|To grasp the context of this PART II, please take a moment and read PART I. This is a continuation from PART I.
For many years in the COG, campaigning openly for someone to fill an official position in the COG, was viewed as improper. However, just because it was not the norm to do that publicly, behind the scenes, campaigning never stopped.
The COG Executive Committee approves the appointment of all state overseers, who in turn approve the appointment of all pastors. In addition, most officials for the Church internationally, are approved and or appointed by headquarters officials. The ministers and members are only allowed to vote to fill a handful of official positions.
Though we did not officially campaign against a former General Overseer, he blames us that his time in office was so brief. He had begun a campaign to strip away from the General Assembly, and thereby the members and local ministers, the right to elect the few officials they were allowed to elect. He felt the General Overseer should have the right to choose his own team.
As General Overseer, he had the right to appoint hundreds and hundreds of people around the world, but wanted to remove the people's ability to elect a few.
We began to editorialize that the end result of the policy he was championing, would strip away what little input ministers and members had in the selection of church officials. Those who strip you of the right to vote, are not your friends and do not have your best interest in mind. Those who have your best interest in mind, are seeking ways to INCREASE your input, not lessen it.
That incident may have been one of the first times in COG history that an open campaign against a policy, affected the election, or lack thereof, concerning the one championing that policy. The problem for us was, we not only liked that dear Brother, but we had run articles and photos in distributed newspapers that may have helped him get elected.
We liked him personally, thought he was a great guy, still do. He was and is an excellent preacher and to our knowledge, is a dynamic person who loves the Lord with all His heart. Therefore, we did not ever, and to this day have never, written one negative word about him personally. I do not understand why people feel they cannot disagree with someone without making negative personal comments about them.
All of our writing about that matter, had to do with a policy he was championing. It is our opinion that any official who attempts to strip away or lessen the input of the people who work and give to keep the organization going, is not someone concerned about them or the future of the COG.
The title "Church Of God," literally means "The People Of God." We are to be committed to God but also to His people who live, work and support His work within the framework of the COG.
And that thereby puts into place the guidelines under which we will allow viewers to campaign against someone's election to serve in an official position.
THERE IS A WAY to share your heart about whether you will or will not vote for someone, without attacking them personally. For such a post to remain on the board, it must not contain snide or personal remarks against them. It must concern that person's job performance, policies, decisions, or something they did or said.
MUST CONTAIN: Any such job evaluation, policy disagreement or disagreeing with a decision, MUST INCLUDE THE WORDS, "In my opinion."
Such posts that do not include "In my opinion," will be deleted and if that continues, the right to use the board will be removed.
They and those who love and support them, have EVERY RIGHT to share why they support them. - why your assessment of that potential official's performance, is wrong.
POSTS CAMPAIGNING FOR someone, are absolutely acceptable on the board too. Posts that say positive things about someone, are welcome on the board more than any other.
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement.
6/17/15 1:15 pm