SUMMER 2020

Assemblies of God Ministers Letter

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 1 AG.ORG

BY DONNA BARRETT

I n my private worship time since the last issue of Called to Serve reached your mailbox, I’ve been parked on these lines from two familiar worship songs:• It’s Your breath in our lungs, so we pour out our praise ... .• This is the air I breathe. … I’m desperate for You.First I sang these words with my thoughts toward Assemblies

of God World Missions Director Greg Mundis and other patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were on ventilators struggling for their next breath.

This pandemic that has impacted our world as we know it, causing all of us to rethink how we do ministry, started with an attack on an individu-al’s ability to breathe.

These lyrics later became tearful laments as I recalled the horrific events of the past few weeks.

“I can’t breathe.” That phrase has awakened our country and alerted the Church to systemic racism.

Racism and classism of various sorts were alive in the Early Church, and God dealt with these issues through Jesus.

Foreigners, children and women were looked down on in that culture. In Galatians 2:11, Peter avoided Gentiles, and Paul scolded him for it. From Acts 2–10, the mindset of the first Chris-tians was that salvation was only for Jews. Then Peter, after con-necting with Cornelius, revealed to them God’s plan for bringing Gentiles into His kingdom as well (Acts 11:17–18).

Genesis sets the tone from the very beginning that all humans are created in the image of God. We are most like God when we honor other humans from God’s vantage point of value and respect. To do otherwise is sin and offends the Lord we serve.

Who is the neighbor we are to love like ourselves? In the Par-able of the Good Samaritan, being religious was more important than helping for the first two who passed the injured man on the side of the road. The Samaritan provided an example of how to be

a good neighbor, and Jesus’ teaching helps us identify our neigh-bor. When we are in Christ, there is no pecking order or classism.

From a spiritual perspective, I hear the whispers of today’s Church, in desperate need of a great awakening, saying, “I can’t breathe.”

It was the breath of God that blew through the Upper Room like a mighty, rushing wind on the Day of Pentecost. Those 120 gath-ered in the Upper Room were postured to receive the promise

from the Father because they were in one accord. They prayed in unity. Each individual was valued by God, and a cloven tongue of fire came upon each one — not a class, not a category, but a val-ued individual.

What might God want to do through 38,000 Spirit-baptized ministers in the midst of current events?

The baptism in the Holy Spirit is not only ini-tially evidenced by us speaking in tongues, but by His empowerment for us to witness with greater boldness. And, there is so much more. The John 17 type of unity for which Jesus prayed requires not only believers being intentional in their behavior, but also a supernatural work of God’s Spirit beyond what we, as humans, are capable of in our own strength. It’s not one or the other. It’s both/and.

God is inspiring ministers to create strate-gies, preach powerful sermons, speak up in their

circles of influence and even peacefully protest. Take the action God asks of you. But realize, as men and women of the Spirit, we have access to God to accomplish what can only happen in God’s arena. So pray with understanding, and pray in the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:15).

There are two things that cause people to be frustrated with us when we say we are praying. First, it’s unsatisfying if they believe we are only praying and not taking action or speaking up after we’re done praying. Secondly, they may be frustrated by our prayers because they don’t know the potential of a Spirit-

(continued on Page 4)

n FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY

The Breath of God and Our Current Crises

‘‘‘We need the breath of God once again, Lord. Release the breath of God over your churches. Release the breath of God over the city.’ — Walter F. Harvey ’’

X: HOW TO PASTOR EMOTIONALLY WOUNDED PEOPLE

The Supreme Court, “Sex,” and Religious Freedom BY RICHARD R. HAMMAR

In a 6-3 decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that an employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender engages in “sex” discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964. This article will review the facts of the case, summa-rize the Court’s decision, and assess its significance to churches and other religious organizations.

FactsThe case involved three plaintiffs. One plaintiff worked for a Geor-gia county as a child welfare advocate. Under his leadership, the county won national awards for its work. After a decade with the county, he began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Not long after that, influential members of the community allegedly made disparaging comments about his sexual orienta-tion and participation in the league. Soon, he was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee.

The second plaintiff worked as a skydiving instructor in New York. After several seasons with the company, he mentioned that he was gay and, days later, was fired.

The third plaintiff worked for a funeral home. This plaintiff presented as a male when hired. But two years into service with the company, the plaintiff began treatment for despair and lone-liness. Ultimately, clinicians diagnosed the plaintiff with gender dysphoria and recom-mended their patient begin living as a woman. In the sixth year of employment with the company, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the funeral home express-ing intent to “live and work full-time as a woman” upon returning from an upcoming vacation. The funeral home fired the plaintiff before the vacation began, saying, “this is not going to work out.”

Each plaintiff brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers with at least 15 employees from discriminating in any employment decision on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. A federal appeals court dismissed the first plaintiff ’s case on the ground that Title VII’s

ban on “sex” discrimination did not extend to sexual orientation. But another federal appeals court ruled that the second plaintiff could pursue his discrimination claim since Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination in employment did encompass sexual orientation. And a third federal appeals court allowed the third plaintiff ’s dis-crimination claim to proceed for the same reason. All three cases were appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The Court’s RulingThe Supreme Court sided with the two appeals courts that inter-preted Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination to include sexual ori-entation and gender identity. Title VII states that it is “unlawful … for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any indi-vidual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The Court concluded that an employer that fires an employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination.

Application to Churches and Religious SchoolsWhat is the relevance of the Court’s ruling to churches and other religious organizations, including schools? Consider the following points:

1. Title VII exemption for religious organizationsTitle VII section 702, contains the following exemption for reli-gious organizations:

This title shall not apply to … a religious corporation, associ-ation, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

This provision permits religious corporations and educational institutions to dis-criminate on the basis of reli-gion in the employment of any person for any position.

As originally enacted, sec-tion 702 permitted religious employers to discriminate on the basis of religion only in

employment decisions pertaining to their “religious activities.” Congress amended section 702 in 1972 to enable religious organi-zations to discriminate on the basis of religion in all employment decisions. In the years following the 1972 amendment, a number of federal courts suggested that the amendment violated the First Amendment’s nonestablishment of religion clause. But in 1987, the United States Supreme Court resolved the controversy by ruling unanimously that section 702 did not violate the First Amend-ment’s nonestablishment of religion clause. Corporation of the

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 2 AG.ORG

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 2 AG.ORG

‘‘The Court concluded that an employer that fires an employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination. ’’

X: HOW TO PASTOR EMOTIONALLY WOUNDED PEOPLE

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 3 AG.ORG

Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987).

Note that religious organizations are exempt only from the ban on religious discrimination in employment. They remain subject to Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or sex — except with respect to employment decisions involving clergy.

Churches that take an adverse action against an employee or applicant for employment based on religious considerations should describe their action appropriately. Refer to the religious or doctrinal principle at issue, and avoid generic labels like “sex” or “pregnancy.”

2. Covered employersTitle VII only applies to employers engaged in interstate com-merce and having 15 or more employees. The courts have defined “commerce” very broadly, and so most churches will be deemed to be engaged in commerce. Note that most states have enacted their own employment discrimination laws that eliminate the com-merce requirement and generally apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees.

3. MinistersIn 2012, a unanimous United States Supreme Court affirmed the so-called “ministerial exception,” which bars the civil courts from resolving employment discrimination disputes between churches and ministers. The Court concluded:

We agree that there is such a ministerial exception. The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits govern-ment involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions. Hosanna–Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 132 S.Ct. 694 (2012).

This means that all discrimination disputes involving clergy are off limits to the civil courts, not just those involving religious

discrimination, including those alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

4. Religious schoolsTitle VII contains three religious exemptions for religious schools. The first, quoted above, is section 702. In addition, Title VII, Sec-tion 703(e)(2), of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifies:

[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institu-tion of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if:• such school, college, university, or other educational insti-

tution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substan-tial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or

• if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

A federal appeals court interpreted this language as follows in a case involving a discrimination lawsuit brought against Samford University by a theology professor:

Samford says that, even if its refusal to allow Plaintiff to teach at the divinity school were not covered by the religious educational institution exemption, it is entitled to an exemp-tion as an educational institution substantially “owned, supported, controlled or managed by a particular religion or religious corporation, association, or society.” Samford argues for a flexible interpretation of Section 703 and points to Samford’s historical ties with the [Southern Baptist] Con-vention, the fact that the Convention is the single largest contributor to the university, and that its Board of Trustees requires it to report to the Convention on all budgetary and operational matters. Plaintiff, on the other hand, says Sam-ford is not “owned, supported, controlled, or managed” by a religious association because (1) the Convention no longer appoints trustees and (2) only seven percent of its budget comes from the Convention. Neither side cites precedents interpreting Section 703, and we are aware of no precedent that speaks to the issue of what it means to be “owned, sup-ported, controlled, or managed” by a religious association.

The court quoted from another federal court ruling construing section 703(e)(2), Pime v. Loyola University of Chicago, 803 F.2d 351, 357 (7th Cir.1986): “Is the combination of a Jesuit president and nine Jesuit directors out of 22 enough to constitute substan-tial control or management by the Jesuit order? There is no case law pertinent to this question; the statute itself does not answer it; corporate-control and state-action analogies are too remote to be illuminating; and the legislative history, though tantalizing, is inconclusive.”

The court concluded that Samford is “in substantial part” “sup-ported” by the Convention:

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 2 AG.ORG

(continued on Page 5)

‘‘... all discrimination disputes involving clergy are off limits to the civil courts, not just those involving religious discrimination … ’’

empowered prayer and how we can pray about details beyond our knowledge. They mis-understand, “I’m pray-ing” to mean something cliché and powerless, similar to, “Good luck,” or the sign off of a news-cast: “Our prayers are with you.”

So when our exec-utive officers went to Minneapolis, we went to host a prayer meeting — not a photo op. This was an opportunity for us to minister to the AG ministers of the Minnesota Ministry Net-work, especially those in greater Minne-apolis who were dealing with the stress of multiple crises as rioting and looting tore through their city. It was about modeling a spirit of unity among the diverse partic-ipants in praying together.

What could happen in your community if you took up this call to prayer? Let your hope soar as you seek God in faith.

As you consider the future of the church or ministry you lead, remember that, while we spill over into business elements,

we are more than a business. We are not a civic club, a local store, or even a school. The Church is a living organism, the Bride of Christ, the Body of believ-ers. The Church is what Christ died for, promised to build, and will one day return to claim!

When you think about leading as a pray-ing Pentecostal, step into the fullness of what that means biblically.

Walter F. Harvey, president of the National Black Fellowship of the Assem-blies of God, prayed, “We need the breath of God once again, Lord. Release the breath of God over your churches. Release the breath of God over the city.”

Donna Barrett is general secretary of the Assemblies of God (USA).

EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAMDoug E. ClayGeneral Superintendent

Richard W. DuBoseAssistant General Superintendent

Donna L. BarrettGeneral Secretary

Wilfredo De JesúsGeneral Treasurer

Gregory M. MundisExecutive Director,Assemblies of God World Missions

Malcom P. BurleighExecutive Director, Assemblies of God U.S. Missions

EXECUTIVE PRESBYTERYWilliam E. (Bill) WilsonNorthwest Area

T. Ray RachelsSouthwest Area

Robert Ketterling IINorth Central Area

Terry L. YanceySouth Central Area

Bradley T. TraskGreat Lakes Area

Don E. MillerGulf Area

Duane P. DurstNortheast Area

D. Rick RossSoutheast Area

VacantLanguage Area — East Spanish

Daniel de LeónLanguage Area — West Spanish

Darnell Williams Sr.Language Area — Other

John E. MaracleEthnic Fellowships

Melissa J. AlfaroOrdained Minister under 40

A. Elizabeth GrantOrdained Female

Samuel M. HuddlestonAfrican-American

THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD1445 N. Boonville Avenue Springfield, MO 65802-1894

The Breath of God and Our Current Crises (continued from Page 1)

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 4 AG.ORG

‘‘What could happen in your community if you took up this call to prayer? Let your hope soar as you seek God in faith.’’

Ministerial List ChangesTo view Ministerial List Changes (MLC) online, log in to your account at agpassport.ag.org. Click on the links for Ministers Letter, then View Current Issue with Ministerial Listings. An email will notify you when a new Ministers Letter with the MLC has been posted.

But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone sim-ply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex …” . Whether other policies and prac-tices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.

The employers also expressed concern that the Court’s decision may require some employers to violate their religious convictions. The Court responded:

We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society. But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious liberties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s passage. As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law, Congress included an express statutory exception for religious organizations. This Court has also recognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012). And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases.

But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty inter-act with Title VII are questions for future cases too. [The defendant funeral home] did unsuccessfully pursue a RFRA-based defense in the proceedings below. In its certiorari peti-tion, however, the company declined to seek review of that adverse decision, and no other religious liberty claim is now before us. So while other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful consideration, none of the employers before us today represent in this Court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own reli-gious liberties in any way.

6. Justice Alito’s dissentJustice Samuel Alito issued a dissenting opinion in which he noted, in part:

“Substantial” is not defined by the statute. But the word substantial ordinarily has this meaning: “Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.” Black’s Law Dictio-nary, 1428 (6th ed. 1990). Continuing support annually totaling over four million dollars (even in the abstract, no small sum), accounting for seven percent of a university’s budget, and constituting a university’s largest single source

of funding is of real worth and importance. This kind of sup-port is neither illusory nor nominal. So, the Convention’s support is substantial. We hold — as an alternative to our Section 702 holding — that Samford qualifies as an edu-cational institution which is in “substantial part” sup-ported by a religious associ-ation and that the exemption protects Samford in this case.

A federal appeals court con-cluded that Title VII’s exemp-tion of “religious institutions” from the ban on religious dis-crimination in employment applied to the school. It based this conclusion on the follow-ing considerations: (1) the

university was established as a “theological” institution. (2) The university’s trustees are all Baptists. (3) Nearly 7% ($4 million) of the university’s budget comes from the Alabama Baptist Con-vention (the “Convention”) — representing the university’s larg-est single course of funding. (4) The university submits financial reports to the Convention, and its audited financial statements are made available to all Baptist churches in Alabama. (5) All uni-versity professors who teach religious courses must subscribe to the Baptist “statement of faith,” and this requirement is clearly set forth in the faculty handbook and in faculty contracts. (6) The university’s charter states that its chief purpose is “the promo-tion of the Christian religion.” (7) The university is exempt from federal income taxes as a “religious educational institution.” 5. Concluding remarksThe employers expressed concern that the Court’s decision “will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segre-gated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsus-tainable after our decision today.” The Court responded:

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 5 AG.ORG

The Supreme Court, “Sex,” and Religious Freedom (continued from Page 3)

‘‘Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases.’’

–Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch

(continued on Page 6)

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 6 AG.ORG

Briefs filed by a wide range of religious groups –– Christian, Jewish, and Muslim –– express deep concern that the posi-tion now adopted by the Court “will trigger open conflict with faith-based employment practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions.” They argue that “[r]eligious organizations need employees who actually live the faith,” and that compelling a religious organi-zation to employ individuals whose conduct flouts the tenets of the organization’s faith forces the group to communicate an objectionable message.

This problem is perhaps most acute when it comes to the employment of teachers. A school’s standards for its faculty “communicate a particular way of life to its students,” and a “violation by the faculty of those precepts” may undermine the school’s “moral teaching.” Thus, if a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment pro-cedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment. Yet today’s decision may lead to Title VII claims by such teachers and applicants for employment.

At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions

may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the “min-isterial exception” recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012). Two cases now pending before the Court present the question whether teachers who provide religious instruction can be considered to be “ministers.” But even if teachers with those responsibilities qualify, what about other very visible school employees who may not qualify for the ministerial exception? Provisions of Title VII provide exemptions for certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–1(a); see also §2000e–2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection.

Richard R. Hammar serves as legal counsel for The General Council of the Assemblies of God.

The Supreme Court, “Sex,” and Religious Freedom (continued from Page 5)

ENCOURACE Bible Engagement AT YOUR CHURCH. Many people have access to the Bible, but few regularly engage with it.

With Bible Engagement Project, your church gets digital Bible study resources to help people better engage with Scripture so they can become more like Jesus and live radically changed lives.

YOUR SUBSCRIPTION INCLUDES:

-KIDS­ CURRICULUM

-ADULT AND YOUTH -SMALL GROUP RESOURCES

l]LOGOS powered by Faith/ife

-LOCiOS­BIBLE SOFTWARE

Delivered exclusively on the app!

My Readings • IN PROGRESS

� Ii ten

YEAR 1

[BJ BIBLE ENGAGE"ENT

""' PROJECT

• • •

Check out BibleEngagementProject.com to subscribe today.

Calledto Serve/ SUMMER 2020 7 AG.ORG

B E S T - K E P T S E C R E T S

Introducing Listen from the Bible Engagement Project BY RENEE GRIFFITH-GRANTHAM

T he Bible has been translated into 692 languages, poten-tially available to 5.6 billion of the world’s 7.1 billion people. Though the majority can reach for a copy of the Scriptures,

the reality is they don’t.Paramount to General Superintendent Doug Clay since his elec-

tion has been the issue of Bible engagement. Last year, the Assem-blies of God commissioned Barna Group to assess the current state of Bible engagement among practicing Christians across denominations in comparison with AG adherents. 

Barna Group surveyed 1,502 practicing Christians in the U.S. and 275 Protestant senior pastors, as well as 396 AG pastors and 982 AG church attendees. Respondents represented America’s heartland, coastal regions, rural and urban centers, and multiple language districts, for an accurate cross-section of the U.S. population.

Barna found that those who are most engaged with Scripture interact with it in three distinct ways: practically, emotionally and missionally. When Scripture is a driving force in a person’s life, that person is influenced mind, body and soul by the Word of God.

And how does Bible engagement manifest in a person’s life? Researchers found that people who engage with the Bible at least four times per week are 228% more likely to share their faith. They are 231% more likely to disciple others, 407% more likely to mem-orize Scripture, and three times as likely to volunteer in the local church.

Holistic devotion to the Word of God also significantly strength-ens the demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit in people’s lives, increases their life satisfaction, and doubles the likelihood they will daily experience joy and peace.

The Barna study revealed that only 21% of practicing Christians are highly engaged with Scripture — compared to just 19% of AG adherents. The findings validated the concern of the AG and paved the way for a response. (To learn more, visit bibleengagementproj-ect.com/Barna.)

The Bible Engagement Project, a ministry arm of the AG national office created expressly for the purpose of leading the way in increased Bible engagement, has developed a strategic discipleship program to be rolled out in August 2020. The first installment is

Listen, a 40-session small group curriculum that walks the entire congregation through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation — tak-ing all ages on the journey, from the unengaged to the engaged.

For years, the primary model for discipleship within the AG was Sunday School. However, many churches have recently moved to small groups, which excel in relational ministry, but sometimes at the risk of omitting a systematic study of Scripture. The AG seeks to work within both models, while ensuring the Word is at the cen-ter of all church-based events.  

For the first time in AG history, all age levels — from preschool to adults — will engage the same Scriptures simultaneously for the purpose of whole-church discipleship. Each lesson, created by some of our Fellowship’s leading pastors and teachers, is divided into group and personal study with weekly devotions.

Church subscriptions to the Bible Engagement Project supply the pastor with the silver edition of Logos Bible Software, which includes tools making biblical Hebrew and Greek accessible, as well as full access to an AG-curated library with resources specific

to our distinctives and theol-ogy. Subscriptions to this exclu-sively app-delivered curriculum are based on a church’s average weekly attendance and are avail-able at store.bibleengagement-project.com.

The Bible Engagement Proj-ect is both a philosophy and a

product, a partnership between AG ministry networks and the national office, who together seek to further the vision of the AG: a healthy church in every community, marked by spiritual and numerical growth.

Renée Griffith-Grantham is Communication and Content Strategist for Bible Engagement Project and a licensed Assemblies of God minister.

‘‘When Scripture is a driving force in a person’s life, that person is influenced mind, body and soul by the Word of God. ’’

The July / August 2020 issue of

Influence is now available online at

influencemagazine.com/issues

Office of the General Secretary1445 North Boonville AvenueSpringfield, Missouri 65802-1894

Ministers Letter

NON-PROFIT ORGUS POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT #48

SPRINGFIELD MO

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

2020_Retirement CTS.pdf 1 3/26/20 12:25 PM