We now have an ‘unofficial’ report from the chairman of what was once the ICoC Steering Committee. It’s no secret that I’m no fan of the UP for various reasons. However, this kind of change is good in some ways.
The biggest change is that we no longer have World Sector Leaders by a new name. The original Gang of Nine (which is a positive reference) looked and functioned just like the WSLs of old. Each member represented a set of regional groups and the group as a whole dealt with ‘worldwide’ church issues. (The delegates of the Regional Groups are analogous to the GSLs of old.) Under the new structure, there are standing committees built by function, and these committees operate independently of each other. Add in a Warren-style Ministry fair, and involvement can soar.
For example, let’s say that the Church Building Committee wanted to get help from Sam Laing. The committee doesn’t have to run it through the Steering Committee to do so, Mike, DA, and others can just contact him and begin to work together. Pretty cool.
Along the same lines, more people can be involved as stated in the report. Any structure that empowers participation is a good thing.
Other good thing coming from the new structure is that a small step is being taken to decentralize power. Breaking up into groups by function removes some of the power from a few select people and spreads it around. More can be done, but this is a great beginning. There is no ‘quarterback’ pro se of the ICoC anymore.
The HOPE tax is back, but it is voluntary and explained correctly ahead of time. As I have said before, having churches pay for administration to allow larger agencies to fund programs is a good model. What made it awful before was that some churches were told that their money went to programs when it really went to overhead. This made some ministers into liars when they begged for money ‘to go to Africa’ when it was really going to Pennsylvania.
This should also allow individual churches some expectation of disclosure. In many charities, those that fund overhead typically have some measure of trust between staff and donors. In other words, if the donors ask questions, the staff, bend over backwards to answer them.
If every US church (cooperating church and non-affiliated church) gave $1 per week per member, it would be around 1.75 million dollars. This would cover salaries (1.1 million per 2006 990 form) and much of the overall expenses. Considering that overhead plus fund raising expenses top 2.2 million, this much unrestricted cash would be a big help. More on this later.
Subscriptions to DisciplesToday are going to end. Research has shown that ‘walled gardens’ that restrict content do not fare well. Check out TechDirt for more in-depth analysis, but free content should be the part of any internet newspaper model. Even the NY Times has recently learned this lesson.
Delegates of ICoC(Unaffiliated) churches were present in some or all of these meetings. Not only does this begin to demonstrate trust, but it also sets the stage for bridging our split. That may sound strange, but we are already split into ICoC(Cooperating) and ICoC(Unaffiliated). Cooperating churches vote and have power. Cooperating churches can have delegates chair committees. Unaffiliated churches can really only observe. Any measure that empowers ICoC(Unaffiliated) congregations is a step in the right direction.
Now that this change has started, more progress can be made. That will come in a later post.
Comments
12 Responses to “Gang of Nine Retires”
Leave a Reply
There are a few hints of progress. I would think that any definitive decisions would require a vote of all the delegates, which will take time, and a lot of communication. We’ll see if enough momentum can be generated for that. Something to pray for…
I was just reading this interview with theologian John Frame. He had this interesting response with regard to what are the essentials of Christian Doctrine. The part about church leaders and teachers is significant in respect to the Restoration Movement IMHO:
[quote]If it means, “what doctrines must be held by official teachers of the church?” the question is more complicated. I think a teacher of the church should be able to instruct others in sound doctrine and to refute heresy. To do this, he must be abreast of the church’s growing understanding of the Scriptures. So in 200 AD, I think it would not have been right to expect teachers to hold a doctrine of justification like Luther’s, but in 1600 I think that should have been a requirement. Today, I think that teachers in the church should affirm the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedon Declaration, the “doctrines of grace,” the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works, the five “solas,” and biblical inerrancy. They should also be free from heresies like liberalism, universalism, extreme feminism, open theism, etc. Of course, doctrinal orthodoxy is only one of the biblical requirements for church leaders. They must also lead exemplary lives.[/quote]
The approach of biblical primitivism (in my opinion) will allow a church to fall pray to many of the problems that occurred in the past. They are bypassing and ignoring “…the church’s growing understanding of the scriptures.” Just my 2c of course.
Bobber: I agree with you that primitivism has its problems. It is not possible to be a 1st century Christian in a 21st Christian world. The only ways to be a 1st century Christian are to either travel back in time or create and artificial ‘island’ of 1st culture. The first option requires learning conversational koine and hellenist Greek and bending the laws of Physics. I’m not sure I’d like to go through all that for the sole purpose of knowing that I am really being an ‘authentic’ or ‘true’ Christian. The later option removes us from the world which I understand to be ‘elitist’ an unbiblical. (in part 1 Co 5:10).
However, I don’t think that the ‘core’ of Christianity should change so much over time. God is the same today, yesterday, and forever — why would the requirements change over time? I agree that scope and topics change over time. Earlier Christians did not deal with the denominational system of Christianity in the way we encounter it today. There’s a difference between two to ten denominations and over 3000.
Still, I also agree that a teacher should have an exemplary life. It can be too easy for some to equate knowledge with spirituality. That is simply not true.
It’s not that the core changes at all. It’s that our understanding of the core is more enlightened. That’s not to say there is more revelation. It’s more like in other fields, like science for example. As we collect more data and become better at measuring, we reach a better understanding. It’s similar with theology and the bible. God rewards dilligent study and contemplation of his word. Not only on a personal level but in more of an academic sense too. Some individuals had unique and special gifts and used these to gain a better understanding. Like Augustine and Luther and Calvin (to name a few). Does this make sense?
Here is a very good essay on the use of creeds by my Pastor.
That is a very good essay, and it really shows some of the true weaknesses of creeds such as the Plan For United Cooperation and the Christian Affirmation (two recent RM creeds). A creed can never be an “…accurate and faithful summary of the Christian faith.” It will always be some subset that you think is most important.
When folks have asked me about the PFUC, I have never said that I have a problem with creeds per se, because that would not be true. I have a problem with that one (and with others I’ve seen so far) because such a subset always varies for me based on my life and this particular one is truly lame. The particular piece of this one I like to pick out (and it’s certainly not the only one) is the little blurb that says “…the romantic and marriage relationships of Christians are to be pursued with only those who “belong to the Lord” as defined by Scriptures…” It’s a statement I can agree with, but it is NOT MY CORE BELIEFS!
“Very good… but not my favorite.”
– Roux, in “Chocolat”
There’s also in inherent dishonesty about them: religious leaders who claim that all of their members actually agree with all tenets of their little Core Beliefs statements are liars. Lying is a sin. Ratifying a document that one does not agree with 100% is lying. The math is left as an exercise…
Mark,
Good observations. I think you are getting at why I was motivated to share this. Creeds are not necessarily bad but the UP seems to be up to more in it’s intent than just making a statement of faith. And the other irony to me is that 2000 years of church history is ignored by the primitivistic emphasis of the UCoC (which it inherited from the RM).
fwiw - in the past the list of churches was named:
“List of Churches Agreeing and Committing to the Plan for United Cooperation”
now it reads:
“List of Co-Operating Churches”
does this mean the UP is history?
fwiw - you can post comments on the co-ordinating churches website so I asked re the change in title of the list of churches and if that meant they had retired the UP. after submitting the comment it noted that it would posted after review by someone. it has yet to be posted - but it was just yesterday evening. i’ll let you know.
TTK: is is “co-ordinating” or “co-operating”?
Uncoordinated I can live with. Shoot, we practically ooze uncoordinated around here. Uncooperative, OTOH, sounds like a euphemism for something that would earn my kids some unpleasant consequences…
no, my bad…..meant co-operating. there’s a coordinating committee for the cooperating churches. it’s so confusing.