Assemblies of God: Unity and Diversity
I encourage all of us to consider the weaknesses and cons of using a “conservative vs. liberal” framework in our relationships with each other in the Assemblies of God. Self-identified “liberals” and “conservatives” are usually loud, divisive, and do not help in furthering the kingdom and mission of God in a constructive manner. They are too interested in themselves and preserving their own agendas. In order to directly engage “liberals” or “conservatives” is to necessarily play into their divisive game, and only gives them more motivation for polemics!
Please pray and think about what fruit these polemics will produce. The Assemblies of God is a family which is committed to the greatest global cooperative effort to make disciples of all nations. Let’s treat each other like this is actually true, and be a people who not only proclaim but practice the ministry of reconciliation.
“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”
Like this:
Posted on July 21, 2011, in Church and tagged Assemblies of God, christianity, Conservativism, Liberalism, Polemics, Reconciliation, Unity, World Assemblies of God Fellowship. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
Good stuff, William. This is why I would follow you into war. Well, I would if I didn’t have strong pacifist tendencies. But I will follow you into peace.
TIm, I can’t stand your ultra-conservative pacificism!
Great work, William.
Aside from the fact that I don’t even know what the words liberal and conservative really mean, Dr. Jim Edwards sugests that the words have been used as weapons. Your remarks reflect this thought. Michel Foucault refused to engage in polemic because it did not reflect a desire to discover the truth, but rather assumed that the interlocutor in any discussion was incorrect. The rules of informal reasoning suggest that combat metaphors for conversation are particularly harmful for achieving agreement.
On a lighter note, both conservatism and liberalism have been used to forward agendas that are centered on promoting the status quo in favor of their respective proponents. If justice is that which defends the interest of the weaker party (Socrates), then neither conservatism nor liberalism have a very good record of fulfilling that goal.
Actually, in my experience, liberals tend to want to stay under the radar if they’re in an institution dependent upon a conservative constituency. So they’re deceitful, not loud and confrontational.
Same could be said of a “conservative” in a “liberal” environment (whatever those terms mean). Your comment just serves as an example of what I’m talking about. These kinds of blanket statements don’t actually refer to anything since I don’t know what sort of definitions you’re operating with, so they are irrelevant (Now I’m sure you can conjure up a set of definitions, but I’m more interested in real concrete issues without being divisive in spirit). All your comment does is produce further polemics and paranoia within the Assemblies of God family.
The Assemblies of God should be able to freely and openly talk through concrete issues (theology, morality, practices, etc.) while keeping in mind that there is a diverse range of opinions on these issues. At the end of the day we must commit ourselves to this constructive approach, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”
Do you (or anyone else who may be reading) have a constructive and helpful comment that will help the AG move forward as a united yet diverse cooperative fellowship?
I like the sentiment behind this post and agree with it’s basic premise: In essentials, unity. I do believe that “labels” quickly become “libel,” especially when they become politicized and charged with emotion. When they become overly generalized ways to caricature others, they divide more than they define.
That said, I also believe it’s important to understand and define the distinctive worldview differences between people. Unity is only superficial when people use similar words meaning *totally* different things. Even the very concept of “unity” to someone with a generally liberal worldview would not compare easily to someone with a libertarian, conservative, anarchist, or — name-your-own — worldview.
We should not pigeonhole each other, in Christ there is neither “Jew nor Greek, male, nor female,” etc. But if we are to strive together, in unity, toward any sort of worthy goal, we have to understand where each of us are coming from so that what we discuss has actual meaning.
One of the chief problems with such pigeonholing labels is that in our disconnected age it’s very difficult to “be of one mind” when we aren’t physically in each other’s lives. When we don’t share actual community. Where the relationship is only literary, not literal. When our chief means of contact between relative strangers is digital commentary, status updates, texts, IMs, and emails, the shorthand of labels is tempting, and easy. And disastrous.
Regards,
Rich
BlogRodent