What is heresy? The textbook definition is simply:
An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs … or
A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine.
And right alongside that definition — at least on this weblog, anyhow — you can find a picture of Bishop Carlton D. Pearson who wants to “rewrite the theology of the charismatic world” by preaching a “Gospel of Inclusion” asserting that Christ’s death conclusively reconciled all mankind to God — whether we realize it or not — and that the only separation between man and God’s grace is subjective, illusionary, and exists only in unenlightened minds (Carlton Pearson, “Jesus Savior of the World/Gospel of Inclusion — Position Paper,” Higher Dimension website, viewed March 5, 2006).
My longtime email friend and fine Bayou pastor, Rev. Louis Bartet (The Grace Place), recently posed this thought-provoking question, which I have attempted to answer from my perspective.
« What in your opinion should be the primary basis of Christian ethics?»
Lou, doesn’t believe in simple questions with short answers!
Okay. I’ll give the short answer first—just to save you time: the character and nature of God should serve as the primary basis of Christian ethics. God created us, and formed us in his image, therefore our ethics should reflect his character and nature. Like Jesus, we should do what we see our Father doing (John 5:19-20).
Unfortunately, the Fall in the Garden marred and damaged God’s image within us. As a result, we can no longer consistently act within an ethical framework reflecting God’s character. All have acted unethically: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Therefore, any ethical system which does not ultimately move us closer to the Divine ideal reveals a fatal flaw. Indeed, even our attempts to interpret the revealed ethical framework of Scripture inherits this flaw because God did not give us a systematic ethical calculus to cover every circumstance. Our ability to “tease out” the ethical underpinnings of God’s character, nature, fall short. The flaw reveals itself in our tendency to legalize the framework and ignore the spirit of the laws he did provide.
This question was recently posed to me (and some other friends) on an email discussion-group:
« What is your take on Matthew 5:17-18 regarding the Law and Prophets? Do you believe we are still under the Law, and do you believe that we have Prophets today, and if so for what purpose in light of receiving the Holy Spirit individually? »
I waited with anticipation for an answer to these questions from the group, but nobody dared venture forth… I suspect it’s because the answers to those questions would require so much explanation that too many are daunted!
I too am daunted, but I’ve never let that stop me from being a foolish blow-hard (witness this weblog!). So, here goes a long answer.
First, see the a larger context of the verses cited:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20).
Jesus makes some clear assertions here:
In contrast to the claims of the Pharisees: he neither breaks the law, nor does he come to abolish it. Instead: he fulfills it.
Everything the Law and the Prophets say will be accomplished.
Anyone who is opposed to the law will be “called least” in the Kingdom. Those who promote it will be great.
If you are not more righteous than the Pharisees, you’ll be in Hell.
This teaching astonishes both Jesus’ contemporaries and us. But for different reasons.
The reason Jesus’ audience would have been startled is because he broke so many of the “commandments” that the Pharisees were certain he was opposed to the law and was a law-breaker. Jesus’ audience would have likely either been deeply concerned about his attitude toward the law or would have been relieved that he came to do away with the Law. Neither view was accurate. Jesus says that he isn’t breaking the law (such as when he was accused of working on the Sabbath by healing) but that he fulfills it. He completes the Law
Since the Old Testament clearly separates the Sabbath as a day of rest, then if Jesus didn’t break the Law as he understood it, by working miracles on that day, then what exactly did he mean by the Law?
And this is what’s startling to us. We think of the Law as all the ritual rules and practices prescribed and proscribed in the ceremonial law, dietary laws, and the case law that surrounded the moral Law, such as the unique pattern of tithing for the Jew, the way they must gather harvest, who owes what fines and when, sacrifices and so on. (There are 613 individual laws in the OT from the Ten Commandments, to the Noahic Law, to the comprehensive Mosaic Law including all the special-example “case” laws.)
Rather, Jesus’ view of the law is the “Torah,” which some say should not be translated “law” but rather “revelation” or “instruction from God.”
In this sense, Jesus is calling the Jews to heed the spirit of the Law rather than the mere letter of the Law. By Jesus’ day the Jews had erected so many fences around the law that the rules governing the exceptions and circumstances for daily life far exceeded anything the law was intended to teach. (So, for instance, to avoid lusting after a woman there were Jews who walked with their heads down and their eyes covered so as not to even glance at a woman. I understand they were called the “bruised and the bleeding,” because they often stumbled into pointy objects when not looking where they were going!)
This system of laws that grew up around the revelation of the Pentateuch and the Prophets has been called the “Scribal Law.” It began with oral law, handed down from generation to generation via scribes and rabbis, as an attempt to explain the revelation and also to apply the law to every situation in life. By the third century AD these oral laws were collected and summarized into a massive book of 63 tractates on the law called the “Mishnah.”
Then Jewish rabbis and scholars began to make commentaries in order explain the Mishnah. These commentaries are known as the Talmuds—and there are many, many volumes of Talmudic commentary and exposition. (Twelve volumes for the Jerusalem Talmud, sixty for the Babylonian Talmud.) The roots of this mind-numbing landscape of legalism, case law, exceptions, and circumstances was already present in Jesus day. This was not the Law God gave, but it was the law most were concerned about.
What Jesus knew is that the Scribes and Pharisees of his day were not serving the law-giver, but were serving the letter of the law–indeed, they were serving the legal traditions that were not the law itself, but were Pharisaical attempts to “hedge” the law and protect ordinary people from coming anywhere near breaking it. The law says “Make the Law of the Lord as a frontlet before your eyes…” so the Jews go and write passages on strips of paper, roll them up, put them in a box, and strap the boxes on their foreheads!
These extrapolations of the Law are not what Jesus came to fulfill. He came to fulfill the spirit of the Law instead, so that the Law of God can be written on our hearts rather than in boxes on our foreheads.
The Law is not dead. It is fulfilled. But it is still God’s revelation to us.
So, what about sacrifices? No need: Christ fulfilled the need for sacrifices by “completing” what the sacrifices were intended to do. Accepting his sacrifice completes that law for us.
What about ceremonial laws in the Temple? No need: our bodies have become the temple of the Holy Ghost. Christ made that possible on the cross, thereby fulfilling the law. Accepting his sacrifice makes it possible for us to fulfill those laws by honoring our bodies as his temple.
What about tithing? No need–not in the way the Jews were required to give–which, according to various estimates, could equal as much as 25% of annual income. Rather, the spirit of the tithe remains: generosity and giving are intended to support the formal priesthood (pastors, missionaries, etc.), the needy, and the widows. Obeying the NT commands to love and be generous (with finances as well as time) and be hospitable and financially support our ministers fulfills and completes the command to tithe (indeed, would exceed tithe if we truly followed the spirit of these commands.)
As for exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees, the only way to do that is to have the righteousness of Christ “imputed” to us—put on our account on his behalf. Christ fulfilled the Law’s demands for righteousness and peace with God by making that peace on the Cross and covering us with his blood and righteousness.
As for Prophets today, I would say there there are not prophets today—not in the same sense as the Old Testament prophets—for the same reason that we no longer accept revisions to the Old or New Testaments with additions to the canon. The OT prophets were “oracles” who spoke the words of God to particular situations and revealed the mind of God to his people. Our Scriptures–which recorded and convey those words—do that now and we are prohibited from adding to it. (See the last verses of the New Testament, Revelation 22:18–19. While these don’t explicitly refer to the not-yet-formed NT canon, most apply the sense of this prohibition to the entire “closed” canon.) But, truly, this touches on a whole, lengthy, discourse of the nature of the canon and how we know it is “closed” or not. And that’s worthy of a book length treatise and I’m not the man for that.
I’ll just say that in the New Testament a prophet seems to be (according to Paul’s writings) an individual who has received the gift of prophecy. This is not strictly the same as an Old Testament prophet or even a NT prophet like Agabus in Acts or John in the Revelation. In the New Testament, prophecy is not portrayed as “fore-telling” but rather “forth telling.” The distinction being that the New Testament gift of prophecy is not about dates, times, and future events, but rather about speaking intelligibly words that are timely and edifying to the Body of Christ. Paul contrasts it to the gift of tongues which only edifies the Body when there is an interpretation. He further contrasts it with tongues in that tongues are speech directed to God while prophecy is speech directed to the Body. (See 1 Corinthians 12-14.)
Incidentally, this issue about prophets and prophecy crop up frequently in the cessationism vs. continuationism debate. The cessationists seem to think that we Pentecostals and Charismatics believe we can tell the future via prophetic statements, and if even one of our statements prove falls, the whole P/c house of cards falls down.
To our everlasting shame and detriment, there have been some in our ranks who were so bold and theologically uninformed to believe that they were operating under this kind of prophetic mantle.
Sometimes I want to pray, God, save us from ourselves.
I submit for your consideration two apparently unrelated questions:
Is the Assemblies of God a cult?
Is Wikipedia an authoritative encyclopedia?
I submit that the Assemblies of God is as much like a cult as the Wikipedia is authoritative. We are, instead, a movement.
A Word on Wikipedia Over the last few months Wikipedia has taken much heat over its collaborative form of public authoring and editing. Nearly anyone can post an article, make an edit, or undo edits. This is good, and not-so-good: The good of it is that Wikipedia benefits from the collective mind of many editors. Where one editor may have it wrong, several others can guide an article to incremental perfection (in theory). On the other hand, one misinformed or biased “editor” can make subtle or egregious changes, and it may not come to the attention of those best armed to correct it. Thus, Wikipedia’s “democratic” version of truth becomes “reality” … or “Wikiality.” (See Stephen Colbert’s “Wikiality” report from August 1, 2006.)
Here’s a brief roundup of stuff that has surfaced in the media—note, this is only what’s surfaced. Wiki-vandalism and counter-factual edits occur frequently, perhaps daily. This is just a sampling of the most sensational Wiki-news:
On November 9, 2005, an article on Jens Stoltenberg, prime minister of Norway, was edited to accuse him of languishing in prison for pedophilia. Editors corrected the article in 22.5 hours but by then the Dagbladet newspaper had already featured the edit on the front page. (See: “Norwegian Wikipedia Locks Page about Prime Minister,” and “Wikipedia and Vandalism“. Oh, and there’s a lousy machine-translation of the Dagbladet article here.)
On December 1, 2005, former MTV VJ and so-called “podfather” of podcasting, Adam Curry, anonymously edited a Wikipedia article on podcasting to inflate his own role and deflate others’. (See: “Adam Curry Caught in Sticky Wiki,” and Curry’s admission to “pilot error” on his blog. Meanwhile, Dave Winer complains about “People with erasers“.)
On December 12, 2005, a Long Beach, N.Y., group associated with QuakeAID (also alleged Wikiality victims), announced a class action suit against Wikipedia on behalf of those “who believe that they have been defamed or who have been the subject of anonymous and malicious postings to the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.” (See: “Wikipedia Class Action Lawsuit.”)
On December 19, 2005, A photo of Bill Gates on his bio page, mysteriously acquired both horns and mustache. (See: “Screen shots of Wikipedia vandalism.”)
On January 18, 2006, popular British DJs, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman took turns defacing their own entries until Wikipedia locked the article from further changes. “‘We can’t be held responsible for anything,’ concluded Chapman, drily, inadvertently summing up the Wikipedia philosophy.” (See: “Wikipedia editing hobby goes nationwide.”)
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder, has come under criticism for repeatedly making edits to his own bio page on Wikipedia, removing credit for his fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, and deleting “porn” and “erotica” references to his adult search portal. (See: “Who owns your Wikipedia Bio?”)
Now, I enjoy and use Wikipedia frequently. It’s a quick read (though articles are not always well-organized) and is a handy source of links to external sites with more information. It’s also a good barometer of current thought on a given subject, but the thinking is often shallow and disorganized nevertheless. Wikipedia is admittedly weak on facts — nobody’s job is on the line. Professionally-edited publications have staff who fact-check articles going to press—reputations and careers are at stake after all. It pays to get it right. Wikipedia, with one paid staff member, has nobody. And, in practice, efforts to fact-check and repair articles are still subject to fellow collaborators ability to revert an article to its former status if they feel like it.
Wikipedia illustrates “truthiness,” a word selected by the American Dialect Society as the Word of the Year for 2005. Truthiness is, “the quality of stating concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.” Indeed, Wikipedia scores high on the truthiness index: all the editors who get their words publicly viewable fully believe, or wish, their writing to be true. But as we can see with the recent controversies over personal bios, we have no reason to endorse Wikipedia’s truthfulness … its accuracy … it’s reflection of reality.
As the Wikipedia disclaimer states:
“[N]othing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. … The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.”
On Wikipedia and the Assemblies of God In early January, an article came across my feed reader piquing my interest. I have a feed sucking down references to the Assemblies of God in weblog entries, and Google’s blog search evidently spiders Wikipedia “talk” pages. (Talk pages are publicly viewable “behind-the-scenes” discussion among the contributors for any article.) On the talk page for the “List of Purported Cults” article, Wikipedia user T. Anthony (aka. Thomas R., a conservative Catholic), was debating the status of the Assemblies of God as a purported cult, eligible for inclusion on the list.
This invited research.
Back in August of 2005, another Catholic from Australia, user Jachin, added the A/G to the list—no surprise given that the new Family First political party in South Australia has been “energetically derided as a fanatical right-wing fundamentalist Christian organisation” for its conservative values and close ties to the Assemblies of God in Australia (the former A/G superintendent, Andrew Evans, co-founded the party and is the SA Parliamentary Leader for the party). However, T. Anthony removed the listing by August 30 and asked for a source citation. Apparently, the BBC was blamed for the cite, but T. Anthony couldn’t find it. All the BBC had to say was that the A/G is “Another small Pentecostal body in which each congregation retains its autonomy.”
(Now, T. Anthony is no A/G-lovin’ fool. His grandmother is A/G, sure, but she has “strong faults” and “unpleasant aspects,” and he finds that “Pentecostalism is odd.” While open to persuasion, he’s just not sure we’re a cult.)
The discussion continued through September, when T. Anthony noted the Assemblies of God returned to the list despite his earlier edit. Throughout September, he continued requesting the elusive BBC citation, but like Yeti, the Roswell Alien, or the Loch Ness monster, it remained missing. The best Anthony could find this go-around was a discussion on the Sydney Morning Herald website—from a discussion forum, not the newspaper itself. This kind of citation is not sufficient to warrant inclusion on the list.
By November the A/G was off the list once more at T. Anthony’s insistence, consistently and politely continuing to demand a cite for verification. Again, the BBC is the alleged culprit, without evidence.
And in the latest round (the one that caught my eye), on January 7, 2006, T. Anthony removed the A/G from the purported cult list once more. Again, he asks for the evidence that the BBC ever referred to the Assemblies of God as a cult or even, in British terms, a sect. T. Anthony has searched the reliable sources on the Net and has turned up nothing. He allows that, “individual AoG preachers may make their congregations cult-like, but I don’t see how you can justify the entire religion being a purported cult by any normal definition.”
Still, as ever, he remains open. Just give up the proper citation and he’ll throw in the towel.
What gives? Normally, I would dismiss this kind of discussion—if I even noticed it in the first place—because every religious movement has its evangelists and detractors. Nothing in the Wikipedia talk pages raises the bar on the discussion. No new evidence is shared, no thoughtful dialog ensues. We have one quixotic defender of the A/G, who doesn’t even agree with us, and a void of silence — until the Assemblies of God is quietly added to the list for another go-around.
But this minor skirmish is taking place on the most highly visited encyclopedia site online. You know, and I know, that Wikipedia isn’t authoritative. But not everybody who reads the site knows or cares about that disclaimer. Sites and publications like this frame issues, people, and events in a certain light, and it’s possible—likely, even—that a few motivated detractors can do more damage to a reputation than an army of evangelists or a horde of neutral editors could correct.
So what if Norway’s prime minister got out of jail with a clean bill of moral health in only 22.5 hours—it made front page news. So what if Seigenthaler didn’t kill his boss—his reputation was besmirched for four months!
Wikipedia has made itself a gateway for … something. I don’t know what. I can’t call it a gateway for “truth,” or “facts,” or “knowledge,” because those aren’t claimed and evidence abounds otherwise. It’s a gateway for organized opinion, I suppose, but even then, it’s only organized on the page. Behind the thin veil of order and neatness and clean design is a chaotic brew of dissension, reverted entries, vandalism, petty retribution, honest inquiry, sound editing, and puerile commentary.
You get what you pay for? On a good day, I suppose. But on a bad day you might pay for far more than you deserve. Like Seigenthaler. Like Stoltenberg.
Were it not for the lone efforts of T. Anthony we’d be stuck in the cult-bin. I applaud him.
So what is a cult? According to the Wikipedia editors, a cult is merely whatever a trusted media source identifies as a cult. This circular definition keeps the list in harmony with Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality, no original research, and verifiable sources. So, if the BBC ever does run a piece asserting that the Assemblies of God is a cult, we’re on the list. Period. And no amount of apologetics or frothing at the mouth will change it. It doesn’t matter which definition of “cult” you use, and there are several, it only matters what others with media leverage have said.
The editors involved on this article have agreed to a policy for taxonomy that attempts to remain neutral. In order to avoid any claims of personal or ideological bias, all entries on the list must be verified with a citation from a trusted news source. To assist the editors, there’s an orderly list, in descending value and international scope, of sources which can be trusted to call it right. Never mind the fact that articles from the AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN, the New York Times, and so on, can be equally biased as any single editor on Wikipedia, as long as it is a legitimate cite, it’s fodder for the list.
Truth by democracy.
Before we can make lists of a certain kind of thing, whether it be antique bread knives, 4th-dimensional super-beings, best rock songs of the 80s, or mind-twisting cults, it is helpful to define what the thing being listed actually is. To do this, I refer you to a nice overview written by the late Jan Groenveld, from the Cult Awareness Information center, titled: “Identifying a Cult.” Here are some salient distinctions between commonly used definitions of “cult”:
Secular Definition
CULT — From the Latin “cultis” which denotes all that is involved in worship, ritual, emotion, liturgy and attitude.
This definition actually denotes what we call denominations and sects and would make all religious movements a cult.
Christian Definition
CULT — Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity. i.e. They deny the Deity of Christ; His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to earth and salvation by faith alone.
This definition only covers those groups which are cults within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it cover psychological, commercial or educational cults which do not recognize the Bible as a source of reality.
Universal Definition
CULT — Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members.
This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from.
And then, regarding the Christian definition of cult—especially the “Orthodox Bible-Based Cult”, Jan adds this comment:
A group is called a cult because of their behaviour — not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.
This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone’s particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.
I like this structure. It resonates with what I’ve read on cults and various cult practices, and provides a nice framework to know what is being discussed when the world “cult” is brandished. I especially like the focus being on behavior over and above doctrine. On one hand, anything religious is a cult. But from within orthodox Christianity, typically only those groups outside of orthodoxy, with aberrant doctrines, are viewed as cults. However, given the framework above, we can say that even within orthodoxy, there may be an adherence to orthodox doctrines, and yet individual churches or pastors can rise to the level of cult-status by their behaviors. This is like seeing definition three (universal definition) worked out from within a group that is mainstream and religious.
So, is the Assemblies of God a cult? Yes. According to the secular definition. And if a BBC journalist were writing with this definition in mind, we might easily get tagged as a cult without failing any sort of cultic litmus test. And if that happens, guess what? Editors for the leading Internet encyclopedia have all the rationale needed to identify us as a cult.
And thus a long-standing meme is revitalized. Truthiness wins and truth gets knocked on the head.
I suspect there are several A/G churches operating as cults according to the universal definition—or even the Christian definition. It would come as no surprise to me. However, I wouldn’t be shocked if it turns out there are Baptist cults that fit the bill, too. Or Methodist cults. Anywhere you find people, something will go wrong somewhere, eventually. And before you know it, some intrepid Wikipedian is taking names and editing stubs.
But Pentecostals and Charismatics sometimes get a raw deal. Do a few searches online and you’ll find the A/G mentioned in connection with emotional abuse and mind-control on various watch lists. The whole “Holy Spirit” thing is just too weird for some Christians to grapple with. As one anonymous poster writes on FactNet.org, “Casting demons out or exorcism is a procedure that is not performed in mainstream religions; only extremist cults perform these kinds of bizarre, abusive, sadistic, mind-control rituals.”
If Not a Cult, What Then? Way back in September 1998, historian Vinson Synan, dean of the Regent University School of Divinity, told the Pentecostal World Conference that about 25 percent of the world’s Christian population is Pentecostal or Charismatic. Yes. In all, one in four Christians today believe in this sort of stuff. And that number increases daily.
While there is evidence for an unbroken thread of Pentecostal/Charismatic-like mysticism running throughout church history, the modern phenomenon began with the “touch felt around the world” on January 1, 1901 when Agnes Ozman was baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues at Bethel Bible College, under Charles Fox Parham’s leadership. From 1906–1909, it reached a tipping point with the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles, California, led by a former student of Parham’s, William Joseph Seymour. This revival and the worldwide attention it captured is often considered the genesis of the movement that became Pentecostalism.
From humble beginnings at a backwater Bible college under a racist teacher, to a racially integrated revival, to the formation of new denominations by 1914, to the charismatic renewals of the late 50s, to the incredible, explosive growth of the Pentecostal world in the global South (Brazil’s Pentecostal population exceeds that of America by far), the Pentecostal/Charismatic cultural phenomenon is nothing less than a full-fledged movement.
But what is a movement, you ask?
I’m grateful to Steve Addison‘s weblog for providing this succinct quote from Luther P. Gerlach and Virgina H. Hine, authors of People, power, change: Movements of social transformation, a sociological study of the Black Panthers and Pentecostals:
“A movement is a group of people who are organized for, ideologically motivated by, and committed to a purpose which implements some form of personal or social change; who are actively engaged in the recruitment of others; and whose influence is spreading in opposition to the established order within which it originated.”
On the surface, this helpful definition sounds suspiciously like the “universal definition” of cults cited above. However, looking closely, I see a significant difference between mind-controlling cults and movements like the A/G: with a cult, personal change is imposed by an authoritarian structure for the benefit of the hierarchy itself. With a movement, personal change is organic: it comes from within. In the case of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement that change from within is not imposed by any human agency, it is enabled by Divine agency acting from within, and the change benefits the individual first. Society then benefits as individuals are themselves empowered to be change agents within their culture.
Does that sound like Acts 2 to you?
Conclusion Anything worth doing well is worth doing badly for personal gain. Simon the ex-sorcerer fell prey to this temptation when he was first impressed with Philip going about working miracles. Even after his own conversion, when Peter and John came to Samaria, Simon was fascinated that when the disciples laid hands on people, folks were filled with the Spirit. So, naturally, he offered money and then begged of them, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Of course, that earned him a stern rebuke (Acts 8:9–25).
Perhaps today there are not enough stern rebukes going on in the Pentecostal and Charismatic world. Perhaps there are too many cult-like churches rising up in our midst because, after all, the temptation to capitalize on a movement’s power to change and mobilize is heady stuff. There’s a good reason we are admonished to “lay hands on no man suddenly” (1 Timothy 5:22). Men and women of anemic character, of uncritical, impressionable minds, and of weak doctrine and practice should not be suddenly thrust into leadership. I am not sure that “premature ordination” is really the root of doctrinal and behavioral excess in some churches, but it does seem clear to me that without leaders evidencing the spiritual transformation that is at the heart of our movement we are vulnerable to every Simon the Sorcerer who wants to mold his church into a cultic center of power.
Despite the inaccuracies of Wikipedia and the discussion over whether the A/G is a cult, or not, the truth is, perhaps there is more fodder for this claim than we would like. It’s Wikipedia’s job to be “truthy.” Whatever that is. But it’s our job to be spotless.
Think there’ll ever be a Wikipedia list of purported spotless denominations?
Websites of Note:
In addition to the articles linked to in my story above, I found these posts on Steve Addison’s blog worth reading:
Blogging from the heartland, Sean MacNair calls it like he sees it. In a brief post he concisely serves up highlights from 100 years of American church renewal (See: “The Pardoner’s Tale: My best (stolen) idea so far this year“). He buzzes over Pentecostalism, the Charismatic renewal, healing revivals, Billy Graham, the Charismatic Catholic renewal, the Jesus Movement, the megachurch-cum-denomination trend, worship innovations, and the Emergent Conversation. His point: Renewal threatens the status quo but ultimately gets institutionalized, fades into oblivion, or is assimilated into the mainstream.
Buried in his post is a subtle criticism of the movement that spawned them all, and the institution that formed as a result: Pentecostalism and the Assemblies of God. He writes:
New movements come, new movements go, and the people on either side of an impending change in style always look askance at the guy across the aisle, when in fact they don’t have to, this too shall pass or at least be assimilated.
For example, look at the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles in the early 1900’s. The holy rollers came on the scene in waves, and boy were the established churches aggravated. Excessive emotion was being brought into the church, emotion not befitting the “house of Gawd” (adopt the proper pseudo-reverential tone here). These Pentecostals, as they were dubbed, were driven out and forced to establish their own fellowships. Eventually groups like the Assemblies of God sprang up, never intending to become a denomination, but after 30 years travelling down that road anyway. 100 years later the AOG is part of the establishment and new groups are trying to breath life into it. A movement that brought much needed life to the faith of many, and was thought of as a threat, did not remain so.
(Emphasis mine.)
MacNair’s criticism echoes Margaret Poloma’s evaluation:
Just as other once-charismatic religious movements have followed the path of over-institutionalization and over-regulation, which in turn has discouraged much of the original charisma, the Assemblies of God could suffer the chilling effects of routinization. … Paradoxically, the institution that developed out of charisma and has been strengthened by fresh outbursts also seeks to tame and domesticate this spirit. it remains to be seen whether — and how much — charisma will rule over bureaucratic forms and regulations, or whether organizational concerns will stifle the Spirit.
(Again, emphasis mine.)
— Margaret Poloma, ‘The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas,” Christian Century, (10/17/90), pp. 932-934.
My knowledge is neither vast nor deep. But in my brief time with the A/G (since 1980 or so) I only recall two recent reformation movements directed at the Assemblies of God, and they were both internal: the “Decade of Harvest” and, on its heels, the “Vision for Transformation.” (If any of you know of others, internal or external, please let me know.)
Prompted by MacNair’s post, I thought I’d look at what exactly has been happening with the Assemblies of God in raw numbers over the past few decades to see if either of these reforms have had an effect. For my numbers I relied on the outstanding 2004 statistical report prepared by the A/G’s statistician, Sherri Doty, available from the A/G’s website at http://ag.org/top/about/Statistical_Report_2004.pdf.
As always, please correct me if I make any counter-factual claims below.
The Decade of Harvest: The Decade of Harvest was instituted in the 1990s in light of several years of declining church growth in the area of church plants. From about 1965 to 1982 (the height of the charismatic renewal) more churches were opened than closed. But according to official A/G statistics this changed in 1983. Paul Drost, director of the A/G’s Department Church Planting, reflected on this in 1999:
[F]rom 1983 until the present, church plantings have been on a downward trend while church closings have been on an upward trend! The exception was 1990-92, which was the beginning of the Decade of Harvest. We do thank God for the first time in 7 years new church openings topped the 300 mark with 315 reported for 1999! (35 years of Church Planting: 1965-1999, viewed 01/02/06)
The Decade of Harvest saw 2,940 new A/G churches planted, but when you subtract the closed churches (2,077), the net change is just over half of what happened in the 80s. Drost claimed that the program’s emphasis on planting new churches not only offset the closings, but actually diminished the closings. The actual numbers do not bear that out (see chart below). The 1990s were a time of continued losses and faltering growth.
General Superintendent Thomas Trask has indicated this program-driven effort, though beneficial, ultimately might not have been directed by the Spirit:
“The Decade of Harvest was a program, a set of goals established by this church in the ‘90s. Goals were set for planting churches, adding ministers, and more. The goals were certainly good for this Fellowship, but we can’t be driven by a program; we must be led by the Spirit.” (Emphasis mine. From: “Where Is The Spirit Leading The Assemblies of God?“)
Worse, says, C. Peter Wagner, the Decade of Harvest is not only programmatic, but serves up evidence of the lack of vitality and evangelistic zeal in the Assemblies of God:
I mentioned how the Assemblies of God growth rate had slowed down in the 1990s, which was projected to be their “Decade of Harvest.” Here is the way the denomination chose to report progress to their constituency in mid-decade, 1995:
“The Harvest Task Force, in its first meeting under the new leadership structure, issued a clarion call to ‘retool and refocus for the harvest.’ Specific directives include (1) A spiritual call to revival. … While number goals can serve as a measure of progress, the emphasis needs to return to the basics.”
Notice how the language of this report focuses on yesterday: “Re-tool,” “Re- focus,” “Re-vival,” “Re-turn.” The prefix “re” means to reinstate something from the past. “Revival” literally means to bring back to life. What life? The life of the past. Help is obviously needed. Where will this help come from? The past! This sort of appeal is extremely common whenever evangelism bogs down. On the other hand, when evangelism is powerful, when soul saving is on a roll, you simply don’t hear this kind of language from leaders of growing churches and apostolic networks.
Indeed, after 1995, few mentioned the Decade of Harvest goals and program. When the 1990s closed, if it was mentioned at all, the Decade of Harvest was declared a mild success, then quietly ushered off the stage. Statistically, it’s true that more churches opened than closed in the 90s, but as I noted, the numbers were merely half that of the 80s. And the downward trend has continued on the same track through the first half of the new millennium. Here’s a summary:
80-89
90-99
00-04
Churches Opened
3,226
2,940
1,329
Churches Closed
-1,596
-2,077
-1,107
Net Change
1,630
863
222
Net Change Per Year
163.0
86.3
44.4
Source: 2004 AG Statistical Reports (http://ag.org/top/about/Statistical_Report_2004.pdf)
The program apparently had little or no effect on church openings or closings. Perhaps Trask was right: it simply wasn’t of the Spirit. For a more comprehensive look at the trends, see this chart:
The “Average Net Change” line, in the chart, is a moving 10–year average. Clearly, in terms of physical churches, the A/G in North America is weakening despite the best efforts of the Decade of Harvest. Whatever the Decade of Harvest was supposed to “fix,” it didn’t improve anything from the church opening or closing standpoint. (Though, since 1975, the mean number of adherents per church increased from 136 to 226–-churches are now, on average, 166% fuller than they were three decades ago.)
Interestingly, as the A/G decided to focus away from the Decade of Harvest program in 1995–1996, the rate of new conversions suddenly reversed its trend. Looking at the reported conversions, we see that from 1990 to 1997 there was a dramatic increase in reported conversions from the years before (nearly double), but since 1997, annual reports of conversions have steadily decreased. It’s possible the DOH emphasis could have been a contributing factor, but it could also be coincidence. (For instance, the Brownsville Revival began in June, 1995, spawning other revivals nationwide). See chart:
Now, church planting is one way to look at the A/G’s relative health from a “church growth” perspective. Another method, of course, is to look at membership and adherents. There are problems with either number, of course. Church membership is not necessarily indicative of the number of people who attend a church or who claim to “belong” to a church, since the primary benefits of membership are the voting privileges in church business matters. That number is necessarily smaller — especially in larger churches. On the other hand, the count of attenders, or adherents, is more volatile and less subject to validation. So, the number is more “fuzzy.” I prefer looking at adherents, though, since church membership is becoming increasingly less relevant as a method of determining a church’s overall attendance.
Despite the Decade of Harvest’s apparent ineffectiveness, we saw that conversions were nevertheless up. So, how did the A/G’s numbers fare in terms of adherents? Here’s the chart:
Clearly, the A/G is still growing, in terms of numbers. But something interesting emerges when you compare the new converts versus the adherents. If you only look at the net change of adherents in each year, and compare it with the new converts each year, perhaps we could get a view of how “sticky” the conversions are. Presumably, each new convert stays in the church for a time, for discipleship, before moving to a new church, unless the church has a high level of transient attenders (say, for example, a church near a large college).
Looked at this way, the picture seems startling, to me. Not only are the new believers outstripping the net change in adherents, they seem to have no impact on the growth trend at all. If the data are accurate, we may be bringing folks to Christ in the A/G, but we’re not keeping them. One explanation is that people leave the A/G for a church more in harmony with their childhood expectations, say a mainline or other Evangelical church. A more disturbing explanation is that we’re preaching the gospel and getting decisions, but that these new believers are falling by the wayside, and not staying plugged into church anywhere. There’s no way to know, really. Not from the stats.
Whatever the case, these numbers tell me that the A/G’s evangelism efforts have failed over the last 20–30 years. Not even half the new converts are staying. Barna and others report that the majority of church growth is transfer growth: “More than 80% of the current growth registered by Protestant churches is biological or transfer growth.” (See barna.org.) If that analysis holds true for the A/G, then we are in seriously bad shape as an evangelistic enterprise.
And this, despite Barna’s findings that A/G adherents place a very high value on evangelism:
Members of the fellowship provided a wide variety of topics when asked about the single most important activity that Assemblies of God churches perform. The most frequently mentioned activity, offered by one in four members of the fellowship (26%), was evangelism. This included sharing faith, witnessing, winning souls, and reaching the lost. (See: “Assemblies of God Fellowship Study, 2003.”)
Only 8% felt that discipleship was most important. Do the math.
The Vision for Transformation: After the Decade of Harvest program faded from view and it became clear to A/G leadership that something else needed to change, attention turned from purely mechanical emphases on church planting and evangelism to discovering what needs attention spiritually. Thus, Trask’s criticism of the Decade of Harvest as merely a program, and his insistence that the Vision for Transformation emphasis is Spirit-led. Let’s revisit Trask’s quote, and extend it:
The Decade of Harvest was a program, a set of goals established by this church in the ’90s. Goals were set for planting churches, adding ministers, and more. The goals were certainly good for this Fellowship, but we can’t be driven by a program; we must be led by the Spirit. We would be fooling ourselves if we thought the Vision for Transformation alone could change the spiritual climate of this church. It can’t. It won’t. Four words characterize what I believe needs to happen: renew, release, resource, and realign. Most importantly, we must have renewal — a passion for the things of God: prayer, evangelism, discipleship, worship, missions, and more.
Notice here the recurrence of the theme that Wagner commented on: “renew,” “release,” “resource,” and “realign.” To echo Wagner, at least two of these are backward looking emphases: “renew,” and “realign.” The difference, though is in the emphasis on “release,” and “resource.” Searching for these emphases revealed only this expansion:
RENEW — We must have a spiritual renewal within our hearts and churches – a fresh passion to win the lost, and then to disciple them.
REALIGN — We must seek ways to more effectively serve this church by realigning our ministries.
RELEASE — We must take whatever steps are necessary to release this church and its people to fulfill the call of God upon their lives.
I like the first theme a lot, but I haven’t seen much about it in the official documents yet (it may be there, I haven’t found it). The emphasis currently seems to be on the fourth theme: “resource.” Namely: the headquarters and leadership resource.
According to AG.org, the latest incarnation of the Vision for Transformation (VFT) committee highlighted three emerging themes:
The Assemblies of God should be a network of fully empowered Pentecostal churches that multiply themselves through church planting.
The Fellowship should give emphasis and priority to the call of God and effective ministry in the credentialling process.
The Fellowship’s organizational structure should be aligned around mission and ministry to serve our ministers and empower local churches. (See “Progress Report.”)
The first theme sounds like a rewording of the Decade of Harvest emphasis. The second theme relates to changes in credentialing processes to both tighten (background screening) and loosen (local church credentialing) the ministerial application process. The third theme relates to changes at the organizational level, primarily in and around the national headquarters beauracracy.
In all, the VFT emphasizes mechanical and structural transformation more than spiritual transformation. To be sure, at each biennial business meeting, there is a “Spiritual Life” report given that carries strong calls for spiritual renewal, but those calls seem absent in much of the VFT reports ag AG.org.
For example, the Progress Report cited above lists VFT progress in the following areas:
Facilitating the Credentialing Process
New District Governance Models
Mandatory Screening of Ministerial Applicants
National Placement Service
Cooperative Church Status
Assistance to Language Credential Holders
Local Church Credential
Credentialing Reciprocity in the United States
Requirement of A/G History and Polity Course by All Credentialed Applicants
Global University and Berean Courses
Church Planting
Resolution 17: Internal Structure of General Council Culture (Culture at HQ — Rich)
Structure (Constitution and Bylaws changes — Rich)
In short, the work that’s been done is almost entirely organizational and structural, not spiritual. It remains to be seen what long-term spiritual and corporate effects this will have. But the reports on HQ organizational change are mixed. From friends who work there, “It’s more of the same.” But CIO magazine provided a report, which I blogged on, that seemed very optimistic. (See: “The Assemblies of God’s corporate roadmap for transformation.”)
Conclusion: I am an A/G boy through-and-through. I came to faith in a Baptist church, rededicated my life and was baptized in another Baptist church, but I was discipled and grew up in an Assemblies of God church. I went to an A/G bible college, studied at an A/G seminary, and still attend an A/G church where I occasionally enjoy the privilege of leading a Christian education course now and then. When asked, I leap at the chance to preach at an A/G church. I agree with A/G theology, I conform to A/G practices and I feel no need or desire to change my affinity. (That doesn’t mean that you who aren’t A/G are wrong. You might be, but it’s not because you’re not A/G! This is the way I do church. I recommend it for like-minded folks, but it is not the only way to be a solid, Christ-loving, God obeying, Bible believing, Christian.)
That doesn’t mean that my denomination — err … fellowship — doesn’t have its problems. We have problems. Every organization has problems. We’d be in Heaven otherwise.
The Decade of Harvest program was created to address some of those problems. I’m not sure it succeeded. It probably succeeded at something: perhaps more churches were planted than would have been otherwise, and that’s not bad. We need that emphasis today. Sometimes, healthy churches should spawn a daughter church rather than fund a new megachurch building program. Seriously. It should happen a lot more often.
The Vision for Transformation project was also created to address some of these problems, and it appears to be succeeding at transforming the organizational structures — but it will take considerable time before we know whether those transformations were beneficial or detrimental. And there’s no evidence yet that VFT has affected either A/G church growth or membership retention.
I’m proud of my adopted Pentecostal heritage. I’m proud of many, if not most, of my fellow Pentecostal believers. (I’m ashamed of some, too.) I was proud when Barna reported that Assemblies of God believers were more likely to be born again, to believe the Bible, to believe in Heaven and Hell, are more likely to pray, and more likely to share the gospel with unbelievers (see “Religious Beliefs Vary Widely By Denomination“). And we’re still among the fastest growing denominations in America.
We believe in evangelism, but we seem not to be doing it. We have the orthodoxy, but we lack the orthopraxy. And I think it’s because of our character, not our beliefs.
I think one of the biggest problems facing the American Evangelical church — not just the Assemblies of God — is our lack of emphasis on genuine spiritual transformation through and beyond the salvation experience. We seem to be content to get people to say the sinners’ prayer and let them warm the bench while the pastor does all the heavy lifting. Instead, we need a return to spiritual transformation and the expectation that character and behavior will noticeably improve after salvation, and continue improving. In the early-to-mid-1900s we had this expectation, and it devolved into legalism. Perhaps, in our reaction against legalism we have too quickly embraced a cheap and easy grace. There must be a balance.
As seen by the statistics above, we are not doing anybody a service by getting great evangelistic numbers if we are not following-through in discipleship and spiritual growth. If our retention rates are buoyed by “transfer growth” and babies instead of evangelistic growth we’re not growing: we’re homesteading.
(Thanks to Sean MacNair for prompting my romp through the stats. I apologize to all of you who waded through it — I didn’t expect it to take this long!)
I’ve added a page of RSS links and email newsletter links for official Assemblies of God news outlets (and a couple unofficial). This includes links to the AG-News newsletter, Dan Betzer’s “ByLine,” and several new Women’s Ministries newsletters that look good.
I’ve been wanting to do a positive Hurricane Katrina followup for weeks. I’m frustrated. I nearly could, but I can’t, just yet.
So, I give. I’ll report the lack of a report.
So, there was a big Christmas party scheduled in New Orleans this weekend. Sponsored by Hosanna Fellowship, the A/G’s national Children’s Ministry Agency (CMA), and Convoy of Hope, it was to be free, packed with at least a hundred volunteers, full of Christmassy “Bags of Blessings,” and replete with Things-in-Church-That-Require-Blow-Hards:
“We will have carnival games with free prizes and candy and giant inflatable games and slides. There will also be free refreshments each evening along with a ‘sleigh ride’ through a winter wonderland and the Hosanna Choir will be presenting a musical called ‘Hope has Come.'”
(Note to my fellow Chicagoans: “Sleigh Ride,” above, gets the funny-quotes because our good friends in Louisiana don’t get snow and a sleigh is about as useful as a wheelbarrow without wheels. I wonder what a “winter wonderland” would be in the Bayou?)
There was a good press run-up to the event but I haven’t heard anything all weekend. I’m guessing it really happened—but press releases aren’t promises.
If any of you, my Benevolent Readers, attended this event, could you report in?
Note: On 12/15 I updated this post with a comment found off the Web, and some commentary.
Eric Brian Golden had his first day in court yesterday. Golden’s confession was read to the the court by Detective LaPrentice Mayes, and other testimony was apparently provided, including some of Golden’s statements to the police outside the transcript. (Remember, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…”). Judge Lawrence Dillon is sending Golden to the grand jury, charged with murder.
New information paints a more troubling picture of the Golden family life. According to Brian Golden, marriage had already been “rocky” for two years—with the trouble apparently beginning after their move to Southside. There was drinking going on (Golden claims DeeDee had already been drinking by the time he arrived home after work at five pm on that day), and anger regarding some unidentified member of the youth group Brian had taken to the mall.
Additionally, testimony implies that while this may have not been a planned murder, it’s looking more and more like something that resulted from excessive rage (from the testimony, it sounds like her neck was broken by twisting, not throttling) and possibly an erosion of control fueled by alcohol. What seems damning—to me, admittedly from afar, in my comfortable and isolated armchair commentator’s perspective—is Golden’s immediate and elaborate extended reaction: get the church’s shovels, burn some personal effects—in another county, bury the body, hide the evidence.
Again, all of this brings me back to my original probe: How can a married couple in ministry under a senior pastor have a “rocky” marriage for two years without anybody in the church knowing about it? If Brian’s claims are true, how long could DeeDee have managed to be drinking heavily before 5 pm without somebody in the church catching on? We have at least the following risk indicators:
1) a difficult marriage 2) a fighting couple 3) possible alcohol abuse 4) possible excessive attention paid to a member of the youth group
Surely these things become evident as they escalate, don’t they?
I’m not trying to lay blame at anybody else’s feet but Brian’s for what happened here. But I guess what I’m saddened over is not just the loss of DeeDee’s life and the grief of her family and friends, but I’m disturbed that the Golden’s were suffering and nobody in the community knew it.
How is it possible to do ministry and remain so isolated? How well do I know my pastors? What would I do if I sensed a marriage was in trouble, that strong drink is clouding senses, that a minister is too attentive to someone else in the church? Would I have the courage to encourage, confront, advise? Would I inform? What would my church’s reaction be? Would it over-react? Would more damage be done in the reaction than in the silent hope that the problems will resolve themselves?
Do the problems ever “resolve themselves” without exposure or do they just move on, and change addresses?
The WTOC, channel 11, website has a video excerpt from the hearing, with some commentary. You can view it here, but I’m providing a transcript of Det. Mayes’ words, because the details are telling.
Mayes reading: “I feel like a monster for what I have done to everyone, especially my son.”
Mayes commenting: “He had took a … one of the kids from the youth ministry groups to the mall, and the argument kinda stems from that.”
Reading, again: “One of my hands was on her face, and the other one was behind her head. As we wrestled, we lost our footing, and fell. I’m not sure exactly what happened, but at some point her head twisted and it felt like her neck was broken. We landed on the floor, her on the bottom and me on top. I could tell she was badly injured. She didn’t move at all and she had the oddest look on her face, like it was frozen in shock. I reached for where we were on the floor and grabbed a pillow. I placed it over her face to hide that look.”
“I made another terrible mistake. I decided to try to hide it. I wrapped her in a quilt, from our bed. I packed some of her things. I placed her in the trunk of her car and drove out to the woods. I buried her, and spent the next couple of days trying to hide the evidence.”
“I have caused enough pain. Her friends and family deserve to know the truth.”
12/15/2005 Update: An anonymous poster over at ExChristian.Net who knew the Goldens and attended DeeDee’s funeral commented on Brian and his outrage over remarks overheard at the funeral. Among other things, he had this to say:
I knew both Brian and DeeDee and from the first moment that I met them, I knew that something was wrong. Brian was and still is an unbalanced person. What is worse is the fact that people are not willing to accept the fact that what Brian did was wrong. Some of you people want to pray for him because he made a “mistake.” Breaking someone’s neck is not “making a mistake.” It is cold blooded murder. …
I could not believe some of the comments I heard at the reception after the funeral. “Brian probably had a flashback.” “We don’t blame Brian, we love him and will pray for him.”
And so the predicted anti-Christian fallout begins.
Suspicion is perfected with hindsight. Our fears are confirmed and we “knew something was wrong.” But we said nothing. We did nothing. We did not intervene. We forget the countless times groundless fears were never confirmed, and we interpret our paranoia as prescience because, sometimes, we suspect everybody. And sometimes we are right.
I continue to maintain that there was evidence aforehand, smoke before the murderous fire. Golden’s rap sheet, at least, is evidence enough. But comments like our anonymous poster’s above do not really contribute to our understanding or our ability to triage.
The last people we need to criticize are those who love the Goldens. While my comments regarding failure to intervene might be regarded as criticism, it is not meant in that spirit. I lay no blame at the feet of the church, its pastor, or its staff. My criticism, in the end, is levied at our ecclesiastical culture that foments insular individualism in ministry with an emphasis on performance over character. My reflection on this event over the last few weeks has led me to some personal convictions: I must make certain I am in a mentoring and accountability relationship with an elder. I must proactively be more transparent, myself, so that the evidence of my sins will lead to intervention and transformation. As Bethany Pledge so wisely commented on my first post:
We need to get caught, all of us. We need our sin to find us out; we need others to keep us truthful. Getting caught may be painful, awkward, and embarrassing, but it’s our only hope. How could we have been so blind?
Christ, catch me early, for I know I too am a sinner and capable of such a fall.
I just resurrected this from my email archives from April of this year. But I thought some of you might find still find this interesting to read.
As some of you may know, I worked at HQ from 1991 to 1999 and during that entire time the HQ leadership had been working at “re-engineering” corporate structure (I think they were calling it “re-entrenchment” or some such euphemism, to avoid panicking the huddled masses), and re-evaluating our overall church culture. I know that at every General Council a report is presented evaluating the overall spiritual climate of the Fellowship, but I think there’s been a particular pointedness to the internal naval-gazing ever since Margaret Poloma came to HQ to research her book, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas.
I understand a lot of hand-wringing occurred after that book came out. Many disagreed with Poloma, but many also agreed. This, I think, is one of her main points:
« Just as other once-charismatic religious movements have followed the path of over-institutionalization and over-regulation, which in turn has discouraged much of the original charisma, the Assemblies of God could suffer the chilling effects of routinization. … Paradoxically, the institution that developed out of charisma and has been strengthened by fresh outbursts also seeks to tame and domesticate this spirit. it remains to be seen whether — and how much — charisma will rule over bureaucratic forms and regulations, or whether organizational concerns will stifle the Spirit. »
(Emphasis mine.)
—Margaret Poloma, ‘The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas,” Christian Century, (10/17/90), pp. 932-934.
Now, with Trask’s program, “Vision for Transformation,” well under way, my good friend (and former boss), Tim Strathdee, has been used by God to usher in a change that some might call miraculous–if it truly does have an impact on corporate culture.
This is a good article, and it may give some of you who’ve never been to Springfield a glimpse into the inner workings of HQ culture.
Tim Strathdee, a kind and gentle soul by any account, ruthlessly pitches 99 percent of all junk mail that hits his inbox. But in August of 2002, the CIO of the Assemblies of God (AG) U.S. headquarters in Springfield, Mo., was gearing up to prepare his budget for the coming fiscal year, an annual exercise in frustration. So when he saw a mailing about a variation of activity-based costing, he opened it. Read it. And then called the author, Dean Meyer.
Strathdee was dreading budget season because the AG process followed a typical cost-plus model, in which a department’s annual budget is based on the previous year’s amount, plus a percentage for inflation or other factors. Once approved, a cost-plus budget, which remains the predominant method of budgeting in corporate America today, functions as a checkbook to which no funds can be added.
Strathdee was evaluated primarily on whether he stayed within budget, not on how much value he provided to his customers. So when departments wanted IT’s help to launch new initiatives, he could do no more than add their requests to his growing queue and hope that he could pilfer money from somewhere else in his ever-so-fixed budget.
Before changing the company’s culture, Assemblies of God CIO Tim Strathdee was evaluated primarily on whether he stayed within budget, not on the value he delivered.
But what began as a conversation with Meyer about building a more value-driven budget for the IT department would ultimately turn into a multi-year project to transform the budgeting process of the entire AG headquarters’ operation—and its organizational structure, work-flows and even its culture. Along the way, Strathdee’s role would morph from catalyst to design team committee member to behind-the-scenes thought leader.
While the goal of supporting missionary work is unusual in some ways (for example, few corporations begin and end each meeting with a prayer), many of the organizational issues that AG leaders wrestle with are no different from those facing the most profit-driven companies publicly traded on Wall Street. Companies fret about losing customers; AG leaders were scratching their heads over a slowdown in church growth in the late ’90s. AG’s Gospel Publishing House, which produces more than 16 tons of literature a day, was facing declining revenue. Field reps met with increased competition as they marketed everything from Sunday school curricula to magazines for the Royal Rangers and Missionettes (AG’s version of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts) to more than 12,000 independent-minded, self-governing AG churches across the country. General Superintendent Thomas Trask, AG’s CEO-equivalent, worried that the relevance of AG’s products and services was diminishing. And since publishing sales cover 65 percent of the headquarters’ operating expenses, that was a problem.
A Road Map For Transformation The 1,100-person staff at AG headquarters is brimming with passionate, well-intentioned people, many of whom took pay cuts to work there. (The fact that Strathdee has been there nearly 28 years doesn’t raise an eyebrow.) Yet, a stovepipe mentality (“kingdom-building” in AG terminology) was crippling the organization’s ability to respond to the business challenges it faced. “People did not talk to each other,” says Harold Sallee, assistant to the general superintendent. “I don’t mean they didn’t trust each other. They were so passionate about what they were doing, they just went along and did it.”
Communication suffered; duplication of efforts (including multiple purchasing functions and editorial groups) was rampant. The cost-plus budgeting process, which many managers delegated to their subordinates, exacerbated the problem, since there was no mechanism to review whether existing programs were worth sustaining. Once funded, most programs were simply continued.
Frustrated by his inability to climb out of the maintenance trap and meet requests to fund new development, Strathdee called Meyer, author of the activity-based costing tract that had piqued his curiosity. But the conversation surprised him. After Strathdee described AG’s broken budgeting process, Meyer quickly (and correctly) surmised that there were deeper issues: The organization was stuck in maintenance mode, even flirting with irrelevance. He suggested that AG step back and look at these larger problems.
“People did not talk to each other. I don’t mean they didn’t trust each other. They were so passionate about what they were doing, they just went along and did it.”
—HAROLD SALLEE, ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT, Assemblies of God headquarters
The organization was, in fact, attempting to do just that. Trask had launched a Vision for Transformation (VFT) effort in 1998. After AG churches arrived at a common spiritual vision for the church, the VFT focus turned to a review of headquarters’ operations in spring 2002. The review committee “met, and frankly, we didn’t know where to start,” says Strathdee, a committee member. “So we just scheduled another meeting for later.” But after his conversation with Meyer, Strathdee introduced Trask and other top executives to Meyer’s RoadMap process. They soon decided it was the blueprint for VFT.
Meyer’s RoadMap is a diagnostic based on systems thinking (see “The Five Facets of Every Organization”). The RoadMap helps organizations document a clear vision, analyze the gaps between vision and reality, diagnose the root cause of problems and then outline a leadership plan to achieve the desired outcome. By January 2003, Meyer had signed on as a consultant, and the VFT committee had changed its name to the RoadMap Process.
A VFT design team, comprising 42 managers from all functions within the organization, began by soliciting input from employees on how headquarters operated. Just over half, about 600, participated at several gatherings that spring, which Sallee characterizes as “good venting sessions.” Breakout sessions on hot topics allowed for deeper discussions, and every single comment was documented on a Post-it note. Sallee would later invite employees to e-mail their concerns to culture@ag.org. He says the first batch of e-mails was “vindictive and hurtful,” but employees toned it down after he asked for more constructive criticism.
The design team reviewed all comments, pulling from them five particular trouble spots: partnership with customers (both internal and external), resource management, product design, operational services and people management. They mapped every Post-it note to one of the challenge areas.
“This year, for the first time, I have some venture items in my budget that are not based on the last 12 months, but on things that departments want to do.” –TIM STRATHDEE, CIO, Assemblies of God headquarters
Meyer led the design team in a root-cause analysis. One thing jumped out most of all from the Post-it notes: AG’s organizational culture was holding it back. “The people there are very, very sincere. They felt called there to run their ministries,” explains Meyer (who is not a member of the AG faith). “But since they were called, they felt it was up to them to sort out what to do as opposed to serving customers who’d tell them what they wanted.”
Ironically, the extreme cordiality of the staff (a.k.a. Midwest Polite) was part of the problem. “Sometimes being polite to one another can be detrimental,” Meyer says. “Organizations may avoid conflict to the point of not resolving issues, or will even tolerate ambiguity and go their separate ways.” So instead of a culture of teamwork, there was too much kingdom-building and too little communication, often resulting in duplication of efforts and inefficient use of resources.
In the fall of 2003, the design team decided to focus on transforming the organizational culture and structure. The goal was to revamp AG’s internal structure to match its external goals. A parallel effort to improve AG’s resource allocation methods addressed the shortcomings of the cost-plus budget process by initiating Meyer’s version of activity-based costing.
Organizing Culture And Structure For Teamwork Strathdee says the RoadMap team was nervous at first about a cultural makeover, because it’s hard to change people’s feelings and opinions. But Meyer encouraged them to focus on behaviors rather than attitudes. “When we thought of culture as behaviors, we thought, We can address this,” Strathdee recalls.
The team worked its way through a list Meyer compiled of 13 cultural principles common to effective organizations, including good interpersonal relationships, integrity, teamwork and making commitments that can be kept. They modified them to align with AG values. (Instead of respecting the devil’s advocate, for example, the AG version recognizes “those presenting contrary views.”) The resulting 42-page document, which is interspersed with supporting biblical quotations, outlines specific behaviors that are expected of all AG employees.
That kind of cumbersome document is hard to read to the end, much less inculcate into an organization. But in AG’s case, a teaching team rolled out each principle in mandatory one-hour sessions every three weeks. By November 2004, the culture change roll-out was complete, and Strathdee and his colleagues were already pointing to benefits, such as more productive meetings and better communication among managers.
Sallee says one major impact of the culture effort is that AG’s executive suite is more open to dialogue. “We’ve always had an open-door policy, but people now feel like they can really go to that open door,” he says. At the Gospel Publishing House, the new atmosphere of teamwork has made it possible to roll out new products, such as a Christian comic book line and a sports camp curriculum, in record time.
A subcommittee on organizational structure, charged with recommending an ideal structure for AG and reviewing its workflows, began meeting in early 2004. After studying Meyer’s building blocks for organizations, the committee proposed a new configuration for the top reporting relationships at AG.
Enterprise-wide structural changes have yet to be made, but Strathdee has already applied some of Meyer’s advice within the IT group. Meyer recommends coordinating around specialties instead of around products; Strathdee separated network services personnel (engineers and architects responsible for innovation) from operations center staff (charged with maintaining the system that automates the warehouse and shipping processes). “When you group people by specialty, their stress level goes down,” says Strathdee. “You can’t ask a person to innovate and make sure the network never goes down.
Budgeting For Value The concept underlying activity-based costing is straightforward: Desired outcomes and deliverables are quantified and listed on the budget. AG kicked off the effort to discard its old cost-plus budgeting mentality in January 2004, when Gospel Publishing House adopted Meyer’s Budget-by-Deliverables (BBD) approach. For the 2006 fiscal year budget, more than half of the AG headquarters will be using BBD, which builds budgets based on the cost of specific deliverables as opposed to traditional line items such as travel or training, says Clyde Hawkins, administrator of AG’s Division of the Treasury.
Strathdee already sees a difference in the budgeting process. Managers are proactively calling him about their plans for the coming year so that he can factor in new development costs as he’s preparing his budget, he says. “This year, for the first time, I actually have some venture items in my budget that are not based on the last 12 months, but based on things that departments want to do.”
A portion of everyone’s salary will ultimately be determined by deliverables, giving managers a strong incentive to look more carefully at how their employees are spending their time, Strathdee says. Working through a BBD worksheet led him to conclude that he needs 102 IT employees. (He’s now got 94.) He can see precisely which deliverables are stretching his staff; two more programmers were recently added to the current 18, for example.
After identifying deliverables and the resources needed to deliver them, Strathdee’s next step was to “sell” those allocations to departments at a budget prioritization meeting in early January. “I went into the meeting with a lot of apprehension about defending our charges [for IT services], but that isn’t how the meeting went at all,” he says. Not only did managers purchase all of the IT deliverables offered but some found out about services that IT had been providing to other departments and wanted to buy them.
“Our ultimate goal is to have a scenario where managers can have some choice in what services they are buying from us,” he says. Departments should be able to get nightly backup of sensitive corporate data on a remote desktop, for example, as long as they’re willing to pay a premium. Strathdee knows that making people accountable for the costs of the services they use will encourage thriftiness.
Sallee says the new budget process will lead to major cost savings. But that’s not the biggest benefit from AG’s organizational revamp. “The most important thing is that 10 to 12 of the key managers will sit down and develop priorities. We’ll have more meaningful, open dialogue, but it will be collective rather than individual,” Sallee says. And for an organization once known for kingdom-building, a collaborative approach is something of a miracle. Senior Editor Alice Dragoon can be reached at adragoon@cio.com.
I struggle whether to blog on tragic news events with real victims still suffering, and about which I can do nothing. I am not a journalist, the story is not local, and I don’t want to prey off of others’ sensational misfortune just to garner a minor increase in blog traffic. But, being a Pentecostal (Assemblies of God) blogger, I do feel that when something newsworthy happens in our niche of culture, it’s worth at least knowing about if only for reflection and with a view toward “big picture” issues.
This should go without saying, but I will say it anyhow: please pray for the church and families involved in what I am about to describe. My commentary and reaction follow my summary.
Around 10-10:30 on Thursday, November 17, 2005, Southside Assemblies of God youth pastor, Eric Brian Golden, fought with his sweetheart bride, Deadra “DeeDee” Marie Golden. Their Savannah, Georgia, neighbors were not alarmed. Police were not called. Michael, their 15-year-old son, slept soundly through the battle. But before dawn DeeDee would lay at the bottom of a shallow grave outside Fort Stewart, Georgia with a broken neck. She had been strangled to death.
Eric Brian Golden was born in Alabama on a slow news day: Saturday, December 13, 1969. Fast forward 18 years, to 1987. Golden and his high-school sweetheart, DeeDee, graduate high school. They marry, and he joins the Army. She becomes the dutiful army wife, shuttling from base to base, assignment to assignment. When Golden finally left the Army he’d experienced Desert Storm and attained the rank of sergeant. Though the news reports aren’t clear whether Golden was a “buck” sergeant or had advanced to any of the higher NCO ranks (such as staff sergeant, sergeant first class, master sergeant, first sergeant, or beyond), it seems unlikely or the rank would’ve been mentioned. Regardless, Golden had sufficiently distinguished himself to the Army’s satisfaction that he was delegated authority as a sergeant Thus, he probably lead a fireteam of at least 3-4 other men. (Having no military experience, this is what I concluded after some research. Please correct me if my conclusions are faulty.)
It’s not clear why Golden left the Army. His mother says he left after Desert Storm, which implies he left sometime after early 1991 (the ground campaign—Operation Desert Sabre—didn’t begin until February 24, 1991; and troops began withdrawing on March 10, 1991—Operation Desert Farewell). The church’s website says, Golden and his wife were “saved at Southside in 1989.” In 1990 Michael was born, and then “[t]hey were called into ministry and attended Southeastern College of the A/G from 1992 to 1996.” So, assuming Golden left the Army after five years of service, sometime after March or April of 1991, he must have very quickly enrolled in college.
(Normally I wouldn’t belabor a minor detail like this, but I suspect the time-line will probably come up in the trial. If Eric indeed served in the Gulf War, he was posted to Iraq after his conversion—after Michael’s birth—and then immediately after his discharge went straight to college. I suspect there will be a claim of PTSD: post-traumatic stress disorder.
“Judge and jury, as you have heard from my expert witness, the psyche of a young, unformed man—this new father torn from his wife and baby, this new convert to faith—was incalculably shattered by the horrors of desert battle!” You can bet the defense will play that tune.)
So, both Eric and DeeDee attended Southeastern University for the next four years, while raising a toddler. A year after graduation, on January of 1997, Golden obtained his credentials; DeeDee, apparently, did not.
Over the next six years, Golden served at three churches: he served as an associate pastor at a new church plant, and as a youth pastor at two other churches. Finally, in the Spring of 2003, the Goldens returned to Southside Assembly of God where Eric joined the staff as youth pastor and director of Halogen Youth Ministries. In addition to his pastoral duties, Golden was also the church’s webmaster—explaining why the church website has gone largely unmodified since DeeDee’s murder, except for a brief statement.
Another year goes by.
In June 2004, Eric offered an undercover female detective $20 for oral sex. He was arrested for pandering. Apparently, the church never found out.
Another year goes by.
Eric strangles DeeDee in a late-night argument, leaving her with a broken neck and a lifeless body. He drives 13 miles west, carries her body half a mile into the forest, and digs a shallow grave.
After returning home, Golden must have wrestled with demons the whole weekend. One wonders, what did he tell Michael, his 15-year old son? How did he continue the deception through the whole day Friday, then Saturday? Did he go to church on Sunday? How did he act during worship? What did he say to those who asked about DeeDee? What did he say to Michael on Sunday morning?
Apparently, it was too much. He confessed to his brother-in-law, wrote a full letter of confession, and arrived at the Chatham County Sheriff’s Office just before 1 pm. While he was on the way, Golden’s brother-in-law called the police to prepare them for Golden’s arrival. Once there, officers took him into custody, and he described where to look for DeeDee’s body. After searching several locations, she was finally found at 9:30 that night, buried in a field scattered with boars’ carcasses and bones.
For now, Eric is being held without bond until his court date on December 8. Michael is staying with his aunt. Neighbors, as usual, are stunned, never suspecting anything was wrong in the Golden house: “He seemed like a good man.”
And on Saturday, November 26, DeeDee Golden returned to the earth for a second time, but now with less haste, more love, and greater honor, being laid to rest in Kingston, Georgia, where her parents live.
My Questions
I began researching this post when the news broke on Thanksgiving week. My first reaction was shock, then sorrow for their son, Michael, and sorrow for the Southside Assembly. I prayed. But I can’t get Michael’s pictures out of my head: he’s in several photos at the youth group’s photo archive on Yahoo, and he’s always smiling, seeming to enjoy himself, having a good time. How will this effect him? What terrible scars will he bear for the rest of his life? What unimaginable grief is he enduring right now? His mother’s life destroyed, his father’s life forfeit. What unnecessary shame is he suffering? How are his friends and fellow youth group members treating him? With compassion and steadfast friendship, I hope.
Then I thought of DeeDee’s parents, and their grief. She was still such a young woman, so full of promise, so apparently vivacious. Judging by the many photos with her and the youth group, there was always another young girl close by, arms entwined, big smiles illuminating faces, she seemed loved. Not only are her parents and family missing her, I’m sure the youth group is grieving too. Not to mention reeling from the anger, betrayal, and shock that their mentor and pastor is now a confessed murderer.
Then I considered the church family, their shock and grief, their shame in being paraded before the mainstream news media for being host to a man who would kill with bare-handed fury. They’ll wonder what they missed, they’ll second-guess their wisdom and hiring decisions, they’ll wonder how to counsel the bereaved when the grieving may well be struggling with anger and not having any trust for authoritarian ministry right now. I thought about the pastor, himself, Rev. Jack. C. Moon, who must have personally hired Golden, entrusting him with the care and feeding of his thriving youth group. What grief is he experiencing? Not only has he lost a beloved member of his church family, a protege under his wings is incarcerated and admittedly guilty. He’ll be second-guessing most of all: “Where did I go wrong? What didn’t I see? What warning signs did I miss or ignore? How could I have prevented this tragedy?”
And all of them will ask God, “Why?” Why does evil exist? Why take the innocent and leave the wrongdoer? Why let a man with fatal flaws serve in ministry without nudging somebody to look more closely? To ask the right questions?
Prayers must be sent up.
I discovered a devotional on the SSAG website, titled, How Do You Eat Fruit?, written by Eric Brian Golden.
It’s notable neither for its content nor creativity. But Golden’s language and choice of teaching metaphor have a chilling undercurrent of violence. This metaphor easily consumes a third of the devotional, and it seems written with greater focus than the entire rest of the piece. I’ll post the whole thing here for you to decide. But when I read it, I felt chills every time I read the word “slice” and “overkill.” (Emphasis mine.)
I like to eat fruit. Peaches, apples, plums and pears all have some similarities. When I eat one of them, I take a similar approach. I like to eat fruit with a knife. A good, sharp knife that can glide through the fleshy fruit. I start by slicing off a piece and taking a bite. Then, slice by slice I eat what can be cut off the pit or core. Occasionally I will slice off a piece and notice that it is bruised or maybe even rotten. I don’t eat that piece. I throw the bad slice away and keep eating the good portions of the fruit. Eventually, I have to get my teeth in there and eat what can’t be sliced off. I am left with a pit or core full of seeds. This pit, or core, like the bad sections I sliced off, is not edible and gets thrown away.
I would never throw away a piece of fruit because it had a single bruise or because it contained a pit. That would be a waste and a bit of an overkill. Every piece of fruit has a pit or core and all of us realize that fact when we pick it up. Nonetheless we do pick up the fruit and we do enjoy the sweet portion in spite of the pit or core.
I think we can use this same approach towards many things to include the recent blockbuster “The Passion of the Christ,” by Mel Gibson. Having seen the movie, I can say without reservation that there is a lot of good material, lessons, and visual pictures that will benefit the Christian Church in the times w e are in. Having said that, I think I must also admit that there were some aspects of the film that weren’t very Biblically accurate. So as with any piece of fruit, there is good and bad. The good in this case far outweighs the bad, but not everything can be embraced as 100% Scripture.
Mel has said that this movie consisted of his interpretation of the Biblical record, historical research, and church tradition. He confessed that he took poetic license with much of the content while still trying to remain true to the story. So, we can not divorce Mel Gibson from his creation and call it 100% “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts.” This is true of any Bible translation or sermon. We are all imperfect vessels in the Master’s hand, and we all do the best we can.
What then are we left to do? Take the good, focus on it, learn what we can, digest it so to speak. Throw the bad out and don’t dwell on it. It is what it is. It has good and bad. Let God use the good to work in your life and those you come in contact with.
When I went home after watching the movie I picked up my Bible and read all four accounts of the passion week. I compared each account with the movie and with the other three Gospels. I am a student of the Word and the movie sparked my curiosity. Think of what it will do to a non-Christian! This is going to make the un-saved thirsty for the milk and hungry for the meat of God’s Word. Are you ready to help quench that thirst and satisfy that hunger? Do you know the story well enough to explain it to a non-believer? It’s time to sharpen your Sword, the Sword of God’s Word, and get ready to share the fruit of that Word with those who are hungry for it.
—Pastor Brian
And, of course, I wonder about Eric Brian Golden. Where was his fatal flaw? Did he know it was within him? Did he struggle to contain his anger? Was he a crucible of molten violence waiting to be poured out? Did he express it in other, more private ways? Did DeeDee bear marks of abuse? Does Michael? Is Golden psychologically or neurologically compromised? I wonder, did the Desert War have a deleterious effect on him? Was he damaged beyond repair? Or was he already hungry for violence, and is that why he was drawn to the military?
And I wondered some more. There were flaws, cracks were already beginning to appear. Four different ministry positions in six years. For most adults in their 30s, this is not a good sign. But, then, Golden was a youth pastor: a position notoriously underpaid, stressful, and eager for new fish. Many youth pastors don’t last two years in any one position. So maybe there’s nothing there. But what about his military superiors? They made him an officer. How well did he lead? Did the soldiers in his unit suspect anything? What were his fitness reports like?
I also wonder, why was Golden paying for sex? Stupid question, I suppose. He paid for it because he wanted it and didn’t have the integrity to seek help. But, more to the point: was Golden already a “regular?” I suspect his arrest could not have been his first foray into illegal extramarital sex. And I suspect it was not his last. If it had been, he would have confessed to his wife and to his church, and he would’ve at the very least been placed on leave with his district for rehabilitation, required to undergo therapy/counseling, and strict accountability. This didn’t happen, so I next wonder whether his wife found out, finally, what was going on. Was this what they were fighting over? I suspect, by the time a minister with a lot to lose starts paying for oral sex on the street, he’s already well down the path of pornography addiction, stripper bars, and Internet porn and cybersex dalliances. Sin will out. It leaves its muddy footprints behind. And when it doesn’t get out, it escalates until it does.
Media Questions
For the past week or two there have been no new news stories on this event. DeeDee’s death is already fading from public thought, and the rapidly researched stories uncovered little that wasn’t readily accessible with a couple phone calls. Here’s what I wish the real journalists had done:
Call Golden’s former church postings, find out why he left. Sure, they won’t reveal much for fear of media exposure and they’ll probably be pulled into the courtroom drama anyhow, but ask. If you don’t know where he worked, pull his credit history, figure it out. Call the district office, ask them for comment. Somebody who knew him will be willing to talk, if only to talk describe how great a person DeeDee was. Find that person
Same goes for Golden’s college days. Find out how he performed as a student, how DeeDee fared as his husband, how cute Michael was as a toddler. Sure, again, the school won’t want to talk, but it shouldn’t be too hard to take a trip over to Classmates.com, which lists 272 of Golden’s classmates during his four years in college, and three professors. Set up a Classmates account, spend an hour sending a query to the most likely candidates (those graduating with Golden), and wait for a reply.
Contact the Lakeland, Florida, police department and find out if they were called to any domestic disturbance reports at the Golden’s residence. Find out if Golden was arrested in Florida for pandering there. Find out if he was a model citizen without a single speeding ticket.
Contact his and DeeDee’s Alabama high school. Talk to a teacher, talk to a classmate, talk to a neighbor.
Contact the Army. File a Freedom of Information Act form with the FBI. Find out if Golden was discharged honorably? Did he comport himself well as a soldier and representative of America? Was he consorting with unsavory women even then, outside of his wife’s watchful eye?
And that’s just off the top of my head.
The Big Picture
Now, I’m not asking these questions out of some simple thirst for gossipy tidbits about a fallen brother and murdered sister. The bigger questions I really want answers to is how could a young man like this slip through a Bible College’s close-knit community without raising flags? How could he pass muster in the military without raising eyebrows? How could he slip into ministerial ranks, gain credentials, and be ordained with the laying on of hands without anybody delving into what really makes him tick? Golden was not some post middle-aged, lapsed, cynical minister feeding insecurities with sex. He was a young man already deep into a sexual addiction cycle with rage issues.
The Big Problem
There’s a problem with our churches sending folks into ministry too lightly, perhaps. A Bible College degree does not earn you a place in a pulpit, though many think it should. But I do not know of a single peer of mine from my bible college days who was denied credentials when they applied. Sure, there may have been some, but for the most part, my experience has been that if you show up with an A/G bible college degree in hand, if you know the right answers, and if you have a pastor backing you, you’re in.
The problem was articulated succinctly by poster, “Alpha Female,” on the Savannah Now message board forum linked to this news item. She said: “The worst people worm into leadership positions with frightening frequently.”
The Solution?
But there’s one area in A/G ministry where that is simply not the case. The applicants are carefully screened over a period of several months. Applicants must provide multiple references, both friends, family, and professional. Each reference is contacted and asked several probing questions, and confidentiality is assured. Each applicant is interviewed several times, at home and in the office. And if the applicant has a spouse and children, they are interviewed both together and individually by professionals trained to spelunk the caves of applicant’s souls. Each phone call and interview is transcribed (I used to transcribe them), folders are filed, references are followed up again with phone calls for clarification. Criminal backgrounds are checked. Yet more difficult questions are asked. Questions like: “How is your sex life with your spouse?” And “How frequently do you have sex?” And “Have you ever had sex with anyone other than your spouse?” Applicants and their family members fill out a battery of psychological tests. The tests are professionally administered, graded, and evaluated. The tests lead to more questions, and more clarifications. And all of it leads up to a recommendation to the committee that makes a final decision. And even then, the questions don’t end. The committee members get their shot too: “How do you know you are called to ministry?” And, “Describe your calling, and tell us when you first sensed you had a call.” And, “How have your gifts for ministry been confirmed?” And, “If we turned you down, what would you do?”
In this one area, the Assemblies of God goes to Herculean ends to accept only the healthiest, most stable, most obviously called and gifted applicants with clear integrity, and gifted for ministry. They must have a history, they must be transparent, and they must be unflinching in their willingness to submit to examination for suitability to the task.
I am talking about the Assemblies of God World Missions sending agency (formerly, the Assemblies of God Department of Foreign Missions).
The Conclusion
I am not proposing that this extensive a battery of tests and examinations be undertaken for every ministerial applicant for ministry–the cost and delay would probably be too prohibitive. And the process itself is no guarantee. Many missionaries have cracked under the pressure in the field. Families have been ruined, missionaries have fallen, and crimes have been committed. I used to marvel at the process (I used to work in the DFM Word Processing department where I transcribed many of these confidential interviews and recommendations) because it seemed to me that while it may weed out the chaff, it probably discarded good candidates while allowing true psychopaths to run the gauntlet unscathed. But … but … I’ve also noticed that the Assemblies of God missionary teams are the most effective in the world. They are passionate, driven, and people of character. On the field, our missionaries are the envy of other sending agencies. I have to think that the grueling selection process (and subsequent, additional training and mentoring) is at least a part of that success.
Maybe Golden just “snapped,” to his and everybody else’s deep and shocked regret. Maybe what I suspect are warning signs are not the tip of the iceberg, but are, instead, the precipitating events that started this whole tragedy in motion. Maybe it’s impossible to know these things, and maybe it’s impossible to fix anything.
Maybe nothing’s broken at all. But I suspect otherwise. I love the Assemblies of God, I have no intention of changing. But stories like this leave me wondering if maybe we’re not minding the store like we ought to be. The self-employed pastor, autonomous church, congregational model of church ministry has much to recommend it.
But there is this, too: Easy credentials shatter lives.
11.7%: Americans projected to be in church by 2050
4,600: New churches from 1990–2000
38,802: How many new churches there should have been in order to keep pace with American population.
That America is becoming an increasingly secular nation is no surprise. That traditional church style seems increasingly irrelevant in the “naughties” and that church numbers are in decline—again—no surprise.
So, taking an unflinching look at the numbers (there was more cited), Travis concludes:
“In my mind, those statistics absolutely prove that we MUST move every single priority to the side burner. Establishing new churches and transitioning declining churches needs to be our primary focus. The question is how. How do we re-ignite passion for the Great Commission among our churches, both locally and denominationally?” (Emphasis is Travis’.)
So far, the comments, especially from Mike Dyer, indicate that church organizational structures are lacking, the clergy are worldly, and innovation is rejected. In short, the church is broken. Mike writes:
“The church needs to become self-aware and realize that the church is a failure. It is not flawed. It doesn’t need a tune-up. It is broken. It takes courage to face the fact we are not successful Christians going to successful churches with a successful clergy. We have failed our young children, our teenagers, our divorced members, and our friends. The clergy has failed in leadership and the laity has failed as church members. Christians need to be honest and discuss our failures, analyze our failures and document our failures. The Church does not need to be more self-confidant, they need to become losers.”
It’s the usual Emergent critique: reinvent the church. (See my post, “It’s okay … I’m Emergent. I’m here to help.”) Travis, to his credit asserts that the church is victorious, but he still wonders what’s wrong.
I respectfully submit that both Travis and Mike are looking in the wrong direction. Of course, my viewpoint is just as subjective—and just as likely wrong—but I think that it’s neither a matter of re-prioritizing and “re-igniting passion for the Great Commission,” nor is it a matter of declaring the church DOA, and moving on.
Of the two strategies, perhaps Travis’ is closer to what I see as the most fruitful direction. But rather than ask, “how do we reignite passion for the Great Commission?” I believe the question should be: “Have I met Christ and been transformed?” And, “How do we introduce others to Christ?”
Christ always had a galvanizing, polarizing effect on those he met. When you met Christ, you either lashed out, or followed him. I don’t think there was much of a middle road, not when I read the Gospels. Christ was a catalyst. And I submit that if we have people in our pews who do not know Christ, if we have Sunday School teachers and preachers in our pulpits who are not transformed, if we are not longing to see Christ in Heaven, perhaps we have never truly met Christ?
And even for those who have met Christ, and responded, why are they not continuing in their transformation? Have they abandoned their first love?
I suspect the key problem here is not church structures, forms, or worldliness, per se. The problem is not the Great Commission. The problem is the Great Commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.” Church growth is essentially a question of evangelism. And evangelism is essentially a reflection of our love for God and fellow man. Where there is no evangelism, love is the key missing ingredient.
We who claim to be Christians: Are we keeping this commandment? Are we learning to love the Lord with everything we have? Are we passionate about bringing others to Christ? Are we truly being transformed by the renewing of our minds? If not, maybe we haven’t truly encountered Christ yet. This is what the church needs, what the pulpits need, what our Sunday School teachers need. It’s what I need: Genuine, life-changing, personal encounters with Christ.
And the way that happens is first through you and me. As I become transformed (Romans 12) and as I grow to have the mind of Christ (see Philippians 2) I will reflect Christ to those around me. Through me and the love I have for others, those around me will encounter Christ and come to their own saving faith (or rejection). As I mentor and disciple others, they will, in turn, reflect Christ to the world around them, and they, too, will begin to love, God, love others, evangelize, mentor, and disciple.
As a gauge of your incarnational, transformational life, consider this: are you mentoring somebody? Are you being mentored? Are you meditating on the Word, as well as studying and memorizing it? Are you the master of your thought-life, or are they your master (Philippians 4)? (These questions are for me, too.)
The church is not broken. It’s just small, and shrouded by multitudes who have yet to meet Christ to follow him. They’re following a pastor, a movement, a doctrine—but they’re not following Christ.
Emergent philosophies and ideas, alone, won’t produce this church. Traditional philosophies and techniques won’t either. This is all about being genuine disciples first. The doing comes out of that.
Delilah Boyd, blogging from “A Scrivener’s Lament,” compares Olson’s numbers to other survey reports, and concludes that Christians are big-fat liars.
Riffing off the Scrivener, Bucky at the Brown Bag Blog wonders, “Do Guilt-ridden Liars Outnumber Church-goers?” He concludes that even if the survey respondents and the entire Church crowd are liars, it’s Olson who’s not to be trusted: “Mr Olson, I have to suspect, is being driven by an agenda and is therefore not to be fully trusted.” Ted Olson, the man himself, responds.
Update: Tim Challies wrote an interesting thought-piece, asking, “Evangelism — The Chief End of Man?” It’s worth reading, in light of the discussion here. Tim starts with the presupposition of the Westminister Shorter Catechism which states that the chief end of man (mankind’s end-purpose for existence) is “to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” If that is true, and I believe it is, it has bearing on whether our primary emphasis should be evangelism or loving and knowing God. This only affirms my position that loving God with all our heart, mind, strength, body, and soul should have the highest priority and that the transformation resulting from such a divine encounter will naturally result in loving our neighbors as a result, and evangelism ensues as a byproduct of that kind of love. Not only is outward love a natural byproduct of transformation, but the transformation makes possible intentional love–which involves sharing the Good News of the Kingdom that is here, now.
J. Lee Grady, over at Charisma magazine, has issued a call for clearheadedness among the charis-manics in his editorial, “It’s Getting Really Weird Out There.” The article cites strange goings-on at various Charismatic churches, and some classical Pentecostal churches.
This is where I cite my earlier post, “The Problem with Pentecostal Distinctives,” to reinforce his point. This is what happens when any group elevates experience and subjectivity above a commitment to sound biblical hermeneutics. This is why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 12-14, addressing bad theology based on experience, grounding the Corinthians instead in the greatest commandment: love.
More than anything, we need to adhere to first principles: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. While none of us, not one, can claim to keep these commandments perfectly, it’s the goal we aim for.
If I truly love God to any degree, I will be devoted to his Word and obedience to his commands. To the degree that I love God, I will desire to know him, to seek his mind on all matters, to obey the clear reading of Scripture. When I do that, I find myself returning to the Word over, and over; I’ll read devotionally, meditate on what he has to say, memorize it, study it. (Confession: writing this is convicting me.)
The most immediate means of knowing and loving God we have is bound between leather, and it’s usually gathering dust on the table by the door—where it’s easy to grab on our way to church. Too many of us, in the pew and in the pulpit, don’t bother to read it, much less study it the way it must be studied to truly apprehend it and live by it.
What happens when we fail to ground our practice (orthopraxy) on a clear understanding of scripture (orthodoxy)? We get this:
A pastor reveals a “new revelation,” that the Bible says church leaders can have more than one wife.
“At one charismatic megachurch, staff pastors successfully convinced all their wives and female staff members to get breast implants.”
A church in California (known for its revival meetings and prophetic ministry) recently imploded after members learned that several men in the church had been having homosexual affairs with the pastor, who was married.”
“A leader with an international following (who wears the label of “apostle”) recently informed his leaders that men of God who reach his level of anointing are allowed to have more than one sexual partner. Then his own son offered his wife to his father out of a sense of spiritual obligation.”
“In 2000 Charisma reported that charismatic preacher Clarence McClendon had divorced his wife of 16 years, Tammera McClendon, and married another woman after only seven days. The ceremony was performed by Bishop Earl Paulk, founder of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Atlanta. Several prominent ministers attended the wedding, lending their endorsement to McClendon’s actions. Tammera McClendon later informed Charisma that Clarence had told her while they were married that God had already shown him the woman who would replace her as his wife.”
(From the Strang message board…) “[A]t Water of Life in Plano, TX. Doyle Davidson, says God ‘took Patty’ (his first wife) ‘out of my life in 1987’ even though they lived together until her death two or three years ago. In 1987, Davidson says ‘God gave him a new wife’ who was the wife of one of his staff members. Davidson fired the staff member a year or so ago when he went to their house and caused a major disturbance. Davidson was arrested and fined for public intoxication. Of course he says it was all a lie. [This] lady … has gone under cover with her husband and has said she committed adultery with Davidson and he tells her and his parishioners that ‘they did not committ adultery because “what God has joined together, man can not do away with.”’”
Is any of this truly new? No, junk like this has gone on throughout all of recorded religious history: any time the People of the Book abandon the Word to chase after subjectively inspired interpretations or extra-biblical revelations, things go massively off-track. (Just read about Aimee Semple McPherson.) I don’t lay the blame at the foot of either Charismatics or Pentecostals. I lay the blame at the foot of people who refuse to train their minds according to Scripture. I lay the blame at the foot of people who are not loving God with their mind, and letting their thinking be truly transformed.
Elsewhere on the pneumatic blogosphere, right now, there is a debate going on between cessationists and Charismatics/Pentecostals about whether or not the Baptism of the Spirit is for today, or whether it ceased with the creation of the canon. I haven’t gotten involved, because it’s not a pressing issue for me: I think the scriptures are clear, and I don’t have anything pressing to add. But what I’ve noticed about the discussion is that cessationists routinely cite examples like the above to illustrate why Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrine is essentially unbiblical.
So, we try to re-frame the debate based on what the Scriptures say, and these examples keep coming back to haunt our discussions. We try to move the dialog away from ad hominem attacks, and these all-too animated straw men who don’t represent me, my friends, or the best Pentecostal teachers keep getting thrown into the fray. It’s disgusting and disheartening. Meanwhile, too much of the discussion lacks the hallmark of love.
And the Assemblies of God is not immune. There’s plenty of charis-manic heresy and bad doctrine floating around within our ranks. Much of it is in the pews, but there’s still some coming out of pulpits.
May God save us from ourselves.
In the blogosphere:
Brad Boydston agrees: “Any movement which sees emotional intense experience as defining and normative is by nature subject to emotional manipulation.”
Stacy L. Harp (I think) at WritingRight calls for more judgment, and chimes in with her own judgment: “most Christians I get flak from are ignorant of Scripture, and are usually Pentecostal types…nothing personal against Pentecostals, but that has been my experience”
Fr. Daniel, at Misere Mei gives three cheers for Grady, and cautions pastors: “No amount of counseling and restoration processes can restore the trust of those who have been violated by reprobates in the pulpit.”
Colin McGahey at The Resurgence is still stuck on the remnants of the Word of Faith movement: “There is no correlation in the gospel preached in these prosperity churches to the gospel preached in the persecuted churches around the world.”
Bad exegesis is why Totem to Temple left the movement: “After seeing ‘most everything’ in the Pentecostal / Charismatic / Word of Faith / Third Wave camps and their value of the esoteric and experiences of personal revelation over the exegesis, evangelism, and the ecclesiastics of the Word and Spirit, I had to leave years ago.”
Holly Scroggins attends Wood River Assembly of God in Wood River, Illinois. Last June, she was driving a little VW Beetle with her 4– and 9–year old sons in the back of the car, when Timothy Barnhart attempted to pass in his SUV, he crashed into her car and killed both boys. Holly survived, but was was severely injured with shattered bones in her thigh, kneecap, ankle and foot. Her liver was damaged and she needed two blood transfusions to survive. She spent three months in the hospital while friends and coworkers raised money for the expense.
Barnhart also survived, but is still in recovery. Charges are pending.
I usually read newspaper accounts of people’s praise to God for taking them through tragedy prepared to wince. So often, people praise God for their safety at other people’s expense. Their praise seems insensitive, unbalanced, unaware that bad things simply happen to good people because we live in a fallen, unjust world.
But Holly has been well-discipled. I love her comments.
She returned to work recently, and calls her recovery, “truly an act of God.” She doesn’t say God miraculously healed her or protected her–he didn’t, apparently. But giving credit to both God and her caregivers, she says her medical care was top notch. God provided. She doesn’t say God spared her for some reason, she simply and quietly attributes her recovery to God’s grace and leaves it at that. She hasn’t forgotten her sons or the tragedy: she confesses to continued grief, but, “she insists she and her husband are doing well, and she said she has forgiven Barnhart, who still has not been charged in the accident.”
About the driver of the SUV, Barnhart, Holly says:
“People are so quick to justify us and condemn him. I know he didn’t set out that day to kill my children…. I pray this changes him. The way he’s lived his life up until now, from what I’ve been told, was not good.”
She’s forgiven the man who killed her two boys. That’s almost impossible for me to imagine now, with children of my own. But her forgiveness is amazingly balanced with the reality of consequences: Holly’s is not a blind, saccharine forgiveness. When asked about the pending charges against Barnhart, Holly refuses to dwell on it:
“If I do, it controls me. My boys are gone either way. … That’s not anything I’m in control of, and worrying about it doesn’t do any good. He has to answer for his actions, of course. Even though he made bad choices, he still is human. … I want him to change, and I pray this changes him. I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.”
How refreshing to see a balanced sense of forgiveness, justice, and realism in a survivor of tragedy. I’m not sure I’d be able to say what Holly has said, and if I said it, I’m not sure I’d mean it. Holly is clearly the example of a spiritually transformed person for whom all adversity produces hope, and who finds peace and joy in even the darkest adversity.
This amazes me. I grieve for Holly and her husband—and I’m a stranger hundreds of miles away. And I admire them. I pray to God I learn from her without walking in her shoes.
My colleague, Ted Olsen over at CT’s Weblog, posted terse and apt commentary on the latest Pat Robertson gaffe. When things don’t go God’s Robertson’s way, he gets grumpy.
Is he on medication? If not, he should be. (Robertson, that is. Not Olsen.) He definitely should not have a public forum.
Here’s the latest from Pat Robertson, in reaction to the Dover school board elections and the Intelligent Design brouhaha:
“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.”
Sometimes my fellow Christians embarrass me. Worse, too often my fellow Pentecostals embarrass me. These comments from Robertson are shameful, vindictive, and just plain mean. They do not reflect the heart of God. Robertson does not speak for God, and his words are not supported by a clear reading of Scripture. Dover, PA, is not Sodom and Gamorrah.
I don’t know what’s up with Robertson. Is he bitter over failing in his bid for presidency? Is he simply aging and doddering at the spry age of 75? Is he no longer fully responsible for his comments? Is he in his right mind?
I don’t know. All I know is that these comments, and the recent flap over his call for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, tell me it’s time for Robertson to fade from the public eye.
As for the Intelligent Design debate, I think evolution should still be taught: it is the lingua franca of current science, and any Christian students who wish to enter the scientific marketplace of ideas need to master the theory—even if it is a theory without a solid buttress of facts. At the same time, students studying science should know the arguments for and against the theory. I think Intelligent Design ought to be taught—but maybe not as science curriculum, but as part of a course on scientific rhetoric, or scientific philosophy. Or maybe even debate.
I believe there is solid science behind ID, I just don’t think we stand a chance of winning this debate at the grassroots level. The change must come over time as the evidence for an intelligent designer and irreducible complexity pile up.
Update: Props to Glen Davis for pointing out that Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, has posted an irenic post on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution that points out what the flaws in the debate from one standing on the sidelines. He says both sides of the debate have flaws, and neither side directly addresses the strongest arguments of their opponents. It’s not a debate, nor a dialog, but two arguments attacking strawmen. He’s generally leaning toward evolutionary theories, but his conclusion is priceless. The post is brilliant, and worth the read, but here’s the money graf: “I’d be surprised if 90%+ of scientists are wrong about the evidence for Darwinism. But if you think it’s impossible, you’ve lived a sheltered life.” See: “Intelligent Design, Part 1.”
Okay, after laboriously setting up a feed reader for myself so I can finally stay on top of all the feeds referenced in my PneumaBlogs and CTI-Blogs pages, I was also able to set up a couple pages here on BlogRodent to help you (and me) easily see what the latest posts are from these little slices of the blogosphere.
So, for your delectation, enjoyment, and frivolous wasting of time, I present to you:
(Note, if you’re a PneumaBlogger or a CTI-Blogger and your posts are not showing up on this page, it’s probably because your feed is broken, or it was impossible to find it. Contact me if you want to get added.)
Christianity Today just published an interview with Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky. It’s a concise and interesting interview, well worth the read. It comes on the heels of his latest book: The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism. According to editor Mark Galli, in this book, Witherington “makes a positive argument for how biblical interpretation should be done in an increasingly postmodern setting.”
Here’s the link to the article:
The Problem with Evangelical Theologies Ben Witherington III thinks there is something fundamentally weak about each branch of the movement. Interview by Mark Galli | posted 11/09/2005 09:00 a.m.
Here’s an excerpt that is clearly relevant for Pentecostals:
So, what is the problem with evangelical theology?
It has exegetical weaknesses that are not recognized or owned up to by the various evangelical Protestant strains of theology. That’s what it boils down to.
You write that in our distinctives, we are least faithful to the Word. What do you mean?
The issue is not really with Christology, the Trinity, the virginal conception, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or the Bible as the Word of God. The issues I’m concerned about are the distinctives of Calvinist, Arminian, dispensational, or Pentecostal theology. When they try to go some particular direction that’s specific to their theological system, that’s precisely the point in their argument at which they are exegetically weakest.
The Calvinist system links the ideas of predestination, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Each of those has its own exegetical weaknesses, especially perseverance of the saints.
But the same can be said about the distinctives of Arminian theology, especially when you start talking about having an experience of perfection in this lifetime. There are problems matching that up with what the New Testament says about perfection.
The same can be said about Pentecostal theology, with its teaching about a second, definitive work of grace, and about dispensationalism, with its teaching on pre-tribulation or mid-tribulation rapture. I show in my book that all of these evangelical theological systems are exegetically vulnerable precisely in their distinctives.
Classical Pentecostals need to think about this. One things we talk about the most in our circle is “the Pentecostal distinctive,” which is typically cited as the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues as the initial, physical evidence.” This is the Pentecostal distinctive above all others.
However, one of the “tags” we’ve long been known by, or called ourselves by at the least, has been “Full Gospel,” as a way of saying, we’re completely dependent on the Bible as God’s revealed will and plan.
In fact, at our movement’s inception, at Parham’s prompting of several adult students, the Baptism of the Spirit was experienced as a result of an intensive study of Scripture. Scripture came first, experience and doctrine came out of that.
Somewhere, we’ve lost our way.
As long as a single doctrine holds sway in our Fellowship as the single Pentecostal distinctive, we cannot be fully reliant on the Scriptures as our guide for faith, doctrine, and practice. We need to maintain our true distinctive, and that is: sola scriptura.
There’s a rash of fishy news stories on Google lately about a minor skirmish between a 300-member Assembly of God church and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA—not to be confused with “People for the Eating of Tasty Animals”).
The score: PETA 1, People 0, Comet Goldfish -12.
Look, it’s common knowledge that youth pastors have crazy ideas and are compelled to pull stunts. Even when it’s accidental, it’s still a big hit (see my post about young Blake Bergstrom, the “tent pitching” youth pastor—that post more than doubled the traffic to this lonely blog!). The crazier the idea and the more outrageous the stunt, the more hopped-up the kids get. And it’s a fundamental truth that hopped-up chirren is exactly what Jesus needs more of.
So, young, unsuspecting, youth pastor, Anthony Martin, over at the First Assembly of God church in Florence, Alabama, got to thinking about the kids under his charge. (Yes, we’re already courting disaster!)
I can imagine the thought-bubbles went something like this:
“I have all these great, really lazy spiritual kids in my youth group, but the youth group isn’t growing they’re not spending any time witnessing or evangelizing their friends. What to do, what to do?
Wait, what’re they doing instead? They’re staying at home, fattening themselves on cola while watching Reality TV. That’s what they’re doing. Let’s see, how can I use that to wake them up promote spiritual growth? How about MTV’s “Real World” … uh … “Christ’s Real World!” No, that’s lame. Survivor? How about “Be More than a Survivor in Christ!” No … that won’t help them spread the Word. “Amazing Race?” No, same problem.
Wait a minute, isn’t that guy from “NewsRadio” hosting a reality show now? Yeah, “Fear Factor!”
That’s it! I can make that work. They’re afraid of witnessing, that’s all that’s holding them back! Fear! Let’s see, if I can make encourage them to go through a really nasty series of gross-out obstacles, they’ll have a blast and invite all their friends to get grossed out overcome their fears of rejection and the youth group will finally grow plus the pastor will get off my case! share Christ with everybody!”
(Note:I respect youth pastors and the hard work they do, and the bad rap they get from parents. I’m just being snarky at Martin’s unfortunate expense in the hopes that it will amuse my readership and increase my page views and line the pockets of my Google AdSense account with cash. I’m cheap, I know.—Rich)
And so it went. He designed a waiver for the parents to sign, allowing their kids to participate (“We have nothing to fear but ‘Fear Factor’ itself!” Intoned the nervous pastor.) Then off to get the props. One week it was chains and coffins. Last week it was little Comet goldfish.
Wait a second, coffins I understand. But goldfish? Who’s afraid of a little goldfish?
I guess you are, if you are required to eat it live.
Or maybe the goldfish was afraid—that was PETA’s point anyhow: “fish are intelligent, sensitive animals who have developed cognitive abilities and who experience pain and fear, just as all animals do.” Apparently, to PETA and Martin’s pastor, they’re a step above youth pastors, since this one got crucified on the altar of political correctness.
I like the Fear Factor idea: at least it’s fun even if it does absolutely nothing to help teenagers experience spiritual transformation and learn the fundamentals of their faith or the reasons why they believe. Youth pastors have to be creative to keep their captive audience … well … captivated. Poor Anthony Martin was just trying to do his job, saved a few unwitting goldfish from life imprisonment in a cruel crystalline prison, and wham! PETA falls on him like a ton of crushed aquaria. (BTW: Rome is now banning goldfish bowls. See? PETA should target entrepenurial pet store owners, not revolutionary youth pastors)
Unfortunately, Martin’s pastor, Greg Woodall, caved and issued an apology for the church: “I do appreciate your concern and just wanted to let you know that this will never happen again. … My views are a reflection of yours. We love God’s creatures and would never want to show them harm.” Well, there goes next summer’s fish fry. Better pencil in a vegan potluck instead.
We need a few more pastors who are like PETA’s goldfish: “intelligent, sensitive animals who have developed cognitive abilities.” Perhaps an injection of courage would help, too.
There’s an essential irony in all the talk about the emergent church vs. the old-style church and where they intersect. Or, maybe—to be charitable—there’s an essential paradox. To wit: how is it possible to decry and denounce all the old structures and forms as being irrelevant without falling into the same trap of culturally-bound irrelevance yourself? Didn’t the Jesus People try this experiment? Didn’t the Quakers do this? Hasn’t the patient gone through the same exploratory surgery time and time again?
And yet, the patient still lives, the church and Christ’s ministry continue on, and the revolutionaries represent small pockets of like-minded individuals that have become all but footnotes in church history.
I’m not emergent. I’m not postmodern; but, then, I’m not modern. I’m not fundamentalistic. I’m a mongrel. While there’s much in my Fellowship I can be critical about, there’s much more outside of it that concerns me deeply.
Over at his “Learning to Breathe” blog, Gregory TeSelle describes his experience speaking to a collected group of Assemblies of God ministers at nearby (to me) Lemont, Illinois, “to share with their pastors and staffs about the Emerging Culture.” Actually, he narrows the topic down a bit more: “to compare and contrast the biblical ideas of the emerging culture with the current ideas of the church today.”
Now, in this post, Greg goes on about how it’s necessary to deconstruct ideas before one can construct new ideas. And that’s fine, and probably true to some degree and in some contexts. But notice the way Greg framed his topic:
compare and contrast the
biblical ideas of the emerging culture
with the
current ideas of the church today
See the assumptions there?
I don’t know Greg, and it sounds like he gave a fine talk that I would’ve thoroughly enjoyed listening to. Plus, it sounds like he had a great time fellowshipping with my peers. But this kind of language and thinking is typical of most of the discussions I’ve seen about old church vs. emergent church. The emergent crowd is certain their practices are more biblical and the old church’s styles represent a dead or dying culture. The old-school crowd is threatened by the unstructured and seemingly chaotic approach of the emergent crowd, and they’re not certain that the emergent mystique is any more biblical or effective than the old-school ways.
Again, doesn’t every new church movement claim to be a more honest and true return to the ideals of the early church? Wasn’t that true even of my own A/G Fellowship back in the early 1900s? Wasn’t that true of Methodism? The Baptists? Puritans? Even Anglicans? Postmodernism and the emergent churches are no different—neither is the A/G. In the end both will be swept away by the winds of change and what will be left will still be the Church.
For once, though, I’d like to see what Greg promised he would do: provide an actual comparison and contrast between the essential practices and ideals of the emergent and status-quo churches. Only, I’d like to hear proponents of each side present their case fairly, state what cultural, philosophical, and biblical grounds they have to claim what is considered essential, and I’d like to see some consensus around the board on what is essential (what is at the core of the church doctrine and practice) vs. what is non-essential and not disputed.
While Greg does not provide me a satisfactory comparison or contrast, he does list a fascinating and compelling set of questions that could be used as a starting point to find some of those essentials. I will quote the list here, as they appeared in his blog today:
I challenged their thinking on why and how they go about these church tasks. Here is a brief synopsis of the tasks and my challenges that we discussed. ——————– WORSHIP — why is it always music? why the same songs? why only pretty people on stage? why all the lights? why do people have to audition to worship God? why is there no creativity in your times of worship? do not tell me what to do (raise hands, turn to the person on my left, etc.) why is everyone wearing the same color clothes?
TEACHING — why is it always the same teacher, with the same linear style, for the same length of time, at the same time in the service? can’t we have multiple teachers with multiple styles? and please don’t think the teaching is the most important part of the service. don’t get me “ready” for the message. scripture always noted the message from the Lord came first, then came the response of worship. oh yeah, and please do not give me all the answers. I’d like to do some self discovery and also some discovery with my small community. just put me on a path toward truth.
FELLOWSHIP — do not have sign-ups or organized times to hangout. do not have assigned topics for these times. fellowship will happen naturally — why? because I value it immensely.
EVANGELISM — please do not have organized outreach events. also stop with all your programs to attract the world to come to the church. the church is supposed to go into the world. stop “commissiong” missionaries and parading them across the stage as “special”. we are all special, and are all missionaries. my entire life is evangelism, it’s not an event.
LEARNING — please do not make a “system” for all of us to go through to become “spiritually mature”. don’t make me “run the bases”, or put me in a 101, 201, 301, 401 process. allow me the freedom to learn what I need to learn according to my life’s situations.
CHURCH FACILITIES — why do you spend so much money on your building? I don’t care about the place we meet. It is so unimportant. I’d rather you spend the money on impacting the community, not new carpet, or a building campaign. please do not spend $5 million dollars on dirt (land) that you won’t use for at least 5 years. do you know where I’ll be in 5 years?
CHURCH CULTURE — please get out of the “ghetto” you have created of christian everything. (schools, music, clothes, video games, fortune cookies, etc. — it is ridiculous — you are addicted to the culture you created) please join society. I am the church all week in my neighborhoods, work, school, etc, then I get together with my community once a week for encouragment.
SERVICES — stop trying to provide something for everyone. it is ridiculous. all you do is provide goods and services to a bunch of people. church shouldn’t be safe, or comfortable. don’t advertise you have coffee and krispy kreme donuts. don’t you see how desperate that looks. take a stand, be bold, and stop people pleasing. it’s sad and sickening.
OTHER STUFF — I’d like depth, community, and creativity in the church. I can’t get that in your “mega church” desires. give me small communities to do life with people. oh yeah, and don’t charge me for truth, hope, and love. (would you charge your mother for your latest sermon series?) let’s share information because we are the same family. stop trying to profit in the name of Jesus.
Some of these are brilliant and useful questions. I really like them.
But if you answered them the way you think an emergent church would, does that make you emergent? Are these questions truly pointing to the essence, the heart, of what it means to be “emergent?”
It’s well worth thinking about. I hope Greg’s questions got some pastors thinking seriously about whether their practices are doctrinally founded, whether they’re temporary modes that need to be changed, and whether their church’s cultural relevance is in jeopardy. I only wish a similar list of questions could’ve been put to Greg for him to ferry to the dis-assembled and deconstructed church he was describing and defending.
So, I thought I’d do that myself.
Here’s a mirror image of Greg’s questions. Note, this is an exercise in reflecting back the assumptions behind Greg’s questions from another perspective. I happen to think many if not most of Greg’s questions deserve to be asked, and should be asked often.
But they shouldn’t be asked uncritically.
Without further ado:
WORSHIP — Is there a compelling biblical or philosophical reason to not use music in worship? Do you think new songs aid worship better than familiar songs? Are you intolerant of pretty people, or are you implying that we must search out the un-pretty and compel them to lead worship? What does lighting have to do with worship, devotion, sacrifice, and service? Does candlelight improve your ability to read the Bible? Do you think the worship team itself is un-spiritual, or do you only object to qualifications for service? Do you think it is unbiblical to seek qualified servants for church positions? Is there an approved list of creative activities suitable for worship, or can I do whatever sparks my creative flare? Can I bring a small block motor to church and worship God creatively with my hands and tools while working on some minor repairs? If not, who gets to narrow the acceptable list of creativity activities down, and who decides when it’s too narrow and therefore too much like old-school church? Does the scripture anywhere instruct you on how to worship or conduct yourself in church (raise hands, greet with kisses/handshakes, etc.)? Does a variety in clothing somehow denote greater spirituality, or is it more conducive to worship?
TEACHING — In what sense are multiple teachers with multiple styles an improvement in communication and teaching? Or is this just another alternative to allay boredom? Can you find evidence the Bible prescribes one over the other? Does a non-linear style consistently communicate more effectively for a greater number of people? Does a random length of time for the service improve your church’s response to worship, teaching, fellowship, or ministry? Who are you or anyone else to say what is “most important” about any given service, anywhere? Isn’t God sovereign, is not the most important thing what he desires from you? Cannot he chose what is most important and useful at any given time? Isn’t it irrelevant whether worship prepares you for teaching or whether teaching prepares you for worship, when study and worship should be present in the Believer’s life at all times anyhow? Does the emergent church philosophy of liturgy somehow produce this result better than old-style worship? Scripture usually doesn’t concern itself with specific liturgical forms and the order of service. If preachers are supposed to only put you on the “path to self-discovery,” does this self-discovery automatically happen? Does a complete sermonic discourse somehow prevent self-discovery?
FELLOWSHIP — Do sign-ups and organized times prevent true fellowship? Does having it any random time improve it? Are people better able to respond when they don’t know when or how long to meet? Do you actively practice moving your small group meetings to different, random nights for random lengths? How do you all show up at the same place at the same time for any kind of small group meeting? Does having an assigned topic for discussion in a small group somehow destroy its authenticity? Do random topics improve the transformational power of the Bible study or the fellowship?
EVANGELISM — Do outreach events damage the presentation of the gospel in some way? Do outreach events diminish the church or always create false conversions? Are all attenders at an emergent church genuine converts? What is the fundamental objection to outreach? What is the essential difference between attracting the world to come to the church vs. the church going into the world? Is it a matter of context? Geography? Location? If the world does come into the church in response to a program, how is this bad? In the “my entire life is evangelism” philosophy, does that naturally involve significant donations so that missionaries can actually fulfill their calling? Is there some process where emergent church practitioners naturally and automatically pledge support for missionary endeavors? Or is missions work another expensive, organized event you despise?
LEARNING — Do you object to systems themselves, or the idea that any system can ever help produce maturity? When you read your scripture devotionally, do you randomly jump to any passage every time you open the text, or do you perhaps have a system in place? Are all systems bad? Are systems, classes and programs necessarily and automatically at odds with each other?.
CHURCH FACILITIES — Has God ever demanded ornate, expensive architecture for his house of worship? Why did God spend so much money on the temple? Why did the early church not object to continuing to meet in the temple or in synagogues where available? Why do you think God is poor? Why do you care about the place you meet? Why do you care about the building you’re not even meeting in that the church is building with money that is not even yours? Or do you suspect that all such buildings are necessarily un-spiritual, sinful, and that God never wanted temples for his people to worship in?
CHURCH CULTURE — Please get out of the “ghetto” you have created of “emergent” or “postmodern” isolation. (It is ridiculous — you are hateful toward the culture which created you.) Please rejoin the church and reform it from within.
SERVICES — Notice how homogeneous your small groups have become. You’re “different like all your other friends.” On the outside there is plenty of variety, but on the inside, there’s cultural homogeneity. When are you going to wake up and realize that different people from different ages, cultures, and backgrounds have different needs? Stop fooling yourself into thinking that asceticism is more spiritual than modernism. If you don’t like the Krispy Kreme donuts, just say no.
OTHER STUFF — I’d like depth, community, and creativity in the church. It doesn’t sound like I can get that in your ad hoc, leaderless, system-less, random, small-group house churches. Give me a community where I can not only find people like me, but lots of others completely unlike me who can disagree with me, rub shoulders with me, and do life together with me. Oh yeah, and I won’t be buying your sermon series, because I know you don’t like series, won’t be spending the money on a recording system to capture it, and won’t be interested in presenting enough teaching for me to really think about because your sermon will only put me on the “path the truth” anyhow. I’d sooner listen to a sermon of substance, and pay for it, because the laborer is worthy of his hire.
Enjoy.
Here are some other bloggers who thought Greg’s list was compelling enough to link to. Jeff at rustyhinges is convinced we can’t change because we won’t change. Maybe he’s right. Grace, over at Emerging Grace, takes Greg’s questions for a nice long ride, so far turning it into a thoughtful, four–partseries. Richard Passmore at Sunday Papers is asking for a “an authentic theologically grounded redefinition of church.” I’d add “biblically grounded” to that, too. Etanisla at Careless Thought admits that this is why she’s left church for good. Commenter ScottB, an ex-A/G youth pastor over at the less travelled blog, cynically exclaimed in surprise that the conversation even happened at all. Shane, at The High Places takes the time to actually answer and respond to Greg’s questions (good post, if I’d seen it first, I probably wouldn’t have written this). Dave King over at IdeaJoy, inspired by the list, is asking some good questions of his own, like wondering whether the PoMo movement and the old-school churches are both mere distractions and that the real question ought to be: “Why aren’t we loving people?”
Indeed, why? And is the emergent church truly better at this than any existing church structure?
Can the emergent church learn to love the old church?
I’ve been adding a few links here and there when I find them. So, check back to see what’s new. Also, I’ve updated the ordering of the list so that the newest items float to the top of the list.
Hi. I’ve performed some major updates to the Pneumablogs page. I probably have too many personal journal-style blogs represented here, so over time some of the links may be dropping off. See, especially, my comments at the end of the page regarding “cat” blogs and “boss” blogs.
I took a few quizzes tonight, and I generously share the results with you, my Gentle Readers. I’m not sure what they really reveal about me. I worked as an opinion/market research interviewer for four years, and I know how very subtle changes in questions and their interpretation by the respondent can wildly skew results. But if you’re looking for a quick read on where I am theologically (or where you are, if you take the test) this may be helpful for you.
You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God”s grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavily by John Wesley and the Methodists.
Okay, that being done, I hopped over to take the related, “Which theologian are you?” quiz. Here are the results:
You scored as Anselm. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man”s primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read “Cur Deus Homo?”
I’ll leave it to you to decide what all this means. I’m surprised the SDA church showed up in the #1 slot, it didn’t when I took the test on a different day … so perhaps my results would vary depending on how I feel on any given day? Is my faith and doctrine that fickle?
My complaint about this, of course, is that no brief online quiz can adequately “slot” me—or anybody else—into accurate pigeonholes because the test developer will inevitably have blind-spots they cannot control for. For example, where is the Foursquare church or the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) on the denominational list? Where are William J. Seymour or Stanley Horton or Dallas Willard on the theologians list? Where is the “neo-Evangelical” or the “pragmatic-Evangelical” theology represented on the theological list? And why is “Holiness” so far separated from “Pentecostal?” The Pentecostal tradition is strongly influenced by Methodism and Holiness traditions. In fact, why is Pentecostal lumped all together with Charismatic theology? I suspect it’s because the test creator assumed that if I accepted the subsequent-to-salvation experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and phonemena like tongues and miracles, I’m no different than any Charismatic? But, truthfully, there are Charismatic strains running through all the orthodox traditions, and there are many Emergent groups with a strong Charismatic bent. And, similarly, there are Emergent theologies coming out of all the major traditions, as well.
And how in the world am I equally Calvinistic and Arminian? Wonder of wonders.
So, no surprise that I have bones to pick with the quizzes. But they’re fun to take and, who knows, maybe I’ll visit a Seventh-Day-Adventist church one day and really, really, like it.
I just received this from the General Council of the A/G:
— From: Office of the General Secretary [churches@ag.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 1:45 PM Subject: A/G Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts Update
The General Council of the Assemblies of God, together with the Convoy of Hope, continues to respond to the Hurricane Katrina disaster with acts of compassion and practical helps.
Convoy of Hope
As of today COH has distributed 75 truckloads of ice, water, food and other relief supplies with another 16 truckloads scheduled to arrive in the next couple of days. To date over 3.5 million pounds of life-sustaining relief materials have been distributed in the following communities:
Louisiana: Gretna (West bank of New Orleans)
Mississippi: Bay St. Louis, Biloxi, Caesar, Gulfport, Henryville, McComb, and Picayune
Convoy of Hope has ongoing distribution sites set up at the following locations:
Biloxi, MS-917 Division Picayune, MS-795 Memorial Blvd. Slidell, LA-Harvest Church, 3184 Pontchartrain Dr.
Additional distribution points are being planned.
Suspension of Mail Deliveries to storm-stricken areas
The U.S.Postal Service is not accepting any Standard Mail or Periodicals Mail — from any source — addressed for delivery within the following three-digit ZIP Code ranges:
369 393
394 395
396 700
701 704
This emergency action has been taken as a result of severe facility damage, evacuations and other issues resulting from Hurricane Katrina.
HOW TO HELP
Cash: Cash donations help the most people the fastest. You may give online at
Disaster Relief: Our first effort is to minister and help those people impacted by Katrina. After that, we will work with the Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi Districts to rebuild churches and restore our houses of worship. You may contribute to this rebuilding of churches at
http://ag.org/. Again, 100% of all gifts will go directly to the Disaster Relief fund.
Tangible items: The mission right now is to respond with immediate life necessities of water, ice, food, diapers, and baby formula. COH is receiving these items through corporate donors and at this time cannot handle individual donations of items. However, large pallets that have been shrink wrapped with any of the above items will be received by COH which is located at:
Convoy of Hope 330 S. Patterson Ave. Springfield, MO 65802
Housing Requests: Those wanting to open their homes to displaced persons may get information from the following websites:
The Louisiana District office today sent out a message that they are no longer taking calls for available housing. They have many sources of available housing listed but the demand is not that great.
Individual Volunteers: The community infrastructures in the devastated areas cannot coordinate and support individual volunteers at this time.
Group Volunteers: While there will be a need for many church groups to participate in reconstruction in the future, again the community infrastructures right now cannot handle this. We will keep you updated on this need at the appropriate time.
Medical Teams: HealthCare Ministries at headquarters will be coordinating medical teams to go to these areas. You may get information on the web at http://www.healthcareministries.org/ on how to join a team or assist in this need.
Prayer: Pray for the people in these areas who have lost everything. Pray for pastors and churches in the areas as they minister Christ’s love to the hurting.
Compiled by the
Office of Public Relations General Council of the Assemblies of God
Watch for regular updates on the Hurricane Relief ministries.
Here’s my current list of active Pentecostal, Charismatic and Assembly of God bloggers. I hope you enjoy it. And feel free to add to it with your comments.
As I’ve watched the news feeds over the last several days, I noted that the A/G has been quick to respond, first with nearly a dozen Convoy of Hope trucks being sent down (over twenty more on the way), and an email plea from the General Superintendent, Thomas Trask, to contribute funds at the A/G disaster recovery site. Already $25,000 was sent to the Louisiana district to help some 400 people stranded at the LA district campgrounds.
Here is a good update on what is known and not known about the state of our churches and district offices in the Gulf region: Hurricane Katrina—much still unknown.
At this point, giving money is more effective than sending things. Let the organizations with the infrastructure in place to provide help turn your dollars into tangible aid. Currently, the hardest hit areas are still evacuating survivors and I’m reading that well-intentioned helping hands are being turned away. Later, after people are let back in to assess damage, that’s when the sweat and toil of rebuilding will begin. At that point, you should contact the Louisiana District office (see below) to offer assistance and get coordinated.
To contribute financially, here is where you should go:
Assemblies of God Benevolences/Disaster Relief 1445 N. Boonville Ave. Springfield, MO 65802-1894
Nobody’s really sure what churches in Louisiana were hit and which still stand at this point. But I’d expect to see a list of impacted churches and ministries in the days to come so that churches in the greater US can “adopt a church” to help out with financial and hands-on assistance. If the A/G or Louisiana district websites don’t do this, perhaps somebody else will make that kind of matching program work. If I can get my hands on such a list, I’ll post it here.
I am not sure if this is just a meme without substance, or if the idea has actual merit. But the cliche rant among tech- and media-savvy Christians is that the Church world is always slow to adopt new technology. The claim is that we missed it with film and now Hollywood “owns” the field, to the exclusion of overt Christian influence. We missed it with radio, and now we’re relegated to the low-end of the FM dial where we must solicit donations, or the AM dial where nobody listens to talk radio. We missed it with music, and at any given time the state of the art in the Christian music scene is 10 years behind the secular industry. They say we missed it on the Web, which is boldly dominated by the secular dot.coms and the porn purveyors.
I’m not sure. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. I’m thinking that the music world owes Christianity a huge debt for keeping music alive through the medieval era with strong monastic musical and chanting traditions. I’m thinking rap, blues, and R&B owe a lot to the spiritual songs birthed and nurtured by the slaves who clung to their hope in Christ through song. I’m thinking that the printing world owes a debt of gratitude to Gutenberg and others who transformed the creation of literature for the sake of more effectively printing Bibles.
But, I could be wrong.
I saw a piece, today, from ContraCostaTimes.com, titled, “Blogosphere evolving with vlogs.” It describes the latest phenomenon on the web: video blogging, or vlogging. First was the Internet, then there was the Web with attractive easily navigated pages, then came weblogs—nothing more than a website with an easy-to-update CMS component—then came podcasting, and now video blogging.
And it seems there are some churches out there using it already.
The article quotes a friend of mine, A/G minister, Frank N. Johnson calling the church to really take advantage of the medium, and do more than simply post service times online:
“Too many churches now use Web sites only to present service times, staff biographies and other facts,” said Frank Johnson, a licensed Assemblies of God minister and the founder and principal administrator of Strategic Digital Outreach, a new ministry in California that helps churches and other ministries do electronic outreach and evangelism.
“If the church could catch a vision for using video technology to present an authentic presentation of the life of the church — not rehearsed videos, but spontaneous records of conversations, laughing with one another, weeping with one another, people sharing their lives, etc. — the average person might take notice,” Johnson wrote in an e-mail interview.
“I would love to see churches start using their Web sites to present video profiles of people within their congregations so that the average person could get a sense of what the life of the church (not the organization, but the people — the true church) is really like.”
I like that. It dovetails with some ideas I was giving a pastor friend of mine out in Colorado a couple weeks ago. The easiest thing to do is put your church bulletin out there. But what if the pastor gave the church secretary his sermon outline and manuscript before the service so that people could come prepared? How about making the outlines and text part of a blog, so others could comment? How about automatically pushing the recorded sermon out as a podcast for folks who couldn’t make it that service, and so visitors could hear the kinds of messages they’ll get at that church? That’s the first level of stuff that can be easily done.
How about sending your volunteer tech team out with a flash recorder and a microphone and interviewing one person each week in the church and getting their testimony out there as a podcast? Interview them over lunch or at work. Make it real. How about videotaping it and putting it out there as a vlog and featuring it in the Sunday night service? Make it part of a blog site and invite a community to form around the personal testimonies of your people recounting how they came to faith in Christ and describing how the power of God has changed their lives? How about inviting the staff ministers to post midweek thought pieces that reveal their ministry focus, their purpose, what drives them, and updating folks on the news of the week? If you’re concerned about privacy and stalkers, put it behind a sign up screen with confirmed email addresses. How about inviting mature believers in the church to join the community as guest bloggers, posting their thoughts, advice, and commentary? How about specialized blogs for long-term Christian ed. courses including notes, outlines, commentary, asides, and question-and-answer interaction? How about a gallery featuring the best of your church member’s artwork, photography, short stories, and essays? How about special-interest blogs run by church members that form communities around hobbies and professions? A surfing blog, a health-and-wellness blog, a tax-season blog, a stay-at-home-moms blog, a youth sports blog, and on and on.
All this is possible. But, as the meme suggests, I don’t see many churches experimenting with this. Some have, to be sure, but they’re not publicized or talked about much. Is the experiment a failure?
As Brett Eastman says in his small groups materials, “God wants the Church to get larger and smaller at the same time.” With megachurches (churches over 1,000 attending) continue to multiply, I would think the Internet is a great way to create and foster community when it’s impossible to know everybody’s name when going to the “big church” services.
The Internet should never replace face-to-face fellowship and hospitality. But surely there’s a place for truly taking advantage of this communication medium to share the good news that the Kingdom of God is at hand.
Final thought: Referring to the title of this post entry: To those of us who are Pentecostal or Charismatic, if we are truly filled with the Spirit, then we will be missional in our thinking and lifestyle. We will be change agents in our culture and in the arenas where cultural dialog occurs, like St. Paul on Mars Hill. If there was ever an era where we should not shy away from technology but use it to full advantage, it is in this burgeoning Internet-enabled millenia. Don’t leave it to the pornographers and peddlers of commerce. It’s half an hour’s work to set up a blog on a website, and the cost can be as low as $5 a month. Get your thoughts out there. Tell your testimony. Engage culture. Speak to issues. Believers are called to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul, strength, and body. We too easily forget that loving God with our minds means using our intellect, sharpening it, honing it, and using it to communicate. Witness for God does not merely happen by “living my life so that others can see Christ in me.” It also means doing what the word implies: witness. Your words must get out there whether as waves breaking on men’s ears, ink poured out on paper, or bits and bytes slung through the ether. There’s a dearth of Spirit-filled bloggers out here. Come on in. The water’s fine. Just avoid the sharks.
What is heresy? The textbook definition is simply:
On May 26, 2005, Brian Chase created an article on 
On December 19, 2005, A photo of Bill Gates on his bio page, mysteriously acquired both horns and mustache. (See: “
Way back in September 1998, historian 
I’m grateful to 
After the Decade of Harvest program faded from view and it became clear to A/G leadership that something else needed to change, attention turned from purely mechanical emphases on church planting and evangelism to discovering what needs attention spiritually. Thus, Trask’s criticism of the Decade of Harvest as merely a program, and his insistence that the Vision for Transformation emphasis is Spirit-led. Let’s revisit Trask’s quote, and extend it:
There’s an essential irony in all the talk about the emergent church vs. the old-style church and where they intersect. Or, maybe—to be charitable—there’s an essential paradox. To wit: how is it possible to decry and denounce all the old structures and forms as being irrelevant without falling into the same trap of culturally-bound irrelevance yourself? Didn’t the Jesus People try this experiment? Didn’t the Quakers do this? Hasn’t the patient gone through the same exploratory surgery time and time again?
