***REVISED TO CHANGE TERM TYPOS and to EXTEND TERM
The following amendment should do a couple things:
- More closely tie a state overseer to his pastors.
- Point accountability down, truly inverting the pyramid.
- Slow down the rotation game.
- Select men for leadership that are more reflective of the state/regional culture.
- Severely impact the patronage system we presently function under.
AMENDMENT CONCERNING STATE OVERSEERS
CURRENTLY READS – P. 162 – S23 STATE OVERSEERS
I. SELECTION
1. The State Overseer shall be appointed by the International Executive Committee, and a rating instrument shall be designed to indicate the state overseers’ performance and this rating sheet shall substitute for the preference ballot as the primary source of information. Also, that a place be provided on the rating sheet for the individual’s preference for state overseer.
2. Remain the same
II. QUALIFICATIONS (remain the same)
III. ACCOUNTABILITY
1. He shall be accountable to those who appointed him and dedicated to those whom he serves (2 Timothy 2:4,5; Luke 16:2)
2. He shall be a model by demonstrating Christlike attributes in his lifestyle and administration (2 Corinthians 6:3,4a).
3. He shall be diligent in his relationship with his family, his community, his colleagues, and those over him in the Lord, so as not to bring a reproach to his witness and position (1 Timothy 3:2, 4, 5; 1 Corinthians 12:18, 20, 25, 28-30; 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13; Romans 14:16, James 4:11; 1 Timothy 6:12, 14:2; 2 Timothy 2:24, 25).
4. He shall stay abreast of the times in terms of administration, finances, office procedures and techniques, and communications.
5. He shall be evaluated periodically by the International Executive Committee.
IV. ORIENTATION (remain the same)
V. TERM OF OFFICE
The State Overseer’s term of office shall be for two years, terminating the Sunday following the close of the International General Assembly.. He shall be eligible to succeed himself for an additional term in the same state. Any additional terms in the same state beyond the two terms (four years) must meet the following criteria:
1. He must receive a minimum of a two-thirds majority of the vote of the ministers [in his state or region].
2. The success of his administration must merit said consideration [for an additional term in the same state].
3. The International Executive Committee must believe his reappointment to be in the best interest of the state.
The tenure of office [for the state overseer]is for a maximum of 12 years in non-mission states. He may serve all or part of his tenure in any state or number of states depending upon the above stated criteria. He may be eligible for reappointment as a state overseer after serving in some other capacity for at least two years.
VI. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES (remain the same)
AMENDED TO READ
P. 162 – S23 STATE OVERSEERS
I. SELECTION
1. The State Overseer shall be elected by the ministers of their state or region.
II. QUALIFICATIONS (remain the same)
III. ACCOUNTABILITY
1. He shall be accountable first to Jesus as the Head of the Church, secondly to the highest governing body of the Church of God, the General Assembly, and thirdly to those in his state or region whom he serves (2 Timothy 2:4-5; Luke 16:2).
2. Remains the same.
3. Remains the same.
4. Remains the same.
5. He shall be evaluated periodically by the International Executive Committee and those evaluations shall be made available to the state ministers.
IV. ORIENTATION (remain the same)
V. TERM OF OFFICE
The State Overseer’s term of office shall be for two four years. He shall be eligible to succeed himself indefinitely. Any additional terms in the same state must meet the following criteria:
1. He must receive a minimum of a two-thirds majority of the vote of the ministers [in his state or region].
2. The success of his administration must merit said consideration [for an additional term in the same state].
3. The International Executive Committee must believe his reappointment to be in the best interest of the state.
The tenure of office [for the state overseer]is for a maximum of 12 years in non-mission states. He may serve all or part of his tenure in any state or number of states depending upon the above stated criteria. He may be eligible for reappointment as a state overseer after serving in some other capacity for at least two years.
VI. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES (remain the same)
Filed under: church of god
The one thing that strikes me is the limit to 12 years. I can see the pros and cons of this. However, if the individual really is qualified to continue as a state overseer after a 2 year break, then why is the 2 year break necessary? What would the individual do during these 2 years? While pastoring is an option (and practical), it does not seem in the best interest of a local church to put a state overseer in a pastorate for only 2 years.
What if someone is gifted with administration as a state overseer? I think it would not be in their best interest or that of churches to loose that giftedness to another area of ministry for 2 years.
Just my thoughts…
sorry, i should have typed “lose” instead of “loose”
I think I took out the limitation altogether in the amended proposal.
I have to change this….the amendment isn’t the correct version. Redoing now.
[...] The Example of Ambrose19 April 2008, me @ 00:00Travis Johnson’s proposal concerning the election of state Administrative Bishops in the Church of God is an interesting one. From it start the Church of God has appointed its state and regional [...]
I would only add the pronoun “she.”
That would be another equally important proposal which would unfortunately have to come first.
Trav,
I love the proposed amendment and would vote for it in a heartbeat. I would also speak in favor of it. What kind of vote is required for this to happen? Two-thirds? What are our chances?
Jerry, I wouldn’t vote for extended tenures unless ministers had a voice in selecting who those leaders are. They would have to go hand in hand.
I’m not sure if it would have to be a majority vote or a 2/3 vote. I’d need to hear from a Jerry Jeiter or some other Roberts Rules guy.
I’m with you all the way on that, Travis. No way I want someone in Cleveland able to strap me with the same AB indefinately.
If we decentralize the process away from Cleveland then how far is it taken? Does each state set up its own process or hiring? Do they set their own pay schedule? How does the Ab answer to Cleveland first if it did not hire them? Will the new system work together to fill pastoral vacancies? Do we currently need as many ABs as we have now? The system does need to be changed but we have to think through as many scenerios as possible to answer the critics who believe in the status quo. Without a system what happens to the older AB who is not hired back? This is always the argument of the current system and yet it is its weakness. It does need to be addressed. I know I have more questions than answers in the first day of learning of the proposal. Let’s keep thinking and working together.
Thanks, Carl…always nice to have the father of the most beautiful girl in the universe make an appearance at MissionalCOG.com.
Let me take a swing at these:
If we decentralize the process away from Cleveland then how far is it taken?
The Executive Committee would no longer be responsible for appointing State Overseers. That process would then be in the hands of the state ministers. That’s as far as it would go. Overseers would continue to function in their present role of responsibility, but with a perspective that would be:
1. long term in a state.
2. more involved with the ministers. You have a pretty exceptional overseer. He would get the vote to stay in Louisiana and have the potential to stay there for life. He has a heart to develop his pastors. That would pay off hugely over the life of his tenure in LA. In the case of an overseer that does not relate well to his pastors, he would be accountable to them and they could select someone else.
Does each state set up its own process or hiring?
The state councils are there to lead, advise, and counsel. They can put a plan together for selecting an overseer, and bring it to the ministers to approve and amend. The processes would be unique to each state.
Do they set their own pay schedule?
The overseers pay scale is set in the Minutes and untouched by this proposal.
How does the Ab answer to Cleveland first if it did not hire them?
They don’t. (see S23. I. 1.)
S23.III. ACCOUNTABILITY
1. He shall be accountable first to Jesus as the Head of the Church, secondly to the highest governing body of the Church of God, the General Assembly, and thirdly to those in his state or region whom he serves (2 Timothy 2:4-5; Luke 16:2).
Will the new system work together to fill pastoral vacancies?
Yes. The process would be unchanged. However, overseers would think twice before making appointments without a process that seriously considers multiple candidates for a church. Appointing friends, buddies, or taking care of favors would seriously undermine his ability to be re-elected.
Do we currently need as many ABs as we have now?
Nope. But, this amendment would not cover that issue.
Without a system what happens to the older AB who is not hired back?
Retirement, pastor a church, evangelize. We need to stop the business of job creation and institutionalized welfare.
——–
Does any of that help or clarify? See hles that can be addressed? I’m all ears.
Sorry to show up late to the party (I’ve been moving).
Just thinking through all of this. I like the ability to stay in a state for a long time (if the pastors want him to). An AB with vision for his region/state could really make long-term decisions. Being accountability to the pastors provides incentive to develop them as ministers and to place them in a “good fit”.
I wonder if there shouldn’t be some level of accountability to Cleveland. I’m not sure how they would communicate with each other if there isn’t someone over ABs to coordinate it.
My big questions go to selection.
How does a state select an AB? Is there an application process? Does the State Council go through the 100 resumes that will be submitted in some states? What keeps them from selecting one of their buddies or someone who has had made political promises to them? I trust the State Council to not select their buddies as much as I trust Cleveland.
I appreciate Don’s historical references of centralization. And, I think it is also interesting for us to remember that AJ Tomlinson used the U.S. government structure as an example in creating much of our system. (This is debated by some, but the extensive historical work of Wade Phillips provides some of this information). Of course, Tomlinson also viewed his role much like that of the role of James in the early NT church. While we like to suggest that our system is based on scripture (and some of it is), we tend to de-emphasize how other elements were involved in our structural development in the 1910s (and certainly since that time).
We must also remember that pre-Tomlinson (and I am thankful for his passion– not trying to “slam” him here), the focus of our structure was on the local church. R.G. Spurling (our founder) came from the Baptist tradition that believed in church government at the local level. It was AJT that brought an intense centralization structure to our movement. (And as an aside, it is interesting that John C. Jernigan disfellowshipped R.G. Spurling from membership in the local COG congregation where Jernigan was pastor. Much of this had to do with Spurling’s view of emphasis on the local church over that of an overly centralized structure– at least this is my take on it. The COG experienced a couple of divisions between 1919 and the major schism in 1922-23. Spurling tried to remain connected to each of these groups and sought to impart wisdom from his perspective, which was not popular at that time).
I believe a careful study of our own history can teach us some important things about how we have evolved in our view of the local church, general assembly, and “political” offices. For instance, I have read every COG Evangel issue for which we have a copy from 1910 to the mid-1960s. Then I have read here-and-there until 1990, after which I have read every issue of the Evangel. I have also researched many themes and issues in the COG Minutes (beginning in 1906). There is much to learn about how our movement and structure developed from these two sources alone.
Some more historical thoughts.
Although it’s an overgeneralisation, the usual Roman Empire practice was for bishops to be consecrated by more than one other from a neighbouring diocese, forming a sort of collegial check. This system is preserved in the Episcopal Church’s system of consents (which has its moments) and the requirement that at least three bishops consecrate another.
As far as AJT’s inspiration by the U.S. government is concerned, that confirms my suspicion that the greatest push towards centralisation of a church is interaction with the state. Most relevant example of this for our purposes is the Church of England, which was nationalised under Henry VIII and was the church from which Wesley’s successors (not Wesley himself) took Methodism, along with inspiration on how to structure it.
correction: “one other from neighbouring dioceses.”
Like Mike, my biggest questions go to selection, but no matter what the process, if man is involved in it there is always the chance of buddies and favors. There is no perfect system. The question we must ask is WHO will we trust the most and who will we be the closest to in having input.
Again I raise the issue of benefits and salary because the system is set up to promote ( for whatever reason ) those that Cleveland deems necessary to promote. In doing so they get larger salaries by going to larger states. We have a good chance of losing our AB because Cleveland will most likely promote him and thus he gets a larger salary. My question is this. If the new system were in place and we could keep him how would he get a raise? The pay schedule would have to be adjusted for length of tenure and not just be about the size of the state. Otherwise, how do we keep the good ones?
I love the unlimited tenure. I also never understood the two year layoff. Just think… the Evangel will have to hire their own Editors now and not use tenured ABs.
Carl, you said:
Now, that’s funny!
Regarding salary scales: I think you scrap them and let the chips fall where they may. I could make more money elsewhere than Life Pointe. I have a calling and passion for this place and am staying until I have to leave. If our overseers could flow in a pastoral/apostolic role in their state or region, I think you’d see sustained growth in states where growth has been elusive.
Further, if a smaller state cannot afford to compensate a leader significantly enough, there should probably need to be some sort of regional consolidation, which could be done without any type of General Assembly action. Considering that some of our states and regions have fewer people that some of our churches, that should probably already be taking place.
On Placing buddies: It will happen. I won’t hire someone I don’t get along with. If someone is competent and I have a high level of trust with them, the likelihood of hiring them is increased. I think that’s a reality.
However, I think we better trust our leaders the closer and more accessible they are. The more distant and inaccessible they are, the more difficulty we have trusting them. So, personally, I’d rather see authority passed down the line as much as possible. Push it down to the people who are most affected by the decision making.
In the case of overseers, pushing the decision making down to all ministers in a state would make a heck of a lot of sense.
I know that no one will read this because of how late I am to the party, but if this happened would it mean that a minister out side of Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, or Alabama could not longer be elected to be the General overseer? I like the spirit of the proposition, but I would hope that it could address the glass ceiling from those of us from state not that huge in the COG states.
Jon,
Welcome to MissionalCOG, bro.
Concerning this proposal, I would think that if this became our mode of operation, it would open up local ministers to selecting leaders from among themselves. That would be a good thing. I can’t imagine every state selecting COG superstars. Instead, they would select men who have a track record of passion for for their state/region and demonstrated integrity in keeping with the values of those ministers.
I think this would de-southernize our leadership rotation in areas where that would be beneficial.
Thanks for the welcome. I will admit… I read a lot about the Church of God on the internet.
I guess my question is about the elected officials and the powers that be would all be basically for the Cleveland area. I don’t hate Cleveland, but the spiritual experience of Cleveland is not the same as living in Washington DC or Washington State. Here are a few examples of men that I can come up with.
Raymond Crowley was born and raised in a part of Maryland that I have NO clue where it is. To be honest he had to move his ministry to Ohio in order for the denomination to notice him. Mark Abbott pastured a small church in Baltimore, then “wound” his way across this denomination until he landed in Cleveland. One more example if you don’t mind, your Bishop in Florida is our cast offs, and before that he was Northern New England’s cast offs. I wonder where he would be if not for the “system.”
You almost have my vote for this amendment, now that I’m a Bishop; I just wonder what Cleveland will look like in ten years? I would just hate to think that after we have elected one person that stands out in the pictures, that in ten years we would be looking for not only other races, but for people from places outside of the south.
We already have a rule about ministers outside of the United States being on the Counsel of 18, because we only vote for what we know. I would just hate to see the New Testament Church of God feel more isolated and to be honest those of us outside of the south are starting to feel the same.
If you can address this fall out in some way you can count one more vote.
I may be the only overseer to comment here and the most vulnerable to this line of discussion…
First off, I’m not for states selecting their overseer. We have a difficult enought time just selecting State Councils, youth boards and evangelism boards. Not that we are not capable but we are too relationally connected to be objective. We like each other. The entrenchment of our present state board system will tell us how this will look in time. Someone mentioned the vetting process…think about this…who will make the nominations? State council, ministers…third party (EC)? In my state, Louisiana, there are many capable men but I could see incredible chaos trying to select five men to present…personalities, partiality, baggage and good old politics would bog down the system and create relationship tensions like you have not seen. The parable of the vineyard worker is applicable here…it is not that we dont’ want others to have we just don’t want them to have more than us! Just watch when a big church is filled by an overseer with an “outsider”…to get a sense of how this would work. Also, it is interesting that it is always nepotism and cronyism when it is not us…
I will agree the present appointive process (I’m presently under) is not perfect and needs adjustment but voting on state overseers is a process which needs plenty of consideration and thought before we bite that apple…from my perspective.
I’m thinking…if an overseer has to handle Travis Johnson or a problem in his church then he knows depending on how it falls–it will affect whether he remains as SO. If a DO is sent to a church to handle a problem and he has aspirations to be SO, then does he tread carefully knowing Travis Johnson is a man of influence who can sway many votes with his “wink and nod”? You see what I mean?
As it is presently structured, I can lead with my heart and soul knowing that when the evaluations are counted, there is one other factor that can be used to know…a third party–right now the EC. Right or wrong, that is important that someone else is involved. Have there been appointments which were bad? Of course and we all have made them. We must be careful that our standards for others are not different from the standards we have for ourselves as leaders.
Now, the present evaluation tool for Overseers is flawed in my opinion because it does not ask the right questions and does not ask them to the right people. We may need to ask this question–who is in the best position to evaluate our state overseer’s leadership? Ministers in Louisiana are asked to evaluate their overseer in areas where they have no access or ability to judge. In a larger states with more churches and ministers, it is even more difficult.
Travis’ ideas on this need consideration and they should not be dismissed. However, Carl’s questions help us understand how challenging this process would be. It is not something we should quickly embrace until we understand how it is going to affect us long term.
I hope you understand where I am coming from and hear my heart.
Bill,
You’re loved much for replying (even though you and my father-in-law don’t see it like me) openly, honestly, and by sharing the thought process anchoring your position.
I look forward to responding and to seeing the responses as I know there will be many. So, I raise my frothy Taco Bell cup of Root Beer to the discussion. May it be vigorous! AND, may more men with guts like you step up to the plate and be known beyond a personna. May we all lead with guts and discuss more stuff like this with all the passion we can muster.
Much love to ya!
I do not have the energy to speak to the entire issue now but I do want speak to the two year interruption in service. I have worked with some of the best overseers in the COG and only one who spent an elongated time and that is Lynn Stone. I would suggest that after 12 years as a SO one would need a change of venue no matter how successful they have been. I doubt there is anyone in the COG who has been a more fruitful overseer than Carlos Moran and all of his overseership has been in California and the Northwest, yet here is a perfect example of an immensely quailified overseer who needs a new appointment at this general assembly so that he like Lynn Stone my re-flourish and use their extended abilities in other areas of the church.
It was my motion to extend the tenure of YCE directors in states to eight years because of my own experiences in states where I felt a longer tenure would have elevated our ministry effectiveness due to the connection to vision, the buy-in of leaders, etc. I also served with overseers who had been long-term and there is both a good and bad to the process. The value is in the leader’s ability to “recreate” themselves as needs change. The same venue requires new thinking and constant evaluation and adjustment. Looking at my sixth year here in Louisiana, I can see the value of these past two years although some advised me to move. The people got settled and they began to see more long-term. The overall buy-in of some was more evident when they realized the leadership was not changing (although we did change YCE directors in 2006).
Love the idea of extending tenure for the AB. Why have term limits if a man is doing a good job and wants to stay?
Love the idea that some of the men in a particular region could be considered for the AB position. I think there are certain regions that would be stronger with a member of the family at the helm. On the contrary, our AB is from the East Coast and has jumped in and not only adapted, but has done an excellent job and has accomplished some things that an “insider” probably couldn’t.
Absolutely HATE the idea of voting in an AB or anyone else unless the voting body is bringing someone on at their level of leadership. It creates a “tail wagging the dog” type of environment. I realize that is a departure from much of the COG environment, but one thing I have always appreciated in the COG is that pastors are appointed, not voted in or out! I think that should be an “across the board” philosophy.
Bill,
It’s Saturday AM and I’ve got some time to respond in a manner in keeping with your contribution (your words in bold italics):
—-
I may be the only overseer to comment here and the most vulnerable to this line of discussion…
—-
These comments are indicative of the reason why an appointive process is problematic. Why is it unusual to hear or see an AB going on the record with pointed positions? Because appointees have to answer up to a boss who holds the power of your livelihood in their hands, you are and your peers may be faced with dealing with “undue influence.” As can be seen with Mat Boyd, a chaplain under appointment in the same cycles as overseers, real pressure can be leveraged without good cause.
In the case of an overseer, it limits the ability of an overseer to advocate on behalf of his pastors and congregations. He is more predominantly an advocate of General Offices.
—-
We have a difficult enough time just selecting State Councils, youth boards and evangelism boards. Not that we are not capable but we are too relationally connected to be objective.
—-
The farther away from the local church we get, the less trust we have. The less relationally connected we are, the more we are suspect of the motives of our leaders and vice versa. The less transparency we have, the more calloused and disconnected we are from one another.
We need more relational connectivity among our leadership and pastors and churches. Malachi 4:6 is the calling to us at this moment especially…”hearts of fathers and sons” turning towards one another.
Regarding difficulty to elect state boards, I would suggest we simply publish the minutes of the meetings. If a guy on the state council is consistently voting to sell property with no plan for the proceeds, I personally don’t want that guy stewarding the mission of Jesus on a council in our state. The same goes for my overseer. If he is unresponsive to the mission of Jesus and can’t make the tough decisions and still steward the mission of Jesus in that state, he needs to be accountable to his pastors and congregations.
Honest, open, transparent leadership is the antidote for what ails us. We aren’t getting that under our appointive system. Think closed, inhibited, strong armed leadership as our standard and norm. While, that does not describe all of our state overseers, that’s too accurate and that’s unfortunate.
—-
In my state, Louisiana, there are many capable men but I could see incredible chaos trying to select five men to present…personalities, partiality, baggage and good old politics would bog down the system and create relationship tensions like you have not seen.
—-
1. I think some well placed chaos would be extremely healthy for us right now. Things are orderly to our detriment.
2. We have guys that can work the phones, favors, and politic for the state council like you wouldn’t believe. That’s how it already is. We just pretend not to do it. We should bring it out into the open, let men declare their availability and present a platform. Then, publish minutes of meetings and hold them to the platform they said they would support. Let’s just be open about what we already do.
—-
I’m thinking…if an overseer has to handle Travis Johnson or a problem in his church then he knows depending on how it falls–it will affect whether he remains as SO. If a DO is sent to a church to handle a problem and he has aspirations to be SO, then does he tread carefully knowing Travis Johnson is a man of influence who can sway many votes with his “wink and nod”? You see what I mean?
—-
Well, I don’t know that I’m the best example. I’ve had one overseer tell me he would “destroy and humiliate me.” I had another tell me when I asked about a friend who had been grossly mistreated (church sold by the state office without the knowledge of his functioning church) that it was none of my business and was not under my purview. In that case, there was no compulsion to honor Travis Johnson or the two other guys and congregations that were treated like animals.
The reason?
1. They weren’t relationally connected to any of the individuals involved.
2. They weren’t adequately accountable to the pastors and congregations under their care.
What does the guy that has a tough decision to make but is afraid the decision either will cause him not to be re-elected or elected in the first place?
1. Act with integrity. There is no substitute.
2. Pastors face this everyday. In the past year, I’ve had two groups of people organize and leave the church because they didn’t like some things at Life Pointe. I can’t force them to do anything they don’t want to. Currently, our structure and appointive process causes us to lead from a position of top-down authoritarian rule as opposed to influential leadership.
Have you ever heard an overseer tell a pastor “I have the authority to….”? I have. Its quite intimidating. Its also the favorite move of some guys like a right hand only dribble. You know which side of the court they are going to go to before you open the envelope, answer the call, or attend the meeting.
—-
As it is presently structured, I can lead with my heart and soul knowing that when the evaluations are counted, there is one other factor that can be used to know…a third party–right now the EC. Right or wrong, that is important that someone else is involved. Have there been appointments which were bad? Of course and we all have made them. We must be careful that our standards for others are not different from the standards we have for ourselves as leaders.
—-
I’ve heard that was not the case with Mark Williams. Regardless of one’s perspective on Free Chapel Orange County, Jentsen Franklin and Floyd Lawhon (both excellent men who I admire greatly), I have heard from strong sources that Mark WIlliams was unable to lead from his heart and soul because of undue influence from the third party.
Even this conversation has to be brutally difficult to discuss openly. There are certain things in this situation that simply cannot be discussed openly because it is not in the best interest of the EC…hardly a beneficial arrangement on principle for the pastors and congregations of a state/region.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope it keeps flowing. Too often, it is dominated by pastors, teachers, missionaries, laymen, and other guys who are not under appointment. That in itself is reason enough for me to feel that our appointive system is grossly flawed and needs to be reworked.
Over a great bowl of grits I have read your response and determined again that the internet is the worst place in the world to have a discussion. Your response reflects that my previous post in many ways did not convey what I was attempting to say. In fact, it may have confused you! Please accept my apologies.
My posting here does not convey at all the lack of communication in the church. In truth, there is more communication, more access to leaders, more interaction between the field and leaders than ever before. Seriously, think about how much interaction you are having personally with the leaders of our church? I think you had a private audience with the General Overseer recently, did you not? I think that is great and I know that happens a lot. I appreciate that about our leadership. Is anyone being denied access to our leaders? Anybody calls being denied? Anybody not getting responses to emails or letters? I doubt it at least not intentionally. Our leaders are trying to keep up with the process and if they fail, it is not due to any lack of interest in you and me. We may disagree on process and whether one should sign a statement to get a financial audit (which by the way is massive–something like 200+ pages)…but we cannot honestly say that our leaders are not communicating and it cannot be said that the appointive process is keeping leaders from talking to congregants or pastors. Who is refusing to talk to anyone?
What I meant by my posting to this subject is that I have more invested than any of those previously posting. I’m not better or more special, just my position is highly public and everything I say and do is scrutinized by others sometimes without the chance for explanation. I have 56 pastors and 125 ministers and I don’t get to explain why I removed “Sister ____” from the position in her church or why Pastor _____ (everyone’s favorite) did not get the church at ______. So, what happens is my motive, my heart and integrity is challenged because they don’t know and it is not always possible to explain. I’m okay with that but others can be personally hurt by the second-guessing and accusations of integrity and they may recoil and not engage as we might want. I just think we have to realize that not everything is as we imagine. So when we try to improve the quality of overseers who lead us, I don’t think the appointive process is our larger issue.
The lack of overseers posting is not in my opinion indicative of a flaw in our appointive process…hardly. The truth is most overseers don’t know about your site or have little knowledge to post here or have little time for these kinds of things. Most of my overseer colleagues are just discovering email. In fact, when I came to Louisiana and began Gideon’s Few, one of the leaders in our church called and asked me how it worked. Remember it has only been a few years since online reporting began. Some of us have been telling leadership that online reporting was doable for years (I know I served on a committee in 1994) and yet technology has not gripped our leaders as it has you and me. (BTW, given your frequent posts, how do you get it all done?)
Your leader colleagues enjoy dialogue and they welcome you to engage them but they are just now learning these tools. Give them some time and you will find more of them. As a point of reference, I talk with our leaders often about these things and I have not heard anyone beating on those of us who engage like this. in fact, they envy our access. You might be surprised how thankful an overseer might be if someone would take the time to teach them how to use this medium. The busyness of this enormous organization keeps them from knowing as much about what is going on as we might imagine.
The church is transitioning and a new generation of leaders is emerging just as it did in mid 1900s and then in the 1970s, we may feel it is not as it should be but good people still are involved in the Church of God leadership.
Anticipate!
Bill, you said:
–
“Over a great bowl of grits I have read your response and determined again that the internet is the worst place in the world to have a discussion.”
–
That isn’t fair that you would flaunt your grits like that…sinful!
Kathy is doing a ladies event this weekend and so I get to make grits when she is out of the house. She is not a grits person!
OK. I made it through today and have some time to continue pounding out my thoughts online.
Again, your comments in bold italics:
Over a great bowl of grits I have read your response and determined again that the internet is the worst place in the world to have a discussion. Your response reflects that my previous post in many ways did not convey what I was attempting to say. In fact, it may have confused you! Please accept my apologies.
The internet fails to convey a lot (emotions, tone, heart, etc…). But, this is where we live now. The world is not only flat. It is small and instant. Going forward, assume I am writing with a ton of love and appreciation for you and all of our leaders (whether they be in Cleveland or in a local church or school). So, no apology necessary. We’ll just have to keep pounding out the discussion until our heart and minds are more understood.
My posting here does not convey at all the lack of communication in the church. In truth, there is more communication, more access to leaders, more interaction between the field and leaders than ever before.
Agreed. That is a direct result of the age we live in. Communication is instant. Gatekeepers are still necessary but not nearly as effective as they were in the past. The people that understand how to get around the gatekeepers are passionate and have ideas will get access or will need to be, as Ed Stetzer pointed out at Engage 21, pulled from the fringes to the center. If they aren’t, I believe they will establish the new center (unofficially).
Seriously, think about how much interaction you are having personally with the leaders of our church? I think you had a private audience with the General Overseer recently, did you not? I think that is great and I know that happens a lot. I appreciate that about our leadership.
I totally agree. The leaders (again in Cleveland and in our local churches and schools) that seek to grant access and to access others are the leaders with legs. They earn influence. The ones who lead from authoritarian rule and who remain walled off and inaccessible are the dinosaurs. They may exist somewhere. But, they are irrelevant to the discussion, whether you and I realize it in practice yet or not. They are certainly on their way to extinction.
Is anyone being denied access to our leaders? Anybody calls being denied? Anybody not getting responses to emails or letters? I doubt it at least not intentionally.
Yes. Absolutely. I can name a situation I am personally involved in this past week where I cannot get a return call or have my emails responded to. It isn’t a big deal. I’ve moved on. Those people do exist in our system. The larger my church grows, the more connected I get, or the more in view my goings on are, the less that will happen to me. When I was “less influential”, less visible, or pastoring a church of 30, I could get easily get a boot up my backside with no repercussion to the person that foot was attached to…happened more than once.
Our leaders are trying to keep up with the process and if they fail, it is not due to any lack of interest in you and me.
Absolutely. Our leaders (denominational, pastoral, techers, etc…) are fantastic people almost across the board. But, the same system that keeps people busier than a 1 legged man in a butt kicking contest is the same thing I’m advocating we get away from. Decentralizing the power base away from Cleveland would be a huge step in the right direction. Our overseers would feel less pressure to tow the Cleveland line which may have values that contradict the values of the State/Region. They would be freed up to be in state more and to give more leeway to the voice of local churches and to the heartbeat of their pastors.
We may disagree on process and whether one should sign a statement to get a financial audit (which by the way is massive–something like 200+ pages)…but we cannot honestly say that our leaders are not communicating and it cannot be said that the appointive process is keeping leaders from talking to congregants or pastors. Who is refusing to talk to anyone?
I believe we do have leaders who think they are communicating. But, they aren’t. Communication studies show that a message needs to be encoded > sent > received > decoded. On the way through that process, a message has to make it through the “noise.” If, as you say, we have leaders in Cleveland that don’t understand email, I guarantee there is a major league lack of communication.
Further, if we don’t understand web 2.0 and other very inexpensive communication vehicles, not only will they fail to communicate to those “receivers,” others (like me) will step in and fill the void. In 2008, the ones with influence are the ones who are communicating. I understand that. I can out communicate a lot of guys with big budgets while also planting a church and having a life. Then, people step back and say, “How can you find the time to do that?” The answer is “welcome to the new normal.”
What I meant by my posting to this subject is that I have more invested than any of those previously posting. I’m not better or more special, just my position is highly public and everything I say and do is scrutinized by others sometimes without the chance for explanation. I have 56 pastors and 125 ministers and I don’t get to explain why I removed “Sister ____” from the position in her church or why Pastor _____ (everyone’s favorite) did not get the church at ______. So, what happens is my motive, my heart and integrity is challenged because they don’t know and it is not always possible to explain. I’m okay with that but others can be personally hurt by the second-guessing and accusations of integrity and they may recoil and not engage as we might want. I just think we have to realize that not everything is as we imagine. So when we try to improve the quality of overseers who lead us, I don’t think the appointive process is our larger issue.
First, I don’t think you have more at stake than me, Tom Sterbens, Matt Boyd, Tom Rosson, or any of the previous posters. I understand what you’re saying in light of our structure. However, we all one life and one choice with the same life at stake. You have pastors and churches who question you, no doubt. I have 400 people on Sundays, 1300 families in our email database, about 1200 unique daily readers to my blog, and other people within my realm of influence. The people I’m dealing with are the most important in the world as yours are to you. My situation is the most critical in the world, as yours is to you.
Further, I think the appointive process is what leads you into the situation our overseers and appointees are in . When a pastor appoints a friend to a significant church without allowing any real expression from the church, he better have either heard directly from God or he better think twice about that next time. Because he just passed on the downside of the appointive system to a local church. They now have to deal with the top-down structure that has landed squarely on their heads.
The lack of overseers posting is not in my opinion indicative of a flaw in our appointive process…hardly. The truth is most overseers don’t know about your site or have little knowledge to post here or have little time for these kinds of things. Most of my overseer colleagues are just discovering email. In fact, when I came to Louisiana and began Gideon’s Few, one of the leaders in our church called and asked me how it worked. Remember it has only been a few years since online reporting began. Some of us have been telling leadership that online reporting was doable for years (I know I served on a committee in 1994) and yet technology has not gripped our leaders as it has you and me. (BTW, given your frequent posts, how do you get it all done?)
An appointive system perpetuates a top down mentality. Innovation takes place at the bottom. If the power center is doing all of the leader deployment, the majority of the leaders will come from a position near the power center and will subsequently not be aware of innovations. They are more likely to be behind the innovation curve resulting in a hampered organization.
Your leader colleagues enjoy dialogue and they welcome you to engage them but they are just now learning these tools. Give them some time and you will find more of them. As a point of reference, I talk with our leaders often about these things and I have not heard anyone beating on those of us who engage like this. in fact, they envy our access. You might be surprised how thankful an overseer might be if someone would take the time to teach them how to use this medium. The busyness of this enormous organization keeps them from knowing as much about what is going on as we might imagine.
I in know way doubt the heart of our leaders. Please don’t think that. But, busyness may largely be the result of not understanding decades old innovations. Innovation = time saved, things done. Innovation is the vehicle that allows me to reach around the world, share my thoughts, create a personal social network, and unleash idea viruses onto other highly contagious people who run around sneezing my ideas on their friends. I’m not so much worried with present leaders grasping innovation as I am with Gospel obsessed people who leverage innovation as opposed to leaders who are dragged into technology affinity kicking and screaming.
The church is transitioning and a new generation of leaders is emerging just as it did in mid 1900s and then in the 1970s, we may feel it is not as it should be but good people still are involved in the Church of God leadership.
I have been blessed with some godly men in my life. The leaders I esteem are not solely denominational leaders though some are. The true leaders are the guys who lay it all on the line and who serve others selflessly.
We are in transition. It is good. Unfortunately, I feel the appointive system has skyrocketed the average age of our leaders (denominational and pastoral). It has developed a closed system that does not fully leverage all of the innovation available to us and currently functioning within our body.
In the end the appointive system leaves us big and too slow. In 2008, it is not a matter of the big beating the small. It is a matter of the fast beating the slow.
Hey Travis and Bill,
Thought I’d weigh with you guys I respect so much.
First, the reason our leaders are not moving forward into the realm of technology is that … they don’t want to. Sorry, but it’s that simple. If they really wanted to they could ask for help and the guys who are being the most vocal on the internet would be most willing to help. I think the reason the guys at the top won’t ask for help is that they don’t trust us. Why don’t they call on the guys who are on this medium, who have proven themselves to have a quality ministry and integrity? For some reason the leadership of the COG (largely) simply is not willing to do what it takes to make this happen.
Case in point – I was standing in circle of 4 pastors at the Top 100 Pastor’s Meeting where one pastor asked Dennis McGuire if he would be willing to set up a message board where he or other members of the EC did a video podcast weekly to cast vision, answer questions and foster unity. We all agreed to moderate the board and make sure everything was positive and as he thinks it should be. While he was positive in that meeting, nothing ever happened. Now, granted I’ve never been a PB, but I am a pastor and if I have a meeting with my top 100 givers and 4 of them get together and ask me to do something that they believe is for the good of the church, and if I further find that there is an undercurrent in the body that believes I am not being open about certain matters, you can be SURE that I will act……decisively……..and quickly! WHY? Because I plan on being here in this community as pastor until the return of Christ! AHHHHH! I think I have found another issue – our system makes it impossible for leaders on ANY level to see themselves in that light. This merry-go-round leadership system we have makes it inherently impossible to really think about the long-range future and keeps our leaders on the run all the time just trying to make things look good by General Assembly. “Lord knows if there is trouble around Assembly time I may be in trouble…”
All of this makes me agree with the statement Dr. Paul L. Walker made at the Top 100 meeting, “This system (COG) has got to be the worst in the history of the world!”
Otherwise why wouldn’t change be happening. Come on guys, I have 14 year old kids in our youth group that could set up a better communication system in their parents’ basement! No, I’m convinced, our system makes it nearly impossible for our leaders to think long-term.
Here’s why I would love to see State Overseers elected by the states and with unlimited terms. From the time I started in ministry, about 80% of the time I call the state office in Alabama to talk to the SO, he’s in Cleveland. No knock on Larry Timmerman. This has been true of all AB’s I can remember. Now why does he need to be there so much????? It’s simple: His future resides at 25th and Keith! How different would things be if his future was in Alabama. It would completely change his focus and he would do a better job. I’ve told Larry Timmerman this to his face. I’m not trying to slam any single person. It’s just a systematic problem and MUST BE CHANGED!!!
Shifting gears on a couple of other thoughts:
Bill you said the audit from the COG was “massive…200 pages…” Turns out it’s only 16 pages. It came in the mail this weekend. I really can’t learn much from such a limited release of information. But in defense of the EC, I was told that anything else I wanted I could have. They believe that I have the right to know anything about the finances of the denom. Maybe I’ll ask for a copy of the budget later.
Travis, you said, “The ones with influence are the ones communicating.” I agree with that premise but would add that the ones with influence are the ones who are PRODUCING and communicating. There are dozens of bloggers out there typing away to carpel tunnel syndrome and no one is reading. They think they are leading, but they are just taking a walk (Maxwell). I think the best formula for leading from the grass-roots in 2008 and beyond is to FIRST focus on your local ministry and produce, and secondly to communicate what you have learned. And you’re doing that well, Trav.
Travis, thank you for the proposal. I have always wanted to explore the idea. I had a friend who was a Assemblies of God Superintendent for over 30 years in a state that saw tremendous growth in every area under his leadership. My brother who is an AG Minister would tell me how the ministers in this state would arrive 30 minutes early and pack out the church at their annual ministers meetings to hear him preach. I know several AG ministers from this state and every one of them have a great respect for this State Superintendent as well as the one that has followed him. I also know that is not unusual in the Assemblies. Many of their Superintendents serve long tenures and are greatly respected by the pastors in their respective states.
Having stated this however, I do agree with Bill, I do worry that we are “too relationally connected” for this to work in most states in the Church of God. Our pastors know one another much more on a subjective level than AG pastors due to the nature of our centralized government versus the self-government that exists in the Assemblies.
Nonetheless, I would like to see us experiment with it. I believe it could work with the right gifted man in leadership. I believe his integrity, his wisdom, his maturity, and his love for the pastors would “win out” over time. I saw this in Don Logan’s leadership in Arizona and I believe it can work in other states as well with the right man.
Do we appoint this man or elect him is a good question? I may be wrong but I think the the AG Superintendent is nominated by the Sectional Presbyters and then elected by the ministers of the state. Again, because of our connectivity I don’t know if the ministers electing the Overseer would work better than the EC appointing him. I tend to lean myself towards the Executive Committee appointing him to four-year tenures with Travis’ proposal of him being eligible to succeed himself with a minimum of a two-thirds majority vote.
Travis, I like your ideas of Overseers that are more reflective of their culture…pointing accountability downward….slowing the rotational system…a closer tie between Overseers and Pastors…and eliminating some of the patronage we now have. And yes, I realize that we will still have some patronage by keeping with the present practice of the EC appointing overseers, but I guess I can live with that. At least he would have the opportunity to serve a long tenure with the decision being left with the ministers in the state and not the EC moving him every two or four years which greatly disrupts continuity in vision and in progress.
Bill,
Another thing you said that I didn’t want to throw into the verbal skyscraper I created yesterday was:
All the have to do is type in their name. Try:
http://dennismcguire.info
http://raymondculpepper.com
http://orvillehagan.com
http://paulwalker.us
You can read about the rest here:
http://missionalcog.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/domain-dilemma-all-dressed-up-with-nowhere-to-go/
Or their conference names:
http://engage21.com
http://engage21.org
http://engage21.tv
http://engage21.info
http://engage21.net
http://engage21.cc
[...] "without form and void" only obscures the real problems we face. For example, the back and forth over the election of state/regional Administrative Bishops in the Church of God a… would be well informed by the practice of the Roman Empire church (which is why I brought up the [...]
I’m sorry Travis, I’m not following what you are saying?
So did you get the domain names and then link them to your site?
Just wondering…
I started registering them after Engage 21. It was an accidental addiction I stumbled into.
Before Engage 21, I was asked for some input, which I gave over the course of approximately 40 emails. It was an exercise in futility. The person requesting is a gem. But, whatever happened after he delivered the feedback resulted in “squata.”
I offered to have The Saturn Project come do the music on my dime. The band is made up of our youth pastor (who just quit playing with Salvador), our worship pastor, Brent Maloney (Mitch’s son), and John John (all COG kids). They are an exceptional band…as good as any band I’ve ever heard. I also suggested right off the bat that we get a web site…actually my first suggestion. It was echoed by Brian Hunter and a few other guys. No dice.
After Engage, I got the same request for suggestions for the next Engage 21 conference. I shared that I felt like it was a waste of time. I re-referenced the items we looked at that were cast off. We talked about the websites. I decided that if the COG didn’t value them, I’d go ahead and grab them. Considering that we were discussing how to engage an emerging generation of Pentecostals, you’d think that a website would be a no brainer.
To make a long story short, I purchased all the Engage 21 websites and redirected them here. Out of curiosity and in response to peer pressure from my mischieviously wonderful friend, Tom Sterbens, I started registering the names of the Executive Council. It’s become quite the addiction.
The availability of a lot of the sites illustrates your conclusion is correct. A lot of our denominational leaders don’t even understand email. That’s a significant problem in 2008. It probably won’t earn me any cool points. But, it is what it is. My suggestion is that we begin to wrap our minds around culture and where we are heading if we have a hope on engaging our future.
Or, we can pray that the 50′s will come back around. If they ever do, we’ll be totally prepared.
Can’t argue with you here, Travis. You are 100% correct. I, too, have felt the frustration of trying to communicate with the Intl and State Offices of the COG. It’s like trying to talk to my grandmother….actually, my grandmother is in her 80′s and we actually communicate through email. Come to think of it, maybe Mamaw can help these guys in Cleveland and Birmingham!
BTW, ‘email’ is so late ’90′s! SMS, Twitter, etc. are the fab future.
Sent using my Blackberry device.
My father was considered a rebel by his father who considered TV a devil’s tool. My father was late to the game in embracing email and internet research. He worried that I was too preoccupied. My sons are way ahead of me in terms of their technology prowess and my grandson (age 3) can speed dial his grandmother on his mother’s phone.
Just proves my point…each generation builds on the previous and by standing on the shoulders of our “fathers” we can see and do more than they ever did.
Bill
Bill,
Take for instance how we are currently forwarding the http://churchofgod.cc website. It costs probably $9 a year to keep that domain. Instead of forwarding that address to http://churchofgod.org like is presently being done with the three dozen domains or so that I bought, we’re trying to re-educate every visitor to the proper address.
I don’t expect Orville Hagan to know that. But, it would be helpful if we would get the right guys on the bus that know that stuff and get the wrong guys off the bus that don’t know it. In doing so, we could get a smaller bus.
While some people think I waste time being online, I lead my church from my computer, cell phone, twitter, blog, constant contact, and a network of blogs, myspace and a host of other apps…a lot of which is handled by kids who live in that world.
Rather than looking at it as people standing on one another’s shoulders, we might ought to look at it like a collaborative team where we can work together instead of being frightened and defensive about new fangled things like the abacus, a texas instrument calculator, and suggestions to ditch the latest head shot poster arranged in pecking order according to rank in favor of a website, facebook, or some other app.
My suggestion is that we just stay flexible. When we can’t personally do it, hire someone. And, when we can lead others, get out of the way because the inflexibility is a detriment to mission.
We lead from the bottom and fringes. All of our people are being appointed from positions closest to the center resulting in a vacuum of talent, innovation, and guts.
Bill, Travis, et al:
Great discussion about the digital age. Some consider this to be a minor issue. However, it is in fact quite significant IMO. This is not simply about the latest communication medium. In fact, this not primarily about communication, it’s actually primarily about accessibility.
In my doctoral program at Drew I had Len Sweet for one course, and that one was done online. He is also one of the busiest men I know. Despite those two things, he is one of the most accessible guys I know. I can email or text him. He sends me books in the mail, checks out my blog, etc. I hardly even know the guy. But he has made the journey into digital citizenship even though he started out not as a digital native, but as a digital immigrant. In the 20th century this type of accessibility from a guy who is ‘in demand’ in the ways that Dr. Sweet is would have been almost unheard of. However, this is, to echo a statement Travis used in an earlier comment, the new normal.
Bill, this is about SO much more than individual thresholds for learning new technological mediums late in one’s life or ministry. This is about spiritual fathers having a heart that is willing to come along and find our more–a heart that is turned towards its children. Perhaps I am wrong, but my perception is that that is exactly why you are here. Not because you have a heart to be technologically saavy. But because you have a heart for the denomination’s ‘spiritual children.’
here here, stone. here, here.
Jon,
The world is changing…that much is sure! The key for me it to keep growing…stretching…making myself experience the new, explore the possibilities of what can be. Simlply put, I think our church has lost it’s ability to consider “what can be”. Instead we have perhaps settled and in that mindset, our destiny becomes dormant. However, there is a remnant and while it may not seem so to some, I feel like we are going to see a revolution of new thinking in our church as new leaders emerge. The one nagging thing to me is the growing number of younger ministers who are indicating they are not going to the General Assembly and thus will not participate. Suppressing the engagement of younger men, keeping them out of the General Council until later in life and creating a “it won’t make any difference that I go” mentality will ultimately doom us to remain as we are or digress with thinking that is not fresh or new.
I would love to hear how the readers of this board feel about changing the age requirements for ordained bishops. I think it will be on the agenda again, although in a different form. I’m finding very mixed signals on this and I cannot fully understand why we would not want our younger men at the table to formulate the future strategies.
The question for me is does this church trust its sons and daughters to lead?
Bill
Bill, I think that the issue of the delayed age for Ordained Bishops is tied to Evangelical Christianity’s following society’s general trend of delaying adulthood for its people. This applies to clergy and lay people alike. One reason why young people drop out of church after they turn 18 is that they have been sequestered in a “youth ghetto” and not allowed or encouraged to take adult responsibilities in the church. Yet technology empowers people at a very early age; to be set back in the church is the wrong message.
And that’s not all that new either. Roman Catholicism got me for eight years in part because of the following:
http://www.vulcanhammer.org/rc/pews.php
I have been blessed to know many of the pioneering and seasoned ministers in our church. Many of them were called and went into the ministry at an early age. Are we that much further behind the curve?
Bill:
I absolutely agree about the loss of the ability to “consider what can be.” We have lost our prophetic imagination, which seems like an ironic thing for a pentecostal movement to lose. This is precisely why I chose the name I did for Disc 1 of my journey through the land of url. In fact, I understand the most essential aspect or role of the future in our lives is to be the way we imagine it. This is a prolepsis, which basically means to anticipate. The recovery of our prophetic imagination will have to come from all levels, not just young, visionaries. It’s an essential part of our identity–”I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.”
If we will see a revolution of new thinking I believe it will come as young and old, male and female are dreaming and envisioning together. That is why I chose the name I did for Disc 2 of my journey through the land of url. Unfortunately, we seem to still be a great ways away from this type of holistic, collective anticipating. But with God all things are possible!
As far as the G.A., well I’m one of those ‘young ministers’ who has to work for a living. And there is no way I can take that week off, as it’s the first week back at the Middle School where I teach (I thought we outlawed August assemblies for this very reason?). However, I can honestly say that I would not go in order to make a difference, and confess that I feel pretty certain that my presence would make no noticeable difference at all. I’ve heard a lot of AB’s get upset at their young pastors for complaining about the church and then not showing up at the G.A. I understand where those AB’s are coming from. However, something will have to change my perceptions before my opinion about changes about making a difference by being there. If I make it to the 2010 G.A. it will probably be out of old school institutional commitment, and nothing more.
Don:
Great story! You know how I feel about releasing laity into the mission of the church. This is a great illustration of people’s need to participate.
Bill:
I forgot one comment. You said, “The question for me is does this church trust its sons and daughters to lead?”
The funny thing is this, I am convinced that most of us (sons and daughters, that is) don’t even want to “lead.” We just want to be a meaningful part of the team, a contributor to the conversation, considered equal, invited to participate without being patronized. Unfortunately, there is a steady stream of sons and daughters that are quietly exiting our house through the back door, and the fact that the gate keepers of the house don’t even know it’s happening causes me to believe that they do not really care if we are there or not. Instead, like Hezekiah, they are happy if it looks like there will be peace in there time.
My use of the term lead does not imply position but rather is designed to consider the acceptance of participatory involvement. In the movie Antwone Fisher, when he walks into that room at the end (enter tears), the feeling I get is one of genuine acceptane…no strings.
That is the image I’m conveying with the term…to lead. No strings, just an open door for involvement.
Six years of email to pastors and leaders in Louisiana have all been signed with the phrase “Anticipate!” because I wanted our vision to be forward. Now, with your educational help, I realize the Greek term is PROLEPSIS. Wow, thanks! Now, I’ll throw a curve this week to my folks and act like I’ve got some educational sense! HA.
Bill
Bill:
I’m more comfortable with your term lead after your explanation.
Given the less-than-enthusiastic response that I have received every time I have thrown out the word prolepsis, I am anticipating that your folks will be less than enthusiastic as well.
Bill,
In light of the Executive Committee’s failure to enforce the Minutes, specifically as it pertains to the use of the State Evangelism and Home Missions Budgets across the board resulting in millions of dollars of “new field work” monies going to other administrative and non-mission essential line items, do you feel comfortable with our current appointive system?
Has our appointive system resulted in appropriate stewardship of General Assembly trust and mission resources?
I understand if that question is too difficult to address. Our appointive process probably does not give you the liberty to address it without negatively impacting you in the view of those above you that you are accountable to. However, this is a question that troubles me in light of the stated position of the General Assembly being our highest governing body.
Issue one: We as a church have not done a great job at being proactive. We have a tendency to think reactively. For example, when a young girl is pregnant outside of marriage and comes to our altar; our churches do a decent job of praying with her, comforting her, helping her through forgiveness and shame issues and then love the baby in our nurseries. It is reactive in nature, and I’m proud to see the compassion and grace that we have grown into as a body of believers in this respect.
However, what we don’t do well is on the proactive side of this illustration. What are we doing to change the culture of hopelessness and lovelessness in this little girl and others in the future so they don’t have to go through any of this? How can the hearts and minds of our fathers be turned back to the children so that these same children can get the guidance and nurturing that they are desperately longing for?
While this is an example, the reactive / proactive integration in the system of the church in general and the assembly is not seen by those who are new to the team. We don’t start a lot of churches as a denomination, instead we watch as a couple works to get enough people in an area, then we organize them. It is reactive instead of proactive. We don’t forsee (anticipate or that greek word) the future in our agenda items; but react to some issue that “has” to be dealt with. It makes some outside the state office question the validity of the state office; and that is why some don’t want to put time in just to perpetuate that same state (or general) office.
Issue two; most want to be a part of something that “matters.” or is important. If on the assembly floor there was a sense that the business of the church was truly the worship of the church, instead of just mundande process that ends with frustration; then more would want to be a part of it all. Last state minister’s meeting I took my birthday to travel to be a part of the process. You know how those votes go. (I was ineligible because of term limitations, so it wasn’t sour grapes.) We constantly were (and are) looking for ways to get through the process so we could go home (or play golf). I literally heard the ones behind me say about the youth board vote, “This really doesn’t matter. What have they ever done for me.” Bill, you know me, so you probably realize how that set with me.
It is not that they didn’t care about the youth board, but that they didn’t care at all. If we are constantly looking for ways to “hurry up” just to get to the restaurant or stop for “church service” at the assembly, then what we are doing is really not all that important. Young leaders (and I use the term very generally) don’t want to waste their time with the unimportant. We want to see the GA as important, but we don’t.
This is too long, and I agree with your (Bill) comment about the internet being the worst place for conversation because of misreading intention of comments. Sorry.
Travis,
I confess that I’m not following the line of logic on how the appointive process of our church results in the Executive Committee’s enforcement of HM budgets in the states?
As far as I know, not one of my budgets approved by the state council, representing the ministers in my state have ever been submitted to the Executive Committee. My state council ratifies a budget each year which outlines our projected operational, mission/vision and administrative budgets. Each budget is determined by that group alone and then we submit to our ministers a full financial reporting each two years as our state minutes require. They peruse the report, ask lots of questions, determine the course of direction for our finances for the coming two years, designate funds as they wish and the STate Council and I carry out their mandate and report back to them in two years or earlier if necessary.
How does the appointive process have any direct impact on how the state council and ministers in Louisiana approve budgets?
Bobby,
First of all, I’m impressed you took your birthday to attend the state ministers’ meeting and you don’t have to tell me about TN state ministers meetings. They come–leaving! It is like no state I’ve ever been in and I’ve been in several.
Truth be told and don’t let anyone know I said this, but the state youth board is the working board in Tennessee and those guys turn the work out! You know how we did!
Press on and know that I miss my time with you and the guys there.
Bishop Bill
Bill,
Earlier, you said concerning evaluation and the appointive system that:
If the appointments come from the EC and if 100% of the states and regions have been dealt a crappy hand where previous administrations have used the State EHM budgets in a way that is incongruent with the General Assembly Minutes which state that these funds are to be used for “new field work and in the case of emergency, assistance of small churches”, how can we conclude that those who are doing the appointing and the evaluating fail to keep even what appears to be a single state within the parameters of the General Assembly Minutes.
Now, I understand that these issues are handed down from one overseer to the next. I also understand that I have never seen the budget for Louisiana or a lot of other states. So, perhaps I’m out on a limb. But, I have specifically asked three overseers if they were functioning within the parameters of the General Assembly Minutes as it pertains to the EHM budget. I received very honest, candid, transparent responses that they were not. I loved those men much for their openness…we’ll only get ahead with this stuff when we own up to this stuff that plagues us.
In the case of Florida, between 2003-2005, the most we spent out of a $1,000,000+ EHM budget for church planting was $27,000. If my staff was mismanaging that kind of money, I’d fire them. If I was mismanagaing that kind of money, my overseer would fire me. The EC has failed systemically in its basic duty in evaluating those whom they appoint.
That is the primary reason I feel the appointive process is broken. Does that make sense? That is why I ask if our appointive system resulted in appropriate stewardship of General Assembly trust and mission resources? Would we be better served by a downward accountability supplied by a state or regional election? I think so. Your thoughts on these or the original question?
Bill,
I AM pretty impressive, aren’t I.
It is extremely well known that the youth board is the working board. We (they, now) kick some major league… well, you know.
Well, we can agree to disagree on this item and the semantics just drive each of us into longer diatribes. For me, a process which involves the election of leaders always seems to lead to other problematic issues. I’ve got problems with electing pastors to churches and although I don’t think our present pastoral appointment system is absolutely flawless, it does permit one additional arbitrary point of reference in the appointment of pastors by the State Overseer. How many times has a pastor been able to maneuver through a local church issue knowing that he is not elected by the church and cannot be dismissed by the church? There have been a few times in my state here where I’ve had to make it clear the pastor is my appointment…not their hiring. That is huge in the local church operation in the Church of God. Again, it’s not perfect but as a spiritual man, I try to pray over all these decisions and choose to believe God helps me and the church come to a point of unity in decision.
The larger issues for me are spiritual and while we have not always had a perfect system, the optimist in me continues to believe God enables you and me to be right where He wants us regardless of who is doing the choosing. Call me what you will, I believe that. If I have to go to the point of having to promote myself to a group of people to get them to want me for a job then the process depends on me, my personality, my winning approach.
(I’m grinning as I write this) I’m sure you and I will never get together on this. But like you, I’m praying about who I will vote for at the upcoming Assembly (do you have your file number handy?) and it is my faith in God’s ultimate leadership of THE church, our church and my life that enables me to believe that His will is ultimately done, notwithstanding the occasions when men have tried to impose themselves into the process to get their way. (Don’t ask me for names!)
Bishop Bill
Bill,
I trust your commitment to pursuing the mission of Jesus, to equipping your pastors, and to loving the churches under your care above a need for positioning yourself for the next step up the denominational ladder. If only you were the standard…
I agree with both Travis and Bill. Bill, a man of your commitment and conviction can certainly function well in the present appointive process. However, I fear that you are the exception rather than the norm. In fact, from my limited experience here in Alabama, I can assure you that there have been serious abuses of the appointive power. I have seen overseers bully churches into accepting men that they were, in some way, beholden to. And that process has often ended in DISASTER. However, that bad deed is NEVER paid for by the one who created the mess. He is usually gone on to bigger and better things at the hands of the EC. The local church and Alabama pastors are left to mop up the disaster. It is clear to me that the EC has not been faithful to truly oversee the performance of their subordinates, because of the way they have rewarded bad deeds and mediocre performance. Again, Bill, don’t take this personally, because I cannot speak to the whole, just to what I have seen from my seat in Alabama. But I have addressed this with some of the EC, and have not gotten much of a response.
For instance, on the overseers ballots, I have put in highly accusatory comments (that I can prove) and poor ratings before, and gotten NO response from the EC. Now, if one of my top givers in my church made accusations of one of my staff members, I would contact them before the ink was dry on the paper. Instead, the guys in Cleveland just continue to push the guys further up the chain. MAN, that is frustrating!!!
So I’m not sure that electing overseers from the state body is the solution, but I AM CERTAIN THAT THE STATUS QUO IS NOT THE SOLUTION!!!!
The fact is, you get what you reward. And for many years we have been rewarding mediocrity and so we are covered up with mediocre performance. If a man were told that his only opportunity for advancement were to go home and make his own promotion, we would definately see different results. If the EC did not hold the future of overseers in their hands, they would be forced to focus on the ministers and churches in their states. However, ever since I joined the ministry, about 80% of the time I called the state office for the overseer, he is “in Cleveland.” For a long time this frustrated me with the overseers, but I really shouldn’t blame them. When they know that their future is in the hands of 5 men in Cleveland, they had better stay close to them. When they know that this appointive process is often based less on performance and more on friendship, they had better have some friends in Cleveland. So that means that on Assembly year they had better forget what their ministers really need to hear at Campmeeting and they had better book one of the guys expected to go on the EC. If they are going to be elected in August they will have to make all of the “primary states” in the early summer.
Okay, I’m ranting too much. Sorry. I just know that I get up every morning from my home in Cullman and I know that my ONLY focus is Cullman, Alabama. I don’t care what they are doing in Birmingham, Cleveland, Miami or Lousiana. I have a singular, focused assignment and that is what I’m going to attack today. Don’t you guys think that we would see tremendous progress if every minister in the COG, no matter what his/her position, got up every day with that kind of focus?
[...] for the General Assembly – Proposed items governing the stewardship of defunct properties, electing of State/Regional Bishops, and restructuring have already been received by the Executive Council leading up to the last GA. [...]