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.
I'd be interested in your comments.
12 comments:
http://www.chog.org/Portals/0/ppt/GA%20Presentation.ppt
http://www.chog.org/Portals/0/pdf/gdo/The%20Strategic%20Vision%202008.pdf
You think Dr. Duncan is really seeking "a needed conversation?" There's already plenty of energy spent in one direction.
blessings,
Eric
Eric,
I'm not so skeptical. I know Dr. Duncan wants to engage people in this discussion. (For example, earlier this month he held a forum on the topic at the Western Area Regional Ministerium). The problem might be that we don't have the best vehicles for this dialog to occur.
Lloyd,
Good for you! Curious what made you check your skepticism at the door on this issure? Just reviewing the front page of your blog: labeling, the integrated church, holiness in the church today; pretty big ticket issues, all seem to come from a fairly "skeptical" perspective.
More to the point on this issue might be your closing on "What Draws us Together II:"
"More often than not we have been distracted by other attempts at uniformity and conformity merely through doctrine and corporate practices, and have failed to demonstrate the most important way that we can rally together under the lordship of Christ."
Again, just curious what convinced you to go for the kool-aid on this one?
Don't want to come off as negative. Can't tell you how much I appreciate those leaders in the church of God who are taking the time to blog about the current issues. Enjoy reading your perspective and as info about the current desired "conversation" has crossed my desk, I've realized how valuable it would be for Dr. Duncan to keep an open, ongoing and transparent blog on the subject... a step that would make him vulnerable but one that could possibly lift the conversation to the next level.
Don't think I could blog the way you're blogging- and I admire you for willingly lifting up the issues. Hope there are a few other pastors besides me looking in from time to time. The church has so few remaining "touch stones." Odd that in an age when communication was expensive and difficult, the beginning of the reformation, (couldn't believe the use of restoration in the "conversation" paper,) the church of God exploded in growth, printing, writers and remained on the cutting edge of the reaching around the world for Christ: we were in Kenya- middle of nothing Kenya -over 100 years ago- India, Mexico, Canada, Germany. Today- with Skype, Mobivox, email, etc... little churches in the states with great internet connections and USPS feel more disconnected than ever and our outreach is going through a soul search to transform our covenant relationships. It's obviously not a problem with structure- we were effective as all get out without any... seems it's time for us to take a good look at our selves as leaders.
that's my Monday morning rampage:-)
I may have to stop reading your blog, it's drawing me back into the conversation!
blessings brother,
Eric
I don't think true dialog is what Dr. Duncan is looking for. I think he is really looking for a rubber stamp to his own legacy.
At the Pastor's Institute in Michigan this January, Dr. Duncan presented his ideas and asked for discussion. As the responses were presented, he really warmed to those responses which were supportive of his plan; however, he became disinterested in and dismissive to those points which showed the flaws of his plan. In other words, those people who disagreed with his ideas were dismissed as emotionally damaged or ignorant (or both).
Dialog was not what he was looking for. I felt he was trying to give himself a different legacy than the one he seems to be getting - the Director who oversaw the end of the Church of God.
Eric,
I don't consider myself a skeptic; although I am a free thinker and one willing to question assumptions and challenge the status quo, if necessary.
I'm also not convinced that I've taken the Kool-Aid. I will be the first one to write here opposing a top-down structure that would stifle us a movement.
But, I do believe that we must come to terms with the sin of autonomy that dominates our practice. Congregationalism has become an excuse for us to perpetuate a worldly value system based on individualism and isolation, and opposed to accountability. If we are to survive and, more importantly contribute significantly to the Kingdom, we must address this theologically and practically.
I give Dr. Duncan credit for challenging us in this regard, even though I do have some personal concerns. But, that will probably need a whole new post thread.
wow, i kinda wish anonymous had the courage to let us know who he/she is. i would love to hear more about duncan dismissing opposing views. i tend to feel that way about several of the higher ups that ive came into contact with when it comes to the under 40 crowd and our opinions, thoughts, prayers, and dreams.
Hi Rusty,
Sorry, I get ostracized enough when people know who I am.
By the way - I'm 44, and the Church of God has been dismissing those without "church clout" for decades. If you aren't part of the "good ol boy" system they don't really care to hear from you. They may say that they do, but until you have a church of 1000+, you are not worth their time.
A good example of this was Anderson campmeeting a couple of years ago. I took to calling that year "Marvelous" because every speaker was related to Gerald Marvel. It is not that they weren't good speakers, but frankly I know that there are thousands of good preachers in our movement. Why are we not hearing them? Because to Anderson, they don't matter (unless Anderson needs money).
During an interview with a church one time, I was asked very frankly what I could do to help the pastor move up the hierarchical ladder in the Church of God. I laughed and said, "Nothing! Because I'm not on that ladder."
What is really sad is that the higher ups don't know what is going on or what to do, but most of those in the trenches do. If the higher ups would leave their ivory towers once in a while, they might get a clue.
Many churches are not autonomous because they want to be. They are autonomous because Anderson doesn't care about them, and the larger churches don't want anything to do with them.
Most churches in the Church of God are under 200 people, and they are struggling just to survive and stay open. They need the larger churches to help them, but since the larger churches don't need the smaller ones, they don't fellowship with them. Fellowshiping with the small churches might require that the large churches use some of their resources to help them, and that is something they won't do. Afterall, the softball team needs new bats.
Meanwhile, Dr. Duncan has a legacy to change.
I just finished reading the paper. It does seem that Dr. Duncan isn't trying as much to stimulate conversation concerning congregationalism as he is to advance his own opinion of it. With that being said, I do agree with many of his conclusions about the polity of typical Churches of God today. I have often wondered why some of the things that have happened in many of our congregations have been allowed to take place. For example, how many sad stories have you heard of new Church of God congregations being overrun by new leadership practicing glossolalia?
And while that church slowly loses its identity and the Church of God loses yet another church, sister congregations, district boards and even Anderson seem paralyzed in their ability to step in, correct, and restore the congregation to health. I'm sure that nearly all of us can name congregations we have been personally acquainted with who have faced problems like this. It has been allowed to happen far too often in our movement, many times in the name of autonomy. How can we be sure that the distinctive teachings of the Church of God are being held as the standard in our local churches when there are little or no accountability structures in place? So in that sense, I am on board with Dr. Duncan's argument.
At the same time, we need to be careful. We would cease to be the Church of God if we adopted a truly Presbyterian or Episcopal form of church government. Warner and the early pioneers were clear that the Church of God was not simply another sectarian denomination. The Bible would be our creed. Holiness would be our bond. And the Holy Spirit would be our leader. We must honor this as we move forward.
I do not mean to presume that Warner was right about everything. He wasn't. No human being is infallible. That much has been shown in the changes the Church has made over the generations in regards to what we now consider petty issues (neckties, jewelry, makeup, and on a larger scale the founding of a national headquarters).
But let us be clear: The conversation Dr. Duncan is leading us into is no petty issue. It is an issue that could potentially redefine who we are as a movement. I appreciate that Dr. Duncan acknowledged the lack of trust many of our congregations have in our general offices. That's not going away any time soon. Leadership in Anderson have shot themselves in the foot one too many times and betrayed the trust of the Church at large too often for many of our pastors and lay people to come to a quick decision to jump on board with Dr. Duncan's vision. As long as he and others in Anderson realize this, we should be able to engage in this "conversation"...albeit most likely at a slower pace than he would like.
I appreciate the thoughts of those on this blog and hope that we can help stimulate the conversation.
Wayne Warner sent me the following reaction to Dr. Duncan's paper, and gave me permission to post it here:
First reaction was Duncan's paper sounds very Staffordish (and that is good, as far as I am concerned!!) This conversdation is long overdue!!! It is necessary to our survival as a viable mission.
Our views of autonomy are skewed by our theology of anti-organization (as well as our American "Cowboy" self-identity), among others. DSW himself started out into spiritual liberty out of his skewed emotions over his decredentialling (I think). I'm not convinced that DSW would ever, for example, have become a Christian Right Winger--his sociology was decidedly liberal by many contemporary standards).
The way we evolved as a movement allowed the development of a mindset allowing locals to reject national budget items that were non-mission and/or denominational paraphanalia. Having said that, a reading of the early days of our publishing work reveals everybody engrossed in the overall mission, strong volunteerism, strong sense of sacrificial mission and a very strong support of what would become national efforts by local workers. The mission was everything!
We evolved as a movement dependent on GT Co (unconsciously) and when they succeeded very well at their goal of becoming self-sufficient to sustain publishing ministry, we (church) backed off because they were making money and eventually we no longer supported our publishing work as we began building our own local ministries et al. We eventually evolved into the local hub being everything and Anderson incidental, sometimes irrelevant and a questionable mission effort.
One thing that sticks out in my mind is hearing over the years increasingly that the GA was "only business," and my preacher friends would ignore it (they]re going to vote what they want anyway) in favor of preaching/fellowshipping on the campground--therein neglecting GA as a vital part of what their church sent them to Anderson to do.
Ed Foggs began in the 80's emphasizing covenantal relationship, but pastors missed it. Pensions, publishing, institutions etc were in the budget and they were non missional items that pastors could not change so they stopped supporting in favor of supporting "missions." Thus, you had para-mission ministires develop, like Chuck Thomas. Chuck and I talked about this back in the 60's when he was just leaning into the mission program he founded.
Stafford has much good development of some of this in his crossroads book, and I for one, cannot see how we as a Movement can remain at all biblical, without recognizing and practicing the body language of Paul. The interdependence of the body parts, with the head et al, is mutual accountability, without doubt.
In the midcentury as a young pastor I encountered that beginning loss of leadership because of the disparity beteeen "Anderson" and the local. As a mission pastor existing on $35 week, I, as a Dayman--Dollar-a0-year--was enlisting others (some in similiar situations to mine) to support "Anderson" missions with their secure salaries, secretaries and support system. Bob Schuller first convinced me that I had a right to have a local support system (sec et al) before supporting missions.... I challenged CW Hatch in early 50s re this issue.
Something I became aware of through the years was the one-way listening alpparatus. Anderson spoke, the field listened, but there was seldom a mutuality with Anderson--covenant was one directional--toward Anderson. As recent as 80s I encountered that in pastorate where parishoners thought to send mission monies regardless of how much-or-little they paid their pastor.
Though I increasingly challenged Anderson, I remained a "company man" through my pastoral years. I identified support of our program and literature et al as part of
my pastoral calling, and sometimes made my call to a pastorate contingent on their support of those things, but that was increasingly less popular to do.
I like Art Kelly's statement very much. Just jotting down the key words and scriptures (Ignite, Mt 28:19-20; Peremeate, Mt 22:37-39; Free, Mt. 6:33; Cultivate, I Cor 12:1-7; Refresh, Jn 17:21-22 --- this pursuit could transform us, but it would be a real transformation, because it is not where we are.
We have to resolve our theological identity as a Movement (come to concensus on how we interpret Bk of Revelation et al) before we can engage our larger mission. That will take us beyond identifying with ourselves (GA/Anderson) and identifying with and seriously engage the larger Christian mission (Babylon) in issues of holiness and unity.
Lloyd, been reading through your congregationalism discussions. I must admit my remarks were too much in shotgun fashion, with a lot of birdshot.
I would reaffirm that we must come to grips with our 'selfism" and find a "mutual accountability" in Jesus name. Too many are satisfied here to go on in apathy, as long as their credentials are recognized.
As for Ron Duncan: I talked briefly with him and he convinced me (by his behavior, not his words) that he is trying hard to be a uniter. He does not go to some of the meetings he attends, just to attend meetings, or to convince others of "his" legacy. He has a job to do, one that at the core we-the-church have given him -- ie bring us to consensus. Wayne
Post a Comment