Please keep in mind that I'm still having issues with the site. Your comment will likely generate an error page, but it should go through. Please hit back and refresh to check before re-submitting your comment (you might want to compsose your words in another program so they aren't lost). I'm working on finding a new host, please bear with me. Thanks.
OK, I've read the proposal and the Q&A. Read it several days ago now. This is my 4th draft of my thoughts on it. I'm having a little trouble putting my thoughts into words, but tonight it finally hit me how I feel about it:
Sad.
Sad that we are not sucure in what we believe and so think that there is a need to put our doctrine on paper in order for it to be evident.
Sad that we think that we need folks to sign the paper so we can be sure they are with us.
Sad that the things we felt needed to be ratified are little different than the things we have been saying for years and years.
Sad that we cannot just trust in God, the Holy Spirit and each other to produce unity and cooperation.
Sad that we were afraid that the winds of change might blur the lines we had carefully drawn in the sand, so we re-drew them.
Sad that there is now a line, and it seems that I have to pick one side or the other. Can I have a foot on each?
Sad that ignoring the line puts me on one side of the line.
Sad that we think that a signature on a document will make us any more unified than we are now.
Sad that this will distract, even if only a little, from the real work of building unity in my local congregation.
Sad that this may somehow hurt or hinder the new found spirit of cooperation between the ICOC churches in Ohio. I hope it does not, but I fear it may.
Sad that unity is only for the ICOC, not for those outside it.
Sad that we still seem to treat The Great Commission as The Greatest Commandment, which it is not. Ask Jesus, he knew which was which.
Sad that we can't seem to let secondary issues - like dating outside of the church, expectations of giving and attendance - be secondary issues. Instead we must elevate them to tests of fellowship, or at least tests of membership in the club.
Sad that we continue to elevate our definitions of some Bible terms like by adding adjectives like 'total' to commitment and 'baptized' to disciple. They are redundant and only seem to be there to show that our understanding of these terms is different and perhaps better than yours.
Sad that after the three years we've had to re-evaluate who are and what we are about, it turns out all we need to do is be a little kinder and gentler.
As you might notice, I do not like this proposal. Moreover, I do not like the idea of this creed-like proposal. Time will tell what it means for our churches.
Before I finish, I want to make one thing clear. Do not mistake my pointed criticism of the proposal and the ideas in it for criticism of the men who wrote it. While we clearly come from very different perspectives on this issue, I respect the time and effort they put into it. Some, in different discussions on the proposal, have questioned their motives and suggested there is something else at work here. I don't question their motives at all. I do not doubt that they entered into this with good intentions and sober and humble intentions. I don't doubt that they did the best they could with prayer and much advice. I think we do them a disservice to publicly criticize their ideas and words, sometimes quite strongly, without acknowledging their sincere hearts.
I believe that they truly think that this will help bring our churches together. I suppose for those that sign on, that may be true. But, I believe, they will be further divided from those who do not. Maybe that doesn't matter to those who sign. As I said, time will tell.
Well sad. I guess I felt more frustration and even indignation/anger at times but I'm a little over the edge with this stuff. The thing that kept popping in my head all week was you can't mandate humility. And, along those lines you can't mandate unity or relationships. You can say these things are a priority and a goal we want to strive for. You can try to create an evironment to forge humility, unity, etc. but you can't mandate it. God doesn't even mandate it he suggests it, tells us we'll be better off with it but doesn't make us sign a paper that says we will with an implied "or else."
And, I just feel like if your going to write 12 pages to explain things there should be some example of humility in it primarily an apology. After a quarter of a page it turns from a creed to apologetics anyway. Pun intended both times. :)
Doug,
I feel like your response is one of the most cogent that I've read. Care to submit it to Nonny's ICOCNews?
Amy
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/dajacoby/home.nsf/Article/D097BBA767126C368525705200712B77?OpenDocument
I tend to agree with some of the points you and Doug J raise.
From the paper:
Some brothers and sisters confuse relational unity with organizational unity. But structural or organizational unity is not the same thing as relational unity. All the Christians in one town may meet together, but not be unified; or they may meet in two or three locations, yet show display the strongest unity. In the same way, though I live in Georgia and attend church in Atlanta, I can still be unified with my brothers and sisters in London, Lagos, and Los Angeles, even though we are not organizationally one.
It is sad. I am hopeful, however. In my contacts with others, it does not appear that as many folks as I once thought will sign it.
The one thing I do agree with is a meeting to figure out who is supporting whom in order to co-ordinate efforts. No organizational unity is required to say, "Hey, no one is helping New Zealand, who wants to help?"
Great post.
According to what I understand of the scripture, unity is everything (1 John love your brother is loving God, etc.) The only thing that can truly unify us all is that we all obey the will of the Father, through Jesus. That includes (as you know) repentance, confession, faith expressed through obedience including baptism for the removal of sins and becoming a vessel for the Holy Spirit, and then, Communion to perpetuate that faith and expression of faith. The Romans 14 scripture is clear (I know that is on another post) that there ARE and WILL BE matters of dispute. I used to be a member of the fellowship you are a part of (as you know), and am now a member of a mainline coC. The challenge for me personally is: is the apparent dogma so unbiblical that I should find another place to worship and fellowship? There are obvious man made dogmas in each group (and as far as I can tell, every group), should they interrupt MY and my family's fellowship and worship? That's a tuff question. The love for the brother hood IS how our love for God is expressed. BUT, is the group that I am a part of just another denomination, and does it get in the way of our basic requirements for our own relationship with God? If not, then patience in faith (back to Romans 14) should be expressed. No? We can't solve the world wide problem of unity or disunity, and I think that the proposal is an attempt to do that. I think that it is a brave and bold attempt, but I also think that it is on the humanistic side. It seems to me to be an external hold on an internal issue.
Look at Luke 17:20-21 ~ "20Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
The Kingdom is among us! The kingdom is among the Christians. This is a different thought than what we were taught. We thought, due to the NIV, we thought this scripture meant that the Kingdom was within us, in our hearts, but that is not an accurate description of what "within you" means. The Greek translation is "Among" or here with the ESV "in the midst of you". It is among the Christians. That means, where the Christians are, there also is the Kingdom. The Kingdom is not a specific group, or sect, but a holy thing within Christianity. SO, does your church, should they choose to sign this document or not, mean that you aren't with Christians (faithful, loving people who believe in repentance, faith, confession of Christ as Lord and Son of God, and baptism, follow by the communion sacrament)? Or, does it just mean that there is weak faith among you, and perhaps this 'tool' isn't as blasphemous as it seems? I think that making the decision to not let disputable matters get in the way of our unity with each other is crucial. I agree with you that this document might just bring more fuel for factions, but Lord help you all that it doesn't. Does that sound reasonable or totally self-righteous?
Well, I can only ditto Amy's comment and I'll have to go look up "cogent" now to be sure. Thanks.
Thanks all.
Amy - I'm not so sure this fits with the ICOCnews format. It's not really news, but just my opinon. I guess he puts editorials up there too. If you want to point him this way and see if he's interested, sure, go ahead. Not trying to put the ball in your court necessarily, just don't feel that I'd call this worthy of publication. Thanks much for the compliment though.
Paul - Great thoughts, I am completely with you on that. I've got another post brewing that will address some of what you've said. It came to me in my reading of Romans 14 the other day.
Mark - cogent:
Wow. Thanks again Amy! :-)