There's terminology that I use on this blog that I've never explained. Some who read carefully may have picked up on it.
I use three different terms to refer to the denominational body of which I am a member.
1. Church of God. This is the name our founders, our thriving movement people, believed was the biblical name for a community of followers of Jesus. It's the name I give to us in our movement days.
2. Churches of God. This is the name that members of the body determined was biblically more accurate to describe a community of numerous congregations of the Church of God. The General Eldership actually changed the name, some time in the late 1800s. Ed Rosenberry or Mike Walker, I'm certain, know the precise date off the top of their heads. They know our history better than I do.
I use this term to describe us during the time we were no longer a vital movement, but increasingly organized and, eventually, institutionalized...and when we stopped seeking to be a part of, as Winebrenner called it, "another great Reformation," happily settling into being just another small Protestant group.
3. CGGC. This term was invented by Wayne Boyer and used by us beginning with his tenure as CGGC E. D.. I myself use it to describe our body from the time we launched 35,000 X 2000 (before Wayne became E. D.)--when we reorganized and rewrote our constitution, describing our Executive Director as our "Chief Executive Officer."
---------------
The Church of God was a thriving and blessed spiritual movement that formed in 1830 which, by the time it was superseded by the Churches of God, had expanded to about 800 congregations in approximately 60 years.
The Churches of God organized and institutionalized itself and drained the once thriving movement until it had decayed spiritually and declined numerically to the point that, in the late 1900s, its defeated and overwhelmed hierarchy sought to reorganize.
Sadly, it reorganized by multiplying the number of paid institutional staff positions and increasing the size and power of its institutional hierarchy, substantially increasing the number of Councils, Commissions, Committees and Task Forces to become the CGGC.
Virtually everyone, including today's paid staff of the CGGC, understands that the CGGC has been a disaster. Hence, the attempts to create two Mission Statements in ten years' times, the constant casting and recasting of vision and, now the creation of a first-ever Strategic Plan.
Still, in spite of vigorous efforts to plant and adopt and renew churches, spiritual decay and numerical decline continues, as recent General Conference sessions statistics reveal.
---------------
In the passage of Scripture known as The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven. (Mt. 5:20)
Among people who believe in Jesus, righteousness is the center of life. In each of the three eras of our history we've had distinct notions of what right living is.
People are very serious about what righteousness is. All of us are.
Church of God people were so serious about what they understood righteousness to be that John Winebrenner wrote righteousness into his 27 points of The Faith and Practice of the Church of God, which was far more than a doctrinal statement. It described what we do.
CGGC institutional leaders today are also very serious about what they think righteousness is. They are every bit as serious as were the Church of God people in our thriving, movement days.
CGGC righteousness is rooted in the business model, church-focused, theology that launched 35,000 X 2000. It understands righteousness taking place with local churches and the denomination as the center of the Christian's universe.
---------------
That's all historical background. Here's the point of this post:
I'm beginning to suspect that war has been declared.
The Nick and Dan Bible Study Podcast...
...the product of the passion of the new ERC E. D., along with a member of the ERC Ad Council who is also a member of the General Conference Ad Council,...
...is clear that it defines righteousness very differently than does the CGGC.
And, both guys are not afraid, in their own words, to be controversial, even, occasionally, offensive and to call the CGGC to repent.
Understand: The episodes are always positive and upbeat and constructive but, also, always focused and forceful.
Through four episodes, it appears that the podcast's purpose is to call CGGC people to repent of their understanding of what righteous is.
From the standpoint of history, in my opinion, the podcast calls CGGC people live in the way Church of God people lived in our vital, thriving, blessed movement days, understanding that this is a different time.
Nick and Dan frequently talk about our "culture." They seem to want us to rediscover Church of God culture.
---------------
Here's only one way to appreciate the difference between Nick and Dan and the CGGC on righteousness:
Nick and Dan see going to church as a way to spur disciples on to righteousness, i.e., to a life of "love and good deeds" (Heb. 10)...
...but the CGGC believes that going to church is righteousness itself.
As I see it, the Nick and Dan Podcast is
pitting the spirit of the Church of God movement against practice of the institution that is the CGGC.
This is a real conflict in deeply rooted convictions about what it means to follow Jesus.
Nick and Dan call the CGGC to repentance.
And, they just may not back down.
What will happen about this, I don't know. But, I don't think that the CGGC way is going to win Nick and Dan over. Will Nick and Dan win you over?
I say to Nick and Dan: Fight the good fight.
It's time to pray that we let the Lord have a hand in what we do with this.
No comments:
Post a Comment