Dear FutureAG Readers:
I want to thank Paul, Tory, Brad, Jeff, and Mark for extending to me the invitation to join FutureAG as a blogger. It has been a great pleasure to meet with these men, and I have been honored to post on this blog. They have done a great job with this blog and performed a very valuable service for our fellowship. They have opened discussion on many pertinent issues that our fellowship needs to address if it is to be faithful to Christ's Commission in the 21st Century.
However, the time has come for me to sign off posting for FutureAG. This year, I would like to devote more time to my own blog (AGThinkTank), whose focus is more on pastoral renewal and congregational revival than on denominational reform (although I will take a stab at some of those issues too).
Again, Paul, Tory, Brad, Jeff, and Mark deserve high praise for opening up a forum for discussing the future of our fellowship. And I am thankful that they considered me an ally in the cause.
May God bless you all richly!
George P. Wood
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Question for Discussion?
What should be the role of the General Council--what do you want/need/expect from the GC? Same for the District Council.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Doug Clay Elected General Treasurer
"The Assemblies of God Executive Presbytery has elected the Rev. Doug Clay to the position of General Treasurer. Clay will take office April 1, fulfilling the unexpired term of the Rev. James K. Bridges, who resigned earlier this month after having served as general treasurer since 1993. " (AG Press Release, January 18, 2008)
Congratulations, Rev. Clay! And you can read Clay's blog here.
Congratulations, Rev. Clay! And you can read Clay's blog here.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Guest Blogger: Paul Grabill
Paul Grabill serves as the Lead Pastor of State College AG, in State College PA. Paul also functions as the Asst. Superintendent of the Penn-Del District.
Like many credential holders, I have become a loyal reader of FutureAG blog. There's not been anything like it since the short-lived "Agora" magazine back in the 1970's. I have appreciated the openness and candor, and even the possibility for people to post anonymously (an option I have not [yet!] chosen:)).
More recently, I have been most interested in the outcome of the poll on Spirit Baptism. This has been a matter of some degree of theological reflection throughout our history (certainly my history) and one wonders if the issue is again surfacing for open consideration. If so, there are many organizational and spiritual dynamics to consider, not the least of which is ethical.
While I personally come down on the classical pentecostal position regarding Spirit Baptism and glossolalia (simply because I personally have not been able to find a cogent way to theologically parse out alternative perspectives), my purpose in sharing my thoughts is not to defend that position, but rather to examine deeper and more treacherous issues.
The poll results showed that there were many who anonymously indicated that (1) They are a credential holder in the Assemblies of God (and, by definition, have indicated on their annual credential renewal form that they adhere to and proclaim what is stated in our Statement of Fundamental Truths), yet (2) Find themselves at variance with our stated position, with some even going so far as to say that there is no relationship whatsoever between Spirit Baptism and glossolalia.
More to the point of this post, I have read postings and comments dealing with ecclesiastical "fear" and "abuse of power." As both a pastor and a district official, I have read such comments with ambivalence. On the one hand, I, too, want an environment where people can be totally honest. I personally love academic "give and take." On the other hand, in 'real life' that environment must be lubricated with mutual respect and integrity, else any dialogue is doomed to fail.
For those who desire change on our initial evidence stance, personally, I am happy to hear their argument (hey, I'm in a college town--I listen to everything:)), yet there seems to be a Catch-22 in the system. Those advocating change cannot be heard (especially in a formal, governmental setting) if they don't have credentials. Yet, if they are perceived as people who have lied on their credential renewal forms, many, if not most, ears to whatever they would have to say will immediately close. Any raised voices to try to gain an open hearing (charging others with being "closed-minded") will simply be met with "get the beam out of your own eye, brother," whether or not that thought is openly verbalized.
I simply don't know how those advocating change can answer that charge. How can one accuse the A/G with a lack of courage in facing tough issues if the ones advocating change can't muster the courage to resign their credentials when faced with a clear issue of integrity? What personal and/or social forces keep them in the A/G? A choice to focus on the areas with which they agree? Institutional loyalty? Family heritage? Their professional standing? Their income?
None of these reasons will move the hearts of those adhering to a traditional posture, and those in "authority" will wonder if they are doing their jobs to not challenge those who are being less than honest in their credential renewals. Here again is the Catch-22. Those officials actively enforcing integrity will simply reinforce the perceptions of "fear" and "abuse of power" by those who are already afraid of being "found out."
I wish I could propose a solution here (I've been actively praying and thinking about this), but I know that we cannot continue to go down the road of winking at those who say one thing and sign another. How is that any less sinful than a lack of integrity in areas of sexual morality or finances? A tolerance of a lack of theological integrity is exactly what has happened in the mainline denominations. On this and other issues, we cannot continue to go down the same road others have gone and expect to arrive at a different destination.
Some may find this hard to read. Am I advocating a "purge?" Not at all (I'm hoping for a more peaceful and loving solution), but this I know. God cannot bless us personally and corporately if we are not people of integrity. He can bless Baptists, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, EVFreers, Vineyardites, and, yes, even Classical Pentecostals, but not if we are living in personal dishonesty and fear as well as corporate confusion.
Being totally honest, regardless of the consequences, is who Jesus was and who we are called to be. I believe trusting that God will care for us and direct us regardless of what anyone does with our credentials (or even what happens to the Assemblies of God) will please the Lord and bring His favor--on all of us.
And that's my heart's desire.
Like many credential holders, I have become a loyal reader of FutureAG blog. There's not been anything like it since the short-lived "Agora" magazine back in the 1970's. I have appreciated the openness and candor, and even the possibility for people to post anonymously (an option I have not [yet!] chosen:)).
More recently, I have been most interested in the outcome of the poll on Spirit Baptism. This has been a matter of some degree of theological reflection throughout our history (certainly my history) and one wonders if the issue is again surfacing for open consideration. If so, there are many organizational and spiritual dynamics to consider, not the least of which is ethical.
While I personally come down on the classical pentecostal position regarding Spirit Baptism and glossolalia (simply because I personally have not been able to find a cogent way to theologically parse out alternative perspectives), my purpose in sharing my thoughts is not to defend that position, but rather to examine deeper and more treacherous issues.
The poll results showed that there were many who anonymously indicated that (1) They are a credential holder in the Assemblies of God (and, by definition, have indicated on their annual credential renewal form that they adhere to and proclaim what is stated in our Statement of Fundamental Truths), yet (2) Find themselves at variance with our stated position, with some even going so far as to say that there is no relationship whatsoever between Spirit Baptism and glossolalia.
More to the point of this post, I have read postings and comments dealing with ecclesiastical "fear" and "abuse of power." As both a pastor and a district official, I have read such comments with ambivalence. On the one hand, I, too, want an environment where people can be totally honest. I personally love academic "give and take." On the other hand, in 'real life' that environment must be lubricated with mutual respect and integrity, else any dialogue is doomed to fail.
For those who desire change on our initial evidence stance, personally, I am happy to hear their argument (hey, I'm in a college town--I listen to everything:)), yet there seems to be a Catch-22 in the system. Those advocating change cannot be heard (especially in a formal, governmental setting) if they don't have credentials. Yet, if they are perceived as people who have lied on their credential renewal forms, many, if not most, ears to whatever they would have to say will immediately close. Any raised voices to try to gain an open hearing (charging others with being "closed-minded") will simply be met with "get the beam out of your own eye, brother," whether or not that thought is openly verbalized.
I simply don't know how those advocating change can answer that charge. How can one accuse the A/G with a lack of courage in facing tough issues if the ones advocating change can't muster the courage to resign their credentials when faced with a clear issue of integrity? What personal and/or social forces keep them in the A/G? A choice to focus on the areas with which they agree? Institutional loyalty? Family heritage? Their professional standing? Their income?
None of these reasons will move the hearts of those adhering to a traditional posture, and those in "authority" will wonder if they are doing their jobs to not challenge those who are being less than honest in their credential renewals. Here again is the Catch-22. Those officials actively enforcing integrity will simply reinforce the perceptions of "fear" and "abuse of power" by those who are already afraid of being "found out."
I wish I could propose a solution here (I've been actively praying and thinking about this), but I know that we cannot continue to go down the road of winking at those who say one thing and sign another. How is that any less sinful than a lack of integrity in areas of sexual morality or finances? A tolerance of a lack of theological integrity is exactly what has happened in the mainline denominations. On this and other issues, we cannot continue to go down the same road others have gone and expect to arrive at a different destination.
Some may find this hard to read. Am I advocating a "purge?" Not at all (I'm hoping for a more peaceful and loving solution), but this I know. God cannot bless us personally and corporately if we are not people of integrity. He can bless Baptists, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, EVFreers, Vineyardites, and, yes, even Classical Pentecostals, but not if we are living in personal dishonesty and fear as well as corporate confusion.
Being totally honest, regardless of the consequences, is who Jesus was and who we are called to be. I believe trusting that God will care for us and direct us regardless of what anyone does with our credentials (or even what happens to the Assemblies of God) will please the Lord and bring His favor--on all of us.
And that's my heart's desire.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Who Leads the Church?
In the comments section of "Leading Change in the AG," one of the topics being discussed centers on the question, "Who leads the church?"
Traditionally, AG churches have been led by strong senior pastors. My church is a good example. According to its Constitution and Bylaws, when the church hires a new senior pastor, the remaining staff from the previous administration turns in their resignations, which the new senior pastor is free to accept or reject. After serving a probationary term of one year, the senior pastor is voted upon. If he or she receives a two-thirds vote, then he or she can serve as long as desired, without having to worry about another vote. (This assumes service in good behavior, and there is a provision by which the Board of Deacons can ask for his/her resignation.) The senior pastor is an ex officio member of every committee and has broad authority to hire and fire, although the Board of Deacons and the congregation have final authority to approve the budget. My guess is that this is a fairly typical arrangement in General Council affiliated churches.
More recently, AG churches have been experimenting with team-based leadership models, whether in terms of a pastoral team concept or an elder leadership model. James River Assembly is a good example of a team-teaching church, although I'm not sure what the governance structure there is.
Here are some questions for discussion. In your responses, please be both frank in your assessments but also civil toward others.
1. Do the Scriptures mandate one model of church leadership? If so, what is it? Please cite specific passages. Alternatively, do the Scriptures give evidence of a variety of leadership models?
2. What are the pros and cons of these models? (My two-cents' worth is that the senior-pastor model provides unity of vision, mission, and values, but can drift toward authoritarianism. Team-leadership models, on the other hand diffuse ownership and empower many, while tending toward disorganization and the disavowal of personal responsibility.)
3. How effective is each model in accomplishing the mission of the church? (Here, I'm assuming that the end determines the means and that form follows function.)
4. How does "culture" (national, ethnic, generational, etc.) shape our understanding of leadership in the church? Is that a good or bad thing?
In the history of the church, the predominant leadership models have been episcopal (pastor-driven), presbyterian (elder-driven), and congregational (member-driven). Interestingly, all three models combine elements of the others. For example, in the Catholic church, the Pope is elected by Cardinals who are never appointed without the consensus fidelium ("consent of the faithful"). In Presbyterian churches, the elders govern, but it is the pastor who has special responsibilities and prerogatives, and the congregation often elects the elders to its session. Finally, in congregational churches, the members elect the pastor and the deacons, and they delegate authority to the pastor and the deacons to accomplish specific tasks. In other words, the traditional models of church governance all are mixed models, but with one of the elements being primus inter pares ("first among equals"). I'm not sure if this information will help the discussion along on this blog, but I've always found the information interesting nonetheless. Do with it what you will.
Traditionally, AG churches have been led by strong senior pastors. My church is a good example. According to its Constitution and Bylaws, when the church hires a new senior pastor, the remaining staff from the previous administration turns in their resignations, which the new senior pastor is free to accept or reject. After serving a probationary term of one year, the senior pastor is voted upon. If he or she receives a two-thirds vote, then he or she can serve as long as desired, without having to worry about another vote. (This assumes service in good behavior, and there is a provision by which the Board of Deacons can ask for his/her resignation.) The senior pastor is an ex officio member of every committee and has broad authority to hire and fire, although the Board of Deacons and the congregation have final authority to approve the budget. My guess is that this is a fairly typical arrangement in General Council affiliated churches.
More recently, AG churches have been experimenting with team-based leadership models, whether in terms of a pastoral team concept or an elder leadership model. James River Assembly is a good example of a team-teaching church, although I'm not sure what the governance structure there is.
Here are some questions for discussion. In your responses, please be both frank in your assessments but also civil toward others.
1. Do the Scriptures mandate one model of church leadership? If so, what is it? Please cite specific passages. Alternatively, do the Scriptures give evidence of a variety of leadership models?
2. What are the pros and cons of these models? (My two-cents' worth is that the senior-pastor model provides unity of vision, mission, and values, but can drift toward authoritarianism. Team-leadership models, on the other hand diffuse ownership and empower many, while tending toward disorganization and the disavowal of personal responsibility.)
3. How effective is each model in accomplishing the mission of the church? (Here, I'm assuming that the end determines the means and that form follows function.)
4. How does "culture" (national, ethnic, generational, etc.) shape our understanding of leadership in the church? Is that a good or bad thing?
In the history of the church, the predominant leadership models have been episcopal (pastor-driven), presbyterian (elder-driven), and congregational (member-driven). Interestingly, all three models combine elements of the others. For example, in the Catholic church, the Pope is elected by Cardinals who are never appointed without the consensus fidelium ("consent of the faithful"). In Presbyterian churches, the elders govern, but it is the pastor who has special responsibilities and prerogatives, and the congregation often elects the elders to its session. Finally, in congregational churches, the members elect the pastor and the deacons, and they delegate authority to the pastor and the deacons to accomplish specific tasks. In other words, the traditional models of church governance all are mixed models, but with one of the elements being primus inter pares ("first among equals"). I'm not sure if this information will help the discussion along on this blog, but I've always found the information interesting nonetheless. Do with it what you will.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Abuse of Power?
In the comment section of my post, "Leading Change in the AG," we have carried on a lively discussion of the merits/demerits of anonymous/pseudonymous posting. The usual rationale for such posting is fear of retribution by leaders. Some time ago, Lane Douglas asked for a specific example of such retribution, which I seconded in one of my comments. BeenThereDoneThat cited the following personal example:
Here are some questions for discussion:
In my case, I posted something (not slanderous or directed at any one individual) on a site with my name attached and was contacted by someone in leadership and told to immediately take it down, or they would use what authority they did have to see to it that my ministry opportunities outside of my own church in the AG would end.
Here are some questions for discussion:
- Why is this wrong? Let's build a case, biblically and pragmatically, for why the AG should have fora in which issues can be discussed without fear of this kind of retribution.
- What are the minister's constitutional and bylaw right when faced with such strong-arm tactics? Both General and District Council constitution and bylaws contain a right of appeal in cases of formal discipline. Do you think they also contain protections for the minister when informal, strong-arm tactics are applied? If so, what are they?
- When might a leader be within his/her rights to request an AG blogger to pull down a named post? Now, the answer might be never. But I can imagine cases in which a leader would be within his/her rights to do so. For example, if I maintained a church blog, and one of my associates posted something critical of a board action on the church blog, I'd be within my rights to ask him/her to take it down. The issue would be a bit murkier if he/she did it on a personal blog, although if the post were egregious enough, I could imagine doing so. But perhaps I'm wrong here. What's your opinion?
- How do we communicate in such a way that our leaders view our critical remarks constructively rather than destructively? Perhaps some leaders in the AG can't take criticism at all. That's not been my experience, but my entire ministry has taken place in one district (Southern California) under one superintindent (Ray Rachels), and he's modeled listening leadership. So I'll admit ignorance about other parts of the AG. But in my experience with people, it's often tone that turns them off, not necessarily critical remarks per se. What do you think?
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Lee McFarland Interview
Despite having a fairly well connected Dad, I'm generally clueless about emerging churches in the Assemblies of God. How clueless? I had never heard of Lee McFarland or Radiant Church in Surprise, Arizona, until I met him at the Bloggers Lunch sponsored by AGTS and North Central during the 2007 General Council. My loss. Lee's a great guy, and in this interview with our General Superintindent, he says a lot of important things about a lot of important subjects. Lee taught me two important lessons in this interview: (1) How you lead (especially how you preach) has got to be authentic. (2) You've got to be honest about your struggles if you want to lead the members of your congregation through theirs. How about you? What did you learn?
Single Like Jesus
It’s confession time. With my wedding coming up in just seventeen days, I’m having a difficult time focusing on the future of the AG. But since the New Year tends to inspire reflection, I thought I’d process some personal thoughts from my journey of being single in ministry.
I can appreciate the discouragement that some single ministers have felt. Just last month I had a conversation with one senior pastor who was recovering from a bad experience with a single associate. As a result, he informed me that he would no longer be hiring anyone who is single.
When I began the process of planting a church as a twenty-one year old bachelor, experienced ministers warned me that I might be making a mistake. While the advice they gave was usually true, it was also occasionally motivated by some false assumptions regarding singleness.
So let’s clear the air. For starters, singleness is not a disease! Neither does it indicate that someone is socially awkward or living in sexual sin. And my personal favorite—being single is not directly linked to homosexuality. Yep, I got that one a couple times!
The question that usually prompted me to think the most was this one. “How will you counsel married couples in your church who are experiencing difficulty?” Fortunately, counseling does not depend on personal experience. If it did we’d have to start encouraging AG pastors to experiment with crack! While it may make some of us more interesting, I doubt it would improve our ability to counsel drug addicts. In place of personal experience, I’ve found it helpful to depend on the Bible and other married couples on my leadership team.
I’ve also found Jesus to be a good person to think of when faced with some of these misperceptions. As a pastor I personally hesitate to establish any hiring restrictions that would eliminate Jesus from qualifying for a job at our church.
Having said that, let me mention what I think deserves the most attention. Singleness can be extremely advantageous. In fact, if you’re single right now and involved in ministry, I’d encourage you to embrace this season and maximize every opportunity that you can.
Here are some suggestions that most married couples will tell you only get more difficult if you're no longer single.
- Go on a Mission’s Trip
- Save Money
- Go Back to College
- Start Seminary
- Pay Down Debt
- Hang With the Guys
And my personal favorite for those of you who are frustrated by limited ministry positions—plant a church or join a church planting team. I guarantee you that 99.9% of church planters do not care that you are single!
Most of all, enjoy the opportunity to pour your life into ministry. The greatest advantage for me during more than six years of singleness has been the freedom to give radical amounts of time and energy to church planting in Metro Detroit. Paul was on to something when he commended singleness in 1 Corinthians 7.
Don’t just sit back waiting for life to start…
Be single like Jesus.
Make His work your priority. Enjoy the saints and sinners around you. Care for the sick and the poor. And seize this season in your life!
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Discipling a "Christian Nation"
On December 6-9, the Gallup organization conducted a poll of 1,027 adult Americans regarding their religious beliefs and practices. It summarizes the major findings of that poll here. Among the conclusions:
Theologians and other intellectuals often tell us that we are living in a post-Christian nation. But these statistics indicate otherwise. Read the final paragraph above once again. Roughly eighty percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians, attend church occasionally, and consider religion important.
As a pastor, I know that there is a vast gulf between people's beliefs and behaviors. If eighty percent of Santa Barbara (where I live) is Christian, how come I don't see those people in church more often? And why do so many Santa Barbarans engage in behaviors that are manifestly unChristlike? You can ask the same questions in your city too, I'm sure.
In my opinion, statistics such as these illustrate the point made in the most recent issueof Enrichment that we are experiencing a crisis of discipleship, not only in the Assemblies of God, but also in the nation as a whole.
About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion. That includes 51% who said they were Protestant, 5% who were "other Christian," 23% Roman Catholic, and 3% who named another Christian faith, including 2% Mormon.
Sixty-two percent of Americans in Gallup's latest poll, conducted in December, say they are members of a "church or synagogue," a question Gallup has been asking since 1937.
Based on the responses to this question, about a third say they attend once a week, with another 12% saying they attend almost every week. This means that about 44% of Americans report what can be called frequent church attendance -- almost every week or every week.
This year, 56% of Americans have said religion is very important. Only 17% say religion is not very important.This year, 56% of Americans have said religion is very important. Only 17% say religion is not very important.
To summarize, more than 8 in 10 Americans identify with a religion and 8 out of 10 say that religion is at least fairly important in their daily lives; more than 8 out of 10 say they attend church at least "seldom"; and again more than 8 out of 10 identify with a Christian religion.
Theologians and other intellectuals often tell us that we are living in a post-Christian nation. But these statistics indicate otherwise. Read the final paragraph above once again. Roughly eighty percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians, attend church occasionally, and consider religion important.
As a pastor, I know that there is a vast gulf between people's beliefs and behaviors. If eighty percent of Santa Barbara (where I live) is Christian, how come I don't see those people in church more often? And why do so many Santa Barbarans engage in behaviors that are manifestly unChristlike? You can ask the same questions in your city too, I'm sure.
In my opinion, statistics such as these illustrate the point made in the most recent issueof Enrichment that we are experiencing a crisis of discipleship, not only in the Assemblies of God, but also in the nation as a whole.
- How do we distinguish authentic Christianity from cultural Christianity?
- How do we evangelize people who are already nominally Christian?
- How do we disciple people who consider themselves Christian but don't attend church or practice the ethical standards of the faith?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
