This post is part of a weekly series based on Patrick Nachtigall's new book, Mosaic: A Journey Across the Church of God. You are invited to read the book along with me and contribute to the discussion in the comments.
"As the Church of God has grown, it has never reconciled itself with its need to create organizations, structures, and institutions. This has been the Achilles heel of the Church of God" (97). In chapter 4 Nachtigall attempts to take on this problem and provide new perspective to it, including the observation that there are many among us that are "reconfiguring and reimagining themselves organizationally in order to stay relevant and effective" (99). Yet, in all of this there is tremendous irony: We "started with a nondenominational, decentralized paradigm and then entered into a more centralized one out of necessity, only to find that the most effective organizations in the new millennium are radically decentralized" (107f).
Nachtigall's journey includes a look at a strong regional organization within the Church of God (i.e. Oregon / Southwest Washington) and a visit with then General Assembly chair Bob Moss. Intertwined with these interviews he outlines many of the historical factors that have got us to where we are today organizationally. But, the most intriguing part of this chapter is his visit to Bolivia where he discovers a national church that intentionally operates close to a New Testament model, with a flat and flexible structure. Interestingly, this anomaly among us is the result of an independent group of churches that joined us after being attracted to our understandings on holiness and the church. They have little of our movement's DNA in them and as a result have had greater freedom to live out their cooperative ministry in fresh, new ways.
Overall this is a strong chapter, and it does identify one of the key challenges facing us. We have not been able to resolve our idealistic teachings on the church with the practical needs for structure and accountability. And because of this we "have paid a steep price for our lack of clearly-defined structural expectations" (121). The irony that Nachtigall identifies is on the mark and does identify the conundrum we must work through. If we could only find healthy, biblical ways to be accountable to one another our perspective on the church would provide a powerful basis for new organizational effectiveness in an increasingly post-modern, decentralized world that values networks over hierarchies.
I believe that despite occasional steps backward, there are some positive signs that we could be moving in this direction. The ultimate express of it will be when we come to terms with the role of "Anderson" (i.e. Church of God Ministries) alongside our local congregations, regional bodies and many other networks and associations through we which we minister and find expression.
"As the Church of God has grown, it has never reconciled itself with its need to create organizations, structures, and institutions. This has been the Achilles heel of the Church of God" (97). In chapter 4 Nachtigall attempts to take on this problem and provide new perspective to it, including the observation that there are many among us that are "reconfiguring and reimagining themselves organizationally in order to stay relevant and effective" (99). Yet, in all of this there is tremendous irony: We "started with a nondenominational, decentralized paradigm and then entered into a more centralized one out of necessity, only to find that the most effective organizations in the new millennium are radically decentralized" (107f).
Nachtigall's journey includes a look at a strong regional organization within the Church of God (i.e. Oregon / Southwest Washington) and a visit with then General Assembly chair Bob Moss. Intertwined with these interviews he outlines many of the historical factors that have got us to where we are today organizationally. But, the most intriguing part of this chapter is his visit to Bolivia where he discovers a national church that intentionally operates close to a New Testament model, with a flat and flexible structure. Interestingly, this anomaly among us is the result of an independent group of churches that joined us after being attracted to our understandings on holiness and the church. They have little of our movement's DNA in them and as a result have had greater freedom to live out their cooperative ministry in fresh, new ways.
Overall this is a strong chapter, and it does identify one of the key challenges facing us. We have not been able to resolve our idealistic teachings on the church with the practical needs for structure and accountability. And because of this we "have paid a steep price for our lack of clearly-defined structural expectations" (121). The irony that Nachtigall identifies is on the mark and does identify the conundrum we must work through. If we could only find healthy, biblical ways to be accountable to one another our perspective on the church would provide a powerful basis for new organizational effectiveness in an increasingly post-modern, decentralized world that values networks over hierarchies.
I believe that despite occasional steps backward, there are some positive signs that we could be moving in this direction. The ultimate express of it will be when we come to terms with the role of "Anderson" (i.e. Church of God Ministries) alongside our local congregations, regional bodies and many other networks and associations through we which we minister and find expression.
5 comments:
You do a nice summary of Patrick with each chapter,Lloyd; I still look for some "personal" insights or responses. Re Bolivia, I do not believe they could operate as they do in our American culture. As for our interrelating, I have come to the conclusion that we are not really autonomous, we just think we are because we have no controlling headquarters. If we would follow our longterm teaching, we are a "body" (biblical language), or a family. However, we have retrogressed to the level of our narcissistic society in which we are all our own anarchists--a very lawless people who prefer to use fuzzbusters to outrun the speed cops. That identifies our national church today, or lack thereof.
judging by the lack of comments, Lloyd, I'd say the passive lurkers have taken over the church. When everybody does nothing, nothing gets done.
I thought this would create much conversation, but what do I know...
Certainly apathy is a killer. I can understand the frustration of those who are worn out because of these issues. Nevertheless, we must come to terms with them if we are to move forward.
You are providing a good service here. I finished the book and loaned it out before you began your series. Patrick enhanced my appreciation for the Movement as it is, raised my sights in some places, and left me with the feeling we have a pretty good thing going, if we are not too apathetic to keep it going. He prodded my thinking on autonomy and started me looking at several sources for further processing.
"As the Church of God has grown, it has never reconciled itself with its need to create organizations, structures, and institutions. This has been the Achilles heel of the Church of God"
You know Lloyd, the more I examine the situation, the more true I see that. We organize things out of necessity but then people do not want to be accountable to follow through. If you read back through events like Anderson CM, The GT Co handled those details and expenses for year and the church did not have to worry about it until I think the year was 1967 when the Min. Council was organized and the church became accountable. Been unrest ever since.
Post a Comment