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?
28 comments:
I'll start from a church history perspective. Before we celebrate our Pentecostal heritage, we need to give credence to our Protestant one. The very name (PROTESTant) celebrates that our heritage exists on the grounds that someone stood up to protest religious leadership corrupted by greed and power.
If a leader is uncomfortable with people voicing their complaints, they are in the wrong branch of Christianity. Granted, the spirit of the complaint has to be within the boundaries of Christ-likeness. But... our heritage is one that celebrates the "priesthood of all believers." As such, all have a right to a voice.
A leader does not have the right to ask someone to retract a complaint simply on the grounds that they, as a leader, wield the power to punish.
Good questions, thanks for posting them.
In my opinion the mere fact that we are asking these kinds questions is indicative to a breakdown somewhere in the system, and perhaps that's the problem all together...we've become too much of a matrix and have abandoned true community that allows for an open market place of ideas.
If you take away the voice of the individual in any organization you take away the very creative and moral fibers in which that community was built on. After all, wasn't the AG itself built on the dissenting opinion that our founders had of the current system they were in. If it weren't for their questions of doubt, protest against the current establishment and the courage to stand up and speak them, where would we be today.
I've always believed the following to be true, "self preservation is the biggest enemy to what the Spirit of God wants to do in our lives." I would also add our organizations and denominations to that quote. When our goal becomes to survive by shutting down honest questions and opinions, we are in real danger of missing what God desires altogether.
steve Wulf
www.ethoughts.tv
Abuse of Power or Accumulation of Power?
We have a fascinating challenge here because what is being communicated to me is: "What is the biblical way to level criticism at our leaders and our fellowship without taking any hits ourselves for what we write/say?" I think Woods is fishing for a group of people who will endorse some kind of "diplomatic immunity" for bloggers.
My immediate thought is that it seems patently unjust for one individual to put over a power play on another merely out of a sense of censorship. When people "duke it out" in the arena of ideas fair play means embracing or assaulting an idea based on its merit rather than threats against the other's livelihood.
The use of strong arm tactics might mean that certain ideas cannot be defended (or) that a pervasive sense of arrogance has convinced an individual in a position of authority that his/her ideas are the only ones worthy of consideration. -Muy feo!
On the other hand...
Why should the authority figures of the fellowship remain impotent while the A/G is subjected to very public criticisms by its own members? Authority is given to be executed for preserving and advancing the movement. When does exercising authority cross the line to "abuse"? -This is often a very overused word.
The BIGGER picture...
Power plays are waged on both sides of Wood's scenario. Influence is amassed and leveraged but from different positions. The up-and-coming work to wrestle a piece of the movement for themselves. They paint themselves as the "underdogs" and rail against "the man". Staff pastors, mid-level leaders everywhere feel the emotion of the young guy getting walked on and silenced. This is an inherent part of the human appetite for SIGNIFICANCE.
On the other hand those who have already attained status and significance (the entrenched leadership) will work to conserve it by exercising their authority over those who have signed onto the movement but are deemed to be speaking and working in ways that appear to be harming it. "The fastest way for a person to become a conservative is having something to conserve!" - Ronald Reagan
Where to go from here...
"The old men always work to preserve the pillars and the young men always work to pull them down." This has been the conflict since time began.
We are called by the scriptures to esteem others more highly than ourselves, not to give ourselves to idol talk and gossip, to stir up love and good works, and to bring words that edify one another to the table rather than to murmur.
Are there moments when things need to be changed? Yes! But...
Those who want to lead the charge and take the spoils must be willing to pay the price.
I admire passionate reformers BUT I also know that passion means laying yourself on the line for your beliefs. History shows that anyone who started or CHANGED a movement believed enough in what he/she was trying to achieve to put his/her own life on the line. This is a litmus test for that separates those who long for real change from those who just want to acquire glory for themselves.
Its hard to respect anyone who says he feels passionately but isn't willing to place himself on the line for what he says he is advancing. Sticking one's finger into the face of the establishment is a serious business and should remain so for the good of any fellowship. It weeds out the lime-lighters and helps ensure that only substantive ideas worthy of merit live to see serious debate.
To the guys who want the power: Keep railing! If you are willing to pay the price you may get what you want!
To the guys who have the power: Keep shooting at things lacking substance and trying the guys who want to move you off your personal center.
It all seems more about the accumulation and redistribution of power than the abuse of power to me as each group is doing what has always been done.
Jason Arant
Toledo, OH
www.ligthousechurchtoledo.com
Jason:
If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that both sides of the AG controversy are motivated by power concerns, either the getting or the retaining of it. (I'm having a hard time telling whether you think this is bad, or that this is just the way things are.)
I don't agree with the power scenario as a universal statement regarding people's motives, although I recognize that some people are trying to get/retain power.
Since I fear I'm not understanding you correctly, I'd be interested in reading your response to the following questions:
1. Is the getting/retaining of power the only thing motivating people in this controversy, or is it one of the motivations? What are other motivations for people in this controversy?
2. In your judgment, is the getting/retaining of power a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing?
3. Is it possible for a church to overcome the dynamic you described as old-men-preserve/young-men-pull-down dynamic you describe, or are we doomed to have this conflict in each generation?
4. How might a church overcome the passionate-reformer/life-on-the-line dilemma you talked about? I would certainly hope that change is possible without such gut-wrenching sacrifice.
Finally, I disagree with this statement: "I think Woods is fishing for a group of people who will endorse some kind of 'diplomatic immunity'for bloggers." Au contraire, I think bloggers should be accountable for their words. That is why I would prefer people to post under their own names. That is also why I have brainstormed scenarios in the comments section of other posts whereby denominational leadership might be within its rights to censor and/or discipline AG bloggers. But, generally speaking, I do believe that AG ministers need fora (such as the internet, or sectional meetings) where they can express constructive criticism of the fellowship. As long as that criticism is civil and change-oriented, I think denominational leaders should encourage bloggers to post away, and, more important, listen to what they say.
George
George,
You understand correctly. Each side of this issue is interested in accruing and leveraging influence for their version of how the fellowship should move forward. –If this were not the case why level criticisms publicly at all whether in a blog or otherwise?
I don’t see this main premise as an argument that is inherently good or bad. It is the way things are historically and the way things will continue to be. We do not get a pass (although as individuals we may chose to give a pass to those who follow us)
I will work on your questions below one at a time:
1.Is the getting/retaining of power the only thing motivating people in this controversy, or is it one of the motivations? What are other motivations for people in this controversy?
I believe getting/retaining/exercising power is the primary motivator underlying the contention itself. I certainly don’t believe we recognize it in ourselves right away. (We are much too noble to consider it!)
Certainly if two points of view are in contention one will eventually become the predominant view –and many views right now are.
Again, there would be little point in leveling criticisms if there was not some hope of changing the status quo. Changing the status quo happens through conflict etc…
“What are other motivations for people in this controversy?”
Certainly there is room for sticking up for the little guy and creating an atmosphere of more open and honest dialogue. All of this advances the cause and it is part of the equation too.
2. In your judgment, is the getting/retaining of power a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing?
In my judgment the getting/retaining of power is a good and natural tension that is best executed in what we are seeing play out: The old guard holding their own and the new guard fighting its way in.
This is why I believe the young guys should sign their names (as you do) and that guys from above should push them hard on their posts if they are so inclined.
Naturally, we all agree there are evil ways of accruing and exercising power and my comments above assume we are all on the same playbook about that.
3. Is it possible for a church to overcome the dynamic you described as old-men-preserve/young-men-pull-down dynamic you describe, or are we doomed to have this conflict in each generation?
It is possible for individuals in the church to overcome this dynamic but only if we own it. –No generation, church, culture will side step this completely because it is partly informational (people who read this will be informed about the dynamic) and partly formational (people who are immature will refuse to see the part they play while demonizing their opponents) This will continue until the Kingdom is consummated because the self-centeredness of man will continue as well.
4. How might a church overcome the passionate-reformer/life-on-the-line dilemma you talked about? I would certainly hope that change is possible without such gut-wrenching sacrifice.
This is a point that greatly divides us. No one reforms anything great without great risk. Gut-wrenching sacrifice is a big part of Christianity and the great Christian leaders we point to. To remove the risks, sacrifice etc… means you have nothing to reform. The old guard won’t hassle you about changing something they care little about and a new guard that will only attempt to change what costs them little will assuredly produce soul-less leaders. (Welcome to the lament of many mainline church pastors I know!)
“Finally, I disagree with this statement: "I think Woods is fishing for a group of people who will endorse some kind of 'diplomatic immunity for bloggers."
I apologize if you feel that the diplomatic immunity comment made a mischaracterization of your intentions. Frankly, I don’t know how else to characterize the kind of “retribution free” zone you are proposing. If you allow for retribution in some cases and not others doesn’t that leave us pretty much where we are? Those in positions of authority subjectively overseeing the opinions of those under authority
Jason:
Thanks for your clarifying comments!
I disagree on two basic points.
First, I think there is some more primary motivation than getting/retaining power (or influence, a word you at one point seemed to use synonymously with power). Ask this question: "Why are both sides seeking to get/retain power/influence?" On your reading of the situation, they are seeking power/influence for the sake of power/influence. I think, however, they are seeking power/influence because of what they perceive as the truth of their vision of what the Bible calls the movement to be. Now, admittedly, this is a bit broad as a characterization of motive, but I think it's accurate. Some in the AG think the Bible calls us to a form of worship and church that for lack of a better term we may call "old school Pentecost." Others think the Bible calls us to a more "postmodern" or "emergent" vision. One unfortunate consequence of the power-for-power's-sake interpretation of motive is cynicism. Whatever people say they are doing, they are really seeking to get/retain power. The truth-of-the-Bible interpretation of motive leaves open room for a non-cynical understanding of what's driving people. It allows us to interpret the conflict in the AG as one of vision rather than as a power play. If the conflict is one of vision, then we can speak reasonably and civilly about our differences (at least in theory). But if the conflict is all about power, then how exactly do we go about rationally deliberating our differences?
Second, regarding the passionate-reformer/life-on-the-line dilemma, I agree with you that substantial change usually requires substantial sacrifice on the part of the change agent. What I'm hoping is that the sacrifice is of a different nature than what you seem to indicate. You seem to be saying that one generation of Christians will inevitably take a piece out of the hide of the next generation of Christians as that next generation tries to reform the movement. To me, that seems like fratricide, and I certainly hope the church could find ways to work together rather than to tear each other apart. The kind of sacrifice I think is inevitable is crucifixion, whereby our spiritual struggle is not against others in the church, but against the world, the flesh, and the devil. I hope we expend blood and treasure in our spiritual battle with principalities and powers, in other words, rather than in our turf wars with other Christians. Does that distinction make sense?
George
Jason...
I appreciate your command of language. It's fun to read your comments simply for the incredibly varied vocabulary. What is lacking, though, for me, is a sense of a solid understanding of what Christ taught as a foundational principle of His gospel.
You see sin perpetuating itself over and over again endlessly through human lust until the end of time. How utterly hopeless.
You seem to imply that those who cry fowl on the abusers of power do so only because they want the power for themselves. Since James writes that we argue because we don't have what we want, I have to allow that certainly a deceptive desire for control could motivate such whistle-blowers.
But you leave out a very viable option clearly taught throughout the Scriptures. God's heart all throughout the OT is for justice. The ever-famous Messianic passage of Isaiah 9:6-7 promises that Christ's kingdom would be built on justice. Thus, those that become his co-heirs and who are seated with Him in the heavenly realms sense the urging of His Spirit to stand against religious hypocrisy the same as He did in His Incarnation.
My point is this... I think many cry out against injustice not because they want the power, but because they have come to recognize they already have it. Upon realizing that you sit as an heir to the universe... District and National offices seem awfully small and petty.
I am not in support whatsoever of a "command and control" type of leadership. However, I do believe that there are lines when it comes to slander/libel and throwing accusations around.
For example, if a pastor had been released from a position, and the church tried to give them a graceful exit, by saying that they were resigning (whether it was voluntary and initiated by the staff member or not) if the staff member goes out kicking and screaming and taking others with them, then it becomes a real problem. I know of quite a few cases where this has happened, and it truly can wreak havoc on a community- inside and out of the church.
It's not that we should be silenced if we have been truly wronged, but sometimes I think we could all learn a lot of lessons from "A Tale of Three Kings" by Gene Edwards. We can truly trust God to vindicate us, especially if what is going wrong isn't a matter of morality or complete injustice.
George,
There are now almost too many posts to hit on all the comments that have been added. There are a few points I would key in on however:
1. Trying to split hairs between seeking power/influence is an impossible dichotomy. Whether it is a large chunk of power being sought or a small one it is the same quest but simply different in its scope. The motivation of what someone sees as the vision for the future doesn't change the quest for influence/power -that is simply a motivating factor.
All of this can be debated rationally -I just think we need to be be transparent. By using a raw word like "power" rather than influence we all get uncomfortable and -hopefully- act a little more gracefully with one another. This doesn't preclude rationality at all. Rationality should be part of the pursuit and is demonstrated in reasoned approach to power struggles all the time.
2. I think that your "piece of hide" remark takes it well beyond what I have stated. I believe that the young guys should expect it and be willing to risk it. Not expect a free pass. -I also stated earlier that we should chose to give a free pass.
Lane,
"You see sin perpetuating itself over and over again endlessly through human lust until the end of time. How utterly hopeless."
This is Christian Worldview 101. The hope IS Christ himself. The Kingdom in the world now is a beach head but has not come in its fullness. We must be careful not to mistake ourselves for our savior.
The point is that politics, government, polity, cannot bridge this. The personal rule and reign of Christ alone will one day "balance the cosmic checkbook".
There is nothing wrong with crying out against injustice and yet there has to be an understanding that these things aren't accomplished without personal risk. -Jesus encountered it, suffered it, etc... and we are not above our master. (I am certain Joel Olsteen might disagree with me on this!)
This has been fun but, as with all postings, this might go on until Christ returns to fix the system and set us all straight.
I don't have to have the last word so I'll let go of this debate here.
Have a great rest of the weekend guys!
Jason:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
George
One more thing, Jason:
When I taught Worldview at Vanguard University, I taught my students that the Bible was a narrative of creation, fall, and redemption. Sin taints what God created, and God redeems it anyway. That, in a nutshell, is the biblical story.
I think that Lane's point is that you have overemphasized the "fall" part of the biblical drama. Without downplaying the distorting effect of sin even in the lives of Christians, I'd like to put in a good word for the transformative power of the gospel. For sin will no longer be your master, for you are no longer under law but grace (Romans 6:12?).
George
Jason...
Not sure if you have completely split from the debate, or have simply yielded the floor, but thought I would respond.
1. Completely agree on your assessment regarding the level of personal risk involved in crying our against injustice. See my earlier posts equating people coming forward here as a MILD MILD form of modern-day martyrdom.
2. You missed my point when you said that sin perpetuating itself was Christian Worldview 101. Of course that is true. But the debate centered around why CHRISTIANS in the AG would critique those in leadership... not why people in general do.
Your point was that even regenerate Christians have no hope but to yield to the never-ending cycle of original sin inside of them. That is where I disagreed with you. Those having been called by Christ to go out "even as He was sent" are called to rail against injustice just as He did. This isn't us having a Messiah complex as you inferred... it is simply us understanding our mission as His Body. No... we are not above our Master ... but we will do greater works than He did.
3. While your statement regarding the Kingdom not being present in it's fullness is good, your definition of the Kingdom as a "beachhead" is a bit lacking to me. I think Christ's teaching regarding the Adversary being "led captive" by Him, and the concept that the gates of Hell will not withstand the kingdom's advance displays more than us simply "holding the line."
We are actively taking ground with each soul transformed by the Gospel. (Not physical ground... I am not a "Kingdom Now" theologian) But we are forcefully pushing the Enemy backwards... we are not in a defensive stance.
Why is this wrong?
-The spirit of this blog has since its inception been one centered on serving as a constructive voice. Even with the periodic negativity and the heated moments it has had a noble purpose and has yielded many noble results. It has also been a prophetic voice, at times bringing things to the surface that needed attention. It has also been a community of advisors "plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.". For these reasons and more the AG should support fora such as this one.
What are the minister's constitutional and bylaw right when faced with such strong-arm tactics?
-Do what Jesus told us to do (it's not a right, it's an ordinance):
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "
-the question then becomes how do we treat those in the AG abusing authority like pagans and tax collectors ;-).
When might a leader be within his/her rights to request an AG blogger to pull down a named post?
-Any reader is always in their rights to ask anything of the moderator. Whether it's the right thing for the moderators to fulfill the request is another story. It is a privilege to both post and read. With great blogging comes great responsibility, and each one of us will have to make an account for our actions and words.
How do we communicate in such a way that our leaders view our critical remarks constructively rather than destructively?
-Both parties have to approach the dialogue with the mind and heart of Christ (speaker and reader). Dialogue is a two-way street with many opportunities to misunderstand. So, the difference between "destructive" and "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder. It is not to God, however, who sees the heart. So keep on communicating in good faith, speak the truth in love, receive the truth in love, and let the Lord judge the heart: "test everything. Hold on to the good".
In the end, we need to build trust with one another. Anonymous commenting breaks down trust. So too does abusing power and disfellowshipping with people because of their comments on this blog. We are brothers and sisters and the Lord will hold us to breaking bread, communicating, and resolving conflicts in love as He has instructed.
What a good read guys. I can't help but thinking that if nothing else at least we can have some intelligent conversations around here. And everyone was nice about it too. This is the way sides on opinions should be!
I agree on the name thing, I am all for posting your real name. I am for change and very vocal about it. I have strong opinions and I am not ashamed or do I make excused for my doubt...or my lack of understanding on some things. I have read many ideas here that have helped me look at things another way. :)
In the AG we have a VERY strong political structure. All of us that are in the system as Pastors are all a part of it. We may not all agree how it should work but we all are a part of it.
Sometimes there will be a price to pay for opinions that aren't popular. That's life in the real world. Sometimes revolutionaries change the system other times they just get killed. Harsh reality we live it. Some may put their careers on the line to force the hand of change, others won't. Personally I want to be able to say that I lived true to who I am and who God has called me to be.
Chad:
Just a brief comment on this remark of yours:
"In the AG we have a VERY strong political structure. All of us that are in the system as Pastors are all a part of it. We may not all agree how it should work but we all are a part of it."
I think it might be helpful to differentiate the denotation of politics from its connotation.
The denotation (or definition) of politics is the ordering of our common life together. This denotation is a neutral description of what politics is (or perhaps should be). On this line of thinking, the very political structure of the AG is unavoidable, even necessary. How, after all, should voluntarily cooperating ministers and churches order their business and interactions?
When most people speak about politics in the AG, however, I think they have the connotation of politics in mind--something along the line of dirty, underhanded power grabbing. Unfortunately, there's that reality in the AG as well.
In my thinking, we ought to do what we can by word and deed to promote politics in the denotative sense and avoid politics in its connotative sense.
GPW
While not all issues are generational in their substance, it appears that many of those we face as a movement are more stylistic than substantive, and that they do fall on more or less along generational lines. I do not view the calls for change in terms of “power-grabbing” as much as “value-differences” and the desire to allocate resources based on those values. The power-broking comes into play when legitimate leaders express their value-laden opinions and their views are interpreted as criticism by those in positions of authority and responsibility.
Much of the frustration can be explained by the win/win vs. win/lose paradigms. If you have a win/win mindset, you have an abundance mentality, and you typically will work for a synergistic solution—Not “my way” or “your way”, but “a third way” that’s based on the creative ideas we both bring to the table (sorry Stephen Covey!). Conversely, the win/lose mindset is typically accompanied by a poverty mentality that couches all encounters in competitive terms—“If you win, I lose” (vice versa). Synergy requires that we highly value the opinions of others, especially those opinions that differ from our own, that we are secure enough to not be reactive—and that we set up formal systems to listen to their opinions without repercussions.
Clear lines of dialogue do not currently exist at all levels of our movement—and as a result high levels of frustration exist. The onus for establishing these feedback loops is always on the part of those in positions of authority. The risk exists that the information gathered will be negative, but the payback is enormous—when we listen to understand, we get buy-in and ownership. This process allows older members to retain their traditions, while at the same time charting a course for the future with the vitality and creativity of the innovators.
In response to this whole blogging thing. I have seen and read MANY comments that seem rude and written by cowards.
This IS NOT a scriptural way to speak to someone about a problem we have.
If we are to be a church that behaves like Eph. 4 tells us to, this is the LASt place change can happen.
If the Gospel of Matthew is correct about how to go to a brother we have a problem with, then this is the LAST place we'll see change or come to any resolution.
If this was a place to hear complaints by the "younger up and coming" future AG...well, we are certainly hearing.
It seems to me our young men have little respect for some of our older ministers...that happens. And some of the older men may not deserve any...but many do.
When I had an issue with my DS (actually with Pastor Wood, I followed the chain of command)I emailed and waited and he called me. That is how it is to work. Inside the walls with our fellowships and inside the workings of the AG as a whole.
I will be contacting people personally soon. AFTER prayer and Study so I actually have something to say that makes sense.
Oh, I’d love to blog this site to death with my dissatisfactions... and I could. But it is not Biblical.
I give respect to my elders, I am to considers others first.
When it comes to matters of leadership, as long as THEOLOGY holds true, I’ll forebear and be longsuffering...
But if we start going down a bad road with the Authority of Scripture, the Atonement, Grace and faith, start pushing a bunch 'more' of these contemplatives and EC guys then we'll have a problem.
Until then, I find myself praying for our leadership and submitting to them. Not 'cause they are perfect, but I’m pretty sure God say's we are to.
Repentant Harry...
I sympathize with your frustrations, but I also sympathize with some of the EC guys so I hope you don't write me off too, soon. Some people can tend to get disrespectful, but I don't usually sense that in this blog. I've found that many (including myself) just get uncomfortable when leadership lines get blurry - when the world gets less black and white. I agree that God speaks of submission and respect, but these rules apply just as much, if not more profoundly, to those who carry man-made positions of authority.
As to respecting our elders, this is fine. But the harsh reality that our movement is having to deal with is that if we stay on the same trajectory we may only have elders left. Your comfort with the hard and fast lines drawn for positional authority may still work for the army, but it is failing miserably for the Church.
Having gone to Oral Roberts University for my undergrad, I had a close-up look at some of the unhealthy (and unbiblical) views of authority present in the Charismatic tradition. All this "lay not they hand on the Lord's anointed" mumbo-jumbo. That usually translates as "do not hold me accoutable for abusing my power". And George's post on punishing dissenting voices is far too close to that sort of dysfunction.
George...I do, however, agree that there are cases when this may be necessary. But I do not see this working without first a culture of openness and honesty being established. Also, when this does happen, it should be occasionally explained to others so that people understand the thought-process behind those decisions. I, for one, appreciate it when leaders explain why they do things.
Repentant Harry...
I want to refer to my very first comment at the top of this list. I do not think you can simultaneously celebrate being a Protestant while calling a posting board such as this "un-biblical." Based on all that you wrote... it is EXTREMELY likely you would have told Martin Luther that nailing 95 theses to the Wittenburg door was also a non-Scriptural method. And yet you practice a form of Christianity that owes it's birth to that very act.
View this blog as simply a modern, 21st century version of that historical moment. What you read here is a list of grievances posted to the electronic door of our movement. The cool thing is that our GP has shown that they have opened the door and are reading the list.
Whadya think???
Lane
repentent harry:
I agree with you on many of your points.
You're right about this not being the place for Matthew 28 conflict resolution. This is a discussion site. So, let's keep discussing.
As far as change is concerned. It's already happened and is happening as we speak. This blog has for better or worse sent ripples through the organization.
As far as the chain of command goes, I agree with you too. There's one big problem though. In order to use a chain of command one has to be present.
The chain according to many of the commentators is broken. If DS's are only contacting churches for moral lapses and for more money and not returning phone calls or requests for meetings, then there is no chain. Respect flows both ways but only when a chain is present.
I know feathers were ruffled when an assessment site was recommended to gauge the problem in the districts (btw, we do these annually in the military - good for morale). How are we going to know how much of the complaints are perception and not reality? How extensive is the problem? Frankly, it was too much to read everybody's hangups with no action behind the words.
In the end, if we at least got some wheels turning and maybe even exploratory panels with all our discussions, then the ideas floated were worth it. Maybe that's all it took - float the idea and let others best suited to resolve and explore the issue bite off on it ;-).
blessings
You are 100% correct, Lane, in your response to Harry.
George,
You are right the idea of "political" can mean something derogatory these days. I was actually talking about both the positive side and negative side.
Political in the sense of government, structure, policy, centers of influence, and agendas. We have systems, rules and processes. Most of these are things that are necessary in operating a very large organization.
Since we are human, the same things that help create needed structure can also have areas of problem. New leadership having differing ideas of old leadership, the system of "knowing someone" may get you a position easier in addition to, or because of, "being qualified." Other problems we will always face are power plays, abused authority, elevating tradition to policy and others. All of these are normal in organizations and this is just a fact of life.
If we think that we can do away with political structure we are kidding ourselves. We are also kidding ourselves if we think we can get rid of all of the negative things that are involved in political structures...because we have not yet attained to the perfection of Christ. Not to excuse what is wrong (we need to hold people accountable), just saying that these all come with the territory.
All of this to say that even if we wanted a "free speech" zone for bloggers, it would be unrealistic. Some will offer very strong opinions (right and wrong ways), some will try and use positions of authority to influence the outcome, some younger will be disrespectful of the older, some older with ignore the younger etc. etc. etc.
If we ALL understand we live and operate in a non-perfect fellowship, that needs to adapt, change (policy and process), mature and grow we will all be better off. This gives everyone room to be wrong, forgive and find forgiveness, to voice opinions and being willing to listen.
It is unrealistic for the young of us to thing everything we think will be better for the organization or for the kingdom of God for that matter. It is also unrealistic for the older to think they have it all figured out and it should remain the same.
Yes we are VERY political. We should do everything we can to uphold what is right and promote it, but we should not be shocked when some behave in a manner that is not right. Nor should we be afraid to confront an individual if they are doing something they shouldn't.
Dear Lane,
"The Just shall live by Faith" and this site are NOT even close. The reformation was because the doctrines of the Bible were not being held to and manipulated by church leaders in matters of salvation. (Hmmm...Catholic Church...false church with some true doctrine or true church with much false doctrine...you decide) Now that's a topic for discussion! :)
Anyhow, our problem is in how to relate the Propositional truth of Scripture to people. (In season and out of season) Right now it seems to be out of season for Biblical preaching. So now many are relying on pragmatism.
Yes the church is not perfect, and yes leadership will not always make us happy. But I do not see the A/G as anything like the reason Martin Luther nailed the 95 to the Wittenberg door. (Really...come on! you really believe that?)
Anyway. I am interested in creative ways to share the Gospel. But methodology is not the same as Theology. And methodology may bring people in...But without the right Theology...we give them nothing!
I got to see Ed from Dallas preach a message on creativity last week on TV. It was great. I never had to see the Bible or hear scritpure...and the auditotium was FILLED!
Let us not believe it is just our National leadership that is wrong. We as a cooperative fellowship have GREAT TOOLS and GREAT RESOURCES that we can utilize, and we have many different cultures and ages to minister too. I just hired guy from AGTS and we get along fine. I like his ideas and we "Dialogue" all the time.
We need to be concerned about how WE are doing church. Not for the worlds approval...just God's. I know that is old fashioned. I am the last to wear a GEN-X label. But it is true.
So I am not against this site. I read it a couple of times a week. I am glad I don't see all the problems and politics many of you do...maybe I’d be as upset. But God has given me a fold to share and teach and encourage. So I do. I can sign off every year about the 16. And I like our leadership...I am not so sure it is reciprocated. :) But i can live with that. I share my beefs' at a district level...but i have DS that listens.
Lane, take it easy man.And remember...you're not ML.
Harry
Oh, Harry....
Zorro my son,
call me Polycarp.
www.associatedcontent.com/article/191382/assembly_of_god_churches_faithful_religion.html
p.s. Timbercreek lost everything to the So. Mo. District as of yesterday.
I am a current staff member of Timbercreek. My name is Tiffany, and I am the Children's Pastor. Below you will see the letter Pastor Paul Kirk wrote to Thomas Trask, and a copy of this letter was also given to John Lindell.
It is sad to say that two days after the letter was given to Tom Trask Timbercreek Community Church and Pastor Paul were being sued by the Southern Missouri District. After, you read this letter I hope all of you can see the "Abuse of Power" by the district. Most of all I hope you will see Pastor Paul's heart; maybe then we can all check our own heart.
Dear Brother Trask
I am writing this letter to express both my thanks for you and your ministry, and as an expression of the journey that I have been on over the past ten years. First of all thank you for your leadership and words of encouragement early in my ministry at Timbercreek. In addition, let me report that God continues to show Himself faithful to Timbercreek, through salvation and the restoration of many relationships.
I also wanted to express my love for you and other leaders in the Assemblies of God including but not limited to Bill Leach, Steven Tourville, Doug Clay, Jack Moore and John Lindell. I am thankful for each man's input in my life.
Having said this let me attempt to express the journey of faith and leadership that I have personally been engaged in. I have for sometime wrestled with a few of our statements of faith. Each year as the time approached for renewal of credentialing I have sought counsel from older pastors and leaders within the Assemblies. What I have found is a great divide, with many senior level leaders believing that these questions have already been answered, and younger leaders believing that they can be ignored.Please know that I am in agreement with most of what I am obligated to sign and until this year that has been enough.
Over the past several years I have been challenged to teach and lead Timbercreek in areas that have first challenged me and my traditions. I believe that these challenges are both biblical and sovereign of God, however as a third generation Assemblies of God member I have had to wrestle with some of the traditions and practices that had become quite comfortable to me. The surrender of such traditions started with programs and expanded to outreach, evangelism, discipleship and ultimately style of teaching that has led to the increasing fruitfulness in our ministry.
One of the greatest reasons that I have delayed writing this letter is the issue of loyalty. This has been the most difficult decision that I have ever had to make, do I compromise integrity in order to preserve loyalty or, do I compromise loyalty to walk in integrity. Brother Trask, I wish that I was not left with this option. I believe that God has called me to pastor, and that I have and will faithfully continue to follow His call. However, at this time I believe that in order to walk in integrity and lead Timbercreek forward in God's plan and vision for this community I must resign my credentials with the Assemblies of God.
Please know that you and the Assemblies will remain a major part of our prayer life. It is my desire to still partner with the Assemblies in missions and in fellowship where it is allowed and appropriate to you. Furthermore, if in the future you need anything I will be glad to serve you and the Assemblies where possible.
In closing, I am aware of much of the gossip that has been spread at headquarters and other areas of the faith community concerning Timbercreek and my pastoral leadership. Please know that it is with a very heavy heart that I write this letter and with hope that any questions that arise as a result of this letter will be asked directly and resolved in the love of Christ. May God richly bless you!
Paul Kirk
Pastor, Timbercreek Community Church
Post a Comment