Actscelerate.com

An Alternative Perspective, Perhaps?

Member Posts: 25 **8/15/11 6:21 pm**

I have not invested the time that many others have on this topic of financial transparency. However, I have always believed this issue is more about the "level of transparency" that is desired by many. For example, the budget report that is released at the general assembly and published in the minutes is, technically (IMO), in compliance with the financial disclosure required by the minutes. So, if this "general" report is in compliance, why all the hand-wringing? Simply because many want "more" disclosure than is actually required by the minutes themselves. I believe this to be the real issue, which is more about trust than about money. Many want more details because they believe the money is misappropriated or wasted in some fashion.

It would be nice to frame the argument for transparency in the right light. We DO have financial reports made available to the general assembly and, now, to the world through the ECFA. If everyone wants more detail, then we will have to spell that out with an alteration of the directive in the minutes. That said, I think our leaders are trustworthy (not perfect, but trustworthy), and are moving toward more openness which is a good thing, IMO.
_________________
That's nothin' but the truth...so help me God!

Friendly Face Posts: 403 **8/15/11 7:02 pm**

Got to this discussion late (must need to get on more often) but coming late gave me a chance to look at the entire post, and I have a couple thoughts.

First, I think Tom makes a good point when he says we voted for the TOT cut without all the information, and it occurred to me that those against the cut could have simply used a detailed audit to show the GC that there was no room in the budget to cut funds. Transperancy could have saved the day! They could have shown with each line of an independent audit the wise and careful spending going on at HQ. Wonder why they didn't do that?

I was also reminded of a 2010 TN Campmeeting speaker that told the congregation: "I have seen the reports" and I have to wonder; did he sign one of those don't ask don't tell things? If so, whats he doing preaching about it? He went on to say: "the numbers are bleak, we're in real trouble financially." He said: "we can't keep spending the way we've been spending." So apparently, there is room in the budget to trim some fat, but we'll never know for sure since we can't see the numbers for ourselves.

I for one, cannot imagine trying to pull off such a financial cloak and dagger routine at the church I pastor. Can you? Try telling your people to sign a form agreeing to keep it quiet from the rest of the congregation before they can see the church records. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? They would call the AB who would take your license for not living up to the COG Minutes, and he would be right in doing so.

I think the problem is this: We have an assemly that is in charge of the church, but it isn't the General Assembly. People in power have control of who gets future power, and it is all about name recognition. You can almost predict in our denomination who the future EC & PB will be by watching who is being appointed by the currnet administration to prominent AB spots and who is speaking at conferences. It also has been my experience that those who go along with the current administrations and don't make waves get those appointments. You may say that is not the case, but to prove my point I will make a bold prediction. Tom and Travis will not be getting any calls for these appointments even though they would probably be more than capable of filling the position.

O well, I have rambled long enough. Sorry this is poorly written but hopefully you get my point.
_________________
Your Fellow Soldier

why not?

Friendly Face Posts: 403 **8/19/11 12:54 pm**

The question why not makes me think of another time in my life. I was not always a minister and there was a time in my life I was driving in my car carrying ... shall we say... contraband. Upon being stopped by the local law enforcement I was asked if they could search my car to which I answered: "not unless you have a warrant." I knew it would be to much trouble for them to jump through all the hoops of getting a warrant and sure enough they let me go on down the road.

In those days I had something to hide so searching my car was out of the question. Today I have nothing to hide and would say, "knock yourself out and if you come across an empty Starbucks cup please feel free to throw it away." Maybe I am to cynical but to me if there are no problems in the car let the people knock themselves out. The need for a "warrant" just looks bad if nothing else, and I for one, don't understand what the big deal is.
_________________
Your Fellow Soldier

Why Not?

Member Posts: 25 **8/20/11 1:03 pm**

Well, I suppose that's a question for those who feel that the finer details of the budget should be withheld to answer. I am not able to sufficiently decry or defend their stance on that issue. I am quite sure they feel justified in their position (as do those on the other side of the issue) and have valid reasons of which I am unaware. As for me, I am for as much transparency as is feasible, and let the expenditures stand on their own merit.

My contribution to the dialogue is that I don't believe that we are in violation of what the minutes call for as to providing financial reports, because we do provide audited reports. I don't believe the minutes demand the "line-by-line" disclosure many are calling for. Thus, if that is the desire of the majority, I feel the demands of the minutes have to be changed to reflect that.

As for evangelism, I agree that more money should be be intentionally and efficiently spent on winning souls. However, I do feel that evangelism is an organic process that is best done through the ministry of the local church, not from a denominational department (see the broad example of Antioch vs. Jerusalem church). So, I suppose the reduction in tithe (and designated EHM monies) allows for the local church to reinvest that money in local evangelism or partnering to plant churches (though I wonder how many will do so). I think that there exists a legitimate role for the denomination in oversight/leadership as well as training/resourcing/coaching pastors and church leaders in this regard, which I hope will be a future priority of state and international administrations.
_________________
That's nothin' but the truth...so help me God!

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2397 **8/23/11 10:07 pm**

I just looked at the 2011 edition of the minutes and there is in fact an audit in the back, so HQ is in fact fulfilling their requirements as set forth by the General Assembly.

Re: An Alternative Perspective, Perhaps?

Acts-celerater Posts: 720 **8/24/11 11:00 am**

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/24/11 11:51 am**

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 7307 **8/24/11 1:08 pm**

There is a 2012 edition of the Minutes?

2012? Shocked

_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God

www.spwc.church

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1458 **8/24/11 1:16 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2397 **8/24/11 2:40 pm**

Sorry, fixed it. I guess I'm just ready to go back to Orlando. I don't know when that level of disclosure began being listed. What exactly is your point?

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/24/11 3:06 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2397 **8/24/11 3:08 pm**

I don't know anything about that, but the audit is there as instructed by minutes of the Church of God. Of course, it will never be satisfactory to some, but the COG has fulfilled the obligation IMHO.

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/24/11 3:16 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3063 **8/26/11 11:43 am**

I was done posting to this, but you guys won't let it die...

Friendly Face Posts: 379 **8/26/11 12:18 pm**

Kyle...I'm drinking the same Kool-Aid...lol

I have found something interesting beginning to happen in the COG...My minister friends who are my age (30 and below) are surprisingly fine with the COG and their level of disclosure. (I think it really becomes a matter of the difference between Gen X and Gen Y)

This disclosure thing seems to be a battle for the older guys. I guess we've just not been in it long enough to become bitter...(okay, that was wrong, but I was just kidding...lol Laughing

)

My concern is this...everything keeps pointing back to something that occurred a decade ago...something about the building of the HQ's. I have no clue about it.

Why are we blaming the current EC for indiscretions that MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE occurred in 2000? For a group that always talks about moving forward with our missional objectives, we seem to be stuck in the past on this issue.

We can't blame the EC for the monies lost to evangelism and WM. The ministers voted for the TOT reduction. I think it was a bad move personally.

I am with Kyle. I believe the COG is in complete compliance with the minutes. I'm not worried about chronology or dates. I'm concerned about NOW and the FUTURE.

I think its time to move on, get over it, etc. I'm sorry that HQ didn't provide the level of disclosure necessary about the HQ project. BUT...we are in compliance now. That's all that matters. You're asking them to fix a failure of past administrations. Why should they? Their job is to pick of the up the pieces and move forward from where they are, not go backwards and try to fix every issue.

While we're fixing 2000, let's go back and fix 1923 too! Some people think there was a conspiracy there too!

Blessings guys!
_________________
Joshua Henson
Senior Pastor at Pensacola Worship Center
www.pwccog.com
www.ecclesialleadership.com

Acts-celerater Posts: 720 **8/26/11 2:09 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2397 **8/26/11 3:50 pm**

Jerry,
That was proof texting... Cool

What? No proof texting?

Acts-celerater Posts: 720 **8/26/11 8:57 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2397 **8/26/11 9:54 pm**

Are you kidding me? I'm not smart enough to read Tom Sterbens' stuff Laughing