| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Item 2: Allows Independents to affiliate with COG |
doyle |
We contacted a member of the COG Executive Council and asked him to share what he felt were some of the most important issues on the 2012 General Assembly Agenda. He feels one of the most important is Item 2.
He has given us permission to post his opinion on Item 2 but his name is being withheld. That allows his reasoning to be shared and the Agenda Item to be freely debated without being affected at all with "who" it is. His opinion of Item 2 is posted below word-for-word. All viewers are invited to discuss this with an invitation to agree or disagree and are welcomed to share their wise advice on this Item.
Executive Council Member Begins:
ITEM 2: I believe Item 2 is important but for different reasons than some others feel. While I believe that welcoming independent churches is a good thing and providing a more accessible "on ramp" such as the one presented is a good idea, I do not think the future vitality of our denomination will be greatly affected by this move.
In other words, our hope in North America is not luring more and more independent churches to join our ranks. I personally feel it will be a small blip in the screen.
Why I think this matter is important is that I hope it will be a gateway to opening the way for current Church of God congregations who wish to transtion to "affiliate/associate" church status.
Our current system is a great system to produce and manage small churches -- with the emphasis on "manage/control." It worked well until the mid-1960s." It has essentially failed in the last 25 years.
Our church growth in the US is stagnant. About 74% of our church in US have less than 100 in attendance (A very high percentage when compared to other similar denominations). Our clergy is aging, and we (at least the Anglo churches) are not pentrating the large population centers. In other words, in light of the current economic climate and demanding cultural shifts, there is a good possibility that 50% of our current churches will not exit in 25 years.
To allow and even encourage congregations to move to an affiliate/associate status does several things:
(1) It actually makes it possible for the maturing of congregations/pastors into to stronger and better leaders. It provides an impetus for the emergence of spiritual entrepreneurs who take initiative, cast vision, and lead.
(2) The role of State Overseer would change from a benevolent (hopefully) authority figure whose job is to "manage/control" his churches, to a spiritual father raising up new leaders...a missional visionary planting new church...a peer coach/advisor to his supporting pastors.
As you can tell, I am passionate about this!!! One person said to me, "If we pass this we will have churches leaving us right and left." To which I replied, "If that's the case we have a much bigger problem than we are willing to admit. We may have the property but we don't have their heart."
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement.
Last edited by doyle on 7/18/12 11:41 pm; edited 4 times in total |
Acts-celerate Owner
Posts: 6957
7/17/12 9:13 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | He has given us permission to post his opinion on Item 2 but his name is being withheld. |
Oh, the irony!  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/17/12 10:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Item 2: WARNING! Not for the FAINT OF HEART? |
skinnybishop |
| doyle wrote: | Because of an uproar over Item 18, there are some who feel that the Agenda at this Assembly is trivial. However, few Items on any Agenda in our lifetime could have a more powerful affect on the COG structure than Item 2. If it passes and depending on how it passes in final form, it can be a massive "game-changer."
Regardless how one feels about the rest of the Agenda, Items 2 and 10 are INCREDIBLY SIGNIFICANT. Nobody can accuse this Executive Committee of coming before this Assembly without anything significant on the Agenda. With Items 2 and 10 on the Agenda, possibly this Agenda should carry the notification "WARNING! NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART."
We contacted a member of the COG Executive Council and asked him to share what he felt were some of the most important issues on the 2012 General Assembly Agenda. He feels one of the most important is Item 2.
He has given us permission to post his opinion on Item 2 but his name is being withheld. That allows his reasoning to be shared and the Agenda Item to be freely debated without being affected at all with "who" it is. His opinion of Item 2 is posted below word-for-word. All viewers are invited to discuss this with an invitation to agree or disagree and are welcomed to share their wise advicel on this Item.
Executive Council Member Begins:
ITEM 2: I believe Item 2 is important but for different reasons than some others feel. While I believe that welcoming independent churches is a good thing and providing a more accesible "on ramp" such as the one presented is a good idea, I do not think the future vitality of our denomination will be greatly affected by this move.
In other words, our hope in North America is not luring more and more independent churches to join our ranks. I personally feel it will be a small blip in the screen.
Why I think this matter is important is that I hope it will be a gateway to opening the way for current Church of God congregations who wish to transtion to "affiliate/associate" church status.
Our current system is a great system to produce and manage small churches -- with the emphasis on "manage/control." It worked well until the mid-1960s." It has essentially failed in the last 25 years.
Our church growth in the US is stagnant. About 74% of our church in US have less than 100 in attendance (A very high percentage when compared to other similar denominations). Our clergy is aging, and we (at least the Anglo churches) are not pentrating the large population centers. In other words, in light of the current economic climate and demanding cultural shifts, there is a good possibility that 50% of our current churches will not exit in 25 years.
To allow and even encourage congregations to move to an affiliate/associate status does several things:
(1) It actually makes it possible for the maturing of congregations/pastors into to stronger and better leaders. It provides an impetus for the emergence of spiritual entrepreneurs who take initiative, cast vision, and lead.
(2) The role of State Overseer would change from a benevolent (hopefully) authority figure whose job is to "manage/control" his churches, to a spiritual father raising up new leaders...a missional visionary planting new church...a peer coach/advisor to his supporting pastors.
As you can tell, I am passionate about this!!! One person said to me, "If we pass this we will have churches leaving us right and left." To which I replied, "If that's the case we have a much bigger problem than we are willing to admit. We may have the property but we don't have their heart." |
I would like to know how this measure will result in
1. Stronger/better leaders
2. State Overseers suddenly becoming "spiritual fathers".
Please don't mistake the tone of my post. I am not trying to be unkind. I am just not seeing how these results will be accomplished. How does a church status change people? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
7/17/12 10:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
In what way would a church be advantaged to become an affiliate church?
Is there another way besides affiliations to effect this advantage? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/17/12 10:09 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
Anonymous E.C. member said:
| Quote: | Our current system is a great system to produce and manage small churches -- with the emphasis on "manage/control." It worked well until the mid-1960s." It has essentially failed in the last 25 years.
Our church growth in the US is stagnant. About 74% of our church in US have less than 100 in attendance (A very high percentage when compared to other similar denominations). Our clergy is aging, and we (at least the Anglo churches) are not pentrating the large population centers. In other words, in light of the current economic climate and demanding cultural shifts, there is a good possibility that 50% of our current churches will not exit in 25 years. |
Sounds familiar:
http://www.actscelerate.com/viewtopic.php?t=70463
I think it may be a move in the right direction, but I am not sure that it will get the desired results! The previously established churches may feel like second class citizens who are paying the bills, while the others get the spotlights, headline billing, etc.
Why can't the established churches also go this route? I know...I know, that's crazy! |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
7/17/12 10:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| It means I can bring my little church in |
Apostle E F |
Until the state troopers come looking for me.
_________________
You're going to Heaven. I'm going to jail and you're going to Heaven. |
Member
Posts: 39
7/17/12 3:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| To diakoneo |
doyle |
I was surprised when the Executive Council member mentioned that Item 2 could maybe help existing churches move to an affiliate status but we carried what he said word-for-word. So, maybe what you expressed in your post is not so implausible after all.
Doyle
writedoyle@yahoo.com
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement.
Last edited by doyle on 7/17/12 11:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-celerate Owner
Posts: 6957
7/17/12 4:21 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dean Steenburgh |
Remember that an affiliate church is not a member with full rights since this line was copied & pasted from the explanation page in the back of the agenda where it says :
'all associate churches who desire to become full members in the International General Assembly to place the church properties on a Church of God warranty deed with the approval of the administrative bishop ...'
Does this mean that the road is being paved for the local church to possibly become an 'affiliate' church body & thereby take control of their own deeds & properties? The explanation for item 2 gives us the definition of two types of affiliate churches; one with full membership who gives HQ a warranty deed to their properties & apparently one without full membership but who keeps all deeds to themselves. If that is to become part of the discussion & possible end result would be complete control of the deed, may I simply say just for the record that my church would be interested in affiliate status on Aug. 28th  .
We have no interest in leaving the denomination but the multi-level layer of permission slips that are needed just to do massive improvements is out of line. I need to do some improvements that would save these buildings but we don't have all the cash needed to pay it off in full. We have the means to service a small debt & even have a Christian based lender lined up, but we can't get a permission slip to complete the project. I can't let the facility be sacrificed to the termites but I need the building for various reasons & it is in need of restoration which will cost a pretty penny; unfortunately it is more pennies than we have in the bank.
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"
Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com
Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on? |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4682
7/17/12 4:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
chainrattler |
| Dean Steenburgh wrote: | Remember that an affiliate church is not a member with full rights since this line was copied & pasted from the explanation page in the back of the agenda where it says :
'all associate churches who desire to become full members in the International General Assembly to place the church properties on a Church of God warranty deed with the approval of the administrative bishop ...' |
Full rights to do what? Vote in meetings held in far off places the average person doesn't have the time or money to attend?
| Dean Steenburgh wrote: | | We have no interest in leaving the denomination but the multi-level layer of permission slips that are needed just to do massive improvements is out of line. I need to do some improvements that would save these buildings but we don't have all the cash needed to pay it off in full. We have the means to service a small debt & even have a Christian based lender lined up, but we can't get a permission slip to complete the project |
I sat in a meeting with a state representative and heard him tell a church that although they had no right to withdraw from the Church of God, and although the Church of God owned their property, they were responsible for all indebtedness of the church, even if it transpired before they came to the church.
They could not provide funds to help the church replace their roof, but they could tell us that we had a "moral obligation" to honor the church's debts and the state was not responsible, even though the state was the real owner of the property.
If the COG actually owns the building that makes the congregation tenants and the COG the landlord. It is the landlord's responsibility to maintain and upkeep the property, not the tenants.
Question: What are the two unpardonable sins?
Answer: Blaspheming the Holy Spirit and delinquent tithes from the Church. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 975
7/17/12 5:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Item 2 |
rickfowler |
I fail to see the reason for item 2. Are there churches lining up to begin paying tithe of tithe to the COG? I understand congregations looking pastors or leaders when a pastor is needed. I understand the fellowship and ministry opportunities that the COG can provide many smaller churches. What I don't understand is if we won't let a COG minister pastor an independent church how are we going to let a church maintain their independent status and then make their pastor COG? Huh??
I am very open to a plausible explanation of why this item is of benefit to the COG. Aside from from the obvious streams of revenue it could create. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 148
7/17/12 7:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Item 2 |
Clint Wills |
| rickfowler wrote: | I fail to see the reason for item 2. Are there churches lining up to begin paying tithe of tithe to the COG? I understand congregations looking pastors or leaders when a pastor is needed. I understand the fellowship and ministry opportunities that the COG can provide many smaller churches. What I don't understand is if we won't let a COG minister pastor an independent church how are we going to let a church maintain their independent status and then make their pastor COG? Huh??
I am very open to a plausible explanation of why this item is of benefit to the COG. Aside from from the obvious streams of revenue it could create. |
I think one of the bigger reasons someone would join the COG (I know one church for sure) is to build a building. We now have a COG about 30 minutes south of us because they needed a building, but couldn't get a loan without being part of a denomination. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5161
7/18/12 9:45 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: To diakoneo |
diakoneo |
| doyle wrote: | I was surprised when the Executive Council member mentioned that Item 2 could maybe help existing churches move to an affiliate status but we carried what he said word-for-word. So, maybe what you expressed in your post is not so implausible after all.
Doyle
writedoyle@yahoo.com |
Is this allowing for established churches in the Church of God to move to affiliate status???
Last edited by diakoneo on 7/18/12 11:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
7/18/12 10:10 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Item 2 |
Nick Park |
| rickfowler wrote: | | I fail to see the reason for item 2. Are there churches lining up to begin paying tithe of tithe to the COG? |
Surprisingly enough there are. Tithe of tithe (in reality far less than 10% of most churches' total income) isn't the deal-breaker that many see it as. Many independent works see that as a small price to pay compared to the benefits of being part of a larger movement. (I speak as a church planter who brought an independent church into the Church of God 17 years ago.)
The real deal-breakers are twofold:
a) Having to sign the deeds of a property over to the denomination.
b) Losing control of pastoral succession (many independent congregations would rather groom a successor rather than risk an overseer handing the church over to a buddy).
I also think that this is a step towards better governance of our existing churches. For headquarters to hold the deeds of so many church properties IMHO carries too many risks. We need an exit strategy - but to do so all at once without considering the consequences could also prove catastrophic.
The affiliate churches measure opens the door for future measures that say, "Look, we already have churches who own their own properties and choose their own pastors, and the sky hasn't fallen in on us as a result. Now let's see if we can't extend that to as many of our existing churches as want it, and in a way that doesn't bankrupt churches or the denomination."
_________________
Senior Pastor, Solid Rock Church, Drogheda
National Overseer, Church of God, Ireland
Executive Director, Evangelical Alliance Ireland
http://eaiseanchai.wordpress.com/ |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1021
7/18/12 10:24 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| NO, I don't think so! |
diakoneo |
| Quote: | 2. AFFILIATION WITH CHURCH OF GOD
We recommend:
That we amend pages 137, 138, S49. AFFILIATION WITH
CHURCH OF GOD, by substituting the following:
That non-Church of God churches that wish to affi liate with
the Church of God be allowed to join as associate churches.
They shall be able to retain ownership of their properties. They
shall make monthly reports to the state/regional and general
offi ces with the same fi nancial accountability as International
General Assembly congregations. The pastor shall submit to
a background check and he/she shall secure Church of God
ministerial credentials in accordance with the denomination’s
polity.
An associate church can remove its associate status by
placing the church properties on a Church of God warranty
deed with the approval of the administrative bishop and the
state/regional council.
|
The agenda item clearly states non-Church of God churches, which wish to affiliate...I am confused |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
7/18/12 11:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | The agenda item clearly states non-Church of God churches, which wish to affiliate...I am confused |
It's the carrot and stick thing (or slippery slope thing depending on whether your view of this is positive or negative.)
In other words, right now it's only for non-COG churches, but later on it might be for churches that are already in the denomination. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/18/12 12:12 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | The agenda item clearly states non-Church of God churches, which wish to affiliate...I am confused |
It's the carrot and stick thing (or slippery slope thing depending on whether your view of this is positive or negative.)
In other words, right now it's only for non-COG churches, but later on it might be for churches that are already in the denomination. |
So the intent by the EC is to eventually...
Why don't we say what we want to do and stop all of the back-door business?
Operative words being "later" and "might be" or it could turn into something totally different. Two identities within the Church of God. Two classes of churches. I think that is far more likely.
Will these affiliate churches have the same kind of voting power at GA? |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
7/18/12 12:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Current language vs Amended language |
doyle |
Diakoneo, you are correct. The "current language" of the actual Agenda Item does not seem to allow for existing COG congregations to move to affiliate status.
The reason I mentioned that in the heading of this thread is from what the Executive Council member said when he spoke out in favor of passing this item.
What Executive Council member said:
"To allow and even encourage congregations to move to an affiliate/associate status..."
As you can tell, I am passionate about this!!! One person said to me, "If we pass this we will have churches leaving us right and left." To which I replied, "If that's the case we have a much bigger problem than we are willing to admit. We may have the property but we don't have their heart."
END OF Council Member's Quote
Remember, what we now have before us is PRIOR TO any amendments that can be made in the Ordained Minister's Council and ultimately in the General Assembly that immediately follows.
In looking at this Agenda Item as it is written, is there a way to amend it that will allow existing local churches to move to affiliate status? For instance, what would happen if one removed the word "Non?"
If amended correctly, couldn't this Agenda Item open the door to allowing existing local churches to move to a more "autonomous" status?
Doyle
writedoyle@yahoo.com
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement. |
Acts-celerate Owner
Posts: 6957
7/18/12 1:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Current language vs Amended language |
diakoneo |
| doyle wrote: |
If amended correctly, couldn't this Agenda Item open the door to allowing existing local churches to move to a more "autonomous" status?
Doyle
writedoyle@yahoo.com |
I suppose it could by simply striking out the letters non- to read:
| Quote: | That Church of God churches that wish to affiliate with
the Church of God be allowed to join as associate churches.
They shall be able to retain ownership of their properties. They
shall make monthly reports to the state/regional and general
offices with the same financial accountability as International
General Assembly congregations. The pastor shall submit to
a background check and he/she shall secure Church of God
ministerial credentials in accordance with the denomination’s
polity.
An associate church can remove its associate status by
placing the church properties on a Church of God warranty
deed with the approval of the administrative bishop and the
state/regional council. |
  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
7/18/12 2:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nick Park |
| diakoneo wrote: |
So the intent by the EC is to eventually...
Why don't we say what we want to do and stop all of the back-door business? |
Because that would be saying something that is not true.
Myself and another member of the Executive Council have stated our personal views that this measure, if passed, is a progressive step that will demonstrate the advantages of allowing churches to own their own properties, thus paving the way for measures in the future that would do something similar for existing CoG congregations.
It would be very erroneous indeed to assume that we represent anyone's views other than our own, let alone that we somehow speak for 'the EC' (unsure if you are referring to the Executive Committee or the Council).
You are, however, correct that the measure on the General Council Agenda is solely limited to non-Church of God congregations that may want to affiliate. In this respect the thread title is misleading.
_________________
Senior Pastor, Solid Rock Church, Drogheda
National Overseer, Church of God, Ireland
Executive Director, Evangelical Alliance Ireland
http://eaiseanchai.wordpress.com/ |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1021
7/18/12 4:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| The intent of this motion is what it is... |
drmrc |
This motion does nothing more than allow independent churches to enter the Church of God as an affilate church if they desire to do so. The intent of it is nothing more than that. It is not a "smoke and mirrors" or "bait and switch" motion. It is what it is.
This motion cannot be ammended at the General Council/Assembly level to affect anything other than the status of affiliate churches because it is only changing that part of the Minutes which deals with the matter of affiliate churches. The status of current Church of God congregations is not up for discussion.
In the future the matter of COG congregations being allowed to become affilate/associate churches may be on the agenda. This will be up to the Executive Council. I for one believe that this would be a very important subject to address. However, right now the only thing we have to discuss and decide is allowing or now allowing independent congregations to come into our denomination as Affiliate Church of God congregations.
Mike Chapman |
Friendly Face
Posts: 300
7/18/12 7:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
