I’m back after a busy start to summer, with the fourth in an on-going series exploring the unique use of certain words and phrases within the Church of God. Learn more about this series HERE.

In the attempt to flesh out our theology, Church of God pioneers sought out ways to reimagine common religious language. In the context of the late 19^th century, our movement’s innovations were driven just as much by the rejection of institutional church life in America as they were by fresh theological understandings.

Our conception of “member” and “membership” became another distinguishing mark in contrast to the mainstream Christianity at the time. This peculiar perspective lingers in the Church of God today, albeit with less fervor. Nevertheless, it further reflects our convictions about the church and how ecclesial life should be expressed.

Those of us who have spent considerable time in the movement know that “membership” is a word that causes a certain level of conversational anxiety. Whenever we are pressed to use the word or respond to it, we feel the need to explain and clarify the particular nuances of our position. We are especially careful about how we express this in our own congregations, but also when talking with those outside of our movement. The ripple effect of this is seen in the many anecdotes I am sure we are all familiar with, when a Church of God individual starts attending a congregation of a different denomination and, to the frustration of their leadership, refuses to become a member of that fellowship.

In short, we bristle at the suggestion of any formal church membership that endues implicit or explicit spiritual status. It is not that we see membership itself as bad or wrong—it is a biblical concept derived from the metaphor of the human body (e.g. Romans 12:4-5). The problem, as we see it, is the human criteria and constraints around membership which supersede God who is the one who ultimately places us within the church through Christ.

Warner railed against the extra requirements placed on those in the church, emphasizing that he did not teach or accept any “other condition of membership in the church, than those conditions found in the Word of God.” As another early Gospel Trumpet writer emphasized, “We keep no class-book, or record of membership, but believe it is sufficient to have our names recorded in heaven.” Members are those who have been spiritually reborn—a theological understanding that expressed itself frequently on church signage with the tagline, “Where Christian Experience Makes You a Member.”

As is often the case with such interpretations and positions, working them out practically is somewhat more challenging than the ideal to which we aspire.

The best example of this can be seen in how congregations try to establish clear and consistent boundaries for their fellowship, especially when it comes to legal matters, but increasingly as well for accountability. It is easy to say that “blood-washed ones” make up the church, but when it comes down to making important congregational decisions, that definition becomes unworkable, if not precarious. To address this concern, it has been common practice for our churches to include a provision for “voting members” in their bylaws, outlining several criteria, ranging from church attendance to financial support. Despite the attempts to clarify the differences between our spiritual understanding of membership and this legal definition, in practice the actual distinction is largely blurred.

Recognizing the difficulties in the above semantic gymnastics, a growing number of Church of God congregations are adopting more formal, general membership standards. Their argument is that avoiding membership hampers relational and functional accountability. In addition, they contend that discipleship requires a certain level of commitment to being part of a local congregation, and that may include such requirements as tithing, among other things.

As is typically the case when examining our movement’s history, it is highly instructive to understand the original context in which our early pioneers found themselves, and the abuses they reacted against. As in other, similar cases, the circumstances of the past may not be as relevant to us today.

What Warner and others were reacting to 135 years ago is the explicit and implicit status that church membership represented in society. Especially among mainline churches, being a member granted certain levels of privilege both within and outside the congregation. In the larger society, it may have given one greater access to certain jobs or political office. Within the church itself, full participation, including such rites as communion, depended on it. This tied in well with other status points, such as the buying of pews which gave families preferential seating during services. It is no wonder that people found it confusing to distinguish between formal membership and one’s place before God.

For the most part, oppressive membership policies and procedures are not as prevalent in North America today. In a society that values free-will association, excessive boundary barriers do not go over well. Of course, there are still churches that exercise tight controls, and the Church of God is right to critique the abuses that arise out of such membership systems.

Today, we may be at a point where the pendulum has swung to the other side. In many situations, the lack of clear expectations and declarations may be feeding the hyper-individualism of our age, preventing meaningful accountability and discipleship within congregations. Churches and leaders would be wise to examine the current discussions around “bounded sets” and “centered sets” for congregational life and ministry.

I have heard it wrongly asserted that “the Church of God does not have membership.” In fact, we have never been opposed to membership per se, rather the emphasis on institutional belonging over one’s spiritual status within the church. In this manner, our movement has instilled a certain degree of thoughtfulness into the discussion. That’s a legacy worth acknowledging.

The resurrected “Anderson Campmeeting” that took place a couple of weeks ago (more on that coming soon) provided the Church of God in the United States and Canada an opportunity for a timely, specially called General Assembly meeting on Thursday, June 4^th.

Since moving to a biennial convention, the General Assembly also switched to meeting only once every two years. This has reduced the frequency of our interactions on important matters concerning the movement and how we take care of business. Even prior to this change, one of the greatest challenges has been getting meaningful attendance from across the church. Recent efforts to permit online participation and voting have helped, but overall participation from our diverse constituencies remains tragically low. To meet the challenges of today and the future, it is vital that we take a serious look at how we maximize the effectiveness of the Assembly.

This month’s meeting can be seen as a small step in the right direction. The agenda set out to further modernize our bylaws to adopt a technology-first approach for special meetings of the Assembly. Previously, meeting notifications and ballots for such meetings needed to be sent by postal mail. A bylaws amendment was presented and passed to allow for the sole usage of electronic methods, if necessary. This should allow for greater efficiency and lower costs. Pressing matters can now be addressed by the larger church with relative ease.

As valuable as this decision is, it is only part of the story related to the June 4^th meeting. This was not just about approving a procedural change, which under normal circumstances could have waited until 2027. In actuality, there are some stronger winds of change in place, and this specially called meeting was the first step in an unfolding process that will continue over the next year.

State of the Movement

The Assembly began with a “Statement of the Movement Address” by Church of God Ministries Interim Director, Monté Dillard. With a captive audience, both in Anderson and online, this was a valuable opportunity to keep the movement abreast of current challenges and opportunities. Dillard’s presentation was passionate and energetic, indicative of the bold leadership he is providing during this time of massive transition.

In his speech, Dillard reassured us that “the church is alive;” but pointed out we are facing some significant challenges. He reminded us that within the next decade a majority of pastors will be retiring or close to retirement, highlighting the “urgent need to raise up emerging leaders.” He also pointed out that “we must speak honestly about our need to strengthen pastoral and congregational health across our movement,” and used this opportunity to announce Joshua Brandt as the Director of Congregational Vitality, a new position, reimagining the role previously held by Handel Smith.

Our Interim Director also celebrated improved financial health at Church of God Ministries, and the continued impact of Global Strategy.

This presentation was timely, and set the stage for the relatively brief business meeting that followed.

Preparing for the Future

As stated above, two bylaws amendments were approved, but we were also given greater insight into why this meeting was held at this time. Members of the Structure and Policy Task Force were also invited to report their progress at this meeting. This body was established to address the deeper change that is needed before we move forward with the hiring of a new General Director. Their report emphasized that this is ultimately about more than just structure. Task Force member, Jake Zaski, stated that from the research done it was obvious that people across the movement “weren’t disengaged because they didn’t care, but … people felt disengaged because they didn’t see the reason to lean in.” In other words, they saw this as more than a matter of participation or even relationships; but one of direction: “A cry for mission in our churches.” Church of God members are not sure where the movement is moving.

The Task Force revealed that they have developed a major new proposal for how the General Assembly and Ministries Council function, and that new bylaws will be presented, and hopefully voted upon as early as August. The amendments passed at this specially called meeting are intended to facilitate this important impending vote.

Trust Requires Communication

To this point, I have tried to summarize the content of the meeting without much commentary. I believe it is important, however, to offer some much-needed reflection on the process and what this means for us going forward as the Church of God in the United States and Canada.

First, I commend the tone of this meeting, and the opportunity that it provides us to forge ahead in a positive direction. We dealt with some important procedural business, but we also heard from key leaders who challenged us to look ahead. As Dillard stated, “let us honor our past not by preserving memories alone but by carrying forward the faith, by carrying forward the courage and the commitment that shaped this movement in the first place.”

That being said, I am seriously concerned about the decision-making process ahead of us in regards to the proposal from the Structure and Policy Task Force.

To be sure, I am genuinely excited about the prospect of a reorientation of the way we conduct our collective ministry. I am not content with the status quo, nor do I find it necessary to preserve the ways we do things now as a General Assembly.

Nevertheless, I see some major red flags waving before us that we must contend with if we are to implement a new vision with unity and integrity.

I have regularly bemoaned that fact that the Ministries Council has often done a terrible job of communicating its actions and processes to the larger church. Take the impending proposal coming out of the Structure and Policy Task Force. We were told that the General Assembly may be called again in as little as two months to vote on a massive structural change.

TWO months?

While we were assured that there will be opportunities given to explain the proposed new changes once they are distributed to the church (i.e. currently only the Ministries Council has considered them), there is no way that in roughly eight weeks (in the summer no less) that this vision will be adequately communicated to our congregations and pastors. I am sure there will be some webinars, massive explanatory documents (including FAQs), and likely even a compelling video to aid in the marketing of this proposal. But, herein lies the problem: It will be marketed to the church, with little opportunity for true dialogue, engagement and revision.

For quite some time now, the General Assembly has been used as a “rubber stamping” body to formalize decisions that are made elsewhere. Of course, the Ministries Council is mandated to do the heavy lifting of the Assembly between meetings, and they should. But, ultimately, in order for this new structure to work (even if it is the best, most clever design ever) there must be buy-in and ownership of the overwhelming majority across North America.

I know there is urgency to move forward, but we cannot do so without adequate consultation across the church. Trust needs to be built and earned. And, this will only happen with respectful and transparent communication. It cannot be rushed.

Sadly, such communication is lacking. For example, it has been the common practice in recent years to send out Assembly agendas and resolutions just a few weeks before the meetings, thereby limiting the possibility for meaningful engagement on weighty matters. Or, sometimes information is missing altogether, such as for this most recent meeting. It would have been so much more impactful for the meeting announcement to indicate that the Task Force would be providing an update with an eye to the future. The Ministries Council has also failed to follow through with and update us on its other commitments to the church, as in the work that was promised to address sexual ethics.

Yes, we need an organizational reset, but more importantly we need to re-establish trust if we are to see movement cohesiveness. It all begins with communication.

This is the third in an on-going series exploring the unique use of certain words and phrases within the Church of God. Learn more about this series HERE.

So far in this series, I have looked at a couple of words that we commonly use and/or avoid when describing ourselves. In this installment we are examining a phrase that goes back to our beginnings, but is rarely used today. In fact, I am quite certain that this may be new to some of my readers. Only those with deep roots in the Church of God will be familiar with it. This expression is nonetheless significant because it reveals much about the self-understanding of our founders, and gives us pause to reflect on how this has changed for us today.

“Evening Light” is a phrase that goes back to the very beginning of the Church of God movement. It is derived from Zechariah’s description of the Day of the Lord, which includes the metaphor, “at evening time it shall be light” (Zech 14:7 KJV). D. S. Warner used it to describe his own personal experience coming out of the darkness of sectarianism and into the full light of truth, and included it in this song of the same name:

This imagery persisted beyond Warner. For decades, it was frequently found in various other writings and songs as well, including the chorus of C. W. Naylor’s much beloved, “Once Again We Come”:

Furthermore, beginning in 1906, The Gospel Trumpet included the Zechariah reference on its masthead. Evening Light was a common way for us to describe our mission and vision.

Today, Evening Light is an anachronism, rarely used in our circles. Its only notable, consistent usage is by the faction that broke away from the larger movement in 1913 as part of the necktie controversy of the time. This group, often associated with Guthrie Oklahoma, now brands itself as the Church of God Evening Light.

So, what happened? Why is this phrase no longer a staple of our vocabulary?

It is important for us today to realize that Evening Light was not just a convenient, albeit biblical, label we attached to ourselves in some kind of marketing move. This was much more than a slogan. Our pioneers were convinced that what started in Beaver Dam, Indiana in October, 1881 was the fulfillment of Scripture. God was using this reformation to gather together the true Church of God in preparation for the imminent second coming of Jesus.

In other words, endemic to this phrase was a definite eschatological self-understanding that corresponded with American apocalypticism of the 19^th century, which included such influential movements as Dispensationalism and Adventism. The use of a church-historical framework was not new, and therefore easily adapted by those who “saw the church” for its final reform. They would point to Scripture references, especially Old Testament ones, to support the conviction that this was all part of God’s grand plan. Especially following the writings of F. G. Smith, many within the Church of God held this high view of our movement’s place within history.

I believe it is apparent that only a very small number among us still hold to this view that our movement is explicitly referenced in Scripture. Most would have no trouble affirming that we have a God-given calling within the global church, but would be uncomfortable with claims beyond that.

There are several reasons for this. Certainly, our approaches to biblical interpretation and eschatology have shifted in the last 145 years. Beyond that, however, there is a largely unspoken concession that despite the fervor of our founders, the high expectations for our movement have hardly been realized. Yes, we have contributed significantly to the Kingdom and the larger church, but not as the force that our Evening Light forebearers anticipated.

What should we make of this? Do we just write this off as an overzealous eschatology coming from an era of religious upheaval and quest for hope?

In reaction to the hermeneutic enthusiasm of our early pioneers, I do not want us to lose one of the positive features of their Evening Light vision. Regardless of whether they got everything right, we must admire the passion and focus they had for proclaiming the message of holiness and unity. For them, this was not just an abstract theological endeavor, but grounded in an urgent, God-given mandate to see the church be everything it was meant to be.

We may have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. As I have written before, the Church of God has tended to drift away from its original mission and purpose; instead settling to blend into the larger world of American Evangelicalism. Consequently, many of our pastors and congregations rarely emphasize our distinctives.

There is much we can admire about and learn from the Church of God founders. Their fervent passion, identifying as the Evening Light, is one such example. One does not have to share their understanding of biblical timelines to appreciate the fact that the world and Christianity today continue in need of a reorientation around Christ. In these dark times, a new expression of Evening Light may be as relevant as ever.

This is the second in an on-going series exploring the unique use of certain words and phrases within the Church of God. Learn more about this series HERE

In my last installment in this series, I explored our much maligned word, “denomination.” We struggle to define ourselves, and when we do we are careful not to use any term that goes against our anti-sectarian heritage.

“Movement,” however, is a word with which we are comfortable. It has positive ring to it, and so is commonly used today as a placeholder when we are cornered or tempted to use the “D” word. Frequently, we refer to ourselves as the Church of God Reformation Movement.

It is widely assumed that we have always referred to ourselves as a movement. You might be surprised to learn that this is not the case. The use of this word is a relatively recent development and was not part of our early identity. Why is that, and how relevant is this label for us today?

History

While I have not examined every piece of evidence, I have poked around enough to notice that in the first quarter century of the Church of God, our pioneers almost never used the word “movement” to describe themselves or what they were doing.

D. S. Warner, for example, rarely used the word at all, and if he did it was usually to describe others, often polemically. I similarly fail to find this self-referential terminology in the early editions of The Gospel Trumpet, although there are incidences of it being applied to others (including Lutherans and Methodists, for example), almost as a synonym of denomination. Further evidence of this unexpected omission is noticed in Henry Wickersham’s 1900 book, A History of the Church, the first attempt to examine the development of the Church of God within the larger context of Christian history. From all this, it is obvious that movement was not in the common vocabulary of our early forebearers.

I suspect that an innocuous word like movement was out of their comfort zone in those early years. Warner and his followers saw themselves as expressing God’s true church. To declare that they were a movement within this larger church would have been a compromise. Such a distinctive faction, even with its lofty ideals of the church and refute of denominationalism, would have been considered sectarian. They were convinced that they represented the universal Church of God and nothing else. Not even a movement.

Eventually, reflection of what took place in the late 19^th century led subsequent Church of God leaders and writers to see things differently. In 1909, for example, we see possibly the first incident in The Gospel Trumpet of movement applied to us. This trend gained momentum through to 1921 when Andrew L. Byers’ book, Birth of a Reformation, was published. Here we see the phrase “reformation movement” actually used a few times, although not as a formal label, but as a description. Byers was not limited to this phrase, however, as he also employed “religious movement,” “spiritual movement,” and “come out movement;” all of which were distinguished from the larger holiness movement.

Based on the evidence I have seen, I postulate that the full realization of this trend took place in the 1950s due to the work of another Church of God historian, John W. V. Smith. He wrote a couple of important books, Heralds of a Brighter Day (1955) and Truth Marches On (1956), where he explicitly referred to us as the Church of God Reformation Movement. The latter book was revised twenty years later as A Brief History of the Church of God Reformation Movement (the precursor to his magnum opus, The Quest for Holiness and Unity, prepared for the Centennial celebration in 1980). In his writings, Smith framed our history within the larger story of reformations and movements through the centuries, and it was apparent to him that we deserved to carry the moniker Reformation Movement proudly. This has seemed to stick. In the last seventy years, it has gained a prominent place in our lexicon.

The Challenge of Names

As with all the words we are exploring in this series, the intent is not to nitpick them. Nevertheless, language both reflects and shapes culture, so careful examination can help us better understand ourselves, both in terms of our past and what we aspire toward in the future.

The challenge remains for us to find meaningful and accurate ways to describe ourselves, both internally and to the outside world. We bristle at the idea of being a denomination, and there are few other good options available to us. Movement is attractive as it connotes a growing group of people with a clear mission, sizable influence, and Spirit-led organization.

Even though Warner and others did not employ this terminology to describe their reformation project, the word movement does convey well what took place during our formative years. There was a powerful message that was spreading from its Midwest locus across the United States, and to other countries. Lives were experiencing transformation. We had inspirational leaders who found creative ways to get their message out and to mobilize others to spread the word. This was accomplished initially without much organizational overhead or bureaucracy.

The Church of God took shape at a time when movements of all kinds were emerging in America. The post-Civil War period was a time of significant upheaval and reshaping of life and institutions. Religious, political, social and intellectual movements were a natural outcome of this climate. For us, specifically, the example and influence of the holiness movement was instrumental. In turn, the rise of Pentecostalism at the beginning of the 20^th century can trace some of its origins to William Seymour who was shaped for a time in the Church of God. Movements tend to spur on other movements. Movements can also be the breeding ground for revival and renewal.

Seeing ourselves as a movement makes sense in light of our past, but I am not convinced it as helpful of a term today.

The problem lies in the fact that “movement” has taken on a more technical usage in recent decades. While it is still possible to use the word to describe incipient trends, sociologists have come to define the term with much finer precision. Today movements are understood as distinctive forms of collective action marked by semiformal structures, distributed leadership, common identity, emotional intensity, and a change orientation.

While the Church of God carries the movement DNA of our past, if we are truly honest, this word does not accurately describe us today. We are nostalgic for the energy and passion of our founders, but we have now taken on the forms of a 145-year-old organization often preoccupied with maintaining our identity and structures, if not mere survival. Consequently, few outside observers looking at us would define us by this word as it is currently understood.

Of course, the language we choose is not just about past and present; it can also inspire us for the future. Perhaps, the one argument to be made for continuing to use the word movement is that it reminds us of the God-given vision we have for the church. We sincerely desire to be a movement, and that’s a worthy aspiration. If we are to “move” again, however, it will happen not because of trying to orchestrate it through structures and programs; but by allowing the Spirit to reinvigorate our holiness and unity calling for a new time.

Ready to go! This is the first in an on-going series exploring the unique use of certain words and phrases in the Church of God. Learn more about this series HERE

One of the most awkward moments that we in the Church of God experience is when someone refers to us using the “D” word. You know the word. The one that we feel comfortable using to describe other Christian groups, but fervently refuse to call ourselves. If it is used on us by someone from the outside or, God-forbid, by one of our own, we squirm and are quick to react and correct the accuser with the proper nomenclature.

In this series I am looking at words and expressions that carry their own special meaning and significance for our movement. Most of these we use frequently and in our own special way, but in some instances, they are words that carry negative connotations. We consider them an affront to our identity. The “D” word is one such case.

Let us consider this much feared and loathed word, and examine whether it deserves the malignment we assign to it.

To begin, it is fair to say that some Church of God folk are not put off by the word. Occasionally I hear, often with a sense of levity and in informal conversations, the abductive formula,

If it looks like a Duck, swims like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, then it probably is a Duck.

The logic being that if we are honest, we must admit that ultimately by definition we meet the criteria. Not everyone, however, agrees or is willing to make that concession.

Of course, this is not about ducks or ornithology.

It’s the other “D” word: Denomination.

Are we a denomination? And does it matter?

Read more

I’m excited to introduce a new series here on ChoGBlog!

As a movement with particular history, beliefs, practices, and self-identity the Church of God also expresses itself in unique ways through its language. There are words and phrases we use that distinguish us, both internally among ourselves and externally to the larger Christian community. In the coming weeks I will examine some of these terms and ideas that help define who we are, and who we are not.

Language is inextricably linked with culture. On the one hand, the way we function together as a people creates and sustains words and phrases that express what we stand for and value. On the other hand, such language, used consistently, perpetuates and reinforces our culture. Our language, therefore, reflects our culture, but also creates it. Sharing common stories and nomenclature is vital for any organization, the Church of God included.

Of course, our culture expresses itself in many other ways as well. For example, organizational structure, music, events, and symbols all represent who we are as a movement and contribute to shaping our future.

Awareness of the elements that make up our culture is essential if we are to better understand our past and present. This is especially the case for those of us steeped in Church of God life. We are familiar and comfortable with our cultural artifacts and practices, and often take them for granted. This applies to the language we use. In our internal conversations, preaching, and written communications we frequently utilize certain expressions. When the audience is made up of others who speak the same “language” these words and phrases resonate, both intellectually and emotionally. They powerfully convey meaning and affirm the relational bonds we have with each other.

Problems arise, however, when our language is used with outsiders, both Christian and those outside of the church. Unless we are careful to translate our ideas using common conceptions and definitions, our unique language can be a barrier for effective communication.

Take a word like “membership” for example. As I will explore in a future post, we approach this word uniquely among most Christians. We have our own understanding of what it means in the context of belonging to the church, and therefore are resistant to the term as it is commonly used and practiced in Christian congregations outside of our movement. This can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings, humorous exchanges, and/or even awkward encounters when we use it as a well-intentioned teaching moment to correct others on their “wrong” way of applying membership within the church.

So, in the coming weeks I will explore a range of words that have distinctive usage and understanding within the Church of God. While most of these are terms we use in our own unique way, there are some that we actually avoid using since they carry all kinds of negative connotations for us.

I already have a list of words that I have been noting for this series. So as not to prejudice the ideas you have, I will not share that list at this time. Instead, I would love to hear your suggestions of words or phrases that have their own Church of God flavor. Please pass them on to me in the comments below or send me a message. I will try to address as many of these as possible.

I trust this will be both a thought-provoking and fun exercise to uncover a little more about who we are as the Church of God.

NOTE: I have not posted anything recently due to a vacation last month and the factors listed below. Paid subscribers received a one-month extension to their subscriptions. Regular postings will now resume.

I am publishing this article at the beginning of Lent, a season traditionally set aside for reflection, prayer,…

Read more

Earlier this month, Church of God Ministries announced a major price increase for Leadership Focus* candidates, beginning in Spring 2026. What might appear on the surface as a minor administrative adjustment, the impact of this change will have significant impact on our ability to attract and train pastors and other vocational ministers to serve our con…

Read more

This Substack is a place for addressing important issues within the Church of God. While my own writing is the foundation for this blog, increasingly I am giving voice to guest writers, and from time to time I conduct interviews with key leaders across the movement. At first, these interviews were only in audio format (i.e. podcast) due to the limitations of the Substack platform.

Recently, Substack has expanded its tools to permit video to be incorporated. This gives more options to subscribers who may find video more compelling, but still allows those who prefer the convenience of audio to listen in through the Substack app or the web.

In this latest edition of what will now be called “ChogBlog Interviews” I had the opportunity to chat with Dr. Kimberly Majeski, Executive Director of Christian Women Connection. For over 93 years the national women’s organization of the Church of God has been a dynamic force both in national endeavors such as mission support, but also in the hundreds of chapters in local congregations. This network of women has changed over the years, and under Majeski’s leadership is retooling for the future. You will want to hear how this evolution is taking place, and the importance of this organization for women in particular and the movement overall.

The website for Christian Women Connection is: christianwomenconnection.org

ChoGBlog Interviews is an exclusive feature available to paid subscribers.

Read more

The post below is written by a guest writer. ChoGBlog is a forum for open discussion of ideas and issues impacting the Church of God. I am open to publishing articles from others in our movement, even if they represent views that differ from my own. Inclusion of this content does not necessarily imply my endorsement of th…

Read more

There was some excitement last week in the Church of God with the announcement of a 2026 rebirth of Anderson Campmeeting. In his weekly video, Interim Director Monté Dillard revealed the plans alongside Dr. Jeff Frymire, Director of the James Earl Massey Preaching Center at Anderson University School of Theology and C…

Read more

The post below is written by a guest writer. ChoGBlog is a forum for open discussion of ideas and issues impacting the Church of God. I am open to publishing articles from others in our movement, even if they represent views that differ from my own. Inclusion of this content does not necessarily imply my endorsement of the …

Read more

Since the demise of the Gospel Trumpet / Vital Christianity in 1996 (and the later, three-year attempted rebirth as ONEVoice!), our movement in North America has lacked a widely accepted vehicle to articulate and disseminate our message of holiness and unity. Magazines, newspapers, and other print periodicals are largely …

Read more

One of the factors that contributed to the initial growth and spread of the Church of God movement was the leveraging of technology.

Today the idea of technology pervades our lives, as we are inundated with new innovations (often centered around the digital world of computers) promising greater simplicity and work effectiv…

Read more

The post below is written by a guest writer. ChoGBlog is a forum for open discussion of ideas and issues impacting the Church of God. I am open to publishing articles from others in our movement, even if they represent views that differ from my own. Inclusion of this content does not necessarily imply my endorsement of the…

Read more

The post below is written by a guest writer. ChoGBlog is a forum for open discussion of ideas and issues impacting the Church of God. I am open to publishing articles from others in our movement, even if they represent views that differ from my own. Inclusion of this content does not necessarily imply my endorsement of t…

Read more

In light of recent current events, I postponed some previously planned posts, and decided to respond with this longer-than usual commentary.

Our already highly polarized American society was further bifurcated on September 10th with the tragic assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

It must be emphatically stated that this cold-blooded murder was nothing less than evil. As people who are transformed by the love of God, we must call out such acts of violence, and stand with prayerful compassion alongside Kirk’s family, as well as the many onlookers, mainly students, at Utah Valley University who will be forever traumatized by the brutality of this event.

We should also lament over the manner in which the United States has been spiraling downward as a result of the decline in civility within political discourse, the growing vilification of those we disagree with, and unceasing gun violence. Disturbingly, Kirk’s death is not the first, nor likely the last, of such senseless acts to take place within our country. The rampant plague of school shootings, for example, is a prime indicator of how low we have fallen.

Maranatha!

The purpose of this article is not to pile-on to the political rhetoric that has exploded in the past week or so. That is beyond the scope of this Substack.

My concern, however, is to examine this watershed moment from the vantage point of us in the Church of God, because the aftermath of Kirk’s killing reveals much about the state of our movement and our allegiances within it. This should prompt us toward thoughtful reflection and response.

Read more

I have hesitated to write this post.

As I consider the evolution of ChoGBlog (including the recent expansion to guest writers), I have taken the time to reflect personally on the impact of this project. A question I regularly ask myself is: Is this worth doing?

The reason I have not resisted putting out this article is bec…

Read more

The post below is written by a guest writer. ChoGBlog is a forum for open discussion of ideas and issues impacting the Church of God. I am open to publishing articles from others in our movement, even if they represent views that differ from my own. Inclusion of this content does not necessarily imply my endorsement of …

Read more

I am excited to announce the next phase of ChoGBlog!

When I started this project two years ago, I recognized the need for more thoughtful conversations on topics and issues related to the Church of God. I was willing to put myself out there, not because I believed that I had all the answers, but because it needed to be…

Read more