Comments on: Crossroads review http://www.seethekingdom.net/stk/2005/04/crossroads-review/ Seeing the world through Christ-colored lenses Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:42:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Pastor Bob http://www.seethekingdom.net/stk/2005/04/crossroads-review/comment-page-1/#comment-239 Pastor Bob Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:14:57 +0000 http://seethekingdom.net/stk/2005/04/01/crossroads-review/#comment-239 Gilbert Stafford, a true scholar and churchman, went to his rest last weekend. I knew this man for over forty years. Let it be said that he was found faithful. Gilbert Stafford, a true scholar and churchman, went to his rest last weekend. I knew this man for over forty years. Let it be said that he was found faithful.

]]> By: jeremiah17 http://www.seethekingdom.net/stk/2005/04/crossroads-review/comment-page-1/#comment-114 jeremiah17 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:20:11 +0000 http://seethekingdom.net/stk/2005/04/01/crossroads-review/#comment-114 Hey, I think Gilbert is dead. Longwinded anyway. As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead. Hey, I think Gilbert is dead. Longwinded anyway. As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead.

]]> By: Pastor Bob http://www.seethekingdom.net/stk/2005/04/crossroads-review/comment-page-1/#comment-112 Pastor Bob Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:28:23 +0000 http://seethekingdom.net/stk/2005/04/01/crossroads-review/#comment-112 Gilbert Stafford was gracious enough to respond to my comments as follows: Dear Bob: Thanks for responding to CROSSROADS so thoroughly and insightfully. I hope that you will serve as a point man in your area for the discussion of these issues and will lead your assembly to respond to some or all the questions listed on page 106 of the book and send to the address listed on page 105. All such reports will become part of the ongoing national conversation. I have made hard copy of your persoal response and have placed it in the file for further reference. This is the kind of in-depth conversation we hope will take place all across the church. Your comments are gentle and kind even at points where you take issue with me. Thank you for your loving spirit. As I read your paper, there were several comments that elicited my desire to be clearer: 1) Section Three sets forth, I believe, the biblical vision of the church of God and the historic vision of the Church of God. The question that we must answer at the crossroads is whether we are still committed to that vision. I certainly am because I am convinced that it is the biblical vision of the church. This is the vision that I preach and teach with passion. 2) A movement is always bigger than an organizational structure. Furthermore, the "movemental" rhetoric used by an organization does not guarantee its "movemental" reality. The question that the Yearbook Church needs to ask is whether it is committed to the biblical vision of the church that is pleasing to God. To the degree that it is, to that degree, then, it will come come to be known in the wider church as a movement. This will happen not because it succeeds in getting the wider church to call it such as though that were the greatest value. Rather, it will happen because its serious commitment to biblical truth is so all-consuming that it inevitably affects the wider church, and therefore, is movemental. The greatest value is not what others call us but the truth to which we give passionate witness. 3) The anti-creedalism of the pioneers has been misinterpreted as license for privatistic Christianity. This is neither biblical nor in accordance witht the historic understanding of the pioneers. As I deal almost on a weekly basis with the inroads of New Age, of secularist perspectives, of older cult perspectives, and of privately developed folk theologies among us, I want to ring the bells regarding the importance of biblical and historic Christian perspectives. We are not without some hard copy materials to which we can refer in these matters: the Bible as foundational, the historic creeds and confessions as informative, and our own published materials as educative. 4) The external trappings of being the church does not guarantee that it is pleasing to God. That is not to say that the external trappings are unimportant (the songs, the reading preaching of Scripture, the confessional life of the church, the symbols, the practices, etc.) but it is to say that these in and of themselves do not guarantee that it is pleasing to God. It is not those who say "Lord, Lord," but those "who do the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). The Church of God Reformation Movement came into existence as a movement of people whose driving passion was to be the church that is pleasing to God. That is the spiritual dynamic that one finds in movements, revivals, reformations, renewals throughout Christian history. It seems to me that this is the question that the church in every dimension of its life should be prayerfully asking itself: "Is God pleased with us?" I don't for a minute claim that such a question has an an easy answer, nor do I deny that people can play games with it. But I do believe that it is the right question. It is the reformation question. Just because we are listed in the Yearbook does not guarantee that God is pleased with us. Until we are constantly wrestling with the question in regards to our own life together (if indeed, we assume that God wants us to continue having a structured life together) we have not earned the right to press these issues with the wider church. Thanks, Bob, for your capable leadership in the ongoing conversations at the crossroads, Gil Gilbert Stafford was gracious enough to respond to my comments as follows:

Dear Bob:

Thanks for responding to CROSSROADS so thoroughly and insightfully. I hope that you will serve as a point man in your area for the discussion of these issues and will lead your assembly to respond to some or all the questions listed on page 106 of the book and send to the address listed on page 105. All such reports will become part of the ongoing national conversation. I have made hard copy of your persoal response and have placed it in the file for further reference. This is the kind of in-depth conversation we hope will take place all across the church. Your comments are gentle and kind even at points where you take issue with me. Thank you for your loving spirit.

As I read your paper, there were several comments that elicited my desire to be clearer:

1) Section Three sets forth, I believe, the biblical vision of the church of God and the historic vision of the Church of God. The question that we must answer at the crossroads is whether we are still committed to that vision. I certainly am because I am convinced that it is the biblical vision of the church. This is the vision that I preach and teach with passion.

2) A movement is always bigger than an organizational structure. Furthermore, the "movemental" rhetoric used by an organization does not guarantee its "movemental" reality. The question that the Yearbook Church needs to ask is whether it is committed to the biblical vision of the church that is pleasing to God. To the degree that it is, to that degree, then, it will come come to be known in the wider church as a movement. This will happen not because it succeeds in getting the wider church to call it such as though that were the greatest value. Rather, it will happen because its serious commitment to biblical truth is so all-consuming that it inevitably affects the wider church, and therefore, is movemental. The greatest value is not what others call us but the truth to which we give passionate witness.

3) The anti-creedalism of the pioneers has been misinterpreted as license for privatistic Christianity. This is neither biblical nor in accordance witht the historic understanding of the pioneers. As I deal almost on a weekly basis with the inroads of New Age, of secularist perspectives, of older cult perspectives, and of privately developed folk theologies among us, I want to ring the bells regarding the importance of biblical and historic Christian perspectives. We are not without some hard copy materials to which we can refer in these matters: the Bible as foundational, the historic creeds and confessions as informative, and our own published materials as educative.

4) The external trappings of being the church does not guarantee that it is pleasing to God. That is not to say that the external trappings are unimportant (the songs, the reading preaching of Scripture, the confessional life of the church, the symbols, the practices, etc.) but it is to say that these in and of themselves do not guarantee that it is pleasing to God. It is not those who say "Lord, Lord," but those "who do the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21 [+/-]). The Church of God Reformation Movement came into existence as a movement of people whose driving passion was to be the church that is pleasing to God. That is the spiritual dynamic that one finds in movements, revivals, reformations, renewals throughout Christian history. It seems to me that this is the question that the church in every dimension of its life should be prayerfully asking itself: "Is God pleased with us?" I don’t for a minute claim that such a question has an an easy answer, nor do I deny that people can play games with it. But I do believe that it is the right question. It is the reformation question. Just because we are listed in the Yearbook does not guarantee that God is pleased with us. Until we are constantly wrestling with the question in regards to our own life together (if indeed, we assume that God wants us to continue having a structured life together) we have not earned the right to press these issues with the wider church.

Thanks, Bob, for your capable leadership in the ongoing conversations at the crossroads,

Gil

]]>