Actscelerate.com

Thoughts on the future springing from last three Assemblys

Member Posts: 45 **8/13/12 1:54 pm**

Let me preface my thoughts with some background. I was on the floor of the General Assembly when Dr. Culpepper was voted in as General Overseer – I voted for him. I felt that there was a palpable feeling among many of our ministers about the need for change in the denomination, and that Dr. Culpepper could have the vision to help us become a leaner, more outward focused movement. There was a feeling that we could perhaps be on the brink of a new era of our church.

And to his credit Dr. Culpepper was very vocal about how our movement needs to build trust and be missional. But, it still does not seem like much has changed in terms of the denominational culture. At times it feels that there is no awareness that anything is wrong and in need of repair at the deeper levels of our organizational consciousness. If we are not willing to engage the deep change that may be needed to be aggressively missional and outward focused, then all of the talk that we engage in can appear to be little more than window dressing and PR.

I should mention that while I attended the 2008 Assembly, I did not attend the 2010 assembly. My absence was not out of frustration or rebellion, but because there were many other responsibilities that I had that year, and the Assembly fell lower in the list of priorities. Why? I am not totally certain. Much of it had to do with the agenda that seemed like more of the same. The idea that we had to vote to allow associate churches who want to be connected to us seemed reactive and the opposite of missional (thank God it passed this year).

Even thought it passed, voting on whether or not women could serve on a pastor’s council seemed to me like an insult in 2010, and even giving vote to such a measure seemed like an acquiescence to a church culture that tolerates such antiquated barnacles clinging to our hull. Interestingly, I do not think that churches should have to allow women to serve on a pastor’s council – I feel that it is an issue that should be left up to the local church to decide at the local level and leave precious Assembly time to focus and train on mission. Of course, those are just two examples; I guess my over-arching feeling was, “we are talking missional mandate, but the flow of our most unifying event doesn’t seem to reflect that; how does the agenda of this Assembly communicate an aggressive and visionary commitment to that verbiage.”

We made some progress at that Assembly, and as I attended this years Assembly we made even more. But still, it can often feel like frustrating when you are having to FIGHT to become more outward focused. Our pastors should be RUNNING in that direction, as opposed to some of htem acting like they will have to be drug along by the voting process.

But then, as I reflected on these developments, I realized that it was unfair to expect Dr. Culpepper then, or Dr. Williams now, to change the denominations culture. In fact, for some churches that are traditional but who are still reaching people for Christ, such a change could be inappropriate. I think that I made two mistaken assumptions that many other emerging leaders make. First, expecting some messianic figure to change the course of the denomination; and second, thinking that the majority of local churches in the denomination need to change. And in fact, both of those faulty assumptions come from what I see as the major faulty meta-assumption of the Church of God – that of being a centralized, top-down bureaucracy.

I have heard the adage, “it takes a long time to turn a ship this big;” and I realized that is the problem. We are trying to turn a large ship, and to do that we keep looking for a large rudder – a leader to make the transition. But that is the wrong metaphor. We need to break the ship down into a collection of smaller ships each of which can turn in the appropriate direction needed for their specific context, unified by common values (such as our Pentecostal heritage) and a commitment to fulfilling the Great Commission. In short, I feel that we need massive decentralization.

If I may give a recent example that drove this point home, it would be a comparison between the Drive Conference that I went to at North point, and the Engage Conference that I attended at Mt. Paran; both in 2011. While I LOVED the Engage conference, and really do hope we can have Chris Hodges speak at a future General Assembly, there was a distinct feeling among the conference that we are fighting an uphill battle trying to bring the denomination into a new millennium that started a decade ago.

By contrast, the Drive Conference wasn’t focused on anything other than mission, how to help local churches better fulfill the Great Commission. No undercurrent, no organizational angst, because there was no organization to fight against. In its place was a network of likeminded pastors, each of which was free to apply the lessons learned to their unique situation. The lesson I take is that rather than trying to change the denomination we need to empower local churches to manifest a specific set of values in their own unique context. And, while we can easily say that is what we do, in reality we have a distinct organizational culture that is energized by our top-down structure.

It is inefficient to try to change the denomination, as well as unfair to churches that fulfill the Great Commission by being more “traditional.” Even if such a change were accomplished it would only be successful until the next generation comes along and faces the same challenges that my generation feels that it is facing.

In short, I do not argue that the denomination needs to change, but I have come to see the kind of change in a very different way. Rather than trying to make the denomination more “relevant,” (which I think is the unconscious goal of some of the younger pastors, who see examples of other organizations that are much more lean) we should decentralize and allow each local church to fulfill the Great Commission in contextualized ways, allowing the free market to weed or advance what models work.

(As an aside, I find it ironic that most of our white pastors, and most of our denominational leadership would probably be Republican, advancing small government, low regulation, and free markets –whereas those same people work within and reinforce a centralized system. Inconsistent to say the least.)

Instead of trying to change the denomination we should stop focusing on the organization, rather aggressively and consistently, over a long period of time, engage in the deep change of challenging our organizational consciousness to highlight the local church.

I see this in several manifestations:

1. We need to become more like a network of decentralized mission posts and less like a top down organization.

2. This needs to be celebrated by using the Evangel to regularly highlight churches of various styles, backgrounds, and geographic regions that are growing by conversion growth or that are recent and successful church plants.

3. This needs to be reflected in the General Assembly by :

A. Eliminating all resolutions that would simply reaffirm what we already are. Such resolutions are defensive and inward looking, they speak of insecurity.

B. Rather than voting on issues that local churches could reasonably decide for themselves (ie. Who can serve on a pastor’s council), allow those decisions to be made at the local level

C. Use the time saved in voting to do training and vision casting. To do this we need top-notch presenters from the Church of God, other Pentecostal/Charismatic backgrounds, broader evangelicalism, and other contexts then just the West.

D. I believe that the reallocation of funds should be the following: local churches give a ToT to the state, the state gives a tithe of that to Cleveland, and Cleveland exists as a lean and empowering force. This way increasing percentages of funds are pushed down to local levels including the state.

I hope that our church polity will change. But even if it will not, the way that we apply that polity needs to change. If we must continue to be a centralized organization, but we must be so in a way that paradoxically points back to the lowest levels of the organization. We must have the kenosis of our hierarchy, weaning many of our congregations off of reliance of Cleveland.

Obviously there could be perceived dangers of my model. It would be possible that we would lose a vital unity, that core values like Pentecost and holiness would be lost, etc. But it seems to me that examples like the Granja Bethel movement in Indonesia show that we grow best when we partner with localized and contextualized movements, and that the unity that seems to work on foreign mission fields could work equally well in America. While I am sure that such structures come with their own set of challenges and headaches, so do all structures. The key is knowing which tradeoffs are the most strategic and how to leverage the advantage of them.

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16509 **8/13/12 2:12 pm**

Glad you enjoyed the Drive Conference. I have never attended but I know that anything North Point does is first class.

As for the COG. The General Overseer cannot bring "change" to the COG. The system won't allow it. The system has to be changed. How is that going to happen? It won't. It would take a radical coup of sorts at a General Assembly for it to happen. The by-laws will not allow for a system change, the Assembly will not vote for a system change and the GO cannot bring a system change. It is stuck.

BTW, I am not saying that is bad, just commenting on what I believe.

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/13/12 2:34 pm**

Eddie,

We can change. We have changed. We will change.

Our by-laws allow it. Economies and financial realities will require it. Hopefully, our sensitivity to a global body will compel it.

Further, a Presiding Bishop can lead us into it. The General Assembly must cooperate with it for it to happen. The General Assembly can lead change even without the cooperation of the EC. But, I don't think that's where we are right now.

I think we have an EC that is working to vibe with the GC & GA. And, if we start aligning so that we are not in a stage against the floor brawl or a style vs. style brawl...and we can create an environment where (as Kyle Hinson described) local churches have more flexibility in working out how they function while being faithful to core/umbrella values, then we're in a position to run a little more freely.

For me the COG is so valuable because of shared conservative, Gospel faithful doctrine, shared mission, and good fellowship.

Where we can enhance those, we win.
Where we diminish our forays into non-mission management, we begin to dilute our effectiveness as a body.

Finally, without getting into the discussion too much, I think maybe Kyle crossed borders between what it means to be missional versus ministry style. Some of the most missional, culture engaging churches I know are very traditional as they vibe with the heartbeat of the community and as their people function as faithful witnesses within the culture.

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16509 **8/13/12 3:03 pm**

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/13/12 4:43 pm**

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16509 **8/13/12 4:47 pm**

When did the system last change? Was there a time when the churches held their own deed? I don't know.

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/13/12 4:55 pm**

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1449 **8/13/12 5:07 pm**

This is a very good post, however I too like Eddie think the effort to get more local control in the churches will meet great opposition at the GA. The majority of our OB's at the GA have been in the system a long time. The change of the system to them could be a scary journey. Even in the affiliate church approval there were those against and others that wanted to make sure that those churches had just as little freedom as possible to operate. I think the GA is the greatest hurdle in the change Kyle laid out in his post.

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/13/12 5:16 pm**

It will take time...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5161 **8/13/12 5:45 pm**

Look at it from a sociological perspective. Before the baby boomers were generations that never questioned how things were done. The WWI and WWII generations were very much "toe the line" generations that accepted what authority told them, and embraced it.
I think that the pentecostal movement has a bit of that generation that has stayed with each generation since then. Look at the average COG pastor, and they will share more characteristics with those generations that they do with the baby boomer and generation X-ers who progressively challenged authority more and more. We are trained that it isn't "Christian" to challenge old decisions or the positions that represent those decisions - so even our younger pastors carry the characteristics of older generations. As that changes we will see more and more generation x type men who are leaders. Men (and women) who aren't insubordinate to the leadership, but challenge us - as a denomination - to change. I don't blame the pastors - they are responding in accordance to their upbringing. I will almost always respond the way my parents taught me to respond - and when I don't I usually end up with my foot in my mouth!! Things change all the time, but they generally change as the generation of influence changes. Granted, we are behind the curve a little in that baby boomers largely run our denomination now (from a voting perspective), but it will change as another generation becomes the majority of the voting bloc.

We'll see. Personally, even if it never changes, I'll most likely always remain in this denomination. However, I will look for change until we are perfect just like I do in my own life. Never stop changing until things are perfect.

Member Posts: 45 **8/14/12 10:08 am**

Travis and Eddie: I agree that there needs to be a change to our bylaws, and I agree that this will be difficult, but that is why I believe the constitutional convention is such a key issue. In fact, I believe that the convention is by far the single most important agenda item that could ever be voted on. We should begin now to prepare to pass this in 2 years, because it opens the door for change. We mustn't allow any issue to trump this one. In fact, even as the convention has been referred to the next assembly, I pray that Dr Williams will begin to study and research aggressive motions to put on the next agenda so that we can begin to vote on them sooner rather then later.

Clint: While I agree that there are some generational issues, I also think that if we are not careful they can be used as a cop out. Dr Paul Lavern Walker, Dr Vest, Paul Conn, Bill Hybels, etc are all baby boomers who show repeatedly that they "got" the leadership mentality. So I think we need to be careful that we don't let older people off the hook too easily - but neither should we dishonor them. We should challenge them in love - as they should do to us.

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/14/12 10:33 am**

Kyle,

What do you see as the upsides of a Constitutional Convention?

Downsides?