Last Friday, I solicited your answers to three questions about the District Councils ("Three Questions about Your District"). Dr. Grant responded tonight with a typically thoughtful, irenic, and spiritually challenging reply. Below, I've re-posted what she originally wrote as a comment on that thread. Her remarks deserve wide circulation and careful reflection by all of us, especially those of us (and I include myself here) who tend toward cynicism about some aspects of our movement.
Thank you Dr. Grant!
----------
I apologize, but since my husband and I minister in about 15-20 districts a year as missionaries and have many friends who are district leaders, my thoughts are focused more broadly rather than specifically on our home district where we do not live.
What works?
Most district leaders we know want change and would probably be thrilled for some innovative positive restructuring. Some district leaders are working hard to articulate fresh vision, provide resources and initiate more fluid minimal organizational structures to facilitate the accomplishment of God’s mission in their sphere of influence. They are great role models.
What doesn’t work?
We seem to be more prone to react than initiate, more comfortable maintaining the status quo than daring to make needed changes.
How can we fix it?
Change will require a shift in how we think, live and make decisions, both corporately and individually:
1. Stewardship vs.ownership
. . . “my” district, “my” church, “my” department, even “my” ministry. Private ownership is something we are enculturated into from childhood in our society, not a matter of semantics. We probably need a deliverance service to deal with this epidemic!
Stewardship in leadership implies recognizing accountability, responsibility, and investing wisely of all resources on behalf of the One we serve to whom it all belongs. Entitlement and territorialism are incongruous with biblical stewardship.
2. A pilgrim lifestyle
Are we willing to return to an Abrahamic posture of being ready to move as God speaks to us, whatever our calling/role? There was an old song I remember hearing as a child, “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through . . . “ I don’t miss the song, but the posture is biblical!
Some of David’s and my greatest heroes and mentors in missions have been men and women who were always listening for God’s voice and always ready to take new courageous steps of faith in their 60’s and 70’s! Some of them had and are having their most effective exciting and visionary ministry after 60 years of age.
3. Downsizing, prioritizing the missional from all that is not missional.
What can we unload that is not essential to leading people to Jesus, mentoring them as disciples and developing effective ministers for the future?
Last year, I sensed that God was going to do some unexpected unprecedented things in our lives and ministries. I was embarrassed and convicted to realize that if He did, there was actually no time in my schedule or room on my plate for it!
Can we discern the non-essentials we’ve accumulated as a part of all we are doing in order to focus on the most essential missional things God wants to do?
This process would lead us to re-align our resources with our stated (biblical) priorities: more time and financial resources given to lead people to Jesus (evangelism on all fronts), more intentionality on the development of a strategy and time invested to disciple people in following Jesus (“spiritual parenting”, without which bringing people to the “new birth” is irresponsible), and a more intentional investment in ministerial training.
4. Ministerial lifestyles of receiving and extending grace
The level of unhealed hurt that has surfaced here over the months has been saddening and is something with which all of us can identify.
Some days, forgiving is a full-time job, especially as leaders and sadly among colleagues. But if we don’t? Accumulated hurts contaminate and color everything we do and say –especially in times of stress. God help us to release offenses, accept healing and extend forgiveness – even to those who may never ask. Then we are free – free to receive His forgiveness and free to preach forgiveness to others with integrity.
We seem to have a window of opportunity under our national leadership for broad-based constructive dialogue and healthy change. But to go beyond discussion will require bold courageous collaborative steps in which all of us must be willing to change – district leaders, national leaders and individual ministers alike.
Beth Grant
149 comments:
Thanks, Beth. Finally, a persuasive, calm voice of reason, willing to look at both sides, and get this discussion moving again.
I'd like to hear from Brad Leach on this issue. He's young, a church planter, well acquainted with the difficulties of starting out, and yet a district superintendent's son. I think he could bring a balanced perspective to this discussion as well.
Beth Grant said: "Most district leaders we know want change and would probably be thrilled for some innovative positive restructuring."
Since this has not been many of our experience with our districts, can you provide examples of this attitude?
Do you have any suggestions for those of us who find just the opposite to be true?
How can we encourage "innovative positive restructuring" in our districts when the staff seems content with archaic methodology?
anonymous 4:12,
I have really hoped some of the leaders I know would jump in and personally express their desire for change as well, but perhaps it may be difficult for them to express that publicly.
Privately, some leaders which I was referring to would love to see some structural change. Some of them just feel they've inherited a structure and system which they are supposed to perpetuate. We can become so engulfed in doing that, that we don't take time/have time to step back and say, "Why are we doing this or that?" Is it necessary? Better still, is it still effective?"
Where do we start? First, by assuming that actually your leaders do want change deep in their hearts in some aspects of what they do. You begin by assuming they are more like you than you think. You have no idea how many of your leaders were former protesters! (Maybe they are trying to forget that) Somewhere in the heart of most male leaders, there's a "Zorro". Sometimes it just needs to be resurrected and encouraged (smile). I live with one!
Secondly, take the lead of your GS and offer to help your district leadership . . . through initiating intentional prayer for them and suggesting creative dialogue within the district with leadership. Be willing to come along side and be part of a solution. ("us" vs. "them" kills meaningful engagement)
Personally I would love to see creative exploratory dialogue across generations in all our districts. If God is not threatened by searching honest respectful questions (i.e., David), then we need not be.
Let's search together for answers! Our God-given mission is at stake. We all need fresh positive creative input.
A sarcastic negative attitude (even scornful) does not open the door to hearts or minds. Remember, one day, you will be them.
I think we need to make a distinction between elected leaders and staff, not in terms of respect and appreciation, but in terms of responsibility for change.
Leaders are responsible to hear from God, receive direction and find the courage to inspire us to go there. Staff have support gifts to support the leader in that vision and implement. I really believe that fresh vision and spirit-empowered leadership inspire staff to go there. Otherwise we as staff continue to do what we've been hired to do - whenever and whatever that was.
Lastly, give some serious thought to solid ideas and put them on paper. It needs to make sense and suggest how we might get from wherever a district is to where it needs to go. Clean slates are wonderful, but not reality. I pray that our movement increasingly becomes a place where fresh thinking/innovation/vision is nurtured. We sure started out that way!
Anonymous, your questions are legitimate and I hope this helps. I just don't feel free to give names as was requested at the beginning by our hosts. Leaders, if you check in here, please jump in! We all need help.
Beth
If most leaders are as out of touch as some people seem to think, then I think one of the first steps one should take is convincing the leaders that a change is needed. I highly doubt that any of our leaders really believe that keeping things the way they are is more important than reaching the lost with the good news.
When we initiate dialog with our leaders, in hopes of brining about some type of change, I think we have to do that with humility. Instead of just saying "This xyz is terrible and not working, what really need to do is this abc" why not say "I've tried xyz over and over and honestly it doesn't seem productive. Have you thought about trying out abc?" This allows the leaders to be included in the suggested change and, many times, they'll recognize potential problems with implementing the new ideas that you can work together to resolve.
All this may sound a bit touchy-feely, but I just can't imagine a leader welcoming someone's new ideas if that person doesn't approach him humbly with the explicit purpose of reaching the lost.
On a different note: some have questioned whether or not it is fruitful to have this question posted on the blog. I think it's extremely fruitful, because frankly, many of the new ideas presented on this blog are really bad. Maybe your leader doesn't want to adopt your method because your method is no good and he recognizes that. (Again, being humble allows us to accept the fact that we come up with bad ideas too.)
It's in forums like this that we can discuss new ideas, see what problems might come from them, and then take a better thought out idea to our leaders.
Beth...
Thanks for your great words and balanced perspective. I join George in saying that I needed to hear them.
I do have a question of your most recent comment. For everyone reading this, I beg of you to hear this as honest inquiry and not an insubordinate heart.
You stated that it is the role of the leaders to hear from God and receive direction. You followed that with stating that it is the role of the staff to support said vision. To be fair to you, I have heard this a thousand times, so I am questioning the theological foundations of this and not you personally.
Could you explain your biblical understanding of this principle since I feel it lies at the heart of some of our deepest tensions. Here's why I say this...
Leaders who feel it is their responsibility to "hear" from God are VERY, VERY unlikely to yield or change. They feel that acquiescing to someone else's thoughts is to be summarily disobedient to the Creator for what He has told them to do. These types of leaders will continue along a path undeterred regardless of how many people leave their church since their mindset is a "God an I" mindset. People challenging them and/or leaving is simply viewed by the leader as a test from God as to whether they will "obey God or man."
I am fully aware of all the Old Testament references regarding this model of thought, but do not feel that they apply any longer. We cannot, (IMO) and should not equate Moses' role over the Israelites with a pastor's role over his/her congregation.
I guess what I am suggesting is that what the AG needs is not simply a fresh batch of leaders, but possibly an entire paradigm shift in our leadership models. People need to know that they have input and ownership into the vision and that, they too, are responsible to hear from God for this. Staffers need to know that their God-ordained calling is not simply to help another person build their perception of what God is telling them to do.
So I'll close by saying it again. As best as I am able on a blog without facial expression, the above is pure inquiry to what I feel God has been speaking to me about over the past 5 years regarding "team-based" leadership. Would love to hear your input.
I've called my DS several times, asking him to talk with me about what I can do to HELP our District. Never received a phone call back. EVER.
Lane, first thank you for your thoughtful balanced responses. I appreciate them.
My statements about leadership's role were made in relation to anonymous' statement regarding staff members' role in a lack of perceived change or willingness to be innovative. I am reluctant to blame staff in an organization for the organizational culture when I as a leader have responsibility first.
I am with you regarding a participatory leadership team approach. We are healthier when we recognize the diverse leadership gifts on a team, and are confident and safe enough to "pass the ball" to the member who has the needed gifts. Or to recognize a God-given word of wisdom, knowledge, etc., in which case the sense of "This is what I believe God is saying to us . . " can come from any leader on the team, be confirmed and acted on. However, there must be one leader who is recognized as the final responsible party (ie. senior paster, DS in our present structure) after all have spoken and given input.
I think many of us are uncomfortable as you are with an "I am God's man or woman" attitude which implies an unwillingness to listen or be responsible to fellow leaders/followers. A lack of humility or servant leader heart demonstrates itself in all kinds of ways. And yes, spiritual pride deafens our ears and hearts to not only God's still small voice, but to the voice of brothers and sisters in Christ.
On that note, the apostle Paul was obivously a great man of God and leader. However, I think we tend to see him as the "rugged individualist" and "go-it-alone pioneer" through the lens of our American individualistic independent world view. That view tends to minimalize or miss altogether the interconnected, interdependent Paul who literally saw himself together with co-laborers in everything he did. He knew he was not alone in the work! That theme is all through Paul's writings and letters if we the have eyes to see it. I encourage my students to do a study of Paul's writings looking for the theme and indicators of his interdependence/community vs. independence. Our culture blinds us to that which it does not value.
Lane, forgive the length, but thanks so much for your response.
Beth
PS, Zorro, I'm genuinely sorry. All we can do is try and guard our hearts in the process. At least be an agent of faith and change in your sphere of influence (it might spread!) . . and leave what we cannot change with God.
I have read some of the comments that haved been shared on this blog and the one thing that stands out is a deep seated spirit of complaining. Beth Grant's words of wisdom lasted only a little while and then more grumbling and complaining. Some of you have given some of us the idea that you know better than God what the church needs. As a result of this past council God has placed HIS leadership in place. If this is not true then the whole fellowship is corrupt and the Lord is not among the A/G. But if it is true then stop grumbling and complaining and let God work through His chosen leadership to accomplish what He wants to accomplish. I doubt that any of you that are in leadership would be pleased if this same type of activity was happening with your individual ministries.
In case your wondering I am not currently an A/G minister nor am I in fulltime ministry as of this date. I was ordained in the A/G but a number of years ago I left to do "other things", oh how I miss being in fulltime ministry.
I remind you that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If you are a part of that chain make sure you are strong, it is your duty and your calling.
Thanks, Beth. The explanation was helpful for me to see where you were coming from. And I agree that, just from an organizational standpoint, there has to be a "lead" voice. Only I see that voice as needing to be representative of the team's collective decisions and not a "voice crying in a wilderness."
And if I can follow up to re-iterate that this is not me trying to be negative. My comments about the "God and I" mentality are not just for pompous or power-hungry leaders. I think this paradigm has also, at times, trapped otherwise great leaders into thinking that everyone is looking for them to ascend Mt. Sinai and then descend with the "Word of the Lord." While this CAN be true regarding a Sunday message... it does not have to be when making organizational decisions.
As such, I think some pastors hold tight to the path they are on for fear that any change might lead the congregation to view them as ineffective and indecisive. I sometimes see some pastors as being overbearing out of fear rather than confidence.
A paradigm shift towards team-based leading might allow some of these people to breathe easy and realize the theological depth to the Scriptural words, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and 'US' "
Anonymous Dec. 3, 7:20am
Thank goodness you're no longer in the "fulltime" ministry! God didn't choose our leadership without us casting our votes. We have not only the right to comment, but the responsibility.
Thank you Beth for your comments. They are insightful and thought provoking. I find most posts to be thought provoking. For me I don't need to worry about whether a person is posting in the manner that I think they should post, or if they are complaining or grumbling. Maybe they are...maybe they have good reason too. Does that mean I should not listen to them? I think we should listen to all because whether we like what they say or not there may be some validity to looking at the deeper reasons that they are saying it. I choose to be quick to hear...and believe that most if have the best interests for the future of our movement in view and a deep seated concern for where we are at the present.
Anon., 8:55 am: Whoa! That was mean. Please stop. The discussion was getting meaningful.
Lane - I hear your cry for a paradigm shift, but I don’t want the DS to feel like the ministers of his state have become his board of directors. I know YOU hear from God. Church members hear from God too – who out there wants the congregational system?
Yet, I agree with most of our bloggers – the DS should feel some responsibility to pastor the pastors.
Who is filling out his report card?
How often does he get a report card?
What happens if he gets a failing grade?
How do we help him get away from putting out fires, so he can be pro-active?
How does he relate to the District Team members?
Does the District Team work well together?
So, let's play along …
You don’t like your current DS and you vote in a new one.
How do you know that things will get better?
He doesn’t go out and have town meetings where he shares his plans for the future. (Even if we followed that political strategy – politicians often forget what they promised.)
Does anyone know?
- Do we have a preparation system for incoming new DS?
- Do Districts ever step back and evaluate their effectiveness?
I would like to add my observation for what it is worth:
Watch and see how your potential DS-candidate ran his church as a pastor, that will be the way he runs the District.
I don’t want to light any fires, but I would like to find the catalyst for effective changes.
Tom...
I'm not advocating a congregational system where everyone gets a vote. "Team-Based" leadership does not mean that the entire congregation or, in a District model,that the entire district is on the team. What I am advocating is a leadership model where the decision-making process involves several members of equal authority. Incidentally, the "process," as opposed to the person, would be the higher authority much the way that our Constitution, and not our President, is what runs our country.
Then, your "report-card" as you called it, can actually be based on objective criteria. The following questions would become scoring points:
1. Was the process followed?
2. Was everyone consulted?
3. Was prayer involved among all members?
4. Were the Scriptures examined?
5. Was there unity among the team as to the proper course of action?
As it stands now, we elect a man into the DS office and then evaluate him over the years for his "heart for God." Once this subjective-type of a statement is used at an appreciation banquet to hit our heart strings... it becomes really hard to speak up and say, "Yes... but WHAT DID HE DO?"
But, you did hit on something VERY significant when you said that we don't want the district pastors becoming the DS' Board of Directors. I have been amazed over the years to learn how absolutely fearful pastors are of "boards." The result is a retaliatory reaction to overpower and control everything. Somewhere there is a balance.
There is certainly an interesting discussion to be made about the congregational polity model. Some here clearly oppose that model, yet demand to have a vote that is heard at the district level and even beyond. Many have brought up the need for accountability at the district level and yet seem to resist it inside their own church.
I don't know if the entrenched system can be changed but I think there should be consideration given to having all members of the A/G leadership return to active ministry. The extravagant district offices should be housed in a central church (for administrative purposes only) and the leadership should pastor, teach at an A/G institution, etc. I think the model is biblical and it would bring a commonality and relatability among the entire pastoral community.
"danny...and all those who feel you are justified in much of your sweeping criticism,
Let me throw out a scenario for you. Let's say that one of your church members decides to start a little blog...Would you be as open to them to listen and hear them out or would you seek to bring swift "church discipline" to them and say they are creating division in the body?"
Anonymous Dec 2, 2007 5:17 PM:
I would feel betrayed and hurt. Why in the world could and would they do such a thing? Honestly, my defenses would come up and my tongue would be in full-cocked position - I'm still a work in progress.
Thankfully, I have lots of mature Christian friends who have spoken the truth in love before. I know I could count on them to put things in better perspective.
Given your scenario, my friends would see the blog and call me up to see how I was doing. After encouraging me and affirming my calling, they'd tell me something like this:
"...Danny, before you write it off to rebellion, attack, slander, and victimization, it may be helpful to see things from their eyes. Maybe this thing is a total misunderstanding. Maybe they need to see things from your perspective too. For all these reasons and more, you need to meet with them as soon as you've cooled down. God can grow both of you through this if you let Him. Remember, the quickest way to healing is forgiveness. Pray for those who have done this. Who knows? They may have helped you become an even better leader. I'm here for you if you need me..."
Coming from the military, besides losing a service member, this scenario is a leader's worst nightmare (getting fragged or "lost at sea" are of course worse).
The day that a congressman, Inspector General, or higher headquarters has to give you a call is not pretty. I have seen it happen more than once. It communicates one thing:
The chain of command (or sheperding for our purposes) is broken
Why did it have to go over someone’s head? Was there any two-way communication? Was there any prior resolution of the problems? Who knew what and when?
These are some of the questions that would be asked of both parties in an investigation. Most often I have seen or heard of the top leadership receiving the reprimand. I frequently read of skippers getting fired for low morale and unit cohesion. Why?
Ultimate responsibility for morale and unit cohesion lies on the shoulders of senior leadership. The Lord taught us that the greatest in the kingdom is the servant of all and to whom much is given much is required.
For these reasons, I stress to our sailors building lines of communication, rapport, and trust. Trust is the lifeblood of an effective organization. It’s earned and it’s priceless. If you fail to keep the trust, the setbacks and costs are enormous, perhaps even deadly.
I also stress to them the importance of constantly re-evaluating themselves as leaders, especially from the perspectives of the sailors they lead. How would I want to be perceived as a leader from their perspective?
Another lesson I teach them is that leadership should be humbling, expensive and burdensome. You should feel the weight, because it’s lives, careers, and welfares you have in your hands.
But you don’t have to worry as much if you take care of your people and if you follow the Golden Rule. You will be taken care of by them. You will reduce your chances of them going over your head. They'll come to you first, because they trust you.
Part of the reason why I suggested going the route of a website and poll is to send a wake-up call:
THERE IS A PERCEPTION OF LOW MORALE AND UNIT COHESION IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
But how will we know whether this is reality? How extensive is the perception? What doesn’t work? How are we going to fix it?
There absolutely needs to be evaluations, two-way communication, strategy sessions, POA&MS, trust-building and ultimately accountability. Frankly, what I have read so far and experienced myself is very troubling and needs fixing.
When was the last time this was done? Who's going to do it? What are we waiting for?
This is not only a great test of leadership, it’s a great opportunity for success of leadership.
Could someone in a great district (like Ohio or the Northwest) provide an outline of what your district is doing to support ministers/churches? This would allow those of us who feel our districts are behind the times to appeal to our leaders with concrete evidence. Thank you.
From my perspective the problem wiht most districts is that they are run by people who have never themselves grown a church. Now I know this is not true in all cases but in many cases this is totally the truth. How can people lead us in growth and vision who haven't led in their own churches?
Oh how sad the assemblies of god have become... First of all most of the pastors are not living in the real world, and don't relate to their congregation. In my opinion, most pastors are spoiled, pampered, ego driven individuals, who have forgotten their true calling of the gospel... Most rely on families or the buddy system to advance in this organization. I find it very sad, indeed.
In response to the inquiry as to what various districts are doing to address these issues . . .
Before returning to the States I pastored for three years in Vancouver, British Columbia (with our our Canadian sister A/G fellowship) during which time the BC/Yukon District I was a part of completely reinvented itself around a relationally-driven, gift-based model. The sections became 'spiritual learning communities' with the Presbyters assuming the primarily non-administrative role of "Sectional Pastors". Pastors would meet periodically for a full day in their learning communities around interpersonal reflection and strategic planning/equipping as it related to their local churches. Some of these learning communities were geographic in nature (ie sections) and some were non-geographic (networks of youth pastors, women in ministry, etc.)
The District Presbytery Board was replaced with a District Leadership Team composed of members elected on the basis of their administrative and broad leadership strengths. They were generally not Sectional Pastors and could include lay people. As a side note, one of my remarkably gifted female associate pastors was elected to the first District Leadership Team.
It was a model that helped resource pastors in the context of relationships and tied in a broad cross-generational group of pastors. Every church in the District was also asked to regularly participate in a Natural Church Development assessment of that church's congregational health.
It was a courageous and innovative restructuring that took about two years to pull off. Of course there were some who started out with the assumption that the District is irrelevant no matter what, so they refused to participate. The rest of us had to work through schedule challenges that threatened our involvement when it came down to this kind of actual interaction. It's easy to want this in principle, but not in reality. The overall effect, however, was to begin creating a progressive and effective leadership culture in the District.
That model may not be right for everywhere, but it is at least one example of what a District successfully tried.
can somebody please delete "ag kid's" comment. It is untrue and said in a very wrong spirit.
I echoed Jim's thoughts. I think it will be interesting to see how much we really DO want change, and when it comes will we embrace the SACRIFICE it will ask of us (time, pride, money, etc.).
knowing what's at stake...I'M IN!
i too, think AG Kid's comments should go.
Most pastors I know can barely afford food for their families, and they are desperate for a little TLC. There is not much "pampering" taking place in any of the Districts/Sections I've belonged to.
Zorro!! What happened?!
On the previous post just days ago, in response to my asking for editorial filters, you wrote:
"We're tired, and we want a place where we can vent and gather new ideas and momentum. We don't need more filters to "regulate" us. If some body crosses your line: ignore him/her. Let's keep this blog FREE."
Suddenly your asking for full-blown censorship?
Oh, Zorro. ;)
Lane - What is truly sad is AG Kid is one of ours! His perceptions may not be true of all pastors, but they are true from his vantage point.
And how many people does his opinion effect?
He says "most pastors are spoiled, pampered, ego driven individuals, who have forgotten their true calling of the gospel"
God forgive us and help us make these changes quickly, so we don't loose the next generation.
Another AG Kid
Zorro concedes! Keep the post up from AG Kid.
I guess I'm still human, Lane. (and I was doing so good...)
Tom...
I agree with you. I wholeheartedly agree with AGkid in regards to the nepotism issue. Additionally, I have a very close friend of mine who served as a pastor and seminary professor in India who left the AG in India because of what he says were "American" values infiltrating the AG pastors over there. Coincidentally, the issues he quoted to me over a year ago were the same ones AGkid stated above.
I am in agreement with AGkid and hope that he/she knows that they are not alone in their observations.
P.S.
Zorro...
Thanks for catching the *wink* at the end of my post to you. I was trying to be serious but with light-hearted humor. I didn't want to see AGkid's post erased.
Dated November 29, 2007
ZI just received a letter toady form the Southern Missouri District council of The Assemblies of God. Following is a copy of the letter's contents;
Dear Fellow Ministers:
We Trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the Kingdom of God.
Sincerely in Christ
Bill Baker
Superintendent
Southern Missouri District Council
This letter is submitted without any changes.
Last Post...
I spoke with my EP about the letter from the district and he assured me that it was too broad and not an accurate portrayal of the presbyters' discussion. He's working for clarification.
Wow......that letter from So Mo about sums it all up doesn't it?
Southern MO - WOW!
Seems like you'd be better off with a Send in your Tithes and a Don't Ask, Don't Tell Attendance Policy.
Are you going to start demanding attendance on Sunday nights too?
Who will take attendance?
so much for COOPERATIVE fellowship!
I am not sure what this letter from S. Missouri indicates other than -
Are the A/G's in the area lacking quality so much that these credential holders who are not pastoring right now do not want to attend them? Is that the statement this makes? I'm not sure or assuming, I'm just wondering
Otherwise I am trying to figure out why an A/G credential holder would have the desire to go to a church that they are not liscensed with on on a permanent basis. Maybe somebody can educate me about this.
It does seem kind of strange that people would be forced or coerced (by saying you will lose your credentials if not) to go to a certain church.
I used to attend a great non-denom. church while I was in transition in ministry. Id did this becasue the church was ON FIRE, and everyone knew it. The A/G churches around were deader than a door nail and comparable to a baptist church with guitars. I mean, and this non-denom was just doing it, man!! And, this non-denom also supported many AG missionaries. So, I was there. BUT, I also sent my tithe into my District.
well, when it came for us to launch into a new full-time position, guess what? The DS called me in and said, "You clearly are called, and this is a great position of ministry for you, but you need to leave that church and go find an AG one, or we will not endorse you."
I was so taken back. This non-denom complied with ALL 16 Fundies and everything. When asked why, he said, "BECAUSE YOU ARE A/G."
Makes no sense to me, but that is my story.
Oh, and i forgot the 2nd best part...he did say my credentials would be in jeopardy if I did not cease and desist from attending the non-denom.
BTW, this was not in SoMo, but in the NEast in 2003.
Steve,
doesn't matter to me what your EP tells you. the letter has the DS signature. That says it all right there. IT SAYS WHAT HE WANTS IT TO SAY.
Where are the blog hosts, who ignite the fires of controversy with their posts, and then retreat to watch us toast?
December 5, 2007
Dear Fellow Ministers:
It is with a great deal of sorrow that the letter that came from this office was not somewhat clearer, since there seems to be some misunderstandings.
Perhaps the letter would be better put to say that those who hold credentials with the Assemblies of God, who have chosen non-Assemblies of God churches as their church home, without permission from the Sectional Presbytery, would jeopardize their credentials. There was no intention to infer that one who is Assemblies of God could not attend non-Assemblies of God churches with friends or family members while on vacation, etc. It also does not prohibit our Assemblies of God ministers from pastoring, with consent from the presbytery, a non-Assemblies of God church. In fact, we have a number of ministers who are pastoring non-Assemblies of God Churches.
The thinking of the presbytery is that Assemblies of God ministers should attend and support Assemblies of God churches. Their first preference should be our own Assemblies of God churches.
We regret any misunderstanding in our first letter. Perhaps this will clarify the thinking of the Presbytery Board and should you have any questions, please contact your Sectional Presbyter.
Thank you, and may you enjoy this wonderful time of year when we celebrate the birthday of our King.
In Christ,
Bill R. Baker
Southern Missouri District Superintendent
BRB/lm
Otherwise I am trying to figure out why an A/G credential holder would have the desire to go to a church that they are not liscensed with on on a permanent basis.
If I quite pastoring my "Assemblies of God" church tomorrow, there isn't an A/G church within a hundred miles of my community that I would attend. The A/G is dead in most places in America. Very, very few growing, thriving, reaching A/G churches where I live.
While I understand the desire on the part of the So. MO District for organizational loyalty, there remains a sense of bewilderment as I try to fit denominational jargon within a Christian context.
What I mean is this...
The first letter posted ended with the closing, "... as together we strive to enhance the Kingdom of God." Yet, in the second letter the language is, "Their first preference should be our own Assemblies of God churches."
Again, from a business and organizational standpoint, I understand organizational loyalty. But I wrestle with how we can, in one breath, claim a passion for togetherness in God's kingdom and then turn around with possessive language that speaks of "our own" churches.
Maybe I am simply naive from not having actually sat at the District level, but something about this, despite the clarification, still seems spiritually awkward to me. How can we strive together to enhance God's Kingdom if we have such territorial attitudes?
Can anyone show me or direct me to the page in the Constitution and By-Laws or anything that I as a credentialed minister signed that says that I have to attend an A/G church. I pastor one and have attended one all my life but where does it say I have to. I am curious.
Last night I read the post quoting the S MO DS’s letter and found my stomach in knots! I thought I would wait before writing and see if the DS would respond. He did and my stomach is still in knots!
If I were not pastoring my church and continued to live in my city for a season, I too would not attend one of the other A/G churches in my region. The style of ministry and the ministries offered would not fit the needs of my family and I believe we would be a distraction to these pastors. However, there is a very solid Pentecostal, but non A/G church, that I would have no question about attending. We already have a good relationship with the lead pastor. And this church has a history of being more involved in the overall building up of God’s Kingdom in our region rather than just taking care of its own church brand, something I deem very important.
I can see a good reason for informing the presbyter or the DS of where my family would be attending and why, but the words PERMISSION, CONSENT and JEOPARDIZE reveal an underlying problem and a narrow view of the Kingdom of God. I know I am opening a can of worms and will most likely be raked over the coals by some, but the question screaming in my mind is....WHAT, AM I A CHILD WHO MUST SEEK PERMISSION TO GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY? I understand supporting our own, but not at the detriment of my family. This is not the spirit of the A/G I found when I received my credentials more than a quarter of a century ago and the spirit of this letter is absolutely not what the founders of the A/G wanted at all! Getting back to the original direction of the post, this is a prime example of one of those things that is wrong with our denomination. Is there any wonder why we are stagnant? Is there any wonder why many quality young (and some not so young) ministers are leaving?
In Lane’s 6:12 A.M. post he states, “But I wrestle with how we can, in one breath, claim a passion for togetherness in God's kingdom and then turn around with possessive language that speaks of "our own" churches. Maybe I am simply naive from not having actually sat at the District level, but something about this, despite the clarification, still seems spiritually awkward to me. How can we strive together to enhance God's Kingdom if we have such territorial attitudes? Lane, all I can say is WELL SPOKEN & A-MEN!
Still Sick
Am I in trouble of losing my credentials?
Last year I preached in 4 non-A/G non-pentecostal churches. This year I have shared my pulpit with Methodist, Baptist and independent pastors.
Oops I forgot to get district approval. As I read the scripture we are all one "BODY" not one denomination (sorry, fellowship).
I would have to say that if I were to resign my church today, this coming Sunday I would not be attending an AG church in my area. Not that there aren't any, just that I wouldn't subject my family to them.
What about this? Once a month I attend a Saturday evening service at various local churches that offer them. I have found it to be a great time of inspiration, fellowship, and idea building. I even put in an offering when the plate, bucket, or bag is passed.
The way I see it, is that it all comes down to local church sovereignty vs. Springfield or District control. Bigger government is not better government. I'm afraid that some of our cry for change is just going to push us into a more centralized system of governance.
Lane, Will, Still Sick,
I'm with you. I DON'T understand why these leaders feel the need to CONTROL everything. People want to be lead, not CONTROLLED.
If my District would try this monkey-business...oh, brother!
why do we tolerate this? where is the protest? Besides posting anonymously on this site, SoMo boys, what are you doing?
Let me relay an interesting experience, and then comment.
A couple of years ago I felt that God was leading us to leave what was then our present pastorate, and move on to another place of ministry. I looked at A/G churches, but also to Foursquare, Vineyard, and non-denominational Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. I made it clear to the non-A/G churches that if they so desired I would resign my credentials with the A/G to pastor their church if that was the will of the Lord.
Not one non-A/G showed any interest in me once they found out I was A/G ordained. Not one. I'm not talking about looking over my head either, but churches the same size of my current (A/G) church or a few dozen larger. Not one non-A/G church even asked for references or sermon tapes.
Now, it makes me wonder what kind or reputation the Assemblies of God has in the American church community. Sure, we do great with missions, but what else do we really contribute to American Christianity and Church community? What significant thing has the A/G produced to better the evangelical church in America in the last 25 years?
The SOMO follow up letter is even worst an the first, I hope that the district will reconsider this move. I know of several families that are being crushed by this decision.
Dear Zorro, Lane, Will and Still Sick,
In August (20-27) I engaged in a dialog on this site with George P. Wood, Lane Douglas, David Barnett and Marvin J. Miller concerning the redefinition of the term Voluntary Cooperative Fellowship that I have witnessed during my nearly 30 years of ministry in the A/G. My point then and what I see in this current episode is that somewhere along the way the ORIGINAL meaning and INTENT of VCF has been shifted to the definition that is like joining the United States military. You volunteer to join. Once you join the fellowship your cooperation is obligatory, which some leaders then use as leverage to get people to either not rock the boat or tow the company line....or in this case attend the correct church. This re-definition is part of the sad cultural change which has developed within the A/G that is now position & power based rather than relational.
BTW, this position & power based culture has not helped our reputation in the greater body of Christ nor has our “building our/my kingdom” mentality.
Ending on a positive note.....I am hugely impressed by Dr. Wood’s willingness to use this blog site to dialog with ministers on difficult issues! While I have a fundamental issue with DS Baker’s letter and response, I applaud his willingness to respond on this site as well. Finally, after reading her comments I especially want to thank Dr. Beth Grant for her insightful comments and Christ-like spirit.
Blessings,
Pastor D.J.M.
Isn't this the same district that is sueing churches. I guess if that can't control you through lawsuites they will find another way. So sad this day has come, may God change the hearts of men.
DJM...
I remember our conversation well. And I agree with you that power & position are definite marks of our DNA.
I was reading Colson's commentary today on BreakPoint.org in which he praised Bill Hybels and Willow Creek for the humility displayed in the current REVEAL research they are publishing. They have openly admitted at Willow that despite generating massive crowds, they have not discipled their people to maturity.
What has yet to hit the larger Christian news arena is what Hybels presented in his first session at the Summit this year. He stated that after 20+ years of ministry, he is no longer convinced in the traditional "Senior" pastor model and instead believes that the church stands to benefit from learning team-based ministry.
As I sat in my seat there at South Barrington wondering if I had made the right choice to attend the Summit rather than GC which was only 4 hours south of us, I had my answer in those first 90 minutes. While we are sending out letters placing controls on our pastors and alienating ourselves from the rest of God's family... they are inviting over 500 other churches of every denomination to help them with the REVEAL survey.
God help us to realize that our isolationism and arrogance is nothing more than the error of the Hebrews in the Old Testament. God "elects" a people to carry His Spirit, and we turn that into God making us "elite."
I began reading this thread with great excitement, and loved all the things that Beth Grant had to say. I couldn’t find one thing I would dispute or disagree with. But as I continued reading, I must say it appears that the discussion simply degraded into something very disappointing. To be frank, it is clear that SOME of the writers have had very little experience leading a group of leaders, which, by the way, it whole different ball game from leading a church.
I use the letter from the S. Mizz district as an example. I don’t recall any threaders asking why this kind of letter was necessary. I can tell you from personal experience as a 50 something credential holder, that there may be good and solid reasons for this kind of direction. For instance, there are some non-A/G churches that deal with A/G churches unethically and destructively in matters of both doctrine and practice. Normally, these issues are not broadcast, but they can quickly cause serious dilemmas for credential holders.
I also saw a quick assumption made that the only motivation for such a policy was to control and dominate. That is unfair and probably untrue. Leadership has a responsibility to “watch over” the souls that are in their care, and to assume that they make policy designed to control rather than lead and guide is jumping to conclusions. I think we would do well to remember Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your spiritual leaders and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they know they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this joyfully and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.” (NLT)
I sense in the threads some condescending and self aggrandizing attitudes that see “seeking permission” to attend a non-a/g church as beneath them. I would concede that that particular issue could be better phrased, but perhaps your district officers would actually understand you reasons and encourage you to attend a non-ag church, if you respected their leadership and dialoged with them about your situation. As a person in that position, I have encouraged some to continue to attend and minister in some non-a/g churches, and others I have actively discouraged. In either case, I appreciated their openness with me.
Being part of a Fellowship means accountability to leadership, and servanthood by the leadership.
This is a serious question that I would like to have the blog’s serious response. Concerning credential holders, who is their boss? Are they “under” their presbyter? Or does the presbytery serve as the elected representative to the District Council for administrative functions? Also, can the presbyter board legislate new policy without the approval of the council? Does the presbytery serve the pastors or do the pastors serve the presbytery? By the way, the So. Missouri District Supt. did not submit that second letter to the site.
AJC, thanks for your comments and insight. You touched on a key issue while referencing District Leadership when you wrote; "If you respected their leadership...". I don't respect my DS. In nearly thirty years of credentialed ministry I've been called by my DS once. The one time I sought advice for a church situation, the private conversation we had very quickly became a public issue involving many more individuals than was necessary. Trust is not present in this District. And the same grace you encourage us to extend to those in positions of District responsibility should be offered to those of us who are sincerely looking for fellowship. If we respond, revealing the depth of our hurt, we're labeled as 'complainers'.
Yes, in my position of spiritual leadership I must keep watch over the souls of the men and women in my sphere of influence. I can't begin to function in that regard with out intentionally building relationships with them.
AJC...
I appreciated your comments. Unfortunately, I see your angle as indicative of many of the leaders in our movement.
Would you be willing to post again and answer the following question:
When a pastor comes to you to seek your blessing/permission to attend a non-AG church, what criteria do you use to answer? How do you form your opinion about the integrity of the church they are wanting to go to?
I honestly and sincerely would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I think it was Winkie Pratney that said "rules without relationship always causes rebellion".
Though I'm not completely sure it was Winkie that said it, I'm pretty sure its true. It seems as though the vast majority of issues voiced on here began and sometimes ended with no relationship between the district officials and the district's ministers.
I've noticed that most ministers here in the AG react very differently if they feel they understand the intent and the heart behind rules such as this one from the So Mo district. I know that I do.
An example of how many issues could have been avoided, return a phone call, reply to an email, actually show care and concern when a minister looks to the district office for help. As a missionary I can tell you that the refusal to return a phone call isn't just frustrating, its insulting.
My district officials are actually pretty good about responding to my calls and emails but how much better would it be if I got a call from the district office once in awhile just to say "hey we care about you. how are you doing? how can we help?" If district offices did simple things like that I don't think people would be posting letters from their district on this blog. Instead the district would get a phone call that would go something like, "hey, I just received this letter. I don't think I understand your intent. Can you explain this too me?"
People typically think the worst of their leadership when they don't know them. Right or wrong, its reality. "Rules without relationship always causes rebellion".
I'm not a credentialed minister, and I don't play one on TV, so take this for what it's worth.
The letter posted from the SoMo DS reminded me of those letters that come out of the blue from your credit card company changing the terms of your card agreement. The earlier posting about the late fee on credential renewals just makes it sound more like that.
A lot of bad feelings could have been avoided if the district officials had just gone directly to the people they knew of that were attending non-A/G churches asked for the reasons why.
Good questions Lane, and necessary ones to be answered (ooh, my english teacher just spun in her grave):
When a pastor comes to you to seek your blessing/permission to attend a non-AG church, what criteria do you use to answer?
I try to discern the why questions. Why are you attending there, why are you not attending a local A/G, are there unresolved conflicts that need to be addressed, etc.
How do you form your opinion about the integrity of the church they are wanting to go to?
I try to do that by conversations with the pastor, if possible, knowing thier doctrinal stands, asking how they came into a relationship with each other, if promises were made, etc.
As you can see, I agree with those of you who have put relationship at the top of the agenda. It is impossible to lead without integrity in relationships.
I also realize that even among the leadership in ANY district, there are fallen, fallible, limited human beings inhabiting those offices who can and do fall short, either by neglect or intent. But if Jesus has commanded us to forgive our enemies when they hurt us, I think we are obligated to an even greater degree to forgive our brothers (and sisters) If I could be so bold, I truly beleive that most of my frustrations with others can be releived when I choose to forgive when they don't measure up to my standards.
I happen to hold credentials with the A/G (30 years) and have been given permission to pastor a non-A/G church. I have no desire to relenquish my credentials or come under disciplinary action because of my current position of ministry. I preach the "full Gospel" and have been challenged by the other denomation in regard to my position on the Holy Spirit. My response to them,over the past seven years, has been that I will never fight about the Holy Spirit and I preach what is in the "Book". It saddens me to see such attitudes.
I do have to say that the other denomination, at least twice a year, specifically asks me how I am doing spiritually. I have NEVER been asked that questions within the ranks of the A/G. We have very little accountability and a lot of loose immoral cannons in positions of leadership that are damaging many lives. I read the "list" each quarter as provided by the General Council and I literally weep over the dismissed, resigned, and lapsed. There is a story behind every name and men and women are hurting.
I really care about the fellowship and would like to see massive improvements! where to start? I just don't know.
Later!
In regard to these non A/G churches that our pastors are attending - Do we still offer churches the opportunity of being a "Cooperative Fellowship"?
Would that help this situation?
What hoops do Cooperative Fellowships have to jump through?
Does anyone know about CF's?
AJC, thanks for taking the time to comment. I think you've helped bring another needed perspective to the issue. I think if we're honest with ourselves, we'll agree that many leaders have the same attitude you have displayed here, but sometimes circumstances preclude that attitude from being demonstrated. Is that the fault of the leaders? Sometimes it probably is. Is it the fault of the members of the districts? Sometimes it probably is.
Hopefully as more of us are exposed to leaders that have a clear desire to see the AG succeed in its mission, we'll be able to forgive and ask forgiveness as needed.
AJC...
Thank you for answering. Though I do not agree with the policy enacted by the So. MO District, I appreciate how you approached it and your reasoning.
While I want to believe the best of leaders, it becomes increasingly difficult when they begin to operate separate from the people they lead. As I understand it, District officers are elected to represent the needs of the District. This is why we have a council and this is why we vote. If the DS was simply there to hear from God for us, our council could be greatly shortened by him/her simply sending us a letter of the newest revelations.
Had the letter from the So. MO District articulated that the District was concerned that people going to non-AG churches might reflect un-resolved hurt and pain... and that the officers wanted to meet with these people to see if resolution could be met, I would have given them a standing ovation. However, when you instead use phrases like "credentials in jeopardy" and then call for other ministers to play your "gestapo" for you by seeking out these "moles," .... well, it becomes really, really hard to think the best of them.
I agree with AJC that attitude toward leaders is important -- in terms of both honor and forgiveness - as a part of our personal discipleship and public example. As a pastor there are a lot of issues that I have to make judgements on that involve information my 'critics' can't possibly know. When their initial response is cynical, I find it personally quite hurtful and definitely not helpful in developing a learning culture that helps me as a leader grow.
I pastor in the So. Missouri District. My own convictions about the what and how of the A/G church attendance ruling aside, I do know that we have leaders with good hearts that do not intend 'command and control' systems. Trusting their hearts may not solve some of these problems, but I do believe that dissent needs to at least start with the benefit of the doubt. Per Jesus' Golden Role I am trying to respond to my leadership in the District as I would want people to respond to me who don't always get what I do as a pastor.
Based on my conversation with AJC above, I wonder what if... what if... the letter had instead read this way:
Dear Fellow Ministers:
In our October presbyters meeting we discussed openly the issue of credential holders in our District attending non-AG churches.
Because we are greatly concerned that this reflects underlying tension and un-resolved conflict among our constituents, it was moved that I be allowed to have extended time away from the office to visit with these ministers. As such, beginning Jan. 1 of the New Year, I plan on spending my traveling time seeking to meet with and extend my ear to these individuals.
If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please encourage them to contact me.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the Kingdom of God.
Sincerely in Christ
Superintendent
Southern Missouri District Council
Who wouldn't applaud that action? Who wouldn't see Jesus' heart seeking out the 1 lost sheep rather than protecting the 99?
If only...
No one has answered me yet and I think I know why. But I will ask again. Is there anywhere in the By-Laws or Constitution or anything that we as Credential holders sign that says that once we get them that we HAVE to attend an A/G church while we hold those credentials. I understand completely seeking leave to Pastor or serve on the staff of an Independent Pentecostal church from the District offices. But attending isn't addressed.
Beth's final comment: "We seem to have a window of opportunity under our national leadership for broad-based constructive dialogue and healthy change."
I hope it is not simply a "window" of opportunity. My prayer is for a "cultural change" that would institute systems that seek input and foster dialogue over the long haul.
What a mess...
As a younger pastor I have grown frustrated with this website and have walked away thinking what's the point? I have been particularly suspicious of those who are younger, like me, who are thinking of walking away.
All of that changed when I read the letter from the SO MO District. I also agree that the second letter didn't change the spirit behind the overall decision. Now I can't help but think that maybe many of you are right. Can the AG be fixed? I didn't grow up in the AG but have heard rumors of stuff like this happening. In many ways I know I am a newcomer. Now I think of all of my family and friends who I guess have missed it because they don't attend AG churches. What's sad is that with the state of our fellowship/denomination this only serves as a way to push younger pastors like myself away.
How can we promote "the Kingdom" while at the same time we are portraying a separatist attitude. How can I tell my people that the Baptism of the H.S. does give us superiority to other christians? I too occasionally attend non-AG churches to see what the Lord is doing in them. If I hadn't done that I don't believe I would be as balanced in ministry as I am today.
I too am praying not just for a "window of opportunity" but for a cultural change.
Interesting posts, my friends! I think one of the best things that the district (we call it our Ministry Network) that I'm a part of does is to display humility. Honestly, from many of our gatherings- whether the DS or other leaders are attending one of our church services, speaking from the Annual Conference pulpit or just at this recent Ministers' and Spouses' Retreat- they just carry themselves with a genuine concern for the people, and a sense of humility in the role that God has allowed them to be an influence in.
I have a lot of hope, and have "stuck in here" even when MANY of my cohorts and colleagues from an A/G university chose to walk away from the opportunity to be a part of the Assemblies of God. I honestly understand many of their reasons, and don't necessarily blame them. I went to the Young Minister's Forum last year and was SO discouraged, and very offended with some of the harsh language and accusations by leaders there and other ministers. But I got great advice from my Dad, who said "Don't get a hot head now, you can have your passion, but balance it with humility and a desire to be a long term influencer."
I sometimes have to repeat his advice to myself when I hear and read things that make me so hurt and outraged, but I also have seen God do incredible things (even in leaders I once considered very arrogant and irrelevant) that I never considered possible. God is able to change hearts, and I'm just in continued prayer that our approach can be with love and sincere desire for the Kingdom's good. I know that if I'm ever in a more broad position of leadership and influence, that I will have the same temptations that I've seen many succumb to: to acquire wealth as a first priority, to demand loyalty and secrecy, to walk with a haughty and condescending spirit, and to put my own needs and impulses above the true needs of my family and spiritual family.
We REALLY do need accountability, deeper relationships and mentoring structures in order to be healthy- A/G wide and God's Kingdom wide. :)
One of the issues brought up this past summer with the elections was "can the GSup (or any official for that matter) be a lead pastor at the same time?"
What do the readers of this blog think about that idea? What are the pros and cons of that idea?
Over the past few months, I've come to realize that Dr. Wood is THE MAN for this hour, for such a time as this, to bring about the beginnings of culture change. As a 28 yr old (credentialed for 8) I respect and hold him in very high regard.
But what about Brian Houston being the GSup of AG Austrailia AND the Sr. Pastor of the most influential church in that nation. He sets the tone for the rest of the churches to follow their example.
What if our Districts were led by a Sup that was the pastor of the most influential church? The church that is planting the most churches, the church that is reaching the most people in their region, the church that is full of the Spirit, full of healings, signs and wonders, the church leading the way in missions, the church that has the most creative and innovative ways of communicating the Gospel...etc
What do you say?
What are the pros and cons?
One of the best districts I've been involved in was one where the district leaders never made you feel you were on a lower rung of the ladder. They treated you as if it went without saying that you had something to contribute. No one acted as if they were above you. There was a sense of fun and family.
Respect does not equal star-like admiration. It's easier to respect someone who speaks TO you, not DOWN to you.
so when we do we get to "DO?"
I think we can all agree that things are broken. So, rather than just keep sitting here typing and venting and waiting for some great REVOLUTION from the Top Down, let's pick a topic and GO FOR IT!
I'm in!
Hello! We ask to pray for this initiative in italian language that is similar to that of futureAG. Humbly, we almost copied your idea. Pray for us. It's harvest time...
http:ilmomentocruciale.blogspot.com
("il momento cruciale" translated is "the most important hour" - Romans 13:10-14).
Will,
There is nothing in the General Council constitution or bylaws explicitly prohibiting someone from attending a non-AG church. But there is language present that would provide a way for a person to "get in trouble" with those in authority. For example,
Article VII, Section 2, h. Commitment to the Fellowship reads, "An active loyalty to our constitutional agreements, a cooperative spirit, and a readiness to seek and receive the counsel of older mature Christians and those in positions of authority.
Not attending an AG church could be construed as being uncooperative or not loyal. It's a stretch, but feasible.
Article IX, B. Section 8. Violations of Ministerial Courtesy could also be used against someone attending a non-AG church if that attendance causes conflict or problems for a local AG church.
Section 9. (of the same Article) specifically allows for AG credential holders to engage in ministry in non-AG churches, but it also recommends to do so only after discussing it with the local district. It ends the section with this, "If the minister does not have district approval, he or she shall be expected to refrain from conducting services for the church. Ministers who violate this principle shall be subject to discipline.
It seems like the above is directed to ministers preaching in non-AG churches as opposed to just attending them. But, I have a feeling they would think the same reasoning applies to both cases (especially if you think anyone that attends a church is engaged in ministry of some sort at that church).
There is also a list of "Causes of Disciplinary Action" (Article X, Section 3) that includes "A contentious or noncooperative spirit", "Violations of ministerial courtesy", and "Ministry without prior approval in a non-AG church."
So, there appears to be grounds for disciplinary action for attending a non-AG church, but it's not explicit. Also, each district has its own set of bylaws that may make it explicit. The above is just the General Council's set of bylaws.
Paul F.- I read that over and over again and I can see where than can stretch and strain to make attending a non A/G church contentious, non-cooperative, rebellious thing. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law though in my opinion. I can agree to the constitution and all that and attend a church that doesn't have A/G anywhere in it. Remember folks, I pastor an A/G church and have gone to one all my life. But, how much are they stretching things to get that one believeable to people in So. Missouri?
On another note, Paul I believe you and I are acquaintances from your youth camp and youth ministry involvement as a student in Oklahoma. You probably know my brother too.
Speaking of Brian Houston and the Australian Assemblies of God, I would like to suggest a topic for the next string on FutureAG blog.
Apostolic polity...? Are there any thoughts on this topic? Many of our newer churches are adopting this governmental model and the General Council has recently opened the door facilitating application of a variety of possible forms of church government.
Many of us who pastor would say that an apostolic approach of managing the church is a very good idea, especially if it works. However, is their room for increasing the apostolic authority of the top leadership in an AOG district or even the General Council of the Assemblies of God? Should we move away from the democratic flavor of our movement like Australia has done, and allow visionary leaders to made decisions moving the helm with a bit more agility?
What would the pitfalls in an increasingly more apostolic environment be? Some of the pastors I have known do not have kind things to say about their struggles with deacons and other lay leadership. They perceive undue meddling and obstruction as limiting their vision and the work of God. They see the possibility of increased authority as an attractive opportunity. I am not so convinced; time may tell.
Apostolic Policy: My A/G church I attend has recently adopted this form of policy, and I have yet to form an yeah or nay. I see the benefits as long as the lead pastor is a man of humility, a praying man, etc. I hope he is still seeking input of his congregation on various things, but who knows. The main fear many of us have is what happens when he retires someday and the next lead pastor isn't like him? As well, many great leaders struggle with humility the more successful they become, and what impact will that have on the leadership and policy of the church they lead?
The wisest man who ever lived was Solomon, yet he even made some very unwise decisions later in life. That is what I fear.
Steve
Springfield, MO
A Balanced View of Apostolic Ecclesiology
Concerning Apostolic Ecclesiology there is an excellent article from the Australian AG college journal. The article’s thesis is "to provide an overview of the ecclesiological transitions that have occurred in the AGA and, secondly, to attempt to discern what has been gained and lost in this process of change." It is titled “The Apostolic Revolution and the Ecclesiology of the AoGA” by Shane Clifton. It is in volume 9 of the Australian Pentecostal Journal. (You will have to click on "Issues" on the left side of the page.) The free article requires a free registration.
Click Here
Anyone else wonder why we have to go through the credential renewal drill every Christmas? Do you preach? Do you believe in Jesus? Tongues? World Missions? Are you loyal to the system? Have you paid up? (As if they don't already know the answer to that question).
Seems like one website would be adequate to log on annually and pledge our allegiance to the AG, update our information, and download a file with a membership card attached.
Just appears to be a lot of rigamarole: check the boxes, check your last district receipt, figure out how many times you preached and if you still think Jesus is coming back to earth, sign it in triplicate, send it to your district, forward it to GC, wait for that little card thingy (I’ve only used it twice to visit prisoners in jails). If that many people are in question about cardinal doctrines, I’d suggest that this form isn’t going to solve the problems.
We’ve got to be talking about money in terms of a couple new missionary’s annual budgets to print this thing, mail it out, mail it back, forward it on…$10’s of thousands?! One simple website, use your AGpassport, update by Dec. 31st…print off your cardie…good for another year! I’m sure I’ll be corrected, but that’s my take.
two things:
YEAH to Apostolic, and YEAH to a website for credential renewal. I don't know why we haven't thought of either sooner.
You know, regarding ordination/renewal: the A/G is no better than these online ordination mills where you "pay $99.99" to be ordained. If I am ordained, I am ordained. Period. Why do I have to pay $240 a year to remain ordained. It is ridiculous.
We are stupid, blind, ignorant sheep - all of us - for continuing to allow these ungodly practices to go on!
I have come to the conclusion that I am not renewing my credentials. I know in my heart God has ordained me to ministry. Beyond that, I have a piece of paper that says I'm ordained. I don't need a stupid membership card to tell me that. The church can remain A/G, but I'm done. If the church wants to kick me out because of it, so be it.
Anonymous 7:05 AM,
No one is forcing you, or any of us, to stay in the AG. Those that want to stay have their reasons. Maybe they think the AG, though not perfect, is the best thing going. Maybe they want to be missionaries and realize it's very hard to do that without some support. Maybe their ministry is enhanced because they're a part of the AG. I'm sure the list could go on. That doesn't mean these reasons apply to everyone. They apparently don't apply to you, so God bless and see you later.
I do find it interesting that you act so cavalier about leaving yet still post anonymously. Perhaps you're not as convinced that the AG is steeped in "ungodly practices" as you think you are.
Apostolic--isn't this a bit self-aggrandizing? Why don’t we speak in terms of team ministry or more egalitarian leadership models? Do we not believe in the priesthood of all believers? I would agree that the old corporate models of boards and parliamentary rules are tired and often counterproductive—but acquiesce to the resident apostle? Or the regional apostle? Godly leaders should lead in the context of authenticity and partnership. If there are unspiritual attitudes manifesting in the older model, chances are appointing apostles won’t solve the problem. I think the consistent characteristic that emerges from the NT is multiple elders—godly, spiritually minded servant leaders.
Aren't boards necessary under the law for incorporations and non-profits? Just curious here. I'd hate to see folks get into hot water with the Feds.
"Apostle" Brian Houston of the Australian AOG is said to be a millionaire many times over. I hope that we don't begin to move in that direction as a movement because history will already have said to us,"don't go there". Self appointed Apostles and Profits already dot our landscape where we live and they are a scary bunch indeed!!
The double edged sword of being anonymous on a blog is that the same cloak of invisability that allows you to freely express yourself can also be a great temptation to thoughtless and mean spirited discourse. If you wouldn't sit across the table and talk to a brother or sister in the way you are typing, then don't type it. Remember, one of the Fruit of the Spirit is self control
I would like to encourage all of us to move back to the spirit of the superb insights of Dr. Beth Grant. I know that many of us are frustrated, but some of our comments have digressed into nothing more than a gripe session. I sincerely doubt that this approach will bring about any real change.
Also I appreciate the correction of my assumption on Dec. 5 at 1:30 P.M. that DS Baker posted his response on this site.
Blessings,
Pastor D.J.M.
Where are the blog hosts?
The only difference between the two SoMo letters was one of semantics, and a little window dressing.
The salient passages from each read:
1. "It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or their credentials will be in jeopardy."
2. "Perhaps the letter would be better put to say that those who hold credentials with the Assemblies of God, who have chosen non-Assemblies of God churches as their church home, without permission from the Sectional Presbytery, would jeopardize their credentials."
In the spirit of constructive dialogue, is there any chance that the moderators of this blog would like to invite the presbyters or district officials from So. Missouri to explain the rationalle behind their letters to the So. Miss. pastors? What issue were they trying to address? How do they view their role in relation to their pastors? Was their discussion as to how broad of a letter would go out? Did anyone consider just contacting the pastors that were known to be attending non-Assemblies churches?
Mark, Jeff, George, Tory, Paul, Brad & .... Ringo –
Who is watching the store?
Someone has asked about boards being a legal need. Isn’t a board only advantageous when you need to borrow money for building or land acquisition?
Why couldn't the So MO District Council simply call or write the ministers that they think are currently attending a Non A/G church?
(You'd think that as long as the ministers pay their tithes, the district would be happy. Push too hard and they may get their wish.)
Are Cooperative Fellowships - churches that have like beliefs but are not yet A/G? How do you invite churches to become a CF?
Looking forward to your input.
It is my understanding that both state and federal law require corporations to have a governing board of some sort.
Theologically speaking, the Bible speaks of multiple leaders within one congregation, which are variously referred to as bishops or overseers (depending on the translation), elders, and pastor-teachers.
I have not done a lot of research into the contemporary apostolic movement. I tend to be wary of fads within Pentecostal/charismatic circles, and this seems like yet another one of them. But off the type of my head, these are a few questions I would ask of those who advocate switching to an apostolic model of leadership within the USAG. (1) Does the Bible teach require that we use this model of leadership? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. Since the apostolic model of leadership is not biblically required--nor biblically prohibited, for all I can tell--it falls into the realm of prudence. So, here's the second question: (2) Does this model work better than other, "competing" models of trans-congregational leadership? The answer to that question depends, of course, on what you mean by "work better." (3) Is it the apostolic leadership model, or the specific leader who works well? Perhaps the Australian AG Gen. Supt. is an incredibly gifted guy. Maybe that's why the Australian AG is accomplishing so much. Perhaps it has to do with him rather than the leadership model he advocates. (4) Does the apostolic leadership model work well over multiple generations? As far as I can tell, we don't know the answer to that question simply because it's such a new model. We know that our current model of Gen. Supt. leadership works well, at least as a maintenance form of leadership. Perhaps, depending on the person holding the office, it can be much more.
just a couple of thots.
1. this thinnly vield accusation of moneygrubbing by district officers is out of order. It ranks right up there with whiners who say "all the church wants is my money"
2. Boards are both a legal and practical requirement. In our governance, presbyter boards are elected by thier constituants, which gives them the at least the tacit approval and trust of those people. It's strength is in getting diverse views on subjects that come before them, and guaruntees that power doesn't reside in a few people.
3. The New Testament model indicates that even the Apostles submitted to a "board" i.e. Pauls reporting to the other apostles of the pouring out of the Spirit on Gentiles.
4. I have served as a Presbyter, and I too wondered what the heck was going on in those meetings until it actually fell to me (with fellow presbyters) to make decisions that impacted others. Being on the other side of the door is indeed an eye opening experience.
"Apostolic" ministry style does not necessarily refer to being a spiritual guru or superior. It simply means the pastor is the captain.
How it works in our church is like this... Rather than have a board of deacons, who need to sign off on everything, we have elders. Their role is financial accountability every quarter, and to be kept up to date with the direction and vision of the church. It is VERY Team based.
This frees to pastor to do the work of the pastor, and not have to worry about competing with a Board or certain deacon member. The pastor is also the one who hires/fires, and can even pick the church carpet. It also liberates the Board, because they now see themselves and enablers, rather than "watchdogs." Plus, this simplicity helps everyone understand their role more clearly and effectively.
Our elders love it, because they understand that they are NOT the pastor or his superior. This keeps the mood cooperative, and keeps in focus that it would be foolish for them, who are NOT in full-time ministry from pretending that they are. They know it would be completely ridiculous for me, their pastor, to come in and tell them how to run their business, so they don't pretend how to tell me how to run our church. They are NOT "Yes-men," they are leaders on a Team with the Pastor as the captain. It is FUN and very productive.
Also, this style is completely cool with the government, because you still have a VP, Sec. and Tres.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE if you are a church-planter, consider this style of leadership. For those already in an established church, please share this approach with your board. If they love and trust you, they will fully embrace it, because they will see how freeing it will make you, which SHOULD equal more creativity, more time to grow spiritually, and more FUN in staff meetings.
TO THE NAY-Sayers...this ministry style is, in my opinion, is less likely to self-destruct than the BOARD model, and here is why:
1 - there is less competition. Because our Board system is SO MUCH like our political system, Board members see themselves as Congress does, competing for the TOP SEAT with the President. This new approach helps kill that mentality.
2 - IF the pastor goes off the deep end, or his predecessor, it is no different that if it would happen in a BOARD system. (PTL was BOARD run.)
PLUS, because the spirit of this ministry model is so much more TEAM oriented, rather than competitive, the chances of getting a "wingnut" in are less (IMO).
3 - WE ALL have seen more churches destroyed or STIFLED as the result of a BOARD, rather than a pastor.
TRY it boys. You are NOT making yourself out to be superior in the model, you are simply embracing your title as PASTOR.
The success or failure is not always in the system but many times in the leadership. The board system works great in the church I am on staff at. The church has grown significantly and not a problem to be found. No politics.....no strife. But the pastor leads in a team approach rather than dictates. No system is perfect for sure but leadership has so much to do with what system works.
Perhaps someone could be kind enough to post the reason for labeling the leadership system "Apostolic." This term is getting such wide and varied use nowadays that it no longer has a single meaning. I am sincerely hoping that we are not (A) equating the role of the Apostles with those of the modern day Pastor, and (B) not suggesting, even in the slightest, some form of Apostolic succession.
My read on “apostolic” or any other mode of novel leadership configuration is that churches have lost their sense of mission with the older structures, and tradition begins to rule. Before long the leaders start grasping for straws and instead of teaching people to befriend lost people, make long term investments in their lives, and model Christlike behaviors—they turn to fads and trends. Whether it’s Brownsville, or Hillsongs, or Pentecost, or Benny Hinn, or some other quick fix, it’s always an attempt to short-circuit the difficult task of building authentic relationships and the difficult work of discipleship.
Leadership structures should be culturally appropriate period—the NT does not dictate one over the other. What is not up for grabs is the persistent task of leading and discipling people to full faith. What goes wrong in many churches with the board is that the leadership no longer makes the heart investments in their growth and becomes unwilling to confront un-Christlike, carnal attitudes. Additionally, the Christians forget that they exist to influence a lost world and start planning their entire lives around church activities (until they do not even know a lost person’s name any more).
While we look to the latest trends, we should be learning to appropriately engage culture and authentically befriend lost people—loving them until they ask us why—and then introducing them to authentic community and the person of Jesus. This can happen with any/all (no?) leadership structures. Most of us are too consumed with coddling the 99—that we forget our mission is to seek and save the 1 lost sheep. If you doubt my assessment, just count the number of conversions your church has had recently (conversions, not decisions; conversions, not transfers). Call yourself a pastor, apostle, prophet, teacher, evangelist—no one cares. They want to know if you live the ethic of Jesus in the public and private of your life. That’s what makes the difference.
.02 on reasoning behind the term "Apostolic:"
- traditionally, this has been thought to be the model the NT uses. There was the APOSTLE in charge of the church, and his Elders were his teammates/staff.
Lane,
NO,and 100% NO! I am not an "apostle," nor am I, or anyone else in our church, looking to begin succession.
Ask any NT scholar and you'll find there is no "model"--there are "models" depending on the cultural circumstances the Kingdom community encounters. In Acts 20:28 Paul (the apostle/missionary--key is cross cultural extention and oversight of kingdom)addresses the Elders (local,ongoing oversight): "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." The elders were responsible to shepherd (pastor) the flock under the HS superintendence. Any/all leadership structures work if the values support the mission and if it is culturally appropriate (or counter cultural).
Any recommendations for resolutions and change? How's the "vision for transformation" going? Any ideas for formal input to the movement through feedback responses in Enrichment or Today's Pentecostal Evangel? Can we work on a resolution for online voting? Any ideas for District Council restructuring?
I would think you don't need a resolution to change. Each autonomus church can structure thier leadership any way they like. Just change the local constitution, and there ya go.
Part Deux.....
And anyway, isn't the local church the best place to test and try these vaunted "changes" you want to see? Why try to change the whole movement, change your local church, work it out, and let others catch up. Or, if it's a bust, you have only yourself to correct.
Thanks for the definitions. Based on those (and what I know of Brian Houston) I think that, if we want to be more like the NT church, the term "Apostolic" should be applied to our "mission" but not to our leadership models. Apostles did NOT pastor. Paul made it clear that he was a foundation builder and that, upon completing that task, handed over the church to those who would build on it.
While I hear regularly that the NT does not advocate a specific leadership model, I am not sure I completely agree. In the business sense of the word, I guess it is true. But on a theological note, the NT DOES advocate a plurality of eldership where the evidence of the HS is a unity among a diversity.
Models being advocated here of a Pastor being granted 100% of the decision-making power and "hearing from God" for the people should be called "Mosaic," not "Apostolic." For that reason, I do not think the NT would support such concepts.
It sounds like pastors here want total control of their churches, without boards, or at least weakened boards. Who are the very people that hired the pastor? Who is tha pastor accountable to? Is the pastor wanting no accountability?
I am a staff member at a very large church in Springfield area, and our church has pretty much stripped the members of any voting rights, including not even voting for board members any longer. Board members are appointed by the pastor. I hear many current members talking about what's the purpose of being a member? The response, so they can be accountable to tithe. Yet they have no voting rights, no say whatsoever how that tithe is spent. The lead pastor is now in total control of the church. Oh, you say, he does have a board, and yes he does, at his appointment. All the pastors are appointed by him also.
This was presented to a vote last year, and it overwhelmingly passed by a voice vote, not even a secret ballot. Who was going to say "nay" out loud. It was strongly influenced and who wants to speak up out loud and say "nay" (just like all you anonymous people here).
I am not saying he is setting himself up for failure, but the church revolves totally around him and his direction. Isn't the pastor the person whom the church hired, pays, takes care of? Yes. And yes, he is probably trained and skilled in his ministry, but he still needs guidance, still needs everyone, including the board, the members, etc.
Large corporations have boards that the CEO/CFO are accountable to, even to the point beyond their control. Corporations also have stock holders they are accountable to. I would equate members/attenders as the "stockholders" the pastor is accountable to. After all, without them, there would be no church, and the pastor wouldn't be successful.
Just my thoughts. Let's remember who we are serving, who we are ministering to, and keep our focus there.
Rev JH
Lane,
in our church setting, I as the pastor am not the only one who "hears from God." There is accountability, and clearly defined lines and roles.
"But on a theological note, the NT DOES advocate a plurality of eldership where the evidence of the HS is a unity among a diversity."
I AGREE 100%, and in our leadership model we see this taking place routinely.
It's funny, because the ones who are leading fast growing, strong, and healthy church, are the ones carrying out this leadership model. (Of course, this is a blanket statement, but consider it.)
Again, it may not be right for you, but don't knock it and call it "unbiblical." We see what we want from the Bible in these circumstances.
I view Paul as a Pastor/Missionary/Evangelist. He was all of these things, and to say otherwise would to be limit your understanding. Look at how LONG Paul would stay in a city...years. All that time, he was pastoring. PLUS, even when he would roll out for the next city, his heart for that church would remain as one of a Pastor's. His letters contain such love, authority, compassion, and rebuke. Sounds like a pastor to me.
Rev JH,
PLEASE tell me you have already spoken to your Sr. pastor before you began typing here....
We all know what church you are talking about.
Anonymous (10:38 AM)...
Thanks for your response. I was unable to tell, however, from your post what type of a leadership model you have in place. What you seemed to allude to was something other than an "apostolic" model which we are talking about here. If that is true, great.
Two other points of response...
1. It would seem that you read my post with the same "limited lenses" you charged me with wearing while looking at the scriptures. I did not call the model, "un-biblical." I called it "Mosaic." In other words, the model can be supported by the Old Testament and, depending upon one's hermeneutics, you may or may not feel it can be implemented. What I said was that it can not be supported by the NT which is what the Apostolic model claims to want to return to. In fact, you actually agreed with me on this point saying you supported the plurality of eldership concept in the NT.
2. Your entitled to your view of Paul. I am simply, and I think accurately, making the point that Paul did not fit the office of "pastor" the way we see that role played out today. Paul states pretty emphatically in 1 Corinthians that God has called him NOT to baptize or do long-term building. His calling is to preach the Gospel, lay the foundation, and then move on to do it all again. Not exactly what Brian Houston, or others pastoring congregations of thousands are doing. Am I correct?
Thus my question... why call the model "Apostolic?" Granting a lead pastor all the power while simultaneously wanting to emulate the NT seems, to me, a counter-intuitive concept. Call it what it is, "Mosaic."
Lane,
You are right, you did not this leadership style un-biblical, you called it un-NTestamental.
I disagree with you, but whatever...
I think my disappointment is your notion that under the "Apostolic" approach (which is a horrible name, I'll give you that) the pastor has "all the power." He does not, but the buck does stop with him. It is more like the Knights of the Roundtable. Everyone has a voice, but there was still a king.
(BTW, I am not a king, it is just an example, please do not let that go any further than that. :))
BTW...
Andy Stanley and Ed Young wrote a book called, CAN WE DO THAT?, and in it Ed does a good job of testifying to the effects of Apostolic leadership. They don't all it that, but it is what they are advocating.
My intent in my comment was not necessarily to start so much dialogue on "the apostolic" but to instead ask "what if a District elected a lead pastor to run the district as the DSup from his (or her) own thriving life giving church?"
What if one district did this and found it to be successful? Maybe this is already happening and I just don't know about it?
I'm not here to say "down with DSups" or "fire them all" but if a Sr Pastor took over as a DSup, and his salary was paid for by his own church, then the DSup salary could be used to fund a handful of church planters each and every year to emerge from that District.
Maybe you call this "apostolic"
I call it a possible way to steward finances and start more churches.
Most districts have an admin asst for the DSup and most large churches have an admin asst for the sr pastor. Keep both admin assts on salary to keep things moving in both arenas. Just an idea...
What are the weaknesses to this approach? What are the strengths?
off the cuff, I love this idea of a DS being a pastor and using what "would be" his salary as CPlanting money. LOVE IT!!!
however, I am slow to comment, because I do NOT fully know what a DS does. If someone tried to to give me an additional job, while I was already pastoring, something would take a hit. (This is why we pay pastors to be full-time, so we can get their undivided attention.)
So, let me get back to you on this...
I think the writing is beginning to appear on the wall. Here are some perceptions of a major shift:
- The Relational Districts resolution almost passing. How many want to bet that it's going to pass at the next GC?
- Younger ministers supposedly leaving in droves (that's the perception)
- Districts using a leadership network paradigm thriving
- Many post-modern A/Gs aligning themselves with non-AG networks
- A growing disenfranchisement with geographic districting (again, that's the perception)
- A large and growing movement towards officers being pastors
The momentum is moving away from traditional districts towards A/G social networks built on trust, relationships, culture, and common methodologies (myAG 2.0 if you will).
I for one think we should attempt to quantify these perceptions. If confirmed, I also think we not only should embrace the transformational realities, we should prepare for them. Here's just one social networking research co. that is making others change-ready.
What is the USAOG going to look like in ten years?
IMO, I think more global south (relational already), way more decentralized, and more network-based.
I see the Springfield base becoming analogous to the Council in Jerusalem. I see less middle-management (districts). I also see a matrix of "culturally-indigenous" networks (like the house church networks in China). Lastly, I see the overhead once covered by districts shared by the Council and the networks. It reminds of something out of the Book of Acts.
The middle management will be a thing of the past, unless it can prove itself relevant, relational, and transformational in the next ten years.
To use the social networking lingo from the company above, they need to be more "hub-like" and less "gatekeeper," if they want to escape extinction. BTW, the moderators of this blog are functioning as "pulse-takers."
This generation wants change and wants it fast. The older generation is retiring every day. IMO, we'd better start quantifying and preparing for myAG 2.0.
Some other good reads:
:: The Corporate Jungle
:: The Quantum Theory of Trust
:: Rapid Increase in Alternative Forms of The Church Are Changing the Religious Landscape
oops, I meant to say that the general presbytery resolution (4) almost passed.
Just the fact that the relational district's resolution was even offered is tell-tale though.
Danny, I hope you are right, for I fear the exodus is coming in a greater number in the years to come. And I am NOT being a "dooms-dayer," but just look at this site...
I fear the young have already given up on this site. where are the moderators besides GPW? The list of contributers on this site is diminishing. it's just the same guys posting over and over again.
Where are the moderators? That's a good question. I can't speak for the others, but I'll try to explain why I've been dilatory in posting.
First, I'm busy. My church is nearing the end of a seven-month, soup-to-nuts renovation of our physical plant, which has sucked up more time and energy than I care to admit. In addition, it's the holiday season, I'm behind on two writing assignments, and I've got duties as a senior pastor that I'm only barely fulfilling. Plus, my wife likes to spend time with me every now and then. In the midst of this busyness, I haven't had the time to write the kind of thoughtful, forward-looking, action-oriented posts that I would like.
Second, to be quite honest, I have no idea how to turn around our denomination. I am the pastor of a church that in the last 20 years has performed the reverse miracle of growing from 750 to 100. On Sunday mornings, my auditorium in 87% empty. I am reading every book known to man on the topic of turn-around churches. I'm asking the advice of older ministers. I'm doing a lot of thinking about the topic. Until I have actually experienced significant success in leading change in my own church, I am reticent to offer suggestions to my denominational leaders about what they need to do to turn around their much bigger ships. And yeah, I know my dad's the Grand Poobah, but that only exacerbates the problem for me. I know the immensity of the task facing him, and I also know that I don't have a fraction of the wisdom necessary to change the national HQ's corporate culture, funding mechanisms, missional priorities, etc.
What about my district leadership? The other day, I was complaining to an older minister about how my District Superintindent had not called me since my installation service nearly 11 months ago. This older minister asked a question that floored me: "Have you called him?" I hadn't, and to be honest, I felt ashamed of myself. Here's a honorable man who got me my job, negotiated my salary, and is rooting for my success, but all I do is complain because he hasn't called me. I decided right then and there to call him and tell him that I was grateful for his help. I apologized for being publicly complaining (on this blog and elsewhere) about the district. And I asked how I could pray for him.
Here's my point: I have come to realize that I know the tone I would like to see emanating from my denominational leaders. I also know the ends that I would like them to pursue. But on the all-important question of means, how to get where we need to go, I must in all humility admit that I don't know what to do next. And since I don't know, I haven't been posting much.
Third--and here I need to take "us" to task--I have been disappointed with the tone of many comments on this blog. For one thing, the ad hominem attacks on our leaders have turned me off. So have the vague accusations of malfeasance. So has the poking fun at various leaders. Are our denominational leaders above consructive criticism? No. Is "our" criticism always constructive? Frankly, on two occasions, I have deleted comments that I thought crossed a line. I SIMPLY DO NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT KIND OF CRITICAL SPIRIT, and I apologize if I have in any way engaged in that kind of stuff myself. I want this site and all other AG sites to be places where our leaders turn for grass-roots feedback and constructive suggestions. If all you've got to say is that the system is so broke that it ought just to close up shop, then why are you posting here? Remember what this blog encourages:
"We encourage positive interaction through the sharing of opinions, knowledge, experiences, and innovative ideas."
Here's a rule of thumb that all of us--moderators, posters, and commenters--should follow: What would Beth Grant do? (WWBGD?) Her posts have been a model of the right tone, good theology, and constructively critical insight. I walk away from her comments feeling uplifted and hopeful. (I feel the same way about Paul's and Jeff's last posts too.) Could we please all strive to reach that kind of balance in our comments?
No one in Springfield or any of the districts will listen to us if all we do is grumble and complain. Nor should we expect them to.
Anyway, those are three reasons why I've been slow in posting original comments lately. I'm trying to let the fruit of the Spirit govern how I feel about and interact with my fellowship and its leaders, and I urge you to do the same.
Top Ten Reasons Why AG Ministers MUST attend Assemblies of God Churches
1. With attendance down we need all the help we can get on our ACMR's
2. Retired ministers are never happy and we like them stirring up trouble in our churches
3. It helps the District Superintendent know what you're REALLY up too
4. We don't want anyone exposed to cutting edge ministries outside the AG
5. We want to keep the median age of our churches as high as possible
6. We all know how dangerous it is to fellowship with "OUTSIDERS"!
7. it makes us doubt whether you REALLY believe in the initial physical evidence
8. Chrabtree said this would happen in his departure sermon!
9. Its part of the slippery slope and leads to smoking weed
10. Attending Non-AG churches is un-patriotic and helps global terrorism
Okay, I may regret this…but I can’t stay silent! This is my first entry on this blog site. I hadn’t even read too much here until directed here by a couple of ministers. I am amazed and concerned by some of the things which I read. What a plethora of ideas by many who seem to be somewhat like-minded. One entry wants the DS to drop all administrative duties and visit each and every minister with a grievance which would cause them to attend a non-ag church…at the same time another entry wants him to direct the district which pastoring a thriving church! So many comments and so many suppositions are being made about decisions and motives and so forth. Often times these comments come across very disrespectful. I am reminded of Jude’s words:
“Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand”
I know there is a wind of change in our fellowship while at times there are those who are determining to jump ship deciding in despair that we are without hope. But if you want things to be different, stay in the ship, be involved and help to bring positive change. Lest you think I am just an ole guy protecting the status quo, I am actually one who was willing to stand on the council floor and speak in favor of bringing more voice to the younger generation. But listen, change is not brought about by ridicule or harsh criticism. Matter of fact, loud screaming is normally blocked out. And if it is blocked out, it is no longer heard accurately nor does it bring about positive influence. I don’t think God is finished with the A/G. I see many quality leaders who are doing their best to assist us as we endeavor to navigate through change. Let’s work together to bring about the best for the kingdom!
Don...
Thanks for jumping in. I wouldn't be TOO discouraged by the many, various opinions you've read. No one posting here honestly thinks that their idea alone is the answer. And, yes, some ideas are extreme. But like a university campus which encourages free thought and debate, our hopes are that, out of it all, something sitting in the middle will crystalize as a better idea. To borrow from a phrase Mark Batterson uses a lot, "Truth exists in the tension between two opposites."
Since I'm the guy that posted the suggestion that the DS of So. MO travel to meet the "disgruntled," let me use my own post as an example. I am fully aware that this is an extreme idea and a little un-realistic. But I posted it as a counter-idea to the other side of the coin which was the letter exclaiming that ministers were going to lose their credentials without so much as even a phone call. In the middle, it could be drawn together that the So. MO District might consider hearing out some of these ministers and taking the initial step to go to them before excommunicating them. That's all.
The larger problem, though, as GPW noted is that the natives are getting restless. Despite earlier days of seeming direction and creative dialog, the blog has encountered some doldrums. Whereas before we had visible signs of momentum (AGTS sponsoring a luncheon, reps from GPH talking with us, a new GS posting, and moderators traveling to Springfield asking us how they could represent us) that momentum has changed.
Like any church, the blog needs a crystal, clear vision. GPW posted an excellent one. The only hurdle we have to clear is how we are going to chart progress. There needs to be mile markers showing that what we are doing is productive. Otherwise we are left to debate amongst ourselves which, as one post mentioned, is a group of people that will gradually dwindle.
GPW: Thanks for your honesty and willingness to be vulnerable! Transitioning times are so difficult to negotiate and often cause us to question issues at the core of our being.
Concerning the denomination issues, I pray as the months go on that our leaders will see the benefit of dialogue (both District and General Council) and will institute formal time of listening and discussing. And that all will be respectful as we work for change.
I honestly believe that a Holy Spirit group of leaders can come together in a spirit of synergy to tool out creative solutions to the issues we face. The only requirement is non-defensive dialogue and a willingness to change.
Thanks to you and your father for modeling such transparent leadership. I know to do so is dangerous and costly--but it provides the example we all need to authentically lead in our own contexts.
Advice for your church situation: See if Mel Ming's group in the NW will allow your key leaders to be a part of his cohort system. It's a three year process--but the results are amazing. I speak from experience--they've devised a system that helps churches get to the roots of issues and grow to health.
Thanks again for your honesty--it is a characteristic of incarnational ministry...
Well, I dunno … given the fair number of sarcastic and caustic comments of yours over the history of this blog (anonymously) and on your personal blog, writing “I pray … that all will be respectful as we work for change” seems disingenuous.
Respect is a two-way street.
GPW: I agree whole heartedly with the conclusions of your last comment.
What a wonderful thing you did in calling your DS instead of letting a root of bitterness grow.
I do not want to see this blog become a public venue for the best DS joke someone came up with lately.
This blog could become an example of how open communication works, but will not be successful if words are not chosen wisely.
Don Miller and Steve Smallwood
I know both of you to be good men that is why it continues to disappoint me when you alow Bill Baker to sue churhes in the SOMO district. Good luck in promoting open dialog when we watch what has happened to Paul. by the way I think in the end SOMO efforts to stop the wave will only back fire.
I’ve gone to the mat on several occasions when I thought I could make a difference—and at times been crucified (sometimes as a result of my own immaturity). But I continue to try to make a difference where I can. My greatest concern is with my sons’ generation and their church involvement. Concerning the So. Missouri District letters, I spoke immediately to presbyters and executive presbyters—voicing clearly my frustration (angst). Concerning the Timber Creek situation I contacted the pastor to express support (though I do not know him personally)—overall, I would not recommend that any pastor pull a denominational church out of a denomination. Primarily because it takes too much time and energy to live down the legacy of fighting. Probably easier for all involved to simply start fresh under a new umbrella. Having pastored a newer model church, I am an advocate for more effective support systems and ministries from our District structures and from the General Council. Given the diversity in our movement and the difficulty in meeting all the varied needs, I think much less is much more—allow our schools and large churches (and other ministry networks) to provide the innovation and training—and downsize. Concerning “respectful dialogue” I think there is a place for satire, parody, and even sarcasm in constructive debate. Unfortunately, we’ve all lost our sense of humor and we’ve become quite thin skinned when it comes to criticism. This is especially true when dissenting opinions are interpreted as disloyalty. The only hope for constructive, cultural change in our organization is to lay it all on the table and to invite discussion from all constituents. I don’t really understand why we wouldn’t want to do this…we’re all just pastors trying our best to figure this all out with the resources we have anyway.
George, you're my friend . . . but WWBGD?? That's scary. Sometimes I don't even know the answer to that question!
Thankfully, your other suggestions have a bit more credibility!
Your friend,
Beth Grant
Beth:
Just having a bit of fun with you
! Seriously, though, I wish we all would right with the tone and insight so evident in your posts.
GPW
Zorro is with you. I want to be in instrument of BLESSING. Like Lane said, I sometimes throw out extreme or rash ideas hoping that the part of it is valuable. I love His ministry and want to see it achieve its promised results.
Please let us find a way to mark our progress through this blog. If this thing dies, I will truly be discouraged.
GPW> Great and HONEST Post. Not only can so many of us relate to your feelings and challenges, but it connects with us. We want a relationship with our colleagues and leaders. We don't care if they are imperfect or "human." We just want a relationship and honesty.
I hope others in leadership will see this simple truth, and that THAT alone will be an instrument of change.
Make sense?
Steve, you say "overall, I would not recommend that any pastor pull a denominational church out of a denomination. Primarily because it takes too much time and energy to live down the legacy of fighting." I thought this was a VCF not a denomination...but let's go with that. I guess then it is biblical and ok for Baker and the SOMO to sue a church? come on!
That David Letterman list was hilarious! Thanks for bringing some humor in the midst of all the other stuff.
Steve Smallwood: "Unfortunately, we’ve all lost our sense of humor and we’ve become quite thin skinned when it comes to criticism."
Yeah, AG people can't seem to handle disparaging remarks or outright ridicule the way they used to.
A little "I was only joking" goes a long way, I guess.
I think Steve is right on. We won't ever make progress until people learn to have thick skin and a tender heart.
Anonymous December 9, 2007 6:32 PM:
I am unfamiliar with the specifics of SoMo's suit against Timber Creek (I assume that's the church you're talking about). Precisely because I don't know the specifics of the case, I won't comment on the propriety (or impropriety of the suit). But in the abstract, I can imagine circumstances in which it is both appropriate and necessary for a district to sue a church. For example, if a district co-signed a church's loan, if the church tried to default on the loan and stick the district with the total bill, then the district would be within it's rights to sue the church and recover its losses. Would you argue in such a situation that the district had absolutely no right to sue? I have had a hard time believing that you do. Again, I don't know the facts of the SoMo/Timber Creek situation. I'm only speaking in the abstract.
GPW
As to the other blog hosts silence/absence (except for GPW), it is noted that some of them have been posting and responding to comments on their personal blogs-- they are on line, just not posting on FutureAG. So for this reason I am thinking it's about more than being busy with pastoral ministry or the busy nature of the Christmas season.
GPW's comment on December 8, 2007 8:34 PM made me think of Israel in the wilderness... or Israel throughout their history...
SA.
"… We won't ever make progress until people learn to have thick skin and a tender heart. …"
Okay, people, I think we're missing the point here. Regardless of one's views, there's no place for being snarky (adj. slang: rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide) on this ostensibly Christian blog. Incredibly, when someone posts such comments, we blame the person that's being flamed for not having a sense of humor or being unable to handle criticism.
For the record, yes, we should all be thicker skinned. But that should in no way excuse overly snide comments that inflame more than enlighten.
oops meant his references to all the grumbling - it seems quite pharasaic actually... those doing all the grumbling... not unlike Israel in the desert or the Pharisees of Jesus' day...
sa
I have much to say on this but little time to deliver. In my opinion it is unethical for a pastor with or without his congregation, to abscond with property associated with the Assemblies of God. If it has been an Assemblies of God church, it should remain so. From my perspective, splitting our fellowship of peace by removing a church reeks of a combative and independent spirit. I doubt I could trust such a leader and brother, who would craft such bitterness, even if he were the innocent party in a dispute. If a few bureaucratic scoundrels without vision were the source of his problem, the pastor should still simply move to another location, and not steal the facility or its people. To do so is not ethical; it reflects a deficit in character and integrity.
I once worked for a man who tried to abscond with an AOG church. I resigned quietly and moved on, making few waves. Young people were impacted by this attempt; often a young believer's pure outlook and innocence are violated because of the pride of a leader who pushes a selfish and ambitious agenda, without a thought of what it will do to these innocents. Lives are impacted and marred when such disputes turn to fighting, when they go public and when churches are split over mere land and stuff. It is better to go to the next town, city or state to fulfill ones call, lest "the little ones" be impacted by the man's selfish decision.
Here is one reason for my perspective in addition to what has been communicated by previous comments:
1. In an established church, where for decades people have given their tithes, where their sweat and blood have built the structures, where some have sacrificed to establish an Assembly of God presence in a community over decades. It is the epitome of spiritual arrogance to assume that simply because one owns the vote for the moment and disagrees with the district that one has the right to take the church. The people with the vote are not the only owners. Those who for decades gave to build the church, who may have departed this world, but gave to an Assemblies of God church have a say, don't they? To take the church out of the denomination would be to tread upon their memory and intent. My time is up tonight! There is so much more to say, I hope others can comment upon the impact upon a young believer that such bitter splits engender.
I forgot; one more thing I wished to say. Yes, young people are impacted by the unethical behavior of absconding with a church. The sacrifice of the departed, deceased, is ignored. But must terrible of all, is the often intentional marginalizing of those who disagree with the decision. Often they are made persona no grata in the church, and eventually have to move on themselves. Don
Re: the SoMo lawsuit--I've contacted Bro. Baker (DS) and asked him, as well as several people who agree with the district's actions, how one reconciles the passage in 1Cor 6 with the legal action taken by the district. I have yet to receive a response that addresses that question. I've heard about "legal rights" and a lot about money and the sacredness of the A/G. In my mind, someone's
"unethical" behavior does not free all parties from following biblical principles.
I know the line, "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?"(v7b) goes against our natures. But there is a bigger picture at stake. We have got to get our minds and flesh around the idea that we are not at the center of that picture. In so many ways I don't care about the other details of the case. I know this is a local issue in some ways, but it also seems like it should be a big deal to anyone who cares about the A/G.
What does it mean if our leaders feel they have to violate scripture in order to "preserve" this denomination?
SoMo Question...it's called selective biblical interpratation. Happens all the time in the A/G.
in regards to the law suits and donalive, it's help to remember the original post..."ownership vs. stewardship."
if a church decides it doesnt want to be a part of this fellowship, let's bless it and send it on its way. we would welcome a spirit-filled baptist church (or church of a non-dem affiliation) if they wanted to join in fellowship. what about all those baptist who would roll over in their graves if they heard someone speaking in tongues in "their" church.
Unfortunately, when it comes to thorny issues, sometimes people use "Biblical principles" to support both sides of the discussion. Consider the issues of war, women in ministry, sabbath days, and slavery--all were fought for and against with the use of Scriptural principles. When it comes to believers or denominations suing one another, it seems that both parties are standing on grounds of principle. In reality, when were not working for Win/Win resolutions, we end up with Lose/Lose resolutions. When one party wins, we all lose in the long run--and some people never regain Kingdom "stride."
I know the frustrations of trying to do something innovative and the system not understanding it--it's a lonely position to be in. Sometimes it just trying things before their time--for instance, I notice now that the So. Missouri leadership has a goal of all churches using the "We Build People" model. This is a repackaging of Rick Warren's Seeker Sensitive (Purpose Driven Church) material. At the same time, I still hear a lot of people dismissing Saddleback/Willow approaches as "unPentecostal."
I personally believe that it takes all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people...Though I wouldn't sue to change or keep a church.
When it comes to DS priorities--we need to stop thinking in terms of "direct results" ministries. The DS does not personally have to visit pastors who are not attending AG churches--he does this through his trusted delegates (presbyters, other pastors). Additionally, when some advocate for a senior pastor serving as the DS, it is with the recognition that large church pastors aren't really providing personal pastoral care to their parishoners--they have staffs and small group leaders, etc. I would love to see the link between the district office and the local church strengthened--I'm not sure how functional it would be to have a senior pastor serve as a DS--who knows?!
SoMo Question:
My dad wrote an article, "Christians and Lawsuits," which has helped me interpret 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 in the overall perspective of Scripture.
George
Here's the link:
http://www.georgeowood.com/SiteFiles/102297/Content/Articles/010.pdf
Thanks George P.
Excellent article, but it does convince me that the lawsuit ought to be dropped before it makes the local news again.
Thanks again for the resource.
Wow, some of you all are brutal! I am amazed and in wonder by some thoughts on this particular blog.
I have a wonder DS, who I disagree with from time to time. But we still talk. I pray for him and all our leadership. He is a man in tough spot. I can't please a 125 people...how he tries to run this state. I don’t know.
But the A/G is a manmade institution that was brought together to hold to some VERY important doctrinal truths. And they are good ones.
Yea, we got a bunch of "weird churches all over". We also have a bunch of "solid" ones.
That goes for Methodists, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, and Baptist...etc....
we made it through, although not unscarred, the "Faith Movement" and we'll get through this "emergent" nonsense too. But younger ministers do need to have respect for our older leadership.
when i left Bible college in '85...i thought the church was stupid and doing everything wrong...that is what most young people think...and then we grow up.
we see the ones who make the church "their kingdom" and the ones who are out for God's glory. team-up with the latter.
we are not perfect. we are together for one purpose, The Gospel. (not a bad website either to check out..."togetherforthegospel.com"
It has been very enlightneing reading all of the thoughts and comments. I left the AG about 4 years ago and have no regrets. I do not miss the "ministry" as I have not ceased to minister. I have never pastored a church, but was involved in youth ministry and Christian education for about 20 years. Yes, I was ordained with the AG. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt when it comes to good and bad experiences within the AG. I chose not to renew my credentials when we returned to FLorida.
When I returned to Florida 4 years ago, I simply could not bring myself to attend another AG church. I would get a sick cold feeling every time I thought about visiting one of the many AG churches in our city. My wife and I wanted something fresh and new. God led us to a non-denom church that was full of positive energy. The gospel was simply preached and people responded and began their faith journey. The church exploded.
The young pastor of this church is not afraid to try something new. He makes mistakes, owns them and moves on. People continue to come and find CHrist and the church keeps growing. I met several people while attending this church who are "recovering AG people" and found God all over again.
I am now attending a Baptist chruch where the people are genuine, caring, and concerned for the community. I have found some more recovering AG'rs here as well.
I guess I am writing this to say that CHristianity does not begin and end with the AG, nor any other denomination. I know the GC does not want to admit it, but the AG is a denomination. It may have started as a fellowship, but with all of the political structures and policies, it has become what it said it never would be.
I appreciate my time in the AG. I met some very wonderful people. I had the privilege of knowing Beth and David Grant when we worked together at Southeastern. In fact, we still receive their newsletter.
All of that to say this, if the AG does not truly embrace and cultivate an atmosphere of continual change, it will die.
Kudos to whoever started this dialogue venue. This is the first step.
Blessings and Peace in CHrist
Post a Comment