ThinkingInColor

In a move that I consider a watershed moment for the United Pentecostal Church, International, the resolution passed in Greensboro, NC that gave the right to vote to all licensed ministers will change the voting profile of the organization in a number of significant ways. This holds enormous implications for our future. If a significant number of newly-enfranchised voters attend conference, pastors will most likely constitute a minority of voters. The average age of voters will probably go down, which means that voters will have fewer years invested into the organization and may have less at stake with any potential legislation. The content of future resolutions will undoubtedly shift toward the interests of younger ministers who may have different goals than the previous generation. Fiscal issues that come before the organization that primarily impact pastors and churches will be determined by those who may not have the means to pay for them.

Whether or not these changes bode good or ill remains to be seen. Prior to the resolution passing, it would have been very interesting and informative for the ministers to have had the history of voting in the UPCI summarized for them. At the merger, every licensed minister could vote. In 1956, however, this was changed to “all accredited ministers with the exception of those holding local license who are not pastors or full-time evangelists.” This new rule even prohibited full-time assistant pastors from voting if they held a local license. Unsuccessful attempts were made to change this in 1957 and again in 1966. Also, churches used to have one vote in addition to the pastor’s vote via a delegate to district and general conferences. That was removed in 1971, ostensibly because a delegate vote was not consistent with the definition of the UPCI as an association of ministers. Other changes took place in voter qualifications in 1971 that expanded the vote to assistant pastors, elected and appointed officials, honorary ministers and others in full-time ministry. Further refinements were made in 1973 and 1978. Other than some clarifications, the voting constituency remained virtually unchanged until 2008. We must assume that there were good reasons for these developments, but they have not always been clear to newer ministers who have joined the UPCI in subsequent years. Perhaps recounting this history may be helpful in understanding the vote in Greensboro.

Another assumption often made is that voting is uniform throughout the world. This is not the case. Voting means different things, depending on the venue, and may be configured in different ways. In corporations, for example, voting rights and privileges do not mean the same as voting as a citizen in a country. Preferred stockholders have no voting rights unless the company defaults on the dividend for a specific number of quarters, or if the company wants to issue a new class of preferred stock equal to or better than the existing preferred stock. Common stockholders, unlike preferred stockholders, have the right to vote for the corporate board of directors, who, in turn, have complete control of the company. Each stock gives the stockholder one vote for each director position that is up for voting, but that vote may be apportioned in 2 different ways.

• Statutory voting allows using all votes for each of the vacancies for the board of directors.
• Cumulative voting increases the number of votes that a stockholder can use for a particular candidate. For instance, if there are 4 different vacancies on the board and a stockholder owns 500 shares, then a statutory voting privilege allows the stockholder to cast 500 votes for each of 4 candidates for the 4 vacancies for a total of 2,000 votes, but no more than 500 can be cast for any candidate. Cumulative voting would give the shareholder 2000 votes (500 X 4) that could be apportioned in any way: all 2000 votes for one candidate, or 1,000 for one, 500 to each of two others, and none to the others, for instance.

If a stockholder cannot attend a meeting to vote, then he can cast his vote by proxy through the mail, or having someone else at the meeting to cast his vote.

The general history of voting in the United States gives us additional insight into this topic.

• 1776. At the time of independence, only property owners had voting rights. Most voters were white males over the age of 21 of Protestant religion.
• 1787. In the newly drafted Constitution, states were given the power to set voting mandates and most were still favorable to white males who owned property.
• 1830. Many states had dropped religion and property ownership as requirements for voting and with such a large percentage of the population at the polls, political parties were beginning to develop.
• 1868. The 14th Amendment recognized African Americans as citizens, giving them the right to vote. However, state officials continued attempts to deny this right.
• 1870. African Americans were given the right to vote in the 15th Amendment. It prohibited any state or local government from denying that right.
• 1890. Wyoming became the first state to recognize women’s right to vote and provide for it in a state constitution.
• 1913. Voting power was expanded with 17th Amendment, calling for the popular election of US senators.
• 1920. The 19th Amendment was added to the Constitution, giving women across the nation the right to vote.
• 1940. Congress recognized Native Americans as citizens. However, it wasn’t until 1947 that all states granted them the right to vote.
• 1964. The 24th Amendment declared that no person should be denied the right to vote because they cannot pay a “poll tax.”
• 1965. An amendment to the Voting Rights Act banned the use of literacy tests, poll taxes and other obstacles designed to keep people from voting.
• 1971. The voting age was lowered to 18.

This brief history illustrates the fact that, in the United States, current voting privileges evolved over a long period of time and with great difficulty. As concepts about governing changed, the views about voting shifted as well. It is true that power struggles, political maneuvering and raw prejudice was to blame for many of the obstacles to enfranchisement. The substantive reason for this arduous course, however, was that each generation understood that the vote represents ultimate power in a society. That meant that such enormous power should not and would not be given away without commensurate cost.

Having set forth the foregoing points, I do welcome the full participation of every licensed minister in the voting and political process of the United Pentecostal Church, International. It has been debated over many years and now, it has finally been done. As its proponents argued, the privilege of voting confers a sense of ownership of the organization upon each individual minister and provides an incentive for members to become involved to a much greater extent. At the same time, we do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we adopt a cavalier attitude toward this new development. We must not treat it as simply a right or entitlement and fail to solemnly weigh out its full ramifications on a personal and corporate level.

It would be wrong to charge those who have just received the vote with irresponsibility or immaturity before they have a chance to cast their first ballot. Instead, I will simply spell out for you what my vote means to me. You can then evaluate my position and feelings as you wish and compare them with your own.

• My vote means that I agree to participate in a democratic activity in which I may win or lose. I do not re-write the rules if I do not like the results. If I win, I must be gracious. If I lose, I must lay my opposition aside and submit to the majority decision.
• My vote means that I have a duty to inform myself about the issues.
• My vote means that I must know the qualifications for each office holder.
• My vote means that I must acquaint myself with the offices and job descriptions for each position.
• My vote means that I have a duty to identify the incumbent of each office for which I will cast a vote. It also means that I must assess the officer’s performance in his or her position.
• My vote means that I must answer to my own conscience before casting a ballot, rather than allow someone else to make my decision for me.
• My vote means that I have a sacred duty to vote responsibly, seriously and sincerely.
• My vote means that I must support the individual who wins any particular election, regardless of whether he or she was my choice.
• My vote means that I must be prepared to shoulder the outcome of my decision should I prevail.
• My vote means that I may not always be pleased with the outcome but I will always support the process.
• My vote means that any fiscal impact a decision makes upon me will have my fair and faithful personal support.
• My vote is mine and mine alone. It is not for sale.
• I will not use my vote used to punish anyone, gain vindication for myself, deliberately cause harm to the organization, or for any other deleterious or disruptive purpose.
• My vote is to voice my opinion. Once the opinion of the majority is known by the result of the vote, my opinion will no longer be voiced to the disunity of the body.
• If I fail to cast my vote, I concede that my vote is unimportant.
• If I fail to cast an informed vote, I disrespect the privilege of voting.
• If I disparage the act of voting, I contribute to the destruction of the process.

I understand that by exercising my voting privilege, I am a contributor to the future of the United Pentecostal Church, International. My vote helps to shape it, define it, regulate it and fund it. I share in the ultimate oversight of selecting the officers in charge, of determining what we stand for, of what we deem important and how we respond to the opportunities and crises of the present. I have a responsibility to those past generations who sacrificed and fought the battles that gave this organization to us as well as the legacy we will leave for the generations to come.

My ballot is a single consequential act that either points the way upward to success or downward to failure. Never again can I wash my hands of an issue as though I were an outsider. Never again can I excuse my apathy or frustration by hiding behind ignorance, unfairness or denial of participation. I value my vote. I will do everything in my power to use it wisely and temper it with scripture and prayer. I can no longer refer to the organization as it, they or them. Now, it is me, we and us. I love this organization and its people, and I am in agreement with its articles of faith and its form of administration. The future of the organization is in my hands as much as anyone else’s. Whatever it will become will be determined by my level of concerned participation.

 

The most pathetic man in the world, according to a very reliable source, is a preacher who loses his license and tries to re-enter the work force. “Preachers”, he told me, “have an unbelievable ego. They believe that they can do anything when, actually, they are qualified to do little except stand up in front of people and be admired.”

Pretty harsh, and not one-hundred percent accurate, but it does make one think. Preachers do get the limelight for inordinate amounts of time. Feted and spoiled, pampered and preferred, exalted and revered, loved and obeyed, many of them think that life ought to be handed to them on the proverbial silver platter. They hear the word “no” so seldom that they don’t seriously consider that they could be turned down for anything.

Some of you may be saying, “Who is this guy? I’d like to get the job he just left. All I deal with are disgruntled saints and tough old birds who couldn’t care less if I lived or died!” The fact is, however, that most people in the average church congregation have great respect for the ministry and they love their preacher. That is a remarkable testimony to all the truly great men who have served as pastors for Pentecostal congregations over the past eighty-plus years in the Apostolic movement.

All of us, of course, have an ego. Without it, we would have no personality. Our ego is our sense of self, our personal assessment of our own worth or esteem. Psychologists have identified the male ego as having a much greater force than the female ego.

In my observation of the church and organizational world over the past thirty-five years, most preacher-problems may be traced back to one root source: an overblown ego. Preachers who fail to rein in their egos stumble into deep ditches of heartbreaking sin and career-ending transgressions. Be careful of your ego.

It’s so predictable. Preachers who end up in self-destruction never want to talk about their problems while en route to their demise. They disdain the offer of help. They seldom seek advice or counsel, mainly because they don’t think anyone can tell them something they don’t already know. Many times they actually think they can get away with indiscretions or even transgressions because they are smart enough to avoid the pitfalls and clever enough to sidestep inquiries.

This is where you can stop reading. You already know what I am going to say, and it applies to all those dim lights out there whom only God knows how they got a license in the first place.

If you do read on, you must fully and humbly accept the premise that you are capable of failure—and not just technically or theoretically speaking either. I mean that you can see the very real faults and inconsistencies in yourself as potential nemeses that can bring you down. This admission does not malign your confidence or your self-esteem. It does, however, keep you face-to-face with reality. We need to remind ourselves that any successes we have flow directly from the providence of God. They are not a function of intelligence, talent, wealth or any other humanly generated quality. Whenever we mistakenly believe that our own brains, looks and/or abilities made it all possible, we are already in trouble.

Moral failure begins with ego. I have heard all the purported reasons why ministers have fallen into sexual sins. Some blame it on their spouses. Others say that a certain woman set her sights on them and pursued them until they fell. Others believe that they were victimized by their own charms…they were just so incredibly hot that the opposite sex couldn’t resist them! From oversexed to under-serviced, from under-appreciated to over-criticized, from too charming to too caring, transgressors in the clergy have said almost anything to justify their wrongdoing.

The real culprit is not a man’s libido, but his ego. One of these failure scenarios begins to develop subtly when the preacher sees himself as a pretty wonderful person and he believes that his wife does not really appreciate his greatness. He becomes increasingly offended by her lack of awareness of who he is. About that time, another woman compliments him on his sermons, his pastoral abilities and his leadership in general. She says that he is so understanding, so wise, and so strong. She wishes her husband had a fraction of his qualities. A steady diet of this kind of ego-stroking often proves too much for an ego-driven man.

Yet another common scenario takes place in counseling with a woman who is inundated by problems, the worst of which is a rotten marriage. The preacher/counselor confuses his role as a facilitator with the sense that he, himself, is her savior. An unchecked ego causes him to cross the line to provide her with comfort and security and he becomes intimately involved with her. Even though his feelings may not arise from arrogance or conceit, his transgression is nevertheless ego-based.

Some preachers’ egos need little encouragement. An individual like this may indeed possess superior skill in several areas, but his opinion of himself is inflated beyond temperance. Unfortunately, when ego lacks the seasoning of humility, a preacher believes that he can do no wrong, and he fails to judge himself by righteous standards. He makes exceptions for his own sins, as though he owned an entitlement for indulgences that others do not have. Either he feels the good he does makes up for his indiscretions or else he believes the heavy load he carries buys the right to moral lapses.

Leadership crises begin with ego. The catch-22 here is, of course, that leadership requires a strong ego. Without it, leaders would neither seek nor accept their role in the first place. Ironically, the very thing that qualifies the leader to lead is the thing that threatens his or her leadership the most. We’re talking about the difference between confidence and cockiness; between charting the course and controlling peoples’ lives; between being an overseer and becoming a dictator.

I have seen it happen too many times in too many places. In the typical scenario, a leader feels he is being disrespected by either the tepid response or a disagreement of his followers. Rather than holding a private meeting with the parties involved and working things out, he erupts with a verbal assault against his opponents from the pulpit or some other open forum, and usually everyone knows who he is talking about. He does not permit questions, advice, changes or other forms of tampering with his ideas. Compromise has no place in his vocabulary. Once he says “God told me…” it’s basically all over.

People respond to genuine love, care and concern. They want their leaders to be sensitive to their needs and feelings. They will submit to unusually strong discipline and high expectations to the leader that really loves them. The leader with an inflated ego, however, demands that people love him, care about him and demonstrate their concern for him. He demands that they be sensitive to his needs and feelings. He will use tactics of fear, intimidation, public embarrassment and authoritative control over the lives of his followers if he so desires. Truth be told, many of these situations actually rise to the level of spiritual abuse and often create dysfunctional congregations.

Doctrinal lapses begin with ego. An aberrant idea, a novel approach or some unique angle on the scriptures that a minister stumbles across in the course of his studies often stimulates one’s associates into intense conversation. The prudent man filters his occasional brainstorms or revelations through his mentors and friends, allowing them to examine his ideas dispassionately, unbiased by ego. Any minister who is not willing to subject his ideas to peer criticism or the views of his spiritual authorities suffers from an overblown sense of self importance, not merely some doctrinal deviancy.

A number of years ago, a woman approached a district superintendent in the UPCI with an interesting question. She had heard about a certain minister who preach the oneness Apostolic message at one time, but later denounced the oneness view, claiming that God had given him a revelation of a tri-theistic Godhead. The elder’s response took me back. He told her that he believed that God could indeed give someone a revelation of a false doctrine, but there were some revelations he didn’t want God to give him. He then quoted these scriptures. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. He informed her that God would protect his Word by weeding out those who did not love truth. This was the wisdom of a proven warrior, a veteran of doctrinal trench warfare.

Great men who have enjoyed immense esteem in the eyes of others have fallen prey to ego. Seasoned ministers have numerous stories to tell about those who have tumbled from high perches when age or circumstances threatened their egos. They felt compelled to concoct some new doctrine, some different twist on scripture or some earth-shaking revelation that would restore their superiority. Invariably, they wound up destroying any vestige of credibility they had accrued in earlier years. One simply cannot handle the Word of God with an exalted self opinion and expect to stay free and clear from false doctrine. Pride feasts on ideas that promise to bring the world to one’s doorstep.

Financial ruin begins with ego. Discovering that a fundamental difference exists between accounting and economics surprises many college freshmen who enroll in one or both of these courses. Accounting concerns itself with enumerating assets and balancing debits and credits. Economics deals with managing resources. Accounting falls more into the math category; economics is a study in human social behavior. I point this out because too many preachers who find themselves in financial hot water justify their problems by citing poor math skills. The real problem has nothing to do with math, but with the decisions they make about the money under their control. Our use of money grows out of convictions, preferences and opinions that we hold about life. Someone has aptly said, “Don’t tell me about your values. Show me your budget and I will tell you what your values are!”

When ego expresses itself in terms of money, it is invariably a harbinger of financial woes. For example, a British writer, Christopher Hitchens, in Slate Magazine (9-1-2008) talks about the way the privileged class thinks about money. “The late queen mother, being driven in a Rolls-Royce through a stricken district of Manchester, England, said as she winced at the view, “I see no point at all in being poor.” The Duke of St. Albans once told an interviewer that an ancestor of his had lost about 50 million pounds in a foolish speculation in South African goldfields, adding after a pause, “That was a lot of money in those days.” The Duke of Devonshire, having been criticized in the London Times, announced in an annoyed and plaintive tone that he would no longer have the newspaper “in any of my houses.” Similarly, a pampered ego in charge of church finances almost always views personal wealth as a ministerial right.

As long as there is money to spend, things go smoothly, at least for a while. The snag comes when a minister’s ego convinces him that people aren’t giving enough. He thinks they don’t appreciate how good he is or are not rewarding him for his time and labor. At this point, a minister begins talking about money every chance he gets, and he steps up the pressure for bigger offerings and greater sacrifices. Coupled with this is usually a refusal to provide a proper financial report to the congregation. Questions eventually arise that too much money seems to be going down a rathole somewhere. Now you have the ingredients for disaster.

Financial problems, of course, can crop up for reasons that have nothing to do with ego. But far too many instances exist in which ministers have driven a church into the ground because of greed, foolish pride and personal ambition. We cannot dismiss ego from culpability.

Overbearing ministerial hubris has no place in church leadership. We may put up with it or even expect it in other professions, but God-called man cannot indulge his egotism without violating the very premise of his servanthood. No less a man than the Apostle Paul slams the ego in unequivocal terms. “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” Romans 12:3. The preacher who cannot control his ego does not have God in the proper perspective in his life. His own opinions will carry more weight than God’s.

^“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” Ephesians 3:6-8.

“Mike Huckabee learned how to be a politician in church. As pastor at Immanuel Baptist in Pine Bluff, he visited the home of every member. Years later, he could recall their names. He learned how to raise money, even in struggling congregations. And in a statewide fight over Baptist leadership, he confronted powerful opponents and won. He called it ‘some of the most intense hardball politics I have ever seen.’” So wrote Rachel Zoll, a writer for the Associated Press. (Google, 1-24-08).

For those familiar with the inner workings of church congregations and church organizations, Huckabee’s hands-on, pulpit and pew, political education comes as no surprise. While there may be differences in how much and what kind of politics goes on, members of nearly every religious group can identify with the Presidential hopeful’s background. Doctrine, philosophy or sectarian stripe all seem irrelevant to the human proclivity for power and control. Politics merely describes what we do to get them.

Politics in the religious organization, yes, even the United Pentecostal Church, International, continues to thrive, despite all the frowned-upon looks it gets, the outright denials that it even exists and the occasional public exhortations that nobody should engage in it. It has evolved as a quasi-accepted practice because it serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas and gives its members some sense of control over their own destiny. Undoubtedly, some who get pulled into the process have no idea that they are playing politics. Others explain that their concerns about certain trends and ideas are too great to keep their silence. I suspect the majority of the members who politick know exactly what they are doing, but they justify it because they believe that their cause demands it. All they want, they say, is clarity on the issues and fairness through the even dissemination of facts. Rather than playing politics, they prefer to think of themselves as courageous purveyors of truth.

It is much easier to engage in politics than you might imagine. If you drum up support for a person to be elected to office or a piece of legislation to be passed, that’s politics. If you campaign actively for someone to be turned out of office or for the defeat of a resolution, that’s politics. If you deliberately broadcast your strong opinions with the intent to persuade others to agree with you, that’s politics. Those who are passionate about their beliefs can get political before they even realize it. These actions, however, constitute a form of politics that has become inadvertently sanctioned, given the size of the organization and the way it functions. It has slowly become our way to make things happen on a general level. Without some politicking, nobody would have a balanced view of the way things operate.

But an uglier side of politics also exists. It usually erupts when a major issue moves center stage, when a long standing disagreement comes to a head or when prominent leaders clash with each other. Those involved in this aspect of the process do not intend to leave the outcome of ideas up to individual choice. They seek to gain advantage by any means possible, and their purpose is to guarantee a specific outcome, despite the will of the majority. This style of politics, however, reduces the district or national dialogue to arm-twisting, black-balling, parochial tactics. Far from a respectful, rational discussion of ideas, manipulative politics operates on the premise that the end justifies the means. Regardless of how narrow their goal, political operatives work behind the scenes to pull off a victory. Individual ministers or larger groups suffer collateral damage in the midst of the conflict. Often, the perpetrators get their way and claim the will of God in so doing.

Lest we think these machinations are atypical, religious organizations are certainly not the exception to political behavior. Studies have shown that it happens in organizations across the spectrum of social activity. The following excerpts come from www.entrepreneur.com, a website that focuses on business and organizational behavior. I have underlined the salient parts.

“Researchers agree that political behavior is a normal part of doing business (Ferris et al., 1996; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Williams and Dutton, 2000). Nonetheless, researchers also agree that this concept has received insufficient attention in the organizational literature (Drory and Romm, 1990; Ferris et al., 1996; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Gandz and Murray, 1980). In addition, there is no common basic definition that captures the entire complexity of organizational politics (Drory and Romm, 1990). While consensus has not yet been achieved in defining organizational politics, there are two primary definitions that capture much of the research in this area (Cropanzano et al., 1997). One perspective is a general one that defines politics as a very broad and general set of social behaviors that can contribute to the basic functioning of the organization (Pfeffer, 1981). In this view, politics can be either functional or dysfunctional.

The second more common view of politics among researchers is a more narrow and specific one (Cropanzano et al., 1997). This definition of politics focuses on behaviors that are self-serving and not sanctioned by the organization (Farrell and Petersen, 1982; Ferris et al., 1989; Ferris et al., 1996; Gandz and Murray, 1980; Schein, 1977). Interestingly, however, not all self-serving political behavior is necessarily dysfunctional to the organization. Nevertheless, this perspective suggests that the use of political behaviors has typically been considered inappropriate and unacceptable. In fact, Mintzberg defined political behavior as “individual or group behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all in a technical sense, illegitimate—sanctioned neither by authority, accepted ideology or certified expertise” (1983: 172). Likewise, while Mayes and Allen (1977) differentiated between sanctioned and non-sanctioned behavior, their framework identified primarily non-sanctioned behaviors as those that were organizationally dysfunctional. (Zanzi, Alberto, and O’Neill, Regina M., Journal of Managerial Issues , Summer, 2001).

Since many may be unsure how we determine political activity, I have compiled a list of non-sanctioned behaviors that political hacks commonly use. Any of these actions, whether deliberate or intuitive, may constitute playing politics. They contribute to organizational dysfunction and foster division, disillusionment and conflict among the members. And, just because a particular decision leads to a positive outcome does not justify the method used to get there. Illegitimate political tactics lower the honest expectations of the membership by forcing people to join a certain camp or clique and deny their personal convictions or feelings. While these divisive campaigns are ostensibly based upon righteous causes, many times they are actually power moves promulgated by individuals or groups. They include:

• Offering favors in return for support
• Asking favors in exchange for support
• Withholding legitimate support
• Withholding information
• Dubious campaign promises
• Emotional appeals not based in fact
• Fraternizing with unlikely individuals or groups for support
• Deliberately mischaracterizing situations
• Working the system
• Tampering with votes or ballots
• Timed release of information on an opponent, whether true or false
• Personal attacks
• Character assassination
• Rumor mongering
• Pressuring
• Betrayal of confidence
• Masking intentions
• Sloganeering
• Spreading disinformation
• Using surrogates
• Questionable co-opting
• Misrepresentation of an opponents position
• Data manipulation
• Lying
• Threat of retaliation
• Retaliation
• Using organizational resources for personal advantage
• Sowing discord between members
• Agitation
• Collusion and conspiracy
• Rebellion

Many of these tactics can be seen as blatantly sinful, but some players excuse other tactics in the list as justifiable, depending upon the circumstances. One common political maneuver takes place on the conference floor with clever uses of Robert’s Rules of Order. Letter-writing campaigns, phone brigades, mass emails and special-interest conferences are—or can be—political as well. Much worse are reports that some have stuffed ballot boxes, distorted the truth or have even told lies in order to secure a certain “righteous” outcome. One would hope that these are rare excesses of the fringe element, but they still represent a troubling reality. It should be patently transparent that integrity and truth be the standard for Christians. Why, then, when it comes to organizational politics, would anyone be willing to cast character aside in order to get his or her way? Does a holy God need unholy practices to save his church? Is righteousness secured by unrighteousness?

Many of the unacceptable behaviors condemned in the Bible have political implications. The book of Proverbs and in much of the writings of the Apostle Paul, we find proscriptions against backbiting, discord, division, disorderliness, being a busybody and other similar sins. One can easily see that these same acts constitute the major strategy in dysfunctional organizational politics. A righteous cause, however, does not mysteriously sanctify these illicit practices. The Bible does not only point out sinful practices, it also defines and encourages wholesome practices. Obedience, submission, unity, love, support, like-mindedness, accord, brotherly kindness, trust, encouragement, consideration, restoration, help and many other behaviors characterize the attitude and heart of the believer. A political process that is rich in these positive attitudes will be strong and enduring.

Difficulties inevitably tested the politics of the New Testament. Issues like the persecution of the church, the administrative problems in tending to the physical needs of members, the introduction of Gentile believers into the exclusively Jewish church body, the rise of the Judaizers, the warring factions of the Corinthians and the sharp contention between the top leaders of the church were all challenges that threatened to slow down, stop or even tear apart the primitive church. In each of these instances, we can see the prevailing spirit of brotherly love that helped guide the church through rough waters and held it together. Had the members fought selfishly for their own individual ways and refused to yield to the will of their leadership, one wonders if the church would have made it out of the first century. Strong personalities, deeply held traditions and daunting circumstances can only stay in harmony when everyone renounces dysfunctional politics and agrees to the standard of brotherly love.

I believe it would be advantageous for the United Pentecostal Church, International to adopt a set of guidelines to regulate political behavior in organizational matters. This could also be accomplished by drafting a new position paper to be included in our manual. Given the long experience of members in the organization, no one could credibly deny that politics exists among us. While an addition to the already burgeoning manual may not eradicate the practice, it would go a long way in identifying and regulating it. Sincere people could then apprise themselves of the matter and do everything in their power to avoid repeating it.

Few things are more exasperating and disheartening to a minister with high ideals than to observe dirty politics played within the very organization that he sacrificed so much to join, and that he loves and esteems so highly. We cannot afford to let egregious practices go unchecked or to pave the way to power and clout. If we cannot find it within us to police ourselves, we may eventually be policed by outsiders who have no respect for who we are. Too many good men and women have invested their lives in this Apostolic movement to turn a blind eye to internal excesses. But beyond that, we are accountable to God for the stewardship of the church over which he has made us overseers. Love, respect and honor must guide our work, personally, locally and globally.

-J. Mark Jordan, February 13, 2008

 

Now that the results of the survey about advertising on television have been published, we are free to talk about the implications they hold, both in the overall survey and in the responses to individual questions. As a proponent of advertising, and as a member of the committee that drafted the survey, I think everyone had some surprises in the outcome. The project itself, the controversy notwithstanding, was very revealing. We learned some things about ourselves and our proclivities that many of us did not suspect. Although the scope of my discussion here will be a bit more comprehensive than just a reaction to the raw data, I think some deeper, more insightful analysis may be forthcoming in the months ahead. I am intrigued by the notion that twenty questions could tell so much, yet so little, about an organization.

The first thing that strikes me about the survey is the low percentage of participants. My calculations tell me that an average of 2,353 responses for the sixteen questions was registered. That means of the 9,076 surveys mailed out, 6,623 ministers did not respond in any way, or a full 74% of our constituency did not fill out the form and send it in. This is a very significant number because it means that all the questions answered on the survey represent only 26% of the total number of ministers. Any extrapolations from the data must keep this in mind to avoid broad, inaccurate generalizations.

Some who refer to polling data averages compiled by national organizations such as Gallup, Rasmussen or Zogby which base assumptions on a small sampling of the population, contend that the same assumptions can be made about the figures in this survey. This direct correlation does not work. First, we must account for the margin of error.

“There is no concept as confusing as ‘Margin of Error.’ It is used a lot but few people understand it. Suppose a polling company calls 1000 randomly selected people in a state that is truly divided 50-50 (say Missouri), they may, simply by accident, happen to call 520 Democrats and 480 Republicans and announce that Claire McCaskill is ahead 52% to 48%. But another company on the same day may happen to get 510 Republicans and 490 Democrats and announce that Jim Talent is ahead 51% to 49%. The variation caused by having such a small sample is called the margin of error and is usually between 2% and 4% for the sample sizes used in state polling. With a margin of error of, say, 3%, a reported 51% really means that there is a 95% chance that the true (unknown) percentage of voters favoring McCaskill falls between 48% and 54% [and a 5% chance that it is outside this (two sigma) range].

“In the first above example, with a 3% MoE, the 95% confidence interval for McCaskill is 49% to 55% and for Talent 45% to 51%. Since these overlap, we cannot be 95% certain that McCaskill is really ahead, so this is called a statistical tie. When the ranges of the candidates do not overlap (i.e., the difference between them is at least twice the margin of error), then we can be 95% certain the leader is really ahead. The margin of error deals ONLY with sampling error—the fact that when you ask 1000 people in an evenly divided state, you are probably not going to get exactly 500 Democrats and 500 Republicans. However, a far greater source of error in all polls is methodological error.” (www.votefromabroad.org)

In addition to the margin of error, there is a vast difference between polling the general public and taking an in-house survey of members who have a vested interest in the issue and will definitely be impacted by the results. When only a quarter of the members respond to an in-house survey, the level of apathy, lack of knowledge or negative feelings about conducting such a survey in the first place must be considered very high.

Why did the survey elicit such a low number? One can only speculate here. A certain percentage may not have received the survey due to incorrect addresses or postal problems. Others may have completed it but mailed it back too late. It would be a stretch to say that these situations constituted the major reason for the small response. It would also be difficult to say that the ministerial body was uninformed. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of ministers were either not interested or deliberately did not respond because they were against the idea of a survey. The number of respondents was somewhat higher than the number of ministers who attend general conference. That may mean that ministers who have no plans to go to Tampa didn’t bother to participate. The prevailing attitude among them may be that their opinions would make little or no difference in the outcome. Whatever the reason that only 26% of the ministers responded, we must look at all the data with that in mind.

The first question asked whether we want to allow UPCI ministers to advertise on television. It elicited 1,175 yes votes and 1,195 no votes, a margin of 20 ministers, with 47 not responding. This was a difference of 0.8% of 2,370 who answered it. When figured on 9,076 UPCI ministers, the difference becomes 0.002%, a statistically insignificant number. No one who attempts to make this a mandate for or against TV advertising should be afforded credibility. If a meteorologist predicted a 0.002 % (or even 0.8 %) chance of precipitation, few people would take their umbrellas with them. Statisticians would say that we are basically split down the middle on this question. It is true that, strictly speaking, more ministers voted no than yes. Any significance given to this fact is more than offset by the responses to other questions later in the survey.

The second question addressed ministering on television as opposed to simple advertising. A wider margin said no to this question than the previous one. (14.6%). Apparently, we believe that televising preaching services constitutes more of a threat to area churches than mere advertising. It has been expressed in various articles that other Apostolic people who view such programming would be drawn to a church with a better choir, a nicer building or a more charismatic preacher. Also, since televising services may include appeals for offerings, some feel that they would lose income. These issues may have merit, but they have never been vetted out in a business meeting because the total ban that has been in place for thirty years has precluded such a discussion.

The next two questions have little or no bearing on this issue. They do seem to verify that the ministerial constituency wants to continue to ban televisions from the homes of church members and ministers. The margin between continuing or lifting the ban is much smaller than many would have suspected, or at least hoped for. Had this question been asked twenty years ago, how much greater would the margin have been? Much greater, in my estimation. These questions have been impacted by the rise of the internet. Several articles have pointed out that television signals may now be received by computers via the internet as easily as turning on an actual television set. More and more MSM broadcasters are making the latest episodes of their popular programming available on their home page. While the older generation thinks that viewing TV programs on the internet is too inconvenient—thus putting it safely out of reach—the younger, more computer-savvy generation thinks little or nothing about the difficulties. The point is that these two media continue to edge closer to each other. Soon, (yesterday in some cases) most technologies that people use from day-to-day will merge into a single device. At that point, look for another huge discussion to take place among us.

Question five addresses the heart of the survey’s original intent: How will adopting the resolution affect the relationship of ministers to the UPCI? Over sixty percent of the respondents said a limited use of TV (for advertising) would not have a negative effect on their relationship with the organization. The “negative effect” is not defined. One might assume that it means relinquishing their license, but no proof exists that this worst case scenario is necessarily true. At any rate, the 935 ministers who said they would be negatively affected represent only ten percent of the entire constituency. Of course, this assumes that the 74% who failed to respond would not be hurt by the change. As explained earlier, we cannot presume that to be the case. But neither can we validate the data that suggests nearly forty percent would leave. The huge fly in the ointment continues to be the low number of respondents. This makes it simply too difficult to draw solid conclusions.

Questions seven and eight make sense if we compare apples to apples. That is, if we think the other data are valid based on a quarter of the constituency responding, then we have something to talk about. Why would 49.6% say they would grant liberty for a brother to advertise on TV, and then 40.6% say they themselves would not advertise on TV? (Plus nearly 70% say they would not minister on television.) The disparity between the two positions cannot be based on a conviction that TV advertising is wrong. If it could, then the two questions would have produced identical results. What other reasons would explain the difference? There could be several. For some, the expense would be prohibitive. For others, TV advertising wouldn’t make good demographic sense. Much of our constituency is rural and other forms of advertising may work best for them. Still others may feel that their fellowship with certain friends would be jeopardized should they opt for TV advertising. The point is that merely because a minister says that he would not advertise on television does not mean that he thinks it is wrong to do so.

The ninth and tenth questions were, unfortunately, written in a way that could possibly skew the responses. The questions do not explain our traditional position on television. Is it the ban on televisions in the homes of UPCI people? Or is it the ban on advertising on television? If the respondent took the question to mean the former, the answer could have gone one way. If he took it to mean the latter, the answer could well have been the opposite. The wording of a question is vital to a coherent response. Consider the following:

“What are methodological errors?

First, there are many ways a polling can give misleading results due to poor methodology. For example, the phrasing of the questions is known to influence the results. Consider the following options:

If the Senate election were held today, would you vote for the Democrat or the Republican?
If the Senate election were held today, would you vote for the Republican or the Democrat?
If the Senate election were held today, would you vote for Sherrod Brown or Mike DeWine?
If the Senate election were held today, would you vote for Mike DeWine or Sherrod Brown?
If the Senate election were held today, would you vote for Democrat Sherrod Brown or Republican Mike DeWine?
If the Senate election were held today, would you vote for Republican Mike DeWine or Democrat Sherrod Brown?
If the Senate election were held today, for whom would you vote?
“These questions will all get different responses.

“Second, the sample may not be random. The most famous blunder in polling history occurred during the 1936 presidential election, in which Literary Digest magazine took a telephone poll and concluded that Alf Landon was going to beat Franklin D. Roosevelt in a landslide. Didn’t happen. What went wrong? At the height of the Depression, only rich people had telephones, and they were overwhelmingly Republican. But there weren’t very many of them. Even now, telephone polls miss people too poor to have telephones, people who don’t speak English (well), and people scared of strangers or too busy to deal with pollsters. These effects could systematically bias the results if not corrected for.” (www.votefromabroad.org)

Moreover, questions nine and ten set up a non-sequitur argument to make it appear that the use of TV for advertising will usher in a decline in holiness standards. It makes TV advertising take the fall for a condition that already runs rampant in our ranks. It would be grossly unfair for such an argument to be advanced. Even to suggest that TV advertising would exacerbate the present struggle with holiness would be speculation. Anecdotal evidence may exist here and there, but there is also anecdotal evidence that the opposite is true. If TV advertising is considered a holiness issue, it is only so because some have declared it to be so, or because “we’ve always believed it was a holiness issue,” not because they possess empirical evidence to that end.

The results to questions eleven and twelve must be very difficult to understand for those who have tried valiantly to demonstrate a difference between advertising on TV and advertising on the internet. It would appear that the respondents did not buy the argument. In the interests of consistency, they evidently recognized that if we disallow advertising or ministering on TV, we certainly shouldn’t allow advertising or ministering on the wild and wooly internet. The logic says that if we are against television, we should be a thousand-fold more against the internet.

The two kinds of advertising, TV and internet, are virtually identical…same programming format, same cameras, same lights, same video clips, same still pictures, same text, same music, same sounds…except for the way the signal is conveyed to the consumer and the device by which it is received by the consumer. Indeed, most pre-recorded clips that are played on television now are generated by computers the same way clips are made for the internet. Those ministers and churches who advertise on the internet make their product just like they would if they were to advertise on TV. The question is not how the footage will be prepared, but how will it be disseminated? Any differences would be of a minor and/or technical nature that would not appreciably affect this contention.

The response to question thirteen delivered the main shock to most of us. The respondents said 52% to 48% that the UPCI should produce a commercial to be broadcast on television. After all this controversy, the majority still said they would favor a commercial from the UPCI as an organization. To me, this means that the majority is not against the principle of TV advertising. Despite the dire warnings of opponents to TV advertising that it is going to lead us to destruction, they still spoke for it. They are for a UPCI commercial; they just don’t want the brother across town or in the next county to do it. This may go back to the fear issue spoken of earlier—fear of a better choir, nicer building, etc. I consider this the most significant response in the entire survey.

The questions and answers about pastors or evangelists have little meaning. All they tell us is that 1,638 pastors and 118 evangelists responded. We don’t know how each ministry type responded. Even if we did, it would all be academic.

My overall impression of the survey is that it is inconclusive. The small response, the statistically insignificant spreads, the unfortunate wording of some questions and illusion that it tells us where we are when, in reality, it does not…all these questions render the questionnaire very weak in terms of its professed purpose. Ironically, the survey itself may end up being a catalyst for change. Some may be emboldened by certain responses and change their vote in Tampa accordingly. To summarize, this is what I think the survey tells us:

• The majority of ministers do not have a strong preference for or against TV advertising.
• The 25% who responded are split right down the middle.
• It is unknown whether or not a significant number of ministers will turn in their card.
• Different wording may have yielded very different responses about holiness standards.
• If TV advertising is bad, internet advertising is worse.
• The majority of respondents want the UPCI, as an organization, to advertise on TV.

Much more can be said about this survey. I predict that there will be much said as time goes on. And, as I have said before, I am with the UPCI, regardless of the vote in Tampa.

(Several years ago, I responded to the following mentioned article.  You may be interested in reading this reprint.)

Charisma, a popular charismatic magazine takes a look at the UPCI in the past month’s issue in an article entitled, “The Other Pentecostals.” Predictably, some who share the writer’s viewpoint gloated, while their polar opposites voiced outrage. Among the majority of UPCI readers, some concern has been expressed about the impact the article will have upon Oneness Pentecostals. After reading and hearing the varied responses to J. Lee Grady’s musings from around the country, I have come to believe that it will redound to our advantage. My take has little to do with the accuracy and tone of the piece itself. Rather, I am gratified at the clarification it has already prompted among us regarding who we are and where we’re going.

Before I explain, let me say that, in my opinion, Mr. Grady wrote with a thinly veiled agenda: to expose an alleged breach in a large and growing Pentecostal organization. Apparently, he desperately wanted the world to believe that all is not well with the Oneness Pentecostals. His constant editorializing and calculated characterizations such as “a world apart,” “nasty doctrinal feud,” “hateful name-calling,” “labeled heretics,” and “mean-spirited hardliners” reflects more on his own negative bias than on us. But even more indicative of the intent of the article was the extensive space given to the detractors of the UPCI and the miserly amount given to our leadership. His methodology followed textbook rules for biased journalistic selectivity in distorting the character of an organization. But back to my belief that the article will ultimately do us good.

It gives us exposure. If Charisma did nothing else, it rocketed the United Pentecostal Church International to the foreground of its readership. Not everybody who reads the article will buy into the writer’s viewpoint. Some may read between the lines and search out the truth.

It indicates that our successes must be troublesome to other groups. No major article appears in a large magazine on an insignificant group. We must be doing something right. Certainly the phenomenal stories out of Ethiopia, Central and South America, New Guinea and other places have caught the attention of many worldwide. Mr. Grady’s sub-headline, “Who are these people?” speaks volumes.

It calls attention to doctrinal issues. We have long been aware of the critical nature of Bible doctrine. It occupies a central place in our preaching and teaching fare. In noticeable contrast to this, almost all doctrine has suffered from a growing disdain among most Christian denominations in the last two or three decades. Perhaps this article will stimulate interest in doctrinal study. We wholeheartedly welcome such a renewed study.

It locates the source of much animosity against us. Mr. Grady’s article brings an end to any lingering naiveté we may have had about his publishers and their associates. He represents many who want the UPCI to either go away or join up with them. When they come among us, as Mr. Grady did in Alexandria, we may be assured that their true intentions are not to support and affirm our doctrines.

It reinforces our identity. We do have distinctives that differentiate us from others. When faced with scorn over these “ta stigmata”, we are strengthened, not intimidated. Yes, we believe in the mighty God in Christ, water baptism in the name of Jesus, the infilling of the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues, and living a holy life separated from worldliness and ungodliness. Instead of dislodging us from these foundational doctrines, articles like Mr. Grady’s provide fresh zeal to proclaim them more loudly and fervently than ever.

It clarifies our direction. Mid-course corrections are not bad. Have we indeed been unwittingly drifting toward a more liberal position? Have we slackened our grip on fundamental tenets of faith? Has our resolve to confront the opposition been weakening of late? If so, this article sounds a clarion note. Residual grays that color modern Christendom must not overtake the UPCI. Subtle shifts in direction at the source translates into light years of error at the ultimate destination.

We are not the “other” Pentecostals. We are the originals. Anyone who challenges that can compare our faith with the Pentecostals on the inaugural day of the church. We preach the same God in Christ, the same plan of salvation, the same lifestyle of the first disciples. Others may pass their judgment upon us, but our course remains unaltered.