Actscelerate.com

Have an opinion on Affiliate Churches?

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1449 **2/14/12 1:31 pm**

At the last GA an issue was tabled for study concerning churches affliiating with the COG but remaining under local control. How will this be brought up again at the upcoming GA?. Does it stand a chance of passing? What are your views? Does anyone have a copy of the wording as was presented at the last GA?

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5330 **2/14/12 2:24 pm**

I am much more torn on this now than I was at the last GA; largely because of something I've witnessed in my town with the Assembly of God. I don't know their terminology, but the church here is of the affiliate type, where the AG does not own it. It came to light that the pastor had been sending very inappropriate and suggestive text messages to several women in the church, even inviting them out to his place when his wife was out of town to keep him company. When one of the women came to the church board, she and her family were asked to leave the church. Then others came forward. Same thing. They contacted the AG Superintendent and they were told that they could not override the local Body because they were an affiliated church, not under their control. Long story short, the church has split, the pastor started a new church. But the point of sharing it here is that IF the COG looks at doing an affiliate church, there has to be some clearly defined lines of authority and accountability. I'm not so sure I'm for this at this time until there is a clear and detailed plan of action as to how it would all work out.

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **2/14/12 2:29 pm**

One thing I would like to see the CoG do (which I know the A/G and Foursquare used to do and probably still do) is create a category for affiliate churches, which stay independent but who have denominationally credentialed ministers under the denominational jurisdiction and who may choose to participate in denominational programs and projects to the extent they may desire. I see such an arrangement as a win/win, though admittedly it might make some CoG churches and ministers uncomfortable or perhaps even jealous of the affiliate status.

I also agree with Darrell's caveat. I know from family experience that the A/G's weaker form of gov't makes it much more difficult for them to handle local church conflicts when necessary. Basically, if the local church has enough money to get good legal representation, they can usually win against the district in court, and district superintendants are understandably reluctant to being sued.

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1449 **2/14/12 2:59 pm**

Darrell Garrett wrote:

"Long story short, the church has split, the pastor started a new church. But the point of sharing it here is that IF the COG looks at doing an affiliate church, there has to be some clearly defined lines of authority and accountability. I'm not so sure I'm for this at this time until there is a clear and detailed plan of action as to how it would all work out."

Darrell, this was definitely a bad situation but these same situations happen in COG's. Know one pastor that was very controlling who asked a member and a few of his friends to stop meeting at their homes during the week. This resulted in a big church split. It doesn't take pastor's infidelity to cause a split.

Thanks for your response.

Another question I have is "would it allow current churches to switch over to affiliate status?"

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 7307 **2/14/12 2:59 pm**

In my case.

It is the Conference not the "board" that has the power to declare the office of Pastor vacant.

Checks and balances are in place to protect me and the Church.
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God

www.spwc.church

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1449 **2/14/12 3:54 pm**

sheepdogandy wrote:

"It is the Conference not the "board" that has the power to declare the office of Pastor vacant."

What organization or group are you affiliated with?

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **2/14/12 4:26 pm**

The more people we can get cooperating with us in Global Missions, the better.

The more people we can get working with us in our communities, the better.

If we're looking to keep things utterly organized and orderly, this isn't the way to go. In fact, the way to go is backwards. The smaller, the more easily controlled. I say, let's aim for mission collaboration. Let's get more Gospel-faithful, Spirit-led, brothers on board. We've got a good thing going. Let's get some more folks around our camp fire.

Affiliate churches are a good thing. Let's not get hung up in the detail. And, let's not lose out because it isn't exactly like we want it to go down (if it doesn't sort out exactly like we want it). But, let's get a good win. This is a good win for us and good brothers and sisters who want to cooperate and who want to have good fellowship with one another!

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5330 **2/14/12 4:37 pm**

Travis, I understand what you are saying, but man, you sound like Nancy Pelosi with, "we need to pass it to find out what's in it." We need to be careful. I'm definitely in favor of affiliate churches, however, lets cover the bases and not rush into something foolishly.

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **2/14/12 5:10 pm**

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5431 **2/14/12 5:32 pm**

I think the main issue will be money

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5431 **2/14/12 5:40 pm**

Right now, a COG church pays TOT and pastors tithe to their churches, correct?

If we have affiliate churches, will they required to pay TOT to be affiliated with the COG? If so, that might be an issue with churches that are now independent. Would they want to pay TOT simply to affiliated with the COG? Maybe so, maybe not.

A/G sovereign churches are encouraged, but not required, to give to General Headquarters. World Missions is a separate department itself and most missionaries itinerate in several states to raise their own monthly support, plus a fund to launch their missions work.

I don't think current COG churches should be allowed to switch to affiliate status. It would be better to simply change our structure and "get out of the real estate business" as someone aptly put it in another thread.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **2/14/12 6:12 pm**

Other reasons churches would want to affiliate and participate in our TOT system:

If you've labored and built a church...but, don't have a solid system in place for pastoral transition, I completely understand why a church would want to protect it's mission, assets, and future pastoral placement to an organization like the COG. It's a sad thing to see a solid, Gospel church be built and through internal politics, see a hostile takeover happen that undercuts the mission and purpose of that local church.

That's a very positive aspect of the COG. We have a good system to place solid, Bible pastors. I think we could definitely improve our pastoral placement process by decentralizing it...while filtering qualified pastors through our credentialing process...then allowing local churches select on their own from among those candidates. But, still, our present process allows for good protections for local churches as it pertains to Gospel faithful men/women who are in good moral standing with our fellowship.

This is another good reason why affiliate church arrangements would be a win/win for our fellowship and prospect churches.

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5330 **2/14/12 7:48 pm**

I agree with you that it could be a win/win, and as I said, I'm for it... with caution. My questions would be, if the proposal is accepted, is there any accountability to the denomination? I'm not talking about a long list of rules and regulations, but if they are to be affiliated, then what they do, say and preach reflects on the COG. Therefore, there should be some accountability. If problems arise in the church, would the COG be involved or take a hands off approach? I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me go back to the AoG I first referenced. It turns out that this pastor had done this before in this church and it was swept under the rug. He had had other issues with women in 2 previous churches, and he was simply allowed to go to another church in the denomination, without any involvement of the AoG because they were all churches that were not under the direct supervision of the AoG. So, he's done this at least 4 times and nothing was done. There was also other issues that came to light and he walked out with nearly half the church to plant a new one, leaving this church to pay for a multi-million $$$ building, which they are in danger of defaulting on their loan. One of their members told me that they have 90 days to bring it in order or they will lose their building. This is all terrible in and of itself, but here is the point I want to make. All over our area, it is the AoG that is having their name drug through the mud. People are mad wanting why they did not do anything. Others are mad because they don't make the payments on the building for the people. The AoG simply cannot win for losing in this situation. This is my concern for the COG. How would we protect ourselves from this type of mess?

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **2/14/12 9:00 pm**

Darrell,

There isn't a denominational or independent church system that can fully stop that kind of nonsense. We deal with it. I'm sure we could create a nice list here ranging from long-term, serial offending pedophiles posing as pastors to guys who have bilked churches for mega dollars to denominational administrators who have engaged in straight-up craziness.

We can't stop it.

We can decide who is able to be and who is not able to be affiliated with us after it happens. I don't think we should pre-emptively diminish our capacity to reach out with greater force because of which other character may or may not come into our fold. We're always going to have some pretenders among us...and some good, Jesus loving people who make terrible mistakes. Let's warm to the knowledge that it's our human-ness that allows that kind of stuff to go down and get busy working together in spite of that fact.

Affiliation with Church of God ( from agenda)

Friendly Face Posts: 160 **2/15/12 12:49 am**

We recommend:
That we amend page 133,S51. Affiliation with Church of God, by substituting the following:
That non-Church of God churches that wish affiliation 1
status with the Church of God, be allowed to join as as- 2
sociate churches.
3
Local churches affiliating with the Church of God as as- 4
sociate churches would be able to retain ownership of 5
their properties. These churches would enjoy the benefits 6
of covenant mentoring groups. Church of God doctrine, 7
global networking, leadership development, membership 8
privileges and ministry opportunities while showing ac- 9
ceptance of the faith, government, polity, and practices of 10
the Church of God. 11

When there is a need for a pastoral change in an associate 1
church, the associate church governing board shall work in 2
conjunction with the administrative bishop in the selection of 3
a pastor. 4

( How would a pastor cope with the differences of procedure
if he were to go from pastoring an associate church to one
"owned" by the Church of God?)

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 7307 **2/15/12 10:11 am**

As a Leader (presbyter) in the AG

Acts-celerater Posts: 725 **2/15/12 1:20 pm**

I can assure you there is more going on in the church the OP mentioned. There is NO way a District Supt. would sweep the issue under the rug. Even Jimmy Swaggert ultimately got what he deserved, and he contirbuted $50 million a year to our missions budget in 1986. IF this pastor had a history that could be proved, he would have been brought under charges and investigated by the presbytery and recommendations made as to rehabilitation or removal from the ministry and disfellowshipping.

I have been involved in a number (far too many I might add) of these situations and have never been asked to sweep it under the rug. Something else is going on. Recently here in this district a pastor was accused of misappropriation of funds by some board members. An investigation was held, even a public meeting held afterwards and the pastor was cleared of all charges. These board members were merely trying to "take over', they ultimately left becasue they lost and went down the raod and started their own mess, I mean church.

Things aren't always what they seem from a distance. We NEVER "sweep things under the rug", at least in any cases I have been involved in.
_________________
Acts 1:8

Re: As a Leader (presbyter) in the AG

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5431 **2/16/12 6:58 am**

Re: I think the main issue will be money

Acts-dicted Posts: 9027 **2/16/12 7:21 am**

Money

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1449 **2/16/12 8:26 am**

bradfreeman wrote:

"Finally, the issue that will decide this measure is on the table. TOT! I'm sad to say that cash will drive the fate of this issue from all sides. Independent churches will not want to pay the TOT. If they are willing to pay the TOT, they will likely join the COG outright. Yes, who owns and controls the property is another hurdle.

If the COG creates this hybrid, some (probably many) current churches would likely want to switch to this status if it would lift the burden of the TOT off of them. I can't see the COG creating this option without getting some cash (TOT) for it despite all the good that would come from a closer relationship with other churches. I wish I could.

Affiliation would be a beautiful way to connect the body of Christ. Right now, we place several unbiblical requirements on members and churches. I can't see us not requiring these affiliate churches to swallow ALL of our doctrine (even the non-core elements) especially since many don't even want our preachers speaking at these churches and since our policy is to pull the papers of any preachers who attend or begin to pastor these fellowships. Many in the organization view the COG as "the super church" and feel other doctrinal positions are deficient or inferior. I can't see us "affiliating" with or "accepting" them without total doctrinal agreement."

bradfreeman, I think you hit the mark on the above post. It's a shame that change won't come to the COG unless its an issue of "money". Look at all the posts where churches are having money problems. The struggling churches rebeled on TOT and got a reduction after a hard fought battle. Now we hear where state offices can't do what they did in the past because of the reduction of TOT. Positions in the COG organization have been cut because of lack of money.

You will never get churches to affiliate with the COG if we require them to take on the whole position and requirements that the current churches meet.