I was doing a search and came across this blog post. It is interesting that the focus is on the lack of discipleship. While I agree that the A.G. churches could use a curriculum with some foundations of doctrines, as most in the classes I have attended prefer out-sourcing their Christian education to the likes of either the Word of faith or Emergent teachers, it might do you some good to re-visit the question of whether such as do not seek discipleship are even saved.
I will not bog you down with the plentitude of scriptures dealing with the true saints’ desire for and adherence to truth, or a lenghty treatise on the perseverence of the saints.

I will ask you, however, to recollect Jesus’ definition of a true believer to Nicodemus. To be born again requires a soveriegn work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

This is not because the so-called convert prayed a prayer, confessed with his mouth Jesus as Lord, or any of the standard tell-tale conversion signs the church is seeking today that they might add one more name to their decisions list.
If true faith does not move the heart of the hearer of the gospel to repentance and trust, whatever else he does will not save him.
And what is true faith? Jesus said the Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgement. How can He, if we do not preach these things (the gospel)?

Maybe you have a lack of discipling because you have a lack of true disciples?

“Discipleship in the Assemblies of God: The Crisis, the Cause, and the Cure“

Enjoy.

I agree that our national office is woefully underpresented by any but the majority (whites). And males. And, for my part, that is a criticism. And I have criticized the A/G elsewhere for having a patronizing attitude toward minorities — though we are further along in this regard than we have been in decades past — and somewhat worse than at our founding.

I listened to an interesting presentation by an historian from Northwestern University who challenged to think of which of our “founding fathers” we were best descended from, the racist Charles F. Parham, or the black William J. Seymour. Seymour was a student of Parham’s, but could not sit in the classroom with the other white students, I’ve read that he had to stand out in the hallway during the lecture. Yet when Seymour led the Azusa Street revival, it was at once celebrated and reviled for being multi-ethnic.

But for a long time that I worked at the A/G Headquarters (from 1991 to 1999) the only black man to work there was on the custodial staff.

By the way, there’s more discussion of these stats in the comments section here.

@Mark

I’ve corresponded with Brother Crabtree about this as well. He seems very open to new ideas and approaches. I hope your discussion went well.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

Good stuff.

Mark

1. Virtually all of the A/G church growth that did take place since 1990 has been among the ethnic minority sector, primarily Hispanics. About 1 in 5 A/G churches are ethnic minority and a few others fall under the category of “no single majority.”

2. The ratio of water baptisms recorded by churches on the annual church ministry statistical form to church attendance is always much higher for Hispanic and other ethnic minority congregations.

3. The same as above can be said for reported conversions and reported Holy Spirit baptisms.

4. Discipleship must be taking place at a phenomenal rate among ethnic minority congregations in the U.S.

My observation is that both the national office and the geographical do the best they can to try to include ethnic minority pastors in the decision-making process, but they are woefully lacking in cross-cultural communication skills to really and truly understand what the ethnic minority pastoral leadership is trying to say. That’s because our national and geographic leadership are entrenched in the American cultural mechanisms of business design, strategic planning, and other typically American ways of addressing issues and solving problems. That’s not a criticism. It’s just the way it is.