FutureAG

We created this site prior to General Council this summer with really only one goal in mind, to create a virtual “senior pastor” search committee where AG ministers could openly discuss the characteristics needed in our next generation of leaders.

After the elections we continued the conversation with the hope that we could remove the “culture of fear” which seemed to exist in the AG and especially in Springfield. We especially wanted to give younger ministers a place to express themselves without fear of reprisal.

We were also hoping to generate some “grass roots” energy going in our movement - New ideas, fresh insights, etc. The programs and initiatives coming out of Springfield are fine, but the real change will happen out on the frontlines.

It was our hope that those of us who interacted on this site could begin to figure out our true identity together. Rather than waiting for another “top down” initiative from Springfield we could build consensus from the ground up. 



At the same time, we made a pledge to the leaders of our fellowship and our colleagues in the ministry that we would do everything we could to avoid divisive and negative content.

We wanted to create a place where we could disagree but disagree with love.

This has increasingly become a challenge. All of us are full-time ministers and many of us are also pursuing post-graduate degrees, writing projects, and blogs of our own. We do not have the time to read through all of the comments – much less “monitor” all of them.

So we have decided to close down FutureAG for the time being, with the possibility of opening it up again sometime in the future (possibly prior to the next General Council in 2009).

Our goal was always to make the Assemblies of God a better organization. We feel that the Lord has blessed us with a new generation of leaders, who are open to constructive criticism and new ideas (many of them have blogs of their own). The “culture of fear” has, for the most part, been removed. These men have God’s anointing to lead us into the future and they have our full support!

Thank you all for your interaction, your passion, and your ideas. It has been quite a ride. Let’s continue to work together with love, honesty and respect for one another and the leadership God has put in place to build a better FutureAG.

Dear FutureAG Readers:

I want to thank Paul, Tory, Brad, Jeff, and Mark for extending to me the invitation to join FutureAG as a blogger. It has been a great pleasure to meet with these men, and I have been honored to post on this blog. They have done a great job with this blog and performed a very valuable service for our fellowship. They have opened discussion on many pertinent issues that our fellowship needs to address if it is to be faithful to Christ's Commission in the 21st Century.

However, the time has come for me to sign off posting for FutureAG. This year, I would like to devote more time to my own blog (AGThinkTank), whose focus is more on pastoral renewal and congregational revival than on denominational reform (although I will take a stab at some of those issues too).

Again, Paul, Tory, Brad, Jeff, and Mark deserve high praise for opening up a forum for discussing the future of our fellowship. And I am thankful that they considered me an ally in the cause.

May God bless you all richly!

George P. Wood

What should be the role of the General Council--what do you want/need/expect from the GC? Same for the District Council.

"The Assemblies of God Executive Presbytery has elected the Rev. Doug Clay to the position of General Treasurer. Clay will take office April 1, fulfilling the unexpired term of the Rev. James K. Bridges, who resigned earlier this month after having served as general treasurer since 1993. " (AG Press Release, January 18, 2008)

Congratulations, Rev. Clay! And you can read Clay's blog here.

Paul Grabill serves as the Lead Pastor of State College AG, in State College PA. Paul also functions as the Asst. Superintendent of the Penn-Del District.

Like many credential holders, I have become a loyal reader of FutureAG blog. There's not been anything like it since the short-lived "Agora" magazine back in the 1970's. I have appreciated the openness and candor, and even the possibility for people to post anonymously (an option I have not [yet!] chosen:)).

More recently, I have been most interested in the outcome of the poll on Spirit Baptism. This has been a matter of some degree of theological reflection throughout our history (certainly my history) and one wonders if the issue is again surfacing for open consideration. If so, there are many organizational and spiritual dynamics to consider, not the least of which is ethical.

While I personally come down on the classical pentecostal position regarding Spirit Baptism and glossolalia (simply because I personally have not been able to find a cogent way to theologically parse out alternative perspectives), my purpose in sharing my thoughts is not to defend that position, but rather to examine deeper and more treacherous issues.

The poll results showed that there were many who anonymously indicated that (1) They are a credential holder in the Assemblies of God (and, by definition, have indicated on their annual credential renewal form that they adhere to and proclaim what is stated in our Statement of Fundamental Truths), yet (2) Find themselves at variance with our stated position, with some even going so far as to say that there is no relationship whatsoever between Spirit Baptism and glossolalia.

More to the point of this post, I have read postings and comments dealing with ecclesiastical "fear" and "abuse of power." As both a pastor and a district official, I have read such comments with ambivalence. On the one hand, I, too, want an environment where people can be totally honest. I personally love academic "give and take." On the other hand, in 'real life' that environment must be lubricated with mutual respect and integrity, else any dialogue is doomed to fail.

For those who desire change on our initial evidence stance, personally, I am happy to hear their argument (hey, I'm in a college town--I listen to everything:)), yet there seems to be a Catch-22 in the system. Those advocating change cannot be heard (especially in a formal, governmental setting) if they don't have credentials. Yet, if they are perceived as people who have lied on their credential renewal forms, many, if not most, ears to whatever they would have to say will immediately close. Any raised voices to try to gain an open hearing (charging others with being "closed-minded") will simply be met with "get the beam out of your own eye, brother," whether or not that thought is openly verbalized.

I simply don't know how those advocating change can answer that charge. How can one accuse the A/G with a lack of courage in facing tough issues if the ones advocating change can't muster the courage to resign their credentials when faced with a clear issue of integrity? What personal and/or social forces keep them in the A/G? A choice to focus on the areas with which they agree? Institutional loyalty? Family heritage? Their professional standing? Their income?

None of these reasons will move the hearts of those adhering to a traditional posture, and those in "authority" will wonder if they are doing their jobs to not challenge those who are being less than honest in their credential renewals. Here again is the Catch-22. Those officials actively enforcing integrity will simply reinforce the perceptions of "fear" and "abuse of power" by those who are already afraid of being "found out."

I wish I could propose a solution here (I've been actively praying and thinking about this), but I know that we cannot continue to go down the road of winking at those who say one thing and sign another. How is that any less sinful than a lack of integrity in areas of sexual morality or finances? A tolerance of a lack of theological integrity is exactly what has happened in the mainline denominations. On this and other issues, we cannot continue to go down the same road others have gone and expect to arrive at a different destination.

Some may find this hard to read. Am I advocating a "purge?" Not at all (I'm hoping for a more peaceful and loving solution), but this I know. God cannot bless us personally and corporately if we are not people of integrity. He can bless Baptists, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, EVFreers, Vineyardites, and, yes, even Classical Pentecostals, but not if we are living in personal dishonesty and fear as well as corporate confusion.

Being totally honest, regardless of the consequences, is who Jesus was and who we are called to be. I believe trusting that God will care for us and direct us regardless of what anyone does with our credentials (or even what happens to the Assemblies of God) will please the Lord and bring His favor--on all of us.

And that's my heart's desire.

In the comments section of "Leading Change in the AG," one of the topics being discussed centers on the question, "Who leads the church?"

Traditionally, AG churches have been led by strong senior pastors. My church is a good example. According to its Constitution and Bylaws, when the church hires a new senior pastor, the remaining staff from the previous administration turns in their resignations, which the new senior pastor is free to accept or reject. After serving a probationary term of one year, the senior pastor is voted upon. If he or she receives a two-thirds vote, then he or she can serve as long as desired, without having to worry about another vote. (This assumes service in good behavior, and there is a provision by which the Board of Deacons can ask for his/her resignation.) The senior pastor is an ex officio member of every committee and has broad authority to hire and fire, although the Board of Deacons and the congregation have final authority to approve the budget. My guess is that this is a fairly typical arrangement in General Council affiliated churches.

More recently, AG churches have been experimenting with team-based leadership models, whether in terms of a pastoral team concept or an elder leadership model. James River Assembly is a good example of a team-teaching church, although I'm not sure what the governance structure there is.

Here are some questions for discussion. In your responses, please be both frank in your assessments but also civil toward others.

1. Do the Scriptures mandate one model of church leadership? If so, what is it? Please cite specific passages. Alternatively, do the Scriptures give evidence of a variety of leadership models?

2. What are the pros and cons of these models? (My two-cents' worth is that the senior-pastor model provides unity of vision, mission, and values, but can drift toward authoritarianism. Team-leadership models, on the other hand diffuse ownership and empower many, while tending toward disorganization and the disavowal of personal responsibility.)

3. How effective is each model in accomplishing the mission of the church? (Here, I'm assuming that the end determines the means and that form follows function.)

4. How does "culture" (national, ethnic, generational, etc.) shape our understanding of leadership in the church? Is that a good or bad thing?

In the history of the church, the predominant leadership models have been episcopal (pastor-driven), presbyterian (elder-driven), and congregational (member-driven). Interestingly, all three models combine elements of the others. For example, in the Catholic church, the Pope is elected by Cardinals who are never appointed without the consensus fidelium ("consent of the faithful"). In Presbyterian churches, the elders govern, but it is the pastor who has special responsibilities and prerogatives, and the congregation often elects the elders to its session. Finally, in congregational churches, the members elect the pastor and the deacons, and they delegate authority to the pastor and the deacons to accomplish specific tasks. In other words, the traditional models of church governance all are mixed models, but with one of the elements being primus inter pares ("first among equals"). I'm not sure if this information will help the discussion along on this blog, but I've always found the information interesting nonetheless. Do with it what you will.

In the comment section of my post, "Leading Change in the AG," we have carried on a lively discussion of the merits/demerits of anonymous/pseudonymous posting. The usual rationale for such posting is fear of retribution by leaders. Some time ago, Lane Douglas asked for a specific example of such retribution, which I seconded in one of my comments. BeenThereDoneThat cited the following personal example:



Here are some questions for discussion:

Despite having a fairly well connected Dad, I'm generally clueless about emerging churches in the Assemblies of God. How clueless? I had never heard of Lee McFarland or Radiant Church in Surprise, Arizona, until I met him at the Bloggers Lunch sponsored by AGTS and North Central during the 2007 General Council. My loss. Lee's a great guy, and in this interview with our General Superintindent, he says a lot of important things about a lot of important subjects. Lee taught me two important lessons in this interview: (1) How you lead (especially how you preach) has got to be authentic. (2) You've got to be honest about your struggles if you want to lead the members of your congregation through theirs. How about you? What did you learn?

It’s confession time. With my wedding coming up in just seventeen days, I’m having a difficult time focusing on the future of the AG. But since the New Year tends to inspire reflection, I thought I’d process some personal thoughts from my journey of being single in ministry.

I can appreciate the discouragement that some single ministers have felt. Just last month I had a conversation with one senior pastor who was recovering from a bad experience with a single associate. As a result, he informed me that he would no longer be hiring anyone who is single.

When I began the process of planting a church as a twenty-one year old bachelor, experienced ministers warned me that I might be making a mistake. While the advice they gave was usually true, it was also occasionally motivated by some false assumptions regarding singleness.

So let’s clear the air. For starters, singleness is not a disease! Neither does it indicate that someone is socially awkward or living in sexual sin. And my personal favorite—being single is not directly linked to homosexuality. Yep, I got that one a couple times!

The question that usually prompted me to think the most was this one. “How will you counsel married couples in your church who are experiencing difficulty?” Fortunately, counseling does not depend on personal experience. If it did we’d have to start encouraging AG pastors to experiment with crack! While it may make some of us more interesting, I doubt it would improve our ability to counsel drug addicts. In place of personal experience, I’ve found it helpful to depend on the Bible and other married couples on my leadership team.

I’ve also found Jesus to be a good person to think of when faced with some of these misperceptions. As a pastor I personally hesitate to establish any hiring restrictions that would eliminate Jesus from qualifying for a job at our church.

Having said that, let me mention what I think deserves the most attention. Singleness can be extremely advantageous. In fact, if you’re single right now and involved in ministry, I’d encourage you to embrace this season and maximize every opportunity that you can.

Here are some suggestions that most married couples will tell you only get more difficult if you're no longer single.

And my personal favorite for those of you who are frustrated by limited ministry positions—plant a church or join a church planting team. I guarantee you that 99.9% of church planters do not care that you are single!

Most of all, enjoy the opportunity to pour your life into ministry. The greatest advantage for me during more than six years of singleness has been the freedom to give radical amounts of time and energy to church planting in Metro Detroit. Paul was on to something when he commended singleness in 1 Corinthians 7.

Don’t just sit back waiting for life to start…

Be single like Jesus.

Make His work your priority. Enjoy the saints and sinners around you. Care for the sick and the poor. And seize this season in your life!

On December 6-9, the Gallup organization conducted a poll of 1,027 adult Americans regarding their religious beliefs and practices. It summarizes the major findings of that poll here. Among the conclusions:


Theologians and other intellectuals often tell us that we are living in a post-Christian nation. But these statistics indicate otherwise. Read the final paragraph above once again. Roughly eighty percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians, attend church occasionally, and consider religion important.

As a pastor, I know that there is a vast gulf between people's beliefs and behaviors. If eighty percent of Santa Barbara (where I live) is Christian, how come I don't see those people in church more often? And why do so many Santa Barbarans engage in behaviors that are manifestly unChristlike? You can ask the same questions in your city too, I'm sure.

In my opinion, statistics such as these illustrate the point made in the most recent issueof Enrichment that we are experiencing a crisis of discipleship, not only in the Assemblies of God, but also in the nation as a whole.

What do you think?

Today, in honor of Christ's birth, I'd like to take a break from blogging about AG issues and simply post the second best Christmas story ever told: "Trouble at the Inn" by Dina Donohue. Merry Christmas!

~ George

-----

For years now whenever Christmas pageants are talked about in a certain little town in the Midwest, someone is sure to mention the name of Wallace Purling. Wally’s performance in one annual production of the Nativity play has slipped into the realm of legend. But the old timers who were in the audience that night never tire of recalling exactly what happened.

Wally was nine that year and in the second grade, though he should have been in the fourth. Most people in town knew that he had difficulty in keeping up. He was big and clumsy, slow in movement and mind. Still, Wally was well liked by the other children in his class, all of whom were smaller than he, though the boys had trouble hiding their irritation if the uncoordinated Wally asked to play ball with them.

Most often they’d find a way to keep him off the field, but Wally would hang around anyway—not sulking, just hoping. He was always a helpful boy, a willing and smiling one, and the natural protector, paradoxically, of the underdog. Sometimes if the older boys chased the younger ones away, it would always be Wally who’d say, “Can’t they stay? They’re no bother.”

Wally fancied the idea of being a shepherd with a flute in the Christmas pageant that year, but the play’s director, Miss Lumbard, assigned him to a more important role. After all, she reasoned, the Innkeeper did not have too many lines, and Wally’s size would make his refusal of lodging to Joseph more forceful.

And so it happened that the usual large, partisan audience gathered for the town’s Yuletide extravaganza of the staffs and creches, of beards, crowns, halos and a whole stageful of squeaky voices. No one on stage or off was more caught up in the magic of the night than Wallace Purling. They said later that he stood in the wings and watched the performance with such fascination that from time to time Miss Lumbard had to make sure he didn’t wander onstage before his cue.
Then the time came when Joseph appeared, slowly, tenderly guiding Mary to the door of the inn. Joseph knocked hard on the wooden door set into the painted backdrop. Wally the Innkeeper was there, waiting. “What do you want?” Wally said, swinging the door open with a brusque gesture.

“We seek lodging.”

“Seek it elsewhere.” Wally looked straight ahead but spoke vigorously. “The inn is filled.”

“Sir, we have asked everywhere in vain. We have traveled far and are very weary.”

“There is no room in this inn for you.” Wally looked properly stern.

“Please, good innkeeper, this is my wife, Mary. She is heavy with child and needs a place to rest.
Surely you must have some small corner for her. She is so tired.”

Now, for the first time, the Innkeeper relaxed his stiff stance and looked down at Mary. With that, there was a long pause, long enough to make the audience a bit tense with embarrassment.

“No! Begone!” the prompter whispered from the wings.

“No!” Wally repeated automatically. “Begone!”

Joseph sadly placed his arm around Mary, and Mary laid her head upon his shoulder, and the two of them started to move away. The Innkeeper did not return inside his inn, however. Wally stood there in the doorway, watching the forlorn couple. His mouth was open, his brow creased with concern, his eyes filling unmistakably with tears.

“Don’t go, Joseph,” Wally called out. “Bring Mary back.” And Wallace Purling’s face grew into a bright smile. “You can have my room.”

Some people in town thought that the pageant had been ruined. Yet there were others—many others—who considered it the most Christmas of all Christmas pageants they had ever seen.

*This article by Dina Donohue is reprinted from the Baptist Herald (Dec. 15, 1968).

Paul Grabill posted a link to video clip of a segment on the NBC Nightly News. The Rev. Eugene Rivers, who pastors Azuza Christian Community, shared his view of how Pentecostalism is such a force among the poor of world.

Paul describes the clip like this: You may not agree with every word, but I've rarely heard a better explanation of Pentecostalism given for non-religious folks.

To view the video click here.

What are your thoughts?

...gets the oil.

Many of the posts on this blog dealt with the "irrelevance" and "outdatedness" of GPH curricula. Is anyone listening? According to Tom and Jan Bougher, GPH certainly is:

Here's a link to the site. I think the Boughers want us to respond to the seven questions in this post. Feel free to answer the questions at the Bougher's site, or in the comments section right here. Either way, GPH will take note of your input.

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

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

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

First, establish a sense of urgency.

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

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

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

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

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

Second, form a powerful guiding coalition.

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

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

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

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

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

Third, create a vision.

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

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

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

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

Fourth, communicate that vision.

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

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

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

Fifth, empower others to act on the vision.

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

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

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

Sixth, plan for and create short-term wins.

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

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

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

Eight, institutionalize the new approaches.

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

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

When I grow up, I want to be like Dr. Beth Grant!

Last Friday, I solicited your answers to three questions about the District Councils ("Three Questions about Your District"). Dr. Grant responded tonight with a typically thoughtful, irenic, and spiritually challenging reply. Below, I've re-posted what she originally wrote as a comment on that thread. Her remarks deserve wide circulation and careful reflection by all of us, especially those of us (and I include myself here) who tend toward cynicism about some aspects of our movement.

Thank you Dr. Grant!


I apologize, but since my husband and I minister in about 15-20 districts a year as missionaries and have many friends who are district leaders, my thoughts are focused more broadly rather than specifically on our home district where we do not live.

What works?

Most district leaders we know want change and would probably be thrilled for some innovative positive restructuring. Some district leaders are working hard to articulate fresh vision, provide resources and initiate more fluid minimal organizational structures to facilitate the accomplishment of God’s mission in their sphere of influence. They are great role models.

What doesn’t work?

We seem to be more prone to react than initiate, more comfortable maintaining the status quo than daring to make needed changes.

How can we fix it?

Change will require a shift in how we think, live and make decisions, both corporately and individually:

1. Stewardship vs.ownership

. . . “my” district, “my” church, “my” department, even “my” ministry. Private ownership is something we are enculturated into from childhood in our society, not a matter of semantics. We probably need a deliverance service to deal with this epidemic!

Stewardship in leadership implies recognizing accountability, responsibility, and investing wisely of all resources on behalf of the One we serve to whom it all belongs. Entitlement and territorialism are incongruous with biblical stewardship.

2. A pilgrim lifestyle

Are we willing to return to an Abrahamic posture of being ready to move as God speaks to us, whatever our calling/role? There was an old song I remember hearing as a child, “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through . . . “ I don’t miss the song, but the posture is biblical!

Some of David’s and my greatest heroes and mentors in missions have been men and women who were always listening for God’s voice and always ready to take new courageous steps of faith in their 60’s and 70’s! Some of them had and are having their most effective exciting and visionary ministry after 60 years of age.

3. Downsizing, prioritizing the missional from all that is not missional.

What can we unload that is not essential to leading people to Jesus, mentoring them as disciples and developing effective ministers for the future?

Last year, I sensed that God was going to do some unexpected unprecedented things in our lives and ministries. I was embarrassed and convicted to realize that if He did, there was actually no time in my schedule or room on my plate for it!

Can we discern the non-essentials we’ve accumulated as a part of all we are doing in order to focus on the most essential missional things God wants to do?

This process would lead us to re-align our resources with our stated (biblical) priorities: more time and financial resources given to lead people to Jesus (evangelism on all fronts), more intentionality on the development of a strategy and time invested to disciple people in following Jesus (“spiritual parenting”, without which bringing people to the “new birth” is irresponsible), and a more intentional investment in ministerial training.

4. Ministerial lifestyles of receiving and extending grace

The level of unhealed hurt that has surfaced here over the months has been saddening and is something with which all of us can identify.

Some days, forgiving is a full-time job, especially as leaders and sadly among colleagues. But if we don’t? Accumulated hurts contaminate and color everything we do and say –especially in times of stress. God help us to release offenses, accept healing and extend forgiveness – even to those who may never ask. Then we are free – free to receive His forgiveness and free to preach forgiveness to others with integrity.

We seem to have a window of opportunity under our national leadership for broad-based constructive dialogue and healthy change. But to go beyond discussion will require bold courageous collaborative steps in which all of us must be willing to change – district leaders, national leaders and individual ministers alike.

Beth Grant

As I have read the posts and comments on this blog, I have come to the conclusion that much of the dissatisfaction we feel with our movement is rooted in what is happening at the district level. So, I thought I'd post the following three questions as an exercise in diagnosis and prognosis:

If I were as smart as Paul Stewart, I'd create a poll on this issue (hint, hint). But I'm not, so I'll just post the questions and hope for the best.

I'd like to suggest five ground rules for answering this question:

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.

I have read with interest the recent discussion initiated by Paul's post 'Living Room Conversation'. So much of what was said prompted remembrances of my own spiritual journey.

My roots are in the AG. Youth Camps were the place of significant spiritual experiences for me as a young person. It was at a Camp that my first intense pursuit of an 'Acts 2' experience began. My first response to an altar call for the Holy Spirit was one that could be characterized as hyper-emotional and pressurized.

Personally, I did not break through to the release of 'tongues' in my life at that moment. Honestly, I felt ashamed, condemned, and somewhat like a failure. I'm not sure why I felt that? No one verbalized that to me. As best as I can discern now later in life, I was part of the fall-out of the over-emphasis on momentary experience and the under-emphasis on supernatural lifestyle.

It took me about five months of seeking before I finally experienced the miracle of spiritual language. It happened for me in my living room, after a small group, and without a lot of emotion. And that moment started me on a journey of partnership with the Holy Spirit.

Honestly, I often viewed my Holy Spirit baptism as an historical event in my life. It was something I had experienced back in 1980. But the reality of the value of this new dimension in my spiritual life was somehow under-appreciated in my daily experience. For me it has been in the past decade that I have come to understand the tremendous value that speaking in tongues has in my life and in my ministry.

So in my ministry, I try to teach the people I lead to go beyond momentary experience and to press into ongoing practical application of the use of spiritual language in their life. These are some of the values/applications that I enthusiastically share (I know this is not unique to me...I simply share it to add to the discussion of how to present this important experience).

When I present this experience to people now, I find myself talking less and less about the initial moment and more and more about the ongoing effect. For me this balance helps everything to fall in place and make sense.

Dr. Wood posted this comment in response to Paul Stewart's post, "The Living Room Conversation." I felt it deserved a bit more prominence than being the 99th comment on that post. (GPW)

-----

For my devotions this year, I’ve been slowly moving through Ezekiel with Donald Bloch’s terrific (and technical) commentary; and journaling a verse a day through the Gospel of Mark. My journaling is definitely not exegesis, but iso-gesis. I type in the verse and then “think (i.e., write) out loud” my thoughts onto the computer. At the end I write a brief prayer. I’ve found this daily absorption in the Scripture to be really invigorating.

For the last few weeks, I’ve been plowing through Mark 9 – a very long chapter. Now, I’m almost at the end and suddenly some things fell together as I awakened the other morning. Funny how you can cogitate and meditate on something for a long time and not see how the parts fit – and then all of a sudden, a flash of inspiration comes in a nanosecond and you see everything clearly.

So, here’s how I see where Mark 9 fits into a lot of discussion on the blog. Mark 9 is all about the disciples and their perception of themselves and their place in the kingdom. The chapter follows the disciples through 4 stages, and I suspect we’ve all been there or are in one of them now.

First, revelation. That’s the Transfiguration or Metamorphosis of Jesus. It’s the only time in his early life where his divine nature shown through his humanity. Moses and Elijah are there. Jesus face is shining like the sun and his clothes whiter than any Clorox could get them. What a great moment for the three: Peter, James, and John.

Revelation is the spot where we are overwhelmed in the presence of the majestic Christ. It’s something we Pentecostals covet – being caught up into spiritual revelation and experience beyond what the rational mind can fathom. It’s being lifted into the heavenlies and encountering God in such a way that language cannot hold the experience nor can the emotions be articulated.

Second, argument. When Jesus and the inner 3 come down from the mountain they find the remaining 9 locked in an argument with the teachers of the law. What’s the argument about? The 9 cannot cast the demon out of the boy. They cannot do this even though earlier Jesus had commissioned them to cast out demons and Mark reports that they had done so. But, now they command and nothing happens – so they’re left to argue with the critics.

It seems to me that this is one of the problems we are having now in the Pentecostal movement. When we don’t have power, we argue. The fullness of the Spirit has leaked all the way out. And, our arguments don’t solve the pressing needs of those who are looking to us. I fear a dried up Pentecostal theological scholasticism that has no power. Argument (except for a wholesome apologetic for the faith such as the Apostle Paul’s dialogical evangelism) never produces the fruit of the Spirit, much less the gifts.

But, since the disciples at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration have no power, they can only fall back on defending themselves with argument. It’s not a pretty picture. Jesus chews them out for not praying, thereby connecting argument with prayerlessness, and authority with prayer.

Wait. It gets worse. Third. Arrogance. After getting chewed out by Jesus for their powerlessness, they then start arguing about who is the greatest. They are doing the very thing that breaks community. Whenever we pit ourselves against others, or take the attitude “I don’t need you” – aren’t we exhibiting the same arrogance? When I was a new district official I visited a pastor who had a large church in our district but never was involved in anything. I wanted to reach out to him and find out what we could do to establish relationship. His response to me was, “I went to Springfield once and the brethren had nothing to add to me.” I wished I had said, “Well, maybe you could have added something to Springfield.” I think that’s what the Antiochians would have done for Jerusalem.

And, let’s face it – “Springfield” can be just as prone to arrogance as “non-Springfield” because arrogance doesn’t have territorial limitations.

So, Jesus talks to his arrogant disciples about being a servant, and he sets a little child in their midst. I think he does that because he’s telling the disciples: “If you really want to be great, then put your arms around the next generation and serve them. Stop being so narcissistic. My way is not self-fulfillment but self-denial. My way is not independence, but interdependence.”

Fortunately, by the time we get to the book of Acts – the disciples have gotten over arrogance and become a model community. It took awhile for them to realize the world would know them by their love for one another, not how smart they were, how cutting edge (or dull) they were, or what their age and cultural preferences were.

Then, the fourth thing happens in Mark 9. From revelation to argument to arrogance to exclusivity.

The disciples, who couldn’t cast out the demon, tell other people who are casting out demons to stop. If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny. They think they’ve got the exclusive franchise on Jesus.We must avoid narrowness of heart and spirit. Jesus tells these disciples of his that they better not lead the “little ones” into sin for if they do, it would be better if a millstone were tied around their neck. What he’s really saying is that the fractiousness of the disciples is going to doom the novices in the kingdom, that exclusiveness is not only silliness but spiritually deadly.

So, in these recent weeks I’ve been drinking deeply from the well of Mark 9 and asking the Lord to help me stay fresh on the revelation side so that I’m inundated with His presence; and spared from the traps of being argumentative, arrogant, or exclusive.

During the charismatic renewal of the 70s (for those of us who were alive then!), we sang a beautiful and haunting chorus. I almost always led it at communion time: “Bind us together, Lord; bind us together . . . with cords that cannot be broken.” That binding is to Christ and to one another. In Mark 9, the disciples are seen at their nadir – but the Lord wasn’t finished with them. By the time he was done working on them – that argumentative, arrogant, and exclusive minded group had become a community (the body of Christ) that changed the world. They got bound together by the work of the Spirit.

And, incredibly, by the grace of the Lord, he’s doing the same thing with us! He works with all our limitations and sees that he can bring gold out of all our dross.

George O. Wood
General Superintendent

For me, the highlight of our time with Dr. Wood came at the end of the night during a discussion in his living room. I recounted my experience earlier in the summer when I was in another forum with Brother Trask. Someone asked Trask what he thought was the single biggest issue facing the A/G over the next five years. His response was in my opinion a fifteen-minute diatribe against those who waver on the doctrine of initial physical evidence.

I asked Dr. Wood if had he been asked the same question how he would respond. This led into one of the most thoughtful and encouraging conversations I have ever had with someone in AG leadership about our doctrine of the Holy Spirit. While Dr. Wood believes wholeheartedly in our doctrine, he balances that belief with real-life pastoral experience and the ability to let God be God.

During our conversation it became clear that everyone in the room desired the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and all of the gifts that come along with that. That being said, it was also clear to me that there is some amount of breakdown in our terminology.

Obviously the most distinctive and unique doctrine of Pentecostalism maintains that all believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” We believe that this experience was the normal experience of all in the early Christian church (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8) but is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of salvation (Acts 2:4, 14-18; 8:12-17; 19:1-7). We also believe this experience will always be followed by speaking in other tongues.

However, the terminology “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” although taken from the Bible, has been confusing to many inside and outside Pentecostalism and often the nature and purpose of the experience has been confused with other works of the Spirit. For example, many in the Holiness movement have also used the expression "baptism in the Holy Spirit" to refer to sanctification. Teaching, either explicitly or implicitly, that those who have not received the “baptism” are less holy than those who have.

Today, many within the A/G continue to view the experience as a mark of their spiritual maturity or, worse yet, superiority.

Both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, describe experiences with the Spirit in many ways, including use of the expressions "baptized in the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5; 11:16), "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 9:17; 13:9,52), "full of the Spirit" (Acts 6:3,5; 7:55; 11:24), "receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:15,17,19; 10:47; 19:2), "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), being "clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49), and "[God] giving the Holy Spirit" (Acts 15:8).

Yet in all of these instances the Holy Spirit is not brought in relation to salvation or sanctification but for an empowerment to fulfill God’s mission (missio Dei). This empowerment to be witness-bearers of Christ is essential if the Church is to fulfill its essential purpose (Matthew 28:19,20; Luke 24:45-49).

I believe the Assemblies of God correctly maintains that this experience remains as available to those who seek it today as it was in the Apostolic Age. However, when the purpose of this experience is lost the subsequent power is squandered. Many Pentecostal believers mistakenly place the emphasis on the expressions of the Holy Spirit’s power inside the church rather than the power needed to reach those outside it.

Luke makes it clear that in his view the essential task of the church is mission. He says remarkably little about the inner life of the church and concentrates most of his attention on this aspect of the church’s task. He stresses the place of the Spirit in guiding and empowering the church for its mission. Mission is no mere human achievement. The gifts of the Spirit are given for the purpose of mission.

I realize that many within the A/G would probably agree with what I have written so far -- this was in fact what occurred after the initial outpouring 100 years ago; people filled with the Spirit jumped onto ships to Africa to spread the gospel. The problem is that too often there are other “benefits” that get added onto this gift.

Too often the “baptism in the Spirit” is viewed as the end rather than the beginning. Those who receive the “baptism” (which to me implies a one-time event) are led to feel they have “arrived” and often their spiritual growth subsequently falters. I was encouraged to hear Dr. Wood express his concern for this issue and his call to focus more on the “subsequent evidence” of this gift.

Finally, I told Dr. Wood that I am often discouraged with how the term “initial physical evidence” is lived out at youth camps, evangelistic rallies, and altar calls around our country. We have managed to turn this beautiful, mystical experience with a transcendent and supernatural God into a rudimentary formula. We’ve become so worried about “evidence” (a very modern and non-biblical term) we are missing the true meaning (which could never be measured with “physical evidence” alone).

I know our doctrine needs well-defined parameters and I realize that words will always fall short in describing theological concepts. However, I feel it is time for us as a movement to honestly and humbly look at our doctrinal terminology and prayerfully start discussing change.

Together with Brad, Jeff, Mark, Paul, and Tory, I traveled to Springfield, Missouri, last week to meet with Dr. George O. Wood, otherwise known as "My Dad." Unlike them, I already knew my dad pretty well: his work habits, story-telling ability, leadership style, vision for the movement, etc. Like them, however, I also learned a few new things that I didn't know. Admittedly, my observations are biased in favor of our new general superintendent, but I'll try to be objective.

First, the general superintindency is a very big job. I knew this in a theoretical way, but I experienced it first-hand in my dad's office. The number of people he deals with, together with the range of issues he must handle, makes me tired. While the other guys went on a tour of headquarters, I sat in my dad's office and read. He was constantly on the phone talking with pastors, responding to email, or dealing with his coworkers. And I knew he got into work early that day. Frankly, my dad--who's 66--made me a bit embarrassed about my own work habits. If I worked as hard as he did, I bet my church would be healthier and larger than it is now.

Second, I was very surprised by how pastorally focused my dad is. Remember, my dad's been in denominational office (first district, then general council) for 19 years. Aside from a six-month stint as Central Assembly's interim senior pastor, he has been focused almost exclusively on denominational issues. And trust me, they're huge. AG Financial Services has $2.6 billion in funds under management. The US AG is primus inter pares with over 200 other national AG fellowships. Important decisions must be made about national schools, GPH, and other General Council level ministries. But my dad communicated to us bloggers the importance of the general superintendent pastoring the pastors. As you know, there were huge wildfires in southern California last week, and I heard my dad make calls to several pastors whose homes and congregations had been effected by the fires.

Third, my dad is a team player. He knows that the general superintendency is a spiritual trust, and he is incredibly appreciative of all that his predecessors in office (Brother Trask particularly) have done for the movement. He also values what his co-workers do, whether at the level of the executive leadership team or the guy pushing the broom in the warehouse. Part of that team-player attitude is being open to the constructive criticism of others, being willing to let them lead from their strengths, and being ready to share credit for successes. One of the ways this team-work attitude showed up was in a pretty frank meeting with J.T. Wray and Julie Horner of GPH. Dad encouraged them to be open to our (hopefully) constructive critiques of GPH. I personally thought our hour-and-a-half meeting with them was really successful.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's what this George Wood thinks of the other George Wood.

At the conclusion of our day in Springfield, each of us committed to do an entry on our personal reflections of what we experienced there. I guess I will go first...

I felt honored to be invited. I wish that everyone could have experienced the tone and attitude of these meetings. I believe even more now, after this trip, that Dr. George Wood is God's man for the job.

Tory, Brad, Mark, Jeff, Paul, and George!

What a great joy to have a day with you on Tuesday. I so appreciate the time and effort you spent. It was an enriching day for me, and I so appreciate all your wise counsel.

I only wish every young minister in the AG (and every older one too) could have been in the room with us, and maybe with the suggestions you've given me we can make that happen in cyberspace.

I want to repeat what I said to you about one of my favorite sayings. It's from Deng Xiaoping, chairman of China after Mao Zedong died. Deng instituted economic reform in capitalistic ways and incurred the ire of the Maoists. Deng Xiaoping responded by saying, "I don't care if a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice!"

That's how I feel about how we do church. The New Testament itself shows us there are various kinds of churches. I'm not concerned about how we do "church" so long as we are "catching" people for Jesus. Issues of governance, service styles and times, formal or informal dress, types of buildings, days of worship -- are not the important issues. The important issues are: "Is the church seeing people come to Jesus, are they being filled with the Spirit, delivered, healed, restored?" We must, in the Assemblies of God be more concerned about end results than fussing with one another over means.

I appreciate the spiritual energy, creativity, and vitality that young pastors and ministers bring to our Movement, and I trust that in these days to come we can be yoked together in better ways to advance the mission of Jesus in our world!

Blessings!

George O. Wood
General Superintendent

Brad, Tory, Jeff, Paul, George, and Mark, the creators of this blog, have been invited to speak to the Executive Leadership Team and GPH next Tuesday. We have been looking forward to this day since Dr. George Wood invited us after General Council.

Please pray for us as we do our part in leading positive change in the AG.

I am curious, if you had a meeting with the Executive Lead Team what you would say? What things should they know? How would you as Future AG blog participants like to be represented?

We will keep you updated as much as possible on that day.

This past week, the newly elected leadership team of the Assemblies of God spoke in a series of chapels at AG headquarters. The videos of these messages are online. Each of these men has a compelling testimony, and I would encourage you to view or listen to them here.

There are five principles that guide my pastoral leadership in the use and application of the 1 Corinthians 12 manifestation gifts.

#1 -DEMONSTRATION - Model the use of the gifts personally. Insist on genuine traceable results. Celebrate miracles publicly.

Since I spent some time on this first principle in the last post, I will let these summary statements speak for themselves.

#2 - INSTRUCTION - Teach the believer what the gifts are, why they are important for daily life and ministry, and how they should be used.

Spiritual Gifts = Divine explosions of Holy Spirit power to meet human need through the life of a yielded believer. These nine manifestations are available to every believer at all times as needs arise. We should live in anticipation of what God will do through us.

Their Use = We should use these gifts very naturally. When in a public worship gathering, we should use them like we would in any other public place. Worship services are practice sessions for real life. So use them like you would use them in the Mall, or the office...with the same tone and approach.

Avoid sounding spooky, speaking in old English, shouting, etc. Offer the gift in humility and in a way that can be best received by others.

#3 - EXPLANATION - I work hard to explain any expressiveness that occurs in our services.

When we raise our hands, I explain why for the benefit of those who are new. I want to act as a cultural interpreter for those who are not familiar with the way we interact with God. Like a language interpreter puts concepts from one language into words of another, so I want to explain what is happening for those who don't understand.

This is especially important in the use of the gifts. I do a little talk before their use and after. I try to make it as safe and normal as possible. I don't apologize for their use. I am passionate about it. I am excited for what God is doing. But I also am aware of how different this entire experience can be for guests. So I try to bring them along slowly in their experience.

Jack Hayford is someone who models this well. He leads people into a full experience and he explains everything along the way.

#4 - INCLUSION - Probably the most radical and yet the most important step that we have taken is a move to an inclusive approach in the use of the gifts. What does that mean?

Classical Pentecostal style is more of an interruptive style. When a person feels prompted to use a gift, they shout it out from their seat and interrupt the moment.

This is probably the most unusual thing for people who are not used to our church-culture. There is no other place in our current Western culture where a person shouts out informally in the middle of a public meeting. There is nothing wrong with this style. In many cases, however, it is culturally foreign to most visitors.

So we use an inclusive style. When a person is prompted to use a gift, they tell one of our pastoral leaders. We then evaluate whether the gift is something to be shared only with the leadership or whether it is to be immediately shared with the church.

When it is shared, I pastor the moment. I tell people what is about to happen. I allow the person to participate in the use of the gift. We bring the person up onto the platform (or I share it on their behalf). We use the microphone. Then I teach people what to do with what they have heard.

This one step has done so much to make people feel safe in bringing their friends to church. It has also opened the doors for the 'shy' in my congregation to feel the courage to be used.

#5 - COMPASSION - the entire purpose of the gifts is to encourage others.

We need the gifts because there are needs present that we cannot meet with Divine explosions of Holy Spirit power. So we eagerly pursue the gifts so the sick people can receive a gift of healing, and discouraged people a gift of faith, and confused people a word of wisdom.

In fact, we try to design prayer moments our services that are focused on individual needs. We tell our people that if they bring a person with a need, we will have the entire church pray for them specifically.

When answers to prayer happen, we celebrate what God is doing in the lives of those from whom we prayed.

These five principles help to guide me in our practice. I hope they are helpful to you.

What practical steps have you taken to create the balance of relevance and power?