I sent 6 questions to all of the candidates that I was able to track email addresses for. I thought that it was important for us to know and understand what there stance or vision was on these issues. I wanted to post all of the responses at one time but since many of the email addresses are hard to find i thought I would post the questions here so that everyone has a fair chance to be heard. If you're name is on the list and you did not Get an email from me I would love to post your response. You can do so here or you can email me at RSVP@thefutureag.com.
Will you let your name stand?
1. What is the biggest challenge that our fellowship is facing and how should it be handled?
2. How would you open the door for credentialed women ministers to be elevated to more prominent positions of leadership?
3. How could the AG better connect with the next generation of Pastors?
4. How do you feel uniquely qualified to lead this fellowship?
5. What do you see that the A/G has to offer young leaders (particularly those under 40)?
How would you answer these questions? What other Questions would be important to have answers to?
I will post the responses when and or if I get most of there replies. It is short notice and I am sure many of them are busy getting ready for next week. I'll keep you posted with what I find out.
I am an AG minister and I believe speaking in other tongues…
I am an AG minister and I believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit…
I am an AG minister and I believe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit… (check all that apply)
About This Site
Blog Archive
-
►
2007
(84)
-
►
October
(10)
- What One George Thinks of Another
- My Take On The Trip To Springfield (P1)
- Dr. Woods Thoughts from Tuesday...
- Executive Leadership Team and You
- Watch New AG Leaders Online
- Relevance vs. Power (Part 3)
- What a Win looks like...
- Leadership Voice Monday: Beth Grant
- Fall Series...
- Relevance vs. Power (part 2)
-
►
September
(12)
- Relevance vs. Power (part 1)
- The Generation Gap: Take Two
- The Generation Gap
- George Wood at AGTS
- Discipleship Dilemma 4 (of 4)
- Discipleship Dilemma 3 (of 4)
- Discipleship Dilemma 2 (of 4)
- Discipleship Dilemma 1 (of 4)
- Leadership Voice Monday: John Palmer
- Renewed Prayer Challenge
- Why? And How?
- Leadership Voice Monday: Doug Clay
-
►
October
(10)
61 comments:
Tory... great idea. Just a thought that you may have already decided on. If the candidates responses are lengthy, perhaps you could simply post a link to a Word or PDF doc for each person that we could download rather than consistently scrolling through what could be a very lengthy and narrow comment section.
Tory:
As I wrote in an email to you, I'm opposed to asking these kind of questions of the candidates for several reasons:
1. The AG has a longstanding tradition that prospective national officers do not candidate for office. This has served the denomination well so far, and it fits within the biblical qualifications for office, which focus on character and proven competence rather than vision and future plans. I fear that if we begin to ask candidates essentially to write a platform for office, we will needlessly politicize the process, as people openly jockey for office. Do we really want our denomination's elections to resemble our quadrennial presidential election campaigns? I don't.
2. Some of the questions lend themselves to boilerplate responses. Most candidates will probably say that our biggest challenge is to make more and better disciples of Jesus Christ. I think, in fact, that all of the candidates would say something like that. We are, after all, an evangelistic movement. So what we will have learned if the responses are that generic? Nothing. The only thing we will learn is what jargon or lingo the prospective candidates use to express this basic vision.
3. Asking for specific policy ideas(women in ministry, outreach to younger ministers, etc.) is also not, in my opinion, a good idea. First, why focus only on these issues? We younger ministers think they are important, but they are not the only important issues our denomination is facing. Asking a candidate to declare what he is going to do may alienate people who like the person but disagree with the policies. Second, while the GS plays an influential role in shaping policy, much policy is actually determined by the board of administration, executive and general presbyteries, and even the general council.
4. Question 4 especially (about unique qualification) asks the candidates to openly campaign for themselves, and thus lends itself to a little chest-thumping.
5. One of the reasons many of us don't know who these candidates are is because we are just showing up at general council for the first time. Many of us are uninvolved with the denomination (at the sectional, district, and general council levels). But all of a sudden, we are showing up on the scene, asking denominational leaders to change longstanding traditions, and respond to our specifric concerns as young ministers. If a person showed up at our churches one time and insisted that we make deep changes in our preaching and worship in order to satisfy his interests, we wouldn't give them the time of day. Shouldn't we be more involved in the system (at sectional, district, and general council levels) before we begin asking for major changes in the way things are done?
We younger ministers will lead this movement in the next generation. And we do things differently than the ministers and leaders older than us. But if we want them to respect us and our concerns, shouldn't we show them the same respect by honoring longstanding traditions and refraining from politicizing this process?
We need an open forum for discussion, which is why I appreciate this blog so much, and especially your efforts. But we also need to realize that change takes time, and if we want to change the system, we must work from the inside. Asking potential candidates questions such as these, in my opinion, is an outsiders' attempt to change the system.
See you at Indy!
George
Wow! Thank yoU! I'm excited to see the responses.
While I have greatly appreciated this blog and have enjoyed reading everyone's comments, I must confess I am a little concerned about the "6 Questions" survey.
George really articulated things very well with his post. Thank you, sir! Your insights have been tremendous.
I am concerned that the recipients of this survey face a bit of a lose-lose situation. If they answer the questions, they risk coming off like they have been candidating/politicing for GS. If they choose not to respond, their lack of participation could be viewed in a bit of a negative light by those who read this blog. {Are they apathetic? Are they afraid to share their real feelings?} When in all reality, all they want to do is avoid politics.
The very thing we would hope to accomplish through a survey such as this could produce many things EXCEPT the desired results.
Reading their answers may be thought-provoking; but, I would expect that a number of the 'candidates' {and I even dislike using that word} will respectfully decline to answer the survey.
I love the idea of seeing their answers directly from them, rather then allowing an opinion to be formed from hearsay. As we all know, the AG is a very small world where everyone is related to someone who's best friends with their brother...I would much rather learn about an individual based on my experience with them directly...not someone else's experience or someone else's best friends brother who is married to the daughter of so and so...anyways, you get my drift...thank you for doing this!
ABOVE all else...let's be in prayer for GOD's man (or woman) :)
regardless...
I agree with GPW. Unfortunately I believe it's to late for there to be no politics involved in this.
I am glad that I will not be attending for that very reason.
We need to look unto Jesus a fresh and a new. He is all we need to face the future.
George…
Through reading your other posts and sharing dialog offline, I deeply respect how you develop your thought process. It’s obvious you care deeply about our movement and that you think through your positions carefully. I have gained a respect for your positions. That being said, I have to disagree with you on this one.
I do not believe that asking these individuals to answer these questions means that we are asking them to “candidate” for the position. They did not start their own websites or blogs and then try and garner our support… we named them. And, if they do want to be considered for the position, I would love to hear their thoughts and opinions about the future of our movement. This helps those of us who know absolutely nothing about them to vote with an informed decision.
Additionally, you state that “character and proven competence” should trump “vision and future plans.” First off, how can I know a candidate’s character if I have never met them? And on what criteria do you base “competence?” Let’s be real here. Competence in our movement is measured by church size and missions giving. You may disagree, but what other criteria do you know of that measures a pastor’s competence? In my opinion, the ACMR report is such a “guesstimate”-type of form that it should not be used in any way, shape, or form to measure a pastor’s competence.
And I disagree with you also that the reason I do not know the candidates is because I have been uninvolved with the movement. Untrue. I attend Sectional and District Councils every year. I also am a staff pastor at what could be considered one of the flagship churches in our district. Yet I have absolutely no idea, for example, what type of a leader Alton Garrison is, his character, or his competence. I have never met the man, and probably never will. So on what criteria do I chose to either vote for or against him? Simply because others say he is good? Hardly. I would just as soon refrain from a vote then to cast it because the crowd says to.
On the contrarian side, I have met your dad. I have spent time with him, and have had the opportunity to pick his brain about his views of church, Pentecost and the future of our movement. The information I learned resulted in me gaining a deep respect for him. Shouldn’t the other candidates be given the opportunity to share the same information with me? If not… if they do not answer these questions… then I would vote for your dad on the basis that he is the only one I know. And it is because I know his heart and his vision.
I simply do not see the dangers you do with a presidential-style process. For me, it is as simple as this… if we are going to choose the person by way of a vote, our votes should be informed ones. And questions such as these provide just such information. If our movement believes that the Spirit of God has spoken through the voting body of the constituency about ordaining women (or anything for that matter) and a candidate disagrees with this, we should know that. These are not small matters. They are saying through their actions that they do not believe that our system truly represents the voice of God to our movement. And yet we would put them in leadership anyway?
Sorry, bro. As I said, I flat out love your thought process… but on this one we disagree.
Lane
Why don't we bring the "candidates" on TV like the democrats and republicans for a debate! It used to be that this process involved sheer prayer and direction from the Holy Spirit. Are we now interviewing prospective candidates first? I think this is going a bit too far. Signed---concerned 20 year credential holder.
My husband had the thought that if what Tory is doing is wrong, then the process by which the majority of senior pastors in our fellowship are brought into a church is wrong. If it is so wrong for the leaders of our movement to be selected with help from information garnered through a questionnaire, when why is it acceptable and even encouraged in churches? I have read district manuals that have been given out in certain places on "how to select a pastor" and almost all of them talk about a questionnaire of sorts. When a church has been interested in us for senior pastor, they have always except in very rare instances sent us a questionnaire and then usually we had to follow that up with a "question and answer" on site during candidation. I would just like to know what the difference is when electing a GS? Maybe this is "the way it's always been done" but does anything in the constitution and bylaws say anything against doing this? It seems that to do it any other way is to just blindly elect someone sort of like eeny meeny minee moe... I mean, would we bring a staff member on in any of our churches without questioning them at all, and instead just pray and fasting about it and trust that we have made the right choice? Maybe Tory's method is different, but if we keep doing the same thing we've always done...
I also had a question...what is an "outsider" as regards this matter? I think maybe more people on this blog are more involved on the sectional or district level than some would think.
I would think it is wrong to go against any rules that are presently in existence from our GC. But do such rules exist?
What's wrong with candidates sharing their heart? Isn't that how we elect pastors at churches? A pastor actually preaches when they are candidating at a church. All we're asking is to just share some vision for our fellowship. Maybe GPW is afraid his father's answers will hurt his numbers in the polls!
George & Phil,
I agree with you.
... but maybe we could at least find out how they feel about incorporating women in leadership...? :)
- Brandy
This survey reflects a basic difference in values between the generations. At 50 years old, I want to be as informed as I can with all information in hand prior to making any decisions. GPW suggests that the existing process "has served the denomination well so far"...who says? In my opinion, our current lack of momentum is a direct result of inadequate leadership stateside--we appointed a financial man to the CEO role and it just hasn't worked well for many of us, for quite some time.
The older generations still believe that information flows from the top down--and we're supposed to still accept that. They have the information and they dole it out to the constituency as they see fit. In reality, we have the information long before the GS sends it out. It's called the information age for a reason.
I completely reject the notion that we should vote out of ignorance. No church would ever elect a pastor this way; no company would appoint a CEO in this ignorant fashion.
While I think it's untenable for all the candidates to submit responses--I sure want to hear from the top five when we get to that stage. Unhealthy (abusive) systems take away people’s voice, choice, and power. That is what the AG has become—an unhealthy system that practices one way communication (at all levels) and has no mechanisms for feedback (formal or informal). Consequently, many of us feel alienated—and worse yet, we have no desire to keep going to ineffective section, district, or general council level meetings and affairs. Because of their top-down orientation—they violate our values.
Furthermore, the district and general council leaders and structures are operating under a grave misunderstanding of the nature of our movement. We are a fellowship of churches and ministers. As a fellowship we appoint members to take care of administrative functions for us (district/general council officers). They serve at our bidding—they are our surrogates—taking care of the business we allot to their care. They are not our lords or bosses—even when we give them the administrative responsibility to guard our faith and conduct. They still remain at our service—not the other way around.
District and General council offices are functionaries—the secretary counts noses, the treasurer counts nickels—the Asst. Supt. takes care of missionaries, the Supt. oversees faith and conduct. Important stuff, but nothing more—whoever came up with the title “District Officials” and the salary packages and perks—has a different understanding of the process than did our founding fathers! They are simply pastors appointed by pastors to take care of some aspect of our business. Who made them Popes and Cardinals?
If the prospective pastors are unwilling to answer basic questions relating to qualifications and vision—take their names off the list. We’re no longer a small group in Hot Springs, Arkansas! I want to know what we’re going to face for the next 10-20 years!! This current process is archaic and I’d be willing to turn my card in to protest a process that is this abusive!
I, too, would disagree with you on this one, George, and also with the anonymous post. I would assume that as a twenty year credential holder, you have surely been involved in at least one job interview process. You know, when people ask you questions and get a feel for whether your vision of ministry matches the church's.
I know of no AG church that just lays the assembled resumes on the table, call a prayer meeting, and then choose a Pastor without so much as an interview or a chance for the Body to hear from the potential leader of that church. We interview them, we ask them why they want the position, etc. That is what we are asking for here.
When I interviewed at the Church I am currently serving at, the interview included a few questions that you could instantly tell there was a story in the history of the Body that caused that question. And these 6 questions certainly do include at least one such "story" question.
George, as to your reference of someone needing to be involved in order to get to know these candidates. I agree with the theory, but the reality is much different. I serve on my District Presbytery and have attended every single DC since I entered the AG, and have been to GC, also. I have sat on national panels with such great men as Tom Greene and Benny Ferguson and sat under the teaching of Garrison and Rutland. And yet, I know almost nothing about most of these guys, and less about others. The only way to actually know each of these men is to have traveled and spent time with them one on one, something my schedule doesn't allow, and I would imagine theirs doesn't either.
I do agree with you that the answers received will tend towards safe, PC answers. But even those will give us more insight to the person, exactly what I am looking for.
Asking someone what uniquely qualifies them may be seen as an invitation to self-promotion, but can also be an invitation to self-revelation about who one is and who one is not. One of the great fallacies of leadership is the inability to see one's own weaknesses and thereby failing to compensate for weakness with others around them who are strong in those areas (sounds kinda five-foldish). And this question certainly gives the candidates the opportunity for just such self-reflection.
So let me pose the next question. If the interview process has served us well locally, why not use a version of it nationally? If not that, then what?
I am thankful that in the asking and answering of such questions, a better path will be charted for the future.
While I appreciate George P. Wood's comments--he might should recuse himself from this one lest some think he's speaking for his father?
I love this dialog! I didn't know there were rules to this so as stated in one of the first blogs we put this site together to start an interview process for our next GS.
My generation wasn't there for the last election. Sorry if we are stepping on toes or breaking unwritten rules. We are just concerned about our inheritance and this is the only way we know how to put our fingerprints on it when we don't have an EP or GP spot.
Thank you for your valued comments.
GPW... I am very much looking foreward to hanging with you in Indy!
BTW... the team in my office really wanted a U-Tube debate. It would be enlightening and worth our time.
Maybe next election:)
Friends,
I generally agree with George on this issue, but I do think there is a bona fide need for us to at least learn something specific about the potential candidates.
Here's where I think the questioning goes astray. Simply by the questions asked and how they are asked, it may color the responses of the candidates.
I think it is fair to ask the candidates if they will allow their names to stand. Beyond that, what I would like to see is something akin to a pastoral resume. I want to know where they have served, in what capacities, and what they consider some of their accomplishments. I want to know about their formal education. I want to know about their non-ministerial involvement in their community (Chamber of Commerce, advisory boards, etc.). I want to know about the leadership positions they have held, both within the fellowship and in the community. I would like to know a little about their personal life, such as spouse and children. I might even be interested in a "list of references".
Jesus told us in Luke 6:44 a tree shall be known by its fruit. I am much more interested in knowing about the fruit of someone's ministry than I am about hearing them answer abstract questions.
Also, we are expected to provide this information and answer these questions when we candidate for pastoral or other positions of ministry. I don't think simply getting to know the man (or the woman) by virtue of their personal history is inappropriate.
I don't know that there is a good way to get this done with such short time before GC. And with the field so "wide open" with so many candidates, it is likely to be information overload. However, once the field gets narrowed somewhat, I would love for the voting body to be given a written, detailed resume or biography.
See you in Indy!
Blessings,
David W Barnett
While I disagree with Brother George on this, the anonymous commentators should stop personalizing the issue by bringing his dad into this. Let the Brother's words stand on their own. And another thing, why are people signing as anonymous in the first place on this blog? Come on we’re all unabashed Pentecostals aren't we? Besides, WWJD?
Tory,
Thanks for the six questions. Although they are not exhaustive, they are a great start. Why should we not know what the leading contenders believe about the important issues? And since when does attending a sectional or district council give anybody insight into what candidates for national office believe?
One of the few ways of seeing inside of someone is through what that person has written. Unfortunately, not all of the leading contenders are writers so that leaves us in the dark as to their convictions. Ummm, he preaches well. Who cares? Umm, he has a large church. And that qualifies him to lead a movement? Umm, he was a good district superintendent and on and on.
Danger of campaigning? C'mon. If we want to be Amish then let's cast the lots and be done with it. But then again, who will be privileged to participate? By virtue of the fact that we vote, the system is already political. Knowing what makes a potential leader click is not political. It's smart.
Butch
OK,
I just finished posting, and suddenly several more responses appeared, so I want to update my post slightly.
It seems that many of us independently equated the election process to a local church calling a pastor. I think it is a strong correlation. However, there is one difference that is HUGE. A local congregation has a distinct personality that is shaped by previous worship style, community, demographics, etc. It is easy for them to draft a questionnaire that helps find a pastor that fits them.
We're talking about electing someone to lead an entire fellowship, with a plethora of disparate wants, needs and desires. To question a candidate about a handful of the "pet" issues of this blog (not slamming, just observing) is really inadequate.
So, let's find out everything we can about each person and his or her ministry. Let's have the blog try to facilitate the gathering of that information. But I don't think we're in a good position to try probative questioning.
FINALLY, all you anonymous posters -- find a little courage and identify yourself. You greatly weaken the value of anything you have to say by hiding.
Blessings (again),
David W Barnett
I understand the concerns of George, Phil and others. I also understand the desire for information/confirmation of Tory and others.
We all agree that this election is SO important to our fellowship and yet can't deny that MOST people will still vote blindly with little-to-no knowledge about the 15 candidates that emerge to the ballot.
We can hardly compare our process to that employed in the election of Matthias in Acts 1.
Our AG "longstanding tradition" should not stand in the way of progress & communication. Call it intrusive if you will, but without asking questions, how can we find out the information needed to make a clear, prayerful, Biblical decision? In Acts, all those voting were VERY familiar with the "candidates"...
Sigh.
I guess this comment creates more questions, frustrations and, yes, concerns.
Perhaps the FutureAG gathering would be be better served in a prayer room than in a restaurant. There wouldn't be a 75 person limit or any cost to NCU or AGTS. Too spiritual? ... probably. My point is, IF those in this blog dialogue really want to seek God's best and set a precedence for those that follow, prayer is key. Wouldn't it be better to meet each other for the first time in a place where we're pouring out not filling up?
I'm making no demands or judgements - so, don't throw your meatball at me! I love & respect you men/ladies - I'm confident you will step up, hear from God and obey His leading.
peace,
CC
Thank you for all the rejoinders to my response to Tory's original post, whether positive or negative. Let me, by way of responding to the negative rejoinders, make a few brief points.
First, let me assure the few people who worry that I'm shilling for my dad that I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinion. (He'd probably say that I'm too capable of forming my own opinion.)
Second, I did not mean to suggest that everyone who posts on this blog is uninvolved at the sectional, district, and general council levels. I surmised (perhaps incorrectly) that many people were uninvolved because of the nature of questions asked on this blog about the election process and the job duties of the national officers. My apologies to those who are in fact young and involved.
Third, in my email to Tory (though not in my response to his post), I suggested that we ask the candidates questions that were biographical in nature, rather than policy-oriented questions. Unfortunately, I failed to include that in my response and hence left the impression that I wanted the candidates to divulge absolutely no information whatsoever.
Fourth, as far as I can tell, no one has directly responded to my argument that asking prospective candidates policy-oriented questions would needlessly politicize the process. Tory and the other blogs of FutureAG are the first of their kind. But I can easily imagine various constituencies in future elections starting their own blogs and asking candidates questions. I fear this will lead to the kind of campaigning Lane doesn't see happening right now (candidates starting their own blogs and actively soliciting our support). Would those of you who support asking policy-oriented questions be supportive of such overt campaigning? Do we really want to get to the point where we have the Bible college candidate facing off against the liberal arts college candidate, or the King James only candidate squaring off against the NIV candidates? Do we want our general superintendent to be elected on the basis of such appeals to narrow constituencies? If you say to yourself, that would never happen, my response would be that many people thought a blog like FutureAG would never happen either.
Fifth, regarding character and competence: No one has, that I can see, responded to my point that the biblical job descriptions in Acts 1, 6, 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 3 focus on these issues rather than on issues of vision and policy. Those lists seem to be more concerned with the issue of "who" than the issue of "what." As for a proven track record of success, I would suggest that the size of a church and the size of a missions budget are--all things being equal--pretty good indicators of leadership ability. Anyone can say what their vision is and what their preference is on policy questions. I'm more interested in whether a leader has actually accomplished anything.
And that brings me to my sixth point. We keep talking as if we know virtually nothing of these candidates. But is that exactly true? All the top candidates have published extensively in denominational periodicals. They speak regularly at churches and district councils and camp meetings. They in fact do have websites (whether personal or church-based). If you would like to know what they believe, read what they've written. Listen to their online sermons. These will reveal more about the heart of these men than will answers to the six questions. And we'll get a better picture of who they are PRECISELY BECAUSE they are not candidating for higher office. They are simply going about their jobs as pastors and denominational leaders.
Seventh, Lane asks whether we should vote for someone simply because others say he is a good person. Lane leans toward no, I lean toward yes. Think of it this way. When I candidated for my current position, I answered pointed questions from the board. But they also contacted my references. Most people on this site want to come up with some sort of questionnaire for candidates, on the lines of a pasotral search. Depending on what kinds of questions are asked, I'm not opposed to that. But don't forget the references. Most of these candidates have been voted from congregations to district leadership to national leadership, or from pastoring to educational leadership. We should take their elevation to positions of leadership as a reference to their character and abilities, should we not? Is there not, after all, some wisdom in crowds? (A great book by the way!)
To sum up, I see dangers in going down the road of asking candidates policy oriented questions. Lane and others don't. Only time will tell whose right, and I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
Looking forward to meeting you all in person at Indy.
George PAUL Wood (LOL!)
I'll second Danny's comment.
I have to laugh with the WWJD comment because I truly believe that if it were up to HIM..there would be one unified church and no breakdown of denominations or fellowships. (and I'm not laughing at you...I'm just one for all the denominations working together and wish we could be of one accord-that's my heartfelt cry!) BUT then, I'm not HIM and really shouldn't even try speaking on HIS behalf, should I ;)
I agree with Pastor Deanna. We brought a new senior pastor in to our church, and had about 100 questions we asked. I like that this can be the same, particularly since they will be leading our entire fellowship.
I don't think these 6 questions are inappropriate at all! I'm a church planter, and the very first step after I expressed interest in church planting was to undergo a DAY-long assessment. The church-planting assessment is an invaluable tool composed of dozens of questions, now used in almost every district. I have been told that the implementation of the assessment tool has dramatically helped our church planting efforts. So, what would it look like to publicly ask the top 15 or the top 3 vote getters some of the same questions (or questions more specific to the specific office that they are being considered for).
I sign on as anonymous because it is the easiest way to do so.
This is a great discussion and I agree with almost everything posted. I think that GPW has a little more insight into the politics of the General Council and the concerns he expresses are valid.
I agree with the other posters who point out that now is the time to change the existing politics. Lets move forward.
I agree with David that it might have been better to seek more resume type of information from each candidate rather than the answers to specific quesitons.
Most of all, this discussion is very healthy for the AG USA.
One more thing. I doubt that many of the leading canddiates (beyond the obvious 3 ro 4 frontrunners) have really decided if they will leave their name up. This will only come into play when the field is cut to the top 15 names and they are given the chance to decline before the next round of voting. Perhaps we should expect most of them to return a "Don't really know yet" on that question and realise it is the honest truth.
JDave
Danny "dj" Morales said:
“Unabashed Pentecostals” or not, you’re naïve to think that this is a safe movement to speak openly without fear of reprisal or retaliation. Because of the relatively small orbit that the AG encompasses, you’re probably speaking to someone’s brother or cousin—or your next employer or someone who will twist your words and make a phone call to a friend who passes it on to a friend…don’t think this denomination is SAFE…it is not. What would Jesus do? Good question. Let’s see:
John 10:39-40—“Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed.” Here Jesus took off instead of facing the music after saying things the religious system didn’t want to hear.
Mark 8:29-30—“"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.” Here Jesus demanded that he be allowed to remain anonymous until the right time (this was a common theme of Jesus—not wanting to inflame his critics prematurely).
Matt. 10:16—“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.” Here Jesus tells his followers to use their wits, yet to remain pure in their motives—Again he was speaking of the opposition from the religious system of his day. If you’ve not yet been called into a District office to face the music—you have no idea how unfair our system can be (formally and informally).
I’ve found that ministers are often a fragile lot—just criticize someone in power and see how quickly they get defensive. The reason most “candidates” will choose not to respond to this questionnaire, is not because they don’t want to provide information—but because they are fearful of bucking the system that says, “We’ve always done it this way!”
Don’t be so naïve!!!
To me justification for bringing the process more into the light of day is obvious. 1) People will have a reasonable and informed basis for their vote. 2) The process will be less vulnerable to targeted rumors at the last minute attempting to sabotage the process and canalize the election. Say it isn't so! 3) I believe more of the democratic and less of the Byzantine approach in the long run will help our Assemblies of God community mature.
Why in the world would you not want to know the leadership qualifications of a potential leader before you vote? I would hope that all had the same opportunity for a prayerful and informed choice. To claim, as some have done on this fun blog, that the process as it exists is not politicized is an error. Our system is politicized, very much so, more so behind closed shutters. What harm is there in cracking them open, if only a few more inches?
Hey folks, let's be careful not to make accusations about people's motives. I felt the comment by anonymous that gpw feared about his father's repuation by commenting was out of line. Where as this seems to be a safe place to raise questions and concerns, let's not turn it into bashing.
One thing that is painfully clear to me is the struggle to understand how God's will and the work of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. Process? or mystical stirrings? That reflects the black and white thinking that my generation (the near 40's or so) has had a hard time with understanding. Everything done in the world in which I have grown up and currently is done with processes. I cannot even send a north central university student to volunteer at an elementary school without a background check. It is a different world and a different time and we need to recognize that.
But I have been frustrated a time or two (to be kind) when I see well designed processes, (worked on by Godly, praying people, using their gifts and talents for God) interupted or set aside by the "spirit's moving." Why do we always assume that the Holy Spirit is not at work in the process? For the life of me I have struggled with this question for many years. I have seen many good people placed in the wrong position and their lives and reputations upset because someone acted impulsively and ignored the systems.
As Tim Enloe mentioned in another post, the disciples using holy spirit powerball - exactly. The Holy spirit is not confined to our processes, but nor should we assume that he cannot be involved in the process. Casting lots was their process...things are different now.
So how about a "Both - And" which I believe has been evident in this blog. Why not use the resources to us to be better informed, to look at the fruit of one's life and ministry? How more clear can the Bible be about that being they key to knowing about one's relationship to God? And isn't that what we all want? A leader following after God with all his heart? That should show up no matter what the questions asked.
I am not opposed to asking questions - I really liked the resume idea - and certainly references would be nice...but we all could get our best friends and coworkers to write something nice about us...
so that is where alongside the process - infused in the process is ongoing prayer and seeking God's will for this movement. Which hopefully we are all doing. One thing I can guarantee I would not have been praying so much or even at all if it hadn't been for the blog raising my attention to it.
One last thing...as for Brother Trask - he has done tremendous things for our organization. In the days of Enron etc. having someone who has lead us with fiscal order perhaps was what was needed for the time. He has been above reproach and has brought no shame on our name. Let us all be grateful for his legacy. Different types of people are needed for different times in history. Now we are looking for a different road. But certainly if the AG has not had enough vision for the lost it is not because of Brother Trask. We need to look to ourselves and our churches for those answers.
I agree with a previous post that says the call to forget our history shows immaturity. Again, as if we have to either forget our history to move on, or remember it and be doomed. Please, let us broaden our minds and see a place for both.
Wendy Wirtz
NCU, Minneapolis, MN
At this point it does put people in a awkward position. But, for those of us who were not born into the A/G pastor blood line, it is difficult to really know most of these people. Sure I've heard some of them speak, but why would I as a 26 year old young woman have ever sat down and spoke with any of these men?
There should be some type of biography of the people being considered for the position. It would be nice to know of the person's experiences and views.
Unfortunately, I have to resort to who I've heard speak and of course what an older person I respect says. In my case that would be a senior missionary and my home church pastor. It would be nice to be making a more informed decision.
I've joked that the AG needs a revival of ecclesiastical polity and this discussion merely highlights this need. I am grateful for the Spirit-led ecclesiastical polity which we inherited, and I hope for its reform. I do fear that a reform of ecclesiastical polity might make us into a stunted imitation of Evangelicalism with a dash of the Spirit. But a committee which possesses an appreciation for the history of this movement could easily work toward reform. (I think Gary McGee should be included on one such committee!)
Polity and the Election of the GS:
There is a difference between an unofficial blog asking these six questions and an official policy change in which the answer to such questions is presented to all of the voting body--rather than those who happen to be tech-savvy and reading this blog.
--Laura Wright
I believe the Assemblies need to find the balance between reaching this generation and holding to biblical truth. We cannot loose who we are as pentecostal evangelicals just to be more "culturally accepted". It cannot be all about grace or a doctrine of prosperity. As an evangelical, new to the AOG; 10 yrs., a woman, with a masters in marriage and family therapy and a masters in social work,I believe that while we ordain woman we do not use women to fill ministry postions i.e. boards, senior or associate pastors to the degree that we should. While none of these are positons that I feel personally called to I do believe that there are many talented women who have a definite calling on their lives who should be encouraged and promoted to leadership postions within our denomination. Sandy Jacobsma
As someone who works at 1445 N Boonville, I will just say that you are wasting your time. The top guys going for this position will simply not respond because in their minds it's inappropriate, improper, and undignified to respond. Though you may not agree, and perhaps I don't either, it won't change the fact that to answer the questions would be just too unsavory for the candidates and too close to campaigning.
But still I love what you guys have been doing with the blog. Keep it up, especially after Indy.
Would anyone be interested in hearing from people who have sat under the ministry of those leading in the poll? That might be of some help to people who don't have first-hand experience with the leading candidates.
Would anyone be interested in hearing from people who have sat under the ministry of those leading in the poll? That might be of some help to people who don't have first-hand experience with the leading candidates.
Let me also clarify that I have NO problem with biographical and ministry information about the "candidates" being provided to us. I think that would be incredibly informative.
I can remember being there as I skipped out of the National Fine Arts Festival to vote for GS when Bro Trask was elected. I must confess, I didn't know whom I was voting for back then. A look at where people had served in ministry capacities {or other capacities for that matter} would have been a great help to me.
Now in the Internet age, I can pretty much look up most of the names we see on the front page of this blog. But, even that can be less than informative for some.
My concern, as GPW also stated, was asking people to answer questions of policy. He articulated that concern very well so I have no need to try to rehash it.
All in all, I am with my friend Chilly in hoping to see us pray, pray and pray somemore. We may not be able to all get together for such a prayer meeting; but, we can certainly do so individually as the Council comes closer. I called my church to pray for this week and I truly believe the Holy Spirit's will to be done.
I appreciate you all.
One other concern about the process not yet voiced has to do with the use of untried technology. Evidently we'll all be given a "gadget" and we'll all have personal numbers. When the voting happens, we'll key in the number of the candidate of our choice and the votes will be electronically tallied. Several concerns: 1) Will this technology be friendly enough to all age groups? 2) Will there be a paper trail for the voting? 3) Who will audit the process? 4)Is it protected from manipulation?
Anonymous, you said "I would be willing to turn in my card to protest a process that is abusive."
That's interesting that you're willing to turn in your card in protest, but unwilling to risk revealing your identity in a dialog.
This reveals just how far we have to go to truly be a safe movement centered on Kingdom issues and relating in Kingdom ways with one another.
I like the idea of questions to "candidates" AND I agree that these 6 questions are issues driven and not broad enough in scope.
if any of the blogs author's see this: i would like to see a post asking for the readers of this blog to comment with a bit of a personal bio.
maybe your name, location, vocation, favorite author, music, years w/the a/g (whether or not you are a/g :)
the internet is an easy place for things to get out of hand, especially when you're dealing w/an impersonal computer screen. we tend to forget there are actual people on the other side. people to whom we would not say such things in person.
so perhaps a little virtual meet and greet would remind us of the human beings behind the comments :)
-aaron van luven, pittsburgh, pa
I agree with wendy. As a movement we have historically walked the center line in theology and in polity. These issues regarding a questionare for the front-runners should not be perceived in an "either-or" assemement of its value and biblical directive, but as a "Both-And" cultural center-line approach to understanding the vision and direction of the next leader of our movement. We are now one of the largest movements in our nation, and yet our leaders are put into place in a system designed for a much smaller movement. This has worked fairly well at the sectional and district level, however the general council is much larger and more varied venue.
I am concerned that our pentecostal distinctives will be watered down for cultural relevance. We have grown because of our emphasis on full-gospel preaching and teaching. Yet there has been debate over watering down those distinctives. Where do these canditates stand on such issues. How can I know unless They are asked? Whether or not this blog is the venue is besides the point. It is here, and as it seems, such will be the case.
I am not frustrated with our movement. As a metter of fact I believe we have the best of all worlds when it comes to a denominational system. We are a free-flowing movement, with free-thinking pastors. God bless our fellowhip, and bring the right person to the role of G.S.
Eliut Alicea
Bro. George,
I can see your points but wish to disagree with you. Maybe policy positions would politicize the process more than it is, but then how are we to know the heart of the people involved? If someone were to be elected that was say, King James only, what would the impact on the A/G be? Even in two years, a lot of damage could be done.
I wholeheartedly agree that character and leadership ability should play a huge role in the selection process.
But do you know what? As a second generation A/G minister, I've held credentials for about 13 years and I am a CBC grad; I have heard most of the names mentioned here at various points, preach.
I have shaken the hands of a handful of them. Held short conversations with I think three of them. I am aware of many of their positions and biographical data, and can google most of the rest (on that note, where did Alton Garrison go to school?).
I have ministered in the Pen-Florida and New Mexico districts, so I have served under the direction of Bro. Raburn and Bro. Betzer.
And I have friends, whose opinion I trust, who have gone to colleges where some of these have been presidents; others who have been in districts where other possible nominees have led; I have friends who have been on staff where other potential candidates have or do pastor; finally there are those who are just a name and a face.
How then can I have any idea about the character of these individuals? Or their true leadership abilities? I am 31, which mean like you, I can remember a time when Gorman/Swaggart/Bakker/Dortch preached powerful sermons, and lived in sin.
In talking to friends I have heard both positives and negatives about many of the potential leaders, and nothing at all about others.
But I don't know these people, so then where can I get references?
Wait, we don't have an actual list of candidates to go and seek information on them; just some educated guesses on who might run. So that makes your suggestion a bit impractical; we may not know of some candidates until Thursday.
Also, doesn't this just open us up to politics by the supporters of various candidates? I know, this has been a long held reality of the A/G. Since the men who are being elected are not in good form able to stump for themselves; others do it for them.
I am sorry if this seems a bit caustic, or combative. I assume Bro . George that you have spent more time around many of these people than I have, and probably have well formed opinions because of that. I can say honestly that I would like to vote for God's man for all of the open positions; however, I have no honest idea who they are.
Jeremiah Mustered
George…
Thanks for the extensive write up that I’m sure took some time. A lot of the clarifications helped tremendously to illuminate where you were coming from in some of your earlier points. In true debate fashion, let me quickly make my 5-minut rebuttal.
Regarding your 4th point, about questions needlessly politicizing the process… I agree with you how you explained it this time. I would never support a process where each candidate created their own blog and began soliciting the support of people. What I was in support of was the concept of having the candidates answer questions to help people know their hearts. My preference would be that these questions be formalized in the way of a resolution in 2009, and then, when the time comes again, be presented to the candidates by the national office. Answers could then be published by HQ weeks prior to the vote. I don’t think having 36 blogs each creating their own questionnaire is a good thing.
On your 5th point, we still disagree. You stated that “anyone can say what their vision is.” I say, “No… they can’t.” My experience has been that casting vision is a difficult thing (especially if God has not given you any!) Most pastors actually walk around with little to no vision at all. Sure, all candidates could say the same, generic thing; “To win souls.” But we would see through that. Especially when someone finally stepped to the podium with a real, God-given, forward-thinking, historically-connected vision that was as tangible as it was spiritual.
And on the “nickels and noses,” issue… still don’t agree with you. A person can build a church as much on charisma as they can on character, and a missions budget can grow as much from a competitive spirit as it can from a truly compassionate one. The figures simply do not differentiate and tell us what we need to know.
As to your 7th point, some clarification is needed. When I suggest that “voting with the crowd,” is bad, I am not referring to an informed crowd who knows the candidates. Here’s what I mean… Several years ago at a District Council, we were voting for some positions. Behind me, I heard a delegate ask his pastor, “Who should I vote for?” The pastor responded, “Just follow the numbers. Whoever has the most votes each round, go with them.” This, in my opinion is both shallow and irresponsible. If you are torn between two candidates that you feel are both equally good choices, and you see the crowd going a certain way… go with them. View the vote as “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” and consider yourself simply taking the lifeline where you “ask the audience.” But if you have no idea who the candidates are, and know absolutely nothing about them… well, I say, “do not vote!” Does their “ladder climb” denote the rewards of their character and leadership abilities? Possibly. But rubbing elbows, name-dropping, and sharing your pulpit can get you up there as well.
I would conclude by clarifying one thing. Of course there are dangers going down a road where candidates have to “candidate.” But that’s true of every road. My point, however, remains the same; an informed vote is better than a blind one. And the benefits here, for me, outweigh the dangers.
My comments to Lisa... Lisa, these men and women who are possible GS nominees in Indy are your colleagues (if credentialed). Each of them has some sort of bio or information online if you have not had the chance to sit down and chat (which is the same boat as many are in)... I encourage you to "dive-in" and enjoy the fellowship and relationships the AG affords all ministers. Not all take advantage of the relationships, growth opportunities, mentoring opportunities ... but they are there. Don't let being a woman in ministry scare or hinder you... you are a PERSON in ministry ... God didn't necessarily call you because of your gender! He didn't necessarily call any of the men because of their gender either!
Jesus has asked each one of us to serve Him... it's our obedience He is concerned about - not our gender.
Brandy
Naïve? Please, I'm third generation AG, my dad is a presbyter and my mentor/sister is a Conference (soon to be District) CE director. That’s partly why I disagree with Brother George. I’ve been around long enough to know that there is and always will be politics in the Assemblies of God. I don’t see six questions taking us down a slippery slope – we’ve been there since Parham decided to not come under a Black bishop. I know that’s rough, but it’s our history and it’s the cold truth.
Politics is a part of our history since day zero, but it doesn’t always have to be a bad thing. Why not lay some ground rules down in an already political process (someone is going to get a vote, elections = politics)? Move to have the districts nominate one candidate by a vote at their district councils. The best politics are local right? Then, devote an entire Enrichment Journal where everyone can read their bios, answers to policy questions, their vision, ministry ideas, and find resources to get more information (books, websites, online sermons etc.). Who knows? Maybe this journal could be used of God to sow new ideas, never before thought of initiatives, or maybe even spark revival in our churches. Maybe the person elected could actually employ some of the ideas from the other candidates. Stranger things have happened.
I say unabashed because I've learned in the ministry and the Navy to stand up for my convictions even if it could get me reprimanded, fired or un-hired. Peter did it at one of the first General Councils when he fought for the inclusion of us gentiles. Why can’t we do it on a blog for what we believe in? But if you're going to spread gossip, throw personal potshots, or say something your old Sunday School teacher wouldn't want to hear come out of your mouth, don't come here, sign as anonymous and blog it.
Aloha blessings in Jesus
I have to laugh at even the suggestion that these potential "candidates" would respond to the questions. That would be naive at best. Trust me, it will never happen! Enjoy the pasta and conversation on Wednesday, but when it has all been said and done, you will see the same three names emerge that you started with three weeks ago. Alton Garrison, George Wood and potentially John Lindell (that is if John let's his name stand and then everyone under 45 got on board on the first electoral ballot). Otherwise it is a two person race. Sorry to be so cut and dry about it, but that is the way it will come out. It has made for very entertaining reading, great dialogue, and even some interesting thoughts for the future. So could we please pray as the disciples did in Acts 1:23, "Lord you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two (or three) you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry..." That has been my prayer! See you in Indy!
P.S. Wendy great thoughts...John got a blessing when he married you! A long lost buddy!
interesting questions.
I agree that biographical quetions are more appropriate than policy questions. For the potential candidate: they are less subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. For the voter: they offer the bigger picture of apparent qualifications that only a tenured ministry can provide (not merely hopeful ideals).
As for who I'm voing for, so far it's Pedro all the way. He has promised that all my wildest dreams will come true if I vote for him--and I'm in it for me...
I would not vote for someone who sits by the city gates and panders Absalom-like campaign promises. I'd rather vote for a total novice who had to depend on God to select his lunch entree rather than an aggresive schmoozer with the apparently necesary skill set.
I still believe in the simple premise that God works through broken people and their broken systems as long as they acknowledge Him by seeking His wisdom.
Remember the "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us" passage? May God grant us supernatural concensus in Indy!
Jay asked where Alton Garrison went to school. Bro. Garrison (my pastor at NLR First for 15 years) attended SAGU in Waxahatchie, but originally did not complete his 4-year degree.
He ministered for 18 years as an evangelist before becoming pastor of North Little Rock First Assembly in 1985 (or 1986 -- it was during my sophomore year in HS, just can't recall if it was the fall or spring semester). Many people wondered if an evangelist with no pastoral experience could lead a church with our history (the congregation pre-dates the A/G by a couple of years, and joined the fellowship after Hot Springs) and size (we were running 550-600 at the time).
During his tenure as our pastor, during which we grew to over 2000 members and moved to a new facility, Brother Garrison received his Bachelor's degree from SAGU and was later given an honorary doctorate from the same school.
During this time he served on the foreign missions board, and also as Arkansas asst. sup. In 2001, when brother Wilmoth retired as district sup., Bro. Garrison was elected district sup, and he was also elected to the executive presbytery of the national A/G.
I would say one of Bro. Garrison's strong points is that while he was pastor, he didn't bring on staff pastors who were just like him, but rather people who complemented his abilities, with different styles, but the ability to work together as a team toward a common goal. As district superintendent, he was very big on mentoring younger pastors, and established a superintendent's resource fund, funded by some of the larger churches in the district, to provide leadership training books for all the district pastors. He also had regular leadership development meetings around the sections where he and other pastors helped instruct pastors from the smaller churches who didn't have the resources to go to the big conferences - they brought a mini-conference to the pastors at the local level.
I'm not necessarily "campaigning" for my former pastor, but wanted to provide this background on him for those who don't know much about him, as his name is one of the leading names being mentioned.
I also have heard Dr. Wood speak at our church, and have read several of his articles in TPE, and think he would also be a great choice to lead the fellowship.
Just the ramblings of a fourth-generation AG-er who grew up in a deacon's home. I don't hold credentials (I'm divorced and remarried), but am involved with one of our Spanish-language churches in addition to my home church, and want my daughters to grow up in a church that is reaching the world with the truth of Christ.
Brian Roden!
I too grew up in NLR First. My mother was a secretary there and both of my siblings served on staff under Pastor Garrison.
While I do not pretend to speak for Garrison, I can speak to a crucial part of his ministry leadership. He is unashamedly Pentecostal and is fearlessly forward thinking. The innovations he brought to our church garnered him criticism from his contemporaries, but effectively shaped that church into an evangelistic and missional leader in the Arkansas AG. He, along with many of the names mentioned in this blog, is a strong combination of Pentecostal integrity and progressive leadership.
One strength of this process is that a potential leader's reputation is being held into account and a new generation is is being energized.
Debate, discussion, and even disagreement are not unspiritual. It is the attitude and motive that causes things to become unclean.
Brian Roden,
Greetings to your family!
Brian "Hors D'oeuvres" Jenkins
George P. Wood-
First let me say that I'm enjoying reading what you have to say- it's apparent that you've inherited your Dad's gray matter. Yours is the kind of articulation we need more of in the AG.
Below is a verbatim of a portion of point 5 of your 2nd post-
"As for a proven track record of success, I would suggest that the size of a church and the size of a missions budget are--all things being equal--pretty good indicators of leadership ability. Anyone can say what their vision is and what their preference is on policy questions. I'm more interested in whether a leader has actually accomplished anything."
With this I would respectfully but heartily disagree. The size of one's church and/or missions budget says that one knows how to communicate and raise funds, which are not necessarily tied to character. I want not only leadership, but integrity in leadership. I'm sure you do as well.
Over the last 9 years I've had about 5,000 conversations with AG ministers, some of whom have been quick to describe themselves as "successful," whatever that means. Often those conversations went on to reveal a series of secret sinful decisions, willfully made, that have brought unimaginable pain to themselves, church, family, and the Kingdom. Yet, their ministerial colleagues probably would have voted them into ecclesiastical office because they are/were "successful"—they have amassed nickels and noses.
Abraham was a coward regarding his wife. Moses was a murderer and took 40 yrs to get Israel 400 miles to the Promised Land. David was a boy when anointed by Samuel to be Saul's successor- after that anointing, he went back to tending sheep for awhile. Gideon was hiding in the winepress when the angel called him a "mighty warrior." Paul was a murderer when called, and then went on to leave behind not only scripture but a troubled church in Corinth.
Would we in the AG have elected any of these to high office? I doubt it. Up to the point of their calling, they had either done nothing noteworthy, or they had been notorious. However, God saw something in these, and others, fit for leadership. He saw what we cannot.
Further, what does not your rubric say about the good work of thousands of men and women who serve faithfully and with excellence in smaller fields?
My point? I grow weary of pretty boys (or girls) who look good, and are articulate, but are also shallow and carnal.
Give me a man or woman after God's own heart. Give me someone true to the Word, someone who is kind to a waitress, someone who loves their spouse and children more than their ministry. Someone with a prayer life. Someone who loves their Lord, spouse, children, and ministry, in that order. Trust me, I could go on.
I well understand that there are many who have served larger ministry venues and have had their houses in order. I applaud them.
I think I hear what you are saying George, and, I share some of your concerns. But, on the point above, I question your rubric. Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood.
Stay close to Jesus,
Shane L. Johnson
This is a crucial conversation. Wood & Barnett seem to be on to something when they suggest a biographical resume rather than a list of answers to topical questions.
One of the key things I'm looking for in a candidate is having succeeded in a variety of contexts. Someone who succeeds at just one thing may be lucky. Someone who succeeds at many different types of things is likely very competent. A resume would give me that sort of info.
Another factor that weighs heavily on my mind is the person's previously enacted policies in whatever positions they held. Actions speak much louder than words, and I'd much rather know what your philosophy of ministry is by seeing a track record than by hearing someone offer platitudes. A biographical resume would help me research that crucial information.
However, I do think one question is entirely appropriate: do you intend to let your name stand if nominated? Yes/no/decline to answer.
We might get a lot of "decline to answer" responses, especially from pastors. "Martha, did you see our pastor said he's thinking of leaving the church?" But I would like to know in advance if a likely candidate has decided to withdraw.
Before signing off - I'd like to thank the blog organizers profusely for creating such a helpful forum.
I believe your original plan was to discontinue the blog after General Council (perhaps after liveblogging the event). I know others have urged you to change your minds, but I think your original plan a good one. What has made this blog so helpful is that it is narrowly focused and that there is an obvious point of application and action. After the council, I worry that the quality and tone of conversation will devolve.
Brian Jenkins, its so good to hear your words, I agree with you on Alton, I met him at a leadership seminar in Iowa and I very non-surprised to see how well received he is. Also, the So.Cal district council used the "get to know the candidates" forum and it was a huge success this year.
"As district superintendent, he was very big on mentoring younger pastors, and established a superintendent's resource fund, funded by some of the larger churches in the district, to provide leadership training books for all the district pastors."
Brian...thanks for sharing...I feel that the desire to mentor in the younger generation is KEY!!!!
I too can speak to Alton Garrison's leadership. He was a faithful supporter, friend, pastor, mentor and DS for me as a young Chi Alpha Missionary in Arkansas. He mentored and was a pastor to me through some really tough times in my ministry and life.
As a DS what he did for the District of Arkansas was amazing. Taking a district that was stuck in past decades and bringing it forward. His mentoring program changed the lives of many young pastors and their churches.
He has attempted to do the same thing in US Missions. He has a vision for reaching America and the World.
NLR 1st was one of the first churches in the country to give over 1 million to missions in a year. Before every building campaign he would lead the church in a YEAR of over the top missions giving to set the stage for the capital campaign.
As a YOUNG 40 yr old I would without reservation cast my vote for him and encourage others to do the same.
If you have any questions that I can answer as to his passion, character and pentecostalism, I will be happy to answer what I observed.
Noble Bowman
Campus Missionary
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO
CHURCH HOME... NORTHPOINT, SPRINGFIELD
FAVORITE BAND... COLDPLAY
FAVORITE MOVIE... BORNE Series
FAVORITE TV SHOW... THE OFFICE
Gentleman, what great discussion. I must admit that after about 10 comments I had to run to the bottom to throw my 2 cents in. I apologize if I am repeating something already written.
Unfortunately, we are already too far into the process to make any real changes, but there is hope for next time. I grew as an A/G boy as a PK and a MK. I have 5 family members who are crendtialed A/G. Just stating my history. I always grew up with the "same as it was" mentality. Then I came to my church in Fresno, CA as an associate and things got changed in me. My Sr Pastor is a good man and introduced me to some things that our church here does that originally blew my mind, but now I see them as wonderful. Our church does not "vote" for board members. What? I asked. Yeah we draw names out of a hat, (or offering bag) I was reminded in my state of shock that everytime in the bible that they "voted" they voted out of God's will. Our example for disciples was casting lots. So at our church we have a nominating committee that evaluates all nominated names and selects about 6 to present to the congregation. Then we pray and have one of the well respected older members, come up and draw a name. Wow, no politicing and no hurt feeling about not getting peoples vote.
I think we should look at this process for our future. I hear all of you about not knowing the candiates. I only know Bro Wood and deeply respect him. If I was there he would be my vote, but he might not be the one that God would choose to lead us. By the time elections come we could have 1,000 names for potentially all 2 (3) elected positions.
This is me just trying to add to the conversation.
Thanks again for this site.
Several people have raised legitimate concerns about attendance and missions giving being good indicators of success in ministry. Let us stipulate, as the lawyers say, that attendance and giving numbers are not good indicators of a person's character. Take Jimmy Swaggart, for example, who drew large crowds and raised big money, and yet he failed miserably at being sexually faithful to his wife. So numbers and character are not related. But aren't numbers and competence related in some manner? It seems to me that a competent pastor will preside over a growing church, where growth is measured both in terms of quantity and quality. (He will, in other words, lead a congregation in making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.) There may be external factors that limit his church's growth (a declininng neighborhood, persecution, etc.), but all things being equal, won't a competent pastor's church grow to the limits of his ability to lead? Obviously, we should include other metrics in evaulating "success" in ministry. For me, a crucial metric is how many people are first-time converts, as opposed to church hoppers. Another is how many people go into pastoral ministry or the mission field. Another key metric is volunteer hours. Are people being inspired to use their spiritual gifts regularly? So, again, there's not necessarily a connection between numbers and character, but there seems to me to be some connection between numbers and competence.
I'm in Indy, and nearly everyone I have talked to has read this blog. Fantastic job, guys!
As an ordained minister, my respect for the Assemblies of God goes without question. We are Spirit lead people who are seeking God about the future of our movement. I just don't understand how asking questions for the purpose of making informed decisions undermines that. We are about to elect the person that will lead this entire organization. That means home and foreign missions, churches large and small, para church ministries, GPH and everything else that carries the name of the Assemblies of God. While this person doesn't act alone, they will lead the way. Why is is considered disrespectful to want to know more than that persons name and their official bio?
When a church is looking for a new pastor do the leaders of the church pray and then just offer the job to the name at the top of the list? No. They pray. Then they look at resumes, invite a candidate to preach, have them sit down with the leaders of the church and share their vision for that place. They see if it's a personality fit, meet the pastors family, call references...and then they pray some more.
If we take such measures to fill our local churches why is it so taboo to ask a few questions of a potential General Superintendent?
The way our system is set up every licensed and ordained minister is part of the decision. I feel it is my responsibily to vote informed and not just tag along with the most votes. If my vote is cast out of courtesy and not conviction what good is it?
I realize the original post is related to questions for those who are prospective GS candidates, but I believe the broader question is related to the process of choosing leadership in the AG.
I would love to see a formal process that would allow us to formally narrow the candidates prior to General Council.
Several posts have encouraged us to get to know the potential candidates using the Web, but I do not believe that is realistic. We have 38 potential leaders listed on this blog alone. I do not believe it is realistic for each of us to vet 38 potential leaders prior to GC. And that list is already informally limiting the list. In theory, we should be vetting all ordained ministers prior to GC.
The process for choosing leadership has served the AG well in the past, but I do not believe it works well with a group of this size.
I would prefer a formal process that narrowed the candidates prior to GC. Let's get it to Barsabbas and Matthias (figuratively speaking) prior to GC, particularly in years when positions are open. We would then have time to pray, research, and discuss the candidates who were really going to be leading the AG prior to GC.
Perhaps, if the blog continues beyond GC 2007, we can work to develop a process for choosing leadership in the future.
Mark Sullivan
Waconia, Minnesota
Glen Davis said--Keep with your original plan to end this forum. Unfortunately, the "feedback loops" are limited in our movement. It is essential that there are forums, positive-negative, that allow people to speak authentically about the issues. If not, the voices are muted and people become disenfranchised. If not this fourm (that everyone has been reading) what other venues might work to stimulate synergestic dialogue? Steve Smallwood
Post a Comment