Hello all:
Phil Spadaro over at Restoration Unity has asked me to host a discussion on the ICOC Unity Proposal here.
I’ve not had time to review the proposal myself, but I will be reading it shortly and joining in the conversation.
Check out A Plan for United Cooperation and let us know what you think.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
March 15th, 2006 at 11:58
Clarke,
Thank you for hosting comments on the “Unity Plan”.
Sincerely,
Phil Spadaro
RestoriationUnity.com
March 15th, 2006 at 15:05
I’ve spent some time thinking about the U.P. and have a few thoughts.
First, as a matter of principle I am in favor of unity with everyone who has been adopted as God’s child. I am convinced the members of these churches fit that description. I want unity with them.
Second, I believe meaningful unity must be based on some shared convictions, at some level. The beliefs outlined in this document don’t represent the optimum doctrinal foundation for Christian unity, but I don’t see anything doctrinal in the document that would remove my desire to be unified with them.
I am quite disappointed that there is no provision in the document for building unity with those outside the former ICOC. I am hopeful that something of that nature can be added. Without that, I feel that the document will become the basis for a new faction in the church.
The former ICOC congregations need outside perspective from groups like the independent Christian churches and the “mainline” churches. It is quite obvious that these groups have a lot to offer, and that the ICOC needs what they have to offer. Without that involvement, the groupthink that will result will lead us into many snares, possibly even into the very ones we have been trying to leave behind.
I am concerned about the preoccupation with authority. That concern was amplified after reading the associated document “Effective Leadership” produced by the committee. It just gives the impression that some people who lost their positions of authority during the last few years would like to be given a role where they can call the shots again. There should be more trust in the leaders of the various congregations, and more trust in God that He will take care of His church.
I am very much in favor of cooperation, communication, and mutual respect. From this document I get the impression that the committee is calling for something more than that, and that makes me uncomfortable with the proposal.
To me, a unity proposal has to be broad enough to bring about unity with all Christians. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this looks more like a proposal to form a new sect.
Maybe those things can be fixed. I am always hopeful.
Alan
March 16th, 2006 at 3:07
Alan,
Much of perception of the plan is not based on what it says, but more on who wrote it. The men (some of whom I know) who created this document are balanced and spiritual individuals. My trust level with them is quite high.
I agree with you and would like to see more emphasis on our interaction with our church of Christ and ICC brethern since they have a great deal of knowledge, experience and resilience from which we could learn. Many of them have developed unity without formal structure or with minimal extracongregational structure. Publications, universities, mission efforts, etc… have pulled them together time after time.
The greatest premise for any plan working is humility. With or without a formal agreement, pride will create division and pain. A childlike heart can overcome the worst of plans and a self centered arrogance can bring an end to a perfect scenerio (i.e. Satan falling away from Heaven.)
I guess we can take it one step at a time.
Sincerely,
Phil Spadaro
March 16th, 2006 at 7:29
My opinion is that the Plan For United Cooperation is sectarian in its very nature because of the request for Ratification, no matter who authored it.
There are a couple of discussions on some private forums occuring and my wife and I have spoken at length about this, too. While I disagree with a few elements of The Plan and wonder about anything authored by men who helped make the ICOC into the Thing It Became, these issues become red herrings with me. The issue to me is Ratification by what will constitute a faction.
I agree strongly that humility is a major key. The nine men who have their names on The Plan must set the pace in this by their very open humility towards folks in other fellowships. If they would set the pace in this, I think it would be astounding how encouraging that alone would be to folks who (rightly or wrongly) have these nine men upon pedestals. Also, the distinction between personal conviction and self centered arrogance can be tricky to navigate in our own hearts. The man who created the ICOC in the first place played upon this and many men compromised Godly truths in the spirit of having a Learner’s Heart towards him and his seemingly successful ministry. I know I did at times.
March 16th, 2006 at 8:06
Hello all:
I read the proposal, and I have an opinion. But be warned, my experience with the ICOC is limited, so I may interpret statements in a different way and may completely miss any nuances in the document. In any case, my opinion should defiantly be taken with a grain of salt because I might not know what I’m talking about (big surprise there).
Two things struck me about the document. One was the fact that the framers want to create a regionalized church government. I can see both benefits and pitfalls in this approach. The document sounded like there was already a “regionalization” that had occured since the actually structure of the ICOC evolved. Thats a normal thing sociologically. People and congregations need support, so they turn to those who are close, both physically and theologically. That is probably somewhat healthy, even.
What worries me about this situation is that the framers would like to include everyone in a regionalization, whether they originally included themselves or not after the fall of Kip. When including those congregations that have been very isolated, the question must be asked why the were isolated in the first place. It is good to encourage all congregations to work with each other, but if some congregations were not working with each other before, the question of why needs to be addressed. If the question is not asked and problems addressed, that could lead to strife.
Once all or the majority of congregations are a part of this regionalization, it is easy to create a church government structure (and the plan somewhat calls for it) whenever a region can’t solve a problem on its own, or the issue has group wide importance.
My personal opinion is that church government systems are bad. They take money that is better spent elsewhere, they take resources that others can use, they control information, they stiffle innovation. The goal of a structure is to keep a control over individual congregations and enforce uniformity.
I also understand that hyer-autonomy can be a bad thing. Congregations need to and should work together. However, unity and togetherness can be built without having a formal church government. The Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches have functioned fine without a church government system in place.
The Christian Church model with a general convention, missionary convention, etc might be a better option for you.
Just my two cents,
-Clarke
March 17th, 2006 at 18:05
TAP TAP TAP…is this thing on?
March 17th, 2006 at 18:50
Hey Clarke,
Sometimes hitting things with a hammer gets them going again. ;->
I don’t think the hyper-autonomy shoe fits, at least in my part of the country. There are many cooperative efforts under way. We just had a conference in Columbia SC a few weeks ago. We have ongoing meetings and discussion with other churches in the SE about how to meet the financial needs of the missions that are being supported out of the SE. We are bringing in outside speakers and our ministers are speaking at other congregations. A bunch of elders from the Atlanta area churces will be attending ElderLink in Atlanta next weekend. I could go on.
Maybe things are different in other regions. Or maybe some people are assuming incorrectly about what others are doing. Or maybe some people are not used to being in control and are finding it difficult to trust others to do the right thing. Probably it is a mix of all three IMO.
I accept that some folks know the committee members and trust their judgment. I don’t know any of the committee personally, but I have had conversations with two committee members and got very different responses to my requests. So I doubt anyone really knows what the committee as a whole thinks. It seems to me that the committee doesn’t agree internally on some significant things.
As an elder I feel more accountability to “get this right” so I think I have to do due diligence before agreeing to something like this.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see where this leads over the next few weeks. Supposedly they will start posting names of churches that sign up, starting (IIRC) April 3.
Alan
March 17th, 2006 at 21:05
As an outsider to the ICOC may I suggest this document: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rmcnemar/ocg/OCG.HTM#Will
What would happen if the ICOC were to disband, it’s members joining so-called mainline churches of Christ? It would seem to me that the benefits that both groups would have to offer would be realized. A look at the history of the Disciples of Christ will show that restructuring para-organizations won’t necessarily solve the ICOC’s problems. The events leading up to the Restructure in ‘68 alienated those who would become the independent Christian churches, lossing members and churches. After all of that they are left with an incomplete merger with the United Churches of Christ, while losing additional members to another offshoot of the DOC. Just some thoughts to consider.
March 18th, 2006 at 6:17
Two of the concerns that are being addressed by the unity proposal include missions (planting / support) and smaller church maturation. By coordinating missions plantings (here and abroad) we reduce redundant efforts. Communication about support also eliminates the possibility of duplicate funding. The needs of smaller churches can find a voice with coordination as well.
With all that said, it would be foolish to think God blesses methods. He blesses heart and attitude.
Walking around Jericho; bad plan - good hearts - success!
Tower of Babel; good plan - bad hearts - failure!
There is certainly no need of the ICOC superstructure of the 90’s, but relational coordination is another story. I think a relational (as opposed to legal, formal, administrative) structure will suffice to meet the concerns of missions and maturation. As Owen commented with the “Last Will and Testimony of the Sprinfield Presbytery”, structure is not always the foundation of unity. Sharing a relationship with God, the same mission and holding to one God, Spirit, baptism, etc… are foundations of unity.
It is also in best interest of ICOC churches to appeal to their local COC / ICC counterparts for help and coordination.
Alan is a great example of wanting unity with our former sister ICOC congregations without excluding fellowship with our restoration brethern.
Clarke also has challenged my heart by his desire for unity.
Sincerely,
Phil Spadaro
March 18th, 2006 at 7:05
I have to agree with all (hey, we’re just one big Mutual Admiration Club in here!), but want to echo Alan’s observations to mine here in Albuquerque. With no Formal Plan For United Cooperation in place, our church has been doing things all along with other Former ICOC congregations in the area. Our leaders have hosted meetings with leaders from other southwestern Former ICOC congregations. I wish we did more with local non-ICOC congregations. OTOH, I know of situations in other areas where the local CoC’s have not wanted to comingle with ICOC’s because of the Instrumental Music Issue.
The reason I wanted to echo Alan’s observations is that I think he may even have understated what the “hyper-Autonomy” issue may really be: a canard. ‘Not that I think it’s intentionally deceptive, but that the authors managed to see something that isn’t there because they were so pre-convinced that it would be.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:12
As a current member of the ICoC, it is interesting and helpful to see the comments of those looking ‘from the outside in’.
The best perspective I have seen from a current member thus far is:
http://www.salguod.net/weblog/archive/000442.shtml
Personally, I am concerned about the call for certain men to fulfill the role of an apostle though the office of an apostle no longer exists. It seems a strained argument that the apostles came to lay the foundation (Eph 2:20), yet their role is still needed. I am also concrened that the unity is almost entirely described as a function of authority. The necessity of those with “moral and regional authority” for this plan seems like a step backwards in our understanding. Lastly, as others have mentioned, I do not believe that relationships with other Restoration Movement churches is outside the scope of this document. Instead, this document (per the Q&A addendum) seeks to find those that believe a ‘historical set of doctrines’. If a church agrees with most, but not all of this agreement (which would include me), they are urged *NOT* to sign it.