Something I wrote for another forum ... in January ... ANY THOUGHTS???
------------------------------------------------------------
In this piece, I seek to analyze Anthony Mangun, a prominent and influential leader with a Oneness organization and his recent comments at BOTT, as it pertains to the church politics of the organization he belongs to.
Most would agree that his comments, at Because of the Times, a conference his church organizes, reflects a position for TV advertising in an organization that is battling this issue and is reeling from its divisiveness.
A general consensus would also support that his comments were not only political in nature. Yet, it’s safe to say:
1. He truly believes in worldwide evangelism. His well-known missions record is evidence enough.
2. He has a history of staying out of the political limelight.
3. He was exerting influence over the actions of the organization with this recent comment.
A definition of politics tells us:
Politics is the process by which individuals or relatively small groups attempt to
exert influence over the actions of an organization. Although the term is most commonly applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in many human (and many non-human) group interactions, including corporate, academic, and
religious institutions.
How and Why for this Political Statement:
AM exact statement at the BOTT conference, January 16, 2007 was:
"That is why I'm for Television. And that is why I'm for the United Pentecostal Church putting it around the world. If we're on the internet with 4.5 million pornography sites, it's not a Holiness issue- it's an Evangelism issue. Revival. In
Acts 2:38."
To understand the political nature of this statement, let’s examine the following:
1. The Venue – Because of the Times is a conference that is almost over 3 decades old.
It is the most popular venue for ministers in the organization – its always SOLD OUT. A veritable Who’s Who attends this conference. Almost every significant board official makes an attempt to attend and there is a waiting list for those who wish to attend but could not register in time.
Hence, Mangun knows that those attending exert influence also and that his comments would ring across “Pentecost”. A term used by the culture of this organization to mean across the organization.
2. The divisiveness of the issue is on ‘every one’s mind’. It’s the number one issue on the fellowship's conscience -- to keep the unity of the brethren. Resolution 6 almost led to a collective walk-out by hardliners who were willing to throw their cards at the platform if the resolution for TV advertising passed.
Also over 60 ministers have dropped their licenses in the last few months as reported by the Forward, their ministerial publication -- with more projected to come in the next few months proceeding the vote on the resolution at General Conference in Tampa.
Both sides on the issue know that Resolution 6 has far more reaching effects on the future of the organization, especially in the area of holiness standards and church protocol.
Hence Mangun, undoubtedly, knew that making a statement for or against Resolution 6 would be controversial. Yet, he did anyway.
3. Mangun was reportedly scheduled to speak on the floor at General Conference but because the issue was shelved he was unable to state his views on the topic. He now had his opportunity to make a statement at BOTT.
4. Mangun’s comments at BOTT, prior to making the statement show political calculation.
A. Mangun spent most of his time building to this culminating statement by stressing the importance of spreading the
Acts 2:38 message. He knows, as everyone knows, that the unifying banner for most in the organization is the
Acts 2:38 message.
He worked the crowd by sharing his commitment to the widely-accepted soteriological message.
He cleverly weaves his commitment to the heritage, via projecting pictures of his dad’s pioneering church, sharing his dad’s inculcation of the message into him, and the almost robotic recitation of the scripture by his choir put the crowd into a frenzied mood of solidarity.
With everyone, in the crowd, ‘on board’, he drops his bomb.
B. AM sought to share the avenues of outreach his church uses, bus ministry, alcohol and addiction ministries, their use of mass print media and webcasting. He did so by sharing how much money was spent in ’06 on these ministries.
This reading from his church’s financial statements really wasn’t necessary at this venue but clearly he wanted to underscore the commitment he has for evangelism and that he feels that the movement needs to have it also.
C. In a sublte reference, he reminds the UPCI that his church contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to the org. He only makes reference of the contributions for 2006, but everyone in that room knows that the church in Alexandria has been a top 3 contributors for years in all of the org’s national offerings.
Why bring this up? He could be implying that the org must spend its dollars wisely and that it would be wise to spend it on TV advertising.
Or that the org should not interfere with how the local church spends it's money.
__________________________________________________ ___________
Interestingly, some have construed his comments as non-political in nature and some have argued that his comments at BOTT don’t reflect a definite position.
I can’t see how.
Surely, he has made a choice in this debate and has decided to be vocal and influential in the process.
Was this ethical? Right or wrong? I 'll let you decide.
Lastly, I leave you with these thoughts to ponder:
- Mangun makes a conditional statement made by many pro-TV advertising proponents by arguing if we share space on the internet with 4.5 pornography sites ... and it's not a Holiness issue ...then we should go on TV.
- Many have rumored that he is a candidate to be the next General Superintendent of this organization. Did this play a role in his political calculation at BOTT?
- Having taken a definite postision ,what if Resolution 6 does not pass, what will AM do?
- Did he take a risk in taking a position? Or does he already 'know' the score?
- Why take a political risk especially if you have a thriving church and are successfully using many avenues of evangelism already? Is this just about TV advertising for AM?
- How effective was his argument to separate this issue from being about Holiness? What advantages are there to make this just an Evangelism and not a Holiness issue? Is this how the establishment will pursue this issue to keep the unity? If this is the strategy, will it work?
this has been discussed to the N'th degree here.
Linear Mode
