Tuesday, November 20, 2007
New Polls
I have just posted three new polls in relation to our discussion on the last few posts. Please take some time and let us know how you feel. If you have additional comments on these polls, please post those here.
Ph: 23333333
100 comments:
Wow, you aren't wasting anytime to go right for the issue are you? I think this is the single greatest factor in the development (or lack their of) of new young pastors into our fellowship.
The younger generation could care less about a "distinctive." They want the truth, all of it, and not just one aspect of it. I am a firm believer in the Holy Spirit's power, seperate from conversion and evidenced by speaking in tongues and I preach that. But I also feel obligated to look at the broad spectrum of scholarship which does not follow our (A/G) way of thinking. Because of our divergence from classical evangelical theology, I have personally placed this doctrine not in a prominante "distinctive" place, but consider it another tool in my toolbelt of sorts. Maybe more appropriately it is the toolbelt that holds the other tools together. But it is the tools not the belt that get the job done (love, witness etc.) What good is the Holy Spirit evidenced by SIT if I can't show love to my neighbor? My toolbelt is useless without the tools.
If this distinctive becomes devisive, then it is in direct competition with the purpose of the Holy Spirit's presence in our lives in the first place.
BTW, I was filled with the spirit and called into ministry at a Youth Summer Camp in 1987 :)
Love the polls!
A word of caution, though, to everyone. Unlike the earlier polls which gave this blog it's birth on who we thought the next GS should be, popular opinion does not determine the validity or fallibility of a doctrine. Only sound, competent interpretation which achieves the right blend of experience and scholarship does that.
So, here's an idea. How about a 'Wiki' site for the experiential re-development of our doctrines? I'm not suggesting it as a viable solution to our woes on this topic, but it would allow for a fairly interesting crystallization of thought. Of course, this is entirely dependent on the number of writers and their actual level of ability in interpretation.
Good point Lane, although I would say that most of the options on the polls represent "sound, competent interpretation" from respected biblical and theological scholars within the evangelical/charismatic movement.
I love the idea of "wiki" site... what does it take to set that up?
Great idea Lane! Paul, it doesn't take all that much to set up a wiki (I've got ten on one of my sites).
First, you moderators may want to consider getting a domain (futureag.net is available). Or, you may consider using one of your own (cough, cough, agthinktank.org) and see if the host allows database management.
If so, and if you want one that looks like say Wikipedia (runs on MediaWiki software), I or others could have you up and running in no time.
The only requirements for installing MediaWiki are: a webserver running PHP 5.0 (or later), a MySQL 4.0 (or later) database, and database/web server admin control.
Happy Thanksgiving again to all!
AGThinkTank.org is desperately in need of expert help! I'd be happy to facilitate whatever anyone thinks would be a good idea for the site! In fact, if DJ wants to help me set up the Wiki site, all he needs to do is email me, and I'll give him the username and password.
gpw,
Roger that, I'm all over it. I'll hook up with you this weekend.
dj-out
A "Wiki" site...that could be very interesting. My only fear is that passers by would NOT realize that these are "thoughts", personal ideas, etc. (i.e. WIKI). While wiki has been around for a while, some net users still don't understand it.
Maybe a disclaimer at the top?
Also, would the new web address also change the format? I too think that would be a good idea.
Interesting polls on belief, but we do we actually do? Orthopraxis. I think most of us believe that there is a distinct work after salvation called "Spirit baptism", but I'm curious to know how many of us have preached and taught the doctrine in the last 12 months? Anyone care to share their experience?
Pastor Jeremy:
You're right about the disclaimer - good idea. Yes, it can change the format if you use the "discussion" tab.
Each person will also have "user" page available to them. The format will be very simple.
Anonymous:
Just shared about the Lord's Baptism last night at work with a bunch of unchurched, dechurched, and new believers (all of whom are young adults). They were absolutely captivated by how the Baptism is linked to the rainbow, circumcision, fire coming down on Mount Sinai (I've shown them pictures of that too).
Here in Hawai'i, we see a rainbow practically everyday. It's a constant reminder of God's message of love (the Gospel) in every language (tongue). The connection brings the subject of tongues close to home and to something physical and visible they can relate to.
A big part of their receptivity is the trust and rapport that I have built with them. I have shared stories of God's power with them before and they often ask me to retell them to the newbies that come into our section. They're all into Chris Angel and Ghost Hunters. So it's cool to interject that God still manifests Himself in power and intervenes in human affairs.
Next time you see a rainbow, think "God's voice." Absolutely beautiful and breath-taking, such is God's love - love in any language!
Glad to see the favorable response to the Wiki idea. I honestly think that this could be another huge step forward for us. Thanks, Danny for jumping in so quickly! Let me know if I can contribute any on the front end with design... that's where my web development strengths lie.
For those that would sit in an administrative role for the site, I'd like to recommend a few "reads." The Starfish and the Spider and Wikinomics are great reads on the benefits of mass collaboration and community policing.
(Hit Enter Prematurely)
So a few other suggestions:
1. A brief mission statement for the site to keep us (and others) oriented. We also need to decide what Senior Editors are allowed to delete and not allowed to delete. For this to be a true Wiki experience, the Senior Editors have to have controls placed on them as well. Otherwise all we have created is an online General Council "floor experience" with a non-appointed Committee on Doctrinal Purity hiding in the wings.
2. Some form of "alert" system (email, RSS) that tells subscribers that a change has been made to a post.
3. We should work on one doctrine at a time (two at most) so that it does not become an out-of-control Forum Board experience.
4. A preliminary conference call with the developers to discuss delegation of responsibility followed by some form of regular meeting of the site developers to discuss developments and upgrades. Glad that GPW is offering AGThinkTank.org ... but if bandwidth needs to increase he should not have to foot the bill alone!!
Excited to see this blog evolve and have even further implications for positive change!
Lane
I don't think bandwidth will be an issue. A friend hosts my site for free. If it begins to cost money, I'll figure out financing.
Are we able to continue the AGThinkTank blog alongside the Wiki site? Also, I'd like to put up a Who's Who in the AG page with pictures and links to the personal websites/blogs of current AG leaders. I assume we'll be able to do all of this on the one domain.
I'll research the WordPress engine to see. There is a Wiki plugin for WordPress so it shouldn't be a problem. If it is, we can switch the site's layout over to an actual CMS.
The short answer is, "yes." Developing the Wiki site will not alter or limit the other things you want to accomplish.
Lane:
Layout's not my strength. I'm pretty good at getting things up and running and that's where others can come in.
Wordpress is the bomb and you're right it does have a wiki plugin. I believe in WP so much as a CMS back-end and wikis as intranets that I suggested them at work (we got the wiki up - woop woop).
Open source blogging and collaborative social networking - gotta love it!
Why not do an online journal? Writers would be required to footnote and credit sources. Writers would need to read most of the current relevant writings and would interact with current scholarship.
Have an editorial board that would review the articles.
Paraclete has long gone by the wayside. Resurrect it online. Or write something good enough that AGTS or APTS would publish it in their journals.
But be sure there is quality research and thought in the postings and not the rantings of frustrated pastors.
Paul – I have read with much interest the current dialog regarding speaking in tongues.
I believe that the differences may be due to the After Effects of people who have just spoken in tongues AKA been baptized in the Holy Spirit.
The A/G doctrine makes it clear that we believe that the Initial evidence is speaking in tongues. It sounds like we may have done a poor job in teaching that there should be more evidence added? Doesn’t initial mean first, implying not only?
I don’t believe that any A/G pastor likes to see his people acting ugly/not Christ-like after they have been filled with the Spirit. But (sadly) we have seen the evidence of that too. (Our Church of God brethren believe that sanctification comes at the moment of receiving the Holy Spirit. But their people must really get a dose of something our A/G folks miss!)
We must remember that just as Salvation does not change our life choices, being filled with the Holy Spirit does not make us Holy or totally like Jesus. We are still people in process. Becoming Christ-like is a life –long decision/process. Daily this question must be answered: Will I choose His way or my way? Enoch walked with God and was no more – the rest of us need Discipleship/Training.
We need people to understand that we should continually be filled!
If we have some how given the world the idea that being filled with the Holy Spirit is some kind of spiritual trophy – to be placed on a shelf and dusted off at every revival or camp meeting, we have done a miserable job of teaching the purpose and value of being filled with the Spirit.
Jesus thought it was so important that he had his students wait in Jerusalem to receive this power. And notice the effect – these people, now filled with the Spirit AKA those who spoke in tongues, turned their world right side up. They became His witnesses. Signs and Wonders followed them – God’s promise to confirm His Word.
So, like scripture tells us, this is power to witness – to change our world. The Holy Spirit was never given for us to simply enjoy goose bumps on a Sunday morning. (Emotions are God-given too, but I don’t base my salvation on “How I feel”.)
I believe this dialog only proves that we have NOT done our job as pastors in Equipping the Saints for SERVICE! Discipleship is a lost art. For years we depended upon a system that mirrored our public school system. It was called Sunday School. Developed for every age group, we tried to systematically disciple people. It worked for some of us. And it still works for some of us. Some of us may need to re-think SS. (FYI: Small groups are SS in a new format. Really an old one, then it was called “Cottage Prayer Meetings”.) We cannot feel success is simply getting people into the pews, real success comes when people take the gospel to the streets. Faith without works is DEAD.
The blog is spending a lot of time evaluating “Speaking in Tongues as the Initial Evidence.”
For all A/G pastors who truthfully fill out their yearly forms, this is a no brainer.
I think the hidden question really is ….”How are we systematically discipling our people?” Now don’t misunderstand me. The Holy Spirit does not empower us to educate. Our people must have “hands- on” experiences of ministry. Most of our old SS teachers taught evangelism in their classes. They instructed (by example) to bring the unsaved into their class and many people were saved during the SS hour. That being said, let me add … Education without implementation is only head knowledge.
We have too many people who can quote scripture, and too few who know how to live it.
That is why I believe that this discussion is so valuable. But I wonder if anyone else agrees with me – that we are looking for other evidence to follow the tongues?
Like: More witnessing, more serving, more giving of self?
They won’t get it, unless we lead them into it. Pastors must teach them to serve by serving!
If being baptized in the Holy Spirit gives us power – where is it showing up?
Read Gary McGee’s book on the “People of the Spirit” and you’ll have no trouble finding evidence of power beyond the Initial Evidence.
Our ACMR numbers make it clear – we are not teaching people the value of being filled, (meaning: continuously be filled) with the Holy Spirit. Your polls reveal that truth.
I would really be interested in seeing a poll that determines how these bloggers were discipled? Were they raised in church? Did they attend SS classes?
Blessings,
Tom Bougher
LIFE Group Pastor
The Rock FWC – Huntsville, AL
Hey, this one is a bit off topic, but what about a poll on education? More specifically, on the benefits of graduate level work and on the deterrents to pursuing higher education. Honestly I think that we as a fellowship are doing much better at addressing and working through doctrines at the academic level, but I fear that many ministers simply cannot afford to go back to school and have the benefit of this work. I know that Sup. Wood addressed the need for less expensive education when he spoke at AGTS. It would be interesting to see some numbers and hear some ideas on how we might make things more accessible without burdening our ministers with $30,000 of debt.
trey,
Take a look at Asia Pacific Theological Seminary (www.apts.edu). Except for the location and student body, this school is decidedly American and for the most part run by AGWM missionaries. It is inexpensive. One term there including housing can be done for near the cost of one course at seminaries in the states. Some AGWM missionaries attend school there. If going to a developing world country and a student body from about twenty nations is appealing to you, it can be done without lots of debt.
But expect academic training with minimal spiritual emphasis.
Grading is a little easier at APTS than AGTS; but some feel AGTS grades too hard to make up for the idea that Pentecostals are not good at academics.
Pete,
Thanks for the info. Personally, I have looked into ATPS as an option, and from what I've found it is a great school. I am, however, left with the question of why young A/G ministers must either go over seas, or go into debt to get the education that the A/G has to offer. I understand the costs of running a seminary stateside, but would be interested to hear any ideas on how we as a fellowship can be more fiscally supportive in educating our ministers.
The reason our education is expensive is because we are paying for institutional maintenance and bueracracy (multiple tiers of organizational personnel). We could decide as a group of pastors that our priority for our tithes and dues would be to educate pastors. We could cut the admin costs at the district and general council levels (and the programs) and fund education instead. This is a choice we could make; credentialed pastors are the ones who determine the priorities of the movement.
Anonymous:
I'm a bit confused by your comment. You say education is expensive because "we are paying for institutional maintenance and bueracracy." Huh? I thought education was expensive because tuition was exorbitant. Could you please explain your comment a bit more clearly?
George
We could decide as a group of pastors that our priority for our tithes and dues would be to educate pastors... This is a choice we could make; credentialed pastors are the ones who determine the priorities of the movement.
Oh grasshopper... you have much to learn. What you can do is pay your tithe to the district, your dues to Springfield, or get your credentials take away. That's what you can do. Also, us "credentialed" pastors don't determine squat when it comes to the priorities of our movement, let alone the priorities of our own churches (that's what deacons are for!).
So, suck it up. Quit whining. You just need to fork over your 75% and $20 bucks a month like the rest of us - and like it!
***This post typed with tongue firmly planted in cheek. However, it is sincere in the facts presented.***
Art Good:
Tongue in cheek acknowledged, "Also, us "credentialed" pastors don't determine squat when it comes to the priorities of our movement, let alone the priorities of our own churches"--I've been a round for years. There is no one else to make our decisions except credentialed pastors. Who do you think staffs our district/general council offices and votes policies and personnel into office? US. As for the deacons in your church, model servanthood and it's been my experience they'll follow our lead. I'm not being naive--we can organize and vote our will; or we can put up with status quo...
Tom,
I appreciate your comments regarding Initial Physical Evidence and discipleship. I was raised in an AG church which included Royal Rangers, Foundations for Faith, youth group, and Bible camps ... I was discipled overseas on an internship with a missionary. The former gave me a foundation of head knowledge, the latter taught me how to apply it. Both are important but I would say the time spent overseas was transformational.
My question for you is if I.P.E. has little or nothing to do with actual discipleship why is it a fundamental doctrine? Why do we keep track of it on ACMR's? Why is it so important for our movement?
Paul
* To me "initial" implies "immediately" meaning you have not been baptized until you speak in tongues. The wording and most of the teaching I have received in my lifetime has not focused on the "substantial" evidence that should follow.)
** I read "People of the Spirit" and found just as much evidence of corruption, greed, and psychotic behaviour as I did "power" for witnessing. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just reality.
Anonymous and Art:
I sometimes wonder if parishioners sometimes feel about tithing the same way we ministers sometimes feel about dues-paying.
George
Excellent point George!
I don't understand why ministers hate paying tithes to their districts, and the General Council. I have been doing so for many years-and its just not an issue. I view them as my "pastoral leadership". In the same way the we expect the people in our churches to give their tithes-we do it as well.
Personally, I am sick of hearing people complain about this one....I mean REALLY!
Amy
And, another thing...why are you so concerned about having "control" of the money. Its not YOUR money-its Gods!
I understand wanting to give it to your church-to help fulfill your vision-but its not all about us. It's good to invest in ministries other than our own!
Just my opinion.
Amy
It's all a matter of perspective. I really have no issue with our initial evidence stand. Some obviously do. That is ok, and it is their right.
However, I have do have an issue as to where my tithe goes - it belongs in the local church. Not the district, but the local church I pastor/attend. This is not just a matter of opinion, but a matter of Biblical conviction (by the way - I really have no problem with dues to GC, I was just making a point as to who is in charge in our fellowship).
So, my dear friends, please don't slam my convictions over my tithes, and I won't slam yours over your beliefs regarding tongues, relevancy, or what have you?
Thanks.
Art:
I don't have biblical convictions on tithing. (1) Tithing is an Old Testament practice specifically tied to the support of the Temple and the Levitical priesthood. (2) Other than a reference in Jesus' teaching, which commends but does not command it, tithing does not appear to have been the way early Christians supported their churches. Paul, for example, when he speaks of supporting the local church and its ministers never references the OT laws on tithing. Instead, he quotes the one about not muzzling an ox while it treads. (3) My guess is that early Christians did not make use of the tithing laws precisely because it was tied to Temple and priesthood and precisely because both were still in existence at the time the NT documents were written. My further guess is that Jewish Christians continued to tithe to the Temple/priesthood until their destruction in A.D. 70. Why do I say this? Because Jewish Christians viewed (and still view) their relationship with Jesus in continuity with their Judaism, not in discontinuity with it. For these reasons, as I said earlier, I don't have strong biblical convictions about tithing to the local church. For the record, however, I tithe and then some.
Because I feel this way--and this is just my personal opinion, which you are free to totally disagree with (you should have heard my interviewing committee when I originally applied for licensure)--I view my ministerial dues as an opportunity cost rather than as a biblical obligation. If I want to minister in the AG, I have to pay the dues. Admittedly, this is not a very "spiritual" way of looking at things, but it's the way I look at them.
Do I think my district could do a better job with my 5% (we pay a half-tithe in So. Cal.)? Yes. Do I like the way my district spends the money? Not always. But like I said, ministerial tithes are an opportunity cost. Do I want reform at the district level? ABSOLUTELY!!!
George
George,
I love my district leaders. As people, they have been a blessing to me and my family.
I don't know if you were at the DC meeting a few years ago when one of our leaders made the proud comment, "This if the most expensive DC we have ever had." I about lost my lunch. I am all about innovation and advance, but that about did it for me. I know that our district deals with way too many issues to name. I would not want that job, but yeah, maybe we could make some changes in direction.
I am glad for some people who can view their district leadership as their "pastoral leadership" but the fact is not all districts provide pastoral leadership to their ministers. In some districts like mine, the only time you are going to hear from the district office is if you do not pay your dues, or if you have a moral failure. Otherwise they do absolutely nothing for you or your church. If I were receiving pastoral leadership from my DS or the DC staff it would make more sense for my tithe to go there but since I don't receive anything from them, the concept of them being a "storehouse" of any kind for me is rather lost. By the way, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of tithing for me personally - and paying not only tithe but giving generous offerings. This is something I did long before I was a pastor - to another church besides the one I pastor. I just don't see Biblically where the DC is the place where God's tithe should go.
How about a poll on how many ministers think tithing is/should be a NT practice?
How about a poll on polls?
Just for kicks.
Wow--who pulled the wool over you guys’ eyes in regard to supporting our district with pastoral tithes and dues! GPW: I actually think our parishioners should challenge and scrutinize where every penny of their tithes and offerings go. It’s their church and they should determine the priorities, the budgets, the salaries—every red cent. In the same way, the district/general council are structures of our creation to serve our needs. Every penny of our tithes and dues should be spent on our priorities to serve the oversight needs for our churches and ministries. Who else would look after the coffers? Once again, we (credentialed ministers) staff all the offices, establish budgets, prepare bi-annual audits—It’s US. You act as though there is some other mysterious group that we’re to entrust these tasks to?
AMY: Yes, all the money belongs to God; but we send ours to the district/general councils—not to heaven. We have the responsibility to approve of all bi-annual reports on the way the money is spent. Jesus and the angels don’t swoop down and balance our spreadsheets!! And our tithes are not given to bless some outside organization. They are the way we pay for the ministries we approve of to serve our constituents. The whole concept of giving a tenth away to support some other ministry doesn’t fit here.
I truly believe that no reform will come until we reform the way we support our district/general councils. All tithes should go to local churches and they should contribute a sum that represents the degree the district/general council provides ministry structures that add value to the local church. I know of no other denomination that relies on ministers’ tithes and dues to support the denominational structures. This is common sense—if the districts/general council structures don’t impact the local church (which is their only purpose for existing) then they should not be funded.
I personally have always supported my district/general council faithfully—but I feel no sense of duty or obligation to do it in the future. And I do not have any sense of confidence that my district/general council has any motivation or the ability to provide up-to-date ministry support structures. I think it’s time for major change—not incremental adjustments.
Geez! First I was sipping the Springfield Cool-Aid, now I'm getting the wool pulled over my eyes. I must be the most gullible person in the AG blogosphere to be so regularly hoodwinked by denominational leaders.
In their business meetings, Baptist congregations scrutinize where every penny is spent. That has had the wholly predictable effect of small-mindedness, church splits, and focus on budgetary minutiae rather than evangelistic mission. I'd prefer not to travel down that road.
It's not "their" church. It's not "our" church. And it's not "my" church. It's Christ's church. And because it's Christ church, we should probably have a larger vision of what the denomination can do than simply what it can do for us. (And anyway, isn't the relentless focus on "we, we, we" just a corporate version of a selfish focus on "me, me, me"?)
Come on GPW--my point is that WE have established this SYSTEM to serve OUR purposes in the GRAND PURPOSE of reaching and discipling lost people. WE'RE the only ones who can decide to change the systems to reflect changes in OUR priorities and KINGDOM goals and initiatives. BTY it is a common practice for denominations to assist with tuition costs for members of their constituencies at their colleges. This is especially true for those going into vocational ministry careers. WE can continue to slice the pie the way we currently are (based on yesterday's priorities and realities--maintenance) or we can choose to fund the growth and training edge of our movement.
Anonymous...
Personally, I think GPW did a great job of explaining that his convictions on tithing are NOT biblical ones. And I have, for quite some time now, adopted the exact same philosophy. All that to say that your argument that you don't see where tithing to the DC is biblical is missing what GPW said. Not only will you not find anything about the DC, you won't find anything about tithing in general in the NT. So why look for your answers there?
I'm not belittling the point you made and agree with you that our movement could do MUCH MUCH better in funding the education of pastors. Again... I agree that we should re-visit how it's done... but let's not elevate it to an exegetical argument.
Found this blog and I'm glad that I did. I'll be joining in on conversations soon, I'm sure.
Amy, Art, George P. & Anonymous,
Here’s my take on your financial observations. You are all right…to some degree. Let me begin by stating that I have no problem paying $240 a year to the General Council for what is provided (i.e. administrative oversight, resources, representation, etc…). In my opinion this is a good value (don’t tell the General Council Leadership, but I would double this amount).
Regarding tithes, yes, Amy, George, and Art, we should freely give our tithes (my District requires 85% of my tithe be sent to the District Office). However, when we send in literally thousands of dollars every year to our District Offices there should be an expectation of good stewardship and accountability on the District’s part. I agree with George P. that my parishioners may have concerns about my stewardship at times and if they do not get the answers they are looking for there will be a drop off at the least in the realm of monetary support. For the most part today, people have no tolerance of misappropriation of funds. If you doubt that, do a Google search in regards to what is transpiring in Tulsa… the founder’s son is being removed from leadership due to misappropriation of funds.
I had a well-traveled, evangelist tell me recently that based on his interaction with pastors throughout the US that any frustration that pastors may have with the National Office could be multiplied by about ten times concerning their District Offices. I know that is a broad brush statement and I know that there are “some” very well-run District offices with men and women in leadership that are doing a good job, but there is a growing sentiment toward Districts that includes apathy and antagonism. By the way, the apathy scares me more than the antagonism.
Let me highlight three reasons I believe this is happening:
1. You have men (excuse my gender stereotype) who may often garner a salary well into six figures and see their district position as an end in itself. Now they would never verbalize this, but let’s be honest they have no desire to go back to pastoring a local church. Do a study sometime of how many District Superintendents return to being a Lead/Senior Pastor once they have been in the District Office (Warren Bulloch, Paul Martin, and Tom Trask, are a few). There are not many.
2. The District Official has an infinitely greater amount of autonomy than a local pastor. District presbyters don’t have the time, nor do they want to look over someone’s shoulder; therefore, in many Districts there is freedom given to District leaders that in many cases does not promote growth or health concerning leadership and accountability. For example, I know of District officials that go weeks and intentionally do not schedule services or speaking engagements and it is not because they are “doing” other ministry. Also, some allocate money to “special” projects, which they are then given perks for their contribution(s). Could they pastor like this… not likely.
3. The District Office in many cases has lost its focus and is an out-dated model regarding leadership. The question each District Supt. should ask him/herself (I think they are all hims) should be, “How can the District Office help and resource credential holders?” Instead, most times the only question credential holders hear from the District office is related to money and their need of it. Bottom line, most District offices just aren’t run lean, mean, and efficient and as stated above are out-dated. Here’s my question, “If your District office was blown up today, how long would it take before an impact was felt in your ministry/church?” IMHO the similarities between the obsolescence of the Federal government and the out-dated District office structures are incredible.
For those of you saying, “Hey it is easy to be critical, why don’t you try being solution oriented?” Okay, I’ll give it a try…
1) Minimize the Bureaucracy- Start by stream-lining the leadership at the District offices as much as possible and pour the resources ($) back into the local church (my district has a full-time home missions/church planting director and yet we chose not to plant churches solely as a district years ago). Help the local church to be resourced and build relationships amongst the constituency.
2) Implement Dual Leadership- Allow multi-tasking individuals to be District Superintendents or fill other full-time district positions while pastoring their local churches. This would keep officials sharp and eliminate the “here to stay” mentality that plagues these offices. By decentralizing the responsibility is spread out broadly amongst leadership and the hierarchal flow chart is flattened. Among the other benefits, dual leadership would help insure that people who are genuinely interested in serving would fill these offices due to the demands and not the perks.
3) Term Limits- Set a term limit of approximately three, four-year terms at a maximum. This would allow new/fresh leadership to continually bubble to the top. I heard former Potomac District Supt., Robert Rhoden recently quoted as saying, “I know this job has a shelf life of 10 to 12 years.” If you said this Dr. Rhoden, kudos for you! I hear critics of term limits say, “If ineffective, vote your leadership out of office. That is the term limit.” My response is, “Rarely does a District vote a leader out of office. Frankly we don’t want to do that. Nor should we have to.” We literally lose generations of leadership if we don’t make room for them. To prove this look no further than the General Presbytery. The GP might be the largest “Good ole boy network” ever created. That is a quote from a current General Presbyter. At times it makes Congress look like a bunch of rank amateurs. If you doubt this, look no further than what the General Presbytery did at General Council this summer, with the required nominations for the two vacant executive offices (almost exclusively nominating from within; producing only four names for two positions out of 30,000 plus ministers, three out of the four being General Presbyters). It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
Art, Amy, George P. and Anonymous, sorry about the lengthy discourse, but in my opinion that may be why men and women might be frustrated with the current financial obligations that are required in our fellowship! I just don’t think the idea of “opportunity cost” when it comes to District support will be sufficient for the duration.
I feel better already!
I would LOVE to do away with my District office.
where do we sign the Resolution!?!?
To All Anonymouses:
I'm not sure who you are, and which posts are yours (there are so many of you), that I'll try to do an omnibus response:
1. Our movement faces significant challenges, and it is up to us--the voting constiutents of the General Council--to foment change. We need to take a thorough look at every aspect of our missional priorities, organizational structure (national and district level), spending habits, and funding mechanisms to make sure that money is going to the right place. My problem with one of the Anonymouses was his rhetoric ("scrutinize every penny," "we, we, we"). In broad principle, I actually agree with him/her that we (the General Council) needs to impose accountability on a system that is not, in many instances, performing.
2. I agree with yet another Anonymous that the real problem with the AG is at the district level. Or perhaps I should say that the real opportunity for the AG is at the district level. If we could get them turned around, I think you'd see a lot of attitude change (not to mention growth) in the AG.
3. The problem is us. Since we're the ones who elect district and national officers, until "we" come to a majority opinion for change, we're going to be stuck with what we've got. This is where a little courage is going to be called for by pastors of General Council churches. We need to stand up at their district council meetings and ask questions and (politely) demand good answers. How do the district officials use their time? What have they done to help existing churches turnaround? To plant new churches? Where is all our money going, etc.? It's a hassle, but "we" must do it. I don't mind paying a district official a six-figure salary (especially in a large district) if he's bearing fruit.
4. I'm open to any reform of our funding mechanisms that provides enough money for the districts to get the job done. Would I rather give my 5% (So. Cal dues) to my church? Of course. But I'm willing to pay for the opportunity cost to minister as well as what's needed to grow other churches in my district.
I'm a different anonymous. I'm a liscensed AG minister. When it comes time to vote at DC, I don't know most of the names I am voting for, nor do I know what their vision is. How am I going to know who to vote for except by relying on the Spirit to prompt me who to vote for (and if I don't feel anything it's hard to choose). I can't see how we can expect to change anytrhing when we vote like that.
Different Anonymous:
I have another blog (on which I haven't posted for months) called AGThinkTank.com. Over the next year, and especially just in time for council, I'm going to create an AG Who's Who page that will link you to current AG leaders' websites, blogs, or biography pages. I'm hoping that AG Who's Who will help people make informed decisions about whom to vote for.
GPW
If my district council were wiped off the map, it would NEVER affect my church in the least. It would not even cause the slightest ripple.
I am more in the "apathetic" camp concerning the district. Certain factors over the past few years have caused me to distance myself and our church. Although I still subscribe completely to the 16 fundamental truths and such, there are many political decisions and situations that have led me to turn away from district involvement and functions. (I used to be very involved, by the way, but have just lost my desire whatsoever at this point.) Many people I know have begun to do this and it's unfortunate but I don't see any change coming for our district at least not for a really long time if ever.
I do not feel antagonistic toward the district at all, just tired, and not up to an uphill battle to create any type of change and would rather put that energy toward my church where I really think change is actually possible. Most of my friends don't even go to sectional meetings anymore - they think, "what's the point?" and just get together with likeminded ministers to network on their own time. These people aren't rebellious, they're just tired.
Anonymous (11/28 @9:19pm), sums up the majority of people I know, including myslef.
BTW, I'm in the NEast.
I'm in the Southeast, and the majority of the ministers I know (and I've been around for quite a few decades in the A/G) feel this way, so it looks like if no where else in America, the eastern part of the AG has a lot of people who feel this way.
Actually, this blog has been the first beacon of hope that I have sensed in the AG for a long time. I'm thankful our Gen. Supt has entered in to the discussion and not tried in any manner to squelch it, or I would have been firmly convinced the coffin was closing on the AG. Thank you FutureAG and Dr. Wood for giving us some hope.
GPW, please don't do that. An A/G Who's Who just sounds so elitist and political. We get enough of this in the current national electoral climate. This tendency towards polls and rising stars is all so wearying.
Anonymous November 29, 2007 10:14 AM:
You know what, I hadn't thought of that. "Who's Who" does sound elitist, doesn't it?
What I'm trying to do is overcome the problem we faced at the last General Council, whereby many people were asking for information about potential candidates for office. One of the ideas was to ask the leading candidates to submit a vision statement of some sort. I thought that was too politicized. So, I thought of the idea of creating a page with links to our current leaders bios/webpages/blogs. That way, when names are mentioned as potential candidates, we potential voters could simply click on the links to find out who these men and women are. I was trying to de-politicize the election process, not elitize it.
Do you think that's possible? What do others think about the idea of such a page? Obviously, we need to come up with a better name for it.
GPW: "Other than a reference in Jesus' teaching, which commends but does not command it, tithing does not appear to have been the way early Christians supported their churches."
Are you saying that if Jesus suggests, commends, models, or says ought/should, that a Christian is not bound to comply, unless a statement is preceded by the word command?
Are you saying that if Jesus only mentions something once, that it doesn't carry much weight? How often does he need to mention something before we are required to do it? How would such a command be framed?
Anonymous November 29, 2007 10:34 AM:
I think you've misunderstood my point, or perhaps I've miscommunicated it--take your pick.
The point I am trying to communicate is that tithing is an Old Testament commandment that is specifically tied to the Temple/priesthood system. Since, according to Hebrews, Christ's actions as High Priest/Final Sacrifice obviates our need for the Temple/priesthood system, we cannot take the OT laws that were part and parcel of that system and apply them willy-nilly to the church.
Further, from a historical perspective, it's my opinion that the New Testament church in fact did not take tithing laws and use them as a guide to congregational giving. That's why, for example, when Paul talked about paying pastors, he didn't cite any tithing laws (because pastors aren't priests); instead, he cited the OT law about not muzzling an ox while it treads grain. (And pastors are most definitely beasts of burden, LOL!)
So, in answer to your questions, I believe we should do what Jesus commands and commends. But I also believe we should follow Jesus by not misinterpreting Scripture and making something obligatory that he does not. Isn't that, after all, the essence of legalism, which Jesus neither commanded nor commended but rather condemned. (Commanded, commended, and condemned: Sounds like a good outline for a three-point sermon of some flavor.)
George
tithing in the OT and in today's church is Biblical.
while the practice may have changed as a result of Jesus, the principal/purpose remains: Everything is God's, so give a portion back and pay His ministers.
10% is a great place to start.
Actually, George, regarding the Who's Who: that is what I thought you were trying to do, to help us out on that, but I have seen that attempted on the local church level, and it can turn into somewhat of a campaign. Slick statements, explanations of vision, etc. Somehow we all have to still believe that God has the ability to work within or override our electoral process and still bring people to the forefront that need to be considered.
Anonymous November 29, 2007 11:15 AM:
The reason I thought "Who's Who" would not be political is that it would not be tied to the election cycle. Instead, it would be a permanent database of AG leaders.
Here's what I originally envisioned: A picture, bio, and link for every national, district, and college leader. This would included elected leaders and appointed leaders. This database--which should probably include leading pastors and evangelists too--would be permanent. Consequently, if for anyone reason any AG minister wanted to know something about our leaders, he/she could simply go to "Who's Who" and look them up, regardless of whether we were in an election cycle or not. Also, since the database would be permanent, it would reflect what the leaders are doing throughout the years, and not just in the election cycles. Does that make sense? It made sense to me when I came up with the idea, but I appreciate your feedback.
My rationale was that linking to a leader's blog/website would give you more information about that leader than asking them to write a vision statement for office. Plus, it would let you know what they think/write when we're not in the middle of an election cycle.
GPW
Pastor Jeremy:
My point of view is that for Christians, giving is mandatory, tithing is optional. Didn't Paul write that we shouldn't force anyone to give more than he really wants to, for cheerful giving is what God desires? To me, that leaves the amount to the Spirit-led discretion of the individual believer.
George
George,
Yet Abraham paid a tenth of all his spoils to Melchizedek, who was not of the order of Aaron. So, didn't the principle of the tithe precede the temple/priesthood system that was abolished through Christ?
Do you think that Christ abolished the order of Aaron and Melchizedek or simply the order of Aaron?
Even so, wouldn't anything from the OT law that was reiterated and reinforced by Christ's affirmation be something that we are responsible for?
It's funny this whole subject of tithing has come up becaus a friend of mine just took his credentials test. On the test the specific question that was asked was, "By Scripture is the NT Church required to tithe?" How would you answer that question?
Christ did not come to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-18). I think that is where we fall into confusion. What was Jesus after? LOVE! In fact Paul told Timothy that the "purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart" (1 Tim. 1:5). When we excercise our love for God and love others we will want to give MORE than 10%.
We can't pick and choose which commands we want to enforce in the church to help our cause. We must teach and demonstrate LOVE.
Anonymous November 29, 2007 11:46 AM:
Yes, Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek preceded the Levitical tithe. But note that (1) Abraham's action is nowhere cited in the Bible as an incentive to tithe. The Bible narrates Abraham's action; it neither commands it nor commends it as an example for believers to follow. (2) Using Abraham's example as an incentive to tithe to the local church makes sense only if pastors are also priests in the order of Melchizedek. The NT nowhere teaches that they are. In fact, the NT doesn't teach that Christians generally are Melchizedekian priests. We are a "royal priesthood," of course, but that phrase applies to all Christians, not just pastors. So if there is some "priestly" argument for financially supporting pastors, it must logically be applied to providing support to all Christians through the tithe. (3) In my opinion, you're making a genre interpretation error: turning a narrative into a commandment. As I mentioned in (1) above, the Bible does not use Abraham's actions as an incentive for giving to the local church. Indeed, if that were such an obvious argument, why didn't Paul or any other NT documents use it when encouraging churches to financially support their pastors? This is an argument from silence, of course, and participates in all the weaknesses of such arguments. Nevertheless, it is striking to me that Paul argues for financially supporting pastors by appealing to the treading-ox law, rather than any tithing story or commandment in the OT.
Make of that what you will.
George
Anonymous November 29, 2007 11:59 AM:
When I applied for my license to preach in 1995/6, the question regarding tithing appeared on my application. Instead of just checking the box "Yes," I decided to check "No" and wrote a several-hundred-word argument about why tithing is not obligatory for Christians. My rationale was more or less the same as what I've written in my comments above. The committee questioned me at length on my written argument, and my interview turned out to be the longest one of the day. (It was a friendly grilling, however, since I was on personal terms with everyone in the room.) In the end, they approved my license since I thought 10% was a good round number, a personal minimum so to speak.
I just find it interesting that out of all the things we could have talked about, we talked about money. Make of that what you will.
GPW
But Abraham's tithe doesn't seem to have been required by law to be given to Melchizedek but by some inner motivating principle.
Narrative does not preclude instruction. "All Scripture is profitable . . . for instruction . . ."
The point is not that pastors are priests of Melchizedek's order, but that the inner motivation to recognize God's ownership is established by the dedication of sacred portion.
In the Garden of Eden, anything but this tree . . .
In all that I have given you, anything but this . . .
All the more reason if we are a royal priesthood, this inner compulsion to recognize God's ownership should follow Christ's commendation, affirmation, suggestion of the tithe without neglecting all the rest.
Did Paul need to mention anything if Jesus already did?
Anonymous November 29, 2007 12:14 PM:
My problem is not with what you call the "inner motivating principle," it's with your attaching that IMP to the tithe. If the IMP is all-important, why settle on the tithe rather than mandating the widow's mite?
And you know what's weird, in my opinion; no one has addressed the salient point about how NT writers such as Paul actually motivated NT Christians to give. Will someone please address that issue? Why does Paul use the ox-treading law rather than the tithing law if the tithing law is the relevant law?
And if we're going to allude to Jesus' one mention of tithing, let's at least do that in context. He was not talking about tithing to his own ministry or that of the apostles. He was commending tithing to the Temple/priesthood system that still stood in his day (or at least he was commending it as long as justice and mercy were not neglected). Remember, Jesus and the Twelve were supported by the voluntary love offerings of his supporters (of which Judas was the treasurer). If Jesus' own followers tithed to the Temple/priesthood system, not to him directly, why are Christians obligated to tithe to their local church?
I think many pastors fear that if they don't teach tithing, people won't give to the church. I think that's the real reason we hang on to an OT commandment that does not have any obvious relevance to our redemptive-historical situation.
GPW
Anonymous:
Where exactly does Jesus tell us to tithe to the local church? In context, his remarks about tithing to the Pharisees pertained to tithing to the Temple/priesthood system.
GPW
I think I'm in complete agreement with what George has said so far, but it seems that something hasn't been made explicit which may have led to a misunderstanding. (Note, this is what I believe about tithing but from what he's said so far, I think George would agree.)
I don't believe that there is any indication in the NT that tithing as described in the OT is to continue today. However, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in giving. I think a common teaching we see from Jesus is a raising of the bar and that applies to money as well. For example, we can all recall the "you've heard it said..., but I say..." passages. Each instance we as Christ followers are called to live above and beyond what the law prescribed. I think the same applies to our money.
One of the focuses in the NT is that everything is God's. Our lives, our futures, & our money. So instead of looking at my money as 90% mine and 10% God's, I look at it as 100% God's and I give to his purposes as he directs me. Instead of just following a prescribed law, we are to seek God regularly and allow him to speak to us concerning what (and to where) we should give. For some that may be 10%, for others it may be 5%, but for others it may be 25%.
There has been a common distinction made between tithing (10%) and giving (everything above the 10%). I'm suggesting that we do away with the distinction and ask God how much to where we should give. If we are a part of a certain ministry, then we should give to that ministry. If we feel led to support a certain missionary, then give there too. I really think that if people made this a matter of prayer, they would end up giving more than 10%. As it stands though, it's really easy to just thoughtlessly write a check each week and mark it off your spiritual to-do list.
In sum, it's not that I (nor George, I think) am advocating a "no-giving-at-all" type of position. I'm saying we don't have NT evidence to limit ourselves to 10%, but we do have NT evidence that we're to give what God directs us to give (which may be below, above, or right at 10%).
On a separate note, I think a "Who's Who" type of page (I don't care what you call it) is a fantastic idea. I have already become much more optimistic about our fellowship just from seeing our GS and other "higher ups" interact with us on this blog. It makes it much easier to see their heart and their abilities. Once you hear someone make a cogent argument supporting his/her position, it's a lot easier to trust their judgment about other things too.
I agree with Paul F. regarding giving: Not tithing does not entail not giving.
Paul F.:
Email me at george@georgepwood.com. I want to hear about your work in philosophy. That was my major in college and is a continuing avocational interest.
GPW
Over the last couple of years Chi Alpha has been restructuring. There are areas, much like world missions areas, that are based on culture. These areas have directors that are there to give support to the Chi Alphas in their area. Some districts are stronger than others so in some cases the support and accountability is given to the district Chi Alpha reps. In other cases the area director acts as the catalyst to get things started. There is still a national office but its really not very big, and I think thats a good thing.
I think we need to greatly reduce the "one size fits all" structure that we have right now and move into areas that are based on culture/geography. We talk so much about Springfield being behind the times and out of touch. The reason for that is that the United States is diverse. I know that a brilliant statement of the obvious but seriously, our current structure is based on the idea that everyone is the same. I think GPW made a comment earlier that he wouldn't mind a district sup. making six figures. Honestly, thats understandable when you live in Southern California where a 1600 sqft house costs 6 to 8 hundred thousands dollars but what about here in Kansas where that same house costs about $100,000? But its not just cost of living, its everything from shouting when we preach vs. just talking to urban vs. rural to rich community vs. poor community to what the weather is like outside.
The point is that one size no longer fits all. GPH is always going to be considered irrelevant as long as there isn't anyway to customize and tweak products easily. The General Presbytery will always seem like the "good ol' boys club" when we are voting to put them into an office that is as far as 1500 miles away for some. Of course we don't know them or anything about them. District officials will always be able to do whatever they want to because ministers are too busy and too powerless on their own to hold them accountable and springfield is simply too far away and too bureacasized to hold them accountable or give them support.
I think we need to completely restructure if we want the organization to be a benefit to the minister, missionary and church. It is simply not possible for 4 or 5 people in Springfield to be everything to everyone in this fellowship. What I'm suggesting is moving resources and people out of Springfield into key places that can truly effective to specific areas.
I don't know, just an idea. I'm sure there's issues that would have to be overcome with it but the current structure doesn't seem to be working very well anymore.
I think we should all agree that telling people that if they don't tithe 10% they will not only not be blessed but have a curse on them is WRONG! Sorry that was so long. The church I am at now went through a bad split and much of the split was over the issue of money. The pastor accused the people of not tithing (not sure how anyone could really know that) and refused to go bi-vocational. Is there anyone who disagrees with me that teaching this concept of giving is false teaching?
"Is there anyone who disagrees with me that teaching this concept of giving is false teaching?"
On this blog, I think there will always be someone that disagrees. LOL
George P. and All Anonymous Bloggers
This is anonymous (I feel better already)…November 28, 2007 2:08 PM. Let me clarify a couple lines / thoughts you responded to:
1. You stated, “I don't mind paying a district official a six-figure salary (especially in a large district) if he's bearing fruit.” The question of course, “Is there fruit?” I agree with you to an extent. However, the point I am making is that when these men hold district positions for extended periods of time the money can and most times changes them. Money lies (Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19). The money tells them any number of things, not the least of which is, “You deserve this lifestyle” or “You can coast for a while” or “Hey these perks go along with the job.” What I have observed is the district official often gets comfortable, with a particular lifestyle and loses their edge. Sure, I could lose my edge in a long-term pastorate too; however, there is something about producing weekly at the local church level weekly and responding to and meeting the demands of a changing culture that keeps this from occurring in most local church pastors. In essence there is a built in accountability that does not allow this to happen. For example, I had a fellow-pastor in my district call me recently after our Superintendent visited his church for ministry. The Pastor said, “If I hear that same message one more time I am going to go out of my mind.” He had heard the same message no less than five times during the person’s tenure as Supt. (can you say term limits?). This could not occur within the local church.
2. Your encouragement to be part of the system is understandable, but again here’s my take (first-hand). In my district I served on a committee… as I saw the direction the District was steering the committee I had real concerns. So, I made an appointment and discussed this with my District Supt. The concern was rejected and within a very short time other pastors were aware of my comments and there was an effort to label me in ways that were incorrect. I think anonymous dated November 28, 2007 9:19 PM, (who was apathetic toward the district) and I have something in common. What I am grappling with is does working in the system truly promote change?
Anonymous November 29, 2007 1:34 PM:
I would say that the pastor who berated his people for not tithing was probably teaching in self-serving way, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "false" teaching (except to the extent that, as I have argued, tithing is not biblically mandated for Christians).
Anonymous November 29, 2007 1:49 PM:
From what you've written about your experience, I think I would be inclined to come to the same conclusions that you have about district leadership. Also,