What is the unique contribution that the Movement makes to the
Kingdom in the world today?
In a recent post, Joe gave us an excellent starting point to the discussion of this second “Why” question, the second of three questions posed by our General Director Jim Lyon about the purpose and mission of the Church of God at this stage in our life together. In this space, I will identify a few strengths of Joe’s argument and then sum up, hopefully, a concise, one-sentence answer to the above question.
Embeddedness and Contextualization
One thing I appreciate about Joe’s approach is that he is fully aware of his own identity as a citizen of the kingdom and as a member1 of the Church of God (Anderson). Any answer to the second “Why” question must come from a fully “Church of God” position: we must be aware of who we are and how we got here, for better or worse. Similarly, any answer to this question necessarily comes from our theological context within this movement.2 We should be aware that our answer to this question is based on the work of those who came before us. We stand, as it were, on the shoulders of giants. Whether we realize it or not, the road that lies ahead is influenced – at least in some small way – by our predecessors.
Community
Because of our embeddedness within the Church of God, we have a unique theological identity, something which can be communicated to the world and, indeed, to the broader world of Christianity. Joe is correct when he states that our movement’s original desire was to bring believers out of “denominational confusion” – to eliminate sects and divisions within the church. But Joe is also correct in arguing that our task today should not be what it once was; instead, we should “become the people who are bringing others together.” We do not need other Christians to become like us; we need to cooperate with others to expand the kingdom of God in our world. Notice that this approach is highly focused on the community, not the individual. Our contribution to broader Christianity comes from us, not from you and me.
Belonging
I believe that our contribution to the kingdom has something to do with our identification with each other. We are the “Church of God”: we belong to each other because of our common identity in Jesus Christ. We belong to each other because God has called us each by name. We belong to each other because the same Holy Spirit dwells within us and empowers us to live holy lives that are pleasing to God. Our very self-understanding is part of our contribution to the kingdom of God: we belong to something larger, stronger, and more beautiful than ourselves.
Theology and Mission
And our belonging is wrapped up in those two enormous theological concepts that have formed and informed us since our beginning, some 135 years ago: holiness and unity. These two terms form the basic lexicon that underlies our contribution to the kingdom of God. Joe described these ideas very well. And he described theology and mission in a healthy relationship with each other. I might clarify the situation this way: the entire body of Christ has the mission to make disciples; our role as a “hand” in that body is to uplift the importance of Spirit-filled holiness and Christ-centered unity within the body. Mission and theology do not have to be in conflict with each other.
An Answer
What is the unique contribution that the Movement makes to the
Kingdom in the world today?
Here is my one-sentence answer:
This movement, through its very identity as a community of diverse and growing disciples, proclaims and embodies the theological principles of Spirit-filled holiness and Christ-centered unity, for the sake of the kingdom of God.
What do you think?
1. The Church of God (Anderson) has historically resisted “member” language, because we believe that one’s experience of salvation in Jesus Christ makes one a member of his kingdom. However, perhaps our self-understanding can evolve: we have members. We need to have members. We need to be accountable to each other. We belong to each other!
2. Or denomination. See footnote #1.
What do I think?
1. I think you have written a powerful and compelling piece that deserves to be taken seriously by the “powers that be” in HQ as they sort through all the responses to the GD’s question.
2. I think it is past time to stop using the word “movement.” If we ever were a movement, we ceased be one a long time ago. We look like, sound like, organize like, act just like a denomination. And the only people we’re fooling are ourselves. In the 1996 G.A., consultant Leith Anderson reported that “the Church of God retains few characteristics of a movement and many characteristics of an aging denomination.” I have been actively involved — and intensely observing — developments in the almost 20 years since then, and I see little or no reason to think that anything has changed. In my judgement, we continue to exhibit many characteristics of an aging denomination (maybe even more than in 1996), and few (or even fewer) characteristics of a movement. So let’s drop the movemental language and call ourselves what we are. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ….
1. Thanks.
2. I tend to agree. At the 2011 Strategic Planning Conference in Nashville, an outside observer of our process and discussions said much the same thing as Leith Anderson. On the other hand, I keep hearing the voice of Gil Stafford in the back of my mind, who (if I remember correctly) argued that we are not a denomination. But I think “group of churches with congregational polity” does not mean “movement” instead of “denomination.” We’re quibbling over words, when there are bigger fish to fry.
David, great article. John, great insight. You’ve both hit on valuable issues i believe.
Firstly, understanding what we mean by movement and denomination, and understanding who we are, are very vital.
Secondly, proclaiming and embodying is also a primary trait.
I feel that the two are connected in a very important way.
A denomination is primarily identified by it’s doctrine which are ‘Proclaimed’ as beliefs that set apart one denomination from another. For example, the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth which can be proclaimed but difficult to imagine being lived out or embodied.
A movement, on the other hand, seems to be more characterised by Praxis where theory and practice can’t be separated.
As for the Church of God Movement’s contribution to the Kingdom, what we call doctrine seem to me more ‘praxis’. For example, we cannot claim that all who know Christ are members of this Church without also acknowledging and fellowshipping with one another, edifying each other … even across denominational lines. We cannot claim Holiness without living holy lives in all speech and conduct.
I’m not sure about you guys there but, where i am, we seem to preach unity rather than practice it, holiness comes with criteria and service is conditional. This transforms the praxis into doctrine, separating us one from the other.
The contribution of this movement, if it so chooses to accept it!, is praxis. To model that ever elusive ‘way of life’ Christian as opposed to the denominational ‘í believe’ Christian.
[…] Jonathan started us off by framing an answer to the purpose of the Church of God movement. Joe and David each gave us a response to the Church of God’s unique contribution to the Kingdom. And Shannon […]