Thursday, November 15, 2007

1996 Recommendations to Executive Committee

The Bare Facts
From
A Pastor’s Heart

A pastor, the son of a pastor, married to the daughter of a pastor, my life is the Church. My roots are Church of God. Bread for my table for most of my life has graciously been provided by good parishioners of the Church of God.
Thirty-two years as a pastor have been served with unswerving loyalty to the Church of God. With a desire to make a contribution to the general church, I undertook to study the leadership structure of the Church of God as the focus of my dissertation for a Ph.D . at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. After one year of intensive research and writing I met with my advisors who chuckled in good humor:
“Harold,” they said, with their hands upon three intro chapters titled DEMOCRATIZATION OF A SECT, “You have done a fine job of disproving your own hypothesis. There is no democracy in the Church of God. We think you need to complete your work and graduate. Here is a plan: Do an ethno-historical study of the Church of God. No hypothesis. Just take the official records and see what you find.”
Thus, the product : Power and Authority in the Church of God: A Case Study of Paths to Executive Leadership. It was the second such study of a denomination done in the United States.
It is important that anyone reading my blog or my life know that I have been personally acquainted with each General Executive Committee member during my pastoral life. I respect them as individuals. I believe them to be men of God. I believe them to be well-intentioned. I believe they love the Church of God.
My sole mandate is to encourage discussion that is broad-based and based on facts. Those who are presently our leaders have been part of the culture of this era of the Church of God. They know our challenges.
We have been touted as the “largest democratically deliberative body in the world”. In truth the General Council and General Assembly are but extended tools of the Executive Committee and Executive Council. Agenda, schedule, and chairmanship is exclusively via management of the Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee retains unilateral power to appoint all department heads, superintendents, boards and committees, with the exception of directors of World Missions, Evangelism, and Youth Department. Validation of appointees is the right of Executive Committee. Removal of the appointees is the right of the Executive Committee, without recourse or appeal.
The Executive Committee reviews all budgets and presents said budgets to Executive Council. Budgets are not publicized to either the General Council or General Assembly, and no detailed CPA accounting is available to clergy or constituents.
In a word, the Executive Committee chairs all sessions of the Executive Committee, Executive Council, General Council, and General Assembly. The Executive Committee makes the appointments. The Executive Committee by structure controls budgets. The Executive Committee also determines which members of the Executive Committee attend which state meetings. The Executive Committee also chooses who speaks at national and international conventions, conferences, assemblies, etc.
Again, none of the above is to question the integrity or the motives of the members of Executive Committee. The Executive Committee has simply inherited an endemic systematic flaw from the early days of the Church. In the inception of the church leadership devised a system of local churches funding general offices. Evangelism and world mission passion validated the inception of structure and funding of the Church of God in early 1900’s. However, with a worldwide outreach and thousands of churches the system is out-dated.
While some things about the structure cannot be fixed quickly, there are actions that could be taken by the Executive Committee, et al, that would open dialogue and facilitate unity and cohesive vision. On various occasions I have made an attempt to offer suggestions. By no means do I presume to have reasoned and articulated all the nuances of effecting these changes. However, such thoughts suggest that certain actions taken by executives could indicate to clergy and parishioners in the hinterlands that change is imminent and optimistic.
Thereto, I offer some thoughts for dialogue. Please understand that my life as a pastor is very full and fulfilling. If you choose to respond know that I shall try as often as possible to review, update, and respond as seems appropriate.
By the way, have you ever carefully read the polity about District Overseer? It is ambiguous. But apparently a layperson or woman could be a District Overseer?
Oh, well, enjoy yourself as you pursue these readings and ponder prayerfully how we do the most we can while we can for Jesus and His Church?


Harold L. Bare, Sr.
University of Virginia
Ph. D. 1996
The College of William and Mary
MA 1975
Lee University
BA 1969
Laila B. Bare
Virginia Tech
Ed. D. 1968

Radford University
MA 1975
Lee University
BA 1966

Drs. Harold and Laila Bare have served in various forms of ministry the 41 years of their marriage and have authored numerous publications. For the past 26 years they have pastored Covenant Church in Charlottesville, VA. They are also founders of Joined Heirs Ministry, with a special emphasis on training, counseling, and encouraging families, especially ministerial families. They are the parents of 4 and the grandparents of 7.
***************************************************************************
Power and Authority in the Church of God
Published 1996
Entire document presented to the 1996 Executive Committee of the Church of God.
Book sold at the 1996 General Assembly of the Church of God.


Chapter VI
WHERE TO FROM HERE?
The 1996 estopping and removal from office of the General Overseer by the Council of Eighteen emphasizes the critical nature of this research. The skeleton of 1923 has been revived with uncomfortable similarity. The leadership crisis is not about doctrine and principle. The persistent unmitigating factor since the early history of the Church of God has been the concentration of power on the executive level. Current discussion of particular issues which detract from the greater problem of centralization of power are but smoke-and-mirrors.

As with the General Overseer in 1923, in 1996 elected assistants to the General Overseer and the Council of Eighteen have felt disenfranchised by the power of the General Overseer. Ultimately, the only real power to hold the General Overseer accountable in both cases was to estop and remove from office. An incumbent General Overseer has predominant power. The power of the General Overseer in tandem with the Executive Committee becomes the lion’s share of control of Church of God resources. The Executive Committee is the rudder which turns the ship.

A note of caution is advanced. This research is not intended to impute guilt to individuals who have served in executive positions of the Church of God. Those who write history are always looking through a glass darkly. Writing history is much like a man studying via telescope native life on a distant island. It is interpretive.

Good men and women are often drawn of necessity into organizational positions of service. Executive positions are often the highest human honor ascribed to persons. Whether a person rises to the call of God and serves or falls to esteem himself better than others is the infinity between character and selfishness. Privilege which exceeds achievement is a dangerous moment for everyone. Even our Lord Jesus was offered the kingdoms of this world if He would only bow down to Satan. Thanks be to God the larger number of those who have served the Church of God were heroes worthy to be in the Faith Chapter of Hebrews 11.

Further, many of these Church of God heroes understood the weakness of our governmental structure. They sought—or are seeking—honest, godly reform by a legitimate process.

A flawed system does not impute guilt to all the individuals in the organization. When Israel appeared to be “down for the count” God had thousands of faithful as saintly as Elijah. Te Church of God has countless thousands of dear folks who love God and are committed to bearing their cross. Precisely for this reason, it is expedient that the Church of God choose at this time to amend polity and management structure.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN 1923 and 1996

There are similarities between the 1923 and 1006 estopments and removal of the General Overseer from office. A few points in both cases are:

1. It was the chief officer of the Church who was removed from office.
2. Primary persons preferring the charges were ordained ministers.
3. The trial was held by elected officials.
4. Money was an issue.
5. The General Overseer was accused of being uncooperative.
6. The General Overseer was accused of exceeding his limits of authority as per General Assembly Minutes.
7. It was those closest to the General Overseer in authority who took action to remove him from office.
8. There was polarization of both ministers and laity.
Notwithstanding these similarities, there are unmitigating factors which discourage associating the current crisis with the 1923 crisis:
1. Current public relations efforts by Church of God executives strongly emphasize a desire for reconciliation with the Church of God of Prophecy founded by Tomlinson after expulsion. Rhetoric alluding to the 1923 expulsion of Tomlinson is sensitive.
2. Executives have commonly denied concentrated and centralized power, even while the rank-and-file have noted the difference between fiction and fact. Admission of power would posture a responsibility to disclose documents and procedures which are secured at the discretion of the Executive Committee.
3. Acknowledgment of similarity of the current crisis with the 1923 crisis would be tantamount to the admission that the system of government of the Church of God is dysfunctional. Leaders benefiting from the current structure would be at greatest risk with a re-structuring.

4. Recognition of a flaw in the system would necessarily open the discussion to the General Council and the General Assembly. The nature of a bureaucracy is to be predictable. To admit a flaw in polity would necessitate a change process which could incur risks, losses, and bruises of people and property, i.e., change is unpredictable.
Fear of change can serve two purposes:
1. It is a form of paranoia which imagines more evil than is present. In mental
health terms, this type of fear is socially dysfunctional and needs professional assistance.
2. There is a godly fear which evaluates, considers options, counts the costs, receives counsel, and prays to God for wisdom to make righteous decisions based on facts and eternal values.
Godly fear calls for denial of self, concern for others, and servanthood characterized by Romans 12:1.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 1923 and 1996
While similarities exist between 1923 and 1996, there are major differences:
Technology. In 1923 communication was difficult and limited. Telegraph, telephone, mail, newspapers, and radio were basic and not always available or dependable. In 1996 technology has sophisticated all of the older news carriers and added fax, internet, satellite, and next-day express delivery of people and objects to many world destinations.
Size. The Church of God has grown from 12,000 in 1923 to over 3,000,000 in 1996. The current size is sufficient to attract the news media, which can communicate globally in seconds. In addition, private communication between parishioners is economical and instant. There is no need to wait until a General Assembly to be informed about internal church matters.
Education. In 1923 most members of the Church of God were formally uneducated. The general population had a high rate of illiteracy. Leaders with college training or a college degree were uncommon. If there were any master’s or doctoral degrees among leaders or ministers, church history does not note such.

In 1996 Church of God parishioners can expect to have a minimum of a high school diploma. Illiteracy is rare. Thousands have college degrees, and increasing numbers have graduate degrees.

The dialectical process is the mode, as church scholars debate issues from varying academic perspectives. This is particularly significant in that materials now disseminated by general church officials are not accepted as sacred documents not to be questioned. Rather, church correspondence may be ignored, or at best become a part of the sum total of cognitive knowledge available for analysis.
Ecumenism. In 1923 the Church of God was relatively exclusive. The General Overseer and many others believed that all Christians would come under the Church of God banner before Christ’s return [Rapture]. Currently, the Church of God does not teach exclusivism, and it has officially developed friendships with many other national and international denominations.

In addition, Church of God ministers and local churches have friendships and working relationships with ministers, churches, para-church ministries, and missions organizations which are not Church of God, and may not be Pentecostal. Exclusivism has been renounced. Conflicts and discussions cannot be adjudicated predicated on blind loyalty.
Vision. In 1923 Church of God leaders developed and articulated the global vision for the organization. IN 1996 ministers and local churches tend to develop their vision for ministry including many variables other than the “church program” [suggested programs in the yearly Planning Guide coming from headquarters].
Data. In 1923 most of the practicum and instruction of Church of God ministers was done within the body. In 1996 ministers are educated in diverse secular and sacred institutions, under a plethora of schools of thought, in multiple disciplines, and often with additional professional certification. Further, ministers—often encouraged by general leaders—attend seminars, conferences, and conventions directed by non-Church of God leaders.

In essence, the “know-how” of ministers and church leaders is not uniquely stamped with Church of God thought, philosophy, and doctrine. There is a global, cosmopolitan approach to ministry which accepts cognitive knowledge based on biblical soundness and effective evangelism, not exclusivism.
Changing world. In 1923 the world was swept with euphoria which tantalizingly suggested “no more war”. The Roaring Twenties were on. The struggles of a small southeastern Pentecostal sect were unobserved by the larger world. Those drawn to Pentecost were often poor and disenfranchised.

In 1996 the world is a community, ever changing, with national boundaries in question and new nations constantly evolving. War, terrorism, and disease are impinging factors. Church of God members, increasingly more educated, better traveled, and financially comfortable, tend to compartmentalize religion, i.e., make it an area of their lives. While church is an integral part of people’s lives, most do not centralize their lives around the local church.
Money. In 1023 gross income to General Headquarters was about $16,400. In 1996 gross income to General Headquarters is in the un publicized millions of dollars. The published financial statement lacks definition.
Salaries of Executives. In 1923 salaries for Church executives were unstable and unimpressive. In 1996 the General Overseer’s salary with benefits and perks is between $135,000 and $150,000, excluding personal offerings and reimbursable travel expense. The gross of other Executive Committee members’ salary, benefits and perks is only a step down.

The significance of these numbers is that “money answereth all things” (Proverbs 10:19). Bureaucracy feeds on itself. True servanthood is difficult when position and power afford a lifestyle above the rank-and-file of those who pay the bill.
In summary, while the basis of the current leadership crisis is the same as in 1923, the solution is not the same. An ancient Greek philosopher once surmised that it is impossible to put one’s foot into the river twice at the same place. While history may repeat itself, the names, events, circumstances will vary. Problem solving must be unique to the problem, yet sensitive to the lessons learned from history.

WHAT WE KNOW
In 73 years two General Overseers have been forcefully removed from office, and three other General Overseers, Latimer, Walker, and Thomas, did not come to the end of their terms under the happiest of circumstances. Latimer and Walker were pressured by colleagues to resign during the General Assembly. Thomas was exacted an agreement which ended his executive career in the Church of God. In these 73 years power of the General Council and General Assembly has progressively diminished.

In the 1996 removal of the General Overseer by the Council of Eighteen, language has been forceful that the matter is closed. The Council of Eighteen has emphatically affirmed that there is no further judicial action which can be taken by any polity body in the Church of God regarding the removal of the General Overseer. No one else has any authority to intervene in any way. The General Council and the General Assembly by polity cannot make the removal of the General Overseer a part of their agenda.
Again, the point of this research is not to establish guilt or innocence regarding the charges which removed the General Overseers of 1923 and 1996. The critical point of this analysis is that from Tomlinson to the present, General Overseers and their assistants have garnered power. The position of General Overseer has achieved power to effect change and influence process.
The current crisis portends to be much more significant than that of who will be elected next. The Church of God is at an intersection which will require definition of style of government and method of management.
OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

There are options for the future:
1. The Church of God can proffer that the current leadership crisis is one-of-a-kind. This would suggest that it will go away without any serious damage.

“This too will pass” is an optimism not predicated in reality. Besides current damage, this approach is sure to in time mature another crisis with another General Overseer. It ignores the power issue.

2. Church of God leaders can recognize the failure of the style of government and open the door for discussion. This will require creativity and boldness on the part of leaders. Input, pro and con, will be intense. There will be fallout.
However, the goal would be for a consensus to evolve which would define and refine Church of God management structure to be contemporary and effective.
3. There could be a schism just as happened in 1923. Sociologically, it was a schism, i.e., enough leaders, people and churches left the Church of God to create a major crisis.
Protesting that another schism of the Church of God could not happen is inconsistent with sociological movements. Any time a sufficiently large number of followers feels that leadership has failed, there is a possibility of take-over, ostracism, or schism. Schisms can take many forms, not always physically dividing the body.
Schism are prevented when a forum is developed allowing factions at odds to ease tensions, develop common goals, cultivate new and stronger bonds of unity, and conceptualize a common vision.
4. Without resolution, it seems reasonable to expect that loyalty of local churches and pastors will precipitously decline. There will be growing efforts to encourage parishioners to fund local churches with non-tithe income, thus decreasing funding to general headquarters.

It will become increasingly difficult for executives to find appointees willing to risk their futures to a volatile political framework. If leaders are not premier quality, then pastors will tend to be more independent and less interactive with executive offices.
There needs to be a fix, a repair, an adjustment, an overhaul of the leadership structure of the Church of God. It will not be easy and the price will not be cheap. Resources and power in the hands of a few frustrate openness. The evolution of bureaucratic leadership has put control of polity structure in the hands of those who have the most to lose if the structure is radically changed. Further, current polity obstructs efforts to re-design the organizational management structure.
THE WAY OUT OF THE GREEK MAZE
When the people of Israel wanted a king, God relented and allowed them to have one. However, the Almighty admonished Israel that the price of a king would often be greater than they would be willing to pay. In spite of Israel’s desire to be like other nations and have a king, God blessed them.

In spite of a defective system, God has blessed the Church of God. Many godly men and women, including executive leaders, have labored faithfully, performed excellently, and accomplished a great deal. Much good has been and is being done. Ministries of individuals and local churches have reaped a harvest. The growth in numbers of the Church of God has been impressive.
However, the reasoning that the system is correct because of growth is a flawed argument. If all that grows is good, then many anti-Christian ministries would be righteous. Further, the presumption that growth equals good is flawed in that it fails to acknowledge growth could have been greater with a better system.
Israel corrected course when she returned to God. The way out of the maze for the Church of God is to turn to God (II Chronicles 14:7). There are essentials which lay the foundation for revival.
As with Israel, man-made objects which impede the work of the Holy Spirit must be removed or destroyed. Even the sacred altars and objects of worship were rededicated and consecrated in acts of spiritual renewal. Three gentle but firm steps would signal a new beginning:
1. An admission of a general crisis and a call for repentance would serve as a call to prayer. God’s deliverance never comes at the genius of man. Rather, God looks for obedience.
2. Brotherhood needs nurturing. This is the era of movements espousing the godly role men are to fill in this time of world-wide revival. If the Church of God is to lead, we must sense a mutual servanthood between executives and rank-and-file, between ordained ministers and non-ordained ministers, and between ministers and laity. There can be no “us” and “them”.
3. Those who will lead must be Christ-like. Vindictive and accusatory language is not Christ-like. The Son of Man who founded the Church had no “guile” (I Peter 2:22). Resolution of conflicts and challenges must be accomplished in graceful language, with silence often being the victor. Those who are profoundly right do not need to villainize those who are profoundly wrong.

The philosophy of communication serves as an excellent foundation for establishing positive dialogue. There are five levels of dialogue:
1. We are friends. We agree.
2. We are friends. We disagree.
3. We are friends. We disagree. You are wrong.
4. We are friends. We disagree. You are wrong. And you are stupid.
5. We disagree. You are wrong. And you are too stupid to be my friend.
If a discussion begins at levels 1 o4 2 there is great expectation of conflict being positively resolved. The higher the number at which discussion begins, the less probability of positive resolution. Those beginning conversation at level 5 are almost certain to end the discussion with conflict too great for problem solving.

The first step to getting out of the maze is to raise the character and integrity of the level of communication. Let every person be of the same worth. Let opinions be validated by merit: Many advisers make victory sure” (Proverbs 11:14).
A PRACTICAL BEGINNING

Leaders must rise to the task of converging energies into reaping the harvest. This is the time for bold leaders to allow parliamentary procedure to work. A 2/3 majority can suspend the rules, establish an Order of the Day, and allow a formal venue for dialogue. No business is more important than the integrity of how business is done. Even prayer cannot be effective when there is a failure to do what God has already shown should be done: “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins” (James 4:17).
We must work at the challenges without personal indictment. An offense to a brother is more divisive than a walled city (Proverbs 18:19). The litmus test of public testimony was established by our Lord Jesus: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, that ye have love one for another” (John 13:35_.
With balanced dialectical dialogue, frankly spoken but without personal attacks, a working commission could be formed. This commission would be charged with bringing a recommended plan of action to the next Assembly.
Possibilities for such a commission to consider are offered. None of the following in any way challenges doctrine of the church of God. None are revolutionary. The process could be prayerfully achieved, without disaster, as ministers and members yield to the call of the Savior to look upon the harvest (John 4:35).
1. Develop a merit plan for most positions previously appointed by the Executive Committee. This system would require application, review, qualification, and disclosure.
2. Develop a budget plan that would vastly decrease the power of the Executive Committee, or significantly increase the fiscal accountability of the Executive Committee. A specific area of concern would be to decrease the power of the Executive Committee to control or influence departmental executives, while developing a system of greater fiscal accountability for all executives.

3. Develop a plan requiring greater accountability of the General Overseer and General Executive Committee. This could include General Assembly fiscal committees to review all budgets and make recommendations. This should include consideration of an altered title/structure for the General Overseer, e.g., General Secretary. The title accorded an organizational leader is a significant dynamic.
4. Develop a plan to insure that the General Assembly Business Session be equal in length to the business session of the General Council. Without free and open discussion the General Assembly cannot be a viable entity of the polity process.
5. Develop a plan to facilitate lay persons participating in General Assembly discussions, i.e., allowing one speech by a lay person for each speech by a minister. This could also include laypersons and non-ordained ministers serving as ushers and on General Assembly boards, committees, and commissions.
6. Develop a plan making laity eligible to hold many of the offices previously filled by ordained ministers. Church of God Minutes do not require that all these positions be filled by ordained ministers. Expediency insists on quality, not hierarchical classification.
7. Develop a re-structuring plan which would impact leadership strategy and technique at all levels, from the local church to the General Assembly. The current crisis is church-wide, and constituency will expect an ameliorative process allowing the loca church to have more influence on polity development and organizational management. Local churches are very much aware that their funds are the primary funding source for the organization.

While the foregoing ideas are not intended to be inclusive, they do suggest a viable framework for lowering the level of tension and focusing attention upon the harvest. We cannot go back. We cannot stand still. We cannot go forward without change. May God give to us the wisdom and courage to be bold enough to do what needs to be done to correct the course.
True to our heritage, let us be faithful to God’s Word. However, when technique is not specified in scripture, may we prayerfully pursue the course that will be most productive, yield the greatest number of souls, and help us to make the most disciples. The virtue and efficacy of the Church of God depends upon our fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19,20). He that will be the greatest among us, let him be the servant (Matthew 23:11).

No comments: