed to the lack of a coherent, consistent, and compelling vision for our movement. This is not any one particular person's fault (or responsibility), although it does reflect our current lack of and distrust of strong leaders. All of this reflects a steady erosion of purpose since our founding almost 130 years ago. Our movement was based on some very clear ideals, and was later reinforced by a church-historical eschatology. Since that time we have become much more geographically and sociologically diverse; our theological positions have been refined; there has been a great urge to identify with mainstream Evangelicalism; and there are other voices and groups effectively proclaiming aspects of our message. Certainly attempts have been made to cast a new vision for the movement, but none have captured widespread enthusiasm or acceptance.
In light of these reflections I believe that this is a critical time for Church of God Ministries to continue the process of reinventing itself. Or even better, for our movement to define itself and then reinvent Church of God Ministries to serve that purpose. Obviously this is a grand challenge, and not one that can happen in a short amount of time. But, it needs to happen, and we must be committed to it now.
8 comments:
Lloyd: please expand the following statement a little further:
"Or even better, for our movement to redefine itself and then reinvent Church of God Ministries to serve that purpose."
My other thoughts seem secondary to this right now.
Wayne
Movement and network seem to me to be the most closely aligned ideas (network being the more current/contextual idea). I love the thought of an "organization" at the national level that identifies itself as a connecting networks and missional ministry rather than the deliverer of those services and opportunities.
I'm tired of feeling the pressure to support inferior delivery systems simply because they have our brand name on them when God has clearly gifted and blessed others with the vision, passion and competency to do what we say we want to do.
I recently attended a LeadNow event that intentionally set out to connect 1,000 plus 20-30 somethings with missional agencies around the world. If we take our best or most blessed initiatives and open them to the CHURCH not to a denomination then we would be doing something.
Wayne,
I was trying to say that we have to know who we are as a movement and then create Church of God Ministries to reflect that (i.e. no vice versa).
I realize now that the word "redefine" may be overstated. I will edit the post to simply say "define". That might help.
Lloyd I think you're right on. We need to make sure that we don't redefine ChOG Ministries to save our friends jobs, or to hold together what might have been. That would be continuing to allow the structure, or lack there of to direct us rather than our vision.
I agree, network, network, network. Connect us with each other, and with opportunities for ministry, maybe even our theology. The thing that helped us spread and hone our theology (forgive me for not remembering who's book I read this in), was campmeetings, and "flying ministry." Hey, guys we can do that again through the internet. We can talk/dialog/debate with people from all over the world now. We need to tap into that.
I like the comments of both Coffeehouse Blogger and Randy; but, can we not utilize Chog Ministries as a cooperative sending agency as well? I'm all for networking; that is a given.
And yes, as coffeehouse blogger suggests, it is past time for Chog Ministries to also become a connector with other networks and missional agencies (not just our delivery system).
I especially like Randy’s comments, “The thing that helped us spread and hone our theology (forgive me for not remembering who's book I read this in), was campmeetings, and "flying ministry." Hey, guys we can do that again through the internet. We can talk/dialog/debate with people from all over the world now.”
BINGO! I encourage all to engage in the discussion of the Vision/Mission and 5 Strategic Goals of the Church of God. The forums can be found at chog.org/strategicplan under each of the respective goal pages.
Help facilitate the discussion, start a thread, let your thoughts be know, encourage the dialogue of the issues facing the church.
Blessings,
Dave
Dave has a real point. I thought there was a real possibility of moving our offices out of the Anderson area when the restructuring began. When the Warner Press Building was retrofit to meet the needs of the new organization, it left us in Anderson for a longer time frame. At one point, I thought we might sell the building to AU and be able to move out either to the Interstate or closer to Indy. But, alas, the politics is too entrenched. We are now faced with an organization that may or may not fit the needs of a 21st Century movement (as pointed out by Coffeehouse, Dave and your article) and a physical plant that ties us down to a specific community that will probably not come back economically or socially.
On another note, we (the Ministries Council) tried to create a movement toward defining or redefining who we are as a Movement. I thought this had great possibilities. I was disappointed when the energy toward this goal dissipated. Some of the loss of energy came from those who thought we already knew who we were (the more conservative branch of the Church of God), those in academia that had difficulty helping the leadership grab onto concrete ideas, and those who volunteered to take the lead in bringing this about but failed to follow through. What we have now is a list of five goals that leave me wanting more. Somewhere, somehow, sometime we must come to a deeper understanding of who we are and where we are going; why we exist and what is our mission.
One of the major problems faced is pastors of the states surrounding Indiana who do not want the inconvenience of goiving their far-out peers an equal opportunity at the GA. GA will function better once freed from Anderson and able to rotate an absorb the progressive ideas of the larger nation and finally become a national movement rather than a midwest cluster with several outposts.
Quoting from Callen Intro to DSWS BIBLE PROOFS book: Warner was searching for authentic unity through the biblical dynmic of transformation of God's Spirit. . .Christians worldwide soon joined Warner in this search. The 'ecumenical' movement became one of the defining characteristics of Christianity in the twentieth century and remains so. . .Todate, no better solution to the problem of nominal and divided Christians has been found than the one Warner describes in thise pages. . ."
I suggest reading our roots, returning to the holiness and unity umbrella that takes in evangelism on a united denominational front...........
This inability PJ expresses is, I think, pure silliness ... or dalliance on our part.
Post a Comment