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.
During the first week of August I was on vacation and I realize that I forgot to post the next chapter of my walk through Mosaic. Well, better late than never...
In this latest chapter Nachtigall continues his journey exploring the diversity across the Church of God. Many of these elements overlap, and geography is a prime example of that. While in many places congregations are spread out over broad regions, their particular locations also subject them to a unique cultural context which impacts the way they do ministry, thereby bringing out further diversity.
In Russia there is extreme isolation, but also the major challenge of ministering among a largely hostile Russian Orthodox dominated religious culture. The single congregation in New Zealand is alone on an island in several regards, including its presence in a largely secular surrounding. A visit to the Applachian hills of Kentucky reveals the unique form of the Church of God that has developed there and has influenced the broader movement through the Pastor's Fellowship. In Lebanon, the Middle East location has all its own challenges, especially working among Muslims. And in Pennsylvannia, as in numerous other places across the U.S., there are concentrations of Hispanics that are changing the local culture as well as the ministry of the Church of God.
The stories shared in this chapter are, for me, some of the most interesting in the book. Nachtigall depicts well the isolation that exists in various sectors across the Church of God and the implications it has for ministry. He accurately points out that we have "not always done a good job of making sure congregations have other Church of God congregations close by to support them" (174). And, we're not talking just about some of the extreme examples in this chapter, our connectivity is weak even in areas where geography should not be as big an issue.
So, what is the solution? The last section of the chapter features a "brilliant" interview with someone exploring the possibilities of the Internet (OK, I confess, I am featured here). My perspective is now no secret, but whether or not you agree with me the reality is that we do live in a time where "The Internet with its diversity and decentralized system is a reflection of our global, interconnected world" (204). This means that despite our scattered nature there are tremendous opportunities ahead of us if we are willing to take advantage of them.
I am hopeful, because as Nachtigall reflects, "the Church of God over the years has created a broad, decentralized network that allows people all over the world to be the church in a variety of ways. Diversity and decentralization have been part of our appeal and success" (205). Are we prepared to build on this in the future, or we will allow our differences and divergent nature to fragment us further? Sadly, I'm not sure the answer is fully clear yet.
During the first week of August I was on vacation and I realize that I forgot to post the next chapter of my walk through Mosaic. Well, better late than never...
In this latest chapter Nachtigall continues his journey exploring the diversity across the Church of God. Many of these elements overlap, and geography is a prime example of that. While in many places congregations are spread out over broad regions, their particular locations also subject them to a unique cultural context which impacts the way they do ministry, thereby bringing out further diversity.
In Russia there is extreme isolation, but also the major challenge of ministering among a largely hostile Russian Orthodox dominated religious culture. The single congregation in New Zealand is alone on an island in several regards, including its presence in a largely secular surrounding. A visit to the Applachian hills of Kentucky reveals the unique form of the Church of God that has developed there and has influenced the broader movement through the Pastor's Fellowship. In Lebanon, the Middle East location has all its own challenges, especially working among Muslims. And in Pennsylvannia, as in numerous other places across the U.S., there are concentrations of Hispanics that are changing the local culture as well as the ministry of the Church of God.
The stories shared in this chapter are, for me, some of the most interesting in the book. Nachtigall depicts well the isolation that exists in various sectors across the Church of God and the implications it has for ministry. He accurately points out that we have "not always done a good job of making sure congregations have other Church of God congregations close by to support them" (174). And, we're not talking just about some of the extreme examples in this chapter, our connectivity is weak even in areas where geography should not be as big an issue.
So, what is the solution? The last section of the chapter features a "brilliant" interview with someone exploring the possibilities of the Internet (OK, I confess, I am featured here). My perspective is now no secret, but whether or not you agree with me the reality is that we do live in a time where "The Internet with its diversity and decentralized system is a reflection of our global, interconnected world" (204). This means that despite our scattered nature there are tremendous opportunities ahead of us if we are willing to take advantage of them.
I am hopeful, because as Nachtigall reflects, "the Church of God over the years has created a broad, decentralized network that allows people all over the world to be the church in a variety of ways. Diversity and decentralization have been part of our appeal and success" (205). Are we prepared to build on this in the future, or we will allow our differences and divergent nature to fragment us further? Sadly, I'm not sure the answer is fully clear yet.
4 comments:
I for one would like to link with the church out there I do not know. I am interested in their perspectives because we have much to learn from each other.
Finally the cat is out of the bag, huh Lloyd? If you mentioned before, I missed the fact that you were interviewed for this book. I'm glad you made print in this volume. It's frustrated me a bit over the years that there hasn't been more of a conversation with the broader church online. I guess that is just a part of being decentralized. There are probably many different conversations going on. I had success 7 years ago, but haven’t been able to sustain it. I guess in order to promote the conversation you have to network. In the past I have equated networking with self-promotion. I loath self-promotion, even though it’s not all bad. I've learned that they are not the same, that networking is valuable, and actually something that is in our ChOG DNA. That’s a way we can recapture the early elements of camp meetings that spread and honed our theology. I think the frustration has come from people not adapting to technology, even when shown the opportunities, and the attention span of my colleagues to hang tight come up wit some real answers about the state of the Church of God as we observe and some usable solutions.
I amened a few things in this chapter, but I think my favorite is the statements and questions at the end of the chapter like you sighted on page 205. “If mission, diversity, and decentralization, are keys to regenerating our movement, what is the glue (broadband?) that holds us together?” It seems to me, in theory how we are set up should work don’t you think? Perhaps more thought should be put into translating more effectively the DNA and mission into the cultures we minister in. This includes, Church of God Ministries, our schools, state and regional ministries and assemblies. The message of holiness and unity should sound and live somewhat differently in Seattle, The Bekka Valley, Auckland, Prestonsburg, and Chelyabinsk. So I don’t have an answer to Patrick’s question, yet.
Wayne, I am with you on that! Sometimes though I feel like there is a one way street in “discussion.” I don’t think that we all hold the same practice. I just think we’re not aware of ethnocentricity. An added dose of humility would do us all good.
Randy, your comment on insensitivity to ethnic awareness interested me. That is what I am especially interested in. I watched a secular tv show the other day for a moment, somekind of global beauty pageant I think. The candidates were so Americanized with western glamor that they were boring-a total sameness.I like to know people for who they really are and I do believe we REALLY DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE WITH EACH OTHER, and it should not be a one way street.
Post a Comment