Visiting Grand Junction

Come to Grand Junction, MI with me, site of our early Church of God publishing ministry. Had we been able to publish the second issue of Reformation Witness, it would have contained this in expanded form.

In July-07, Digital Historian Dale Stultz introduced The Book of Noah and led conferees at Warner Camp in discussing the early days of our publishing work. Pastor Don Hendrix chauffeured the 40-passenger Allegan church bus. Dale led illustrated on-site lectures and I joined the group as an area native.

Using enlarged digital photos to illustrate, Stultz took conferees to several village sites at the West end of village center, Grand Junction. He gave page references from The Book of Noah and gave his audiences time to mark their books and ask questions with each lecture.

Sites included the Trumpet Office, the Trumpet Family residence, the E. E. Byrum home, and the Hooley House. Stultz identified each site for his audience, inspiring heightened appreciation for those hearty pioneer workers. What it did for participants could not be purchased at any price.

The village offers little, but it served as the site of Gospel Trumpet Company for twelve years--1884-1896. Those years cradled the publishing ministry into a tiny religious movement with a viable publishing ministry. Those years allowed those reformers to coalesce into what people now know as the Church of God, with general agencies in Anderson, IN.

Joining Stultz’s was my 40-year friend, Camp Evangelist Luz Gonzales. Luz found it “an incredible experience.” He later wrote: “I bought 'The Book of Noah" and enrolled as a member of the Historical Society. When I returned home, I shared with Carol the wonderful blessing that I had received,. . .She . . . read it and she wouldn't put it down until she finished it. She was very touched, too, seeing what a great legacy these pioneers left us. . .”

The lesson I get is this: very simply, they did a whole lot more then with what they had than we do today with what we have today. Tiny Grand Junction formed the hub from which our “Quest for Holiness and Unity” became a global ministry. It went global with people like G. T. Clayton and party, evangelizing up and down the Ohio River from his “Floating Bethel“ barge. Men like W. T. Carter of Saint James, MO came to Grand Junction, then founded ministry centers in places like Dodge, KY--a rail junction adjacent to Winchester (close to Lexington).

The daughter of Sebastian Michels’, one of the Grand Junction leaders, solicited my father to help her start the Sunday School that now serves in nearby South Haven, MI. She later returned with her husband to assist the newer children‘s home at Spokane, WA. She and her husband ministered in the Northwest, but that little Sunday School nurtured me for my first eighteen years. They will celebrate 85 years of service July 20.

When Gospel Trumpet Company left in 1898 (Warner died 12-1895), they went from “no modern conveniences whatsoever” to coal-powered electricity and modern facilities. From there, they moved to Anderson, IN and in the thirties era they were one of the America’s largest religious publishers.

When Stultz returned home to Anderson, IN, he found ”Noah” preceding him. The Historical Society sold more than six cases of books at Park Place Church where former classmate, Dr; Donald Johnson-- retired Missionary Board Executive--prepared a teaching guide on Church of God beginnings. He used “Noah“ as a text book for his Sunday School class.

A sampling of photo’s (if I get this right) show Gonzales clowning on the bus, the GT Co in Grand Junction, and a conference at the Warner House at camp (hope I have this right.....taken by SOT student, Jonathan Cox, prepared by Stultz). At the upper right of this page, you will also find me in the red cap, with Dr. Leslie Ratzlaff, retired founding Dean of WSC (original site of GT Pub. Co. that burned).
Wayne

A Peace Perspective

Jesus convinces me that Martin Luther King was right to reject that view that believes mankind is so tragically bound by the starless midnight of racism and war that the daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never dawn. Even if that were true, my heritage within the context of Church of God teaching, as a follower of Christ, persuades me that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

Selfish interests destroy relationships and make the gospel easier to proclaim than to practice. Broken relationships leave Christians living in a demolition derby of political cross-fire. Ethnic warfare, racial strife, and special-interest groups poison the environment of our global landscape. Seeing the conditions, Jesus prayed that his disciples (us) live “in” the world, but be not “of“ the world.

Saint Paul, the first Christian missionary, came out of his rigid religious world where peacemakers were in short supply. As Saul of Tarsus, he terrorized Christians--in the name of God. His conversion, however, brought a change in his perspective and introduced him into a world of peacemakers. As a result, Paul regarded no one from a “worldly point of view” (2 Corinthians 5:16, NIV).

Among the dominant themes of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians were reconciliation and the church as the functioning Body of Christ. He challenged believers in Ephesus to model a barrier-free fellowship. He called on them to be a holy temple (God’s dwelling place) in the Lord (2:21), held together by the cornerstone Christ Jesus. He rallied these believers to confess-and-renew their calling in Christ (Eph. 4:1, 7, 26).

Paul’s encounter with Jesus redefined his views of humanity and added new dimensions to his life. It transformed him into an ambassador of Christ, commissioned to spread reconciliation and peace everywhere (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). His epitaph could easily have read, “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18).

When Paul introduced the story of Jesus into Athens, he spoke first to the people out of their own tradition. After gaining an audience with them, he offered his resurrection perspective (Acts 17). He reflected on how God lives, moves, and has his being among all of humanity. When they heard his resurrection story of Jesus, they rejected his message.Holding no ill will, he left them, entrusting them to the sustenance and guidance of the Spirit of God.

From early on, Israel’s Prophets had reminded people to trust only in God. Paul recognized the infantile views of the Ephesians’ church and challenged them to a higher level of godliness--a mature spirituality of human equality. He invited them to enlist in the service of their Supreme Commander--God. He taught them to use their spiritual armor and challenged them to share with others the same grace God apportioned them (Ephesians 6:10; 4:14-16; 1:6-7).

Viewing each other from a human perspective comes naturally, but it allows hostile relationships to fester. On the other hand, Jesus’ final commandment reaffirmed our Great Commission--to spread everywhere His unifying love, forgiveness, and reconciliation (Matthew 28:19-20). Wars and rumors of wars repeat themselves. Peace comes from that Palestinian stable where Jesus was born, rather than the conference table. Serving in the “name of Jesus” prompts followers to share cups of cold water with strangers. Sometimes it leads former Presidents to mediate international crises as private citizens.1

“May the peace of God be with you, my brother.” That greeting met me one evening at our North American Convention, as I walked toward Warner Auditorium. It came from the lips of my dear black brother, Dr. James Earl Massey. It blessed my white-man’s heart, but it did something else. It caused me to consider how thoughtlessly we perform our rituals, like passing the peace. I remembered the promise of Jesus: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.” Therefore, “Do not let your hearts be troubled and . . . afraid” (John 14:27, NIV).

That greeting prompted me to personally reevaluate my behavior and take more seriously a theme that has long been a strand in the fabric of our Church of God heritage. It made me sensitive to consciously passing the peace--by intent.
May the peace of God be yours, and grace,
Wayne
_______________
1 Marian V. Creekmore, Jr., A Moment of Crisis. New York: Public Affairs

A Church of God Perspective

“This new blog of Wayne Warner will deal with pacifism from a Church of God perspective,” wrote Lloyd Moritz after I told him I was considering a blogsite and was interested in issues like Peace.

I read that and ask myself “what is a Church of God perspective?” Does my having been a pastor of forty-five years qualify me? Do my eighty-plus years of being part of the Church of God family qualify me? Must my views be filtered through the lense of our checkered history to qualify?

My recent re-reading of Strege’s I Saw the Church caused me to further ponder the question, especially in light of our longstanding conflict with “come-out theology” in the Church of God (not always recognized).

That was an early perspective that helped launch the “Movement,” but I believe it has hindered our function and growth to this day. Strege‘s theological interpretation seems to document my view (supported by the majority of the church. It is, moreover, a “theology”--if you will--that I abandoned as a young man living in the midst of people who believed it sinful to depart from it.

So, what is a Church of God perspective? I’m not sure that I know, although I have some strong opinions. I believe it must be a biblically-sound perspective. It must be an inclusive perspective, and I filter my inclusiveness through the filter of Jesus’ life and ministry, the practice of the early church, and what I perceive to be the church of which Jesus is the head.

I further suggest a Church of God perspective will be filtered through the lense of biblical holiness (I view holiness as a right relationship with God and man through the at-one-ment of the cross rather than the lense of cultural accommodation).

I will write for peace and justice issues, as well as other church issues. For today, however, I will mourn the loss of 4,100 young American victims of the Iraq occupation, and wonder what their lost lives achieved on the scale of eternity. On this Memorial Day of 2008, I ask--in the name of peace--just what is a Church of God perspective?
Wayne

Maintaining Spiritual Democracy

I'm not a health freak, but I like myself well enough to eat right, exercise occasionally, and maintain a reasonably healthy lifestyle. I like our family of faith well enough to want to see it practice reasonably healthy relationships while maintaining a vigorous lifestyle of servant ministries.

I am still muddling and meditating my way through Strege's book I Saw the Church and it occurs to me that at most (if not all) of the serious junctions in our ecclesiastical journey polity and the early come-outism show up on the screen like one of those pop-up ads we like to stay protected from on our computers.

It showed up when Stockwell challenged Warner for early control of the Gospel Trumpet, the issue was control, for the magazine was the major avenue of interpreting our message to the public. At that time, Warner was accepted as the presiding Elder. In becoming Managing Editor et al at Warner's death, E. E. Byrum inherited that position of elder interpreter. Informal consensus was the rule, but the "buck generally stoppped" wherever the Editor and/or other elder brethren "explained."

It showed up later when the Missionary Board recalled G. P. Tasker from India for his cooperative missionary ministry as well as his lack of Colonialistic attitude with the Indian Church. It showed up again when the Russell Byrum trial took place a few years later, the core of the issue being Byrum's departure from the teaching of come-outism. Editor Smith has become the interpretive Elder, but faced a growing number of people in leadership with diffeent views than Smith's insistence on come-outism and related issues. When C.E. Brown was elected Editor, he countered the tight leadership with a view of "spiritual democracy" and he acted on that view by turning over his task as Editor of approving/disapproving of credentials by handing that off to State Organizations. Again, at the core of contention was the anti-organization bias held by those in particular who held to the come-out theory.

It was the same core issue when the Ohio Brethren took Anderson College to task and tried to wrest control of the school away from President Morrison and restore the "come-out" doctrines at the school. A decade or so later, when Earl Slacum created a schism in the church, although some of Slacum's verses read differently, the song was the same: he predated those "in power", some of his views were rejected, and he became a watchman on the wall calling for a return to the earlier scheme of things--centered in the come-out theories of the church and the more tightly controlled views of that era.

Strege documents all of this in his book and I find the reviewing and refreshing. It helps me remember who I am in relation to the church to which I have given my life. It invigorates me to renew my efforts as a retired pastor, someone with a sometimes more comprehensive overview of things, to appreciate where we are in the church. Although I am sometimes troubled by things I see, I know first hand we are a more democratic body in the best sense of the word than we have ever been. That encourages ane empowers me to envision our best days ahead of us as we reach out to help heal a hurting world.

It was probably back in the mid-sixties when I sat down in the narthex of Pinehurst church in Birmingham, AL at Southern Convention with my longtime friend E. E. Wolfram. He was an Anderson Exec by then, I was a smalltime pastor that was openly opposing the building of the Warner Auditorium in Anderson. I had written two other friends, Harold Boyer and Max Gaulke, for their views on the issue, which I synthesized and used as my argument to campaign against the new building for several reasons, one of which was my view of getting the General Assembly out of Anderson for a change.

Wolfram sat me down that day at Pinehurst and shared how my editorials from the pages of the Mississippi Coordinator made the rounds among some of our national leadership. Without taking issue one way or the other, Ewald reminded me, "Wayne, there was a day when you could not have done this!" When the issue later came to a vote, I was one of 2 opposition votes against 916 affirmative votes. Ewald's point was simply that we are getting better at handling diverse views in the Church of God and no longer face a polity that practices agree or go elsewhere.

I have some non-negotiables and I dislike dissension, but I greatly encouraged by our greater openness today, our more inclusive attitudes, and our getting closer to sound biblical body language that keeps us mutually accountable to each other, without having a cooky cutter ecclesiolgy that makes us all think, act, and believe exactly the same.

Moreover, after more than fifty years in Chog Ministry I confidently assert that we are going in the right direction and that we are more nearly what we have always claimed to be than ever before in our history. And, I encourage every young pastor out there, we are not yet all that we want to be, or are going to be, but we are far more, bigger, and better than we were in our romanticized yesterday.

Peace and Grace, Wayne

Congregationalism

This is no final word by any means, since I am not that much of an authority....just been around for a pretty good while..............I sat down today and tried to list some conclusions about Congregationalism that I have from some recent reading and thinking. I've not seen any further word from Lloyd Moritz's Chogblog so will jot down my two cents worth and maybe that will spark some further response and/or comments from any readers.

We began within the context of congregationalism as a church polity. D. S. Warner's experience in the Winebrenner Eldership was a congregational polity. Warner's experience as a young pastor-evangelist-editor was cool to say the least toward any other form of church polity. We began in an informal manner, with an anti-organization bias based on their belief in Charismatic government and equity among the brothers and sisters.

By the time Warner had been defrocked by the Eldership for accepting the doctrine of holiness (sanctification), there was not much room left for a hierarchical polity of administration from the top down. Warner and his cohorts were a cohesive and collegial group that depended upon concensus and the senior leadership.

In beginning, Warner was that place where the buck stopped. From there it went to E. E. Byrum and the editor of the Gospel Trumpet. Only after the launching of the General Ministerial Assembly did the Movement slowly move toward more "democratic" grass roots control, and that not without its problems enumerated by various writers.

So, from our beginning we were generally congregational in both our practice and in all of our biblical interpretations, always espousing equality from the grass roots up (never from the top down). Congregationalism comes out of our heritage, our over-all biblical interpretations, and our theology of God's Church.

In the early days that church theology became a strongly come-out of denominationalism theology, but we saw the church as composed of God's called out (via new birth/salvation) with everyone on equal ground at the foot of the cross, under the mentoring of Christ as the head of the church.

Under the Editorship of C.E. Brown we adapted a more sound historical approach to interpreting the Church. We are still trying to define our relationship with "denominational Christians" but that has little to do with polity and congregationalism.

What has prompted these discussions for the past almost thirty years is the growing sense of independence and autonomy. Without being technical or theological, I see our heritage (tradition, ow whatever you want to call it) as affirming mutual accountability and rejecting total autonomy. We reject the independent church polity. We have always been MORE than a collection of voluntary associates, although we value our voluntary association.

In the beginning, the Gospel Trumpet Company was our one institutional body. Today, we are avoluntary body under the leadership of the General Assembly. We are still working out issues of accountability such as credentialling. At this point, I believe we have done well to maintain our grass roots orientation and balance that between the federalism of the constitution and states rights. States rights worked okay for thirteen colonies (the Confederation), but there had to be a final level of federalism for us to have the abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, the civil rights act etc..

By the states working together with "Anderson" we can maintain that democratic balance at the level closest to the grass roots. We can live together as a people as long as we have mutual accountability between pastor and people, between the local church and the state assembly, and between state-local and Anderson.

The grass roots is the church--never just the Pope and his Cardinals. Our Administrative Leaders are elected by us and work for us, but always within the framework of our mutual accountability to each other and to God, who is head over us all. This did not come out as the simple list of five items I envisioned, but I invite comments and conversation.

Moreover, I remind anyone reading this that it is both in our best tradition and in our best interest for us to thoroughly discuss the Duncan Document that Ron has prepared and the Chog Blog by Lloyd Moritz. We all have an investment in this issue.

Wayne

The Duncan Document

Personal Thoughts
Re Duncan Document:

I grew up near Grand Junction, MI. Assisted by AC/AU and WPC, I pastored from June 3, 1951 and Sept. 18, 1996, retiring the week “VC” died. Although I received multiple offers to pastor various denominational churches, I stayed by choice--at a sacrifice.

Not being in any of the pastoral discussions of the Duncan Document, I add my 2-cents worth re said document. Some comments will sound Anti-Anderson, but should not be received that way. Anything negative I say is a lover’s quarrel, for I support the core of the document.

My Practice

I was a “company man” through 9 pastorates, although not always agreeing. I practiced mutual support and accountability among pastors and between congregation and the hierarchy. I actively supported the mainstream of the church (budget-wise et al) and gave generous time and support to district and state affairs, as well as involving myself trans-denominationally.

Wherever I lived, I participated actively in camp meeting life--altho never a camper--and the GA. For many years I have continued volunteering at Reformation Publishers and have nearly 40 years of adult involvement at Grand Junction’s Warner Camp.

Re Me-ism

I suggest the me-ism referred to from the 60s-70s (p3) came from multiple sources: culture, large churches like Dayton Salem who used independent SS literature, mission churches that needed establishing, and our anti-organization bias that allowed some to support their own missions outside the World Service budget--seen by some as non-mission causes. To categorize all of these simply as “cultural me-ism shows lack of understanding.

Re: Mutuality

I have participated in, and supported, national programs but I believe “Anderson” tends to hear in one direction only: This is a complaint I still hear in my retirement: Anderson speaks; the field complies. I believe this perception is wider than sometimes recognized.

Interestingly, my wife reminds me that we entertained many an executive at personal sacrifice, many who were “my” personal friends and peers, but I have yet to be reciprocated in any such manner. I mention this only as an aside to the one way street that has been too often taken for granted.

In the early 50s I was a World Service Day Man and could not get a hearing with World Service personnel about the double salary standard between people like me and “them.“ Although Stateside, I just as well have been in a cross-cultural context and when challenging the issue the answer was “it is comparable to others in similar context.” I and my congregation were living sacrificially to establish a local church (that I was paying off for some unwise older brethren), and I had none of the perks “they” had (for example: $45 wk salary and no Secretary and support system). I was brushed off without “empathy”!

As recently as the 80s I faced laypeople weekly that felt their first duty was to support national missions--Anderson--even if I did not get my pay check.

I do not see these as complying with the NT standard. The fact is, It took Robert Schuler to help me understand my need to stand up for myself in such matters.

Re: Our anti-organization bias

Our commonly accepted anti-organization bias shows up in many ways: the failure of pastors to understand the budgetary correlation between the Missions Board and for example the Board of CE. It showed up in pastors I frequently heard complain about GA attendance, confessing they didn‘t like such non-spiritual “business”. They took their expense accounts but frequently did not represent their congregations.

The demise of “VC” revealed much about us that was unhealthy. There was abundant blame for all sides, but I believe the church carries a HUGE blame for the demise of VC. In the crunch, the church--and pastors--did not understand needing to support what had originally been the church’s primary supporter and the single institution that helped us launch as a Movement and continued carrying “church” obligations for many years)

As Strege points out in I Saw the Church, several of the earliest crises came out of our lack of organization and/or our bias against it. That has been true throughout our history and it points up our need to mutually-discuss our common problems and reconcile those differences between our academic and institutional theorists and the practitioners, between our romanticized “heritage” and our factual “history,” (cf Strege) as well as the inconsistencies within our individual theological structures.

In Conclusion

The Bible is to the church what the Constitution is to our country. I, for one, read it as calling us back to the biblical “Body of Christ,” the Family of God concept that surges in some quarters. We will enjoy bodily health when our body parts function properly, both institutionally and on the field.

I do not support a top-down monolith; I am a strong believer in the "grass-roots" but at all levels I recognize that my hand and my body have mutual accountability. Let’s learn to listen to each other, hear each other, and "mutually function" without the politics of federalism vs. states rights. Neither our country nor our church can long maintain good health without resolving that discussion.

We Could Use Some Grease

Dr. Brian Dirk of Anderson University has written the newest of the Lincoln literature (Lincoln The Lawyer. Urbana: Univ of IL Press, 2007).

Dirk writes as follows: “The political machinery of antebellum and Civil War America was every bit as prone to dysfunctional meltdowns as the economic and social machinery, and likewise cried out for some sort of lubricant to ease the way: an overarching spirit of compromise, some political entity that played the lawyer’s role of valuing none of the wheels so much as their relative noiseless operation. But in the end, no such lubricant existed - and the war came” (pp 154-172).

Dirk’s best metaphor of Lincoln is grease. He pictures Lincoln as an objective (dispassionate) lawyer, a magnanimous president, and a story teller with a neutral legal mind. He suggests Lincoln the lawyer functioned as social grease (ch 8).

Whatever you may think of grease, dirty, nasty, or otherwise, it is useful and necessary. I love his metaphor and wish that we Choggers could catch the vision of becoming social grease.

Suppose we Chog ministers would become the essential ingredient for making our church machinery run smoothly, and subject our narcissistic dreams of growth and achievement to the common mission that God launched between Bethlehem and Calvary?

Suppose ordinary Chog Christians would forego working their fool heads off to keep up with their neighbor, or fulfill their “American dream” and really get their head in the game of helping tear down the walls of hatred, strife, genocide and ethnic warfare, or working equally hard to reduce starvation and poverty, or achieving some other worthy cause that shares a cup of cold water in Jesus' name?

Suppose the Chog started viewing other people as God views them and make a serious effort to hear what people are saying? Suppose we really listened to one another and sought practical solutions to some of the problems common within our churches, our communities, and in our global neighborhood?

Does anyone have the audacity to try to imagine what a good grease job could do for our badly-squeaking world? Unless someone has something better, we might take a cue from Jesus and be satisfied to share his empowering love. We talk a lot about it--about grace and mercy and reconciliation etc--but we seem to be in short supply where it is most needed.

I’m still thinking further about what I wrote earlier on mutual accountability in the church.
Wayne

This is an update from a letter I wrote for our local newspaper before today’s vote rejecting support of the Iraq War. This congressional action encourages me to continue the uphill battle against War, Although some consider it as volatile as voting against Mother’s Day or apple pie, I agree with those who hold to the hard truth that is war is a failed politic. For the common good of humanity, we simply. As the worst kind of violence, under the best of circumstances, renouncing war is a good place to begin.

Our first four years in Iraq cost an estimated $1 trillion. After five years of war, estimates suggest six more months, General Petraeus being the most recent. John McCain strongly supports this Administration's failed policy.


A Dick Cheney interview concluded public opinion did not matter. George Bush repeatedly reaffirms his confidence that “he“ is right. John McCain supports current policies, and hopes to have the troops home by 2013. It seems the public majority has no say in the matter. We can only weep for those 4000 body bags that continue piling up.


Estimates suggest one day of Iraq war would fund 95,364 Head Start Places for Children, or 12,478 Elementary School Teachers, or 163,525 People with Health Care, or 34,904 Four Year College Scholarships, or 6,482 Families with Homes--much more bang for the buck!


I bleed for those military families suffering death, divorce, separation, dismemberment and other hidden costs? What of the additional hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and those 4 million refugees? Are they only collateral damage?


American taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion for current and future costs of the first four years of war, but this is year five. Congress can send intervention to Bear Stearns, but Faith Programs must rebuild New Orleans. While our wealthiest enjoy generous tax breaks, increasing numbers fall further down the economic ladder--daily.


The current Administration runs up the biggest debt ever, but blames “big spending” on the other party. It defends itself by standing on a hypocritical philosophy that supports its own and rejects the common good.


I hardly recognize our country anymore. May God have mercy, and especially upon those who have profited so heavily from this violent encounter!
Wayne

The Church of God: Who Are We?

The Church of God:
Who Are We?

To use a metaphor from Doug Welch, I grew up as a leaf on a tree called the Church of God Reformation Movement. Now in the final phase of my earthly sojourn, I tend to reflect on who I am in lieu of how I have spent my life.

I have devoted my entire life (more than half a century in church ministry) to the Family of Faith gathered around the theological vision and ministry of D. S. Warner, but who are we? I have studied Warner’s life. I have confidently proclaimed the vision of his followers, but what is that vision--really?

As I grow in understanding the varying nuances in the swishing currents of our history, I find strength in our message. At the same time, I occasionally wonder how we held together as long as we have. We are a diverse people, like it or not.

Take George P. Tasker for example. I admire this man I met at Pacific Bible College on his return to America from India. As a matter of record, G.P. Tasker went to India as a missionary and our Missionary Board recalled him in 1924.

He stayed on as an independent missionary, outside the “Anderson” umbrella. He returned stateside to retire, fully accepted by the Anderson church. His recall by the Board came essentially because he preached in denominational churches and cooperated with a denominationalism our Board officially considered as “Babylon.”

This conflicted with “official theology” of that era, although we are “non-creedal.” The conflict is even more pronounced in 2008. Doug Welch and Merle Strege have discussed this story (Welch/ Ahead of His Times, A Life of George P. Tasker/Strege, I Saw the Church). I find such stories incongruous with Warner’s quest for holiness and unity (and our general practice).

The forming of our first congregation resulted at Beaver Dam, IN when D. S. Warner literally stepped “outside” of denominationalism to fellowship all “blood washed believers,” followed by five others. A few decades later, our Missionary Board recalled Tasker because he cooperated with denominational Christians. He complemented them rather than competing with them, rather than insisting they “come-out” as we commonly practiced then.

What happened was this: our prevailing “official” theological interpretation of the church isolated us from the larger Church. It effectively closed us off from denominationalism and it left us as more of a “protest movement” than “reformation”.

That action declared “join us” or be part of the harlot of Babylon. It denied the unity Jesus spoke of in John 17. It denied the body language of Paul (I Cor. 12) and the new perspective Paul found in oneness in Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Never mind that Warner himself had aligned with the General Eldership founded by John Winebrenner and that Winebrenner had been “decredentialled” by the Reformed Church for cooperating in evangelistic endeavors with area holiness Methodist preachers.

Part of the problem is that Warner later discovered the Adventist teaching of Uriah Smith of Battle Creek, MI. He adapted Adventist interpretation to fit his thinking and proclaimed “us” as the “Evening Light Reformation.” F. G. Smith wrote extensively about that “last reformation” (probably 22 editions) and Tasker’s missionary endeavors in India conflicted with the last-final reformation teaching. Some pastors would not financially support such a missionary effort.

So, where are we today and who are we? While we grapple with issues of congregationalism, accountability, et al, we need to “honestly listen to one another and discuss” how best to interpret the Book of Revelation and how we will relate to the Christian Church-at-large.

We need an ecclesiology that is structured “in Christ” rather than in harmony with somebody’s interpretation. When C. E. Brown became the Editor of the Gospel Trumpet magazine, he developed a sound historical approach to interpreting the church; and in effect he replaced F. G. Smith’s last reformation theology with sounder scholarship.

Incongruity results when many of us continue to venerate C. E. Brown’s writings, but some still fervently insist on teaching the older "last reformation come-out-ism” of F. G. Smith et al--without seeing the inconsistency of their faith and practice. I, for one, would like for us to take a cue from Dr. Jeannette Flynn who keynoted the recent 2008 Pastor’s Fellowship.

Using 2 Cor. 4:7-16, she shared “four pieces of truth to hold to.” They were: (1) God’s sovereignty is never overcome by temporal powers; (2) our focus must be on the things that cannot be shaken; (3) we should be people of Hope and point to solutions rather than the problems; and, (4) God‘s Resource Treasury is real.

She introduced her message with the eruption of Mt. St. Helen’s. That event blew 220 square miles of earth 12 miles into the atmosphere. It created a sterile environment for God knows how long. Yet, 3 years later 90% of that sterile environment was restored--an unexpected but real miracle of nature.

We have issues before us today capable of volcanic eruption. We are earthen vessels, but we need not lose heart. If we will keep our focus on the things that are unshakeable, the power of God at work within us is capable of creating the miracle needed to enable us to listen to each other, hear one another, and complete the mission God launched when he sent Christ to journey from Bethlehem to Calvary.

That was the source of the power of the early church and that was God's major mission. It is also our major mission and we need once more to tap into it as the Church of God. Therein, we will find both our mission and our message. Grace and peace,
Wayne

Church of God and Mutual Accountability

Another word.......before I return to Michigan (following Winchester Pastor’s Fellowship).
I have been part of the Church of God Reformation Movement since 1927. I believe we have a serious identity crisis. There is “too much” that is right with our message for us to be divided by how we interpret and identify our place in Christendom.

There are far too many wrongs to be righted in our world for us to sit on our blessed assurance. Beyond that, there is far too much need of our message for us be satisfied with our sectarian squabbling about whether we are a “reformation movement” within current denominationalism or whether we are (as some insist) the ultimate--final--reformation, defined by some as the Evening Light.

How we identify our place in Church History matters greatly. We need to consider this matter because it fragments us widely today and plays a huge role in how we perceive each other within our splinter groups following of D. S. Warner’s quest for holiness and unity. More on that later.
For the present, I suggest that our stance within the believers' church tradition requires us to be bound together in mutual accountability. To be less than that, and wallow in the shallows of individualism, is to divorce ourselves from a serious part of our faith tradition. Not only do we have a relationship with the larger Christendom to re-consider, we need to rediscover our interdependence upon one another.

It was important in the days of Warner, Michels, Byrum, and Smith, and it bound them in a common cooperative effort of reaching their generation for Christ. The Gospel Trumpet publishing effort became the glue--the focal point--in that cooperative assault on the strongholds of Satan. It may be even more important today, because (1) we have lost that sense of cooperative frontal assault and (2) we do our work like a bunch of cowboys playing Lone Ranger.
Two of the finest young men the Church of God in Michigan ever produced were two brothers that grew up on the southwestern Michigan lakeshore as part of my generation. Bob and Jim Macholtz. grew up in First Church St. Joe, where they participated actively in that strong contingent of stalwart youth that left First Church to attend Anderson College (now AU) following World War Two (They came home and changed their congregation from German speaking to English services)..

Sometime during my freshman year at AC in 1945 I heard this story in a testimony shared at the old Park Place Church down on 8th Street. It seems that an Earlham player put a late hit on Jim Macholtz during a Hoosier gridiron classic. Still down, Big Jim picked up his sturdy-German frame, stood tall for a moment, then bent down and helped his opponent to his feet, saying quietly, "We don't play football that way at Anderson College."

I never forgot that incident, growing up at the same time they did just 20 miles up the lakeshore. Bob and Jim Macholtz were both outstanding athletes and I remembered their father from camp meeting. They were two of the finest young people the Church of God in Michigan ever produced. Bob could see promising possibilities in baseball and Jim became an outstanding football player, in addition to catching for his pitcher-brother.Both invested many years at AU. Dr. Jim Macholtz eventually retired as the illustrious Athletic Director and the name lives on at AU‘s Macholtz Stadium.

Jim's words signal a mindset for me that many of “our generation” received from our Church of God heritage. We worshipped, we worked, and we witnessed, as volunteers bound in mutual covenant--a believer‘s church. We were bound together in the biblical language of St. Paul; we lived the body language of the Bible.

So, when I read Gil Stafford’s Church at the Crossroads and Ron Duncan’s current statement, I recall the mid-80’s when Ed Foggs was reminding us that we are an interdependent fellowship--not just a loose collection of mavericks (unbranded cows). It isn't enough that we balance our beginnings with our futures; we work hard in the church to be contemporary. And, we while pursuing the "now," we actualize the eternal.

If we are really serious about discussing the Duncan document and reclaiming our heritage, a good place to begin would be to rediscover our mutual accountability to each other and to activate our Declaration of Interdependence in this Church of God Family of Faith.
The Great Commission from our (common) Lord is too Biblical and too vital to world needs for us to continue to playing Lone Ranger & Tonto.
Wayne