1- WHAT WORKS: for better or worse, our District has a "hands off" policy. They allow churches and individuals to do what they want. This brings a freedom for new church plants, open networking, etc.
2- What does NOT work: They don't do anything. There are no meetings, accountability, support, vision statements, strategies (old or new), NOTHING. They really don;t exist in any form or fashion, except to collect my check and offer me 501c3 status.
As a first-year church planter, I've heard NOTHING from my district before OR since our church opened. And we opened to a great success in the LORD!!
3 - HOW to FIX IT: Shut it down. They've proven their ineffectiveness. There is no need for them. Ultimately, our 501c3 status comes from Gen. Council, so there is no need for them. Our church is doing just fine without them, and I've manged to network with others on my own.
Sad, but true.
November 30, 2007 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...
WHAT WORKS: My district superintendent is well-liked by everyone within the district. He has created a warm, inviting environment for ministers. And he is a hands-off leader who allows for churches to do their own things. He also helped me get my current job, for which I am thankful. Also, my dues are only 5%, which doesn't seem as burdensom as what some of you are paying. Finally, the district officials use district council as the opportunity to provide various leadership training seminars for ministers and to keep business to an absolute minimum. One more, my section meets regularly for prayer and discussion.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Unless I call the district for help, no one from the district calls me. In other words, the district--and this is just my opinion--isn't proactive, unless perhaps your church is in crisis. Now this lack of hands-on leadership can be both a curse and a blessing, but in my case, I'm concerned that district officials spend so much time putting out fires that they are not spending time planting forests. Also, my district is graying and shrinking. Also, there are a lot of (im my opinion) unnecessary fees for licensing and ordination. It also kind of fries me that the district officials get a sabbatical every few years. I have no idea for what. It's not like they have to come up with a new sermon every Sunday. Nor do I see them publishing books and articles. I'd like a sabbatical, that's for sure.
HOW TO FIX IT: Term limits on leaders. No raises, bonuses, or sabbaticals until or unless there is progress on the issues of our district graying and shrinking. If the pastors of local churches which aren't growing don't get those perks, I'm not sure why district officials should.
November 30, 2007 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...
1. What works in your district?
It appears that our district has a passion for world missionaries. They promote them, work to get their support raised, and make a big deal about them at every general council. The youth department seems to be quite active. Other than that I have no idea what they do-it has never touched my church's life in any way.
2. What does not work in your district?
As far as I can tell the only thing they are interested in is our money. They’ve been holding the same annual district council for years. It starts with what seems like a funeral service (memorial service for ministers who passed away since last year), which sets the tone for the council. There is a huge push to support the district owned campground (we supplemented it to the tune of $440K last year). They say this is important because hundreds of children are called into the ministry and to the mission’s field at camp each summer (no one acknowledges that we don’t have to own a campground for this to happen). It appears that the campground push has something to do with all the district pastors and former officials who own property around the district lake. There is an “evangelistic†service one of the nights of district council (because we all know lots of lost people are dying to attend district council services). And we vote on a bunch of ballots with only one candidate’s name for a variety of presbyter roles.
There are no discussions about district initiatives, no vision casting, no seminars for how to improve ministries, or open forum discussions about issues facing the movement. The same old drill, year-after-year, decade-after-decade.
Sectional meetings are even better—we all belly up to lunch at Golden Cockroach Buffet. Everyone is generally beyond AARP age which qualifies everyone for the senior discount. Visiting missionaries and evangelists are introduced and they try to book services. We talk about the upcoming sectional Christmas dinner. They take an offering for sectional expenses (?) and we’re on our way.
There is also a monthly magazine—straight out of the 50’s. It’s written at about sixth grade level, has articles by all of the district department heads (“How summer camp changed my life†or “Why the initial evidence has improved my love lifeâ€), it has a section for churches to sell old pews, old hymnals, and old church buses, and old vacuum tube PA systems. My wife and I sit around the living room in the evenings the day it arrives reading it and laughing (and crying) that we have to support such a hokey organization.
I hear we now have a district training center where an individual gets four hours of instruction in the Old Testament or New Testament (and other subjects), takes a test, and voilà they’re now Biblical scholars ready to compete in the 21st century marketplace of ideas.
And of course, they have a very active accounts receivable office that cranks out giving receipts and remittance envelopes as regularly as the IRS.
About the whole district operation I say, “If 1950 ever comes back, we’re ready!â€
3. How do we fix what does not work in your district?
In reality, what I’d like to see happen is the abolishment of district offices. Hire one accountant to collect our tithes and dues, form a team of representative pastors, and decide how to best allocate the resources to fit the needs of the district: Church planting, scholarships for ministerial students, supporting missionaries, etc. All other district functions could be delegated to working task teams that serve on an annual basis: credential interviews, discipline team, missionary candidate approvals, home missions supervision, etc.
Beyond this radical solution here are some other ways to fix the broken machine:
For starters we could insist that the officials attend a Willow Creek or Saddleback or Andy Stanley or some kind of well run church conference on an annual basis so they could get a clue as to what excellence actually looks like. They should also have formal training in non-profit organizational management—MBA level. And they should have relevant, recent pastoral experience that was progressive and effective in making disciples.
Secondly, they should re-envision their roles so that they understand that they work for us and are appointed to serve our needs—not the other way around. I’m nauseated every time I see a district “official†treated as though they were royalty. The DS is not my boss or my pastor, he’s a fellow pastor voted into office by his colleagues to serve an administrative function—period! Remember, this is not a denomination, and certainly not the Roman Catholic Church with its ecclesiastical hierarchy and abuses.
Next, we should allow presbyters to serve no more than ten or twelve pastors/churches. At one time my presbyter had some 70 churches under his shepherd watch. And presbyters should be trained in management level supervision for non-profit organizations.
Next, we should take an annual poll to determine the needs of the district so we can prioritize some forward-looking planning for the future. This should serve as the basis for annual evaluation, resource allocation, and goal setting for the next year.
Additionally, we should formally evaluate every member of the district staff and vote whether or not they should be retained for another year’s service or not based on their performance (every year). They should be evaluated on a set of measurable goals that are set for their office by a leadership team.
District salaries should be determined by a set scale based on a survey of median salaries of the pastors within the district. They should not be underpaid, nor should they be paid so much as to become so comfortable with their role that they want to stay in office beyond their effectiveness.
The role of the district office should be to resource the pastors and churches in the district with the best tools, practices, leadership mentoring, and church assessments available (none of which need come from the district itself).
November 30, 2007 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...
I'd sure like to hear from George Wood Sr. on the State of the Union and what he thinks we should do to bring our District structures kicking into the 21st century!
November 30, 2007 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...
WHAT WORKS: In NorCal/Nevada collecting and spending money and investing money in pyrimid schemes.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Bethany University
HOW TO FIX IT: Shut it down meaning the University and the District. We don't need districts.
November 30, 2007 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...
I'm in the NEast, and I can relate to almost of these.
Again, how sad.
November 30, 2007 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...
the problems with our "movement", from my perspective, are with the national office.
Since your issues are with the General Council, please answer these three questions:
1. What works?
2. What doesn't work?
3. What can be done to fix the problems?
November 30, 2007 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...
1. What works?
Our District Superintendent seems to want to change things to make the district function more effectively. He has a passion for the presence of God. Our ministry small groups for pastors are somewhat effective.
2. What doesn't work?
There is NO help to revitalize churches. If I have to hear about another church plant I am going to vomit. REVITALIZE CHURCHES!!!! Put money and resources into it.
3. What can be done to fix the problems?
The end of the "old boys club" would be a good place to start.
November 30, 2007 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...
1) What works: There is honestly not much working in our district. Missions giving is about our only claim to fame in the A/G. In fact, at the last DC our Supt almost did not get the vote on the first ballot (as normally would happen for an incumbant who has been in for a few terms...) But he ultimately did get the vote. People are just sick to death of dealing with things...and the first vote showed it, and he acknowledged, "I can read the message you're sending me in this vote" in his subsequent acceptance speech when he got the vote in the next round, however -- has anything happened to change anything? NO. And it's been almost seven months. It will not change under his leadership and the current team's leadership and I think many in our district feel it's a hopeless situation.
There is a general discontent and it seems every time you turn around you hear somebody else saying they've just given up on sectional/district involvement and meetings. I never thought I'd feel this way - I was so involved for quite a number of years in serving on various teams and committees, but it's come to this for myself and my spouse in the last year.
2) What does not work:
Our district office is very inefficient...mailings coming at the last minute, disorganization and a lack of excellence in many things. Hiring people based on relationship rather than skill set...If it wasn't so embarrassing it would be laughable...
We are extremely strong in missions because of fantastic leadership in that area, but otherwise we're very weak.
We desperately need someone to stand with the pastors in this district. We have church splits galore - not planted the proper way, but staffers rebelliously splitting the church, and 9 times out of 10 the district stands with the staff member who splits the church. (This is the main method of church planting in this district. As far as church planting initiatives done the proper way, spearheaded by the district -- we have ZIPPO.) Many SP's have little to zero confidence in the leadership to stand with them in a time of testing such as this.
3) How to fix it: Unless our current team were voted out or resigned, we wouldn't see a change. Shut it down. Or have Supt. Wood come in and put them all through a "District Supt & Staff University" where they learn how to do it properly. Sad to say but half of them probably wouldn't show up for the training. We have had nothing for several years but excuses, excuses, excuses as to why things are not happening.
Several presbyters in our district seem to be unhappy and see the same things but we are told that when they question things in the meetings with the exec's they are told, "Now brothers, let's just keep things positive..." and steered in another direction.
I have confidence in Supt. Wood, but absolutely none in our District Council.
November 30, 2007 7:54 PM
Anonymous said...
1-WHAT WORKS: Our district is attempting to be more relational/practical on "ground level" issues via "C3" groups, and more leadership trainings during different district wide events.
2-WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Our district is extremely segregated into, well for lack of a better term..., special intrest groups. The old guys want to keep pluggin' away. The young guys want progress. And if you can't decide what group you're in..., well, you're just flat out on your own. The district seems to be a little more reactive than proactive. Our youth department is barely keeping up with the current teen culture..., actually it's kind of pathetic.
3-HOW TO FIX IT: I find the responsibility of reaching out and pulling together to fall on the older generation. However, the younger needs to realize there's some wisdom to be gleaned. I find term limits to be appropriate to keep things grounded and fresh. Some type of a regular personal contact for the district(other than to tell me my dues are late) would be nice. MOST OF ALL...A WHOLE BUNCH MORE PRAYER!!!
1) WHAT WORKS: when I need something, I get a helpful attitude and an honest answer. I don't get micromanaged. I can offer negative feedback to my district officials to their face and not feel threatened. The district staff actually serve churches - the youth and children's ministry departments deserve special praise in this regard. The district officials are people worthy of respect.
2) WHAT DOESN'T WORK: I'll pass on this question. I feel comfortable giving them negative feedback in person, but I don't want to make them look bad publicly. Our district has flaws just as my own ministry does.
3) HOW TO FIX IT: Likewise, pass.
4) ABOUT THE ROLE OF DISTRICTS: I don't know if this is true of all districts, but in ours the district serves as the legal board for non-General Council churches. That keeps them pretty busy. So a lot of their time is spent helping struggling churches try to turn the corner.
Another huge chunk of their time is spent handling moral rehabilitations. There are far more moral failures than I think the average minister in our movement realizes, and unless we want to throw people to the wolves we must have a system in place to help our wayward colleagues.
These aren't functions that can simply be abolished. Any proposals involving eradicating the district structure has to address these (and others, such as ministerial credentialing).
I bet the strategy we come up with would be decentralized, would involve appointing esteemed pastors to lead, and would require giving them broad authority.
In other words, we'd have to reinvent district-like entities. We might choose to give them certain additional mandates (continuing ed for ministers, for example) or remove other specific mandates (like hold conferences and camps), but we'd wind up at close to the same place in terms of pure structure.
I'm genuinely curious if there are any rival structural suggestions out there. I'm not closed-minded on the subject, I just don't see another way forward that's different enough to matter.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS & SUGGESTIONS:
1) In some districts, the officials seem to believe they have more authority than they actually do.
2) In some districts, the district office seems to exist primarily to get people to come to events. Youth Convention, Women's Retreat, and kid's camps are all wonderful things, but a district needs to be about more than that.
3) In some districts, there is a "can't be done" mentality that makes it hard for church planters or home missionaries to get off the ground.
4) The main road to district leadership seems to involve being a successful senior pastor. I think in many districts we'd be better-served by a seasoned executive pastor or an accomplished missionary who is used to partnering with churches without having control over them.
5) Few district officials seem to think strategically about ministry. They are often excellent tacticians, but they rarely seem to grasp what will matter the most 30 or 50 years down the road.
6) I think most district officials overestimate the importance of Bible colleges to the Assemblies of God. Fewer and fewer of our ministers are coming through them. The Bible colleges still have important symbolic value, but they are not a defining feature of the future of our movement. This is significant for this discussion because in some districts the local AG school is the tail that wags the dog.
7) I think it would be fun to call our district leaders bishops and make them wear silly robes. Maybe not wise, but fun. ;)
That was a lot more than I thought I'd say. Thanks for reading this far. Now it's your turn to contribute to the conversation.
November 30, 2007 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...
I'd like to know if the members of this forum believe we need districts.
November 30, 2007 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...
THREE CHALLENGES TO ANY AND ALL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS:
1. Why not ask your ministers the same three questions in an anonymous response mailing?
If this blog is even a small sampling of the sentiment of your constituents, you can't afford NOT to do so. Let God speak to you as you choose to become vulnerable to those you were elected to serve. It will be painful--no doubt--but it very well could reveal some paralyzing blind spots.
2. Why not follow our General Super's model by becoming more transparent and user friendly?
Blatantly copy his very obvious olive branches to under-voiced segments of your district. I'm sure he'd entertain a call for help if you needed some suggestions.
3. Refuse all bonuses and "pastor appreciation" gifts.
These perks only build greater disdain from struggling ministers. I frequently hear the buzz around Pastor Appreciation Sunday--when a form letter is annually sent from the district office asking for a show of financial gratitude for the district Super (and sometimes executives). This makes you a target for HUGE criticism and can seriously make those you lead question your motives.
How about starting a distribution of your bonuses and P.A. offerings to church planters, ministry widows or struggling ministers? I dare you!
November 30, 2007 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...
Anon., 11/20, 11:10 pm: "If this blog is even a small sampling of the sentiment of your constituents, you can't afford NOT to do so. Let God speak to you as you choose to become vulnerable to those you were elected to serve."
I would suggest it is, indeed, small. And would you bow to every small, but vocal group in your church? And then bowing to the pressure of the one small group, how would you deal with the critical mass that now has been disenfranchised because you caved in to one small group that many times is at odds with other small groups?
The great number of site visits that has been mentioned before doesn't indicate that everyone is in agreement with everything being said. Granted, some visiting are amazed at the gutsiness of this group. But indicative, hardly.
I, too, appreciate the sensitivity and wisdom of our GS and his openness. He really has a pastor's heart. I am so glad he is listening.
If this blog indicates grass roots interest, I wonder how many from the grass roots would get such a pass on answering NO (ala GPW) on the tithe question and get through the questioning of the credentialing committee and/or interviewers (ala GPW) because he/she happened to be friends with them.
I don't find this grass roots at all. All contributors are well-placed or well-related individuals (nothing wrong with that), but they certainly don't represent the common constituency of the A/G. I can think of a couple guys who, if they had the same opinions, would not have been approved.
Many in the common constituency cannot afford the time or money to go to one of our schools. When they do come out, they are in such debt, they cannot afford to become church planters. Who thinks about them? (I'm not anti-education. I have six years of secondary education.) Isn't this what the founding brethren feared: an academic elite? I think so. I love to learn, but I also am aware of the tension of recognizing that "knowledge puffs up" brings into the equation.
ACT 4:13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.
I wonder how they'd do on this blog.
I think most of the common consituency finds this discussion of the value of one's education being of more merit if it is not through correspondence a curious one, but not having much to do with their everyday lives.
December 1, 2007 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous 12/1 - How in the world can you know whether this is grass roots or not? Unless you have personal information on every single person that posts on here you are just shooting in the dark with your statement about people being well placed. I would submit from personal experience and having served in 6 different districts in the A/G that there is a disastifaction with our church government and set-up/districts that stretches from coast to coast. And while many comments pertain to money the frustrations stem equally with ministry and a lack of being connected and in tune with the constituency from the leadership of those districts. What you read on here is just a sampling in my opinion of a true reality of how the majority feels in the A/G about districts. We shouldn't ignore it nor should we attempt to explain it away and discount it's significance by saying it is just a few.
December 1, 2007 8:02 AM
Anonymous said...
Yes, it probably is a shot in the dark, but probably one made with night vision goggles. It is based on this feeling I get from watching all this, that "now the people get to speak," when I don't think it is truly representative.
Out of 30,000+ ministers, you get300-400 voting on these polls(and those split), I would say it is not scientific and not truly representative. But I'm glad you get to speak your mind, as you should. But unless you can prove to me this is a major block of opinion, I will choose to believe it is not. And yes, minor/divergent opinions should have just as much an audience. But that doesn't mean they should prevail simply because they have spoken.
December 1, 2007 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...
Isn't is sad anonymous that in 2007 you are saying "now the people get to speak"? Sums it all up right there! Many still speak anonymously including you on here for fear of even getting to speak on here. What a sad commentary on our movement.
December 1, 2007 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous 12/1/6:07
I also would like to weigh in on your comment concerning the displeasure with district offices. You said, "I don't find this grass roots at all." Can I ask, "Friend, where in the world are you living?" Does someone have to draw every ounce of blood just to administer a blood test? It is my belief that this blog has simply revealed a growing sentiment of displeasure with District offices. Look at the firestorm of response just in the last two days. My observation earlier in the week on this site was that the furor isn't really with the National Office. Nor should it be. We pay in only $240 a year. I don't have a whole lot of room to be critical when I only contribute a mere drop in the bucket every year. In fact I stated I would double or triple that if I was in leadership in the National Official. For example, AG Financial Services is second to none. Just do a study of the production of AG Financial compared to other Denominations or Fellowships. The President Gerry Hindy is absolutely brilliant. I would be a part of the GC just for that alone. Not to mention missions, resourcing, representation, etc.
If you want to do an assessment of the discontent do what every wise leader does… follow the money. What is happening at our District offices, for the most part is criminal if not sad. This coming week our District has another solid church (61 years in the A/G) leaving the Fellowship. We have had strong churches leaving every year the past five years and every time it is written off by leadership as, “Oh that pastor has a real problem with authority†or “That pastors a real malcontent!†When will leadership look in the mirror and do some honest evaluation? As I said on an earlier post, the most frightening thing for our Fellowship is that the spirit of apathy is close to outweighing the spirit of antagonism. If and when that does happen, hang to your hats because the current departures will only look like a dripping faucet compared to the proverbial dam breaking. All that said, please don’t dismiss this as some small segment of the populace it isn’t!
December 1, 2007 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...
Honestly...this is one reason I'm going away from the AG as a church planter.
I was saved and worked as youth pastor for 6 years in one church and then after 5 years being out I came back to the same section to youth pastor in another church.
From my perspective as
WHAT WORKS - Honestly in the section I was in - NOTHING.
WHAT DOES NOT WORK - No accountability or unity towards each other. Although there doesn't need to be clones there should be some type of cooperation as to the ultimate vision God has called us to. Too much politicking. Pastors who get out of their bounds (morally) have no accountability within.
HOW TO FIX IT: Not gonna happen. There is a huge separation age wise and fundamental beliefs...some more strict than others so there is a gap between old school and anyone new school with new ideas coming in.
All that being said...it's why I no longer want to be AG...on top of that its just to many hoops to go through...I can have just as more accountability and connection with unity through my network than I could in the district I would be in which is one of the Texas Districts.
JC
December 1, 2007 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...
When I talked about well-placed and well-related that was not a shot in the dark, because that was a comment based on the contributors not the commenters. The contributors listed on the side bar are all either well-related or are well-placed in churches that are prominent. Thus they do not speak for the grass roots. So, if you presume I spoke about you, not knowing you, you are right. I don't. But you are not a listed contributor. You were a commenter.
December 1, 2007 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...
"the most frightening thing for our Fellowship is that the spirit of apathy is close to outweighing the spirit of antagonism."
RIGHT ON!!
As a church planter, I have received NOTHING, not even a phone call from my SECTION or my DISTRICT. Yet, our church has been open for months.
When the time comes for us to "upgrade," I have no intention of becoming an Gen. Council church. In no way does the district have a right to our building, property or decision making process. They were not here at the beginning, and they will not USURP power when we are aged and mature.
This is not the '50s and I am not and idiot.
BTW, to the Anonymous "hater:" I feel for you. For you to go to extremes and accuse the participants of this blog as being "connected," "educated," "insignificant," is a testimony of how closed and scared you really are.
December 1, 2007 10:34 AM
ZORRO said...
To the Anonymous who thinks this blog is for those who are "well-placed" and "well-related." Dude, I'm a nobody.
I have a BA from CBC, and I pastor a new church of 50. I do not serve in any committee, nor do have any relatives who are/were in the ministry. And I've read the profiles on most of the "posters/voices" on this site, and they are nobodies too. (no offense, guys and gals.)
We simply are: THE A/G. (the cue the Breakfast Club theme song...)
December 1, 2007 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...
Wowser! If this is just a sampling of our constituency, stuff is hitting the fan big time. Our District just went into the camp business at this past Council...voting unanimously in the last session to buy property for bling bling. The infrastructure alone is going to be millions of dollars to develope and with no Mart Green's around these parts, the burden of raising the needed cash will be falling on the already strapped churches. But the reasoning was that we could have a Maranatha East retirement community for our aging preachers if the camp does'nt work out! Hey, I'm 43 and retirement will be here before I know it...maybe it is'nt all that bad. In our District there is a huge disconnect that's been going on. We were one of the few District's that have voted out a Superintendent, or let's say the Presbytery voted him out. It was handled very messily with major involvement from T.Trask and Dr. Wood and the effects are still lingering a few years later. Some are out there thinking.."if that's what they did to brother So and So, imagine what they would do with me!
Years ago I was wrestling with whether I wanted to remain in the AG or not. While attending the First Annual Seminarians Conference in Springfield, I got some great advice from some well respected professors at AGTS.
They told me that, if I was truly on my way out, not to waste my voice. I was encouraged to stand up and voice my discontent rather than simply disappear. After all, revolutions are always built on the blood of martyrs.
I took their advice and, in front of the entire GP (to include Trask) I stood up and openly questioned their leadership style and our theology. I was chastised, of course. But my move made others bold enough to speak out that weekend and we saw some constructive dialogue actually take place.
For those of you on this blog who are stating that you are leaving the AG, I'd like to offer you the same advice. If you care about the movement, drop the anonymity, step out of the shadows, and use the voice you have while you are still licensed. If you really are stepping away, what have you got to lose? If Luther could be bold enough to sign the 95 thesis... be bold enough to sign your name.
If you don't care about the movement, and think the AG is simply a cult-like fellowship of Kool-Aid drinkers... can I politely ask you to get off this blog. It's not a grievance board for people simply looking for a complaining post. I'm all for the constructive critiques... but the whining is getting tiresome.
Hey Lane. Appreciate your words and boldness. I have a meeting in Springield soon to meet and have productive dialogue just as you suggested. I would caution you however not to label what people say as whining. For some it is the best way they know how to articulate where they are at. In a culture that has stifled openess we are not all that good yet at being bold but I hope this blog will help to promote not only the exchange of ideas but the true hearts and frustrations of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
You wrote: "If this blog indicates grass roots interest, I wonder how many from the grass roots would get such a pass on answering NO (ala GPW) on the tithe question and get through the questioning of the credentialing committee and/or interviewers (ala GPW) because he/she happened to be friends with them." For the record, I told my credentialing committee that I personally tithe and that I teach others to tithe because it's a good round number. The substance of our disagreement was the rationale behind tithing. I disagreed with mandating tithing as a biblical rule for Christians. The disagreement with my committee was over the rationale, not the pratice. That's why they gave me a pass, not because my dad was friends with them. How dare you accuse the committee of having no integrity!
You also wrote: "The contributors listed on the side bar are all either well-related or are well-placed in churches that are prominent. Thus they do not speak for the grass roots." Seriously, you have got to be kidding me. Of the six contributors, two (Mark and Jeff) are pastors of large churches. Two more (Tory and Brad) are church planters. One (Paul) is an associate pastor. And I am the pastor of a church that over the past twenty years has performed the reverse miracle of growing from 1000 to 100. If I as the pastor of a small church in need of a turnaround am not grassroots, then grassroots has not meaning. Why are you so resentful of us (and me particularly)?
GPW
P.S. And rather than cross-talking on this issue, why can't we just answer the questions. I know there's a district superintendent's meeting coming up soon, and I think they might profit from our comments.
Appreciate the word of caution. However, some of the Anonymous comments lately, in my opinion, are starting to go past the "articulation of openness" and enter the realm of simple negativity. While I appreciate your willingness to create a place for people to speak up... I think there should be guidelines for those who want to cast darts under a cloak of invisibility.
Some of the comments on this post are bordering on accusatory, slanderous and derogatory. If we don't require some form of accountability here on this blog, how can we tolerate posts about District officials who have no accountability? That's what I intended by my "whining" comment.
Let's allow anonymity... but put guidelines on what can be written. When "Anonymous" slammed his District above and wrote that their District publication had an article entitled "How the initial evidence improves my love life," I was disappointed with the lack of editorial control on your part. That kind of comment has no positive value and is, in my book,... well, "whining."
Thanks Lane. I understand where you are coming from and agree with you. By the way I'm not the Jeff who has any editorial control over anything. Just another person sharing on here.
To Paul, Jeff, George and the others... please consider my comments above for 12:54 PM. Perhaps anonymous comments should have to go through a bit of a stronger filter or editorial process than those of us writing under our names.
I don't like anonymous posts generally, but in this specific case, I don't know how else to get honest feedback about what's going on in the district. If it's true that some ministers will face retribution in their districts for speaking out, and if it's in fact important for them to speak out, then they've got to have some sort of forum. I suggested in my post that a few ground rules govern comments, but it seems that those might not have been enough. A poll would be a much better venue to get at the kind of answers I'm looking for.
GPW
December 1, 2007 3:18 PM
Zorro said...
Dude, we're mature enough to know the difference between "constructive criticism" and slander. The guy posting about his District's newsletter was simply poking fun...that's all.
We're tired, and we want a place where we can vent and gather now ideas and momentum. We don't need more filters to "regulate" us. If some body crosses your line: ignore him/her. Let's keep this blog FREE.
ALSO, if you're going to post on this Topic, honor GPW's request and answer all three questions. You're doing anyone any favors by not critiquing or NOT offering ways to improve. (I'm glad you can talk openly in NCal/Nev.) Our posting on this topic is for the GREATER GOOD, and allows leaders and members from all over to know what is going on in our Fellowship and in other Districts.
BTW> Feel free to use the "Nickname" option on this COMMENT Board. It keeps us from saying Anonymous 5:45, 9:13, etc.
One of GPW's original requests on this post was "be respectful." Read through the entirety of these responses and tell me that everyone who posted followed that guideline. And, incidentally, you contradicted yourself. You stated that we didn't need filters here, but then proceeded to "filter" my post by asking me to honor GPW's request and only answer the questions. See how it works? You, too, understand the necessity of guidelines.
GPW...
I don't think the Poll is necessarily the better idea. I think some of the responses here are genuine and have given some great insight. But, contrary to what Zorro finds amusing, some have that "edge" of disrespect that could have been filtered.
I understand the desire for a "free" environment. But there is absolutely no way we can hope for those needing to read these things to stick around when the tone simply becomes: "Nothing works, no way to fix it, shut it down."
I too am disappointed by some of the more extreme responses, i.e., "Nothing works, no way to fix it, shut it down." I simply don't believe that any district is competent at total incompetence. Also, I believe there are always fixes. The most obvious one in any district that is not missional is to change out the leaders. That's where our democratic form of leadership selection is a liability. Even incompetent leaders can claim a measure of legitimacy because they were voted (and continue to be voted) into office. But you're right, the "nothing works" tone of some of the posts is problematic, even if some of their criticisms are on target, as I think they unfortunately are.
George
December 1, 2007 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...
1 - WHAT WORKS: World Missions and itinerating missionaries. BGMC. STL. Fine Arts. Some of the Youth Events.
2. WHAT DOES NOT WORK: Communication. Our Sup is hopelessly disconnected. You can't get in touch with him and he doesn't return calls or email. Women's Ministries. Camps and campground.
2A - THINGS THAT ARE BOTH GOOD AND BAD: Sectional meetings. It's good to see those that do come, but the meetings themselves are a waste of time. District Council - some great services, but terrible planning, and absolutely useless "business sessions."
Nothing is decided or done in Council business sessions. The district has added a layer of Presbytery and taken much of the business away from council.
3. HOW TO FIX IT: New and better leadership. Where we have true leaders, things are good. But in too many cases, for example, our Sup., they are leaders only by title.
Leaders need to lead, be proactive, and communicate their tails off.
December 1, 2007 3:51 PM
Zorro said...
Oh, Lane...
December 1, 2007 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...
For anyone who thinks this is not a real "sampling" of what credential holders in the A/G believe, I just mention...keep in mind that with the polls for the general council elections, it was AMAZINGLY accurate, which some people even remarked on other blogs something to the effect, "it's pretty bad when the A/G GC elections can be accurately predicted on a blog" but I thought it was GREAT. This blog is just what we have needed, and I believe it is extremely representative of what a majority of ministers in the AG are feeling. Why did the Future AG Buca Di Beppo lunch reservations get completely booked up in a flash? Consider that A LOT...a whole lot of people are feeling this. And really, this blog is just bringing out into the greater open what is already being discussed around restaurant tables after district councils by countless ministers who are just tired, oh so tired.
I find someone's desire to just dismiss this as a small negative vocal sampling very interesting.
December 1, 2007 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...
You're right. I guess the only way to test my theory on whether this is really a genuine sample of the cross-section is to stop complaining and work towards some answers and resolve.
I don't doubt the significance of views expressed or diminish their right to express them. I just don't think it is broadly representative.
So will new resolutions be presented? Solve the initial, physical evidence issue and move on, or we'll be discussing this for the next ten years. There are ways to bring about real action and test the council's wishes.
My District and my Seccional Sup are a phone call, e-mail away from what i ever need. We have complete access to them.
2. What does not work
Due to the nature of our structure of Autonomy it lends itself for the District to be apprehensive concerning a Pastor or Church in matters other than discipline in what to do or not to do.
3.Pray,communicate and being there to make a Godly difference
December 1, 2007 4:35 PM
Fed Up said...
Here’s an example of what’s wrong with our District. The following is the text of a letter our District just sent to each of us. By the way, this follows the last communication we received about a month ago telling us that we would be fined $25-100 extra if our renewal forms were not sent to the District by Dec. 5th. They had to rescind this action because the GC didn’t get the forms to us in time. Evidently the presbyters are really bored in our District. The statement below that reads: “If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please comply or encourage them to follow through with this action†doesn’t even make sense. “If you or some credentialed minister in your church†is addressed to pastors of AG churches? How could a pastor of an AG church or someone in their church not be attending an AG church. Talking about begging the question, instead maybe someone should be asking what’s wrong with AG churches that even our pastors don’t want to attend!!!
Dear Fellow Ministers;
We trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in our church falls into this category, please comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the Kingdom of God.
I agree with you. I am sure that many of the criticisms are massively on target. It's just that I am no longer completely convinced that all the anonymity's out there are because these people REALLY feel that retribution is imminent if they un-mask. I think some of these people use the cloak simply as a way to sling mud without facing accountability.
For example, I find it absolutely hilarious that a person writes that they NEVER, EVER hear from their District, but then uses the "Anonymous" sign-on for fear that their District will then, suddenly, contact them. That one kills me.
Despite Zorro's opinion that everything should be allowed and that ANY form of filtering is censorship, ("Oh, Zorro" *sigh*) I think we should ask ourselves "Where do the laws of discipleship and the laws of the blogosphere collide?"
I just know that if I was sitting in a coffee shop with someone and heard them say to me some of the stuff I have heard here, I would call them on it. Even if it was a private one-on-one conversation. Simply because this is a blog should not change that.
So let me say this one more time for clarity... I am not against the anonymous postings. I AM against, however, the Anonymous postings that think "venting" is a license for slander.
December 1, 2007 4:42 PM
Following Jesus' Example said...
I honestly think that many of Jesus' comments directed toward the unethical, ungodly leadership of his day would also be considered slanderous (and blasphemous). In fact, he was crucified for his opposition to his officials. Believe me, retibution is real--and I don't think some of our District's attitudes are far from the Pharisees, Lawyers, Saducees, and Teachers who opposed Jesus.
Great list of questions and material for a wiki, poll, and petition.
How about giving interested parties a window of time (a week) to respond with a list of responses to your three questions on a hypothetical wiki ;-).
After the window is up - and we can tell by the draft date on a wiki - post a survey using online polling software that authenticates unique users (KeySurvey has 30 days free registration). Then, collate the report, post it online (keysurvey exports .ppt), and ensure that ELT sees it.
I would also recommend, gulp, that we respectfully request the ELT call for emergency DC presbytery sessions, and DC plans of action and milestones within 30 days. For some districts, it will be N/A (e.g. they might not have campsites, so campsite problems are N/A). Come election time, hold them accountable for these POAM’s.
As far as my responses to your 3:
1. What works in your district? see futurewiki list
2. What does not work in your district? see futurewiki list
3. How do we fix what does not work in your district? see futurewiki list
Oh, btw, we need not worry about the final list being disrespectful as our wiki group would ensure that the list is concise, clear, and respectful (wikis are great for group policing).
Is there a leadership crisis in the A/G at the district level? People want transformation right? When do they want it? Does it have to wait until the next GC? - I don't know. Only time and response will tell.
Hope this helps...
December 1, 2007 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...
District change occurs at the district level. If you want change, submit a resolution.
General Council change occurs at the council level. If you want change, submit a resolution.
I'm asking for information. When does this move from deliberation to action and final resolve, so people can move on?
December 1, 2007 5:30 PM
ZORRO said...
"I'm asking for information. When does this move from deliberation to action and final resolve, so people can move on?"
AMEN!!! I really want to see our District IMPROVE, especially since it is only "wishful thinking" that it will simply be disbanded.
How do we go beyond all this "talk" and into "action?"
Personally, I suggest a coup wearing masks and riding horses. (I'm so just kidding!!!)
But, seriously, where do we go from here? I've called three times to my DS for a meeting, and never received a phone call back.
December 1, 2007 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...
I wonder how many of the pastors who have blasted their District and Officials, would allow the people they shepherd the same opportunity to be this blunt with them in regards to the effectiveness of their ministry and leadership.
It sounds not only like alot of whining but bitterness and resentment as well.
December 1, 2007 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...
Anon., 6:05 PM:
Well said!
December 1, 2007 6:10 PM
Welcoming Evaluation said...
We use a weekly evaluation sheet to evaluate every aspect of the service--parking lot, greeters, each component of the services including the message, its illustrations, impact, etc. When you are open to improvement and welcome input, people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration. And they have choices, if they don't like the church they have options. What option do we have other than "Submit a resolution"--Wow!
1. What works. the district is really quite open to new ministers transferring in from other districts or new to ministry. there are at least some lines of communication, monthly news letter (in full color, wow), email updates, meetings (district council, yp retreat, minister's retreat, camps, etc).
2. what doesn't work. when i sat before the ordination committee (one district e.p. and one district exe.) i was asked about my goals/vision for ministry. i shared that we felt God leading my wife and i to medical missions, and i was preparing to go to medical school to that end. one official strongly and repeatedly discouraged from going to medical school because i "wouldn't be able to preach or be in full time ministry," the other official said, "i dont know about that medical school and medical missions, God hasn't spoken to me about that." at 22, i was shocked, hurt, and angered.
as a trend, i think the district is too bureaucratic, is too authoritarian, and is too narrow minded (at least when it comes to ministry). perhaps it's because the officials try to run the district like a church ("please call me 'pastor x'").
also the district is a financial glutton. you have a women's retreat to make money to pay for a women's ministry director, youth camp to pay for the youth director, etc.
3. as for the solution. we need a redefinition of ministry and leadership within ministry, not power and control, but ministry as service. also alternative structures and methods of district leadership need to be implemented. that's really tough as long as many current leaders are in place because changes threaten their position. along with that would be a divestment of power.
what's at stake is not old vs. young, but a philosophy and understanding of ministry.
December 1, 2007 6:40 PM
Anonymous said...
Lane, I am not the anonymous who wrote that I "never ever hear from the district". However you have it exactly right that this is what some district leaders would do -- contact people and bring retribution upon them for saying some of the things that have been said here, when they have had little contact with them in the past.
Isn't this exactly what several people have said? They never hear from the district office unless it's a tithe issue or a moral failure. In other words, it takes a crisis for anyone in the district office to contact them. If some pastors here signed their names, I guarantee their DS would take it as a "crisis" because their (DS's) identity would be revealed. If a pastor attached their name here to some of the honest comments that have been made, many might be contacted by the district office and it would not be to say, "let's talk about these issues" but possibly to correct that person or even bring some type of retribution.
Our district supt. is one who does not return calls most times (by himself or having his asst do it, which is a whole other issue in itself) There are several emails you are told he can be reached at, but generally you will not get an answer. I know for a fact that many ministers have emailed our supt, in the right spirit, about some issues like the ones discussed here, and they do not get an answer. I also know through the office staff that these are valid, working email address and that the issues are simply not up for discussion.
As far as resolutions, different people have tried this in our district, but the way a resolution is presented makes all the difference and we have found if the execs don't want it to happen it probably won't. I have myself been part of a few resolutions coming to the floor so I am not making some of the comments I have made here without trying things another way first, and I would venture to say it's probably the same with some other posters.
I do not say this in a resentful spirit, I'm just tired of it and like most of my friends don't have the energy for it anymore. We have tried the resolution route (look at how many resolutions came up at GC this year such as the relational districts and how far that got us...nowhere...) and we have tried the talk directly to the leader route, and we have tried the serve on a bunch of committees and task forces route, to try to make a difference. All of it just added up to a bunch of nothing.
Why should doing all that again make a difference? As someone, (think it was Maxwell) said -- definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
December 1, 2007 7:16 PM
Anonymous said...
1. What works ... the district is a resource I can tap into regularly. I have never hit a dead end when I asked a question - they either had the resource/answer or they pointed me in a direction where I could find the resource/answer. It really seems to me that they are concerned that I be the best pastor I can be for the church I lead.
2. What doesn't work ... I can't say I've seen this in my current district, but in others I have been connected to, it has seemed that the district's agenda was to feed itself (or a few choice churches/credential holders) instead of striving to be of benefit to all of its credential holders &/or churches. Also, there were too many dreams & promises & very little follow-through. This unfortunately encouraged distrust & apathy.
3. How to fix it ... the district should always remember why it exists - as a resource to churches & pastors. Just as a Pastor exists to 'equip the saints for the work of the ministry', I see the district as existing to equip the pastor for the work of his ministry.
Please know that I am fully aware that the "retribution" concept is real. I am not suggesting that it is not. Even the Apostle John was aware of these types of people. In 3 John 9 he mentions a "pastor" by the name of Diotrephes who loved to be "first" and put people "out of the church" who disagreed with him. I imagine that many of you serve under people like this.
So I realize that this type of environment does exist. I am just not convinced anymore that all of the bloggers here are using anonymity for that purpose... that's all.
December 1, 2007 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...
Interesting that this question is asked during a time when today I received a letter from my District informed me that it is prohibited for a credentialed holder in our District to attend a non-assemblies of God Church.
It was reported in the letter that in a recent Presbytery meeting that a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God minister in this District will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God Church.
I was informed that they can do so only after they receive permission from the Presbytery Board.
At first I set the letter aside thinking it was a holiday greeting from our District leadership.
My wife read the letter that night to me and I could not believe what I was reading. My exact thought was "you have got to be kidding me."
To me the issue isn't about going to a non-Assemblies of God church. I am fourth generation A/G, have no problem with attending an A/G church, however, to now have the District tell me where I can go to church and not go to church. Does the word Communism come to mind.
I cannot believe this letter and the attitude of my leadership.
The letter goes on to say that "ministers that have been brought to [the] attention [of our District leadership] who are attending a non-A/G church [will receive a letter]."
I wonder who the "spies" are? This has gone past my ability to just "go along."
I can promise you this is far from over. It would be fascinating to find out who brought this piece of legislation to the floor of the Presbytery meeting.
I can promise you there will be a resolution opposing this in the next one.
I wonder how many of the pastors who have blasted their District and Officials, would allow the people they shepherd the same opportunity to be this blunt with them in regards to the effectiveness of their ministry and leadership.
It sounds not only like a lot of whining but bitterness and resentment as well.
Answer: apples and oranges
How often have these local pastors seen or heard from their Supts? By contrast, how often have these pastors faced their congregations and boards?
Answer: never vs. every week
What's the difference in thickness between the cushions of protection worn by their DC officials and them?
Answer: kevlar vs. cotton
Sounds more like sheep bleating for shepherds than whining and complaining to me.
â€To whom much is given, much is requiredâ€
P.S. The district officials are not allowing them the opportunity to be this blunt. That's why they are posting on FutureAG.
December 1, 2007 10:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Anon., 12/1, 7:16 PM So, you put in a resolution, it's discussed and voted down. I guess you have to assume the council has spoken.
Regarding the relational districts: it was submitted, discussed, voted on, and it did not pass. I did not vote for it to pass.
Are you saying my vote should not count? Other resolutions passed that I voted for. Others passed that I voted against. I'm not mad about it. I'm part of an organization where sometimes things go the way I want and sometimes the way I don't want. That's life.
December 2, 2007 4:58 AM
Old Change Agent said...
Part of the problem with change is the whole process of resolutions, voting, and time. So you introduce a motion at council this year, we vote on it and it goes into effect--that's two years of living down the drain. For the issue of electronic voting using the internet--that would not take place for four years. The process is too cumbersome. Additionally, just because the "traditionalists" in the party vote for "status quo" on any issue, that doesn't make it right. One should ask, "If I vote for status quo, is it the best thing for our movement--what message will I be sending to the younger credential holders who feel alienated?" By the way, I'm a 50 year old--and I'm worried that there will be no younger guys left if we do not start embracing their ideas for progress and change.
December 2, 2007 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...
What works, what doesn't, how to fix it?
I want to say up front that I'm NOT an AG minister. I was once in training to be an AG church planter. I saw my pastor and church go down in a slow burn because of district inattention, and now I'm not likely to become an AG anything (tho I recently began attending an AG church again, so who knows...) I did get to see a LOT from the "inside" though, and I'd like to comment if I may.
What works? If you call and ask for help with something specific, there are some key people in our district who seem to bend over backwards to help. That is beautiful, wonderful, and the way it should be.
What doesn't? If you don't call for help (due to pride, ignorance, not knowing what help is available) -- if you can't afford the help that's offered, because it costs something and you have to pay the church's light bill and no one in the district is willing to offer a scholarship -- heck, if you do call and ask for help because you can't pay the light bill and no one cares -- if church members call someone in power within the district to say "the pastor's got some problems, could you give him a call?" and that man calls the pastor to say, "So and so thinks you've gone off the deep end"... and if the entire district sits back and watches while people get HURT, a community gets HURT, and a church goes belly-up and the district does nothing... (and then they re-assign the pastor out of state)
there's problems.
How to fix it?
I know that the AG values the principle of sovereign churches. That works when things are going great. when they're not, *people* *get* *hurt* and God's work is not getting done. I should think that God's work and loving people would be more important than politics - and so... well, logic really should prevail here.
December 2, 2007 6:06 AM
Shepherd of Hermas said...
Several have commented on a letter they received from their District banning attending non AG churches. I would like to know if presbyter boards have the right to enact such legislation without it coming to the DC business meeting through the resolution process. Any opinion from the GC's perspective?
December 2, 2007 6:52 AM
2L84U said...
Anonymous December 2, 2007 4:58 AM...of course you voted against the relational districts resolution -- any district official probably would.
December 2, 2007 10:51 AM
ZORRO said...
"We use a weekly evaluation sheet to evaluate every aspect of the service--parking lot, greeters, each component of the services including the message, its illustrations, impact, etc. When you are open to improvement and welcome input, people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration."
ABSOLUTELY. There is minimal "whining" taking place here. Get real.
December 2, 2007 11:47 AM
Zorro said...
"what's at stake is not old vs. young, but a philosophy and understanding of ministry."
Wow! I've got to tell you that these posts make me EXTREMELY appreciative for my district and its leaders (Ohio). And this MAY be part of the problem. I come from a district that is extremely resourceful and is VERY interested in helping its pastors to lead healthy churches, so I'm tempted to dismiss the postings here as mere NEGATIVITY. Yet, from talking to close, GODLY friends in OTHER districts, I realize that there is huge disparity between our districts.
What would it look like for the General Council to send out a survey to gauge the pulse of what is ACTUALLY going on in our districts (I have a feeling that it IS pretty widespread). What if the GC launched a "No District Left Behind" initiative (tongue in cheek). I know that the GC can't get too involved in the DCs, but the GC could INTERNALLY divulge their findings. (It's amazing how my performance improves when all of my colleagues know that I'm not measuring up... Or alternatively, it's amazing how I hear the voice of God "transitioning" me when I know that I don't measure up.)
The GC could offer a bootcamp(can you tell that I'm a church planter) for DSs who lead districts that aren't measuring up. Maybe even offer a coaching network for failing DSs.
December 2, 2007 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Ken, you are right, I too am from Ohio and feel extremely resourced. In fact the recent Leadership Tour that the district sponsored was incredible! The district supt is truely my pastor and it feels good to have that kind of spiritual care and covering.
George, maybe you should interview/talk with the districts that get it and are doing it, and let their "council" be heard!
December 2, 2007 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...
"...of course you voted against the relational districts resolution -- any district official probably would."
Oops! Sorry . . . I'm not an office holder.
"Additionally, just because the "traditionalists" in the party vote for "status quo" on any issue, that doesn't make it right."
Oops! Sorry . . . I'm not a traditionalist. Paid my dues coming against traditionalism. I simply voted against the relational district resolution on its own merit. I voted all across the board on different issues. Hard to classify, I guess.
December 2, 2007 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...
"We use a weekly evaluation sheet to evaluate every aspect of the service--parking lot, greeters, each component of the services including the message, its illustrations, impact, etc. When you are open to improvement and welcome input, people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration."
What does your leadership team do when the evaluations don't agree with each other? Does your lead pastor have an articulated vision, or does he wait to see which way the wind is blowing every week? I would find weekly evaluations of everything extremely stifling.
I'm sure the people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration, unless, of course, someone else's weekly evaluation is picked to precipitate change in a direction they don't agree with.
December 2, 2007 3:34 PM
Revolutionary said...
How to Fix It:
Declaration of Independence
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.â€
December 2, 2007 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...
danny...and all those who feel you are justified in much of your sweeping criticism,
Let me throw out a scenario for you. Let's say that one of your church members decides to start a little blog, just like this one, detailing all of your flaws, lack of vision and your constant cries for their money (tithes and offerings). Let's say that they talk about how many vacations you take, your lack of contacting them and your hunger for power because you have gotten comfortable in your position. Would you be as open to them to listen and hear them out or would you seek to bring swift "church discipline" to them and say they are creating division in the body?
December 2, 2007 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...
The direction this website is headed is very destructive. I can see know good coming out of this at all. I am reminded about this post back in August...
http://futureag.blogspot.com/2007/08/warning.html
The only thing that needs to be shut down is this website. We have already gone where we never wanted to go.
Not only would I read the blog, I'd respond on the blog. In fact, I'd go farther; I'd call the person up and take them to coffee to sort out the issues. After talking with the person, I could determine whether their concerns were legitimate or just crankery. Either way, I'd end up addressing those issues (either by way admitting the need for change setting the record straight) in numerous public fora. Why would I do all these things (and I have in fact done all these things)? Because in public relations, PERCEPTION IS REALITY. If people under my care think I'm overpaid and underworked, then I have to set the record straight or lose my credibility. Of course, it may be the case that by publicly dealing with the issue, the perception (and therefore the reality, at least as far as the critic is concerned) will change. But unless leaders are willing to be publicly transparent, such change will never happen.
GPW
December 2, 2007 5:34 PM
2l84u said...
Again, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
The truth is, most district superintendents are not our pastor - there are only a handful that turn this leadership role into one of a pastoral nature. If you are going to compare yourself to a church then provide what the local church provides. DS are not pastors. Let's face it, these are administrative jobs. The district officeis not a church.
When you hear people talk about why it's crucial to keep our district offices, what do you hear? We need someonen to take care of credentialing, discipline in cases of moral failure, etc. You hear nothing of our DC's staying alive to function as a church or pastor the pastor. Yes, it has provided us a place to serve, and many of us have done that tirelessly. But as far as being anything remotely resembling a church to us...no. An organization, corporation, business? Yes. It seems, unless you are in the Ohio district. No sarcasm intended there - it appears Ohio is providing something A/G ministers elsewhere have only dreamed.
December 2, 2007 5:36 PM
Southern Hawkeye said...
Wow! Someone has suggested a yearly “Vote of Confidence†on our DC officials.
What pastor would vote to go back to that system for their pastorate?
I do have to agree with many of the bloggers, when we need to elect an officer to a DC position, we have no real system to evaluate potential new officers. Over and over, we elect known officials moving them to a higher position. Our system is deemed spiritual or non-political. But doesn’t it just mean we’re simply uninformed?
I still wonder what would happen if we only elected the DS and allowed him to choose his own team? Give them a 4 year term – limit 2 terms total? Sound presidential? (I know this is scary if you are currently in a DC position.) But there is no lead pastor in the A/G who wants to allow his board to hire and fire his staff.
I also agree that our current DC teams would do well to meet and help encourage each other. Sharing the best practices couldn’t do anything but help them get better.
December 2, 2007 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Speaker One: "We need change!"
Speaker Two: "OK, submit a resolution."
Speaker One: "Oh wow! A resolution . . . that will never work.
Speaker Two: "OK, talk to your leaders, and tell them your concerns."
Speaker One: "No. They won't listen. They don't care."
Speaker Two: "So vote some new leaders in."
Speaker One: "No, people keep voting in the same people in over and over again."
Speaker Two: "So what are you going to do to bring about the changes you feel are so necessary?"
Speaker One: "We need change! We need change!"
December 2, 2007 5:51 PM
Zorro said...
Speaker One: "We need change!"
Speaker Two: "OK, submit a resolution."
Speaker One: "Oh wow! A resolution . . . that will never work.
Speaker Two: "OK, talk to your leaders, and tell them your concerns."
Speaker One: "No. They won't listen. They don't care."
Speaker Two: "So vote some new leaders in."
Speaker One: "No, people keep voting in the same people in over and over again."
Speaker Two: "So what are you going to do to bring about the changes you feel are so necessary?"
Speaker One: "We need change! We need change!"
Uhhhh...how is this post productive??
What's your solution, dude, after we have gone this route? Leave?
BTW, it sounds like many recent contributers are suggesting that we do just that, "jump ship." Could the prophecies of a mass exodus be right? Where are Jeff, Mark, Brad, and Paul re: this topic?
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 parentingâ€, 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
December 2, 2007 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Zorro: "Uhhhh...how is this post productive??"
It got Beth Grant to respond. Finally, a persuasive, calm voice of reason, willing to look at both sides, and get this discussion moving again.
December 3, 2007 3:56 AM
Anonymous said...
What Works...
I am free to choose who and even when I want to associate with a fellow minister. We have a good pulled purchase power at a few retailers. Camp food is great.
What does NOT work...
1. When you call the DYD of another district to inform him that your youth pastor is moving to their district and three months later he has yet to contact him.
2. Personally I hate the closed doors to opportunities for ministry. Ever try to get your resume into Ohio district??? Why don't more districts have an open church listing like IL does?
3. 100% of my tithe going to the district office. What a shame for our home missions churches to lose that financial support, or even some of our smaller churches.
How to FIX IT.
1. DYD Doug, call the new youth pastor in Hamlin!
2. Have each district post the open churches as well as open staff positions. Do we really allow for the Spirit to guide and lead a pastor as well as a congregation, or is the dist. sup. playing god politics.
3. 25% max of my tithe to go to the district. I'd really like to see it be 0%.
Finally, I pretty much just go about my God business from day to day. If district activities fit into what God has for me and my congregation, great, we'll obey the Lord and be involved. If not, well, I guess will do what God has for us.
Just viewing all these posts makes me want to start an argument with myself. I agree, I disagree. I agree, I disagree...
If you don't agree with the 16 fundamental truths, then so state that on your renewal form and have a face to face with those that have authority in our fellowship. Otherwise get out and go to another denomination or do the independent thing. No one has forced you into being A/G.
There have been many times that I have wrestled with several of our doctrines. But I have allowed that wrestling match to be between me and the Lord, not the fellowship I am currently serving. If at any point I feel my doctrinal beliefs change from that of the A/G, I will kindly send them a letter thanking them for allowing me to serve God in their fellowship and move on.
I am grateful for my heritage in the A/G. Yet I am indebted to my heritage in the Lord. I chose first to serve God, then my family, and then the denomination ooops. fellowship of His leading.
Anon. only because it said to.
December 3, 2007 10:10 PM
Anonymous said...
How can this happen? and will anyone help us?
Dated November 29, 2007
Dear Fellow Ministers:
We Trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday
Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God
credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God
Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been
brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it
will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or
their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please
comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the
Kingdom of God.
Sincerely in Christ
Bill Baker
Superintendent
Southern Missouri District Council
December 5, 2007 3:53 AM
Anonymous said...
Dear Brother Baker,
I appreciate you or your assistant taking the time to post, an exact copy of the letter that you sent to all of us in the Southern Missouri District.
I am not sure how this helped. I can only assume that you wanted to correct any misrepresentations that the previous bloggers made in posting the letter online.
In fact, from where I sit you did not address any of the issues related to those who wrote about this issue earlier.
In addition, the letter I received today via email does nothing for me as a ordained minister in this district. I realize now that I can go to non-A/G churches while on vacation.
As a fourth generation A/G member, the issue for me isn't whether we should be loyal to attend our churches. I agree with you and our misguided leadership.
Don't you think the "spirit" of the letter, following the letter that we will all be penalized up to $100 for getting our renewal into our district office past December 5, then the increase in our monthly tithe, a reflection of the attitude our current leadership is displaying.
When things spin out of control, as we it appears our district leadership feels like it is, the reigns get pulled tighter. As a professional fundraiser I can tell you there are better ways to raise the needed funds in the district than raising the tithes, and penalizing us for getting in our renewals nearly one month before they are actually due.
As for the two recent letters, I think if this is the direction of our entire fellowship, I wonder if others of my age will not be looking for a drastic change in leadership, or another fellowship that can facilitate our hearts for "the kingdom" as the letter was ended.
There is one thing for certain, if these kinds of decisions are the ones that our current district leadership are going to make, my vote, along with others who have expressed such distaste for this kind of recent stuff, will be reflected at the upcoming Section Councils and District Councils.
Signed,
Amazed!
December 5, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 5, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 5, 2007 5:06 PM
Did I just read that? said...
They've stopped moderating the comments. It'd be great if we could all show wisdom and restraint.
December 5, 2007 8:16 PM
Sick to my stomach said...
Someone please remove "Overheard in S. Missouri"
That is not discussion or even opinion, it is down right cruel and vulgar.
If this is the language our pastors are using then Lord help us.
Please show respect for our denominational leaders, even if disagree with their policies. Remember, Paul exhorts us to "speak the truth in love."
Thanks!
George
December 5, 2007 10:52 PM
Ya Boy... said...
GPW--Move back to Southern Missouri and you will find out that was speaking the truth in love. This is cronyville where good ole boyism is our motto. For years one of our colleges cranked out a steady crop of cronies. It is the defining characteristic of our institutional culture. And it is stifling.
December 6, 2007 12:10 AM
Anonymous said...
Prejudice in all forms is ugly. Sweeping generalizations are never full truth.
December 6, 2007 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...
I also received the district letter
that credentialed ministers would not be allowed to attend a non-A/G church.
I agree with the District.
Shouldn't the same standard apply to A/G churches joining non-A/G organizations?
Three churches in our district have joined the Willow Creek association so they can receive non-pentecostal, watered-down, "seeker-sensitive" resources.
December 6, 2007 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...
In agreeing with the So Mo District letter Anonymous Dec. 6 5:06 P.M. said “Shouldn't the same standard apply to A/G churches joining non-A/G organizations?â€
Gee that would also apply to me and my church, but from a different angle... We have joined a regional apostolic network because they are MORE Pentecostal and more open to the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their gatherings. They do a great job equipping people to correctly operate in the gifts and have some good materials. Oh yea, our presbyter is aware of this and is ok with it. Oops! I used the “a†word.
If all we can be is A/G company people our fellowship is in huge trouble!
One more thing....to be consistent then our national leaders should not be members of non-Pentecostal organizations like the National Assoc. Of Evangelicals.
December 6, 2007 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...
Why would A/G churches need to join
non-A/G organizations for resources,
when the pastor has the Word and the
Holy Spirit as His guide to teach his
congregation how to move in the Holy Spirit?
I have seen non-Biblical practices
entering the A/G's through outside
influences. We have a responsibility
to guard the flock.
December 6, 2007 8:20 PM
Humble Yourselves said...
These last several posts remind me of why the AG is in such trouble. Do you really think that the AG or Pentecostals have a corner on the truth? They are relative late comers to the game. How about all of the Bible teaching traditions that came before us and those that came after? Each expressing some unique facet of God's desire to restore his church to it's potential. True learners are discerning and humble (and I recall that humility is a character trait that is commended in Scripture). God opposes the proud--especially the theologically proud who say their little group is the only group that speaks for God. I'm grieved, but mainly embarrased to read these misguided attitudes.
December 7, 2007 2:41 AM
Anonymous said...
Oh Lordy! Anonymous 5:06 has invoked phrases like, "non-pentecostal" "watered-down" and "seeker-sensitive" in his support for the So. Missouri District's letter to their ministers. Frankly speaking, my wife and I would much rather follow the body of what some of those groups teach than the kookiness of what we have been exposed to over our ministerial lives. Our National Officer's support of Brownsville in our quest for revival, our linkage to other unsavory characters,some of whom are in the news at this moment...should hopefully move us back to a place of balance in life and doctrine.
December 7, 2007 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...
I would like to encourage all of us to move back to the spirit of the superb insights of Dr. Beth Grant. I know that many of us are frustrated, but some of our comments have digressed into nothing more than a gripe session. I sincerely doubt that this approach will bring about any real change.
I believe there may be merits to discussing the Australian model, but it has already been pointed out months ago that some of our districts are larger than the A/G in Australia. There may also be merit in discussing the role and pitfalls of modern day apostles, but I am concerned about the spirit and the lack of grace in some of our posts here. Perhaps the moderators/administrators can take this in a different direction.
Blessings,
Pastor D. J. M.
December 7, 2007 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...
Yes, where are the blog hosts?
December 7, 2007 10:21 AM
Ben Breit said...
I think a more appropriate line of questions might be as follows:
1. What is working in my ministry?
2. What is not working in my ministry?
3. What I am trying to do to fix that which is not working?
It is easy to point at the district as an us vs. them, but are we not the district? Instead of looking to the District to be our save all and end all, maybe we could take a moment for self assessment.
I think a discussion on these three questions would benefit most in this forum, as well as give insight to our leadership where we are.
December 7, 2007 12:53 PM
Ben Breit said...
p.s. I am ok with my name being tagged or flagged by anyone part of "Big Brother" who may have surveillance on this web site. :)
December 7, 2007 12:56 PM
hopeful but cautious said...
I'm willing to embrace the tension of views posted, but do wish we could maintain a hopeful outlook and be part of the solution rather than just diagnosing the problem.
What works: clearly missions (although it seems the system of supporting many at small amounts could be tweak), quality of District-led events for specific groups, i.e. youth, children's, etc.
What doesn't work: sectional structures, communication and change, maintenance over vision, and how District officials are elected and positioned.
How to fix it:
-sectional structures: if relational districts won't work, can we have relational sections with representation on the presbytery? It doesn't solve the District lines issue, but it's a start.
-communication and change: it does seem that Districts are more concerned about managing and maintaining the machinery rather than taking faith-risk steps and leading the local churches in dreaming great dreams for the Kingdom of God). Because Districts seem resistant to change, they oppose any rocking of the boat, i.e. innovators, outside-the-box-ers. Additionally, there is a sense that the local church exists for the District rather than the other way around, maybe regular evaluations of the District by the pastors would provide honest feedback, then publish this information.
-maintenance over vision: this is a leadership issue. To often we are electing successful pastors into presbytery roles and District leadership, but their skill sets are not leadership, apostolic, or visionary, but administration and government. Meaning, they're more likely to manage than cast great dreams and lead us in that direction. What to do? Make the presbytery a management team, overseen by the District leaders, then see below.
-election and roles of District officers: while I don't like the current system of Democratic processes, until we or NC can clearly recognize God's anointed leader and appoint them to that position, we've got to do the election thing. However, maybe we need to get away from just picking-a-name-out-of-the-hat approach (I have no idea who some of the people I vote for are or if they are qualified or have vision). Maybe key roles like District Sup should be interviewed, invited to preach, etc, like we would do if we were bringing in a new pastor or hiring a staff pastor. I want to know more about them, their vision, passion, dream for the District. Secondly, the Sup should be able to appoint some of the key positions. If we have the right person in place, let them choose their Sec/ Treas, Assistant Sup, and whatever other positions he chooses. Or better yet, do away with the Sec/ Treas, and hire some wiz with an MBA and make them the District Administrator. The Sec/ Treas in our District welds too much power. So, take the money control out of one position.
Lane Douglas, applause coming your way from the back of the room here.
I'm late, but if anyone is still reading, here are my answers: 1 -
WHAT WORKS: missions, Royal Rangers and Missionettes, BGMC, STL, youth events
When I call the district office, I am usually able to reach one of the staff, and they do listen.
Our Supt. and Assist. Supt. also respond to email. There are ongoing efforts not only to plant but to revitalize churches--this is recent, and results are mixed.
2. WHAT DOES NOT WORK:
This is just my opinion, and some would disagree. Mens and Womens Ministries are outdated. Women's Ministries is fluffy, though it seems this year's offerings may be less so. District Affiliated churches being supervised by a prebyter or the district--not happening at all. And everyone knows this.
2A - THINGS THAT ARE BOTH GOOD AND BAD: It seems decisions are made by presbyters, not at council. Elections are...excruciating. Often there is one name on the ballot.
3. HOW TO FIX IT: Communication, communication, communication. Specific measures, such as we considered at Gen. Council, to be intentional about making a "place at the table" for young ministers, women, ethnic minorities. Men's and Women's Ministries--do we need them? I'm not sure. If so, rethink why. I don't want to hear about decorating, make up, crafts or how to be a bargain shopper.
I believe that our district was improved in many areas over the last decade. I used to think that no one really cared what happened to me as long as I sent my tithe check. That is no longer the case. I have great respect for our district leadership.
December 17, 2007 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...
From the hot pan....
Wow. This is my first time to this website. I am a lifelong A/G church member....but after reading all of this...wondering...should I leave this fellowship? I grew up in the AG...Love the Lord with all my heart and serve Him as best I know how.
I am not a minister...but know several personally. Some I am proud to be associated with. Some, I'd rather not have had the "non-pleasure" of knowing. I realize they are all human---some suppose they are "super-human"...
Brother Woods, I commend you for taking this on! Our church and church leaders pray for you. Your job is tough. Dealing with these pastors/ministers has to be the toughtest job in the world. Especially when there are those who believe they are above "reprimand"...
I apologize for this in advance....but how can we follow under the direction of a Supt. who is a blatant "user" of people? A person who cannot tell the truth, uses the work of others and claims it as his own...but if he fails or falters in any way...is QUICK to pass the blame to those directly under him....How can we follow this leading? But we are stuck...these are my feelings...and they are shared by so many others, but unfortunately unless the pastors/ministers unite that have been "used and abused" .... we are doomed to continue this spiral down.
One more thing....does the Stup. have the authority to allow certain ministers to "not pay tithes" and keep full credential
"Three Questions about Your District"
100 Comments -
1- WHAT WORKS: for better or worse, our District has a "hands off" policy. They allow churches and individuals to do what they want. This brings a freedom for new church plants, open networking, etc.
2- What does NOT work: They don't do anything. There are no meetings, accountability, support, vision statements, strategies (old or new), NOTHING. They really don;t exist in any form or fashion, except to collect my check and offer me 501c3 status.
As a first-year church planter, I've heard NOTHING from my district before OR since our church opened. And we opened to a great success in the LORD!!
3 - HOW to FIX IT: Shut it down. They've proven their ineffectiveness. There is no need for them. Ultimately, our 501c3 status comes from Gen. Council, so there is no need for them. Our church is doing just fine without them, and I've manged to network with others on my own.
Sad, but true.
November 30, 2007 1:41 PM
WHAT WORKS: My district superintendent is well-liked by everyone within the district. He has created a warm, inviting environment for ministers. And he is a hands-off leader who allows for churches to do their own things. He also helped me get my current job, for which I am thankful. Also, my dues are only 5%, which doesn't seem as burdensom as what some of you are paying. Finally, the district officials use district council as the opportunity to provide various leadership training seminars for ministers and to keep business to an absolute minimum. One more, my section meets regularly for prayer and discussion.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Unless I call the district for help, no one from the district calls me. In other words, the district--and this is just my opinion--isn't proactive, unless perhaps your church is in crisis. Now this lack of hands-on leadership can be both a curse and a blessing, but in my case, I'm concerned that district officials spend so much time putting out fires that they are not spending time planting forests. Also, my district is graying and shrinking. Also, there are a lot of (im my opinion) unnecessary fees for licensing and ordination. It also kind of fries me that the district officials get a sabbatical every few years. I have no idea for what. It's not like they have to come up with a new sermon every Sunday. Nor do I see them publishing books and articles. I'd like a sabbatical, that's for sure.
HOW TO FIX IT: Term limits on leaders. No raises, bonuses, or sabbaticals until or unless there is progress on the issues of our district graying and shrinking. If the pastors of local churches which aren't growing don't get those perks, I'm not sure why district officials should.
November 30, 2007 2:01 PM
1. What works in your district?
It appears that our district has a passion for world missionaries. They promote them, work to get their support raised, and make a big deal about them at every general council. The youth department seems to be quite active. Other than that I have no idea what they do-it has never touched my church's life in any way.
2. What does not work in your district?
As far as I can tell the only thing they are interested in is our money. They’ve been holding the same annual district council for years. It starts with what seems like a funeral service (memorial service for ministers who passed away since last year), which sets the tone for the council. There is a huge push to support the district owned campground (we supplemented it to the tune of $440K last year). They say this is important because hundreds of children are called into the ministry and to the mission’s field at camp each summer (no one acknowledges that we don’t have to own a campground for this to happen). It appears that the campground push has something to do with all the district pastors and former officials who own property around the district lake. There is an “evangelistic†service one of the nights of district council (because we all know lots of lost people are dying to attend district council services). And we vote on a bunch of ballots with only one candidate’s name for a variety of presbyter roles.
There are no discussions about district initiatives, no vision casting, no seminars for how to improve ministries, or open forum discussions about issues facing the movement. The same old drill, year-after-year, decade-after-decade.
Sectional meetings are even better—we all belly up to lunch at Golden Cockroach Buffet. Everyone is generally beyond AARP age which qualifies everyone for the senior discount. Visiting missionaries and evangelists are introduced and they try to book services. We talk about the upcoming sectional Christmas dinner. They take an offering for sectional expenses (?) and we’re on our way.
There is also a monthly magazine—straight out of the 50’s. It’s written at about sixth grade level, has articles by all of the district department heads (“How summer camp changed my life†or “Why the initial evidence has improved my love lifeâ€), it has a section for churches to sell old pews, old hymnals, and old church buses, and old vacuum tube PA systems. My wife and I sit around the living room in the evenings the day it arrives reading it and laughing (and crying) that we have to support such a hokey organization.
I hear we now have a district training center where an individual gets four hours of instruction in the Old Testament or New Testament (and other subjects), takes a test, and voilà they’re now Biblical scholars ready to compete in the 21st century marketplace of ideas.
And of course, they have a very active accounts receivable office that cranks out giving receipts and remittance envelopes as regularly as the IRS.
About the whole district operation I say, “If 1950 ever comes back, we’re ready!â€
3. How do we fix what does not work in your district?
In reality, what I’d like to see happen is the abolishment of district offices. Hire one accountant to collect our tithes and dues, form a team of representative pastors, and decide how to best allocate the resources to fit the needs of the district: Church planting, scholarships for ministerial students, supporting missionaries, etc. All other district functions could be delegated to working task teams that serve on an annual basis: credential interviews, discipline team, missionary candidate approvals, home missions supervision, etc.
Beyond this radical solution here are some other ways to fix the broken machine:
For starters we could insist that the officials attend a Willow Creek or Saddleback or Andy Stanley or some kind of well run church conference on an annual basis so they could get a clue as to what excellence actually looks like. They should also have formal training in non-profit organizational management—MBA level. And they should have relevant, recent pastoral experience that was progressive and effective in making disciples.
Secondly, they should re-envision their roles so that they understand that they work for us and are appointed to serve our needs—not the other way around. I’m nauseated every time I see a district “official†treated as though they were royalty. The DS is not my boss or my pastor, he’s a fellow pastor voted into office by his colleagues to serve an administrative function—period! Remember, this is not a denomination, and certainly not the Roman Catholic Church with its ecclesiastical hierarchy and abuses.
Next, we should allow presbyters to serve no more than ten or twelve pastors/churches. At one time my presbyter had some 70 churches under his shepherd watch. And presbyters should be trained in management level supervision for non-profit organizations.
Next, we should take an annual poll to determine the needs of the district so we can prioritize some forward-looking planning for the future. This should serve as the basis for annual evaluation, resource allocation, and goal setting for the next year.
Additionally, we should formally evaluate every member of the district staff and vote whether or not they should be retained for another year’s service or not based on their performance (every year). They should be evaluated on a set of measurable goals that are set for their office by a leadership team.
District salaries should be determined by a set scale based on a survey of median salaries of the pastors within the district. They should not be underpaid, nor should they be paid so much as to become so comfortable with their role that they want to stay in office beyond their effectiveness.
The role of the district office should be to resource the pastors and churches in the district with the best tools, practices, leadership mentoring, and church assessments available (none of which need come from the district itself).
November 30, 2007 5:38 PM
I'd sure like to hear from George Wood Sr. on the State of the Union and what he thinks we should do to bring our District structures kicking into the 21st century!
November 30, 2007 5:46 PM
WHAT WORKS: In NorCal/Nevada collecting and spending money and investing money in pyrimid schemes.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Bethany University
HOW TO FIX IT: Shut it down meaning the University and the District. We don't need districts.
November 30, 2007 6:07 PM
I'm in the NEast, and I can relate to almost of these.
Again, how sad.
November 30, 2007 6:26 PM
the problems with our "movement", from my perspective, are with the national office.
November 30, 2007 6:26 PM
Anonymous November 30, 2007 6:26 PM:
Since your issues are with the General Council, please answer these three questions:
1. What works?
2. What doesn't work?
3. What can be done to fix the problems?
November 30, 2007 6:38 PM
1. What works?
Our District Superintendent seems to want to change things to make the district function more effectively. He has a passion for the presence of God. Our ministry small groups for pastors are somewhat effective.
2. What doesn't work?
There is NO help to revitalize churches. If I have to hear about another church plant I am going to vomit. REVITALIZE CHURCHES!!!! Put money and resources into it.
3. What can be done to fix the problems?
The end of the "old boys club" would be a good place to start.
November 30, 2007 7:29 PM
1) What works: There is honestly not much working in our district. Missions giving is about our only claim to fame in the A/G. In fact, at the last DC our Supt almost did not get the vote on the first ballot (as normally would happen for an incumbant who has been in for a few terms...) But he ultimately did get the vote. People are just sick to death of dealing with things...and the first vote showed it, and he acknowledged, "I can read the message you're sending me in this vote" in his subsequent acceptance speech when he got the vote in the next round, however -- has anything happened to change anything? NO. And it's been almost seven months. It will not change under his leadership and the current team's leadership and I think many in our district feel it's a hopeless situation.
There is a general discontent and it seems every time you turn around you hear somebody else saying they've just given up on sectional/district involvement and meetings. I never thought I'd feel this way - I was so involved for quite a number of years in serving on various teams and committees, but it's come to this for myself and my spouse in the last year.
2) What does not work:
Our district office is very inefficient...mailings coming at the last minute, disorganization and a lack of excellence in many things. Hiring people based on relationship rather than skill set...If it wasn't so embarrassing it would be laughable...
We are extremely strong in missions because of fantastic leadership in that area, but otherwise we're very weak.
We desperately need someone to stand with the pastors in this district. We have church splits galore - not planted the proper way, but staffers rebelliously splitting the church, and 9 times out of 10 the district stands with the staff member who splits the church. (This is the main method of church planting in this district. As far as church planting initiatives done the proper way, spearheaded by the district -- we have ZIPPO.) Many SP's have little to zero confidence in the leadership to stand with them in a time of testing such as this.
3) How to fix it: Unless our current team were voted out or resigned, we wouldn't see a change. Shut it down. Or have Supt. Wood come in and put them all through a "District Supt & Staff University" where they learn how to do it properly. Sad to say but half of them probably wouldn't show up for the training. We have had nothing for several years but excuses, excuses, excuses as to why things are not happening.
Several presbyters in our district seem to be unhappy and see the same things but we are told that when they question things in the meetings with the exec's they are told, "Now brothers, let's just keep things positive..." and steered in another direction.
I have confidence in Supt. Wood, but absolutely none in our District Council.
November 30, 2007 7:54 PM
1-WHAT WORKS: Our district is attempting to be more relational/practical on "ground level" issues via "C3" groups, and more leadership trainings during different district wide events.
2-WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Our district is extremely segregated into, well for lack of a better term..., special intrest groups. The old guys want to keep pluggin' away. The young guys want progress. And if you can't decide what group you're in..., well, you're just flat out on your own. The district seems to be a little more reactive than proactive. Our youth department is barely keeping up with the current teen culture..., actually it's kind of pathetic.
3-HOW TO FIX IT: I find the responsibility of reaching out and pulling together to fall on the older generation. However, the younger needs to realize there's some wisdom to be gleaned. I find term limits to be appropriate to keep things grounded and fresh. Some type of a regular personal contact for the district(other than to tell me my dues are late) would be nice. MOST OF ALL...A WHOLE BUNCH MORE PRAYER!!!
November 30, 2007 8:08 PM
1) WHAT WORKS: when I need something, I get a helpful attitude and an honest answer. I don't get micromanaged. I can offer negative feedback to my district officials to their face and not feel threatened. The district staff actually serve churches - the youth and children's ministry departments deserve special praise in this regard. The district officials are people worthy of respect.
2) WHAT DOESN'T WORK: I'll pass on this question. I feel comfortable giving them negative feedback in person, but I don't want to make them look bad publicly. Our district has flaws just as my own ministry does.
3) HOW TO FIX IT: Likewise, pass.
4) ABOUT THE ROLE OF DISTRICTS: I don't know if this is true of all districts, but in ours the district serves as the legal board for non-General Council churches. That keeps them pretty busy. So a lot of their time is spent helping struggling churches try to turn the corner.
Another huge chunk of their time is spent handling moral rehabilitations. There are far more moral failures than I think the average minister in our movement realizes, and unless we want to throw people to the wolves we must have a system in place to help our wayward colleagues.
These aren't functions that can simply be abolished. Any proposals involving eradicating the district structure has to address these (and others, such as ministerial credentialing).
I bet the strategy we come up with would be decentralized, would involve appointing esteemed pastors to lead, and would require giving them broad authority.
In other words, we'd have to reinvent district-like entities. We might choose to give them certain additional mandates (continuing ed for ministers, for example) or remove other specific mandates (like hold conferences and camps), but we'd wind up at close to the same place in terms of pure structure.
I'm genuinely curious if there are any rival structural suggestions out there. I'm not closed-minded on the subject, I just don't see another way forward that's different enough to matter.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS & SUGGESTIONS:
1) In some districts, the officials seem to believe they have more authority than they actually do.
2) In some districts, the district office seems to exist primarily to get people to come to events. Youth Convention, Women's Retreat, and kid's camps are all wonderful things, but a district needs to be about more than that.
3) In some districts, there is a "can't be done" mentality that makes it hard for church planters or home missionaries to get off the ground.
4) The main road to district leadership seems to involve being a successful senior pastor. I think in many districts we'd be better-served by a seasoned executive pastor or an accomplished missionary who is used to partnering with churches without having control over them.
5) Few district officials seem to think strategically about ministry. They are often excellent tacticians, but they rarely seem to grasp what will matter the most 30 or 50 years down the road.
6) I think most district officials overestimate the importance of Bible colleges to the Assemblies of God. Fewer and fewer of our ministers are coming through them. The Bible colleges still have important symbolic value, but they are not a defining feature of the future of our movement. This is significant for this discussion because in some districts the local AG school is the tail that wags the dog.
7) I think it would be fun to call our district leaders bishops and make them wear silly robes. Maybe not wise, but fun. ;)
That was a lot more than I thought I'd say. Thanks for reading this far. Now it's your turn to contribute to the conversation.
November 30, 2007 9:05 PM
I'd like to know if the members of this forum believe we need districts.
November 30, 2007 10:15 PM
THREE CHALLENGES TO ANY AND ALL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS:
1. Why not ask your ministers the same three questions in an anonymous response mailing?
If this blog is even a small sampling of the sentiment of your constituents, you can't afford NOT to do so. Let God speak to you as you choose to become vulnerable to those you were elected to serve. It will be painful--no doubt--but it very well could reveal some paralyzing blind spots.
2. Why not follow our General Super's model by becoming more transparent and user friendly?
Blatantly copy his very obvious olive branches to under-voiced segments of your district. I'm sure he'd entertain a call for help if you needed some suggestions.
3. Refuse all bonuses and "pastor appreciation" gifts.
These perks only build greater disdain from struggling ministers. I frequently hear the buzz around Pastor Appreciation Sunday--when a form letter is annually sent from the district office asking for a show of financial gratitude for the district Super (and sometimes executives). This makes you a target for HUGE criticism and can seriously make those you lead question your motives.
How about starting a distribution of your bonuses and P.A. offerings to church planters, ministry widows or struggling ministers? I dare you!
November 30, 2007 11:10 PM
Anon., 11/20, 11:10 pm: "If this blog is even a small sampling of the sentiment of your constituents, you can't afford NOT to do so. Let God speak to you as you choose to become vulnerable to those you were elected to serve."
I would suggest it is, indeed, small. And would you bow to every small, but vocal group in your church? And then bowing to the pressure of the one small group, how would you deal with the critical mass that now has been disenfranchised because you caved in to one small group that many times is at odds with other small groups?
The great number of site visits that has been mentioned before doesn't indicate that everyone is in agreement with everything being said. Granted, some visiting are amazed at the gutsiness of this group. But indicative, hardly.
I, too, appreciate the sensitivity and wisdom of our GS and his openness. He really has a pastor's heart. I am so glad he is listening.
If this blog indicates grass roots interest, I wonder how many from the grass roots would get such a pass on answering NO (ala GPW) on the tithe question and get through the questioning of the credentialing committee and/or interviewers (ala GPW) because he/she happened to be friends with them.
I don't find this grass roots at all. All contributors are well-placed or well-related individuals (nothing wrong with that), but they certainly don't represent the common constituency of the A/G. I can think of a couple guys who, if they had the same opinions, would not have been approved.
Many in the common constituency cannot afford the time or money to go to one of our schools. When they do come out, they are in such debt, they cannot afford to become church planters. Who thinks about them? (I'm not anti-education. I have six years of secondary education.) Isn't this what the founding brethren feared: an academic elite? I think so. I love to learn, but I also am aware of the tension of recognizing that "knowledge puffs up" brings into the equation.
ACT 4:13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.
I wonder how they'd do on this blog.
I think most of the common consituency finds this discussion of the value of one's education being of more merit if it is not through correspondence a curious one, but not having much to do with their everyday lives.
December 1, 2007 6:07 AM
Anonymous 12/1 - How in the world can you know whether this is grass roots or not? Unless you have personal information on every single person that posts on here you are just shooting in the dark with your statement about people being well placed. I would submit from personal experience and having served in 6 different districts in the A/G that there is a disastifaction with our church government and set-up/districts that stretches from coast to coast. And while many comments pertain to money the frustrations stem equally with ministry and a lack of being connected and in tune with the constituency from the leadership of those districts. What you read on here is just a sampling in my opinion of a true reality of how the majority feels in the A/G about districts. We shouldn't ignore it nor should we attempt to explain it away and discount it's significance by saying it is just a few.
December 1, 2007 8:02 AM
Yes, it probably is a shot in the dark, but probably one made with night vision goggles. It is based on this feeling I get from watching all this, that "now the people get to speak," when I don't think it is truly representative.
Out of 30,000+ ministers, you get300-400 voting on these polls(and those split), I would say it is not scientific and not truly representative. But I'm glad you get to speak your mind, as you should. But unless you can prove to me this is a major block of opinion, I will choose to believe it is not. And yes, minor/divergent opinions should have just as much an audience. But that doesn't mean they should prevail simply because they have spoken.
December 1, 2007 8:15 AM
Isn't is sad anonymous that in 2007 you are saying "now the people get to speak"? Sums it all up right there! Many still speak anonymously including you on here for fear of even getting to speak on here. What a sad commentary on our movement.
December 1, 2007 8:29 AM
Anonymous 12/1/6:07
I also would like to weigh in on your comment concerning the displeasure with district offices. You said, "I don't find this grass roots at all." Can I ask, "Friend, where in the world are you living?" Does someone have to draw every ounce of blood just to administer a blood test? It is my belief that this blog has simply revealed a growing sentiment of displeasure with District offices. Look at the firestorm of response just in the last two days. My observation earlier in the week on this site was that the furor isn't really with the National Office. Nor should it be. We pay in only $240 a year. I don't have a whole lot of room to be critical when I only contribute a mere drop in the bucket every year. In fact I stated I would double or triple that if I was in leadership in the National Official. For example, AG Financial Services is second to none. Just do a study of the production of AG Financial compared to other Denominations or Fellowships. The President Gerry Hindy is absolutely brilliant. I would be a part of the GC just for that alone. Not to mention missions, resourcing, representation, etc.
If you want to do an assessment of the discontent do what every wise leader does… follow the money. What is happening at our District offices, for the most part is criminal if not sad. This coming week our District has another solid church (61 years in the A/G) leaving the Fellowship. We have had strong churches leaving every year the past five years and every time it is written off by leadership as, “Oh that pastor has a real problem with authority†or “That pastors a real malcontent!†When will leadership look in the mirror and do some honest evaluation? As I said on an earlier post, the most frightening thing for our Fellowship is that the spirit of apathy is close to outweighing the spirit of antagonism. If and when that does happen, hang to your hats because the current departures will only look like a dripping faucet compared to the proverbial dam breaking. All that said, please don’t dismiss this as some small segment of the populace it isn’t!
December 1, 2007 9:00 AM
Honestly...this is one reason I'm going away from the AG as a church planter.
I was saved and worked as youth pastor for 6 years in one church and then after 5 years being out I came back to the same section to youth pastor in another church.
From my perspective as
WHAT WORKS - Honestly in the section I was in - NOTHING.
WHAT DOES NOT WORK - No accountability or unity towards each other. Although there doesn't need to be clones there should be some type of cooperation as to the ultimate vision God has called us to. Too much politicking. Pastors who get out of their bounds (morally) have no accountability within.
HOW TO FIX IT: Not gonna happen. There is a huge separation age wise and fundamental beliefs...some more strict than others so there is a gap between old school and anyone new school with new ideas coming in.
All that being said...it's why I no longer want to be AG...on top of that its just to many hoops to go through...I can have just as more accountability and connection with unity through my network than I could in the district I would be in which is one of the Texas Districts.
JC
December 1, 2007 9:15 AM
When I talked about well-placed and well-related that was not a shot in the dark, because that was a comment based on the contributors not the commenters. The contributors listed on the side bar are all either well-related or are well-placed in churches that are prominent. Thus they do not speak for the grass roots. So, if you presume I spoke about you, not knowing you, you are right. I don't. But you are not a listed contributor. You were a commenter.
December 1, 2007 10:26 AM
"the most frightening thing for our Fellowship is that the spirit of apathy is close to outweighing the spirit of antagonism."
RIGHT ON!!
As a church planter, I have received NOTHING, not even a phone call from my SECTION or my DISTRICT. Yet, our church has been open for months.
When the time comes for us to "upgrade," I have no intention of becoming an Gen. Council church. In no way does the district have a right to our building, property or decision making process. They were not here at the beginning, and they will not USURP power when we are aged and mature.
This is not the '50s and I am not and idiot.
BTW, to the Anonymous "hater:" I feel for you. For you to go to extremes and accuse the participants of this blog as being "connected," "educated," "insignificant," is a testimony of how closed and scared you really are.
December 1, 2007 10:34 AM
To the Anonymous who thinks this blog is for those who are "well-placed" and "well-related." Dude, I'm a nobody.
I have a BA from CBC, and I pastor a new church of 50. I do not serve in any committee, nor do have any relatives who are/were in the ministry. And I've read the profiles on most of the "posters/voices" on this site, and they are nobodies too. (no offense, guys and gals.)
We simply are: THE A/G. (the cue the Breakfast Club theme song...)
December 1, 2007 10:39 AM
Wowser! If this is just a sampling of our constituency, stuff is hitting the fan big time. Our District just went into the camp business at this past Council...voting unanimously in the last session to buy property for bling bling. The infrastructure alone is going to be millions of dollars to develope and with no Mart Green's around these parts, the burden of raising the needed cash will be falling on the already strapped churches. But the reasoning was that we could have a Maranatha East retirement community for our aging preachers if the camp does'nt work out! Hey, I'm 43 and retirement will be here before I know it...maybe it is'nt all that bad. In our District there is a huge disconnect that's been going on. We were one of the few District's that have voted out a Superintendent, or let's say the Presbytery voted him out. It was handled very messily with major involvement from T.Trask and Dr. Wood and the effects are still lingering a few years later. Some are out there thinking.."if that's what they did to brother So and So, imagine what they would do with me!
December 1, 2007 10:43 AM
Years ago I was wrestling with whether I wanted to remain in the AG or not. While attending the First Annual Seminarians Conference in Springfield, I got some great advice from some well respected professors at AGTS.
They told me that, if I was truly on my way out, not to waste my voice. I was encouraged to stand up and voice my discontent rather than simply disappear. After all, revolutions are always built on the blood of martyrs.
I took their advice and, in front of the entire GP (to include Trask) I stood up and openly questioned their leadership style and our theology. I was chastised, of course. But my move made others bold enough to speak out that weekend and we saw some constructive dialogue actually take place.
For those of you on this blog who are stating that you are leaving the AG, I'd like to offer you the same advice. If you care about the movement, drop the anonymity, step out of the shadows, and use the voice you have while you are still licensed. If you really are stepping away, what have you got to lose? If Luther could be bold enough to sign the 95 thesis... be bold enough to sign your name.
If you don't care about the movement, and think the AG is simply a cult-like fellowship of Kool-Aid drinkers... can I politely ask you to get off this blog. It's not a grievance board for people simply looking for a complaining post. I'm all for the constructive critiques... but the whining is getting tiresome.
December 1, 2007 10:53 AM
Hey Lane. Appreciate your words and boldness. I have a meeting in Springield soon to meet and have productive dialogue just as you suggested. I would caution you however not to label what people say as whining. For some it is the best way they know how to articulate where they are at. In a culture that has stifled openess we are not all that good yet at being bold but I hope this blog will help to promote not only the exchange of ideas but the true hearts and frustrations of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
December 1, 2007 11:18 AM
Anonymous December 1, 2007 6:07 AM:
You wrote: "If this blog indicates grass roots interest, I wonder how many from the grass roots would get such a pass on answering NO (ala GPW) on the tithe question and get through the questioning of the credentialing committee and/or interviewers (ala GPW) because he/she happened to be friends with them." For the record, I told my credentialing committee that I personally tithe and that I teach others to tithe because it's a good round number. The substance of our disagreement was the rationale behind tithing. I disagreed with mandating tithing as a biblical rule for Christians. The disagreement with my committee was over the rationale, not the pratice. That's why they gave me a pass, not because my dad was friends with them. How dare you accuse the committee of having no integrity!
You also wrote: "The contributors listed on the side bar are all either well-related or are well-placed in churches that are prominent. Thus they do not speak for the grass roots." Seriously, you have got to be kidding me. Of the six contributors, two (Mark and Jeff) are pastors of large churches. Two more (Tory and Brad) are church planters. One (Paul) is an associate pastor. And I am the pastor of a church that over the past twenty years has performed the reverse miracle of growing from 1000 to 100. If I as the pastor of a small church in need of a turnaround am not grassroots, then grassroots has not meaning. Why are you so resentful of us (and me particularly)?
GPW
P.S. And rather than cross-talking on this issue, why can't we just answer the questions. I know there's a district superintendent's meeting coming up soon, and I think they might profit from our comments.
December 1, 2007 12:15 PM
Jeff...
Appreciate the word of caution. However, some of the Anonymous comments lately, in my opinion, are starting to go past the "articulation of openness" and enter the realm of simple negativity. While I appreciate your willingness to create a place for people to speak up... I think there should be guidelines for those who want to cast darts under a cloak of invisibility.
Some of the comments on this post are bordering on accusatory, slanderous and derogatory. If we don't require some form of accountability here on this blog, how can we tolerate posts about District officials who have no accountability? That's what I intended by my "whining" comment.
Let's allow anonymity... but put guidelines on what can be written. When "Anonymous" slammed his District above and wrote that their District publication had an article entitled "How the initial evidence improves my love life," I was disappointed with the lack of editorial control on your part. That kind of comment has no positive value and is, in my book,... well, "whining."
Lane
December 1, 2007 12:54 PM
Thanks Lane. I understand where you are coming from and agree with you. By the way I'm not the Jeff who has any editorial control over anything. Just another person sharing on here.
December 1, 2007 1:29 PM
Sorry, Jeff, for the mistaken identity.
To Paul, Jeff, George and the others... please consider my comments above for 12:54 PM. Perhaps anonymous comments should have to go through a bit of a stronger filter or editorial process than those of us writing under our names.
December 1, 2007 2:33 PM
Lane:
I don't like anonymous posts generally, but in this specific case, I don't know how else to get honest feedback about what's going on in the district. If it's true that some ministers will face retribution in their districts for speaking out, and if it's in fact important for them to speak out, then they've got to have some sort of forum. I suggested in my post that a few ground rules govern comments, but it seems that those might not have been enough. A poll would be a much better venue to get at the kind of answers I'm looking for.
GPW
December 1, 2007 3:18 PM
Dude, we're mature enough to know the difference between "constructive criticism" and slander. The guy posting about his District's newsletter was simply poking fun...that's all.
We're tired, and we want a place where we can vent and gather now ideas and momentum. We don't need more filters to "regulate" us. If some body crosses your line: ignore him/her. Let's keep this blog FREE.
ALSO, if you're going to post on this Topic, honor GPW's request and answer all three questions. You're doing anyone any favors by not critiquing or NOT offering ways to improve. (I'm glad you can talk openly in NCal/Nev.) Our posting on this topic is for the GREATER GOOD, and allows leaders and members from all over to know what is going on in our Fellowship and in other Districts.
BTW> Feel free to use the "Nickname" option on this COMMENT Board. It keeps us from saying Anonymous 5:45, 9:13, etc.
December 1, 2007 3:32 PM
Zorro...
One of GPW's original requests on this post was "be respectful." Read through the entirety of these responses and tell me that everyone who posted followed that guideline. And, incidentally, you contradicted yourself. You stated that we didn't need filters here, but then proceeded to "filter" my post by asking me to honor GPW's request and only answer the questions. See how it works? You, too, understand the necessity of guidelines.
GPW...
I don't think the Poll is necessarily the better idea. I think some of the responses here are genuine and have given some great insight. But, contrary to what Zorro finds amusing, some have that "edge" of disrespect that could have been filtered.
I understand the desire for a "free" environment. But there is absolutely no way we can hope for those needing to read these things to stick around when the tone simply becomes: "Nothing works, no way to fix it, shut it down."
Lane
December 1, 2007 3:42 PM
Lane:
I too am disappointed by some of the more extreme responses, i.e., "Nothing works, no way to fix it, shut it down." I simply don't believe that any district is competent at total incompetence. Also, I believe there are always fixes. The most obvious one in any district that is not missional is to change out the leaders. That's where our democratic form of leadership selection is a liability. Even incompetent leaders can claim a measure of legitimacy because they were voted (and continue to be voted) into office. But you're right, the "nothing works" tone of some of the posts is problematic, even if some of their criticisms are on target, as I think they unfortunately are.
George
December 1, 2007 3:51 PM
1 - WHAT WORKS: World Missions and itinerating missionaries. BGMC. STL. Fine Arts. Some of the Youth Events.
2. WHAT DOES NOT WORK: Communication. Our Sup is hopelessly disconnected. You can't get in touch with him and he doesn't return calls or email. Women's Ministries. Camps and campground.
2A - THINGS THAT ARE BOTH GOOD AND BAD: Sectional meetings. It's good to see those that do come, but the meetings themselves are a waste of time. District Council - some great services, but terrible planning, and absolutely useless "business sessions."
Nothing is decided or done in Council business sessions. The district has added a layer of Presbytery and taken much of the business away from council.
3. HOW TO FIX IT: New and better leadership. Where we have true leaders, things are good. But in too many cases, for example, our Sup., they are leaders only by title.
Leaders need to lead, be proactive, and communicate their tails off.
December 1, 2007 3:51 PM
Oh, Lane...
December 1, 2007 3:56 PM
For anyone who thinks this is not a real "sampling" of what credential holders in the A/G believe, I just mention...keep in mind that with the polls for the general council elections, it was AMAZINGLY accurate, which some people even remarked on other blogs something to the effect, "it's pretty bad when the A/G GC elections can be accurately predicted on a blog" but I thought it was GREAT. This blog is just what we have needed, and I believe it is extremely representative of what a majority of ministers in the AG are feeling. Why did the Future AG Buca Di Beppo lunch reservations get completely booked up in a flash? Consider that A LOT...a whole lot of people are feeling this. And really, this blog is just bringing out into the greater open what is already being discussed around restaurant tables after district councils by countless ministers who are just tired, oh so tired.
I find someone's desire to just dismiss this as a small negative vocal sampling very interesting.
December 1, 2007 3:56 PM
You're right. I guess the only way to test my theory on whether this is really a genuine sample of the cross-section is to stop complaining and work towards some answers and resolve.
I don't doubt the significance of views expressed or diminish their right to express them. I just don't think it is broadly representative.
So will new resolutions be presented? Solve the initial, physical evidence issue and move on, or we'll be discussing this for the next ten years. There are ways to bring about real action and test the council's wishes.
December 1, 2007 4:14 PM
1.On what works
My District and my Seccional Sup are a phone call, e-mail away from what i ever need. We have complete access to them.
2. What does not work
Due to the nature of our structure of Autonomy it lends itself for the District to be apprehensive concerning a Pastor or Church in matters other than discipline in what to do or not to do.
3.Pray,communicate and being there to make a Godly difference
December 1, 2007 4:35 PM
Here’s an example of what’s wrong with our District. The following is the text of a letter our District just sent to each of us. By the way, this follows the last communication we received about a month ago telling us that we would be fined $25-100 extra if our renewal forms were not sent to the District by Dec. 5th. They had to rescind this action because the GC didn’t get the forms to us in time. Evidently the presbyters are really bored in our District. The statement below that reads: “If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please comply or encourage them to follow through with this action†doesn’t even make sense. “If you or some credentialed minister in your church†is addressed to pastors of AG churches? How could a pastor of an AG church or someone in their church not be attending an AG church. Talking about begging the question, instead maybe someone should be asking what’s wrong with AG churches that even our pastors don’t want to attend!!!
Dear Fellow Ministers;
We trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in our church falls into this category, please comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the Kingdom of God.
Sincerely,
Superintendent
December 1, 2007 4:36 PM
GPW...
I agree with you. I am sure that many of the criticisms are massively on target. It's just that I am no longer completely convinced that all the anonymity's out there are because these people REALLY feel that retribution is imminent if they un-mask. I think some of these people use the cloak simply as a way to sling mud without facing accountability.
For example, I find it absolutely hilarious that a person writes that they NEVER, EVER hear from their District, but then uses the "Anonymous" sign-on for fear that their District will then, suddenly, contact them. That one kills me.
Despite Zorro's opinion that everything should be allowed and that ANY form of filtering is censorship, ("Oh, Zorro" *sigh*) I think we should ask ourselves "Where do the laws of discipleship and the laws of the blogosphere collide?"
I just know that if I was sitting in a coffee shop with someone and heard them say to me some of the stuff I have heard here, I would call them on it. Even if it was a private one-on-one conversation. Simply because this is a blog should not change that.
So let me say this one more time for clarity... I am not against the anonymous postings. I AM against, however, the Anonymous postings that think "venting" is a license for slander.
December 1, 2007 4:42 PM
I honestly think that many of Jesus' comments directed toward the unethical, ungodly leadership of his day would also be considered slanderous (and blasphemous). In fact, he was crucified for his opposition to his officials. Believe me, retibution is real--and I don't think some of our District's attitudes are far from the Pharisees, Lawyers, Saducees, and Teachers who opposed Jesus.
December 1, 2007 4:51 PM
GPW et al:
Great list of questions and material for a wiki, poll, and petition.
How about giving interested parties a window of time (a week) to respond with a list of responses to your three questions on a hypothetical wiki ;-).
After the window is up - and we can tell by the draft date on a wiki - post a survey using online polling software that authenticates unique users (KeySurvey has 30 days free registration). Then, collate the report, post it online (keysurvey exports .ppt), and ensure that ELT sees it.
I would also recommend, gulp, that we respectfully request the ELT call for emergency DC presbytery sessions, and DC plans of action and milestones within 30 days. For some districts, it will be N/A (e.g. they might not have campsites, so campsite problems are N/A). Come election time, hold them accountable for these POAM’s.
As far as my responses to your 3:
1. What works in your district? see futurewiki list
2. What does not work in your district? see futurewiki list
3. How do we fix what does not work in your district? see futurewiki list
Oh, btw, we need not worry about the final list being disrespectful as our wiki group would ensure that the list is concise, clear, and respectful (wikis are great for group policing).
Is there a leadership crisis in the A/G at the district level? People want transformation right? When do they want it? Does it have to wait until the next GC? - I don't know. Only time and response will tell.
Hope this helps...
December 1, 2007 5:22 PM
District change occurs at the district level. If you want change, submit a resolution.
General Council change occurs at the council level. If you want change, submit a resolution.
I'm asking for information. When does this move from deliberation to action and final resolve, so people can move on?
December 1, 2007 5:30 PM
"I'm asking for information. When does this move from deliberation to action and final resolve, so people can move on?"
AMEN!!! I really want to see our District IMPROVE, especially since it is only "wishful thinking" that it will simply be disbanded.
How do we go beyond all this "talk" and into "action?"
Personally, I suggest a coup wearing masks and riding horses. (I'm so just kidding!!!)
But, seriously, where do we go from here? I've called three times to my DS for a meeting, and never received a phone call back.
December 1, 2007 5:44 PM
I wonder how many of the pastors who have blasted their District and Officials, would allow the people they shepherd the same opportunity to be this blunt with them in regards to the effectiveness of their ministry and leadership.
It sounds not only like alot of whining but bitterness and resentment as well.
December 1, 2007 6:05 PM
Anon., 6:05 PM:
Well said!
December 1, 2007 6:10 PM
We use a weekly evaluation sheet to evaluate every aspect of the service--parking lot, greeters, each component of the services including the message, its illustrations, impact, etc. When you are open to improvement and welcome input, people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration. And they have choices, if they don't like the church they have options. What option do we have other than "Submit a resolution"--Wow!
December 1, 2007 6:28 PM
1. What works. the district is really quite open to new ministers transferring in from other districts or new to ministry. there are at least some lines of communication, monthly news letter (in full color, wow), email updates, meetings (district council, yp retreat, minister's retreat, camps, etc).
2. what doesn't work. when i sat before the ordination committee (one district e.p. and one district exe.) i was asked about my goals/vision for ministry. i shared that we felt God leading my wife and i to medical missions, and i was preparing to go to medical school to that end. one official strongly and repeatedly discouraged from going to medical school because i "wouldn't be able to preach or be in full time ministry," the other official said, "i dont know about that medical school and medical missions, God hasn't spoken to me about that." at 22, i was shocked, hurt, and angered.
as a trend, i think the district is too bureaucratic, is too authoritarian, and is too narrow minded (at least when it comes to ministry). perhaps it's because the officials try to run the district like a church ("please call me 'pastor x'").
also the district is a financial glutton. you have a women's retreat to make money to pay for a women's ministry director, youth camp to pay for the youth director, etc.
3. as for the solution. we need a redefinition of ministry and leadership within ministry, not power and control, but ministry as service. also alternative structures and methods of district leadership need to be implemented. that's really tough as long as many current leaders are in place because changes threaten their position. along with that would be a divestment of power.
what's at stake is not old vs. young, but a philosophy and understanding of ministry.
December 1, 2007 6:40 PM
Lane, I am not the anonymous who wrote that I "never ever hear from the district". However you have it exactly right that this is what some district leaders would do -- contact people and bring retribution upon them for saying some of the things that have been said here, when they have had little contact with them in the past.
Isn't this exactly what several people have said? They never hear from the district office unless it's a tithe issue or a moral failure. In other words, it takes a crisis for anyone in the district office to contact them. If some pastors here signed their names, I guarantee their DS would take it as a "crisis" because their (DS's) identity would be revealed. If a pastor attached their name here to some of the honest comments that have been made, many might be contacted by the district office and it would not be to say, "let's talk about these issues" but possibly to correct that person or even bring some type of retribution.
Our district supt. is one who does not return calls most times (by himself or having his asst do it, which is a whole other issue in itself) There are several emails you are told he can be reached at, but generally you will not get an answer. I know for a fact that many ministers have emailed our supt, in the right spirit, about some issues like the ones discussed here, and they do not get an answer. I also know through the office staff that these are valid, working email address and that the issues are simply not up for discussion.
As far as resolutions, different people have tried this in our district, but the way a resolution is presented makes all the difference and we have found if the execs don't want it to happen it probably won't. I have myself been part of a few resolutions coming to the floor so I am not making some of the comments I have made here without trying things another way first, and I would venture to say it's probably the same with some other posters.
I do not say this in a resentful spirit, I'm just tired of it and like most of my friends don't have the energy for it anymore. We have tried the resolution route (look at how many resolutions came up at GC this year such as the relational districts and how far that got us...nowhere...) and we have tried the talk directly to the leader route, and we have tried the serve on a bunch of committees and task forces route, to try to make a difference. All of it just added up to a bunch of nothing.
Why should doing all that again make a difference? As someone, (think it was Maxwell) said -- definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
December 1, 2007 7:16 PM
1. What works ... the district is a resource I can tap into regularly. I have never hit a dead end when I asked a question - they either had the resource/answer or they pointed me in a direction where I could find the resource/answer. It really seems to me that they are concerned that I be the best pastor I can be for the church I lead.
2. What doesn't work ... I can't say I've seen this in my current district, but in others I have been connected to, it has seemed that the district's agenda was to feed itself (or a few choice churches/credential holders) instead of striving to be of benefit to all of its credential holders &/or churches. Also, there were too many dreams & promises & very little follow-through. This unfortunately encouraged distrust & apathy.
3. How to fix it ... the district should always remember why it exists - as a resource to churches & pastors. Just as a Pastor exists to 'equip the saints for the work of the ministry', I see the district as existing to equip the pastor for the work of his ministry.
December 1, 2007 7:36 PM
Anonymous 7:16 PM...
Please know that I am fully aware that the "retribution" concept is real. I am not suggesting that it is not. Even the Apostle John was aware of these types of people. In 3 John 9 he mentions a "pastor" by the name of Diotrephes who loved to be "first" and put people "out of the church" who disagreed with him. I imagine that many of you serve under people like this.
So I realize that this type of environment does exist. I am just not convinced anymore that all of the bloggers here are using anonymity for that purpose... that's all.
December 1, 2007 8:06 PM
Interesting that this question is asked during a time when today I received a letter from my District informed me that it is prohibited for a credentialed holder in our District to attend a non-assemblies of God Church.
It was reported in the letter that in a recent Presbytery meeting that a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God minister in this District will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God Church.
I was informed that they can do so only after they receive permission from the Presbytery Board.
At first I set the letter aside thinking it was a holiday greeting from our District leadership.
My wife read the letter that night to me and I could not believe what I was reading. My exact thought was "you have got to be kidding me."
To me the issue isn't about going to a non-Assemblies of God church. I am fourth generation A/G, have no problem with attending an A/G church, however, to now have the District tell me where I can go to church and not go to church. Does the word Communism come to mind.
I cannot believe this letter and the attitude of my leadership.
The letter goes on to say that "ministers that have been brought to [the] attention [of our District leadership] who are attending a non-A/G church [will receive a letter]."
I wonder who the "spies" are? This has gone past my ability to just "go along."
I can promise you this is far from over. It would be fascinating to find out who brought this piece of legislation to the floor of the Presbytery meeting.
I can promise you there will be a resolution opposing this in the next one.
What are we Thinking,
December 1, 2007 10:28 PM
I wonder how many of the pastors who have blasted their District and Officials, would allow the people they shepherd the same opportunity to be this blunt with them in regards to the effectiveness of their ministry and leadership.
It sounds not only like a lot of whining but bitterness and resentment as well.
Answer: apples and oranges
How often have these local pastors seen or heard from their Supts? By contrast, how often have these pastors faced their congregations and boards?
Answer: never vs. every week
What's the difference in thickness between the cushions of protection worn by their DC officials and them?
Answer: kevlar vs. cotton
Sounds more like sheep bleating for shepherds than whining and complaining to me.
â€To whom much is given, much is requiredâ€
P.S. The district officials are not allowing them the opportunity to be this blunt. That's why they are posting on FutureAG.
December 1, 2007 10:54 PM
Anon., 12/1, 7:16 PM So, you put in a resolution, it's discussed and voted down. I guess you have to assume the council has spoken.
Regarding the relational districts: it was submitted, discussed, voted on, and it did not pass. I did not vote for it to pass.
Are you saying my vote should not count? Other resolutions passed that I voted for. Others passed that I voted against. I'm not mad about it. I'm part of an organization where sometimes things go the way I want and sometimes the way I don't want. That's life.
December 2, 2007 4:58 AM
Part of the problem with change is the whole process of resolutions, voting, and time. So you introduce a motion at council this year, we vote on it and it goes into effect--that's two years of living down the drain. For the issue of electronic voting using the internet--that would not take place for four years. The process is too cumbersome. Additionally, just because the "traditionalists" in the party vote for "status quo" on any issue, that doesn't make it right. One should ask, "If I vote for status quo, is it the best thing for our movement--what message will I be sending to the younger credential holders who feel alienated?" By the way, I'm a 50 year old--and I'm worried that there will be no younger guys left if we do not start embracing their ideas for progress and change.
December 2, 2007 5:45 AM
What works, what doesn't, how to fix it?
I want to say up front that I'm NOT an AG minister. I was once in training to be an AG church planter. I saw my pastor and church go down in a slow burn because of district inattention, and now I'm not likely to become an AG anything (tho I recently began attending an AG church again, so who knows...) I did get to see a LOT from the "inside" though, and I'd like to comment if I may.
What works? If you call and ask for help with something specific, there are some key people in our district who seem to bend over backwards to help. That is beautiful, wonderful, and the way it should be.
What doesn't? If you don't call for help (due to pride, ignorance, not knowing what help is available) -- if you can't afford the help that's offered, because it costs something and you have to pay the church's light bill and no one in the district is willing to offer a scholarship -- heck, if you do call and ask for help because you can't pay the light bill and no one cares -- if church members call someone in power within the district to say "the pastor's got some problems, could you give him a call?" and that man calls the pastor to say, "So and so thinks you've gone off the deep end"... and if the entire district sits back and watches while people get HURT, a community gets HURT, and a church goes belly-up and the district does nothing... (and then they re-assign the pastor out of state)
there's problems.
How to fix it?
I know that the AG values the principle of sovereign churches. That works when things are going great. when they're not, *people* *get* *hurt* and God's work is not getting done. I should think that God's work and loving people would be more important than politics - and so... well, logic really should prevail here.
December 2, 2007 6:06 AM
Several have commented on a letter they received from their District banning attending non AG churches. I would like to know if presbyter boards have the right to enact such legislation without it coming to the DC business meeting through the resolution process. Any opinion from the GC's perspective?
December 2, 2007 6:52 AM
Anonymous December 2, 2007 4:58 AM...of course you voted against the relational districts resolution -- any district official probably would.
December 2, 2007 10:51 AM
"We use a weekly evaluation sheet to evaluate every aspect of the service--parking lot, greeters, each component of the services including the message, its illustrations, impact, etc. When you are open to improvement and welcome input, people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration."
ABSOLUTELY. There is minimal "whining" taking place here. Get real.
December 2, 2007 11:47 AM
"what's at stake is not old vs. young, but a philosophy and understanding of ministry."
Here, here!
December 2, 2007 11:56 AM
Wow! I've got to tell you that these posts make me EXTREMELY appreciative for my district and its leaders (Ohio). And this MAY be part of the problem. I come from a district that is extremely resourceful and is VERY interested in helping its pastors to lead healthy churches, so I'm tempted to dismiss the postings here as mere NEGATIVITY. Yet, from talking to close, GODLY friends in OTHER districts, I realize that there is huge disparity between our districts.
What would it look like for the General Council to send out a survey to gauge the pulse of what is ACTUALLY going on in our districts (I have a feeling that it IS pretty widespread). What if the GC launched a "No District Left Behind" initiative (tongue in cheek). I know that the GC can't get too involved in the DCs, but the GC could INTERNALLY divulge their findings. (It's amazing how my performance improves when all of my colleagues know that I'm not measuring up... Or alternatively, it's amazing how I hear the voice of God "transitioning" me when I know that I don't measure up.)
The GC could offer a bootcamp(can you tell that I'm a church planter) for DSs who lead districts that aren't measuring up. Maybe even offer a coaching network for failing DSs.
December 2, 2007 12:20 PM
Ken, you are right, I too am from Ohio and feel extremely resourced. In fact the recent Leadership Tour that the district sponsored was incredible! The district supt is truely my pastor and it feels good to have that kind of spiritual care and covering.
George, maybe you should interview/talk with the districts that get it and are doing it, and let their "council" be heard!
December 2, 2007 1:31 PM
"...of course you voted against the relational districts resolution -- any district official probably would."
Oops! Sorry . . . I'm not an office holder.
"Additionally, just because the "traditionalists" in the party vote for "status quo" on any issue, that doesn't make it right."
Oops! Sorry . . . I'm not a traditionalist. Paid my dues coming against traditionalism. I simply voted against the relational district resolution on its own merit. I voted all across the board on different issues. Hard to classify, I guess.
December 2, 2007 3:15 PM
"We use a weekly evaluation sheet to evaluate every aspect of the service--parking lot, greeters, each component of the services including the message, its illustrations, impact, etc. When you are open to improvement and welcome input, people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration."
What does your leadership team do when the evaluations don't agree with each other? Does your lead pastor have an articulated vision, or does he wait to see which way the wind is blowing every week? I would find weekly evaluations of everything extremely stifling.
I'm sure the people don't end up with loads of pent up frustration, unless, of course, someone else's weekly evaluation is picked to precipitate change in a direction they don't agree with.
December 2, 2007 3:34 PM
How to Fix It:
Declaration of Independence
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.â€
December 2, 2007 3:38 PM
danny...and all those who feel you are justified in much of your sweeping criticism,
Let me throw out a scenario for you. Let's say that one of your church members decides to start a little blog, just like this one, detailing all of your flaws, lack of vision and your constant cries for their money (tithes and offerings). Let's say that they talk about how many vacations you take, your lack of contacting them and your hunger for power because you have gotten comfortable in your position. Would you be as open to them to listen and hear them out or would you seek to bring swift "church discipline" to them and say they are creating division in the body?
December 2, 2007 5:17 PM
The direction this website is headed is very destructive. I can see know good coming out of this at all. I am reminded about this post back in August...
http://futureag.blogspot.com/2007/08/warning.html
The only thing that needs to be shut down is this website. We have already gone where we never wanted to go.
December 2, 2007 5:30 PM
Anonymous December 2, 2007 5:17 PM:
Not only would I read the blog, I'd respond on the blog. In fact, I'd go farther; I'd call the person up and take them to coffee to sort out the issues. After talking with the person, I could determine whether their concerns were legitimate or just crankery. Either way, I'd end up addressing those issues (either by way admitting the need for change setting the record straight) in numerous public fora. Why would I do all these things (and I have in fact done all these things)? Because in public relations, PERCEPTION IS REALITY. If people under my care think I'm overpaid and underworked, then I have to set the record straight or lose my credibility. Of course, it may be the case that by publicly dealing with the issue, the perception (and therefore the reality, at least as far as the critic is concerned) will change. But unless leaders are willing to be publicly transparent, such change will never happen.
GPW
December 2, 2007 5:34 PM
Again, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
The truth is, most district superintendents are not our pastor - there are only a handful that turn this leadership role into one of a pastoral nature. If you are going to compare yourself to a church then provide what the local church provides. DS are not pastors. Let's face it, these are administrative jobs. The district officeis not a church.
When you hear people talk about why it's crucial to keep our district offices, what do you hear? We need someonen to take care of credentialing, discipline in cases of moral failure, etc. You hear nothing of our DC's staying alive to function as a church or pastor the pastor. Yes, it has provided us a place to serve, and many of us have done that tirelessly. But as far as being anything remotely resembling a church to us...no. An organization, corporation, business? Yes. It seems, unless you are in the Ohio district. No sarcasm intended there - it appears Ohio is providing something A/G ministers elsewhere have only dreamed.
December 2, 2007 5:36 PM
Wow! Someone has suggested a yearly “Vote of Confidence†on our DC officials.
What pastor would vote to go back to that system for their pastorate?
I do have to agree with many of the bloggers, when we need to elect an officer to a DC position, we have no real system to evaluate potential new officers. Over and over, we elect known officials moving them to a higher position. Our system is deemed spiritual or non-political. But doesn’t it just mean we’re simply uninformed?
I still wonder what would happen if we only elected the DS and allowed him to choose his own team? Give them a 4 year term – limit 2 terms total? Sound presidential? (I know this is scary if you are currently in a DC position.) But there is no lead pastor in the A/G who wants to allow his board to hire and fire his staff.
I also agree that our current DC teams would do well to meet and help encourage each other. Sharing the best practices couldn’t do anything but help them get better.
December 2, 2007 5:47 PM
Speaker One: "We need change!"
Speaker Two: "OK, submit a resolution."
Speaker One: "Oh wow! A resolution . . . that will never work.
Speaker Two: "OK, talk to your leaders, and tell them your concerns."
Speaker One: "No. They won't listen. They don't care."
Speaker Two: "So vote some new leaders in."
Speaker One: "No, people keep voting in the same people in over and over again."
Speaker Two: "So what are you going to do to bring about the changes you feel are so necessary?"
Speaker One: "We need change! We need change!"
December 2, 2007 5:51 PM
Speaker One: "We need change!"
Speaker Two: "OK, submit a resolution."
Speaker One: "Oh wow! A resolution . . . that will never work.
Speaker Two: "OK, talk to your leaders, and tell them your concerns."
Speaker One: "No. They won't listen. They don't care."
Speaker Two: "So vote some new leaders in."
Speaker One: "No, people keep voting in the same people in over and over again."
Speaker Two: "So what are you going to do to bring about the changes you feel are so necessary?"
Speaker One: "We need change! We need change!"
Uhhhh...how is this post productive??
What's your solution, dude, after we have gone this route? Leave?
BTW, it sounds like many recent contributers are suggesting that we do just that, "jump ship." Could the prophecies of a mass exodus be right? Where are Jeff, Mark, Brad, and Paul re: this topic?
GPW is in the house.
December 2, 2007 6:15 PM
Initiating or reacting?
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 parentingâ€, 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
December 2, 2007 7:26 PM
Zorro: "Uhhhh...how is this post productive??"
It got Beth Grant to respond. Finally, a persuasive, calm voice of reason, willing to look at both sides, and get this discussion moving again.
December 3, 2007 3:56 AM
What Works...
I am free to choose who and even when I want to associate with a fellow minister. We have a good pulled purchase power at a few retailers. Camp food is great.
What does NOT work...
1. When you call the DYD of another district to inform him that your youth pastor is moving to their district and three months later he has yet to contact him.
2. Personally I hate the closed doors to opportunities for ministry. Ever try to get your resume into Ohio district??? Why don't more districts have an open church listing like IL does?
3. 100% of my tithe going to the district office. What a shame for our home missions churches to lose that financial support, or even some of our smaller churches.
How to FIX IT.
1. DYD Doug, call the new youth pastor in Hamlin!
2. Have each district post the open churches as well as open staff positions. Do we really allow for the Spirit to guide and lead a pastor as well as a congregation, or is the dist. sup. playing god politics.
3. 25% max of my tithe to go to the district. I'd really like to see it be 0%.
Finally, I pretty much just go about my God business from day to day. If district activities fit into what God has for me and my congregation, great, we'll obey the Lord and be involved. If not, well, I guess will do what God has for us.
Just viewing all these posts makes me want to start an argument with myself. I agree, I disagree. I agree, I disagree...
If you don't agree with the 16 fundamental truths, then so state that on your renewal form and have a face to face with those that have authority in our fellowship. Otherwise get out and go to another denomination or do the independent thing. No one has forced you into being A/G.
There have been many times that I have wrestled with several of our doctrines. But I have allowed that wrestling match to be between me and the Lord, not the fellowship I am currently serving. If at any point I feel my doctrinal beliefs change from that of the A/G, I will kindly send them a letter thanking them for allowing me to serve God in their fellowship and move on.
I am grateful for my heritage in the A/G. Yet I am indebted to my heritage in the Lord. I chose first to serve God, then my family, and then the denomination ooops. fellowship of His leading.
Anon. only because it said to.
December 3, 2007 10:10 PM
How can this happen? and will anyone help us?
Dated November 29, 2007
Dear Fellow Ministers:
We Trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday
Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God
credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God
Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been
brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it
will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or
their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please
comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the
Kingdom of God.
Sincerely in Christ
Bill Baker
Superintendent
Southern Missouri District Council
December 5, 2007 3:53 AM
Dear Brother Baker,
I appreciate you or your assistant taking the time to post, an exact copy of the letter that you sent to all of us in the Southern Missouri District.
I am not sure how this helped. I can only assume that you wanted to correct any misrepresentations that the previous bloggers made in posting the letter online.
In fact, from where I sit you did not address any of the issues related to those who wrote about this issue earlier.
In addition, the letter I received today via email does nothing for me as a ordained minister in this district. I realize now that I can go to non-A/G churches while on vacation.
As a fourth generation A/G member, the issue for me isn't whether we should be loyal to attend our churches. I agree with you and our misguided leadership.
Don't you think the "spirit" of the letter, following the letter that we will all be penalized up to $100 for getting our renewal into our district office past December 5, then the increase in our monthly tithe, a reflection of the attitude our current leadership is displaying.
When things spin out of control, as we it appears our district leadership feels like it is, the reigns get pulled tighter. As a professional fundraiser I can tell you there are better ways to raise the needed funds in the district than raising the tithes, and penalizing us for getting in our renewals nearly one month before they are actually due.
As for the two recent letters, I think if this is the direction of our entire fellowship, I wonder if others of my age will not be looking for a drastic change in leadership, or another fellowship that can facilitate our hearts for "the kingdom" as the letter was ended.
There is one thing for certain, if these kinds of decisions are the ones that our current district leadership are going to make, my vote, along with others who have expressed such distaste for this kind of recent stuff, will be reflected at the upcoming Section Councils and District Councils.
Signed,
Amazed!
December 5, 2007 11:33 AM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 5, 2007 1:02 PM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 5, 2007 5:06 PM
They've stopped moderating the comments. It'd be great if we could all show wisdom and restraint.
December 5, 2007 8:16 PM
Someone please remove "Overheard in S. Missouri"
That is not discussion or even opinion, it is down right cruel and vulgar.
If this is the language our pastors are using then Lord help us.
December 5, 2007 10:20 PM
Dear Commenters:
Please show respect for our denominational leaders, even if disagree with their policies. Remember, Paul exhorts us to "speak the truth in love."
Thanks!
George
December 5, 2007 10:52 PM
GPW--Move back to Southern Missouri and you will find out that was speaking the truth in love. This is cronyville where good ole boyism is our motto. For years one of our colleges cranked out a steady crop of cronies. It is the defining characteristic of our institutional culture. And it is stifling.
December 6, 2007 12:10 AM
Prejudice in all forms is ugly. Sweeping generalizations are never full truth.
December 6, 2007 8:06 AM
I also received the district letter
that credentialed ministers would not be allowed to attend a non-A/G church.
I agree with the District.
Shouldn't the same standard apply to A/G churches joining non-A/G organizations?
Three churches in our district have joined the Willow Creek association so they can receive non-pentecostal, watered-down, "seeker-sensitive" resources.
December 6, 2007 5:06 PM
In agreeing with the So Mo District letter Anonymous Dec. 6 5:06 P.M. said “Shouldn't the same standard apply to A/G churches joining non-A/G organizations?â€
Gee that would also apply to me and my church, but from a different angle... We have joined a regional apostolic network because they are MORE Pentecostal and more open to the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their gatherings. They do a great job equipping people to correctly operate in the gifts and have some good materials. Oh yea, our presbyter is aware of this and is ok with it. Oops! I used the “a†word.
If all we can be is A/G company people our fellowship is in huge trouble!
One more thing....to be consistent then our national leaders should not be members of non-Pentecostal organizations like the National Assoc. Of Evangelicals.
December 6, 2007 7:04 PM
Why would A/G churches need to join
non-A/G organizations for resources,
when the pastor has the Word and the
Holy Spirit as His guide to teach his
congregation how to move in the Holy Spirit?
I have seen non-Biblical practices
entering the A/G's through outside
influences. We have a responsibility
to guard the flock.
December 6, 2007 8:20 PM
These last several posts remind me of why the AG is in such trouble. Do you really think that the AG or Pentecostals have a corner on the truth? They are relative late comers to the game. How about all of the Bible teaching traditions that came before us and those that came after? Each expressing some unique facet of God's desire to restore his church to it's potential. True learners are discerning and humble (and I recall that humility is a character trait that is commended in Scripture). God opposes the proud--especially the theologically proud who say their little group is the only group that speaks for God. I'm grieved, but mainly embarrased to read these misguided attitudes.
December 7, 2007 2:41 AM
Oh Lordy! Anonymous 5:06 has invoked phrases like, "non-pentecostal" "watered-down" and "seeker-sensitive" in his support for the So. Missouri District's letter to their ministers. Frankly speaking, my wife and I would much rather follow the body of what some of those groups teach than the kookiness of what we have been exposed to over our ministerial lives. Our National Officer's support of Brownsville in our quest for revival, our linkage to other unsavory characters,some of whom are in the news at this moment...should hopefully move us back to a place of balance in life and doctrine.
December 7, 2007 7:19 AM
I would like to encourage all of us to move back to the spirit of the superb insights of Dr. Beth Grant. I know that many of us are frustrated, but some of our comments have digressed into nothing more than a gripe session. I sincerely doubt that this approach will bring about any real change.
I believe there may be merits to discussing the Australian model, but it has already been pointed out months ago that some of our districts are larger than the A/G in Australia. There may also be merit in discussing the role and pitfalls of modern day apostles, but I am concerned about the spirit and the lack of grace in some of our posts here. Perhaps the moderators/administrators can take this in a different direction.
Blessings,
Pastor D. J. M.
December 7, 2007 9:39 AM
Yes, where are the blog hosts?
December 7, 2007 10:21 AM
I think a more appropriate line of questions might be as follows:
1. What is working in my ministry?
2. What is not working in my ministry?
3. What I am trying to do to fix that which is not working?
It is easy to point at the district as an us vs. them, but are we not the district? Instead of looking to the District to be our save all and end all, maybe we could take a moment for self assessment.
I think a discussion on these three questions would benefit most in this forum, as well as give insight to our leadership where we are.
December 7, 2007 12:53 PM
p.s. I am ok with my name being tagged or flagged by anyone part of "Big Brother" who may have surveillance on this web site. :)
December 7, 2007 12:56 PM
I'm willing to embrace the tension of views posted, but do wish we could maintain a hopeful outlook and be part of the solution rather than just diagnosing the problem.
What works: clearly missions (although it seems the system of supporting many at small amounts could be tweak), quality of District-led events for specific groups, i.e. youth, children's, etc.
What doesn't work: sectional structures, communication and change, maintenance over vision, and how District officials are elected and positioned.
How to fix it:
-sectional structures: if relational districts won't work, can we have relational sections with representation on the presbytery? It doesn't solve the District lines issue, but it's a start.
-communication and change: it does seem that Districts are more concerned about managing and maintaining the machinery rather than taking faith-risk steps and leading the local churches in dreaming great dreams for the Kingdom of God). Because Districts seem resistant to change, they oppose any rocking of the boat, i.e. innovators, outside-the-box-ers. Additionally, there is a sense that the local church exists for the District rather than the other way around, maybe regular evaluations of the District by the pastors would provide honest feedback, then publish this information.
-maintenance over vision: this is a leadership issue. To often we are electing successful pastors into presbytery roles and District leadership, but their skill sets are not leadership, apostolic, or visionary, but administration and government. Meaning, they're more likely to manage than cast great dreams and lead us in that direction. What to do? Make the presbytery a management team, overseen by the District leaders, then see below.
-election and roles of District officers: while I don't like the current system of Democratic processes, until we or NC can clearly recognize God's anointed leader and appoint them to that position, we've got to do the election thing. However, maybe we need to get away from just picking-a-name-out-of-the-hat approach (I have no idea who some of the people I vote for are or if they are qualified or have vision). Maybe key roles like District Sup should be interviewed, invited to preach, etc, like we would do if we were bringing in a new pastor or hiring a staff pastor. I want to know more about them, their vision, passion, dream for the District. Secondly, the Sup should be able to appoint some of the key positions. If we have the right person in place, let them choose their Sec/ Treas, Assistant Sup, and whatever other positions he chooses. Or better yet, do away with the Sec/ Treas, and hire some wiz with an MBA and make them the District Administrator. The Sec/ Treas in our District welds too much power. So, take the money control out of one position.
Just my ideas.
December 10, 2007 12:11 PM
Lane Douglas, applause coming your way from the back of the room here.
I'm late, but if anyone is still reading, here are my answers: 1 -
WHAT WORKS: missions, Royal Rangers and Missionettes, BGMC, STL, youth events
When I call the district office, I am usually able to reach one of the staff, and they do listen.
Our Supt. and Assist. Supt. also respond to email. There are ongoing efforts not only to plant but to revitalize churches--this is recent, and results are mixed.
2. WHAT DOES NOT WORK:
This is just my opinion, and some would disagree. Mens and Womens Ministries are outdated. Women's Ministries is fluffy, though it seems this year's offerings may be less so. District Affiliated churches being supervised by a prebyter or the district--not happening at all. And everyone knows this.
2A - THINGS THAT ARE BOTH GOOD AND BAD: It seems decisions are made by presbyters, not at council. Elections are...excruciating. Often there is one name on the ballot.
3. HOW TO FIX IT: Communication, communication, communication. Specific measures, such as we considered at Gen. Council, to be intentional about making a "place at the table" for young ministers, women, ethnic minorities. Men's and Women's Ministries--do we need them? I'm not sure. If so, rethink why. I don't want to hear about decorating, make up, crafts or how to be a bargain shopper.
I believe that our district was improved in many areas over the last decade. I used to think that no one really cared what happened to me as long as I sent my tithe check. That is no longer the case. I have great respect for our district leadership.
December 17, 2007 6:48 PM
From the hot pan....
Wow. This is my first time to this website. I am a lifelong A/G church member....but after reading all of this...wondering...should I leave this fellowship? I grew up in the AG...Love the Lord with all my heart and serve Him as best I know how.
I am not a minister...but know several personally. Some I am proud to be associated with. Some, I'd rather not have had the "non-pleasure" of knowing. I realize they are all human---some suppose they are "super-human"...
Brother Woods, I commend you for taking this on! Our church and church leaders pray for you. Your job is tough. Dealing with these pastors/ministers has to be the toughtest job in the world. Especially when there are those who believe they are above "reprimand"...
I apologize for this in advance....but how can we follow under the direction of a Supt. who is a blatant "user" of people? A person who cannot tell the truth, uses the work of others and claims it as his own...but if he fails or falters in any way...is QUICK to pass the blame to those directly under him....How can we follow this leading? But we are stuck...these are my feelings...and they are shared by so many others, but unfortunately unless the pastors/ministers unite that have been "used and abused" .... we are doomed to continue this spiral down.
One more thing....does the Stup. have the authority to allow certain ministers to "not pay tithes" and keep full credential