: Another motion was offered to amend the
General Council item forbidding our ministers from performing weddings or civil
unions for gays and bigamists by adding the words “or baby dedications” to the
list. Form some unknown reason the maker of the motion wanted it inserted
between “weddings” and “civil unions.” As I listened to the debate my head
throbbed with pain and simultaneously tingled with amusement. Most of the
argument centered on “our” beliefs about baby dedications. [I will not take
time to describe the debate surrounding an amendment to the amendment, which
attempted to substitute the word “child” for the word “baby.” I will note that
my good friend Dr. Ken Archer gave a passionate plea from Scripture that we must
bless children and not punish them for the sins of their guardians.] The
speakers seemed certain in what we believe; they just kept contradicting each
other about what we believe. In truth, the Church of God has not defined the
purpose and nature of baby/child dedications. This failed attempt to use them
as a form of spiritual discipline for the unredeemed suggests we seriously need
to have that discussion, but I truly fear the outcome if it is decided by our
deliberative process. JDJ # 478
Just a Thought: For me the most troubling item on the
General Council agenda was one which attempted to divide the Supplement to the
Minutes into two sections, one of which would become an “Operations Manual.” This
item contradicts our theological heritage and, if adopted, it would have
contradicted the founding vision of the Church of God. Our founders were driven
to renew the Christian church through the restoration of Biblical government. Unfortunately,
and ironically, their commitment to be guided only by Scripture led to the loss
of this vision. Scripture quotations alone are inadequate for a defined polity
for a large organization. What is needed is a defined understanding of Biblical
government. The absence of a clearly stated ecclesiology has brought us to this
point where some can now see the polity of the state/regional and local church
as issues of mere management, which is therefore not subject to the General
Assembly. But the “management” of the church is a theological task and not mere
management as though management and administration are not to be governed by
the Word of God. Rather, our position must be that whatever rules of
administration we adopt they must be grounded in the Biblical patterns of
government. If I understand this motion correctly, if passed it would have shut
down the voice of the laity on the things most directly affecting them, i.e.,
local church government, including the rules governing membership and spiritual
discipline. This is illogical an untenable. We need to move in the direction of
more voice for the laity, not less. JDJ # 479
Just a Thought: The following is a list of principles I have
tried to live by as a pastor. I first wrote them over twenty years ago.
Principles of Ministry Development
*The church belongs to Jesus Christ and he desires to give
direction to the ministries of the church through the leading of the Holy
Spirit.
*The chief responsibility of the church is not to carry out
pre-packaged programs but to jointly discover and fulfill the will of God.
*The holy Scriptures clearly reveal God's will for the
church but each congregation must discover and live out that will in its own
setting.
*All believers are to be joined to the church and in the
context of the church they are to discover the will of God for their lives and
"work out their salvation with fear and trembling."
*Every member of the church is a voice through whom God can
speak to make his will known to the congregation and therefore must be heard
with discernment.
*All members of the church must work together to plan and
carry out the ministries of the church.
*The primary tasks of the pastor and elders in ministry
development are to (1) instruct the congregation in the truths of God's Word,
(2) hold the congregation accountable for living according to God's Word, (3)
"perfect the saints for works of service" by preparing them to serve
others through their individual talents, (4) release the members of the church
to fulfill the ministries God has called them to, and (5) oversee the entire
process so that all work together for the glory of God. JDJ # 480
Just a Thought: What follows is another list of principles I
wrote decades ago. As the title states, they address the processes of making
decisions within the church.
Principles of Decision Making Within the Church
*All decisions are spiritual in nature and should be preceded
by prayer.
*All decisions are personal and corporate. They will affect people in the church locally
and universally. Therefore, their impact
on persons and programs should be considered.
*All decisions are theological and should be made in
dialogue with the beliefs and traditions of the church. They must be made with a focus on knowing and
doing the will of God.
*The persons who are directly affected by them should make
decisions. Direction should emerge from the persons responsible for the
ministry, the workers.
*Decisions directly affecting the church as a whole should
be submitted to the church in conference for approval.
*It is the responsibility of the pastor and elders of the
church to oversee all ministries and assure decisions within the church are
made in harmony with the Scriptures, church tradition, denominational polity,
and the other programs of the church.
*The central questions to be asked are: (1) is this in harmony
with the known will of God?, (2) will it contribute to the mission of the
church?, (3) is this in harmony with the mission statement and other
established beliefs and programs of the church?, (4) will this make our shared
ministry more effective?, (5) will this place an undue burden on people?, (6)
will this build the church up in unity, strengthening the fellowship of the
saints? JDJ # 481
Just a Thought: One of the great errors of the General
Assembly in years past was when we adopted the wording “hierarchical
government.” Historically, the church had used the term “centralized” to
describe our polity. I was a young minister when there was an attempt to adopt
“hierarchical” as a descriptor. Dr. Gause, the Parliamentarian of the General
Council and Assembly, stepped out of that position to speak against the change.
He powerfully described the difference between “hierarchical” and
“centralized,” convincing the Council to reject the change. A few years later
the change came back with an argument that it was needed on legal grounds,
society (and the courts) knew the meaning of “hierarchical” but not of
“centralized” and the change was made. But there is a difference.
“Hierarchical” means rule from above or rule by the sacred (i.e., priests) and is
viewed as a synonym for “Episcopal.” In this model, authority resides in the
“Episcopos” or “Bishop(s)” of the church. Decisions are made from the top
downward. The very statement that the General Assembly is the highest authority
of the Church of God combined with the definition that the Assembly is
comprised of all members sixteen years or older who wish to attend and who register
contradicts the statement that we are hierarchical. “Centralized” coveys the
image of order and control but also implies interconnectivity and interaction.
In my opinion, this simple change in terminology solidified the transition from
seeing the church organically to seeing it institutionally; ever since we have
been gravitating more and more into clergy control of all aspects of the church
including congregational life. It is no wonder that we lament that our people
are voting with their feet; we have gagged their voice by robbing them of
opportunity to speak and we have treated them like children with no authority
or influence. We have forced our members into the role of spectators. JDJ # 482
