Connecting through CHOGnews

Life has been extremely busy lately, so I haven't delivered yet on my concluding posts on congregationalism.

But, in the meantime...

Church of God Ministries has recently launched CHOGnews a monthly e-mail newsletter devoted to "News and Information about the Church of God". This is obviously in response to the demise of ONEvoice last year, and the desire for more communication to keep us connected. There is also a print version available as a PDF download for churches to copy and distribute to those without e-mail.

In our electronic age this is a long-overdue step, and certainly will fill a much-needed gap. It's not the only communication we need, but it is a welcome initiative.

You can subscribe HERE.

Blogger: Wayne Warner

Before I continue on my comments on congregationalism I want to highlight another Church of God blog worth noting. Wayne Warner, a retired Church of God minister who has done extensive writing. His new blog, "Warner's World", is a new avenue for him to share his provocative thoughts and ideas. I bring this up now because, in light of my recent discussion, I encourage you to read his post on "Church of God and Mutual Accountability".

Congregationalism - The struggle with individualism

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...

Congregationalism paper - responses

I am somewhat surprised with the dialog that has been going on in response to Dr. Duncan's paper concerning congregationalism. I will write my personal comments on all of this in a subsequent post, but for now I want to share the buzz that I have been hearing on the matter.

Since posting the notification of the paper a few weeks ago, I have been involved in a number of conversations with people. You can read for yourself the various comments that were posted on this blog, but as you probably know only a very small percentage of readers ever take the time to actually post a comment. Some have e-mailed me privately, and I have been involved in several verbal discussions as well.

Overall, most people I've had contact with agree with Dr. Duncan's general premises. But, the stumbling block that I hear most people facing are the potential practical implications of all of this. There is a recognition that something must be done to overcome rugged congregational individualism, but naturally, considering our heritage, virtually no one wants to create a denominational monster complete with top-down hierarchy and rigid structures of accountability.

There are, however, other views as well. Certainly I have heard a couple of rare individuals who have expressed that maybe we need to become less congregational and adopt a more presbyterian (small "p") polity.

And, there are those who think Dr. Duncan is leading us down the wrong path. Some, it appears to me, are just plain suspicious of anything that comes out of Anderson, believing that this is an attempt to center more control in our national offices. Others, believe that there is nothing wrong at all with our congregationalism, and therefore this discussion is a waste of time.

Of course, there is large apathetic group that are so preoccupied with their own stuff that they don't care or see any value in the matter. Nevertheless, based on what I am hearing so far, this is an issue that touches a nerve for many people.

I think it is extremely healthy that we engage in this dialogue and confront head on some of the assumptions, both right and wrong, that have shaped our beliefs and practice.

More to come.

Doctrinal Leaders

In light of Gilbert Stafford's recent death, I was intrigued with an insightful post at Seminary Blog regarding "Doctrinal Leaders" in the Church of God.

Check it out.

Congregationalism paper

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.

Labeling

One of the most tragic results of a divided universal church is the increased tendency toward using labels as a way to perpetuate disunity. And, I am not just talking about denominational labels.

A sign of our times, particularly in the polarized political climate of the United States, is the large chasms that are created by using the labels "conservative" and "liberal" in political, social and religious settings. As a movement which has resisted dividing the church based on human categories, we too have easily succumb to this form of divisiveness.

Labels themselves are not evil. They are useful to describe things. The danger comes, however, when we use labels as a simplistic way to set ourselves over and above others, and to attack people who differ with us by resorting to pejorative attacks based on nomenclature. It is too easy for a liberal to put down a conservative, or a conservative to attack a liberal. It's a great way to shut someone up, instead of really getting to know them and their ideas.

Few even understand these designations. Many assumptions and prejudices are formed in people's minds surrounding these labels, and most are not grounded on any real understanding of the issues.

It should be no surprise to most reading this that the Church of God predominately tends toward conservatism. There are very few real liberals among us. But, of course, for staunch conservatives anyone who does not agree with their worldview must be a liberal. The fact is that most of the schisms and splits that have occurred in our movement are the product of conservative factions that have emerged.

Interestingly, Scripture promotes neither a conservative nor a liberal agenda, at least by current standards. These are human perspectives that are imposed upon the message of Jesus. What people fail to see is that liberals and conservatives are simply flip sides of the same coin. That is, they are actually more similar than they are different, simply because they share the same modern philosophical roots. While they appear to have different worldviews, looking beneath the surface it becomes clear that both liberals and conservatives are products of the Enlightenment, bowing at the altar of reason to the point of extinguishing the flame of the Spirit.

I consider myself as neither liberal or conservative. But, as a follower of Jesus I recognize that I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who might fit into either the conservative or liberal camps. Our goal should be to rise above the rhetoric and find our center and ground in Christ, and to avoid being taken in by those who promote a lordship outside of Jesus, such as conservatism or liberalism.

For us in the Church of God it is especially important that we put our unity teachings into practice and avoid labels that fracture the Body of Christ. Do we really extend our fellowship to "every blood washed one"?

As traditional denominational loyalty disintegrates in our society, perhaps ideological labeling is the new denominationalism that is dividing the church.

How committed are we to our message to do something about this?

Remembering Gilbert Stafford

I was saddened to learn of the death of Dr. Gilbert Stafford yesterday (March 30th).

This is a significant loss for the Church of God. Dr. Stafford has been our most noteworthy theologian in recent years. But, despite his sharp mind, prominent seminary teaching, and significant written contributions, he was not merely an academician. Stafford was truly a pastoral scholar. From his own extensive pastoral experience he understood firsthand that theology was not merely an abstract exercise, but very practical. He also expressed this through his love and passion for the church and this movement.

Frequently I hear people asking where the Church of God theologians are. This week one of them is with our Lord.

Basics for ... Living - II

My recent post, Basics for ... Living, generated some valuable responses to my suggestion that we need more thoughtful discussion (i.e. books, etc.) on what holiness really should look like in today's world. Generally, commenters recognized the need, but suggested that we are either too afraid to really get into this discussion or too prone to narrow, rigid positions.

I raised this question because I remain convinced that at the core of our Church of God identity is the emphasis on the practical outworking of faith. Yes, we do struggle with defining the implications of holiness today, and as result have tip-toed around the subject. I would be the last person to suggest that there is, or even should be, a Church of God "standard" for all aspects of behavior. Legalism is not consistent with the message of Jesus. But, our failure to help people wholly integrate their faith into their daily lives renders our teaching on holiness inert.

One person suggested "starting a praxis discussion here". While I hope interaction of this nature will take place far beyond this blog, this can be a good starting point for some of us. Watch for opportunities in the coming weeks.

He is risen!

Basics for ... Living

I received a postcard advertisement in the mail today from Warner Press promoting the second edition of their Basics for Belief book that will be published this year. It is a book designed to answer the question, "What do Church of God people believe?", especially because "newcomers want to know how our beliefs compare to those of other Christians".

I haven't seen this book, but I'm sure it is a fine writing. It appears to be an updated, edited compilation of some previous doctrinal writings by noteworthy Church of God leaders.

My question, however, is: Why is Warner Press not publishing books pertaining to HOW we should be living as followers of Christ? For a praxis movement emphasizing holiness would it not be important for us to present teachings on what holiness looks like in today's world?

It's much easier to churn out doctrinal writings than thoughtful, engaging discussions on the implications of our doctrines.

Blogging is good for your social life

On a lighter note...

According to a post at TechCrunch, "a new study has found Bloggers are better adjusted and live healthier, happier social lives."

And, some of you thought I was crazy!

What draws us together? - II

Last week I had the privilege to spend some valuable time with one of our African American ministers. It was a good discussion on a number of levels, but one matter in particular caught my attention, especially in light of a my previous post, "What draws us together?", and the discussion that followed.

We talked about how our four African American congregations could be better drawn into the overall fellowship of our district. The reality, however, is that it is not only a black-white issue. The Pacific Northwest Association is probably the most diverse regional district within the Church of God, and I'm not just talking about race. Beyond the diversity represented in African American, Hispanic, and Native American churches, we also have a very wide spectrum of congregations in terms of ministry philosophy and, dare I say, even theological perspective. Much of this can be attributed to the unique challenges we face living in the most unchurched and highly secularized area of the country.

The tentative solution we explored in our talk is that our unity is likely not going to be achieved merely by trying to get everyone to participate in common events and programs. While such corporate practices are ways that we can tangibly experience our togetherness, the reality is that even when we come together it is almost impossible to find fully meaningful expressions that truly take into account the diverse cultures across our expansive region, which covers portions of three states. Some bemoan the fact that there is less of a Church of God "style" in language, worship, etc. than in past generations, but this is a reality of the diverse nature of the Body of Christ at large, of which we are committed to uphold over our "denominational" provincialisms.

We must be reminded that our unity is first and foremost in Christ. But, we must even be reminded what that means. This unity in Christ is not just a sterile assent to certain doctrinal beliefs concerning Christ. It is recognizing that as a result of the sacrificial life of Jesus we are also to take up the cross and follow him. That is, through the church to join his Kingdom effort within the world.

In other words, mission is the primary way that we are to express our unity. 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.

NAC changes

I recently received a packet of materials from Church of God Ministries pertaining to this summer's North American Convention.

Two things in particular stood out to me:

1. This year's preaching schedule from Monday through Wednesday appears to have the same speaker and sermon each day. In other words, two identical? services each day but at different times. This is a radical departure from the previous format, but in truth the morning services have not been well attended in recent years. I'd be interested to hear the rationale for this change, but it is evident that they are experimenting with changes because of new realities.

2. I was very disappointed to see that this year there is no guest speaker from outside our movement. This has been a personal highlight for me in recent years (e.g. Reggie McNeal and Jim Wallis) and is important for us to have input from the outside.

As I've indicated before, we need to rethink the role of the NAC and be willing to think outside the box. The changes proposed this year are hardly steps in that direction.

What draws us together?

The matter of autonomy versus accountability is a significant discussion topic right now in the Church of God. This was evidenced in my recent post, "Congregationalism", and in the comments that followed. And, I hear this discussion coming up in many other settings as well.

As a movement we struggle because we are wanting to affirm our identity, but are frustrated because we have been largely stagnate, as one commenter noted.

Some are concerned that the move toward greater structural accountability is a move away from our core beliefs and values, and that we will become another denomination. I understand the concern, but I think it misses the point, and is a hyper-spiritualized smokescreen that avoids our sinful independence.

All of this seems to beg some more foundational questions that we must ultimately address: What is it about the Church of God that is unique? What is it that should unite us and draw us together?

The answers cannot be fully explored in this one post (and may require several, and even a book!), but some basic observations can be made.

For the most part, and in real terms, we have found our commonality in our doctrines and practices. Gilbert Stafford, in his two Crossroads books, asserted this and bemoaned the dilution of these two elements within our movement. Certainly, when we grasp for ways to define ourselves we tend to end up at our doctrinal distinctives (i.e. holiness, unity, healing, amillenialism, etc.) and corporate practices (i.e. campmeetings, music, publications, institutions, etc.). I believe, however, that Stafford's solution is far too shallow and misses the dynamic that was at the genesis of the Church of God. Yes, our doctrines and practices are markers of who we are and have importance. But, I would contend that they are themselves inadequate foundations for making us the movement we believe God wants us to become.

I believe the answer we are seeking for can be found looking back to the beginning of our movement.

The energy that drove the earliest pioneers was a sense of mission. They were enthusiastically convinced that God was using them to draw His church together in holiness, and they were prepared to radically deliver that message everywhere and using virtually any available means. They allowed themselves to be directed by the Spirit in amazing ways.

As with any reformation movement, the brazen energy of our founders began to fade after the first decade or so. Some self-doubt set in, and the saints themselves settled into more routine and structure. Soon the mission itself was gradually replaced with talking about the mission and glorying in past accomplishments. Doctrine and practices became our rallying points. We also bought into the rational Christianity of Evangelicalism, and were largely constrained by Midwestern Christian culture.

If we are to recapture our place as a movement it must be around a clear mission of what it is we believe God has called us to do. This mission must be more than a stated ideal, but a commitment to Christ that expresses itself in practical action. As I see it, our sense of and involvement in mission is the element that will revitalize the Church of God. Fortunately, there are signs here and there of that already beginning to happen.

What exactly, then, is our mission today?

To dance or not to dance?

The Church of God proudly promotes holy living, and for the bulk of our history we have had generally accepted guidelines of what that looks like. Yet, the list of sinful behaviors has changed over the years, and has included obvious vices like smoking and alcohol, and less obvious ones like wearing neckties and even visiting bowling alleys. Dancing is also an activity that has been traditionally scorned, but over time has seen less opposition by movement adherents.

Early this month a major turning point occurred at our flagship institution of higher learning, Anderson University. After years of pressure and coming to terms with its inconsistent policies, AU held its first on-campus dance, a move officially endorsed by the school's board of trustees. Has dancing now joined the list of other practices once shunned, but now accepted, or at minimum tolerated?

The Anderson Herald-Bulletin newspaper has an article detailing this development.

The truth is, despite that a significant contingent of Church of God people think dancing is one of the great sins that leads to all sorts of debauchery, this is no longer the general view held by our membership. While there are forms and presentations of dancing that raise concern, most people recognize that a blanket rejection of it as an activity or art form is not reasonable, and certainly not biblical. We even have congregations across the country who occasionally have dances or offer dancing lessons.

Obviously, the news out of AU is highly disturbing for those Church of God stalwarts who cling to a view of holiness that is all about externalism.

For me the shift in our dancing policies and practices is not the real issue, and not just because I have two left feet and can't dance even if I wanted. The issue is: How are we understanding and practicing what it means to be holy?

Sadly, a thoroughgoing engagement with holiness is not something we do, despite our assertions. Throughout our history we have missed the boat when we have reduced holiness to rigid adherence to individualistic legalism. This misapplication of Scripture flies in the face of the
Spirit-directed life which should mark our lives. The result has been self-righteousness, judgmentalism, and the extinguishing of the Spirit's work. And, hypocrisy abounds especially as it has resulted in a lop-sided holiness that virtually ignores other expressions of a holy life, including our social involvements.

The reaction to this wooden holiness has also not been always helpful. As the Herald-Bulletin article reveals, some of the responses to our restrictions can be reactionary. It is easy for the pendulum to swing too far or for the wrong reasons.

What am I saying in all of this?

I believe that the Church of God must be committed to re-engage in an exploration of what holiness is all about. In doing this we must be prepared to move beyond our constricted views from the past and toward a much fuller understanding as demonstrated by Jesus and expressed in Scripture. This will be one of the topics of my upcoming book.

In the end we may acknowledge that we are a dancing people after all.

Congregationalism

Last week I was in Saint Augustine, Florida for the annual Area Administrator's retreat. It was a good time to connect with colleagues from across the continent and to exchange ideas and experiences.

General Director Ronald Duncan was with us for the week, and shared a paper he wrote entitled "Congregationalism and the Church of God Reformation Movement: A Needed Conversation". It was still a draft edition, but the intent is to have a final version ready for distribution in the not too distant future.

Certainly this is a needed conversation. As Duncan says, our "understanding of congregationalism has functioned largely as an unquestioned assumption in the life of the church", and that many have seen it "as synonymous with independence or unlimited autonomy".

In the paper Duncan traces the development of congregational polity from Scripture through to its implementation in our movement. He argues that things started to unravel for us around the late 60s or early 70s. Rampant individualism in society, carried over into the local church and into the Church of God at a larger level. "Unlimited autonomy within an increasingly loosely connected congregational system" has become the accepted norm, but Duncan correctly points out that this is "totally alien to a biblical understanding of the body of Christ". Nevertheless, the result of all this is disconnection, isolation, and loss of trust. He even goes on to call this "an insidious cancer in the life of the church".

The remedy, according to Duncan, is covenantal relationships, both within and among congregations. Responsibility of all involved is critical, and leads to interdependence that is centered on mission. This should radically shape the way we function as a movement.

I affirm what Dr. Duncan is writing. If we are going to have any impact as a movement we must address what it means to belong to "Church of God" and the implications of this belonging. Sadly, the Church of God has sold itself out to the prevailing attitudes of society and Evangelicalism, even when it deeply conflicts with what we understand as truth. Even more tragically, we have failed to acknowledge these influences.

Hopefully Duncan's paper will lead us to confront these issues. Be sure to read it when it is officially released.

Reflections on 2007

It's that time of year when one reflects back on the past year and looks ahead to the one coming.

2007 was a very busy year for me personally. Settling in to my new position in the Pacific Northwest has been very demanded. This coupled with my new book project hasn't left much time for blogging. Yet, there has been considerable activity across the Church of God that is worth commenting on.

I am firmly convinced that we are positioned at a critical point in the history of our movement. There are certainly unique circumstances affecting us, but we are also highly influenced by the larger shifts that are occurring in the religious climate across North America. Someday we may very well look back to the first decade of this millennium as a major turning point for the Church of God. Either we will forge ahead in fresh ways with our collective calling, or we will continue sliding into oblivion.

Based on what I have observed in 2007, I am hopeful. While there remain large bastions of immobilized thinking and behavior across the Church of God, there are encouraging signs of renewal. Many of these indicators are subjective and intangible, but it is evident to me that a much more enduring transformation is taking place that is impacting our spirits and attitudes. Beginning with the Strategic Planning Council in August 2006, these shifts have been noticeable. This past year these observable trends continued, and were most evident at the recent Coaches Training event in Tampa, Florida. Specifically, we are seeing a renewed emphasis on spiritual direction and leadership. There is increased dialog on our very being as a movement, there is a greater realization of our need to be missional, and there is vibrant, new generation of pastors and leaders emerging.

I, for one, will be working to ensure that these trends continue through 2008. These are exciting times!

Worship in the Church of God - revisited

I have posted on worship in the Church of God before, but am prompted to do it again because of a recent article in Communion (Nov-Dec 2007, Vol. 8 No. 3) summarizing a presentation given by Jeff Hayes (from Warner Southern College) at the annual meeting of the Worship Society of the Church of God. Hayes challenges some commonly held notions in our movement, and provides some brief, but insightful correctives.

I support the renewed consideration of worship from within our peculiar historical and theological context. As a movement with certain distinctive emphases, it is expected that our worship express itself uniquely. In that regard the Worship Society has the potential to play an important role.

Nevertheless, I remain concerned that despite broadening advances we are still not grappling with the larger issues of worship from within our holiness paradigm. I have written on this before, and continue to believe that we have something unique to offer Christendom in terms of understanding and experiencing worship. This will require, however, much deeper theological engagement than we are now involved in.

A Coaching Culture

I just returned from four days in Tampa, Florida for a Coaches Training event put on by Church of God Ministries as part of SHAPE and CTI (Coaches Training Initiative). In addition to SHAPE and CTI coaches, many Area Administrators were also present. Approximately 100 leaders in total were in attendance at this gathering, entitled "Transforming the Culture by Being the Body of Christ." Four outstanding resource persons were brought in to lead the main sessions: Al Ells, Bob Logan, Milfred Minatrea, and David Ferguson.

This event was designed to bring together some of the most significant, potential change agents within our movement. The conviction is that life-change, and therefore cultural change within our movement, will only occur when we function relationally based on a strong missional foundation. Coaching is a specific skill-set that can enable this to happen.

But, all this talk about SHAPE and "coaching" is not just another program, slick methodology or current fad. What impressed me and others in attendance is the very deliberate emphasis that our North American leaders are taking regarding spiritual direction and leadership development. I remain convinced that with this significant change in attitude and approach we are on the verge of phenomenal missional impact.

Book Project

As my blog description indicates, I am passionate about finding meaningful ways to dialog about issues confronting the Church of God, including the need to find meaningful ways to express our emphases on holiness and unity. Unfortunately, these core teachings of ours have not been adequately articulated for the current time and culture.

For awhile now this concern has been a major preoccupation of mine. In fact, I have been formulating many of the ideas and discussions that have arisen and writing them down. Gradually a book has been taking shape.

Today I am publicly announcing this book project. Not that I am a great writer, or am even the best person to state these thoughts. But someone needs to do this and I hope it will contribute to further conversation within our movement.

The working title of my book is Praxis in Community: Rediscovering holiness and unity in the Church of God. While there is still much work to be done, I am making this known now because maybe it will encourage others to join in this discussion, especially since from time to time I will be seeking feedback here on this blog. Hopefully our conversations will contribute to this important objective.