GPW wrote "Our spiritual warfare is not against gays, lesbians, liberals, Muslims, abortionists, or whatever. Our spiritual warfare is against the devil on their behalf. They are the contested territory we are fighting over. They are not the enemy we are fighting against. "
This reminds me of an essay I wrote for a contest CCM magazine had back around 1990 related to Petra's "On Fire!" album. It was titled "Warfare 101", and the jist of it was that the abortionists, gays, atheists, etc. are not the enemy, but are prisoners of war that have been taken captive by the enemy.
Good post, George. I think this is the right track. And I would add, lest anyone think otherwise, that "sweetness in tone" does not mean a loss of passion about your opinion or point of view. Recently, as a gift, I was given an 1817 printing of John Wesley's response to Dr. Taylor on original sin. To say he disagreed with Taylor is an understatement. Yet, prior to making his case, he wrote the following:
"There is a danger [in the Christian system] of a warmth which does no honour to our cause, nor is at all countenanced by the revelation which we defend. I desire neither to show, nor to feel this, but to "speak the truth in love," (the only warmth, which the gospel allows) and to write with calmness, though not with indifference. There is likewise a danger of despising our opponents, and of speaking with an air of contempt or disdain. I would gladly keep clear of this also; well knowing that a diffidence of ourselves is far from implying a diffidence of our cause : I distrust myself, not my argument!"
The paragraph, as a whole, has captured me. It is, however, this last line that hits me hardest...
"Leading change in the AG" but don't you think that we have in the AG what I will call a "Jeruslem Syndrome". Post-modern generation has been blessed with a strong system and nice facilities but we are too comfortables in Jeruslem. We should go out and get involve in a mission projet. Our grand parents had many issues too but the Spirit of Mission helped to surpass everything. The graves of americans missionaries in Ouagadougou speak more than all the theses we may write about the AG. Don't we have great testimonies from our churches and districts to report in this blog??? We should edify by telling what the Lord has done through our generation.
By the way you are still invited to visit Burkina Faso in Africa.
Wenna Songe'!
Douglas Ouedraogo from Burkina Faso Africa.
adcissin1.multiply.com
George - Some have wondered,
“where are the blog authors?"
We forget that you guys have full time ministries to serve.
Thanks for sharing your heart and bringing some balance back to your blog.
I believe:
- True Spiritual Warfare
doesn't happen in the pew.
- The American church will
not be effective until we
again, take the Gospel
message to the
streets.
- Loving the hurting and
lonely people will change
our cities and towns. And
re-open the doors to our
churches.
Many of our churches have become sterile. We are more like museums remembering our glorious past. Unless we start touching broken lives, where they live, we will not have a glorious future.
December 11, 2007 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Yes, the blog hosts do have full time ministries like most of the people posting here. However, it would make more sense that they were not posting here if they were also not posting on their other blogs or responding to comments there.
The city I live in is about 10 minutes from an Army base. When I lived here the first time it was before 9/11. I still have several friends who were in the army at that time. Now that I'm back here I have made new friends that are currently in the army.
I say this because I see a huge difference in the soldier's attitude. Before 9/11 it seemed as though they had lost a sense of purpose. Soldiers were meant to fight and I knew some that never left the states their entire time they were active. It seemed as though they were willing to fight anybody when they didn't have anybody to fight. Now, most soldiers have been to Iraq or Afghanistan already, or they are fresh out of boot and are about to be deployed. They know their purpose and they know their enemy and they know their friends. They are doing what they were trained to do.
GPW mentioned that we are an army. I think we're a pre-9/11 army. Sure, individuals know that they're called and why, but I get the impression that the organization doesn't really know why the organization exists. Which causes the individual soldiers to turn on each other.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the proverbial "next generation" making this Christianity thing their own. The questions and the criticisms aren't necessarily what it first seems to be rather a need to make it their own.
I think we're trying to make this fellowship/organization/network/denomination our own. We're trying to figure out the organization's purpose and vision. At this point we don't see a vision and purpose. At this point we see a whole lot of soldiers stuck in the states when the soldiers we're meant to fight. We have lost sight of our original mission.
So, I'm wondering if those who have been in this longer could tell us why the Assemblies of God exists? What's our mission? Why should we bother changing things? How does being a part of the Assemblies of God expand the Kingdom better than doing it on our own?
I have my own ideas but these are honest, sincere questions and I would appreciate honest, sincere answers without the "it's hopeless" comments.
I would like to suggest one other thing. If we have a mission, If the AG expands the Kingdom and/or has the potential to expand the Kingdom then can we please move towards GPW's suggestions and begin changing things? Or If it is hopeless, can we please just close up shop and move on? We've had our time to vent its time to be proactive or to quit.
December 12, 2007 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...
Hey Wes......you might want to be careful speaking for everyone when you say that we've had our time to vent. You don't know that everyone has had this opportunity nor is it proper in my opinion to begin telling people on a blog what they can and cannot contribute.
George, well said. I must say that I've been encouraged by the simple fact that leaders of our fellowship have taken the time to listen (and even respond) to what has been said on this blog. Perhaps the day will come where we can discuss these things with an even larger number of AG folk (like we used to in the Pentecostal Evangel).
Anonymous 2:33, thanks for providing another good example of a whiny, critical spirit. The individuals that set up this blog have no obligation to you, or any of us, to post on a regular basis. They do this because they love our fellowship and want to see it improve. They may post more regularly on their personal sites, but there's a great chance that those postings are specifically directed to their own congregations. I think you should be grateful that there is a place to discuss these issues at all, even if that means you have to wait 3 or 4 days to get an update (and why is it that you're only happy when the moderators post? it seems like there is a tremendous amount of discussion within the comments even when they aren't posting). I think that there should be numerous sites similar to this one to keep the ball rolling, so if you don't like waiting around, why not start your own?
Anonymous 10:00, thanks for providing a great example of a self-referentially inconsistent statement. I think I'll use that on my class's final exam!
December 12, 2007 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...
Paul F...thanks for being the perfect example of those you are taking to taks...how hypocritical!!
"We're trying to figure out the organization's purpose and vision."
I think GS Wood did a good and proactive job by posting his 5-point mission. My question is "HOW?"
Not to diminish his God-given agenda, but it is nothing new. How are we going to keep from repeating the past? (God knows we don't need another Decade of Harvest.)
This is what I am looking for out of our movement.
Good post & it is a good challenge for us. I guess it got me thinking - how often do I pray for my district leaders and what if I hosted some sort of gathering at my church for my section or got to know the pastors in some way - perhaps sending a Christmas card or something of that nature to begin with.
I have seen some pastors in my district starting to get facebook accounts, which helps me to get to know them a little better.
I suppose we can all learn and have an open heart to get to know each other better. I am encouraged when I read posts such as this because it gives me a sense of hope for our church.
Anonymous 2:23, I don't see how what I said was hypocritical. Regarding the whiny comments, I think there is a genuine difference between offering constructive criticism and just being whiny (I took my own comment to be the former). Perhaps the poster can change my mind.
I believe that when people try to initiate change it is important to leave the meddlesome issues aside and focus on what is important (and it is important to get people to not focus on the unimportant). If not, those that we are trying to convince to change will have good reasons to think we are all a bunch of complainers. When I stray from offering constructive criticism (directed toward the AG leadership or other bloggers), I expect those that read this blog to call me on it. If not, then I'll lose my ability to convince anyone because I'll be viewed as a whiny complainer. (Anonymous 2:33 doesn't have that problem because he/she posts anonymously.)
I also really do believe there should be many sites like this one (e.g. the Wiki site discussed in earlier threads). If this person doesn't like this blog, why not start another? I'm sure people would visit there too and we could, hopefully, bring about more change that enables the AG to fulfill its mission better.
Regarding my critique of the self-referentially inconsistent comment directed toward Wes, well, that's just true. To say "You shouldn't tell people what they can't post (paraphrased)" is in fact telling people what not to post. It's like saying "There are no universal truths." Similar to my above comments, if I say something that is logically fallacious, inconsistent, or just wrong I expect my fellow bloggers to call me on it.
I guess what it comes down to is that I think we should offer reasons for our positions (e.g. Why should the moderators post more regularly? Why is it bad to tell people they can no longer vent?). It's much harder to be a whiny complainer if you have to come up with good reasons to support it. If I had said, "Don't be a whiny complainer" and left it at that, I'd be no better (and, as you are using the term, a hypocrite). But, because I've offered reasons for my position, those unconvinced have the ability to critique it.
December 13, 2007 5:19 AM
Anonymous said...
What a brilliant and uplifting commentary on Paul F by Paul F!:)
December 13, 2007 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...
I am anononymous 2:33 - since you have asked, to clarify my position regarding the hosts posting/not posting - it's not that I expect them to post. It's just that many, many people have asked for their comment on things over the past few weeks with the firestorm of comments that have come forth on these issues and I have a really hard time believing that they haven't read any of it, heard about it, or are entirely oblivious to it. This is not a knock on them. I think something deeper is wrong and I believe we need to pray seriously for them, for strength, wisdom and courage.
I am puzzled, along with others who have made comment about it, as to why they have not so much as commented with a single sentence on the issues when they were previously so vocal. It really makes you wonder if they are feeling pressure from the higher ups, if they themselves might fear some sort of repercussion of sharing their true thoughts. My remark was not intended to be a slam on them whatsoever. The fact that they have posted and commented often on their other blogs led me to believe that maybe there was another reason they don't feel comfortable commenting here right now. In fact I have prayed for them in this whole matter because quite frankly - I'm not saying this is happening - just that it wouldn't surprise me if somebody higher up in the A/G -not necessarily our GS as he's been very open, but maybe some of our DS, EP's, etc.- hadn't spoken to them about this and advised them or perhaps even outright demanded for them to shut down the blog or at the very least remove some comments. (I am personally aware that this has happened in the past with other individuals in the AG who hosted websites and message boards. There was quick action to control it. ) IF (the operative word being IF) this has also happened with FutureAG, it must put them in a very difficult position. They have birthed something that has been very needed, sorely overdue and I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of spiritual warfare going on with this whole thing. My thought was perhaps they are not able to comment for reasons that have nothing to do with Christmas programs, busy schedules or such. Maybe they are under a huge burden with this that they are not able to tell us. I am convinced in my heart there is more behind it and we need to truly PRAY for them that whatever might be coming against them, they do not buckle under or bow to - that they would stand firm and that God would give them courage.
I haven't been pressured by anyone, and I doubt that any of the other bloggers have been either. But I've emailed Paul and Tory, so they can speak for themselves.
Anonymous 2:33 (I'll stick with your original time), thanks for clarifying. I apologize for saying you're being whiny and critical. As I stated in a previous post, when we see the reasons behind comments, we can address them. I seriously hope that you are wrong as to why they don't post more often (and hope our GS can help stem the tide of those that want things like this shut down). Maybe some of them can address that issue at some point. Personally, there have been times that I want to respond but don't have the time to think about the details of the response and a simple sentence or two just won't be sufficient. I don't have time because I'm doing other things (like posting on my own site) that are more pressing (like grading papers). Maybe I'm being naive, but I have a feeling they have similar reasons. Again, thanks for clarifying and please accept my apologies.
December 13, 2007 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous at 2:33 said, “It really makes you wonder if they are feeling pressure from the higher ups…they [blog hosts] themselves might fear some sort of repercussion of sharing their true thoughts... I have prayed for them in this whole matter because quite frankly … maybe some of our DS, EP's … advised them or perhaps even outright demanded for them to shut down the blog or at the very least remove some comments… IF (the operative word being IF) this has also happened with FutureAG, it must put them in a very difficult position… I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of spiritual warfare going on with this whole thing.â€
People love conspiracy theories. They have a great “water cooler†effect. But trust me, there isn’t a “huge amount of spiritual warfare†going on over this blog. IT IS A BLOG! More than half the people on the blog don’t even want to publicize their names. Believe me, none of the originators are “in a very difficult place.†GOW posts on it! His son helps host it. This isn’t communist China of the 1960’s.
True, a lot of the opinions may not be main stream, and would cause some of the GPs and DSs to be infuriated if you asked their opinions on some of the particular issues that have been discussed. I mean, look at the furor that arose when we started to talk about districts. Sure the leadership would be mad, you are attacking their livelihood. However, you can rest assured that 98% of the AG leadership haven’t read this blog since General Council concluded.
This blog can continue to fill a huge need for the fellowship through idea sharing and secondarily a forum to vent frustrations. But make no mistake about it, the Assemblies of God is a huge organization and change always will come very, very, slow. How could it be any other way? The General Presbytery only meets once a year and the whole constituency only meets every two years. Quick change??? Not gonna happen! But rest assured, big brother isn’t looking over anybody’s shoulders ready to seize their credentials card.
Paul F - I think it is wrong to tell people that they can no longer vent because this may be the only place that they feel they can vent. Who am I to tell them that the time has now come and their frustrations/feelings are not valid to express? They may be brand new to this blog and have never posted one item negative or positive yet and they want to be heard. Change won't come by restricting expression.
December 13, 2007 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...
GPW - Thanks for the post. Change is difficult to figure out and even more difficult to implement. An example. Central Bible College is at it's lowest enrollment since the 1960's. Now, they have more administrator's and professors running the place with Doctorates and Masters than ever in history and yet they can't figure out why their enrollment keeps plummenting. Your heading says it all..."LEADING change in the AG". From my point of view their is a void in true leaders in many of our districts, colleges, and in Springfield. I'm encouraged by the new leaders in Spfld for sure. District's many of them are led by men/women who have never grown a church and yet we are to follow them. Colleges/universities the same applies along with some of them becoming more concerned with academics (and I'm not against academics at all) than the leading of the Holy Spirit and developing real leaders. What is the main difference between CBC and Southeastern? Leadership! The difference between a happening and growing district and one that exercises control on church attenance? Leadership! Let's discuss more ways to develop more leaders!!
Paul, Tony, George, Jeff & Brad -
I want you to know that GPH has been interested in your blog and is creating a permanent site to gather input regarding ministries and tools to better resource our churches.
I have a temporary site that is being used for that now.
If it is appropriate, please share this info with your bloggers - I would love to hear from them. (This info is being collected and passed on to GPH now.)
Here is the temporary site -
discipleshipbestpractices.blogspot.com;
Thanks for sharing your ideas!
Tom Bougher
December 13, 2007 5:19 PM
George O. Wood said...
I want to commend my son, George Paul, for his salient observations on leading change in the AG. Of course, I am biased. I admire him so much. He is such a clear thinker and has such a good heart! And, he doesn't consult with me about what he is going to say on the blog; but I learn from him and whether we always agree or not -- he is my beloved son in whom I am also well pleased!
I want to reiterate that I appreciate the involvement of younger ministers on this blog. You wouldn't be contributing unless you loved the Assemblies of God and want to make it better.
We just concluded a 3 day retreat in Nashville with district superintendents, district secretary-treasurers, and college presidents. The continual theme of the retreat dealt with leading change on the district level.
I well realize that change may take place too fast for some and too slow for others. I can only repeat the phrase that was popular several years ago and use it of the Assemblies of God leadership on the national and district levels: "Please be patient with us. God is not finished with us yet!"
There have been a number of words we have used to describe ourselves over the years. We have not liked the word denomination, although sociologically we are one. So, we've used the term "Movement" -- because we want to make advances for Jesus, and we have used the term "Fellowship" because we wanted to stress that there is great liberty to pursue vision and that what ties us together is not a smothering structure, but a common mission. I've been using a different term lately: "family." In a family, you have strong personalities and different opinions but the ties that bind are greater than the differences expressed.
In January I have a small book (about 100 pages) that will be mailed to each minister dealing in greater detail with the five core values I'm pursuing. I hope you'll take opportunity to read it and give me feedback -- gensup@ag.org.
I've been reading the blog all along. I'm picking up on the concerns being expressed, but I've been a pastor long enough to know that it is impossible to please everyone. But, if our hearts are right and our priorities please the Lord, then good days lie ahead.
On the blog, there has been discussion that the questions on the annual renewal may not flesh out what's really important. So, John Palmer is going to put together a group to look at the annual renewal questionnaire and what shape it should like look in the future. You are welcome to email him at gensec@ag.org with any suggestions. John left for Chile for ministry over the next week -- so hold your fire for a few days -- but do pray for him while he is down south!
The Executive Presbytery has also appointed a task force to look at the whole issue of credentialing younger ministers. We're going to look seriously at enhancing the attractiveness of the Assemblies of God to young (and older) men and women who have a call of God upon their lives.
I've been in office now just a few days past two months. Perhaps the most heartening aspect of my new responsibilities is the expression literally hundreds of people have either written or spoken to me, "We are praying for you." I have never had so many people praying for me in all my life, and it is deeply humbling. I am so grateful.
One of the exciting things I did today was meet with an international group with AG representatives from Africa, Asia, Latin America, North America, Europe, and the Middle East. The topic? The growing movement within AG national churches (212 indigeneous AG national bodies now world-wide) to send missionaries. Scores of missionaries are now already going out from our daughter churches -- and often to places that are restricted or difficult for USA citizens. God is at work tremendously in our international AG family.
Thanks to all of you for staying engaged in the discussion of how the Assemblies of God can better serve Jesus, serve our people, and serve you.
Let me close by repeating again the advice given me by one of the mentors that I have so admired: J. Robert Ashcroft. He told me: "Let your emphasis be on the CREATIVE and CONSTRUCTIVE above the CRITICAL and CORRECTIVE." He said, "George, there is nothing wrong with being critical and corrective -- just don't let your emphasis fall there." I've spent my years since then trying to do that.
That's what I encourage you to do. Don't just find fault with things. After the diagnosis, work on creating solutions that move the mission of Jesus forward. And, remember that intensive prayer provides the most creative forum possible for hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit. We must be careful that we not just come up with new ideas -- we must hear His ideas because, after all, this is His church and not ours!
In just a few years, those of us in my generation are going to be off the scene and watching you from the balconies of heaven -- if it has balconies, and if we are allowed to look! So, lay now the good foundations that will make the Assemblies of God what it should be when you are my age!
Oh, and by the way, may this Christmas be most joyous for all of you, your families, and churches!
George O. Wood
December 13, 2007 7:09 PM
Pablo D Vizcay said...
Dear Gen Sup,
As a Dodger fan you are familiar with the call of a home run (your last comment) by Vin Scully "this Ball is gone" . Thanks Sup - you are "the man"( without esteroids) for such an hour as this in the time and life of our Assemblies Of God.
Sorry Anonymous. I've been following this blog since July. At the time I wrote my last comment I wasn't thinking about people discovering the blog much more recent than that. Comment however you want.
I was simply getting discouraged because I wasn't sure that anything was being achieved anymore by this blog. Seeing the Gen. Sup.'s comment is encouraging because it shows that I was wrong.
December 14, 2007 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...
It's been since August since I posted, but I read it every couple days. I have told others about the blog and topics factor into our conversations and decisions. Many times I would like to comment, but don't have the time to do so. Most of the time my comments agree with others, so I let the more eloquent ones stand.
I think our leadership has proven with their comments on this blog (Dr. Woods, Beth Grant, & numerous others) that we are headed into exciting territory.
Keep up the good work!
Marvin Miller
Principal, Palm View Christian Schools - Whittier,CA
December 15, 2007 5:52 AM
AGTS student said...
I am a second year resident AGTS student and one very deeply involved in the due diligence processes with the AG. My wife and I are still unsure if our ministerial vision and calling will line up with the goals, values, character and integrity of the denomination. So I greatly appreciate this blog and specifically the “Leading Change†post. It allows us to see behind the curtain a bit.
I have both met Kotter and spent a significant amount of time implementing his ideas within organizations. I’m glad to see others consider his wisdom and insights helpful and instructive. I hope change takes place. We must change and quickly, for all our sakes.
Since the denominational seminary was not mentioned in the first paragraph as an organization within the AG that would benefit from positive change, I thought I would chime in with a few observations I have gathered during my time in the AGTS culture. Obviously these observations represent one person’s vantage point. However, I have tried to limit my statements to those subjects which I know a wide and diverse cross section of seminarians discuss amongst themselves regularly. My hope is to start dialog among not simply students but faculty, administration and most importantly with our single largest benefactor, the General Council. I’ll start first with:
The Good:
• There currently exists an amazing wealth of young, intelligent, talented and eager future leaders devoted to the call of Christ and the furtherance of His kingdom.
• These young leaders seem to be initially attracted to AGTS because they believe the seminary will continue to build upon their previous Pentecostal experience that encouraged pursuit and worship of God in Spirit and Truth.
• These young leaders know what they do not know.
• They know who and who does not understand them and their unique perspectives.
• They are very hard to fool. They sniff out authenticity and devote themselves to the pursuit of transparency and truth.
• The seminary is much more tolerating of frank discussion over issues and theological positions than most of our AG church leaders. The freedom to question why a certain belief or doctrine exists is widespread.
• Frank admission of disagreement with denominational doctrine or outdated beliefs and traditions of an extra-biblical nature is encouraged and supported.
• The professors who seek out relationship with students, who represent integrity within their leadership positions, who encourage interactive learning, who adapt to the classroom instead of expecting the classroom to adapt to them and who realize education is a highly competitive and expensive product become a beacon that draws an overwhelming number of students for counsel and advise.
• Spiritual formation is the most anticipated area of study for most students.
The neutral:
• The administration seems to prefer scholars over teachers.
• Traditional ministry does not occur within the seminary. It is not exemplified or encouraged.
• There appears to be no system of accountability for learning outside of the semester end questionnaire.
The Bad:
• Great scholars are not necessarily good teachers.
• There is no intentional, effective, systematic mentoring/discipleship priority within the seminary. Students are largely left to their own devises to find and develop mentoring relationship.
• Many professors are not able to effectively focus on their main task of teaching and mentoring students. They are torn between their extra activity requirements to write, travel, speak and hold leadership positions in outside organizations.
• There is no organizational impetus to place students in positions within local churches to develop practically what is being learned theoretically.
• Many local church leaders have a bias against seminary students. These biases range from simple jealousy and fear of job security to outright disdain for the perceived ineffectiveness of higher education.
• There appears to be a significant lack of unity and support for student development between the local churches, the denominational leadership and the seminary administration. A “we†vs. “them†culture has developed within the movement.
• However, given the above, never have students been encouraged to consider how they might be agents of change. There is no support or guidance to take part in the process of development or renewing of the denominational positions and or strategy.
• Students uniformly report that spiritual formation is one the most disappointing area of instruction within the curriculum.
• Students come to their learning experience with a largely consumer oriented mentality. The seminary does not seem to recognize that students have a choice when they select institutions of higher learning.
• The President, Dean and majority of the faculty do not endeavor to connect with every student, every semester.
• The overwhelming majority of chapel services remain in the hands of the faculty and staff. Students are relegated to non- leadership roles.
• Despite the widespead awareness for the need of a seminary-led church where students can learn and develop their skills, none of the leadership within the administration or faculty will endeavor to change the political issues and turf struggles amoung the local church leaders in the area.
• Therefore it is commonly known that those who lecture on leadership development and are positions of leadership are not themselves applying the lessons they teach. This lends to a lack of credibility and greatly reduces the effectiveness of the entire institution.
• Most of the students are drawn to a few professors. Therefore these professors become overwhelmed and struggle emotionally, physically and spiritually with the burden of shepherding so large a flock.
• Students have filled out evaluation questionnaires for so long on the same professors and courses without any noticeable change the surveys have become routine and ineffective.
• There is no system of follow-up after graduation. Where are the seminary graduates? Did their education help them in mimistry? What changes would they now make looking back on their experience at AGTS? Where is the alumni association?
• The student advisory council and there officers hold nothing but ceremonial positions.
• The General council contributes nearly one million dollars a year to subsidize AGTS. Still on a dollar for dollar, credit hour for credit hour analysis, AGTS remains one of the most expensive denominational seminaries in the US.
Yes, Mr. Wood, change must occur. But for systemic change to occur at this magnitude leaders with indelible moral courage must arise and take their place. Moral courage is the quality that compels a leader to take the appropriate course of action regardless of the consequences. Do we have those types of leaders within the AG? We shall see.
You seem to suggest that the consumer oriented mentality among the students isn't a problem. I think that very consumer oriented mentality is one of the major problems with higher education today. Sure, students have a wide range of options in choosing a school, but the fact that they chose AGTS shouldn't make the school 'owe' them a thing. They chose the school because it does things well (or that's why they should've chosen the school). If they don't like the way AGTS operates, then they should've gone somewhere else. Instead of AGTS caving in to the consumer mentality, I'm glad to hear that they're doing what they feel like is best for the school.
You also seem troubled that the President and Dean don't "endeavor to connect with every student, every semester." I don't think you'd find that in a single job description at any good school in the nation. The President's and the Dean's job isn't to make current students feel good about being there. Their job is ensure that the school runs well, its reputation is growing (positively of course), and that the school's mission is being accomplished. (You may have a point about the faculty, but that would depend on what their job description is too. At many schools faculty is expected to build relationships with students, but at many others the faculty is expected to publish like crazy. I don't know what AGTS faculty are to do, but I think its more of the former than latter.)
I'm also interested to hear why a seminary-led church is such a good idea. At first pass, it sounds like a terrible one. If it's true that local churches have doubts about AGTS students, then those doubts need to be addressed. I think it would be a disservice if the students participated in a seminary church because once they're done at AGTS it's almost certain they won't have the same resources at their new church that they do at AGTS (I don't mean financial resources, but other like minded staff members that value education, etc.). Sadly, most churches that the students end up at will have only one seminary graduate. It also seems like non-students that attend the church would have a difficult time because there would be a constant come and go among the members. It's hard to really build relationships with people when you know they're leaving in a year or two. I'm interested to hear your thoughts, especially about the seminary church thing (I've had many conversations with friends about this).
Cheers,
I agreed with most of your comments to AGTS student with the exception of your opening one. I think that when a student pays a school anywhere from $25K to $50K... that school owes them quite a bit.
I treated every one of my 10+ years of undergrad and post-grad work with a consumer mentality. With the amount of money I was investing, I made sure that I was getting what was advertised from the get-go.
When my seminary brought in an incredibly high-profile Greek prof my third year, I added the course to my already overloaded schedule excited to study under him. But, when he began having a research student cover 70% of his lectures... we as a class filed a formal complaint and asked for a refund. We weren't going to pay money to learn from a student with only one year on us. The school listened and corrected the prof's schedule and soon he was back behind the lectern.
College and Grad students are consumers. They are paying money for a product... education. If the school lets them down... or in any way provides something less than what was presented in the glossy, color-coated catalogue, they need to voice their complaint.
December 16, 2007 3:56 AM
AGTS student said...
Paul F.,
Let me comment on your issues one by one.
“Instead of AGTS caving in to the consumer mentality, I'm glad to hear that they're doing what they feel like is best for the school.â€
Without the students there is no school. What is best for the students is best for the school. It is a symbiotic relationship. If you assume the students do not know what is best for them you would be wrong. I would encourage you to spend time with an open mind with these students before you assume to know, better than they, what is best for them. Graduate students come to institutions with more experience than ever before. As I stated before, we come prepared with the questions we know need answering and we are well aware of the skills that need to be developed to accomplish our calling. We are learners but we are not naive. We need equipping. That is different than being spoon fed. We are in every way mature adults and many of the seminary students come from successful careers prior to following their call into ministry. Instructors need to be willing and able to defend their positions and beliefs while demonstrating the pragmatic benefits of their area of study.
You can debate whether a consumer mentality is right or wrong. It will not change the facts that students today do and will continue to look at their education in terms of features and benefits. There are some negatives to that mentality when taken to the extreme. However, at this point, the only way for students to actively voice their displeasure is to take their dollars elsewhere. That the AG offers no other viable seminary alternatives and therefore caters to somewhat of a captive market has allowed the administration to become largely unaccountable to the students for the product they produce. That does not represent good leadership nor is it good stewardship of the hearts, minds and tuition dollars students entrust to this institution.
“I don't think you'd find that in a single job description at any good school in the nation. The President's and the Dean's job isn't to make current students feel good about being there. Their job is to ensure that the school runs well, its reputation is growing (positively of course), and that the school's mission is being accomplished.â€
So we don’t want students to feel good about being at AGTS? Whose job is that then? Or is the seminary supposed to be run like an airline where the mentality is: “You’ll take what you get and like it!â€
Look, I believe these are good men. Unfortunately, after this long I can’t say that with personal certainty but I believe it is so. The current Academic Dean is a temporary fill-in. My comments were specifically directed at the current President and previous Dean who is now the President of another AG university. It is the question of priorities where I differ. Job descriptions are the easiest thing to change in any organization. You point out that President and Dean’s of other institutions do not typically have those criteria in their list of job responsibilities. So….is that what we want? Do we want our seminarians to model leaders who are aloof and distant from their communities and constituents? Are the other responsibilities so grand and important that relationship and connection with the people they serve nothing but a leisure activity? You may respect and yearn to follow those leaders. We do not. You may trust those you do not know simply because of the position they hold. We have learned that power, position, privilege and plaudits routinely accompany frauds. We want to know our leaders and be mentored by them. Realize this: AGTS is a small school with probably no more than 300 resident, full time students. If you count distance learning students who live out of state or doctoral students who come in for only 2-3 weeks a year, total student attendance goes to maybe 500. What pastoral staff would not endeavor to make some sort of connection with each regular member of their congregation of 300? A five minute conversation, a cup of coffee, a phone call, a hand written post card with each of those members in the course of a year, two hours a week, 100 hours a year, 5% of their work schedule. That would allow each student to have some level of connection with the leaders of AGTS. It’s not that tough. If their job descriptions are too full to engage the benefactors of their efforts then the organization needs to get out the pen and re-write their priorities. Significant spiritual, financial, emotional and familial needs continue to go unnoticed within the student body simply because the seminary doesn’t know and doesn’t ask. Think what the administration might learn. Think what impact they might have. One has to wonder if the reason they stay is simply because they don’t want to hear what the students have to say. Either way, real ministry, true discipleship is not modeled, only taught. Again, it’s a leadership issue.
“I'm also interested to hear why a seminary-led church is such a good idea. At first pass, it sounds like a terrible one. If it's true that local churches have doubts about AGTS students, then those doubts need to be addressed.â€
Yes, they do. But they haven’t and it doesn’t appear to become a priority any time soon. In the meantime the majority of students are left with little or no opportunity to engage the tools they are being handed every day. They learn to preach but have nowhere and no one to preach to. They to exegete scripture down to the original language but no one will give them the opportunity to pass on their knowledge. They learn about how to develop disciple making ministries and how to initiate spiritual formation but no opportunities are provided to implement those strategies and ideas. Full tool belts, no lumber. So, what are we left with? A seminary church would act like a teaching hospital. The issue about turnover is easily overcome. University churches all over the country deal with the same issue every four or so years when students graduate as do ministries such as Chi-Alpha or Campus Crusade. They deal with it by continually developing new leaders and passing on the skills and knowledge required to continue the ministry. Certainly a steady, full time pastor would add stability. But a seminary sponsored church has the added benefit of the stability faculty advisors would provide. If the church takes off there would be no reason why a permanent staff could not be positioned. But the focus of providing ministry opportunities for students to the community would need to remain the priority.
“It's hard to really build relationships with people when you know they're leaving in a year or two.â€
I think students already factor that into every relationship at the onset. Few of us know where God is specifically going to call us. We do know that it probably won’t be Springfield for the majority. That means most of us will be leaving. However that fact does not stop us from engaging one another at a deep level. I think this is a universal reality. Many of us leave college while having made the most significant relationships of our lives even though we knew it would end in only a few years. In fact I think you could argue it was a catalyst.
The issue isn’t whether it’s a good idea. If a teaching hospital works for Johns Hopkins it would work the same benefits for AGTS. Let’s call the problem here what it is: Fear. Local pastors have veto power over which new churches are allowed to birth within their district. Bottom line: they are afraid of the perceived competition a seminary led church poses. It’s a turf war. As long as the priority and focus of these churches remains putting butts in seats instead of furthering the Kingdom of God we will continue to have these conflicts. As long as people continue to live and die separated from Jesus in this city then why would we stop a group of called, trained, equipped and devoted followers of Jesus from meeting a need and gaining valuable experience?
Finally let me say this, I don’t know you and it is difficult to discern motive and intent in writing but I clearly sense a “love it or leave it†mentality in your response. I must say it is exactly that attitude which galvanizes opposition to the overwhelming majority of denominational religions. If that attitude is or becomes pervasive the AG will lose the best and brightest of this generation and begin a long painful demise into history. My interpretation of Mr. Wood’s intention for publishing his article on change was to stem the tide of just such a mentality. It is that conversation in which I and my generation desire engaging. If I’m wrong or misinterpreted your comments let me apologize now and say I look forward to your response.
I think we agree on that more than you think. You do have the right to expect to get what was advertised. If the school advertises no graduate student teachers or a large degree of faculty accessibility, then you should expect that. My point is that many "consumer oriented" students have the "the customer is always right" or "now that you've got me, do xyz to keep me" mindset as well. That is what I disagree with.
What bothers me the most about the consumer mindset is when students feel like because they paid their money the deserve the professor to teach and grade a certain way. Students often expect their professor to adapt to their way of learning, but why should he do that? The students are the novices and he's the expert (can you imagine Daniel-son telling Mr. Miyagi that he doesn't learn well by washing cars?). Sometimes that means you have a boring professor, but guess what, he's the expert and we aren't. Dallas Willard is no joy to listen to speak, but what he says is unbelievable. Should his grad students at USC expect him to change his presentation style because they don't like it?
Education isn't simply a product you pay for, it's something you work to get. The consumer model results in many students that think once they pay their money, they get their education. When in fact, many pay their money and don't get an education because they're too lazy to do the actual work. On the consumer model, it's hard to convince a student that even though he paid his money and came to class, that doesn't automatically mean he'll get a "good" grade.
Sorry for the lengthy post, as someone teaching in higher ed (at the undergrad level) this is something that really bothers me (and I especially don't want to see it creep into the grad level).
We are in agreement. I completely support what you just wrote. The best example I have used in the past to illustrate this is Jon Krakauer's book "Into Thin Air." Not sure if you have read it, but his criticism is that Mt. Everest has become a tourism death trap. Entrepreneurs and millionaires think that if they pay the right amount of money, they should be able to find a guide that will guarantee that they will summit.
Unfortunately, these "tourists" do absolutely nothing to physically prepare for the climb and simply expect the guide to do all the work. The result has been an escalation of deaths on the mountain.
So along this line I agree. Students cannot enter the higher education field thinking that their dollar allows them to dictate what the professor should do for them.
HOWEVER... I definitely saw my share of laziness on the part of the professors when I was in seminary. Some of my worst classes were at Harvard where the professor thought that, based on his/her reputation, they could simply walk into class and read to us from their latest book. While I know that this is not ALWAYS true... tenure can breed laziness on the part of a prof and the responsibility lies with the student body to hold him/her accountable.
Appreciate your willingness to post. Your incorrect, though, in your last post when you said that local pastors have veto power over where new churches get planted. This was reversed at the DC General Council in 2005. The resolution was passed that a church plant could happen anywhere and at anytime and that local churches did not hold approval powers.
If you sincerely feel God would lead you or a team to start a "residence-based" church there, go for it. If a local church stands in your way... make the 5 minute drive to HQ and ask to see Dr. Wood. I think you have a new advocate in your corner that you are selling short.
December 16, 2007 3:04 PM
AGTS student. said...
Lane Douglas,
Thanks for the correction. I was told that by a professor and accepted it at face value. The next step would be to get the support of the seminary. Thanks for your encouragement.
I also agree that the consumer mentality displayed at Everest is the best example of the worst consumerism can breed. But I do not see any of that in my fellow students. Most of those types of students stop at the undergraduate level anyway. We just want the best education possible. We want to be challenged inside and outside of the classroom. We are willing to work and sacrifice to that end. Most importantly we desire to remain obedient and open.
Thanks for the response. I have a feeling we aren't going to convince each other, but I'll give it a go anyway. I must disagree that a graduate degree is a "product" in the way you seem to characterize it. When you pay your tuition, you are not paying to get your M.Div, M.A., etc. You're paying people to guide you in the educational process. For some, this process will be cut short because they learn that they aren't cut out for graduate level work. For others, life prevents them from giving their studies all that they require. And for others, the long and tedious education process is completed and they receive their degree. The consumer model bypasses all those options with the "We paid money so teach us like we want to be taught and give us our diploma!" attitude. Sure many students who get to AGTS are already successful, but they're going to school for a reason (and it shouldn't be to add letters after their name). They are going to school because there is something they are lacking. The professors are able to guide them as they fill in the gaps. If the professors aren't able to do that, then the students should go elsewhere. Yes there is only one AG seminary, but why must AG students attend AG schools? Aren't there plenty of other non-AG schools around (Gordon Conwell, Fuller, Trinity Evangelical, Talbot, Regents). [As an aside, one of the effects of the consumer model is teaching evaluations. As you might expect, I think they're ridiculous. For a humorous critique (or at least what I take to be humorous) of teacher evaluations, visit William Dowling's article at http://rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewcd/targeval.htm.]
I didn't say that students shouldn't feel good at their school, I said it's not the president's and dean's jobs to ensure that. I never met the president of Talbot (where I did my M.A.), but I knew of his heart for God and people. How? Because it came through the faculty and administrators. Those are the people that the president should have good relationships with. In turn, those faculty members should have great relationships with the students (assuming a smaller school like AGTS and Talbot). I just think it's a bit farfetched to think a president should have coffee and write cards to the students every year. If he has the time to do that, then something is either wrong with the school or the president. I think it's a mistake to assume that a seminary should be run like a church. They're vastly different.
You say that the issue isn't whether the idea of a seminary church is a good idea or not, but I couldn't disagree more. If it's a bad idea, then maybe that's why the faculty and local church leaders don't want it. I think the real issue might be a pastor's fear (as you said), but not of having another competitor. I think many pastors are afraid of having people on staff that have more education than they do. That's an issue that needs to be addressed and one that would remain even if there were a seminary church (how could 300 students realistically be as involved as you seem to want at one church?). Instead of going around the problem, address it.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by my perceived "love it or leave it" mentality. If you are referring to my attitude about AGTS, then you're right, but I thought that would be one you would endorse given your affinity for the consumer model. The whole point of a free market consumer economy is that when you don't like one company you're free to go to another. I thought you'd embrace the love it or leave it idea when it comes to a school. Concerning the AG in general, that is not my attitude at all. I see plenty of things that are wrong with the AG, but plenty of things that are right (for an example of one thing I think is wrong, see my paper "A Call to Abstinence?" [at http://faithinformed.wordpress.com/research/] in which I critique the AG's position paper on the usage of alcohol). But I still renew my license because I agree with much of what the AG is doing. My intent in responding to your post was acquiring the truth about the matter. You posted and I disagreed. That means one of us is wrong (not a fan of post-modern ideas). By posting, I have the chance to discern if it is me that is wrong. If so, then I change my beliefs. If not, then I have further evidence to support my position.
An unmotivated, tenured, professor has to be a student's worst nightmare. But, in my experience, these are the exception rather than the rule. I hadn't thought about Everest in regards to this issue, but think you're on to something. Have you seen the Discovery Channel's series on climbing Everest? The climbing guide they follow had to rescue at least 2 such individuals (that weren't even a part of his team!).
agts student, you mentioned that you think many of such students stop at the undergraduate level and I agree. However, the influx of lazy ug students that still get their degree has led to a devalued bachelor's degree. That means more of them are filtering into the grad programs whether we like it or not. That's why I want to fight, tooth and nail, that whole mentality. It's a slippery slope that I don't think we can avoid unless the majority of people and institutions hark back to a more classical understanding of education.
December 16, 2007 3:45 PM
AGTS student said...
Paul F.
Thanks for your response. I don’t think we are as far apart as it seems. (I really enjoyed your position paper on alcohol. But that’s a whole different issue.) Here’s the thing about education being a product at the graduate level: The professors have the knowledge and often the experience. But they have to be able to communicate that knowledge and experience to others effectively. I think any humble servant of God, whether preacher, teacher or candlestick maker, needs to regularly ask themselves the question: How can I do this better? What strategies can I employ or devises can I use to better communicate God’s truth to my listeners or students? The teacher/student relationship is symbiotic. Both sides need to move toward one another. This could not be better modeled than by Jesus.
This has nothing to do with grades. It has to do with effectiveness. We can measure effectiveness in many ways. I don’t claim to know which method is most efficient for measurement but currently at AGTS, it is the exception and not the norm for true learning to be the intended end of our education.
I also agree education is primarily the student’s responsibility. That is why I hope our seminary leaders will engage in the type of change described in this article. Otherwise we will be forced to go to the institutions you listed. But why? Why must we as a movement force Pentecostal students to choose an outside source for our education? All that is required is a little change.
I like to kick around ideas and see which ones stand up to the test. The love it or leave it mentality in essence says accept things the way they are or move on. Well if we do that here, we give up. But if we don't recognize what students are looking for we never get the opportunity to make our case about the benefits of a Spirit-Filled education, life and leadership style. Leadership is about taking people to places they have never been before. AGTS is a good institution that has goals and objectives like no other in its field. I feel like thosevalues and dreams are worth pursuing and wrestling over. The Pentecostal paradigm of faith is too powerful and transforming to abandon in our seminaries. But we must pursue the same type of transformation within of our institutions of learning that we saw occur in our churches during and subsequent to the Azuza revival. I see it as a stewardship issue.
Bottom line, just from this posting interaction, if I was in one of your classes, I feel confident you would not stop teaching until I was done learning. That’s exactly the type of teachers and leaders we long for. Those teachers earn our respect through engagement and relationship.
On the issue of the church being a good idea or a bad one. My point was that no one around the seminary, even the faculty, thinks it’s a bad idea. The point was that they all feel it would be DOA with the district because of the issues already discussed.
I think you're right, we're closer than I originally believed. I agree that the student-prof relationship is symbiotic, but past experiences lead me to think that many (if not most) students expect a one-way change (profs change to fit the students) instead of working for a two-way change (both adapt to one another). The unmotivated tenured prof that Lane mentioned reminds me that it's not always the students' fault.
It seems to me that the love it or leave it idea just comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. If the stuff you hate outweighs what you love (and the cost for trying to change it is too high), then bail. If not, then work for change and deal with what you hate in the meantime. I think that would apply to AGTS in particular and the AG in general. So, in some sense I do endorse it, but think the 'bail' option should always be a last resort.
Thanks for reading my paper, if you have any thoughts or comments feel free to post them on my site or email me. (One of many benefits of doing grad work is learning how to value constructive criticism of your work.)
One last small point towards your post. It is minuscule, but indicative of larger mindsets in our movement.
You asked the question,
Why must we as a movement force Pentecostal students to choose an outside source for our education?
I want to strongly encourage you to reconsider the whole "inside/outside" language prior to your graduation. As a 3rd generation AG kid, I chose Gordon-Conwell for one reason and one reason only... I felt 100% confident it was the school God was calling me to. It may have been "outside" the AG, but it was not outside God's kingdom.
What I discovered upon my arrival was shocking. Many of my professors, though holding different theological persuasions, were no where near as antagonistic towards Pentecostalism as I had been led to believe. I also discovered inside of me a pride and arrogance I had did not realize was there until I was in an environment with non-Pentecostal believers. God engineered it so that I ended up in an apartment with 2 Presbyterians and a Catholic. I cannot tell you the humility that God breathed into my life as these guys showed me how my language was hurtful to them.
AGTS is a great school, and I am glad you are receiving the education you are. But don't think of other schools as "outside" of our movement. They are simply different. We need to learn how to change our language and quit thinking ourselves as somehow elite in God's army.
December 17, 2007 8:21 AM
AGTS student said...
Lane Douglas,
I couldn't agree more. I certainly don't consider myself or this movement to be a part of God's "elite" army. Nothing could be further from my perspective or experience. I, like you, have significantly benefited from brothers and sisters of different brands of faith who have re-shaped my view of God and His mission on earth. Cross polination is a must. We do not have a corner on all the good ideas, traditions, beliefs or experiences. We must humbly recognize our place within the larger body while fully validating the role other faiths and traditions bring to the table.
My point regarding the seminary is that we only have one. It is worth striving to improve for all the reasons discussed above.
Having said all that I wonder why university and seminary professors are required to attend only AG churches in order to teach. One would think if we desire the gene pool of ideas to grow wider and deeper we may want to learn from the larger body. Do we embrace diversity or just the idea? Just a thought.
December 17, 2007 12:57 PM
Another AGTS Student - differing views said...
First of all, I am a third year AGTS student, and I disagree with some of “agts student’s†views. Some of his statements are incorrect.
•AGTS does maintain a thorough database of alumni, including where they are and what they are doing. See the Rapport: http://www.agts.edu/rapport/2008winter/index.html Some alumni may not provide contact information to AGTS, but they do try.
•It is up to the student to get involved in the local church, not necessarily the job of the seminary to do this. Most students are involved in some form of ministry in a local church. However, there is a stigma with many local pastors, but this is a national issue with higher education in the AG.
•Chapel – other than deciding who preaches, they are primarily student lead. From worship leading, sometimes preaching, and other aspects of chapel the student body is involved if they desire.
There are many other points I could add, however, my goal of this post is to say not all students agree with the view of the “agts student.†Most student I know here are happy with AGTS, apart from the normal gripes. If you do have issues with AGTS, most faculty and administration have an open door policy.
December 17, 2007 1:44 PM
A Third (& Former) AGTS Student said...
To AGTS #2: Thanks for voicing your take, but I have to agree more with AGTS #1.
However, to AGTS #1: Go plant a church. Under the Vision for Transformation guidelines, you can pretty much plant a new AG church right across the street from an existing one. Don't worry about the District or others. If they were going to support you to begin with, then who cares if they ignore you now.
Rally some troops, pray about, plan what will happen to the church when you and the others graduate, and go for it. As a church planter, I can tell you $$ and the support of your section/District is the least of your worries.
December 17, 2007 3:43 PM
3rd & Former AGTS Student said...
Amendment: If they WERE NOT going to support you to begin with, then who cares if they ignore you now.
Sorry, I typed too fast and hit the "Publish" button too fast.
December 17, 2007 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
December 17, 2007 3:52 PM
recent AGTS alum said...
AGTS student #1 hit a home run. He(she) encapsulated my experience at AGTS. I just wish someone would have had the courage to address these issues when I attended.
Students were relegated to singing and playing instruments during chapel. Rarely did a student speak or preach.
I think the point about the alumni is an excellent insight. If asked I would love to give feedback now after beeing in ministry a while what I think was helpful and what wasn't or what I need more of that wasn't covered in enough depth.
I think AGTS is worth fighting for too. Keep talking.
December 17, 2007 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Hey, take the AGTS issue to the AGTS web site will ya! If you guys can't discuss these issues in your own forum you have more problems than you realize.
Unbelievable but 800 young soldiers of Burkina Faso have been trained and equiped by the US army in 2007 and will be sent to DARFOUR (SOUDAN). The world is changing day by day and any change in Springfield should affect the World AG Fellowship.
Merry christmas from Ouagadougou Burkina Faso West Africa!!!!!!!!!
The AGTS Debate Rages...
...Concerning starting a "seminary church" in Springfield. While the rules may have changed Nationally concerning starting churches, So. Missouri and the Springfield Section is somewhat resistant to the idea of more/new churches here in Springfield.
…Maybe rightly so. With the highest concentration of AG churches in any metro area (anywhere?) it would be easy to argue that more churches are not the answer. In fact, many of the existing churches were started by students of our colleges here in town.
…Maybe a better plan would be to have a system that would place interested seminary students alongside pastors in the existing churches here in town. There are some 27 local churches and some 75 in the Springfield sections. This would provide on-the-job training, much needed assistance to the churches, and a great opportunity for seminary students to “try their wings†and find out that the issues in seminaries are different from those in the marketplace/churches.
…I’ll anticipate your objections. But local pastors would resist the input, ideas, education….etc. Perhaps there could be a training and application process for pastors who would like to participate (as well as for seminary students). Having served as a senior pastor in Springfield for a decade, I can attest to both the benefits (great) and the frustrations (great) of involving theology/ministry students in church ministry. Overall, I do not think we have an option—it’s too great of an opportunity to pass up.
…Another option that I am pursuing is to ask a local church to host a unique service that is targeted at a different demographic than is presently being reached by the church’s existing ministries. My goal is to plant a “service†that can serve as a training and launching platform for students desiring to plant newer model churches in other communities.
…Those are my thoughts. By the way, I support Dr. Byron and his staff at AGTS. Everything can always be improved (just wait till you get out there and become the target of criticism)—but the desire to innovate, and to establish a unique culture at AGTS has been impressive under the current leadership’s tenure at AGTS. Bright days are ahead!
December 18, 2007 5:17 AM
AGTS Student 4 I think said...
Another forum? There is no other forum to discuss problems with AGTS. This is why AGTS 1 has said it in this forum. Even if there was another forum, would the prof’s and admin listen? Unlikely,students can vote with our student fees and that is why the AGTS population is going down and the students who stay at AGTS are paying the price. Students are voting, by going to other seminaries!
AGTS students do have opportunities to preach in chapel, but who comes to those chapels? Why would one student want to hear a sermon from another student unless it was a class lecture? If I have to go to a chapel then I want to hear someone with experience, not another student in the same bubble I am in.
December 18, 2007 8:34 AM
Byron D. Klaus said...
Dear AGTS student, I am really, really late but...I agree wholeheartedly that AGTS should be part of the discussion on change/transformation in the A/G. AGTS is not a perfect organization; we have our fair share of issues needing attention. Neither are we clueless nor naive about what it will take to be all God has called us to be. Your comments cut a fairly large swath of topics. I'd like to talk more about those crucial issues with you. I look forward to a conversation.
Byron D. Klaus President, AGTS
I certainly hope that AGTS Student will take up Dr. Klaus's invitation to conversation. The leaders of our national institutions are opening a door for dialogue, and it would be a shame if, instead of walking through it, we decided merely to post anonymously.
I too hope that agts student takes Dr. Klaus on his offer. It's quite funny how similar this is to when I was an undergrad at SAGU. A buddy of mine and I were upset with some things at the school and, printed some anonymous leaflets airing our concerns (we too were afraid of retribution). After the 3rd or 4th "issue", President Bridges brought it up during a chapel and said something like, "If you're willing to print these up, why not come to my office and talk to me about what is bothering you."
My buddy and I decided to do just that.
Guess what? We had an great opportunity to voice our concerns with the individual most able to address them. We were able to tell him why we felt we needed to remain anonymous, why we didn't want to talk with our dorm pastor, men's dean, or student congress, and he was able to share with us the school's reasons for doing things a certain way. I think he learned about some things lacking on the administration's part (open communication with students) and we learned that they know a lot more about how to run a school than we do.
Though I now think I would've gone about things differently, I'm really glad that we ended up being able to meet with President Bridges. It changed my entire outlook concerning him and SAGU. I pray that agts student has a similar experience.
December 18, 2007 5:21 PM
Jim Bradford said...
I pastor in Springfield and have had some great experience with AGTS students interning or volunteering in ministry at the church. One student is presently helping me as a research assistant -- something new for me.
The largest part of my experience, however, has been with the military chaplain candidates who are needing ongoing ministry experience while studying. Wish we could involve more, but I have been impressed with who we have had. The seminary has gained a national reputation for its work in chaplaincy.
I would concur with many of Steve Smallwood's observations. Some very progressive things have happened at AGTS the past few years in the face of some daunting obstacles and ongoing challenges.
Dr. Klaus's invitation to dialogue is consistent with his spirit and inclusive leadership style. As a leader I find it hard to get everything right and harder when people are indirect with their understandably legitimate frustrations. I am hopeful for a growing culture of both dialogue and safety in our movement.
December 18, 2007 6:03 PM
amused said...
To anonymous 7:49 p.m.
Who is asking and why? Is this or is it not a blog?
I would like to to focus less on ourselves and more on them...to see us serve as Christ served...less politics and more action in showing Christ's love to the unchurched. Realize that church as we have known it for so many years may no longer be reaching those who are disenfranchised with the church, those who feel too sinful to enter the four walls of the church as an institution, those who are truly hurting and in need of hope. It's almost as if we had it right in the beginning and somehow lost our original intent somehow over the years...Our mission should be entirely about them...
December 18, 2007 10:27 PM
Dr. C said...
Sounds to me like AGTS #1 hit a soft spot. He reminds me of many of our Old Testament Prophets. And just like them those targeted are coming after the messenger instead of listening to the voice of truth in the message.
Run for the hills AGTS student! God will take care of you just as he did your brothers before you. God speed.
December 19, 2007 6:05 AM
Dr. C said...
Sounds to me like AGTS #1 hit a soft spot. He reminds me of many of our Old Testament Prophets. And just like them those targeted are coming after the messenger instead of listening to the voice of truth in the message.
Run for the hills AGTS student! God will take care of you just as he did your brothers before you. God speed.
dr. c., Who seems to be coming after the messenger? Obviously the difference is agts student is delivering his own message. If that message is true, then we should take heed (and not 'kill the messenger'), but shouldn't we at least figure out if the message is indeed true? If it's not, then we should destroy the message (and still not kill the messenger), but I haven't seen anyone on here attacking him. Remember there is a difference between attacking the person (ad hominems) and attacking the message (and if the message is true, as with the OT prophets, it'll withstand the attacks).
I join GPW and Paul in encouraging ALL of these AGTS students to take Dr. Klaus up on his offer. The blog has served it's purpose in getting you an audience... now go the next step.
As I wrote in my post earlier up this list... when we felt we had grievances towards a Greek prof years ago at GCTS, we took it to the school administration. I personally led the team and was petrified at possible ramifications. But it was the right thing to do rather than grumble every class.
Doesn't the Bible instruct us not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits to see whether they are from God? So if we push back a little on the "prophetic" words of AGTS student, are we simply doing our biblical duty? And anyway, no one's persecuting him/her. Heck, the president of AGTS gave AGTS student his contact info and invited him/her to a conversation. Why don't you post your contact info so I can call you?
GPW
December 19, 2007 9:20 AM
That Guy said...
Bravo, Dr. Klaus!
Thanks for inviting the students in for a chat. (Guys, take him up on the offer!)
I had posted previously on this blog regarding another subject, and was asked by Dr. Wood to call him. I did, and it was FANTASTIC!!!
Contact the man and watch God move...
BTW, this Blog is doing a great job bringing attention to our ranks.
Can I recommend you delete the post with the request for the anonymous blogger to reveal their identity?
The possibility exists that someone's name has been brought into play that may have absolutely no idea it is sitting out there. Without their permission, we should not let it float like that IMO. Since the request came from a source we can't verify, we don't know their motives.
I think, as a general rule, bloggers should not bring someone else's name into play unless that person has given you permission to do so. Otherwise, this is equal to talking behind their backs. This goes double for anonymous bloggers.
As a graduating AGTS student (MDiv) and also an employee at AGTS, I feel like these critiques (or as Dr. C so strangely called them "prophetic messages") probably have some measures of validity. However, lobbing rocks from behind an anonymous shield doesn't seem to be accomplishing much. Not only so, I found them very inaccurate in many cases. I don't know if I'd have the patience to lead like Dr. Klaus. He's willing to take everyone with him, not just change things for the complainers.
I find it extremely commendable of AGTS leadership to extend an invitation for dialogue in the face of generalized and even personal negative critiques.
And Dr. C. (which might as well be anonymous), your comment seems to imply that you don't trust that our leaders will take our concernes seriously and that it may even backfire on us. Personally, I know some have experienced just that. But this isn't always the case. If we are to truly contribute towards change I think we who care should be willing to take that risk occasionally.
At the moment, I see a lot of talk about change, a number of accusations thrown at one of our academic institutions (including faculty and administration), and a great deal of fear demonstrated by the anonymity of individuals making negative comments about the seminary (both current students and alumni).
I just completed my first semester at AGTS and I am very happy that I came here. In no way am I going to say everything is perfect in our Fellowship, including the seminary. That is because people are involved in the whole thing.
As far as the request of the identity of agts student is concerned, I can understand not wanting to toss someone's name into the mix. Especially if they have nothing to do with the situation. At the same time, I understand the request that someone who is bold enough to make such statements should also be bold enough to identify themselves. Given their lack of willingness to do so, I also doubt their willingness to accept the invitation of Dr. Klaus to discuss these issues.
The thought which comes to my mind is whether those who complain will actually do something besides talk or if they think their work is done and the rest of the job is up to someone else.
The problem however with these types of communication is in the translation. It is difficult to convey the attitude of the person writing or in what spirit. All these types of communications have to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't see how anyone communicating without using their real identity can contribute to effectively addressing possible problems or solutions.
December 19, 2007 1:59 PM
another purposely anonymous voice said...
I was encouraged by Dr. Wood’s initial blog about leading change. I am proud to be involved in an organization that is interested in promoting positive change for the future. I think the first step toward positive change is creating an environment where leaders can openly dialogue without fear of reprisal. Without that basic element of trust, any leadership team will fail to achieve its objectives and ultimate mission.
As a former pastor and AGTS student, I have found that leaders and lay people commonly discuss issues amongst themselves, but are too afraid to speak to those who have the authority to facilitate change. Those who have the authority to initiate change are usually the same people who control credentials, salaries, reputations and career opportunities. People are hesitant to respond openly when their security is at stake. When security is placed in tangible things rather than in Christ we tend to avoid healthy conflict and engage in politics to achieve personal success. Often, the dialogue itself becomes a threat and offense is taken. A lack of open, honest debate is a prime indicator of dysfunction in any family or organization.
Although several bloggers noted that they have never been directly pressured or silenced, I see evidence of an atmosphere of fear and distrust on many levels. Therefore I feel it’s inappropriate and troubling to try and identify bloggers who wish to remain anonymous. I couldn't disagree more with Joel and Dan regarding anonymous bloggers. Those who choose to blog anonymously have reasons for doing so. It is in no way a sign of a lack of boldness or willingness to do the difficult work of change. Sometimes the most effective way to blog is anonymously. (I often wonder about the motives of those who use their names.) We should focus our attention on the issues rather than people, positions or personalities. Anonymous blogger 7:49 pm’s comment seems like an attempt at intimidation to me.
Dr. Wood mentioned a task force aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of A/G credentials to men and women with the call of God on their lives. I think this is a step in the right direction. I hope the task force plans to dialogue with AGTS students. I have been involved in many informal discussions on this very subject. Leadership will gain valuable insight into the problem of dwindling numbers if you intentionally create a culture where people can freely discuss their observations and concerns. I sincerely hope those in leadership not only ask the right questions, but truly desire to hear the answers.
I enjoyed reading the blog entries regarding the issues and felt needs of AGTS students. They were thought provoking and appear to be seasoned with love and respect as Dr. Wood originally suggested. I benefit from the different vantage points offered. Some of my own assumptions have been challenged and/or corrected. Thank you to everyone who posts your unique perspective.
I appreciated Dr. Klaus’s offer to meet with student #1 for further discussion. I agree this shows an open door to much needed dialogue. At the same time, I would very much have enjoyed reading a response from Dr. Klaus, the faculty and/or Woods regarding the issues raised. Encouragement by both Klaus and Woods to take the discussion off-line ends the public dialogue rather than inspiring it. Wasn’t the original intent of this blog to create dialogue? From my perspective, AGTS student #1 has initiated an interesting and thought provoking discussion. We seem to be losing sight of the goal here. It is not time to point fingers, but to simply debate the issues. It is extremely important to remember that the issues brought up by one individual are often a concern for many who remain silent.
As a leader, I recognize the reluctance to inviting detailed discussion in a public setting. However, people need a place where they can be heard and seek understanding.
I agree with Jim Bradford who hopes for a growing culture of both dialogue and safety in our movement. In my experience, this is needed and essential to future success. I believe God is at work in our midst and we must do everything within our power to lead in such a way that brings Him glory and honor.
I am a last year M.Div. student at AGTS, I also work at AGTS, and on TOP of it all, I serve as president of the Student Advisory Council in my final year here. (And I do have MUCH more than a ceremonial position incidently.)
AGTS rocks.
I have invested much here, and I feel that AGTS has invested much in me.
I'm not here looking for perfection, I'm here looking for what I can learn from people who have experience and knowledge that I lack. Even if I don't agree with teaching styles or policies-whatever...I can still learn. In fact, I think that attribute should characterize every season of our lives!
If there is something I would like to see change...well...I will try to be the first to roll up my sleeves and be one who helps make it happen. I love facilitating open minded discussion about change! But talking about is only half of the picture. Let's be willing to be part of the solution instead of tossing anonymous grenades and running away.
Isn't that what a servant leader is anyway? To be an agent of change in all circumstances, good and bad?
At the end of the day, we're still Christians, and should act as such to each other. The world is watching, and that's how they know we are truly His disciples. (John 13:35)
All of this chiming in has forced me to do the same. "Chime, Chime Chime!!!"
Can we get back to the original intent of the blog... to discuss change and not nitpicking over who is saying what anonymously. The posts are out there, do with them as you choose.
Paul Wood, thank you for your thoughts. We must be willing to hear the voices of our insiders if we intend to maintain effectiveness. (Dr. Klaus has made an icredible offer to dialogue about the issues facing the seminary. Take him up on it.) In the mean time, let's take Paul Wood up on the same opportunity to discuss change in the AG.
I would like to see if the headquarters would be willng to sit and discuss issues with many of the young leaders (mentioned by AGTS Student) that we are discussing and philosophising over at the seminary. The truth is, I don't know if we necessarily know that our thoughts and ideas have worth at the top. In truth, our fellowship is run congregationally, but in order to have a voice, you must have experience, clout, etc. That is frustrating when you consider that many of us are well educated, yet seemingly never listened to or sought after for our insights. The truth is, while we haven't been on the leading edge, we have been the led. As a result, we know those "playbook" things that we hope to never replicate in our own ministries! However, sometimes it feels that to speak to the contrary is blasphemy!
So, (per the original post) we have a sense of urgency - we know that Jesus is coming and people don't know him! Now, use us as part of the powerful guiding coalition. As Earl Creps encourages, will the AG be willing to be reverse mentored by some of us up and comers? If nothing else, let us vent! Ha!
Well, there's my chime! Happy Christmas!
December 19, 2007 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Interesting....
all of the bloggers who choose to remain anonymous have something corrective to say to AGTS. Everyone who signs their name works there and ignores the original issues while complimenting their bosses. Yeah, there is some major dysfunction over there. As a CBC student looking at seminaries I want to thank the original AGTS student for letting me see not only the issues but follow the responses. Trinity, Dallas, Regent and Gordon Conwell just moved up a notch.
P.S. Just read Mike. He seems to have some guts.
December 19, 2007 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...
To CBC student above:
Nice conclusion to draw, but it does not seem to be air tight.
Not all positive statements regarding AGTS were from employees.
Secondly, it is also possible they have better insights to the character of their leaders/bosses since they work closer to them. Otherwise, you might be seeing anonymous negative comments from employees...
NO ONE is saying AGTS is perfect! (read that again if you have to).
NO ONE is saying students can't speak up if they think there is a problem.
But what Shannon said above...I agree. At the end of the day, we ARE CHRISTIANS (and even leaders in training) so if we can't learn to BIBLICALLY address problems with people, then i guess the anonymous blog post is all the further you'll get.
December 19, 2007 4:51 PM
Mike Huckabee said...
Who cares whether it is anonymous or not as long as it is relevant? Someone may sign their name and I have no idea whether it is their real name or not? Somebody signing Doug or Shanon or whoever doesn't tell me anything about them and it doesn't mean they are better than someone who posts anonymously. Get a grip people!
December 19, 2007 6:27 PM
Mike Huckabee said...
By the way....I need you all to vote for me in the primaries!
December 19, 2007 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Mike Huckabee...
That points to and definitely highlights the ineffective nature of a blog/email/IM to resolve a conflict or issue. It doesn't matter if their name is stated or it is anonymous.
Just because a computer screen is there doesn't mean it removes the authority of scripture that tells us to speak directly to the person we need to dialogue with and resolve issues.
December 19, 2007 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...
uggggghhh.... I think some of you are a little lost confused or both.
Nobody has been unchristian that I've read except maybe the guy who's naming names. Why would anyone consider this dialog unbiblical? Or are we saying any criticism of leadership is unbiblical? Hold on..... I think I just heard Luther turn over in his grave...We hold in high esteem heros of the faith who challenged the establishment in antiquity but tend to overlook or drown out any modern contrarian voices.
It's time to grow up or wake up...these aren't "rocks" or "grenades." Give me a break. That kind of inflammatory language comes out when someone is trying to change the story or deflect attention. It is a classical political move we see going on right now in the respective primary races. Please... let's not link ourselves to spin doctors and character assasination just because we are weak on the issues. Stick with the truth. I hear it leads to freedom.
No one except Paul F., Smallwood, Mike, Agts #1 and Another Purposely Anonymous voice seem to be trying to re-focus everyone, even those in charge, to deal with the issues out front, in this forum, so everyone can benefit. In my experience students bring these kinds of things up after other means have been attempted to no avail.
Everyone knows anonymous forums are essential. That is why we have whistle-blower laws and secret informants who receive protection. Why? because they need it. Certainly religious institutions have lost any claim to the moral high ground. To expect a student to blindly walk into a potential buzz saw is naive and foolish. The difference between an A and a C on a term paper is overwhelmingly a subjective determination. I think AGTS#1 wouldn't be brave but stupid to risk anything on an institution that has already revealed it's desire to take this issue behind closed doors. Take Dr. C advice head for the hills.
And to the "brave" guys getting paychecks from AGTS or those trying to impress the administration by sticking their names on hollow defenses without any reference to the issues mentioned: stop sucking up. You aren't fooling anyone. Your message would be heard better if you were....anonymous. Imagine that. CBC student is on to something.
Fianlly, Mike makes a good point, if the AG or AGTS thinks the issues presented are sooo inappropriate they would pull the plug. But I am amazed they suggested the conversation go underground especially since the students seem to be saying they have no current vehicle to voice concerns and THAT IS THE POINT OF A BLOG.
This forum has devolved to talking about talking. Face the issues. It appears to me AGTS must start at the very bottom of the process of change. That would be learning how to communicate. For a bunch of preachers who earn a living by talking that's a stagering admission of incompetance. But you have to start somewhere. (Sorry. Is that too honest to be christian?)
December 19, 2007 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...
Way to correct Mr Huckabee about resolving conflict with names while posting it anonymously...WOW!
December 19, 2007 6:57 PM
Anonymous said...
Glory!
December 19, 2007 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous 6:57...
I don't think Huckabee was corrected on anything, since the person who responded to him said name or no name, neither matter. GLORY! ;-)
I think no one is close to on-topic anymore.
Let's move on. AGTSers need to go start their own blog if they want to keep tackling this. Maybe the anonymous #1 above should think about that then.
December 19, 2007 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Blog is open to everyone. AGTS posters...post here all you want
December 19, 2007 7:39 PM
Amused said...
Fun fun fun. This is just like the last snipe hunt I was on. How about putting the ball back on the court? What about mentoring....anything going to happen? How we doing on setting up a forum for student feedback? What methods are being considered to measure effective learning? Is anything going to change or is this just a waste of time or a creative way of keeping the students amused during Christmas break?
Anonymous 6:53, I agree that there is a necessity for anonymity at times, but find it very hard to believe that Dr. Klaus has impure motives in wanting to talk with agts student 1 off the blogs. One of the complaints of this student is that the administrators are not accessible. This is wide open accessibility. Further, what would happen if Dr. Klaus threatened or intimidated that student? Well, presumably, he'd get right back on this blog and let us know. Because Dr. Klaus made the invitation very public, there is already an amount of accountability. (And for those that might think I'm sucking up, I've never met/communicated with Dr. Klaus and after finishing my undergrad at SAGU, never been to an AG school.)
Re: anonymous posters -- I don't mind it at all, but would prefer you to just make up a handle (like Mike Huckabee did) to make it easier to refer back to previous comments/other threads. Of course someone could spoof another's handle, but they can do the same now. It'd be nice to know anonymous 3:56 (for example) is the same anonymous 1:19 from another thread. As we get to know one another better, it'll help to set the context of a post within your other beliefs.
December 20, 2007 6:41 AM
Concerned said...
Anonymous 6:53
You are right. Get to the issues. We have needed this conversation for so long.
I work at AGTS and I can only report what I see and hear...
The moment this blog was discovered a hunt began by members of the administration for the first student author. It scared alot of us and it was very disappointing. I must say these were intimidating conversations. All of a sudden it felt like none of us were friends anymore.
To all AGTS students: I know how hard all of you work and I watch how diligently you are trying to obey God's call for yourselves and many of your families. Please be careful when considering exposing yourselves. I am saddened to see how men I respect responded to what appears to me to be honest issues we have faced for years. We all make mistakes. But our actions send powerful signals. Let's all take a deep breath and remember why we are here and who we serve.
Thanks and please keep talking. Go back and read the original conversations. THey were not mean spirited. Listen to Amused. Amused seems to be reminding everyone to lighten up a little andget back to the things that can help us all change.
I'm praying this will all work out for good.
AGTS student- I'm praying for you especially young man. Listen to the Lord. He will guide you. You've done a good thing.
Could you give us some concrete, physical examples of what you mean by "a hunt began?" It's not that we don't believe you, but those of us on the outside need to know that what you are saying has credibility and is not just your perception.
Was a memo issued to students warning them not to post? Was a request made in chapel for the student to "confess?" What conversations are you referring to when you say they were "intimidating?" Why were you guys scared?
Lane
December 20, 2007 7:57 AM
another purposely anonymous voice (you can call me "APAV" for short) said...
Ok. Mentoring…Well, I think that spiritual formation/discipleship/mentoring is one of the most important aspects of leadership development. The most important leadership trait is integrity/ Godly character. Assuming many of the students in seminary will pursue ministry careers, this is essential not only for personal formation, but for their ability to disciple sheep in their future flocks. How are leaders developed? By modeling on the part of leadership, opportuni
"Leading Change in the AG"
199 Comments -
GPW wrote "Our spiritual warfare is not against gays, lesbians, liberals, Muslims, abortionists, or whatever. Our spiritual warfare is against the devil on their behalf. They are the contested territory we are fighting over. They are not the enemy we are fighting against. "
This reminds me of an essay I wrote for a contest CCM magazine had back around 1990 related to Petra's "On Fire!" album. It was titled "Warfare 101", and the jist of it was that the abortionists, gays, atheists, etc. are not the enemy, but are prisoners of war that have been taken captive by the enemy.
December 10, 2007 7:03 PM
Good post, George. I think this is the right track. And I would add, lest anyone think otherwise, that "sweetness in tone" does not mean a loss of passion about your opinion or point of view. Recently, as a gift, I was given an 1817 printing of John Wesley's response to Dr. Taylor on original sin. To say he disagreed with Taylor is an understatement. Yet, prior to making his case, he wrote the following:
"There is a danger [in the Christian system] of a warmth which does no honour to our cause, nor is at all countenanced by the revelation which we defend. I desire neither to show, nor to feel this, but to "speak the truth in love," (the only warmth, which the gospel allows) and to write with calmness, though not with indifference. There is likewise a danger of despising our opponents, and of speaking with an air of contempt or disdain. I would gladly keep clear of this also; well knowing that a diffidence of ourselves is far from implying a diffidence of our cause : I distrust myself, not my argument!"
The paragraph, as a whole, has captured me. It is, however, this last line that hits me hardest...
"I distrust myself, not my argument."
Looking forward to more!
December 10, 2007 11:41 PM
"Leading change in the AG" but don't you think that we have in the AG what I will call a "Jeruslem Syndrome". Post-modern generation has been blessed with a strong system and nice facilities but we are too comfortables in Jeruslem. We should go out and get involve in a mission projet. Our grand parents had many issues too but the Spirit of Mission helped to surpass everything. The graves of americans missionaries in Ouagadougou speak more than all the theses we may write about the AG. Don't we have great testimonies from our churches and districts to report in this blog??? We should edify by telling what the Lord has done through our generation.
By the way you are still invited to visit Burkina Faso in Africa.
Wenna Songe'!
Douglas Ouedraogo from Burkina Faso Africa.
adcissin1.multiply.com
December 11, 2007 12:07 AM
George - Some have wondered,
“where are the blog authors?"
We forget that you guys have full time ministries to serve.
Thanks for sharing your heart and bringing some balance back to your blog.
I believe:
- True Spiritual Warfare
doesn't happen in the pew.
- The American church will
not be effective until we
again, take the Gospel
message to the
streets.
- Loving the hurting and
lonely people will change
our cities and towns. And
re-open the doors to our
churches.
Many of our churches have become sterile. We are more like museums remembering our glorious past. Unless we start touching broken lives, where they live, we will not have a glorious future.
December 11, 2007 9:03 AM
Yes, the blog hosts do have full time ministries like most of the people posting here. However, it would make more sense that they were not posting here if they were also not posting on their other blogs or responding to comments there.
December 11, 2007 2:33 PM
The city I live in is about 10 minutes from an Army base. When I lived here the first time it was before 9/11. I still have several friends who were in the army at that time. Now that I'm back here I have made new friends that are currently in the army.
I say this because I see a huge difference in the soldier's attitude. Before 9/11 it seemed as though they had lost a sense of purpose. Soldiers were meant to fight and I knew some that never left the states their entire time they were active. It seemed as though they were willing to fight anybody when they didn't have anybody to fight. Now, most soldiers have been to Iraq or Afghanistan already, or they are fresh out of boot and are about to be deployed. They know their purpose and they know their enemy and they know their friends. They are doing what they were trained to do.
GPW mentioned that we are an army. I think we're a pre-9/11 army. Sure, individuals know that they're called and why, but I get the impression that the organization doesn't really know why the organization exists. Which causes the individual soldiers to turn on each other.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the proverbial "next generation" making this Christianity thing their own. The questions and the criticisms aren't necessarily what it first seems to be rather a need to make it their own.
I think we're trying to make this fellowship/organization/network/denomination our own. We're trying to figure out the organization's purpose and vision. At this point we don't see a vision and purpose. At this point we see a whole lot of soldiers stuck in the states when the soldiers we're meant to fight. We have lost sight of our original mission.
So, I'm wondering if those who have been in this longer could tell us why the Assemblies of God exists? What's our mission? Why should we bother changing things? How does being a part of the Assemblies of God expand the Kingdom better than doing it on our own?
I have my own ideas but these are honest, sincere questions and I would appreciate honest, sincere answers without the "it's hopeless" comments.
I would like to suggest one other thing. If we have a mission, If the AG expands the Kingdom and/or has the potential to expand the Kingdom then can we please move towards GPW's suggestions and begin changing things? Or If it is hopeless, can we please just close up shop and move on? We've had our time to vent its time to be proactive or to quit.
December 12, 2007 8:00 AM
Hey Wes......you might want to be careful speaking for everyone when you say that we've had our time to vent. You don't know that everyone has had this opportunity nor is it proper in my opinion to begin telling people on a blog what they can and cannot contribute.
December 12, 2007 10:00 AM
George, well said. I must say that I've been encouraged by the simple fact that leaders of our fellowship have taken the time to listen (and even respond) to what has been said on this blog. Perhaps the day will come where we can discuss these things with an even larger number of AG folk (like we used to in the Pentecostal Evangel).
Anonymous 2:33, thanks for providing another good example of a whiny, critical spirit. The individuals that set up this blog have no obligation to you, or any of us, to post on a regular basis. They do this because they love our fellowship and want to see it improve. They may post more regularly on their personal sites, but there's a great chance that those postings are specifically directed to their own congregations. I think you should be grateful that there is a place to discuss these issues at all, even if that means you have to wait 3 or 4 days to get an update (and why is it that you're only happy when the moderators post? it seems like there is a tremendous amount of discussion within the comments even when they aren't posting). I think that there should be numerous sites similar to this one to keep the ball rolling, so if you don't like waiting around, why not start your own?
Anonymous 10:00, thanks for providing a great example of a self-referentially inconsistent statement. I think I'll use that on my class's final exam!
December 12, 2007 12:19 PM
Paul F...thanks for being the perfect example of those you are taking to taks...how hypocritical!!
December 12, 2007 2:23 PM
Boys:
Let's not get snarky with each other. LOL!
George
December 12, 2007 5:11 PM
"We're trying to figure out the organization's purpose and vision."
I think GS Wood did a good and proactive job by posting his 5-point mission. My question is "HOW?"
Not to diminish his God-given agenda, but it is nothing new. How are we going to keep from repeating the past? (God knows we don't need another Decade of Harvest.)
This is what I am looking for out of our movement.
December 12, 2007 5:34 PM
Good post & it is a good challenge for us. I guess it got me thinking - how often do I pray for my district leaders and what if I hosted some sort of gathering at my church for my section or got to know the pastors in some way - perhaps sending a Christmas card or something of that nature to begin with.
I have seen some pastors in my district starting to get facebook accounts, which helps me to get to know them a little better.
I suppose we can all learn and have an open heart to get to know each other better. I am encouraged when I read posts such as this because it gives me a sense of hope for our church.
Blessings!
December 12, 2007 7:19 PM
Anonymous 2:23, I don't see how what I said was hypocritical. Regarding the whiny comments, I think there is a genuine difference between offering constructive criticism and just being whiny (I took my own comment to be the former). Perhaps the poster can change my mind.
I believe that when people try to initiate change it is important to leave the meddlesome issues aside and focus on what is important (and it is important to get people to not focus on the unimportant). If not, those that we are trying to convince to change will have good reasons to think we are all a bunch of complainers. When I stray from offering constructive criticism (directed toward the AG leadership or other bloggers), I expect those that read this blog to call me on it. If not, then I'll lose my ability to convince anyone because I'll be viewed as a whiny complainer. (Anonymous 2:33 doesn't have that problem because he/she posts anonymously.)
I also really do believe there should be many sites like this one (e.g. the Wiki site discussed in earlier threads). If this person doesn't like this blog, why not start another? I'm sure people would visit there too and we could, hopefully, bring about more change that enables the AG to fulfill its mission better.
Regarding my critique of the self-referentially inconsistent comment directed toward Wes, well, that's just true. To say "You shouldn't tell people what they can't post (paraphrased)" is in fact telling people what not to post. It's like saying "There are no universal truths." Similar to my above comments, if I say something that is logically fallacious, inconsistent, or just wrong I expect my fellow bloggers to call me on it.
I guess what it comes down to is that I think we should offer reasons for our positions (e.g. Why should the moderators post more regularly? Why is it bad to tell people they can no longer vent?). It's much harder to be a whiny complainer if you have to come up with good reasons to support it. If I had said, "Don't be a whiny complainer" and left it at that, I'd be no better (and, as you are using the term, a hypocrite). But, because I've offered reasons for my position, those unconvinced have the ability to critique it.
December 13, 2007 5:19 AM
What a brilliant and uplifting commentary on Paul F by Paul F!:)
December 13, 2007 7:33 AM
I am anononymous 2:33 - since you have asked, to clarify my position regarding the hosts posting/not posting - it's not that I expect them to post. It's just that many, many people have asked for their comment on things over the past few weeks with the firestorm of comments that have come forth on these issues and I have a really hard time believing that they haven't read any of it, heard about it, or are entirely oblivious to it. This is not a knock on them. I think something deeper is wrong and I believe we need to pray seriously for them, for strength, wisdom and courage.
I am puzzled, along with others who have made comment about it, as to why they have not so much as commented with a single sentence on the issues when they were previously so vocal. It really makes you wonder if they are feeling pressure from the higher ups, if they themselves might fear some sort of repercussion of sharing their true thoughts. My remark was not intended to be a slam on them whatsoever. The fact that they have posted and commented often on their other blogs led me to believe that maybe there was another reason they don't feel comfortable commenting here right now. In fact I have prayed for them in this whole matter because quite frankly - I'm not saying this is happening - just that it wouldn't surprise me if somebody higher up in the A/G -not necessarily our GS as he's been very open, but maybe some of our DS, EP's, etc.- hadn't spoken to them about this and advised them or perhaps even outright demanded for them to shut down the blog or at the very least remove some comments. (I am personally aware that this has happened in the past with other individuals in the AG who hosted websites and message boards. There was quick action to control it. ) IF (the operative word being IF) this has also happened with FutureAG, it must put them in a very difficult position. They have birthed something that has been very needed, sorely overdue and I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of spiritual warfare going on with this whole thing. My thought was perhaps they are not able to comment for reasons that have nothing to do with Christmas programs, busy schedules or such. Maybe they are under a huge burden with this that they are not able to tell us. I am convinced in my heart there is more behind it and we need to truly PRAY for them that whatever might be coming against them, they do not buckle under or bow to - that they would stand firm and that God would give them courage.
December 13, 2007 7:39 AM
Anonymous 7:39 AM:
I haven't been pressured by anyone, and I doubt that any of the other bloggers have been either. But I've emailed Paul and Tory, so they can speak for themselves.
GPW
December 13, 2007 9:04 AM
Anonymous 2:33 (I'll stick with your original time), thanks for clarifying. I apologize for saying you're being whiny and critical. As I stated in a previous post, when we see the reasons behind comments, we can address them. I seriously hope that you are wrong as to why they don't post more often (and hope our GS can help stem the tide of those that want things like this shut down). Maybe some of them can address that issue at some point. Personally, there have been times that I want to respond but don't have the time to think about the details of the response and a simple sentence or two just won't be sufficient. I don't have time because I'm doing other things (like posting on my own site) that are more pressing (like grading papers). Maybe I'm being naive, but I have a feeling they have similar reasons. Again, thanks for clarifying and please accept my apologies.
December 13, 2007 9:11 AM
Anonymous at 2:33 said, “It really makes you wonder if they are feeling pressure from the higher ups…they [blog hosts] themselves might fear some sort of repercussion of sharing their true thoughts... I have prayed for them in this whole matter because quite frankly … maybe some of our DS, EP's … advised them or perhaps even outright demanded for them to shut down the blog or at the very least remove some comments… IF (the operative word being IF) this has also happened with FutureAG, it must put them in a very difficult position… I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of spiritual warfare going on with this whole thing.â€
People love conspiracy theories. They have a great “water cooler†effect. But trust me, there isn’t a “huge amount of spiritual warfare†going on over this blog. IT IS A BLOG! More than half the people on the blog don’t even want to publicize their names. Believe me, none of the originators are “in a very difficult place.†GOW posts on it! His son helps host it. This isn’t communist China of the 1960’s.
True, a lot of the opinions may not be main stream, and would cause some of the GPs and DSs to be infuriated if you asked their opinions on some of the particular issues that have been discussed. I mean, look at the furor that arose when we started to talk about districts. Sure the leadership would be mad, you are attacking their livelihood. However, you can rest assured that 98% of the AG leadership haven’t read this blog since General Council concluded.
This blog can continue to fill a huge need for the fellowship through idea sharing and secondarily a forum to vent frustrations. But make no mistake about it, the Assemblies of God is a huge organization and change always will come very, very, slow. How could it be any other way? The General Presbytery only meets once a year and the whole constituency only meets every two years. Quick change??? Not gonna happen! But rest assured, big brother isn’t looking over anybody’s shoulders ready to seize their credentials card.
December 13, 2007 9:36 AM
Paul F - I think it is wrong to tell people that they can no longer vent because this may be the only place that they feel they can vent. Who am I to tell them that the time has now come and their frustrations/feelings are not valid to express? They may be brand new to this blog and have never posted one item negative or positive yet and they want to be heard. Change won't come by restricting expression.
December 13, 2007 11:03 AM
GPW - Thanks for the post. Change is difficult to figure out and even more difficult to implement. An example. Central Bible College is at it's lowest enrollment since the 1960's. Now, they have more administrator's and professors running the place with Doctorates and Masters than ever in history and yet they can't figure out why their enrollment keeps plummenting. Your heading says it all..."LEADING change in the AG". From my point of view their is a void in true leaders in many of our districts, colleges, and in Springfield. I'm encouraged by the new leaders in Spfld for sure. District's many of them are led by men/women who have never grown a church and yet we are to follow them. Colleges/universities the same applies along with some of them becoming more concerned with academics (and I'm not against academics at all) than the leading of the Holy Spirit and developing real leaders. What is the main difference between CBC and Southeastern? Leadership! The difference between a happening and growing district and one that exercises control on church attenance? Leadership! Let's discuss more ways to develop more leaders!!
December 13, 2007 11:14 AM
Paul, Tony, George, Jeff & Brad -
I want you to know that GPH has been interested in your blog and is creating a permanent site to gather input regarding ministries and tools to better resource our churches.
I have a temporary site that is being used for that now.
If it is appropriate, please share this info with your bloggers - I would love to hear from them. (This info is being collected and passed on to GPH now.)
Here is the temporary site -
discipleshipbestpractices.blogspot.com;
Thanks for sharing your ideas!
Tom Bougher
December 13, 2007 5:19 PM
I want to commend my son, George Paul, for his salient observations on leading change in the AG. Of course, I am biased. I admire him so much. He is such a clear thinker and has such a good heart! And, he doesn't consult with me about what he is going to say on the blog; but I learn from him and whether we always agree or not -- he is my beloved son in whom I am also well pleased!
I want to reiterate that I appreciate the involvement of younger ministers on this blog. You wouldn't be contributing unless you loved the Assemblies of God and want to make it better.
We just concluded a 3 day retreat in Nashville with district superintendents, district secretary-treasurers, and college presidents. The continual theme of the retreat dealt with leading change on the district level.
I well realize that change may take place too fast for some and too slow for others. I can only repeat the phrase that was popular several years ago and use it of the Assemblies of God leadership on the national and district levels: "Please be patient with us. God is not finished with us yet!"
There have been a number of words we have used to describe ourselves over the years. We have not liked the word denomination, although sociologically we are one. So, we've used the term "Movement" -- because we want to make advances for Jesus, and we have used the term "Fellowship" because we wanted to stress that there is great liberty to pursue vision and that what ties us together is not a smothering structure, but a common mission. I've been using a different term lately: "family." In a family, you have strong personalities and different opinions but the ties that bind are greater than the differences expressed.
In January I have a small book (about 100 pages) that will be mailed to each minister dealing in greater detail with the five core values I'm pursuing. I hope you'll take opportunity to read it and give me feedback -- gensup@ag.org.
I've been reading the blog all along. I'm picking up on the concerns being expressed, but I've been a pastor long enough to know that it is impossible to please everyone. But, if our hearts are right and our priorities please the Lord, then good days lie ahead.
On the blog, there has been discussion that the questions on the annual renewal may not flesh out what's really important. So, John Palmer is going to put together a group to look at the annual renewal questionnaire and what shape it should like look in the future. You are welcome to email him at gensec@ag.org with any suggestions. John left for Chile for ministry over the next week -- so hold your fire for a few days -- but do pray for him while he is down south!
The Executive Presbytery has also appointed a task force to look at the whole issue of credentialing younger ministers. We're going to look seriously at enhancing the attractiveness of the Assemblies of God to young (and older) men and women who have a call of God upon their lives.
I've been in office now just a few days past two months. Perhaps the most heartening aspect of my new responsibilities is the expression literally hundreds of people have either written or spoken to me, "We are praying for you." I have never had so many people praying for me in all my life, and it is deeply humbling. I am so grateful.
One of the exciting things I did today was meet with an international group with AG representatives from Africa, Asia, Latin America, North America, Europe, and the Middle East. The topic? The growing movement within AG national churches (212 indigeneous AG national bodies now world-wide) to send missionaries. Scores of missionaries are now already going out from our daughter churches -- and often to places that are restricted or difficult for USA citizens. God is at work tremendously in our international AG family.
Thanks to all of you for staying engaged in the discussion of how the Assemblies of God can better serve Jesus, serve our people, and serve you.
Let me close by repeating again the advice given me by one of the mentors that I have so admired: J. Robert Ashcroft. He told me: "Let your emphasis be on the CREATIVE and CONSTRUCTIVE above the CRITICAL and CORRECTIVE." He said, "George, there is nothing wrong with being critical and corrective -- just don't let your emphasis fall there." I've spent my years since then trying to do that.
That's what I encourage you to do. Don't just find fault with things. After the diagnosis, work on creating solutions that move the mission of Jesus forward. And, remember that intensive prayer provides the most creative forum possible for hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit. We must be careful that we not just come up with new ideas -- we must hear His ideas because, after all, this is His church and not ours!
In just a few years, those of us in my generation are going to be off the scene and watching you from the balconies of heaven -- if it has balconies, and if we are allowed to look! So, lay now the good foundations that will make the Assemblies of God what it should be when you are my age!
Oh, and by the way, may this Christmas be most joyous for all of you, your families, and churches!
George O. Wood
December 13, 2007 7:09 PM
Dear Gen Sup,
As a Dodger fan you are familiar with the call of a home run (your last comment) by Vin Scully "this Ball is gone" . Thanks Sup - you are "the man"( without esteroids) for such an hour as this in the time and life of our Assemblies Of God.
December 14, 2007 7:10 AM
Sorry Anonymous. I've been following this blog since July. At the time I wrote my last comment I wasn't thinking about people discovering the blog much more recent than that. Comment however you want.
I was simply getting discouraged because I wasn't sure that anything was being achieved anymore by this blog. Seeing the Gen. Sup.'s comment is encouraging because it shows that I was wrong.
December 14, 2007 12:59 PM
It's been since August since I posted, but I read it every couple days. I have told others about the blog and topics factor into our conversations and decisions. Many times I would like to comment, but don't have the time to do so. Most of the time my comments agree with others, so I let the more eloquent ones stand.
I think our leadership has proven with their comments on this blog (Dr. Woods, Beth Grant, & numerous others) that we are headed into exciting territory.
Keep up the good work!
Marvin Miller
Principal, Palm View Christian Schools - Whittier,CA
December 15, 2007 5:52 AM
I am a second year resident AGTS student and one very deeply involved in the due diligence processes with the AG. My wife and I are still unsure if our ministerial vision and calling will line up with the goals, values, character and integrity of the denomination. So I greatly appreciate this blog and specifically the “Leading Change†post. It allows us to see behind the curtain a bit.
I have both met Kotter and spent a significant amount of time implementing his ideas within organizations. I’m glad to see others consider his wisdom and insights helpful and instructive. I hope change takes place. We must change and quickly, for all our sakes.
Since the denominational seminary was not mentioned in the first paragraph as an organization within the AG that would benefit from positive change, I thought I would chime in with a few observations I have gathered during my time in the AGTS culture. Obviously these observations represent one person’s vantage point. However, I have tried to limit my statements to those subjects which I know a wide and diverse cross section of seminarians discuss amongst themselves regularly. My hope is to start dialog among not simply students but faculty, administration and most importantly with our single largest benefactor, the General Council. I’ll start first with:
The Good:
• There currently exists an amazing wealth of young, intelligent, talented and eager future leaders devoted to the call of Christ and the furtherance of His kingdom.
• These young leaders seem to be initially attracted to AGTS because they believe the seminary will continue to build upon their previous Pentecostal experience that encouraged pursuit and worship of God in Spirit and Truth.
• These young leaders know what they do not know.
• They know who and who does not understand them and their unique perspectives.
• They are very hard to fool. They sniff out authenticity and devote themselves to the pursuit of transparency and truth.
• The seminary is much more tolerating of frank discussion over issues and theological positions than most of our AG church leaders. The freedom to question why a certain belief or doctrine exists is widespread.
• Frank admission of disagreement with denominational doctrine or outdated beliefs and traditions of an extra-biblical nature is encouraged and supported.
• The professors who seek out relationship with students, who represent integrity within their leadership positions, who encourage interactive learning, who adapt to the classroom instead of expecting the classroom to adapt to them and who realize education is a highly competitive and expensive product become a beacon that draws an overwhelming number of students for counsel and advise.
• Spiritual formation is the most anticipated area of study for most students.
The neutral:
• The administration seems to prefer scholars over teachers.
• Traditional ministry does not occur within the seminary. It is not exemplified or encouraged.
• There appears to be no system of accountability for learning outside of the semester end questionnaire.
The Bad:
• Great scholars are not necessarily good teachers.
• There is no intentional, effective, systematic mentoring/discipleship priority within the seminary. Students are largely left to their own devises to find and develop mentoring relationship.
• Many professors are not able to effectively focus on their main task of teaching and mentoring students. They are torn between their extra activity requirements to write, travel, speak and hold leadership positions in outside organizations.
• There is no organizational impetus to place students in positions within local churches to develop practically what is being learned theoretically.
• Many local church leaders have a bias against seminary students. These biases range from simple jealousy and fear of job security to outright disdain for the perceived ineffectiveness of higher education.
• There appears to be a significant lack of unity and support for student development between the local churches, the denominational leadership and the seminary administration. A “we†vs. “them†culture has developed within the movement.
• However, given the above, never have students been encouraged to consider how they might be agents of change. There is no support or guidance to take part in the process of development or renewing of the denominational positions and or strategy.
• Students uniformly report that spiritual formation is one the most disappointing area of instruction within the curriculum.
• Students come to their learning experience with a largely consumer oriented mentality. The seminary does not seem to recognize that students have a choice when they select institutions of higher learning.
• The President, Dean and majority of the faculty do not endeavor to connect with every student, every semester.
• The overwhelming majority of chapel services remain in the hands of the faculty and staff. Students are relegated to non- leadership roles.
• Despite the widespead awareness for the need of a seminary-led church where students can learn and develop their skills, none of the leadership within the administration or faculty will endeavor to change the political issues and turf struggles amoung the local church leaders in the area.
• Therefore it is commonly known that those who lecture on leadership development and are positions of leadership are not themselves applying the lessons they teach. This lends to a lack of credibility and greatly reduces the effectiveness of the entire institution.
• Most of the students are drawn to a few professors. Therefore these professors become overwhelmed and struggle emotionally, physically and spiritually with the burden of shepherding so large a flock.
• Students have filled out evaluation questionnaires for so long on the same professors and courses without any noticeable change the surveys have become routine and ineffective.
• There is no system of follow-up after graduation. Where are the seminary graduates? Did their education help them in mimistry? What changes would they now make looking back on their experience at AGTS? Where is the alumni association?
• The student advisory council and there officers hold nothing but ceremonial positions.
• The General council contributes nearly one million dollars a year to subsidize AGTS. Still on a dollar for dollar, credit hour for credit hour analysis, AGTS remains one of the most expensive denominational seminaries in the US.
Yes, Mr. Wood, change must occur. But for systemic change to occur at this magnitude leaders with indelible moral courage must arise and take their place. Moral courage is the quality that compels a leader to take the appropriate course of action regardless of the consequences. Do we have those types of leaders within the AG? We shall see.
December 15, 2007 8:09 AM
agts student,
You seem to suggest that the consumer oriented mentality among the students isn't a problem. I think that very consumer oriented mentality is one of the major problems with higher education today. Sure, students have a wide range of options in choosing a school, but the fact that they chose AGTS shouldn't make the school 'owe' them a thing. They chose the school because it does things well (or that's why they should've chosen the school). If they don't like the way AGTS operates, then they should've gone somewhere else. Instead of AGTS caving in to the consumer mentality, I'm glad to hear that they're doing what they feel like is best for the school.
You also seem troubled that the President and Dean don't "endeavor to connect with every student, every semester." I don't think you'd find that in a single job description at any good school in the nation. The President's and the Dean's job isn't to make current students feel good about being there. Their job is ensure that the school runs well, its reputation is growing (positively of course), and that the school's mission is being accomplished. (You may have a point about the faculty, but that would depend on what their job description is too. At many schools faculty is expected to build relationships with students, but at many others the faculty is expected to publish like crazy. I don't know what AGTS faculty are to do, but I think its more of the former than latter.)
I'm also interested to hear why a seminary-led church is such a good idea. At first pass, it sounds like a terrible one. If it's true that local churches have doubts about AGTS students, then those doubts need to be addressed. I think it would be a disservice if the students participated in a seminary church because once they're done at AGTS it's almost certain they won't have the same resources at their new church that they do at AGTS (I don't mean financial resources, but other like minded staff members that value education, etc.). Sadly, most churches that the students end up at will have only one seminary graduate. It also seems like non-students that attend the church would have a difficult time because there would be a constant come and go among the members. It's hard to really build relationships with people when you know they're leaving in a year or two. I'm interested to hear your thoughts, especially about the seminary church thing (I've had many conversations with friends about this).
Cheers,
December 15, 2007 2:23 PM
Paul...
I agreed with most of your comments to AGTS student with the exception of your opening one. I think that when a student pays a school anywhere from $25K to $50K... that school owes them quite a bit.
I treated every one of my 10+ years of undergrad and post-grad work with a consumer mentality. With the amount of money I was investing, I made sure that I was getting what was advertised from the get-go.
When my seminary brought in an incredibly high-profile Greek prof my third year, I added the course to my already overloaded schedule excited to study under him. But, when he began having a research student cover 70% of his lectures... we as a class filed a formal complaint and asked for a refund. We weren't going to pay money to learn from a student with only one year on us. The school listened and corrected the prof's schedule and soon he was back behind the lectern.
College and Grad students are consumers. They are paying money for a product... education. If the school lets them down... or in any way provides something less than what was presented in the glossy, color-coated catalogue, they need to voice their complaint.
December 16, 2007 3:56 AM
Paul F.,
Let me comment on your issues one by one.
“Instead of AGTS caving in to the consumer mentality, I'm glad to hear that they're doing what they feel like is best for the school.â€
Without the students there is no school. What is best for the students is best for the school. It is a symbiotic relationship. If you assume the students do not know what is best for them you would be wrong. I would encourage you to spend time with an open mind with these students before you assume to know, better than they, what is best for them. Graduate students come to institutions with more experience than ever before. As I stated before, we come prepared with the questions we know need answering and we are well aware of the skills that need to be developed to accomplish our calling. We are learners but we are not naive. We need equipping. That is different than being spoon fed. We are in every way mature adults and many of the seminary students come from successful careers prior to following their call into ministry. Instructors need to be willing and able to defend their positions and beliefs while demonstrating the pragmatic benefits of their area of study.
You can debate whether a consumer mentality is right or wrong. It will not change the facts that students today do and will continue to look at their education in terms of features and benefits. There are some negatives to that mentality when taken to the extreme. However, at this point, the only way for students to actively voice their displeasure is to take their dollars elsewhere. That the AG offers no other viable seminary alternatives and therefore caters to somewhat of a captive market has allowed the administration to become largely unaccountable to the students for the product they produce. That does not represent good leadership nor is it good stewardship of the hearts, minds and tuition dollars students entrust to this institution.
“I don't think you'd find that in a single job description at any good school in the nation. The President's and the Dean's job isn't to make current students feel good about being there. Their job is to ensure that the school runs well, its reputation is growing (positively of course), and that the school's mission is being accomplished.â€
So we don’t want students to feel good about being at AGTS? Whose job is that then? Or is the seminary supposed to be run like an airline where the mentality is: “You’ll take what you get and like it!â€
Look, I believe these are good men. Unfortunately, after this long I can’t say that with personal certainty but I believe it is so. The current Academic Dean is a temporary fill-in. My comments were specifically directed at the current President and previous Dean who is now the President of another AG university. It is the question of priorities where I differ. Job descriptions are the easiest thing to change in any organization. You point out that President and Dean’s of other institutions do not typically have those criteria in their list of job responsibilities. So….is that what we want? Do we want our seminarians to model leaders who are aloof and distant from their communities and constituents? Are the other responsibilities so grand and important that relationship and connection with the people they serve nothing but a leisure activity? You may respect and yearn to follow those leaders. We do not. You may trust those you do not know simply because of the position they hold. We have learned that power, position, privilege and plaudits routinely accompany frauds. We want to know our leaders and be mentored by them. Realize this: AGTS is a small school with probably no more than 300 resident, full time students. If you count distance learning students who live out of state or doctoral students who come in for only 2-3 weeks a year, total student attendance goes to maybe 500. What pastoral staff would not endeavor to make some sort of connection with each regular member of their congregation of 300? A five minute conversation, a cup of coffee, a phone call, a hand written post card with each of those members in the course of a year, two hours a week, 100 hours a year, 5% of their work schedule. That would allow each student to have some level of connection with the leaders of AGTS. It’s not that tough. If their job descriptions are too full to engage the benefactors of their efforts then the organization needs to get out the pen and re-write their priorities. Significant spiritual, financial, emotional and familial needs continue to go unnoticed within the student body simply because the seminary doesn’t know and doesn’t ask. Think what the administration might learn. Think what impact they might have. One has to wonder if the reason they stay is simply because they don’t want to hear what the students have to say. Either way, real ministry, true discipleship is not modeled, only taught. Again, it’s a leadership issue.
“I'm also interested to hear why a seminary-led church is such a good idea. At first pass, it sounds like a terrible one. If it's true that local churches have doubts about AGTS students, then those doubts need to be addressed.â€
Yes, they do. But they haven’t and it doesn’t appear to become a priority any time soon. In the meantime the majority of students are left with little or no opportunity to engage the tools they are being handed every day. They learn to preach but have nowhere and no one to preach to. They to exegete scripture down to the original language but no one will give them the opportunity to pass on their knowledge. They learn about how to develop disciple making ministries and how to initiate spiritual formation but no opportunities are provided to implement those strategies and ideas. Full tool belts, no lumber. So, what are we left with? A seminary church would act like a teaching hospital. The issue about turnover is easily overcome. University churches all over the country deal with the same issue every four or so years when students graduate as do ministries such as Chi-Alpha or Campus Crusade. They deal with it by continually developing new leaders and passing on the skills and knowledge required to continue the ministry. Certainly a steady, full time pastor would add stability. But a seminary sponsored church has the added benefit of the stability faculty advisors would provide. If the church takes off there would be no reason why a permanent staff could not be positioned. But the focus of providing ministry opportunities for students to the community would need to remain the priority.
“It's hard to really build relationships with people when you know they're leaving in a year or two.â€
I think students already factor that into every relationship at the onset. Few of us know where God is specifically going to call us. We do know that it probably won’t be Springfield for the majority. That means most of us will be leaving. However that fact does not stop us from engaging one another at a deep level. I think this is a universal reality. Many of us leave college while having made the most significant relationships of our lives even though we knew it would end in only a few years. In fact I think you could argue it was a catalyst.
The issue isn’t whether it’s a good idea. If a teaching hospital works for Johns Hopkins it would work the same benefits for AGTS. Let’s call the problem here what it is: Fear. Local pastors have veto power over which new churches are allowed to birth within their district. Bottom line: they are afraid of the perceived competition a seminary led church poses. It’s a turf war. As long as the priority and focus of these churches remains putting butts in seats instead of furthering the Kingdom of God we will continue to have these conflicts. As long as people continue to live and die separated from Jesus in this city then why would we stop a group of called, trained, equipped and devoted followers of Jesus from meeting a need and gaining valuable experience?
Finally let me say this, I don’t know you and it is difficult to discern motive and intent in writing but I clearly sense a “love it or leave it†mentality in your response. I must say it is exactly that attitude which galvanizes opposition to the overwhelming majority of denominational religions. If that attitude is or becomes pervasive the AG will lose the best and brightest of this generation and begin a long painful demise into history. My interpretation of Mr. Wood’s intention for publishing his article on change was to stem the tide of just such a mentality. It is that conversation in which I and my generation desire engaging. If I’m wrong or misinterpreted your comments let me apologize now and say I look forward to your response.
December 16, 2007 2:19 PM
Lane,
I think we agree on that more than you think. You do have the right to expect to get what was advertised. If the school advertises no graduate student teachers or a large degree of faculty accessibility, then you should expect that. My point is that many "consumer oriented" students have the "the customer is always right" or "now that you've got me, do xyz to keep me" mindset as well. That is what I disagree with.
What bothers me the most about the consumer mindset is when students feel like because they paid their money the deserve the professor to teach and grade a certain way. Students often expect their professor to adapt to their way of learning, but why should he do that? The students are the novices and he's the expert (can you imagine Daniel-son telling Mr. Miyagi that he doesn't learn well by washing cars?). Sometimes that means you have a boring professor, but guess what, he's the expert and we aren't. Dallas Willard is no joy to listen to speak, but what he says is unbelievable. Should his grad students at USC expect him to change his presentation style because they don't like it?
Education isn't simply a product you pay for, it's something you work to get. The consumer model results in many students that think once they pay their money, they get their education. When in fact, many pay their money and don't get an education because they're too lazy to do the actual work. On the consumer model, it's hard to convince a student that even though he paid his money and came to class, that doesn't automatically mean he'll get a "good" grade.
Sorry for the lengthy post, as someone teaching in higher ed (at the undergrad level) this is something that really bothers me (and I especially don't want to see it creep into the grad level).
December 16, 2007 2:21 PM
Paul...
We are in agreement. I completely support what you just wrote. The best example I have used in the past to illustrate this is Jon Krakauer's book "Into Thin Air." Not sure if you have read it, but his criticism is that Mt. Everest has become a tourism death trap. Entrepreneurs and millionaires think that if they pay the right amount of money, they should be able to find a guide that will guarantee that they will summit.
Unfortunately, these "tourists" do absolutely nothing to physically prepare for the climb and simply expect the guide to do all the work. The result has been an escalation of deaths on the mountain.
So along this line I agree. Students cannot enter the higher education field thinking that their dollar allows them to dictate what the professor should do for them.
HOWEVER... I definitely saw my share of laziness on the part of the professors when I was in seminary. Some of my worst classes were at Harvard where the professor thought that, based on his/her reputation, they could simply walk into class and read to us from their latest book. While I know that this is not ALWAYS true... tenure can breed laziness on the part of a prof and the responsibility lies with the student body to hold him/her accountable.
December 16, 2007 2:57 PM
AGTS Student...
Appreciate your willingness to post. Your incorrect, though, in your last post when you said that local pastors have veto power over where new churches get planted. This was reversed at the DC General Council in 2005. The resolution was passed that a church plant could happen anywhere and at anytime and that local churches did not hold approval powers.
If you sincerely feel God would lead you or a team to start a "residence-based" church there, go for it. If a local church stands in your way... make the 5 minute drive to HQ and ask to see Dr. Wood. I think you have a new advocate in your corner that you are selling short.
December 16, 2007 3:04 PM
Lane Douglas,
Thanks for the correction. I was told that by a professor and accepted it at face value. The next step would be to get the support of the seminary. Thanks for your encouragement.
I also agree that the consumer mentality displayed at Everest is the best example of the worst consumerism can breed. But I do not see any of that in my fellow students. Most of those types of students stop at the undergraduate level anyway. We just want the best education possible. We want to be challenged inside and outside of the classroom. We are willing to work and sacrifice to that end. Most importantly we desire to remain obedient and open.
December 16, 2007 3:17 PM
agts student,
Thanks for the response. I have a feeling we aren't going to convince each other, but I'll give it a go anyway. I must disagree that a graduate degree is a "product" in the way you seem to characterize it. When you pay your tuition, you are not paying to get your M.Div, M.A., etc. You're paying people to guide you in the educational process. For some, this process will be cut short because they learn that they aren't cut out for graduate level work. For others, life prevents them from giving their studies all that they require. And for others, the long and tedious education process is completed and they receive their degree. The consumer model bypasses all those options with the "We paid money so teach us like we want to be taught and give us our diploma!" attitude. Sure many students who get to AGTS are already successful, but they're going to school for a reason (and it shouldn't be to add letters after their name). They are going to school because there is something they are lacking. The professors are able to guide them as they fill in the gaps. If the professors aren't able to do that, then the students should go elsewhere. Yes there is only one AG seminary, but why must AG students attend AG schools? Aren't there plenty of other non-AG schools around (Gordon Conwell, Fuller, Trinity Evangelical, Talbot, Regents). [As an aside, one of the effects of the consumer model is teaching evaluations. As you might expect, I think they're ridiculous. For a humorous critique (or at least what I take to be humorous) of teacher evaluations, visit William Dowling's article at http://rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewcd/targeval.htm.]
I didn't say that students shouldn't feel good at their school, I said it's not the president's and dean's jobs to ensure that. I never met the president of Talbot (where I did my M.A.), but I knew of his heart for God and people. How? Because it came through the faculty and administrators. Those are the people that the president should have good relationships with. In turn, those faculty members should have great relationships with the students (assuming a smaller school like AGTS and Talbot). I just think it's a bit farfetched to think a president should have coffee and write cards to the students every year. If he has the time to do that, then something is either wrong with the school or the president. I think it's a mistake to assume that a seminary should be run like a church. They're vastly different.
You say that the issue isn't whether the idea of a seminary church is a good idea or not, but I couldn't disagree more. If it's a bad idea, then maybe that's why the faculty and local church leaders don't want it. I think the real issue might be a pastor's fear (as you said), but not of having another competitor. I think many pastors are afraid of having people on staff that have more education than they do. That's an issue that needs to be addressed and one that would remain even if there were a seminary church (how could 300 students realistically be as involved as you seem to want at one church?). Instead of going around the problem, address it.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by my perceived "love it or leave it" mentality. If you are referring to my attitude about AGTS, then you're right, but I thought that would be one you would endorse given your affinity for the consumer model. The whole point of a free market consumer economy is that when you don't like one company you're free to go to another. I thought you'd embrace the love it or leave it idea when it comes to a school. Concerning the AG in general, that is not my attitude at all. I see plenty of things that are wrong with the AG, but plenty of things that are right (for an example of one thing I think is wrong, see my paper "A Call to Abstinence?" [at http://faithinformed.wordpress.com/research/] in which I critique the AG's position paper on the usage of alcohol). But I still renew my license because I agree with much of what the AG is doing. My intent in responding to your post was acquiring the truth about the matter. You posted and I disagreed. That means one of us is wrong (not a fan of post-modern ideas). By posting, I have the chance to discern if it is me that is wrong. If so, then I change my beliefs. If not, then I have further evidence to support my position.
December 16, 2007 3:31 PM
Lane,
An unmotivated, tenured, professor has to be a student's worst nightmare. But, in my experience, these are the exception rather than the rule. I hadn't thought about Everest in regards to this issue, but think you're on to something. Have you seen the Discovery Channel's series on climbing Everest? The climbing guide they follow had to rescue at least 2 such individuals (that weren't even a part of his team!).
agts student, you mentioned that you think many of such students stop at the undergraduate level and I agree. However, the influx of lazy ug students that still get their degree has led to a devalued bachelor's degree. That means more of them are filtering into the grad programs whether we like it or not. That's why I want to fight, tooth and nail, that whole mentality. It's a slippery slope that I don't think we can avoid unless the majority of people and institutions hark back to a more classical understanding of education.
December 16, 2007 3:45 PM
Paul F.
Thanks for your response. I don’t think we are as far apart as it seems. (I really enjoyed your position paper on alcohol. But that’s a whole different issue.) Here’s the thing about education being a product at the graduate level: The professors have the knowledge and often the experience. But they have to be able to communicate that knowledge and experience to others effectively. I think any humble servant of God, whether preacher, teacher or candlestick maker, needs to regularly ask themselves the question: How can I do this better? What strategies can I employ or devises can I use to better communicate God’s truth to my listeners or students? The teacher/student relationship is symbiotic. Both sides need to move toward one another. This could not be better modeled than by Jesus.
This has nothing to do with grades. It has to do with effectiveness. We can measure effectiveness in many ways. I don’t claim to know which method is most efficient for measurement but currently at AGTS, it is the exception and not the norm for true learning to be the intended end of our education.
I also agree education is primarily the student’s responsibility. That is why I hope our seminary leaders will engage in the type of change described in this article. Otherwise we will be forced to go to the institutions you listed. But why? Why must we as a movement force Pentecostal students to choose an outside source for our education? All that is required is a little change.
I like to kick around ideas and see which ones stand up to the test. The love it or leave it mentality in essence says accept things the way they are or move on. Well if we do that here, we give up. But if we don't recognize what students are looking for we never get the opportunity to make our case about the benefits of a Spirit-Filled education, life and leadership style. Leadership is about taking people to places they have never been before. AGTS is a good institution that has goals and objectives like no other in its field. I feel like thosevalues and dreams are worth pursuing and wrestling over. The Pentecostal paradigm of faith is too powerful and transforming to abandon in our seminaries. But we must pursue the same type of transformation within of our institutions of learning that we saw occur in our churches during and subsequent to the Azuza revival. I see it as a stewardship issue.
Bottom line, just from this posting interaction, if I was in one of your classes, I feel confident you would not stop teaching until I was done learning. That’s exactly the type of teachers and leaders we long for. Those teachers earn our respect through engagement and relationship.
On the issue of the church being a good idea or a bad one. My point was that no one around the seminary, even the faculty, thinks it’s a bad idea. The point was that they all feel it would be DOA with the district because of the issues already discussed.
December 16, 2007 4:20 PM
agts student,
I think you're right, we're closer than I originally believed. I agree that the student-prof relationship is symbiotic, but past experiences lead me to think that many (if not most) students expect a one-way change (profs change to fit the students) instead of working for a two-way change (both adapt to one another). The unmotivated tenured prof that Lane mentioned reminds me that it's not always the students' fault.
It seems to me that the love it or leave it idea just comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. If the stuff you hate outweighs what you love (and the cost for trying to change it is too high), then bail. If not, then work for change and deal with what you hate in the meantime. I think that would apply to AGTS in particular and the AG in general. So, in some sense I do endorse it, but think the 'bail' option should always be a last resort.
Thanks for reading my paper, if you have any thoughts or comments feel free to post them on my site or email me. (One of many benefits of doing grad work is learning how to value constructive criticism of your work.)
December 16, 2007 5:13 PM
AGTS Student...
One last small point towards your post. It is minuscule, but indicative of larger mindsets in our movement.
You asked the question,
Why must we as a movement force Pentecostal students to choose an outside source for our education?
I want to strongly encourage you to reconsider the whole "inside/outside" language prior to your graduation. As a 3rd generation AG kid, I chose Gordon-Conwell for one reason and one reason only... I felt 100% confident it was the school God was calling me to. It may have been "outside" the AG, but it was not outside God's kingdom.
What I discovered upon my arrival was shocking. Many of my professors, though holding different theological persuasions, were no where near as antagonistic towards Pentecostalism as I had been led to believe. I also discovered inside of me a pride and arrogance I had did not realize was there until I was in an environment with non-Pentecostal believers. God engineered it so that I ended up in an apartment with 2 Presbyterians and a Catholic. I cannot tell you the humility that God breathed into my life as these guys showed me how my language was hurtful to them.
AGTS is a great school, and I am glad you are receiving the education you are. But don't think of other schools as "outside" of our movement. They are simply different. We need to learn how to change our language and quit thinking ourselves as somehow elite in God's army.
December 17, 2007 8:21 AM
Lane Douglas,
I couldn't agree more. I certainly don't consider myself or this movement to be a part of God's "elite" army. Nothing could be further from my perspective or experience. I, like you, have significantly benefited from brothers and sisters of different brands of faith who have re-shaped my view of God and His mission on earth. Cross polination is a must. We do not have a corner on all the good ideas, traditions, beliefs or experiences. We must humbly recognize our place within the larger body while fully validating the role other faiths and traditions bring to the table.
My point regarding the seminary is that we only have one. It is worth striving to improve for all the reasons discussed above.
Having said all that I wonder why university and seminary professors are required to attend only AG churches in order to teach. One would think if we desire the gene pool of ideas to grow wider and deeper we may want to learn from the larger body. Do we embrace diversity or just the idea? Just a thought.
December 17, 2007 12:57 PM
First of all, I am a third year AGTS student, and I disagree with some of “agts student’s†views. Some of his statements are incorrect.
•AGTS does maintain a thorough database of alumni, including where they are and what they are doing. See the Rapport: http://www.agts.edu/rapport/2008winter/index.html Some alumni may not provide contact information to AGTS, but they do try.
•It is up to the student to get involved in the local church, not necessarily the job of the seminary to do this. Most students are involved in some form of ministry in a local church. However, there is a stigma with many local pastors, but this is a national issue with higher education in the AG.
•Chapel – other than deciding who preaches, they are primarily student lead. From worship leading, sometimes preaching, and other aspects of chapel the student body is involved if they desire.
There are many other points I could add, however, my goal of this post is to say not all students agree with the view of the “agts student.†Most student I know here are happy with AGTS, apart from the normal gripes. If you do have issues with AGTS, most faculty and administration have an open door policy.
December 17, 2007 1:44 PM
To AGTS #2: Thanks for voicing your take, but I have to agree more with AGTS #1.
However, to AGTS #1: Go plant a church. Under the Vision for Transformation guidelines, you can pretty much plant a new AG church right across the street from an existing one. Don't worry about the District or others. If they were going to support you to begin with, then who cares if they ignore you now.
Rally some troops, pray about, plan what will happen to the church when you and the others graduate, and go for it. As a church planter, I can tell you $$ and the support of your section/District is the least of your worries.
December 17, 2007 3:43 PM
Amendment: If they WERE NOT going to support you to begin with, then who cares if they ignore you now.
Sorry, I typed too fast and hit the "Publish" button too fast.
December 17, 2007 3:47 PM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
December 17, 2007 3:52 PM
AGTS student #1 hit a home run. He(she) encapsulated my experience at AGTS. I just wish someone would have had the courage to address these issues when I attended.
Students were relegated to singing and playing instruments during chapel. Rarely did a student speak or preach.
I think the point about the alumni is an excellent insight. If asked I would love to give feedback now after beeing in ministry a while what I think was helpful and what wasn't or what I need more of that wasn't covered in enough depth.
I think AGTS is worth fighting for too. Keep talking.
December 17, 2007 5:54 PM
Hey, take the AGTS issue to the AGTS web site will ya! If you guys can't discuss these issues in your own forum you have more problems than you realize.
December 17, 2007 6:01 PM
Unbelievable but 800 young soldiers of Burkina Faso have been trained and equiped by the US army in 2007 and will be sent to DARFOUR (SOUDAN). The world is changing day by day and any change in Springfield should affect the World AG Fellowship.
Merry christmas from Ouagadougou Burkina Faso West Africa!!!!!!!!!
December 18, 2007 3:02 AM
The AGTS Debate Rages...
...Concerning starting a "seminary church" in Springfield. While the rules may have changed Nationally concerning starting churches, So. Missouri and the Springfield Section is somewhat resistant to the idea of more/new churches here in Springfield.
…Maybe rightly so. With the highest concentration of AG churches in any metro area (anywhere?) it would be easy to argue that more churches are not the answer. In fact, many of the existing churches were started by students of our colleges here in town.
…Maybe a better plan would be to have a system that would place interested seminary students alongside pastors in the existing churches here in town. There are some 27 local churches and some 75 in the Springfield sections. This would provide on-the-job training, much needed assistance to the churches, and a great opportunity for seminary students to “try their wings†and find out that the issues in seminaries are different from those in the marketplace/churches.
…I’ll anticipate your objections. But local pastors would resist the input, ideas, education….etc. Perhaps there could be a training and application process for pastors who would like to participate (as well as for seminary students). Having served as a senior pastor in Springfield for a decade, I can attest to both the benefits (great) and the frustrations (great) of involving theology/ministry students in church ministry. Overall, I do not think we have an option—it’s too great of an opportunity to pass up.
…Another option that I am pursuing is to ask a local church to host a unique service that is targeted at a different demographic than is presently being reached by the church’s existing ministries. My goal is to plant a “service†that can serve as a training and launching platform for students desiring to plant newer model churches in other communities.
…Those are my thoughts. By the way, I support Dr. Byron and his staff at AGTS. Everything can always be improved (just wait till you get out there and become the target of criticism)—but the desire to innovate, and to establish a unique culture at AGTS has been impressive under the current leadership’s tenure at AGTS. Bright days are ahead!
December 18, 2007 5:17 AM
Another forum? There is no other forum to discuss problems with AGTS. This is why AGTS 1 has said it in this forum. Even if there was another forum, would the prof’s and admin listen? Unlikely,students can vote with our student fees and that is why the AGTS population is going down and the students who stay at AGTS are paying the price. Students are voting, by going to other seminaries!
AGTS students do have opportunities to preach in chapel, but who comes to those chapels? Why would one student want to hear a sermon from another student unless it was a class lecture? If I have to go to a chapel then I want to hear someone with experience, not another student in the same bubble I am in.
December 18, 2007 8:34 AM
Dear AGTS student, I am really, really late but...I agree wholeheartedly that AGTS should be part of the discussion on change/transformation in the A/G. AGTS is not a perfect organization; we have our fair share of issues needing attention. Neither are we clueless nor naive about what it will take to be all God has called us to be. Your comments cut a fairly large swath of topics. I'd like to talk more about those crucial issues with you. I look forward to a conversation.
Byron D. Klaus President, AGTS
bklaus@agts.edu 417-268-1010
December 18, 2007 2:23 PM
I certainly hope that AGTS Student will take up Dr. Klaus's invitation to conversation. The leaders of our national institutions are opening a door for dialogue, and it would be a shame if, instead of walking through it, we decided merely to post anonymously.
December 18, 2007 2:43 PM
I too hope that agts student takes Dr. Klaus on his offer. It's quite funny how similar this is to when I was an undergrad at SAGU. A buddy of mine and I were upset with some things at the school and, printed some anonymous leaflets airing our concerns (we too were afraid of retribution). After the 3rd or 4th "issue", President Bridges brought it up during a chapel and said something like, "If you're willing to print these up, why not come to my office and talk to me about what is bothering you."
My buddy and I decided to do just that.
Guess what? We had an great opportunity to voice our concerns with the individual most able to address them. We were able to tell him why we felt we needed to remain anonymous, why we didn't want to talk with our dorm pastor, men's dean, or student congress, and he was able to share with us the school's reasons for doing things a certain way. I think he learned about some things lacking on the administration's part (open communication with students) and we learned that they know a lot more about how to run a school than we do.
Though I now think I would've gone about things differently, I'm really glad that we ended up being able to meet with President Bridges. It changed my entire outlook concerning him and SAGU. I pray that agts student has a similar experience.
December 18, 2007 5:21 PM
I pastor in Springfield and have had some great experience with AGTS students interning or volunteering in ministry at the church. One student is presently helping me as a research assistant -- something new for me.
The largest part of my experience, however, has been with the military chaplain candidates who are needing ongoing ministry experience while studying. Wish we could involve more, but I have been impressed with who we have had. The seminary has gained a national reputation for its work in chaplaincy.
I would concur with many of Steve Smallwood's observations. Some very progressive things have happened at AGTS the past few years in the face of some daunting obstacles and ongoing challenges.
Dr. Klaus's invitation to dialogue is consistent with his spirit and inclusive leadership style. As a leader I find it hard to get everything right and harder when people are indirect with their understandably legitimate frustrations. I am hopeful for a growing culture of both dialogue and safety in our movement.
December 18, 2007 6:03 PM
To anonymous 7:49 p.m.
Who is asking and why? Is this or is it not a blog?
December 18, 2007 8:39 PM
I would like to to focus less on ourselves and more on them...to see us serve as Christ served...less politics and more action in showing Christ's love to the unchurched. Realize that church as we have known it for so many years may no longer be reaching those who are disenfranchised with the church, those who feel too sinful to enter the four walls of the church as an institution, those who are truly hurting and in need of hope. It's almost as if we had it right in the beginning and somehow lost our original intent somehow over the years...Our mission should be entirely about them...
December 18, 2007 10:27 PM
Sounds to me like AGTS #1 hit a soft spot. He reminds me of many of our Old Testament Prophets. And just like them those targeted are coming after the messenger instead of listening to the voice of truth in the message.
Run for the hills AGTS student! God will take care of you just as he did your brothers before you. God speed.
December 19, 2007 6:05 AM
Sounds to me like AGTS #1 hit a soft spot. He reminds me of many of our Old Testament Prophets. And just like them those targeted are coming after the messenger instead of listening to the voice of truth in the message.
Run for the hills AGTS student! God will take care of you just as he did your brothers before you. God speed.
December 19, 2007 6:06 AM
dr. c., Who seems to be coming after the messenger? Obviously the difference is agts student is delivering his own message. If that message is true, then we should take heed (and not 'kill the messenger'), but shouldn't we at least figure out if the message is indeed true? If it's not, then we should destroy the message (and still not kill the messenger), but I haven't seen anyone on here attacking him. Remember there is a difference between attacking the person (ad hominems) and attacking the message (and if the message is true, as with the OT prophets, it'll withstand the attacks).
December 19, 2007 6:22 AM
I join GPW and Paul in encouraging ALL of these AGTS students to take Dr. Klaus up on his offer. The blog has served it's purpose in getting you an audience... now go the next step.
As I wrote in my post earlier up this list... when we felt we had grievances towards a Greek prof years ago at GCTS, we took it to the school administration. I personally led the team and was petrified at possible ramifications. But it was the right thing to do rather than grumble every class.
Make the call...
December 19, 2007 6:43 AM
Dr. C:
Doesn't the Bible instruct us not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits to see whether they are from God? So if we push back a little on the "prophetic" words of AGTS student, are we simply doing our biblical duty? And anyway, no one's persecuting him/her. Heck, the president of AGTS gave AGTS student his contact info and invited him/her to a conversation. Why don't you post your contact info so I can call you?
GPW
December 19, 2007 9:20 AM
Bravo, Dr. Klaus!
Thanks for inviting the students in for a chat. (Guys, take him up on the offer!)
I had posted previously on this blog regarding another subject, and was asked by Dr. Wood to call him. I did, and it was FANTASTIC!!!
Contact the man and watch God move...
BTW, this Blog is doing a great job bringing attention to our ranks.
December 19, 2007 10:36 AM
GPW, Paul...
Can I recommend you delete the post with the request for the anonymous blogger to reveal their identity?
The possibility exists that someone's name has been brought into play that may have absolutely no idea it is sitting out there. Without their permission, we should not let it float like that IMO. Since the request came from a source we can't verify, we don't know their motives.
I think, as a general rule, bloggers should not bring someone else's name into play unless that person has given you permission to do so. Otherwise, this is equal to talking behind their backs. This goes double for anonymous bloggers.
Lane
December 19, 2007 10:46 AM
I agree with Lane. Please delete that comment.
As a graduating AGTS student (MDiv) and also an employee at AGTS, I feel like these critiques (or as Dr. C so strangely called them "prophetic messages") probably have some measures of validity. However, lobbing rocks from behind an anonymous shield doesn't seem to be accomplishing much. Not only so, I found them very inaccurate in many cases. I don't know if I'd have the patience to lead like Dr. Klaus. He's willing to take everyone with him, not just change things for the complainers.
I find it extremely commendable of AGTS leadership to extend an invitation for dialogue in the face of generalized and even personal negative critiques.
And Dr. C. (which might as well be anonymous), your comment seems to imply that you don't trust that our leaders will take our concernes seriously and that it may even backfire on us. Personally, I know some have experienced just that. But this isn't always the case. If we are to truly contribute towards change I think we who care should be willing to take that risk occasionally.
December 19, 2007 12:07 PM
At the moment, I see a lot of talk about change, a number of accusations thrown at one of our academic institutions (including faculty and administration), and a great deal of fear demonstrated by the anonymity of individuals making negative comments about the seminary (both current students and alumni).
I just completed my first semester at AGTS and I am very happy that I came here. In no way am I going to say everything is perfect in our Fellowship, including the seminary. That is because people are involved in the whole thing.
As far as the request of the identity of agts student is concerned, I can understand not wanting to toss someone's name into the mix. Especially if they have nothing to do with the situation. At the same time, I understand the request that someone who is bold enough to make such statements should also be bold enough to identify themselves. Given their lack of willingness to do so, I also doubt their willingness to accept the invitation of Dr. Klaus to discuss these issues.
The thought which comes to my mind is whether those who complain will actually do something besides talk or if they think their work is done and the rest of the job is up to someone else.
December 19, 2007 1:25 PM
Well Said! Dan and Joel,
The problem however with these types of communication is in the translation. It is difficult to convey the attitude of the person writing or in what spirit. All these types of communications have to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't see how anyone communicating without using their real identity can contribute to effectively addressing possible problems or solutions.
December 19, 2007 1:59 PM
I was encouraged by Dr. Wood’s initial blog about leading change. I am proud to be involved in an organization that is interested in promoting positive change for the future. I think the first step toward positive change is creating an environment where leaders can openly dialogue without fear of reprisal. Without that basic element of trust, any leadership team will fail to achieve its objectives and ultimate mission.
As a former pastor and AGTS student, I have found that leaders and lay people commonly discuss issues amongst themselves, but are too afraid to speak to those who have the authority to facilitate change. Those who have the authority to initiate change are usually the same people who control credentials, salaries, reputations and career opportunities. People are hesitant to respond openly when their security is at stake. When security is placed in tangible things rather than in Christ we tend to avoid healthy conflict and engage in politics to achieve personal success. Often, the dialogue itself becomes a threat and offense is taken. A lack of open, honest debate is a prime indicator of dysfunction in any family or organization.
Although several bloggers noted that they have never been directly pressured or silenced, I see evidence of an atmosphere of fear and distrust on many levels. Therefore I feel it’s inappropriate and troubling to try and identify bloggers who wish to remain anonymous. I couldn't disagree more with Joel and Dan regarding anonymous bloggers. Those who choose to blog anonymously have reasons for doing so. It is in no way a sign of a lack of boldness or willingness to do the difficult work of change. Sometimes the most effective way to blog is anonymously. (I often wonder about the motives of those who use their names.) We should focus our attention on the issues rather than people, positions or personalities. Anonymous blogger 7:49 pm’s comment seems like an attempt at intimidation to me.
Dr. Wood mentioned a task force aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of A/G credentials to men and women with the call of God on their lives. I think this is a step in the right direction. I hope the task force plans to dialogue with AGTS students. I have been involved in many informal discussions on this very subject. Leadership will gain valuable insight into the problem of dwindling numbers if you intentionally create a culture where people can freely discuss their observations and concerns. I sincerely hope those in leadership not only ask the right questions, but truly desire to hear the answers.
I enjoyed reading the blog entries regarding the issues and felt needs of AGTS students. They were thought provoking and appear to be seasoned with love and respect as Dr. Wood originally suggested. I benefit from the different vantage points offered. Some of my own assumptions have been challenged and/or corrected. Thank you to everyone who posts your unique perspective.
I appreciated Dr. Klaus’s offer to meet with student #1 for further discussion. I agree this shows an open door to much needed dialogue. At the same time, I would very much have enjoyed reading a response from Dr. Klaus, the faculty and/or Woods regarding the issues raised. Encouragement by both Klaus and Woods to take the discussion off-line ends the public dialogue rather than inspiring it. Wasn’t the original intent of this blog to create dialogue? From my perspective, AGTS student #1 has initiated an interesting and thought provoking discussion. We seem to be losing sight of the goal here. It is not time to point fingers, but to simply debate the issues. It is extremely important to remember that the issues brought up by one individual are often a concern for many who remain silent.
As a leader, I recognize the reluctance to inviting detailed discussion in a public setting. However, people need a place where they can be heard and seek understanding.
I agree with Jim Bradford who hopes for a growing culture of both dialogue and safety in our movement. In my experience, this is needed and essential to future success. I believe God is at work in our midst and we must do everything within our power to lead in such a way that brings Him glory and honor.
December 19, 2007 3:24 PM
I agree, let's get that name off of this blog.
I am a last year M.Div. student at AGTS, I also work at AGTS, and on TOP of it all, I serve as president of the Student Advisory Council in my final year here. (And I do have MUCH more than a ceremonial position incidently.)
AGTS rocks.
I have invested much here, and I feel that AGTS has invested much in me.
I'm not here looking for perfection, I'm here looking for what I can learn from people who have experience and knowledge that I lack. Even if I don't agree with teaching styles or policies-whatever...I can still learn. In fact, I think that attribute should characterize every season of our lives!
If there is something I would like to see change...well...I will try to be the first to roll up my sleeves and be one who helps make it happen. I love facilitating open minded discussion about change! But talking about is only half of the picture. Let's be willing to be part of the solution instead of tossing anonymous grenades and running away.
Isn't that what a servant leader is anyway? To be an agent of change in all circumstances, good and bad?
At the end of the day, we're still Christians, and should act as such to each other. The world is watching, and that's how they know we are truly His disciples. (John 13:35)
December 19, 2007 3:44 PM
All of this chiming in has forced me to do the same. "Chime, Chime Chime!!!"
Can we get back to the original intent of the blog... to discuss change and not nitpicking over who is saying what anonymously. The posts are out there, do with them as you choose.
Paul Wood, thank you for your thoughts. We must be willing to hear the voices of our insiders if we intend to maintain effectiveness. (Dr. Klaus has made an icredible offer to dialogue about the issues facing the seminary. Take him up on it.) In the mean time, let's take Paul Wood up on the same opportunity to discuss change in the AG.
I would like to see if the headquarters would be willng to sit and discuss issues with many of the young leaders (mentioned by AGTS Student) that we are discussing and philosophising over at the seminary. The truth is, I don't know if we necessarily know that our thoughts and ideas have worth at the top. In truth, our fellowship is run congregationally, but in order to have a voice, you must have experience, clout, etc. That is frustrating when you consider that many of us are well educated, yet seemingly never listened to or sought after for our insights. The truth is, while we haven't been on the leading edge, we have been the led. As a result, we know those "playbook" things that we hope to never replicate in our own ministries! However, sometimes it feels that to speak to the contrary is blasphemy!
So, (per the original post) we have a sense of urgency - we know that Jesus is coming and people don't know him! Now, use us as part of the powerful guiding coalition. As Earl Creps encourages, will the AG be willing to be reverse mentored by some of us up and comers? If nothing else, let us vent! Ha!
Well, there's my chime! Happy Christmas!
December 19, 2007 3:44 PM
Interesting....
all of the bloggers who choose to remain anonymous have something corrective to say to AGTS. Everyone who signs their name works there and ignores the original issues while complimenting their bosses. Yeah, there is some major dysfunction over there. As a CBC student looking at seminaries I want to thank the original AGTS student for letting me see not only the issues but follow the responses. Trinity, Dallas, Regent and Gordon Conwell just moved up a notch.
P.S. Just read Mike. He seems to have some guts.
December 19, 2007 4:28 PM
To CBC student above:
Nice conclusion to draw, but it does not seem to be air tight.
Not all positive statements regarding AGTS were from employees.
Secondly, it is also possible they have better insights to the character of their leaders/bosses since they work closer to them. Otherwise, you might be seeing anonymous negative comments from employees...
NO ONE is saying AGTS is perfect! (read that again if you have to).
NO ONE is saying students can't speak up if they think there is a problem.
But what Shannon said above...I agree. At the end of the day, we ARE CHRISTIANS (and even leaders in training) so if we can't learn to BIBLICALLY address problems with people, then i guess the anonymous blog post is all the further you'll get.
December 19, 2007 4:51 PM
Who cares whether it is anonymous or not as long as it is relevant? Someone may sign their name and I have no idea whether it is their real name or not? Somebody signing Doug or Shanon or whoever doesn't tell me anything about them and it doesn't mean they are better than someone who posts anonymously. Get a grip people!
December 19, 2007 6:27 PM
By the way....I need you all to vote for me in the primaries!
December 19, 2007 6:28 PM
Mike Huckabee...
That points to and definitely highlights the ineffective nature of a blog/email/IM to resolve a conflict or issue. It doesn't matter if their name is stated or it is anonymous.
Just because a computer screen is there doesn't mean it removes the authority of scripture that tells us to speak directly to the person we need to dialogue with and resolve issues.
December 19, 2007 6:53 PM
uggggghhh.... I think some of you are a little lost confused or both.
Nobody has been unchristian that I've read except maybe the guy who's naming names. Why would anyone consider this dialog unbiblical? Or are we saying any criticism of leadership is unbiblical? Hold on..... I think I just heard Luther turn over in his grave...We hold in high esteem heros of the faith who challenged the establishment in antiquity but tend to overlook or drown out any modern contrarian voices.
It's time to grow up or wake up...these aren't "rocks" or "grenades." Give me a break. That kind of inflammatory language comes out when someone is trying to change the story or deflect attention. It is a classical political move we see going on right now in the respective primary races. Please... let's not link ourselves to spin doctors and character assasination just because we are weak on the issues. Stick with the truth. I hear it leads to freedom.
No one except Paul F., Smallwood, Mike, Agts #1 and Another Purposely Anonymous voice seem to be trying to re-focus everyone, even those in charge, to deal with the issues out front, in this forum, so everyone can benefit. In my experience students bring these kinds of things up after other means have been attempted to no avail.
Everyone knows anonymous forums are essential. That is why we have whistle-blower laws and secret informants who receive protection. Why? because they need it. Certainly religious institutions have lost any claim to the moral high ground. To expect a student to blindly walk into a potential buzz saw is naive and foolish. The difference between an A and a C on a term paper is overwhelmingly a subjective determination. I think AGTS#1 wouldn't be brave but stupid to risk anything on an institution that has already revealed it's desire to take this issue behind closed doors. Take Dr. C advice head for the hills.
And to the "brave" guys getting paychecks from AGTS or those trying to impress the administration by sticking their names on hollow defenses without any reference to the issues mentioned: stop sucking up. You aren't fooling anyone. Your message would be heard better if you were....anonymous. Imagine that. CBC student is on to something.
Fianlly, Mike makes a good point, if the AG or AGTS thinks the issues presented are sooo inappropriate they would pull the plug. But I am amazed they suggested the conversation go underground especially since the students seem to be saying they have no current vehicle to voice concerns and THAT IS THE POINT OF A BLOG.
This forum has devolved to talking about talking. Face the issues. It appears to me AGTS must start at the very bottom of the process of change. That would be learning how to communicate. For a bunch of preachers who earn a living by talking that's a stagering admission of incompetance. But you have to start somewhere. (Sorry. Is that too honest to be christian?)
December 19, 2007 6:53 PM
Way to correct Mr Huckabee about resolving conflict with names while posting it anonymously...WOW!
December 19, 2007 6:57 PM
Glory!
December 19, 2007 7:10 PM
Anonymous 6:57...
I don't think Huckabee was corrected on anything, since the person who responded to him said name or no name, neither matter. GLORY! ;-)
I think no one is close to on-topic anymore.
Let's move on. AGTSers need to go start their own blog if they want to keep tackling this. Maybe the anonymous #1 above should think about that then.
December 19, 2007 7:20 PM
Blog is open to everyone. AGTS posters...post here all you want
December 19, 2007 7:39 PM
Fun fun fun. This is just like the last snipe hunt I was on. How about putting the ball back on the court? What about mentoring....anything going to happen? How we doing on setting up a forum for student feedback? What methods are being considered to measure effective learning? Is anything going to change or is this just a waste of time or a creative way of keeping the students amused during Christmas break?
December 19, 2007 9:11 PM
Anonymous 6:53, I agree that there is a necessity for anonymity at times, but find it very hard to believe that Dr. Klaus has impure motives in wanting to talk with agts student 1 off the blogs. One of the complaints of this student is that the administrators are not accessible. This is wide open accessibility. Further, what would happen if Dr. Klaus threatened or intimidated that student? Well, presumably, he'd get right back on this blog and let us know. Because Dr. Klaus made the invitation very public, there is already an amount of accountability. (And for those that might think I'm sucking up, I've never met/communicated with Dr. Klaus and after finishing my undergrad at SAGU, never been to an AG school.)
Re: anonymous posters -- I don't mind it at all, but would prefer you to just make up a handle (like Mike Huckabee did) to make it easier to refer back to previous comments/other threads. Of course someone could spoof another's handle, but they can do the same now. It'd be nice to know anonymous 3:56 (for example) is the same anonymous 1:19 from another thread. As we get to know one another better, it'll help to set the context of a post within your other beliefs.
December 20, 2007 6:41 AM
Anonymous 6:53
You are right. Get to the issues. We have needed this conversation for so long.
I work at AGTS and I can only report what I see and hear...
The moment this blog was discovered a hunt began by members of the administration for the first student author. It scared alot of us and it was very disappointing. I must say these were intimidating conversations. All of a sudden it felt like none of us were friends anymore.
To all AGTS students: I know how hard all of you work and I watch how diligently you are trying to obey God's call for yourselves and many of your families. Please be careful when considering exposing yourselves. I am saddened to see how men I respect responded to what appears to me to be honest issues we have faced for years. We all make mistakes. But our actions send powerful signals. Let's all take a deep breath and remember why we are here and who we serve.
Thanks and please keep talking. Go back and read the original conversations. THey were not mean spirited. Listen to Amused. Amused seems to be reminding everyone to lighten up a little andget back to the things that can help us all change.
I'm praying this will all work out for good.
AGTS student- I'm praying for you especially young man. Listen to the Lord. He will guide you. You've done a good thing.
December 20, 2007 7:48 AM
Concerned...
Could you give us some concrete, physical examples of what you mean by "a hunt began?" It's not that we don't believe you, but those of us on the outside need to know that what you are saying has credibility and is not just your perception.
Was a memo issued to students warning them not to post? Was a request made in chapel for the student to "confess?" What conversations are you referring to when you say they were "intimidating?" Why were you guys scared?
Lane
December 20, 2007 7:57 AM
Ok. Mentoring…Well, I think that spiritual formation/discipleship/mentoring is one of the most important aspects of leadership development. The most important leadership trait is integrity/ Godly character. Assuming many of the students in seminary will pursue ministry careers, this is essential not only for personal formation, but for their ability to disciple sheep in their future flocks. How are leaders developed? By modeling on the part of leadership, opportuni