Leading Change in the AG

Here at FutureAG, we want to promote positive change within the Assemblies of God at all levels of the movement: individual and corporate; congregational, district-level, and national; ecclesial and educational. The important issues are what and how. What constitutes positive change? And how do we implement positive change?

In this post, I’d like to prescind from the what issue and focus on the how issue. Ultimately, of course, these issues must be considered together. We cannot implement a process of positive change without having some idea of what constitutes positive change, after all. Nonetheless, for the time being, I want to focus our attention on the methodology of change.

The outline of my remarks is taken from Leading Change by John P. Kotter. Kotter writes that there are eight steps leaders must take in order to change their organizations.

First, establish a sense of urgency.

“After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’” (Mark 1:14-15)

The reason why the AG needs to implement positive change is because the nearness of God’s kingdom compels people to make a choice for or against him. We who follow Christ are specifically commissioned to place this choice before people (Matt. 28:18-20). Unless we do so, how will they experience the righteousness, peace, and joy which is the kingdom of God (Rom. 10:14-15; cf. 14:17)?

Unfortunately, our sense of urgency about the AG does not always derive from the nearness of the kingdom. Instead, it comes from the decline of our institutions. Our ministerial cohort is graying, our adherence statistics are stagnating, and many young leaders are leaving our fellowship for association with other denominations and parachurch organizations. These institutional losses are problematic, but they are means problems, not ends problems.

If our ministerial cohort is graying, that is a problem only because younger ministers are means of reaching younger generations with the gospel of the kingdom. If our adherence statistics are stagnating, that is a problem only because we are not effectively evangelizing unbelievers and discipling new believers. If young leaders are leaving our fellowship for other associations, that is only a problem because they view those other associations as more effective change agents than our own movement.

If you want to solve these means problem, focus on the ends problem. Focus on the nearness of the kingdom and the decision it compels. That will establish a sense of urgency around which our entire movement can rally. Our evangelistic mission, in other words, must take priority over institutional maintenance. Our institutions must serve the mission.

Second, form a powerful guiding coalition.

Optimally, every congregation, each district, and the entire national headquarters will be institutionally committed to the church’s kingdom-advancing mission. Unfortunately, we all know about the problem of mission drift, of the power of institutions and bureaucracies to pursue their own interests at the expense of their founding purpose. If there is any complaint that the AG blogosphere has about AG institutions, it is that they are maintenance-oriented, rather than missional and ministry-oriented.

The long-term solution to this problem is institutional reform. Our structures—at the congregational, district, and national level—must be repurposed and reformed. We—that is, the ministers who form the governing bodies of the various district councils and General Council—must demand, and in some cases, enforce accountability on the organizational structures of our movement. That requires prayerful and informed participation in the business meetings of our movement. There is no other way to repurpose and reform our governing bodies.

Unfortunately, such repurposing and reform takes time. It took approximately thirty years to change our fellowship’s policy on credentialing divorced and remarried ministers in order to bring it in line with what the Bible teaches. Few people have the patience for that kind of change. Hopefully, the structural changes that need to take place can be done more quickly.

But as we wait for and work toward long-lasting, institutional reform, we can take action right now too. Nothing stops us from forming ad hoc ministerial networks within the existing structures. If you want to band together with other like-minded ministers for resource and support, you do not have to wait until the General Council provides de jure approval for a relational-district resolution. Form a de facto relational district right away (without, I should add, ceasing to support your district as it is current structured). Or, if you don’t like the relational district idea, follow the lead of Mark Batterson and National Community Church and start up an annual conference as a resource for like-minded ministers.

As we organize these ad hoc/de facto structures, the de jure structures will take notice of what works and get on board the band wagon. The most powerful guiding coalition is the one that is out front of the institution, modeling what positive change looks like.

Third, create a vision.

Let me speak personally, for a moment. When I think about what the AG can and should be, I think of the word army, not denomination. Part of this vision for the AG comes from the references to spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:10-20. Our fellowship has enlisted on the Lord’s side in his struggle against principalities and powers.

(Just a side note: when Paul writes that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, he means it. Our spiritual warfare is not against gays, lesbians, liberals, Muslims, abortionists, or whatever. Our spiritual warfare is against the devil on their behalf. They are the contested territory we are fighting over. They are not the enemy we are fighting against. I wish we ministers who preach about this passage would make that point of distinction more clearly.)

The main reason I see the AG as an army is because an army has a unified purpose and a structure organized around that purpose. The purpose of an army is to fight. It is organized to accomplish that purpose. The soldier in the field may do the hand-to-hand combat, but a supply chain keeps him fed and armed, a competent officer corps trains him and strategically deploys him, etc.

In my vision for the AG, our movement has a singularity of purpose (proclaiming the kingdom) and an organization to meet that purpose. The local congregation may be the frontline soldiers in that task of proclamation, but behind them stand district officials who resource and supply them, college professors who teach and coach them, national leaders who unite them, etc.

Fourth, communicate that vision.

Here, I have two questions. (1) Do our leaders consistently communicate to us? The answer, unfortunately, is mixed. Some district leaders proactively communicate with the ministers under the care. Not only do they send them monthly newsletters, but they pick up the phone and call them. And they don’t just call when there’s a crisis, they call simply to build the relationship. But this is not true in every district. Would that it were! (And by the way, would that we pastors would communicate as proactively with our congregations as we wish our district leaders communicated with us!)

(2) What do our leaders communicate? Does it edify and encourage us? Does it train us for the task at hand? Unfortunately, not always. Again, the situation seems to depend on which district you’re in. Sometimes, it seems the only communications we receive from our leaders announces policy changes with which we disagree or asks for more money.

The one thing we ask of our leaders is that before they demand something of us, they build a relationship with us.

Fifth, empower others to act on the vision.

One of the biggest problems facing the AG in accomplishing its kingdom-proclaiming mission is the problem of old wineskins. The culture which gave birth to the AG in 1914 is very different from the culture in which we now live. Indeed, the culture in which my father was raised is very different from the culture in which I was raised. And I minister to young people who were raised in a culture that is totally alien to me. If we are going to reach people with the message of the kingdom, we must be very flexible about methodology. And that means that our leaders, who are typically older and used to a different culture than we younger ministers, must allow us younger ministers to experiment with methodologies that work in our cultural context. Not allow; that’s the wrong word. They must proactively empower. What worked in 1914 is not what worked in 1964 and is not what will work in 2014.

Empowering others to act, to use means and methodologies which are alien to the culture in which one was raised, requires great trust. We younger ministers who clamor for freedom to experiment must earn that trust by showing our fidelity to the gospel of the kingdom. Our leaders, who are older, must trust us to proclaim the kingdom in a language and style that is not their own. This is the essence of empowerment and cooperation.

And aren’t we a voluntary, cooperative fellowship? To cooperate with someone means to work with them toward the accomplishment of a task. Whatever our age, whatever the culture in which we came to Christ, whatever the means and methodologies we use, aren’t we supposed to cooperate with one another? Cooperation doesn’t mean merely that we cooperate (co-work) with our district leaders. It must also mean that they cooperate (co-work) with us. If they do not cooperate with us, then we are working for them, not with them. Forms of leadership that demand obedience and respect without the balance of empowerment and trust betray the essence of voluntary cooperation.

Sixth, plan for and create short-term wins.

We’ve already had a few: (1) this blog, (2) the Bucca di Bepo lunch, (3) meeting with General Superintendent Wood at Springfield, (4) having AG leaders respond to these posts, (5) the expansion of the Executive Presbytery to be representative of younger ministers and women, and (6) the change of tone coming from Springfield, just to name five. We want to see more positive change, but we should celebrate the changes that have already been made.

Seventh, consolidate improvements and keep the momentum for change moving.

This, I think, is where many of us are stuck. We’ve started the ball rolling, but how do we keep it rolling. I would do several things. (1) Keep the tone positive. (2) Get more involved, not less involved, in the current organizational structures. (3) Build local networks and coalitions with like-minded ministers in your section, district, and region. (4) Go to all denominational business meetings. (5) Call your district superintendent and let him know you’re praying for him. (6) Write a few sample resolutions and post them on a blog for our consideration.

Eight, institutionalize the new approaches.

Unfortunately, we haven’t reached the level of institutionalized change yet (other than expanding the EP). What we can institutionalize is transparency and tone. Everyone who contributes to this blog, by way of posts or comments, is being transparent with his/her readers. What we need in our fellowship is more openness, more honesty, more authenticity, not less. But alongside with this transparency is the need for graciousness in tone. No one wants to listen to a chronic grumbler or complainer. But most people will listen to a constructive critic who has the other person’s best interests in mind. That is the kind of people we should be. Positive change requires positive change agents. The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. As we work to effect positive change in our fellowship, are our thoughts, feelings, words and actions characterized by righteousness, joy, and peace? If we can change the transparency and tone of the debate about how to change the AG, we will in fact change the AG, and in changing it, help proclaim the kingdom to our generation.

So, my friends, suaviter in modo, fortiter in re. That's Latin for "Sweetly in method, strongly in the matter at hand." Let's be strong for change in the AG, but let's do it with the sweet spirit which only the Spirit can provide.