At the special District Council for the Southern Missouri District this week, there was a great deal of sentiment to changing our tradition so that delegates would hear from the candidates and know something about them and their views before voting. We have no mechanism for this and even some reasons against such a system. We have traditionally believed that if we pray, God will direct our voting and that it makes no difference what we know.
This is mostly pious fiction. First, we normally re-elect incumbents. Typically, they receive the necessary two-thirds on the nominating ballot. Second, when electing a superintendent to a vacant position, the top candidates are district officials or presbyters. This is even true of the assistant superintendent and secretary-treasurer. If a candidate arises who is not already an official or a presbyter, it is the pastor of a large church.
The point is this: Only those who have a well-known name get elected. If we were really hearing from God, wouldn't you expect maybe, just once, a complete unknown would be elected. Like Saul or David were chosen. But this never happens.
So, we recognize that what we know (or think we know) about people in the district affect our voting. We hope and pray that God will guide us, but we are limited to those we know something about. So if we can get beyond the pretense that it is all about God directing us, perhaps we should consider being more knowledgeable about those upon whom we are voting.
The only way that I can see such a thing working is to completely change the nominating process. I think you would have to have the candidates declared ahead of time so that they have time to put together positions that the district could disseminate to the voters.
I know of one denomination that has this type of system. I got a PhD at Concordia Seminary which is part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. So this post doesn't get too long, I will post again in a day or so that spells out their system for your consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good post, Bob. If God is directing the voting without the voters needing to know anything about the candidates' vision for leading the district then casting lots would demonstrate our faith in God even better than voting.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, as you point out, people are making decision based on their (sometimes sketchy) knowledge. If we're going to vote, we need to have better knowledge to guide our voting.
We should have nominated candidates and had them tour the district for six months in sectional meetings talking and listening to pastors, churches, delegates, and credential holders. Then after everyone has a chance to ask any question, hear their leadership philosophies, allow them to cast their visions, THEN we could have had an informed vote.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: If you have any conviction behind your statements, please sign your posts.
ReplyDeleteI think what you have proposed is overkill. There are simpler ways of accomplishing the same thing.
your anonymous fan is still following you Bob ! Its sad people won't sign their name or have the guts to. LOL Pastor Terry R, Green
ReplyDeleteBob I can go with you on this process part way and can appreciate what you're saying but the carnal part of man wil have the tendency to say "I" will do this and "I" will do that and "I " in the greek means "ego" and how does one do this precess without letting ones ego get in the way of Gods plan ?If one canidates for the position then I want to know ALL about the man.Everything ! Is he liberal or conservative, who does he read, or listens to, whats in his past? if hes a canidate tan we will be prone to treat him no different than they treat canidates for pres, or whatever, Could be a plus or minus.Don't know. Pastor Terry R. Green
ReplyDeleteTerry: Unless we are wiling to cast lots, as Guy said, there is going to be a bit of "I" in the process.
ReplyDeleteQuestion to Terry Green. What are the differences between liberal ministers in the Assemblies of God and conservative ministers as it applies to scripture. I'm concerned that we use opinion far to often when trying to describe the difference.
ReplyDeleteJacob Jester.
Anyone who accepts the 16 Fundamental truths (which everyone has to to get credentials) would be a far right conservative theologically. Sometimes people use "liberal and conservative" when they mean "hymns and choruses."
ReplyDeleteAlso just because it's driving me crazy: "I" doesn't mean "ego" in the Greek, "ego" is the greek word for I. That in turn was used later to express the concept we call "ego" in English. Our meaning of it doesn't affect the Greek meaning of it in any way.
No "ego" need to identify anonymous posts--might be identified as a liberal! The AG has no tolerance for dissenting voices (nor do they provide any venues for candid discussions of issues).
ReplyDeleteAgora journal anyone? lol.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a theological-cultural battle waging beneath the surface of the AG. It is over fundamentalism vs. neo-evangelicalism. The fundamentalist position is anti-intellectual (too much learning is dangerous), anti-social action (we don’t believe in a social gospel), and anti-ecumenical (everyone outside our little circle is suspect). They believe true Christians are to isolate themselves from the world and anything that they deem to be "worldy." They have a firm line in the sand dividing secular from sacred. The neo-evangelical position on the other hand believes it is the Christian's responsibility to engage culture and the world and it believes "all truth is God's truth". It affirms the contributions of other Christians from other denominations and theological traditions. It also is not afraid of the world, and insists that Christians must be mature enough to be "in" the world but not "of" it. It also interacts redemptively through social-action and engagement with people of all backgrounds. Unfortunately, this battle took place in most circles back in the 50's-60's. We now have a generation of clergy and parishioners who started as neo-evangelicals and now are ready to create new structures and wineskins that fit their generation’s needs. To ask them to submit to the value system represented by the fundamentalist’s position would be like asking them to give up their iphones for two tin cans and a string. In my opinion, it is not going to happen. We look at the Amish with disdain for their inability to move beyond the 1800’s; many of the fundamentalists in our movement suffer from the same malady only they live with the nostalgic belief that the 1950’s was the golden era of the AG. We need forward-looking, discerning leaders who can lead us prophetically into the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteGuy I am sorry, I had it turned around, Came across some interesting stats today they are as follows:
ReplyDeletethe founders of the AG's were young men and women. Two-thirds were under 40, one-third under 30.
Howard Goss, the prime mover in creating the AG's was 28 and J Roswell Flowers was only 26 at the 1st Gen. Council in 1914. Ralph Riggs was only 18. So it was the younger group that started the AG's.These men were great me of God, men of conviction, men of passion, men of vision and men full of the Holy Ghost.
Jacob I guess I'd like to ask what ones view would be of the Holy Ghost and tongues being the initial physical evidence of that experience.
I would want to know ones view point on the use of Alcohol of which many are endorsing today as long as its in moderation. The groups that So. Mo. Dist has recently had at youth convention believed or believes in the use of alcohol. I have hard copy proof of converations to back up my claim.
I would ask about their thoughts on going to R rated movies ect which many in our churches pastors included endorse and even use them in their movie series ect.
Its easy for ministers to say they believe in the fundamentals but another thing to practice what they preach.Come renewal time for credentials its easy to say we believe, but another thing living up to it. Go to our by-laws Article 9 Sec. 6 which speaks of worldliness and doctrines and practices that we don't believe and you'll see that many are falling away from those by-laws. I am not a legalist by no means, but I do believe there has to be a separation.
There are liberals and conservative's in our movement as well as all others. Other movements have split right in half with the two groups.
I would just to know everything that the canidate believes and what and whom they endorse and I would want to know that his cause is all about Christ and not himself and his personal agenda.
I believe that if one goes the route of canidating ect. then maybe there should be a panel to research the man/woman with a fine tooth comb to make sure there's nothing that could be a hinderence or an embarrassment later on. If one is going to play politic's lets do it right and go all the way !!Like I said, It might have some pluses but it could also have alot of minues. God Bless ! Pastor Terry R. Green
There is a division no doubt in our movement and I will go as far as saying that its not any particular groups fault. I believe both young and old are to blame. But my prayer is, is that both groups would come together with the same vision, convictions, and mandate to do all we can to win the lost. That is my heart-felt prayer. pastor Terry R. Green
ReplyDelete