| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Whachathink about states electing their Overseer (AB)? |
doyle |
This topic was first brought up by Juda4Him. He shares that it
would require a Bi-Law change, but if that item came up for
discussion at the General Assembly, what would be your input?
Doyle
writedoyle@gmail.com
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement. |
Acts-celerate Owner
Posts: 6957
5/24/18 2:55 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
SouthFloridaman |
| My First instinct is yes I want states to elect there own AB’s. my first question after that would be who does the new state elected official answer to? Do they answer to the the people, state council or general overseer? No one wants to face the reality that the executive council still pulls the levers because they don’t see or hear from them as much as they hear from there state bishop. What is the power of appointment on executive council and executive committee once these state councils and elections have been empowered? Will there be a bunch of political campaigns for office also will local church membership be allowed to vote like a mini state General assembly or only those with the rank of exhorter or higher be allowed to vote? For the sake of talking let’s say a state does not have funds and it is not the fault of the current state overseers. Let’s say the situation is an accumulation of bad decisions over decades that have ravaged the state let’s say there has been agreements to fix things that may not be popular with the masses. How do we protect from mob rule. I am for exhorter or higher voting for the state ab’s. But will it be an appointment sistuation or will it be a free for all where anyone as long as they qualify can run for the position? |
Friendly Face
Posts: 358
5/24/18 6:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| All I can say is there has got to be a better way than the way we do it now, especially in mission states. We get an AB or a YD for two, maybe four years max, and then they move up to a bigger state. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
5/24/18 8:39 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | All I can say is there has got to be a better way than the way we do it now, especially in mission states. We get an AB or a YD for two, maybe four years max, and then they move up to a bigger state. |
This is correct. Mission states will typically get a first-year AB who is looking to build his resume. The system in place is purely political. Does God work in spite of it ? Certainly. But there must be a better way. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
5/24/18 8:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| If the AB has stayed four years in a mission state, by that time he might be getting well adapted to the new culture. And then he moves on up and out, and the cycle repeats itself again. I would think our system could adapt (in mission states especially), to having an AB nominated by the ministers in the state, perhaps taking the top two vote-getters and letting the EC choose one of them as the AB. The AB would still answer to the EC, the EC would still retain their hierarchical authority over the AB, and the ministers in the state would have substantive input into the decision. As it is now in mission states, the AB has to spend a significant portion of his time traveling back East to raise funds for the state; if we could have a pastor from within the state become AB, he could either remain pastoring his church in a dual role like we currently do with YDs, or he could try to raise funds similarly to the way mission state ABs do already. The AB would still be subject to the EC, and the EC would have the final say on the AB’s appointment, but we would likely have a lot less problem with ABs leaving every 2 or 4 years for greener pastures. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
5/24/18 10:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| I should hasten to add that I believe the ABs we have had out here since I’ve been here have been honorable men. I have never gotten the impression from them that they have just been using their position as a stepping stone. I truly wish we could have kept them. I think that the way the system works makes it exceedingly unlikely that anyone would stay past four years out here. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
5/24/18 10:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| I don't believe it is feasible in smaller states |
roughridercog |
And it can also bring about stagnation and an individual states isolationist position where "we only vote for people from our state."
_________________
Doctor of Bovinamodulation |
Acts Mod
Posts: 25305
5/25/18 6:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Chicago27 |
It’s my understanding that ministers are just appointed with no discussion. At least it was that way in the old days. So, if it changes to the states making that decision, there has to be some coordination between the states because 15 states may appoint the same man to be their overseer.
It may be time to appoint a pastor who keeps his church to be the overseer, just like a district overseer. In the larger states, why not have a CEO who deals with things like finances. That person can stay there with no limits. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 253
5/25/18 6:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
FLRon |
I don't think there is a "best method". I personally think that the common perception that AB's appoint pastor's out of favoritism or cronyism would just fall upon individual power groups in the state and continue as usual.
As long as humans are in the mix any system will be flawed. Long gone are the days when fasting and prayer we're the deciding factor in pastoral appointments. I know a current AB actively seeking candidates via Twitter,so what does that say about the current methodology?
_________________
“Hell will be filled with people that didn’t cuss, didn’t drink, and may even have been baptized. Why? Because none of those things makes someone a Christian.”
Voddie Baucham |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 787
5/25/18 7:45 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
SouthFloridaman |
| Chicago27 wrote: | | it changes to the states making that decision, there has to be some coordination between the states because 15 states may appoint the same man to be their overseer. |
I don’t know I think it would be dominated by the largest churches in the state. I doubt the current model of some guy from Alabama going to a state on the west coast would ever happen. Again No one would know who he is. I think also it is for the bettter because the local pastors have skin in the game.
| Quote: | | It may be time to appoint a pastor who keeps his church to be the overseer, just like a district overseer. |
.
Whoa I could see a larger church pastor pulling a I want to be overseer so he could be left alone. Shoot it happens all the time with district overseers. X pastors a larger church and becomes district overseer due to fear that the 40 member church pastor will become the D.O. And drive them nuts.
Yeah so maybe we need to rethink the overseer hiring and firing pastors. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 358
5/25/18 12:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
I don't foresee anything like this happening as long as the COG has a centralized government. Isn't that kind of the point of a centralized government style? Headquarters makes the major decisions.
There has been a call from some ministers that the emphasis on prayer & fasting be renewed. And if I recall correctly, at the last GA, Dr. Hill opened the first session with a time of prayer. I agree that this is vitally important to what happens to our denomination.
The only way I see anything like this happening is if perhaps they changed the ruling about how long an AB is allowed to stay in a state. That could be a great thing if you have a great AB or a bad thing if you have a bad AB.
Perhaps they could give ballots for ministers of that state to vote on with perhaps 2 names already selected by HQ. That would probably be really difficult on their end, though, since likely both names would be on the "To Be Considered for AB" list. Personally, though I doubt this is going to change. Just my humble opinion....
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
5/25/18 12:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
SouthFloridaman |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | I don't foresee anything like this happening as long as the COG has a centralized government. Isn't that kind of the point of a centralized government style? Headquarters makes the major decisions.
There has been a call from some ministers that the emphasis on prayer & fasting be renewed. And if I recall correctly, at the last GA, Dr. Hill opened the first session with a time of prayer. I agree that this is vitally important to what happens to our denomination.
The only way I see anything like this happening is if perhaps they changed the ruling about how long an AB is allowed to stay in a state. That could be a great thing if you have a great AB or a bad thing if you have a bad AB.
Perhaps they could give ballots for ministers of that state to vote on with perhaps 2 names already selected by HQ. That would probably be really difficult on their end, though, since likely both names would be on the "To Be Considered for AB" list. Personally, though I doubt this is going to change. Just my humble opinion.... |
Exactly why it needs to change. There is too much i have experienced to just let it sit the same. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 358
5/25/18 1:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
MoonWalkingWithJesus |
Bump
_________________
Tis so Sweet to Moonwalk with JESUS. 😎🌔🌔👟👞👟👞 |
Friendly Face
Posts: 141
6/3/18 3:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
MoonWalkingWithJesus |
| This needs attention |
Friendly Face
Posts: 141
6/4/18 1:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
