I wasn’t going to post this MissionalCOG de-motivational poster until I had gotten my 4th call or email this week detailing conversations had with a variety of denominational administrators that have spoken in terms that are less than flattering of me which include mischaracterizations of my integrity and doctrinal views (yes I do affirm the deity of Jesus, no I am not a Brian McClaren Emergent, yes I do speak in tongues). One person said I was a radical…I have to agree with that one.
Anyway, it’s all quite flattering that one of the southernmost USA pastors/church planters and a 34 year old blogger is such a bother…not exactly sure why. I’m glad to know the right people are talking about me…just wish it was in friendlier tones. Oh well, it doesn’t look like I’m winning a popularity contest right now…definitely not getting cool points for requesting audit reports and objecting to signing confidentiality agreements that cite defunct passages from 8 year old General Assembly Minutes, posting my thoughts about the misappropriation of the State EHM Budgets on Acts, MissionalCOG, or something…can’t pinpoint it.
But with all of this as background, it does raise a few questions that we can discuss while we’re waiting to find out exactly how the unified budget goes down and what the rest of the agenda looks like. Seeing that we are past the 90 day mark on prior notice, we are at least safe to say that we should have no agenda items that will change or have the potential to change doctrinal positions or church by-laws. (wink, wink)
Anyway, on to the questions in my head about “unity”:
1. Can people be in unity and have strongly divergent opinions?
2. If not, how is it appropriate for the Executive Council to propose agenda items that are contradictory to the past decisions of the General Assembly, our highest governing body? (sorry that was a bit leading)
3. What is the best approach to having aggressive dialog towards positive change while still maintaining unity?
4. What kind of unity are we striving for? Unity in mission, thought, dress code, hairstyle, doctrinal statements? What are the essential unifying fronts? What are the non-essential fronts?
5. Is there a difference between unity in thought and uniformity in thought?
THE BONUS QUESTION: Am I breaking some kind of code where you are supposed to take it like a big boy when you are getting worked over by a whisper campaign? I’m not exactly sure what denominational etiquette on this stuff is these days. I could use some advice…seeing that I’ve already blogged this it may be too late.
Filed under: church of god
Travis,
All of this could have been avoided if you would have cooked BBQ ribs at Engage 21!
Seriously, I am praying for you bro. You are in deep waters now. You are asking tough questions, and sometimes answers aren’t easy to come by. I thank you for taking the lead on asking, and keeping on asking- sooner or later, there will be an answer.
God bless, and keep it up!
Speaking of unity, I am glad that we in our church do not have the truly devisive issues of sexual orientation and the like that they just had at the United Methodist General Conferance. In many ways, we a UNIFIED and NONDEVISIVE in comparison.
Gerald,
You are absolutely correct. We are blessed to be a fellowship that is unified as a theologically conservative church. We have a high view of Scripture and a huge mission we’ve been called into.
We are blessed that we don’t have the problems that the Episcopalians and Methodists are struggling with on sexual orientation.
It’s worthwhile to note, however, that these problems were preceded by serious backpedaling on the essentials of Christian theology and belief. Had these denominations dealt with this up front, they wouldn’t have had to fight the battles they’re fighting now. Some of this played out up the coast from Travis:
http://www.vulcanhammer.org/palmbeach/around.php#pike
And I think there’s an item dealing with this on an upcoming GA agenda item.
The General Assembly is the only place in our polity where our clergy and laity can authoritatively express themselves on matters of doctrine and governance of our church. If we can’t freely propose, debate and vote on items here, and freely discuss those items amongst ourselves in anticipation of the event, then it calls into question the whole rationale of the General Assembly (and the expense that goes with it.)
I’m one of these people who hold to the idea that a church is defined by what it believes, not what it feels. If we are bonded together by our common belief and our love for each other, then we should be able to disagree and still walk together.
Many who worry about “troublemakers” in the church should lift up their eyes and look around and see the people and institutions who really hate us and want to do us in. As I see it, much of the concern is about the church’s ability to effectively respond to that, both defensively (legal, etc.) and offensively (soul winning, discipleship, etc.) That’s worth fighting for.
Every day, I get up haunted by the memory of so many people significant in my life who were and are basically beyond the reach of Evangelical churches. Had God not directly intervened in my life, I know I wouldn’t be here. It’s easy to assume that, since we have been successful in the past, we’ll be successful in the future doing the same thing. But the world doesn’t work that way. It never has, it’s just more obvious now.
Change is necessary. People’s eternities depend on it.
I think those are good questions Travis. One thing we can guarantee is that the trinity is united. So, when two people preceed opposing statements with “God told me…” we know one is lying. I would love for GA to start on the first Saturday with 2 days dedicated to prayer and fasting…yes, fasting at a COG national convention – imagin that. No teaching, no organized music, just ministers earnestly seeking the face of God for two solid days before and decision making processes start. Nothing unifies believers like weaping and praying together. Of course there are going to be some that could do that for two days, then forget all about it once Monday rolls around, but I think it would be a great place to start. For that matter, I will be arriving in SA on Friday evening, and have a wedding to go to Saturday, but I would make myself available to attend (or potentially host) such a meeting on Sunday.
Unity is achievable. Starting of course with Christ and moving on from there. I believe this site is a testimony to the fact that unity is a reality. Here in Washington DC we “do” church a lot different then most of you reading this post. One of the problems with the COG is that we have been fighting anti-Pentecostals for so long we are willing to fight anything that “seems” different. I had a minister in our state called me a protocol son minister. He said that I was all show and his ministry is a hard working ministry. My point in retelling this bizarre moment in my life is that no matter how we act we both still sons.
Traditional and non-traditional can live together; we have to remember that we more then likely will attract different people. My family is one of the only white families in my church. We have a very different Church from most of the other Churches in our state. My father is elected to the state council because pastors can see success even in areas that they do not under stand.
The truth is that we, like normal, will have to eat the humble pie until our turn comes.
Question 5: Unity and Uniformity are definitely different, and I think it’s important to distinguish between the two. I understand unity to be a deeper matter, a matter of the heart, an internal matter, a sticky goo whose substance is created from a covenanted posture. I understand uniformity to be a shallow matter, a matter of appearances, an external matter, a slippery sheen whose substance is created when our lips praise each other but our hearts are far from each other.
Question 1: Definitely yes in light of my view of question 5 (which is why I started there).
Question 2: I’m not sure I understand the question.
Question 3: We must be covenanted together in order to be able to achieve unity of heart & diversity of thought. That is why I believe that more appointments and elections should take place on the state level (states selecting their own AB’s etc.).
Question 4: Unity in mission is a priority in mind. However, a close second to me, and in agreement with Don, is a consensus on core doctrinal issues. I believe part of what stands in our way of this currently is a list of peripheral issues that we are ‘suppose’ to agree about, but which there is actually some fairly wide divergence. We need to create room and flexibility on these issues. For example, I cannot relate to our statement on alcohol, but if I make a big stink about that I could get myself in trouble. Personally, I think that our teaching on ‘tongues as initial evidence’ and ‘women in ministry’ is also a distraction. If we move beyond these side issues and allowed for more diversity I think we would be able to emphasize the ‘minimal essential requirements’ for CoG beliefs.
Bonus Question: Yes, you’re breaking the ‘institutional code’ and highlighting the ‘missional codes’ we ought to be breaking. Please don’t stop.
Travis,
On your questions on unity, I’ve been looking at it from a slightly different perspective, one of alignment vs. synchronization. ( http://darrellbjr.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/alignment-and-synchronization/ )
Alignment is great on a local level but difficult on a national or international level. Also alignment within one local church may have to be different from another. Yet we can all be synchronized.
I have a hard time believing that the one mind and accord of Pentecost meant the 120 stopped thinking for themselves. I believe it was more about alignment. Then after the Jerusalem council I believe the distinctives of the Church abroad brought about a sense of synchronicity between the Jewish and Gentile believers.
I agree with Jon and Don about core doctrines, but again I believe these to be rallying points of synchronization within the denomination.
As for being a trouble maker, you can’t slay the lion(s) without stirring up some kind of trouble. Code or no code, someone(s) may have to make trouble if there is ever to be unity over uniformity (or conformity).
1 & 4 – I think it is possible to have both unity and diversity in a body of believers. In fact, to have unity without diversity is, as previous posters have mentioned, uniformity (which is often only lip service or surface level). You and I have diverse views on at least one issue (attractional/missional) but I don’t see how that in any way disqualifies us from being in unity in terms of core beliefs and mission. Focus on the important things and allow room for dialog and even disagreement. The Church of God began by saying it wanted no part of “man made” creeds and now we find ourselves trying to identify ourselves with where we fall on those “man made” policies and by laws. Each COG shares the same Spirit and while our houses look differently a person should find the same Spirit in any COG in the world.
2 – I’m not sure what this means either.
3 – This question about aggressive dialog turning into positive change reminded me of an article I was reading in the tire shop this past week. It is from Fortune Magazine in an article interviewing some successful people about the “Best Advice You Ever Got”. Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo says the best advice she ever got was “assume positive intent”. Even when you think you really know what the person is saying is meant in a negative way, make the choice to assume they mean in it a positive.
“sometimes in the heat of the moment, people say things. You can either misconstrue what they’re saying and assume they are trying to put you down, or you can say, “Wait a minute. Let me really get behind what they are saying to understand whether they’re reacting because they’re hurt, upset, confused, or they don’t understand what it is I’ve asked them to do.” If you react from a negative perspective – because you didn’t like the way they reacted – then it just becomes two negatives fighting each other.”
I think sometimes people in authority may react in a negative way because of insecurity. There is a difference in asking a question and being questioned and often times the way in which we “aggressively discuss” may imply a questioning and project a negative intent.
I think we must also avoid ad hominem arguments…on both sides.
Don’t be discouraged Travis. While I may not always hold to every position the same way you do, I appreciate what you’re doing to bring about a culture of change in the Church of God. I think there are a lot of people who are still silently “on the same side” as you.
I won’t dare offer any advice to you about something I have never done but simply encourage you to keep doing what you have been called to do in your ministry to the denomination. This is beyond you and your own power. Be empowered by the Spirit my brother!
[...] Conflict, Tension, and True Unity Posted on May 24, 2008 by travjohnson Writing the Unity post publicly revealed a bit of a personal struggle I’m having and some of my own ego [...]
An explanation of the second question.
If unity is to be interpreted uniformity, then it would be wholly inappropriate for the Executive Council to propose changes to our Minutes. A proposal to ordain women would be rejection of our established policies and mandates of the General Assembly.
Obviously, I do not find proposed change to be rebellious. Neither do I find proposals from the General Council to be rebellious. Speech about proposed changes would not be rebellious. Nor, would discussion of established policies for the purpose of negotiating the best route forward.
Divergent thought could not possibly be disunity. I could go on about how this plays out in our particular structures. But, I don’t want to convolute this response.
Don,
My uncle, David Lemons was one of the few men involved in the process of updating the Declaration of Faith back in the 80′s. His dad, MS Lemons had credential #2. Then, there was no Declaration of Faith. In fact, at that time, we rejected…possibly despised man-made creeds.
When David was reworking the Declaration of Faith he received a letter from another person in my family who asked “how we could be so arrogant that we could reduce the Gospel to a series of series of sentences?”
It always amazes me the number of descendants and relatives of our denomination’s most illustrious ministers that visit or moderate this blog. Sometimes I feel like a lion in a denful of Daniels!
I think the best use of the Declaration of Faith isn’t to reduce the Gospel to a series of sentences, but to define what’s really important. It’s easy to accumulate many things that we think define us but really don’t. That’s part of our present problem: there are many things people expect to see in a Pentecostal church which are more culturally oriented or are not consistently incidental to the move of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, you really don’t want the thrill of a church which abandons the basics of Christianity. I can tell you that based on personal experience.
Documents such as the Declaration of Faith, the Thirty-Nine Articles and others aren’t perfect or complete expressions of faith. But you never appreciate them until you enter an environment where large segments of your church jettison meaningful Christianity altogether. As I said earlier, we’re blessed that we’re not presently in that condition.
Travis,
I honestly agree with whoever wrote that letter to your uncle. Maybe in order for us to move forward in “aggressively pursuing the Mission of Jesus,” we must first return to our foundations.
Long before the statement of faith, before the legalism was a time (1884) when a small group of believers in the Unicoi Mounains gathered with a passion for renewal…
“Richard G. Spurling led a small group of like-minded friends in prayer and study of Scripture and church history in search of an answer to the spiritual inertia and legalism. His burden was for the simple faith of Jesus to be restored to the church (Like a Mighty Army pg 9).
Sounds familiar…
“Aggressively pursuing the Mission of Jesus”
“The simple faith of Jesus”
Don my friend, I disagree
You are arguing from a position of fear.
“Documents such as the Declaration of Faith, the Thirty-Nine Articles and others aren’t perfect or complete expressions of faith. But you never appreciate them until you enter an environment where large segments of your church jettison meaningful Christianity altogether. As I said earlier, we’re blessed that we’re not presently in that condition.”
These statements of faith keep no one in the faith. They furthur divide us and often give us course to take the place of the Holy Spirit who is the one who leads us to all wisdom and truth. These documents give us a false sense of security.
The problem with saying “I think the best use of the Declaration of Faith isn’t to reduce the Gospel to a series of sentences, but to define what’s really important,” is that we have NO RIGHT to define what, from all of God’s revelation, is “really” important.
It is if all scripture is God breathed “ALL SCRIPTURE” is really important.
Concerning the Christian Union’s take on creeds, here’s a link to the text of R.G.Spurling’s “The Lost Link”: http://199.72.70.107/Resources/LostLinkfiles/TheLostLink.htm
This provides us a glimpse into what R.G. Spurling was thinking when the Christian Union was organized. (BTW, I find it interesting that the involvement of Richard Spurling– the father– was basically to ordain his son, R.G. Spurling. After that, Richard returned to the Baptist Church.)
Matt, let me start with your last statement about the importance of all Scripture.
The first Declaration of Faith states that we believe in “In the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” Now there are many who profess and call themselves Christians that do not agree with this. You stated that we have no right to prioritise what’s important in the Scriptures. If we deny the inspired nature of the Word, then what you say is meaningless, because if it isn’t inspired then none of it is important.
We have to start somewhere. Perhaps the inspiration of the Scriptures is the only declaration of faith that you can agree to, but that’s still a declaration of faith.
I don’t think that our church should take on magisterium. I do not think it can; the whole nature of authority in Evangelical churches is a very iffy business at best, as I go into detail about at
http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=417
But I think we need to know what we agree on as a body of believers. If that enumeration is too short, we may not be the body of believers we say we are. If that enumeration is too long, we place undue burdens on ourselves that don’t come from God. But–and this is most important–that agreement must come from the church at large and not from either a structure that lacks the magisterium to make it authoritative, academics who want to “keep up with the Joneses” or just any group of people who cajole the rest of us into silence.
Beyond that, if we look at our Declaration of Faith as it exists today, it doesn’t cover as much territory as you might think.
You can be an Old Earth Creationist and be in conformity with the DoF. You can be a subordinationist and be in conformity with the DoF (which is more than you can say for the Elim Church in the UK.) You can be a posttribulationist and be in conformity with the DoF, although many in this church don’t know that. You can believe many things that can get you in a lot of trouble in many corners of Evangelical Christianity and still be in conformity with the DoF.
I am trying to look ahead. Honestly I don’t like the idea of our church having to enforce the current or any other “doctrinal standard.” But I like less the idea of our church falling victim to be manipulated by people who would take our church away from Biblical Christianity. We’re seeing the beginnings of that in parts (but not all) of the Emergent Church. Beyond that, Evangelical Christianity in this country hasn’t quite gotten the knack of being countercultural; its desire to be “where the action is” exposes it to compromise as a price to continue its place in the mainstream of society. (Or, more accurately, to make it think it’s in the mainstream.)
I’m open to a better idea on how to deal with these problems. But perhaps I should leave this to others. After all, I did say “I’ve just about come to the conclusion that the phrase “Protestant theology” is an oxymoron.”
http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=553
Great stuff, guys.
Seeing this document first hand will help a lot. I shared some of my thoughts and familial history so as not to distract from the fact that we are not dealing with “heresy.” We’re dealing with history.
We certainly believe in the Virgin Birth definitively. The authoritative Scriptures make a definitive statement about it. We believe tongues is the initial evidence by Scriptural inference. There is no definitive statement in the Scriptures. Our conclusion is that that is our best Scriptural understanding since four out of the five times someone is Spirit Baptized, Scripture records that they spoke with other tongues.
I know tons of people who believe that “the saints should wash their feet” but who do not believe it is an ordinance of the church on par with baptism or communion. I don’t think I’m prepared to bring those people under church discipline and use the word heresy. Besides, I’d hate to lose multiple members of the Executive Council over that issue.
As a side note, I’m not convinced that this agenda item is appropriate according to Roberts Rules of Order and according to our Minutes which would require 2 years of prior notice for doctrinal change. Should such an “affirmation” fail to pass and thus be “rejected,” because people could not affirm foot washing as a core doctrine, we would be left without a faith statement, period…which would be hugely unwise.
I am not going to discuss this item further until I get an opinion on the appropriateness of such a motion. I would hate for it to distract from the legitimate items on the agenda or items that may not currently be on the agenda but could be if the agenda was moved through with enough speed.
Interesting thoughts here… but I have to say I’m reluctant to mess with the DoF as it now stands. I understand how it may be slightly more binding than scripture in some areas, but I’m afraid any change at the moment could make room for more fanatical doctrines within our movement– and, thus, make it even more binding than scripture. To be honest, I don’t think the majority of our church has a solid understanding of the foundation of the basic tenants of Christian faith and practice and their historical development. If we had a better grasp on such, then I would be less reluctant for us to re-examine our doctrinal statements within genuine spiritual community.
Historical records reveal R.G. Spurling was well-read in church history and the development of docrinal practices through the centuries. Because of this understanding, he had a “safety-zone” (if you will) to protect the church from erroneous doctrines. Although I was not there (of course), I am led to believe there were specific core-doctrinal beliefs, but that other issues were open to corporate interpretation (within the given spiritual community). We must remember that Spurling believed in church government, but at the local level. And although I am not a fan of individuals claiming to be apostles, etc., Spurling seemed to follow the model of the NT apostle– going to the various Christian Union congregations he established throughout the mountains. In the beginning he served as the main link between the local churches, and he was able to provide guidance and instruction concerning the other Christian Union congregations’ interpretation of scripture.
So, Spurling provided a basic foundation, and he had sufficient knowledge of church history to do so. Unless a person attends certain courses at a Bible school or university, our movement is not good at connecting us with church history beyond our own church. If we had such a foundation, we would be better prepared to review our statements of faith (at least IMO).
And just as a side note, I must admit I believe washing of the saints’ feet is an ordinance we should be observing in the church. I know it does not fit well in with contemporary culture, but I do believe sincere followers of Christ should be following His example in this practice. (That is one of the old-school observances I really miss).
Louis, you said:
I am not saying we should reject the DOF at all. I think we’re smoking crack to allow the possibility of such on 30 days notice. We’ve had no proper discussion of why such an item is even needed. The DOF is already affirmed. I signed off on it 3 times.
Make no mistake, while this may be a well intentioned move to affirm our roots, it opens the door for it to be corporately rejected. I don’t believe that parliamentary procedure even opens the door for this discussion on this time frame. We can announce it now and entertain that motion at the 2010 General Assembly, not before…unless the Minutes don’t matter, in which case we can discuss it (per my understanding of “prior notice”).
Now, excuse me while I go participate in a baptism service (a definitive ordinance…not inferred) and in doing so avoid getting arrested.
Foot washing is a sacred act of worship to me. It is a cardinal part of our DOF. We need to amplify sometime in the future some of those declarations but let us be patient in doing so. The DOF is what holds us together even more than the bylaws or anything else. As for me, praise the Lord for the Ordinace of footwashing. Maybe some of us need to express the blessing that it brings to our congregates.
Louis: I noticed that Spurling spent a great deal of time on the Council of Nicea and the Arian controversy. I spend a good deal of time myself on the issue at
http://www.vulcanhammer.org/unusual/mlmg/
It’s worthy of note that many contemporaries of Arius and Athanasius were reluctant to fully embrace the homoousious (of one substance) formula Nicea adopted. Many didn’t see the need of it, and others instinctively saw it as a threat to the subordinationist Christology that antedated Nicea. In the course of the controversy, complicated as it was by state involvement, the church came to see that it either was going to a) adopt homoousious in conjuction with the three persons/one essence formula or b) reject the deity of Christ altogether. Although I think that the church certainly made the right choice, the Arian controversy shows that hard choices tend to crowd out earlier stances that have Biblical precedent and meaning–a salutary message for our own situation.
As far as the GA agenda is concerned, it will be good when it is formally released and we can discuss it knowing what exactly we’re looking at.
Turning to the foot washing issue, from a purely personal standpoint, my first foot washing ceremony wasn’t in the CoG but in the RCC, while in college on a retreat. I think it would be a tragedy if our church abandoned this; a more sensible solution would be to implement it differently than we do now (small groups, retreats perhaps?) Foot washing speaks of servant leadership and humility, and we need a good helping of both in our present situation.
I haven’t read the agenda item dealing with the DoF, but if the word heresy is in the motion appearing before the GC, I will have to move that the item be tabled.
In an effort to bring unity, we are about to create more division. For example, who decides what is and isn’t heresy?
There are extreme variances of opinion among the faculty at the Seminary and the faculty at Lee on issues such as holiness, sanctification, the Second Coming, verbal inspiration, and eternal punishment, to name a few. Those of you who have taken Christian Doctrine know that Gause and Land don’t see eye to eye on everything. So, professors can’t agree on some issues.
I remember one WV Campmeeting where Floyd Lawhon would preach something at night and Walter P. Atchinson would get up the next morning during the Bible Study and blast what Floyd had said — without mentioning names, of course. Floyd was the perfect gentlemen and his stock went up highly in my book during that Campmeeting. But the point is: preachers can’t always agree on doctrinal issues.
Yo Dude (on Actscelerate) is against verbal inspiration (as he defines it), but what he means by it and what I mean by the term are two very different things.
So, who becomes the authoritative doctrinal voice in the COG? The thought of that question and its implications scare the socks right off of me. LOOK, there they go
The original framers of the DoF left it intentionally vague (e.g., no definition of what sanctification is and when it happens; no mention of what “verbal” inspiration means) to allow for unity in purpose and diversity of opinion.
Can’t we see what demanded adherence to the company line (as defined by a few) has done to the Southern Baptists?
And I believe Travis is correct on the prior notice required for doctrinal issues. It has to be published in the Evangel (4 – 6 times?? Don’t have a copy of the Minutes handy) and there has to be two years of previous notice before it can be brought to the GC. Of course, the argument will be that this is “merely” a reaffirmation of the DoF, but it it isn’t reaffirmed, then what?
This is a slippery slope with no cushions at the bottom. We need to be very careful on this one.
Just my O,
Keith
Don,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond back. Your probably right that the inspiration of scripture is a sufficient DoF for me.
There are a few statements that in the DoF I would prefer different wording but on the whole I think it is fine the way it is. Your correct there is, in general, a lot of lattitude. Why are we messing with it anyway?
Did I miss something? Is there a move to remove footwashing from the DoF?
I was wonderinfg if any of you Ordained Buishops have the agenda as of yet. I know it is not online. We all need time for the possaible changes in our church. Maybe we will be given only a month for this., I sure hope not.
[...] As its stands, the Declaration of Faith is a document with a fair amount of breadth to it, as I pointed out here: [...]
[...] In a comment on MissionalCOG on why it’s not wise to revise the Church of God’s Declarat…, Louis Morgan made the following observation: [...]