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.

We call the person who mostly stays by himself a loner, an isolationist, even a recluse. “Why doesn’t he get more involved?” we ask each other. Speculations about a lone duck abounds. We think he doesn’t like us, or he thinks he is better than us. He might think he isn’t wanted. Maybe he’s been hurt in the past. Perhaps it’s the lack of time, unfortunate scheduling, no money, or personal problems. Withdrawal never just happens. There’s got to be a reason.

Fellowship, however, is absolutely vital to one’s ministry and spiritual walk, both for the ordained ministry and laity alike. In a local church, as soon as a person begins missing services, he immediately compounds the problem that caused him to miss in the first place. It’s like prescribing fasting for someone dying of starvation! It’s exactly what he doesn’t need. The same holds true for the larger fellowship between churches in a district, and on the national level. Without it, we soon lose the glue that holds us together.

Something happens in the dynamic of personal interaction and fellowship that cannot be replaced by books, tapes, the media or one’s own thoughts. Proverbs 27:17 says, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” Consider these reasons why the lone duck needs to join the flock:

The need to belong. All of us must be part of something bigger than ourselves, and the success of the larger group always goes back to the individuals who comprise it. We must care. We must be committed. We must show enthusiastic support. The cost of belonging cannot be waived.

The need to know. We need to know the names and faces of our fellow laborers. We need to know what’s going on, who’s doing what, what’s new, what’s changed and what’s staying the same. This is not gossip or small talk. It is responsible membership. Staying current and informed draws us in. Staying aloof and detached makes us feel like an outsider. Anyone who feels like an outsider long enough may eventually become one.

The need to learn. Is there a better idea? Is someone doing something in a better, more efficient way? Do we need course correction? Do we need to be aware of dangers, false doctrines or potential problems? Participation exposes us to a wide range of things that directly effects our lives and churches. Isolation makes us vulnerable to misinformation, disinformation, and our own unchallenged assumptions.

The need to grow. Without growth, we stagnate. Conferences, camps and seminars act to stimulate ministers, saints and churches to new levels of spiritual victory. We receive inspiration to try new ventures, encouragement to stay in the battle, and affirmation that others care and are pulling for us.

Scientists say that when the flock of ducks or geese fly, they cut through the wind and make flight easier for their companions. They receive a lift from each other. The lone duck has no such help. Life is tough and no one seems to care. For lone ducks, the solution is to get back in the flock. The effort will lead to certain and abundant rewards.

Several months ago, I posed this question to my people during a Sunday evening service: “What changes would you have to make in your life in order for our church should become four times larger?” I had asked that question of myself months earlier. I cannot put it out of my mind. The answers are painful.

Souls . A church must be totally dedicated, sold out, and committed to soulwinning and growth. Nothing else surpasses souls in importance to the mind of our Savior. Soulwinning captures His sole purpose for coming to earth.

Sacrifice . If winning souls becomes the number one priority for a church, whatever presently occupies first place presently will have to suffer demotion. That means pain, aggravation and loss to the fleshly nature. Resistance to change is a built-in human trait.

Changing roles . Growth will force a redefinition of the roles we play as church members or saints. It’s like changing from a child to an adult, a student to an employee, a single person to a married one, or from having no children to becoming a parent. We must simply accept new responsibilities and set different goals in life. Say good-bye to comfort zones and “business as usual.”

Others . Growth means saints will no longer come to church for selfish purposes alone. They will have to see the church as a place to meet the needs of others, not just a place to get needs met. New converts need training, teaching, nurturing and love. We will have to understand and offer that help.

Relationship with God . People who want growth must strengthen their relationship with God in every area: prayer, Bible reading, consecration, discipleship and mature spirituality. Why? Because they will become patterns for others to see, leaders for others to follow, and sources of inspiration to motivate others. Like produces like. Strength begets strength. Weakness, sloppiness and “anything goes” will produce its own kind. We cannot afford quantity at the expense of quality.

Pastor-Saint relationship . How do you now see your pastor? As a primary caregiver? As the one personally involved in each member’s life? Your pastor will have to be seen as the equipper, the opportunity-provider, and the guy out in front pointing the way. This will most certainly require a new schedule, a new use of time and energy and a new pastoral definition.

Jesus said that new wine couldn’t be placed into old bottles. If it is, the old bottles will burst and the contents will be spilled out and wasted. New bottles are flexible, strong and will keep their integrity. He was teaching us that inner growth and renewal would enable us to contain the new wine of the spirit. As difficult as renewal may seem, it remains the only way to sustain the growth and revival that God has ordained for the church.

What about revivals, crusades, cell groups, outreach, evangelism, witnessing and all the other things associated with church growth? It may take any of them or all of them. But the most critical changes will have to take place first in our own minds and hearts and lives. Once that happens, there may not be a limit.

Strong doctrine continues to be the backbone of the church. People come and go, personalities rise and fall and ecclesiastical trends become popular or fall into disfavor, but doctrine builds an enduring congregation. Churches that focus upon sound doctrine survive in the face of every threat. Emphasis upon doctrine does not minimize other aspects of the church’s mission such as music, worship, body ministry and evangelism. Rather, it provides a framework in which everything else may thrive. Doctrine gives meaning to music, substance to worship, conviction to body ministry and motivation to evangelism.

Does doctrine divide? Is it necessary? Must we emphasize repentance, water baptism in Jesus’ name, receiving the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, the oneness of God and holiness living? Will preaching and teaching on these primary tenets of faith limit the potential growth and revival of the church? Should we be more willing to forge compromises and offer concessions to fit in with the mainstream of Christianity?

One by one, mainstream denominations have failed in their formative dogmas. They continue to retreat from distinctives that originally defined them and embrace beliefs that they consider more acceptable to all Christians. Of this trend, Stephen Strang, editor of Charisma says that you could attend many congregations of a certain large Pentecostal denomination today and never know you were in a Pentecostal church.

It is true that doctrine divides, but the relevant question is, what does it divide? If it separates truth from error, righteousness from unrighteousness, the sheep from goats then such division is necessary. If the Bible requires repentance, it is a doctrine that must be preached. If the Bible commands baptism in the name of Jesus, it is a doctrine that must be preached. If the Bible tells us that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is necessary and that it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, it is a doctrine that must be preached. Look at the scripture:

Doctrine forms the pattern and basis for fellowship. “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Acts 2:42

Doctrine directly affects our salvation. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” I Timothy 4:16

Doctrine is the centerpiece of preaching fare. “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” II Timothy 4:2

Doctrine prevents corruption of the church. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; II Timothy 4:3

Doctrine is the means by which to defeat error. “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Titus 1:9

Let us not abandon the Scriptural strategy that brought us to where we are in order to get in step with an ecumenically driven church world. The UPCI has a message to preach and true Bible doctrine to teach. Our calling will not permit us to do less. It is the basis of our strength.

We know that Jesus Christ died to save people from their sins. What we often forget is why. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Romans 5:8 adds. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The most important truth that must energize us by scriptures like these is that God loves people! In saving us, His love for us came first. After that, or because of it, he died to save us. He did not save us and afterwards learn to love us. He loved us first and devised a means to save us.

Any highly active church, or one with a high number of family ties in the congregation, has members who spend much of their time in each other’s company. This leads to closely knit groups that can keep others on the outside, with no way to break into the group. Such a development never happens on purpose. Rather, it is the eventual outgrowth of a way of thinking. That’s why we must look closely, even critically, at who we are and what we are doing. Are there any obstacles that seem to block the love of God from flowing freely through us as individuals and as a congregation? Do we truly love people to the same magnitude that Christ did?

In projecting a strategy for the future, it is absolutely necessary for our church to begin from these starting blocks of God’s love for people. We must demonstrate love for people in every way possible—-our attitudes, our programs and our vision as it is implemented. If we fail to show love for people in what we do, we must change. If we overlook opportunities to love people, we must change. If we love ourselves, our routines, our traditions or our personal friends more than people, we must change. Whether these failings are by design, default or delusion, we must change.

This new thrust will truly work only if we, as a congregation, accept the responsibility to make it happen. Our human targets ought to be as all-inclusive as we can make them: new converts, former members, people who have come to church but never committed themselves, or people who have had an experience with God but have deep personal problems.

Let us begin searching for ways to love people so that they may find salvation. Will you help? We must not simply identify the problem(s) and then send it back to the pastor or a few leaders to fix or implement. No solution is complete unless it involves every single person in the church in some way. The paramount question must be: “What can I and what will I do to start the positive change in making this church can could live up to WeLovePeople.com. If we want people to believe that we love them:

• They must sense that we mean it by giving them priority.
• They must hear it in our initial greeting and in our worship.
• They must feel it in our handshakes and hugs, as well as in our spirit.
• They must hear it in our conversation and our teaching and preaching.
• They must read it in our literature.
• They must see it in our faces.
• They must know it through the amount of time we give them and by the way we operate.
• They must be treated to Christ-like love from the time they enter to the time they leave.

This Christmas season needs to emphasize to us more than the fact that Jesus came. It must also remind us of the love that motivated him to come. In so doing, we will transform Christmas from a commemoration of a blessing past into a blueprint for future revival.

First, why would anyone deny the humanity of Christ? They may think that to affirm his humanity is to negate his divinity. They may have fallen for the old Gnostic heresy that all flesh is evil, thus Jesus could not have existed in the flesh. They may be attempting to “hyper-analyze” the incarnation to the point that they destroy it. Whatever the reason, the result is a dangerous and erroneous view that denies access to God to all who believe it. Consider the scriptures:

Jesus was not an angel. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels … that he … should taste death for every man.” Hebrews 2:9.

Jesus had human parentage. “Of this man’s seed hath God … raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” Acts 13:23 “… the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Matthew 1:1. “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Romans 1:3. “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Galatians 4:4.

Jesus developed as a normal human being. “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.” Luke 2:40.

Jesus looked, acted and felt like a man. He was recognizable as a Jew. (John 4:9). He was mistaken for an ordinary man. (Luke 24:13). He looked like the gardener. (John 20:15).

Jesus was tempted to sin. “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” Matthew 4:1. We also read that Jesus ascribed human names to himself, that he was the sacrificial lamb, that he had flesh which was capable of dying, and that he had a post-resurrection body that became a prototype for all believers.

We must regard the humanity of Christ as a vital and necessary doctrine. Those who say that the flesh of Jesus was not flesh at all, or was different than our flesh negate the role of Mary, and of the lineage of Christ through David, back to Adam. But Jesus did not offer angelic “flesh” on the cross. He did not simulate suffering in a “virtual reality” Calvary . He did not play mind games with us to mislead us into thinking that he was one of us, yet existing as an “other-worldly” being. Jesus sacrificed his body, his flesh, his “terrestrial body” (I Corinthians 15:40 ) on the Roman instrument of execution, the cross.

If Jesus didn’t die as a man, then he did not destroy the devil. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” Hebrews 2:14. If Jesus didn’t die as a man, then his resurrection loses its potency. The miraculous impact of the empty tomb stems from the fact that, as a true man, he died. After he rose, he said, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Luke 24: 39.

Apostolics must never forget that our relationship to God rests solely upon the incarnation. None of us can know God without the “mediator between God and men, the man, (anthropon) Christ Jesus.” (I Timothy 2:5). Thus, we profess a viable relationship to God, perpetual intercession, empathy in suffering and boldness in prayer. “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:14-16. Jealously guard this marvelous truth.

Use your pastor’s time wisely. Whenever you talk with him, the more you can edit out the less important details about your situation and deal directly with the subject at hand, the more effective he will be. If he needs to know details, he will ask you for them. On the other hand, don’t hold back certain facts that may be essential to a wise decision on his part.

In most churches, there are seasoned saints of God and pillars in the church who can answer questions about spiritual problems or even scriptural matters. Church leaders have especially been chosen because of their spiritual maturity. Talk to them about a problem before going to the pastor. Of course, things of a sensitive or private nature should be reserved for discussion with the pastor only, but a wise saint of God can easily handle many general subjects pertaining to spiritual living.

Make sure you fast and pray about your problem before you take it to the pastor or anyone else. You need to enter into a special relationship with God so you can discern His ways and words. After all, what you’re really after is not merely an answer to a question, but a walk with God.

If you are confronted by a problem that you feel is essential to take directly to the pastor, many pastors prefer that you set up an appointment to see him during business hours. In the office setting, there are fewer interruptions to deal with and you and the pastor can concentrate on the business at hand. Also, catching the pastor before or after service may not give him the time he needs to reflect on his answer.

Keep in mind that the pastor also serves as an administrator for the church. This role requires him to take care of certain things and talk to certain people before and/or after a church service. If he appears to be looking around for somebody while he’s talking to you, don’t interpret this as a rebuff or an indication that he doesn’t care about your problem. He is literally trying to do two or three things at once.

If you have a problem, don’t withdraw yourself from communication and participation in the church, and then wait to see if anybody will call you or contact you. When you take the responsibility for your own soul’s salvation, you must make the proper calls to let the pastor and the church know what’s going on.

Don’t assume that the pastor knows what’s up. He may think that somebody else has called you or he may think that you are merely working, or even on vacation. Also, remember that he may be thinking about you one minute, and then be drawn into another problem the next. That’s because there is a constant flow of activity in the church and everybody is asking for attention.

Before you talk to the pastor, determine that you are going to follow his advice. If you know you are not going to do what he asks you to do, why go to him in the first place? Prepare your heart and soul well before visiting him. He may ask you to do something that you find very difficult. Obedience, however, is always rewarded by God.

Make sure your expectations of pastoral counsel are realistic. He is not a psychiatrist, a lawyer, a doctor or some other professional. He may have some good advice to give you about the same issues that you would take to other professionals, but you should not demand answers from him that he is not prepared to give. His main obligation to you is to give you spiritual and scriptural help.

Never voice any dissent you may have with your pastor to anyone else but him. Anything you feel you can’t discuss with him needs to be kept totally to yourself. People who criticize their pastor imperil the sanctity of church unity. If someone is so unwise as to speak against the pastor to you, decline to listen.

While the pastor may be friendly, and you may feel he is your friend, do not think of him as your buddy. Maintain a “safe” distance between him and yourself to avoid over-familiarity. His words must always be received with solemn consideration because he bears the burden of accountability for your soul.

Other Greek language works in my library:

Ball, Francis Kingsley, Ph. D. The Elements of Greek, Macmillan, 1936
Bagster, Samuel, Editor, The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Samuel Bagster & Sons
Chamberlain, William Douglas, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan, 1961
Chase, Alston Hurd, and Phillips, Henry Jr., A New Introduction to Greek, Harvard, 3^rd Ed.,
Gingrich, F. Wilbur, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, U. of Chicago, 1957, 1965
Goetchius, Eugene Van Ness, The Language of the New Testament, Scribner, 1965
Han, Nathan E., A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament, Herald Press, 1971
Hudson, Charles F., A Critical Greek and English Concordance of the New Testament, Bagster, 1882
LaSor, William Sanford, Handbook of New Testament Greek, Eerdmans, Vol. 2, 1973
Liddell and Scott, A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1976
Smyth, Herbert Weir, Greek Grammar, Harvard, 1918, Rev. 1956
Souter, Alexander, A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Oxford, 1916, Reprint 1976