Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate
Browse by what's: hot | new | rising | top of the week

ministerial program suggested allowing gay leaders
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post ministerial program suggested allowing gay leaders UncleJD
I'm not in the clergy of the COG so forgive me if I've got it all wrong (that's why I'm asking). But a close friend told me that there are ongoing meetings across the denomination right now regarding homosexuals in leadership (teachers, worship leaders, etc..) The way it was worded was a little vague so maybe someone here can clarify. (bty - I think this topic is germane to the board here in light of today's political and theological issues.)

It seems that the gist is one of the following and I'm wondering what your take is (one of these 2, or something else)

1. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, deny them the position but don't give them homosexuality as the reason for it.

2. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, do not deny them the position. (on that basis alone)


Subtle difference I know (1 seems like its asking to lie, 2 seems like its saying hire them if they meet the rest of the criteria ), and I hope neither are truly being advocated, but that is what I was told. This is third-hand I know, that is why I'm asking here.

Is the COG at a point where it is worried about litigation more than truth? Would this time where we have a president appointing more conservative judges than in years be the best time to tackle this head-on? Nobody want's to lose money in court, but what happens if you successfully avoid litigation for a few years, but then, once more liberal judges are in power, it comes out then?

Does anyone have a better understanding of the ask here?


Last edited by UncleJD on 1/15/19 10:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
1/15/19 11:59 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Time for Christians to take a chunk of North America and form their own nation.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
1/15/19 12:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: question about COG meetings regarding gay leaders Quiet Wyatt
UncleJD wrote:
I'm not in the clergy of the COG so forgive me if I've got it all wrong (that's why I'm asking). But a close friend told me that there are ongoing meetings across the denomination right now regarding homosexuals in leadership (teachers, worship leaders, etc..) The way it was worded was a little vague so maybe someone here can clarify. (bty - I think this topic is germane to the board here in light of today's political and theological issues.)

It seems that the gist is one of the following and I'm wondering what your take is (one of these 2, or something else)

1. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, deny them the position but don't give them homosexuality as the reason for it.

2. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, do not deny them the position. (on that basis alone)


Subtle difference I know (1 seems like its asking to lie, 2 seems like its saying hire them if they meet the rest of the criteria ), and I hope neither are truly being advocated, but that is what I was told. This is third-hand I know, that is why I'm asking here.

Is the COG at a point where it is worried about litigation more than truth? Would this time where we have a president appointing more conservative judges than in years be the best time to tackle this head-on? Nobody want's to lose money in court, but what happens if you successfully avoid litigation for a few years, but then, once more liberal judges are in power, it comes out then?

Does anyone have a better understanding of the ask here?


I haven’t heard anything along these lines, but my first thought would be, “Do they mean practicing homosexual or just someone who, though committed to being celibate, nevertheless identifies as ‘gay’ due to same-sex attraction?”

I feel certain that a CoG-owned institution or local church would be on solid legal ground denying employment to someone whose behavior violates its official teachings. Not sure where we would stand denying employment to someone based solely upon their ‘orientation’ apart from actual homosexual behavior.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/15/19 12:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: question about COG meetings regarding gay leaders UncleJD
Quiet Wyatt wrote:

I haven’t heard anything along these lines, but my first thought would be, “Do they mean practicing homosexual or just someone who, though committed to being celibate, nevertheless identifies as ‘gay’ due to same-sex attraction?”


agree that would be a big difference for me as well. Hope to hear from anyone who has been involved in this process so far.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
1/15/19 1:04 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Brandon Bohannon
This isn't true.

Not trying to stifle discussion or hypotheticals but this isn't happening. Someone misunderstood or is misinformed.

As always, the COG still believes in the whole Bible, rightly divided for our rule and standard for living a Christian life and testimony.
_________________
Proverbs 3:5-6; John 13:34-35; Acts 1:8
Acts-celerater
Posts: 571
1/15/19 8:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dean Steenburgh
About 5 years ago (a couple days after the vote was taken to exclude women from OB status) the subject of gays in ministry came up & we debated & voted in General Council, I think on day 4 or 5. There wasn't a very big attendance during the discussion & voting because after all, we had to keep women out, but ...gays ...we're not too worried about them lol.

I asked a guy next to me who was from Florida why we were even having such discussion & he said there had been a few churches that had issues in music ministry & a couple other ministry areas where the local churches were struggling on how to deal with staff members who claimed to be gay & didn't want to lose their positions at those churches.

I'm guessing that there are guys who will read this & will not respond because they know of circumstances where these allegations are true & even now could still be an issue if it were brought out to be public knowledge.

I do believe that legal council has kept a good eye on this sort of activity & they have guided our leadership through this difficult maze to help us remain strong in our moral & ethical position.

The subject isn't even discussed when it is a muslim cultural center where dozens of people are employed. For some reason they are protected from even having to have the discussion on whether or not to employ or even offer an interview to one who lives a gay lifestyle.
Pretty sure we're protected the same way.


.
_________________
"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
1/15/19 9:18 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post UncleJD
Brandon Bohannon wrote:
This isn't true.

Not trying to stifle discussion or hypotheticals but this isn't happening. Someone misunderstood or is misinformed.

As always, the COG still believes in the whole Bible, rightly divided for our rule and standard for living a Christian life and testimony.


It may not be exactly what is happening (that's why I'm asking), but something HAS happened. I am suspecting, however, that it might have been a local (and unofficial) implementation of a national ministerial program where the local administrator of the program spoke his own "wisdom" about such a scenario. I won't speculate further, just wanted to see if anyone had heard it first hand, I'm relieved you haven't and I hope this incident is cleared up at the level that it did happen soon.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
1/15/19 10:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
Though I of course can’t say I know everything that every CoG CAMS or MIP facilitator or pastor ever said, I’m really having a hard time imagining why there would be any reason for a CoG pastor to even bring up such a scenario. While I wouldn’t doubt there could be some practicing or non-practicing homosexuals involved in the CoG as, say, music ministers or children’s pastors or other kinds of ministers, my guess is that the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be the most likely way this would be handled.

I could be of course be wrong. I have personally known CoG pastors who have disagreed with me about the idea that practicing homosexuals were necessarily unsaved. (Not that they were unable to be saved, but that they could be willfully continuing in sin and saved at the same time). So I suppose it is possible that some CoG pastor somewhere may have tried to justify employing a homosexual worship leader or other staff on the typical antinomian premise that we all supposedly sin all the time, all sin is the same, and we can’t judge, you know?
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/16/19 1:33 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Brandon Bohannon
UncleJD wrote:
Brandon Bohannon wrote:
This isn't true.

Not trying to stifle discussion or hypotheticals but this isn't happening. Someone misunderstood or is misinformed.

As always, the COG still believes in the whole Bible, rightly divided for our rule and standard for living a Christian life and testimony.


It may not be exactly what is happening (that's why I'm asking), but something HAS happened. I am suspecting, however, that it might have been a local (and unofficial) implementation of a national ministerial program where the local administrator of the program spoke his own "wisdom" about such a scenario. I won't speculate further, just wanted to see if anyone had heard it first hand, I'm relieved you haven't and I hope this incident is cleared up at the level that it did happen soon.
Yes sir.
_________________
Proverbs 3:5-6; John 13:34-35; Acts 1:8
Acts-celerater
Posts: 571
1/16/19 7:03 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post I don't know any .... Mat
Brandon Bohannon wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Brandon Bohannon wrote:
This isn't true.

Not trying to stifle discussion or hypotheticals but this isn't happening. Someone misunderstood or is misinformed.

As always, the COG still believes in the whole Bible, rightly divided for our rule and standard for living a Christian life and testimony.


It may not be exactly what is happening (that's why I'm asking), but something HAS happened. I am suspecting, however, that it might have been a local (and unofficial) implementation of a national ministerial program where the local administrator of the program spoke his own "wisdom" about such a scenario. I won't speculate further, just wanted to see if anyone had heard it first hand, I'm relieved you haven't and I hope this incident is cleared up at the level that it did happen soon.
Yes sir.


I don't know any COG ministers, local churches or institutions that would "stray" into such compromise. Even ministry jobs are "at will" and an employee can be dismissed without cause. When writing employment contracts/agreements/Job Descriptions always list salaries on a pay period bases and not on monthly or annual totals, less they sue for their full salary due. Remember to stipulate the "at will" nature of the position and any benefits, including severance pay. In general you should not document reasons for dismissal, such as "homosexual behavior" or "adultery." Don't let your own employment records be used as evidence in court against you and your church.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
1/16/19 8:36 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: ministerial program suggested allowing gay leaders skinnybishop
UncleJD wrote:
I'm not in the clergy of the COG so forgive me if I've got it all wrong (that's why I'm asking). But a close friend told me that there are ongoing meetings across the denomination right now regarding homosexuals in leadership (teachers, worship leaders, etc..) The way it was worded was a little vague so maybe someone here can clarify. (bty - I think this topic is germane to the board here in light of today's political and theological issues.)

It seems that the gist is one of the following and I'm wondering what your take is (one of these 2, or something else)

1. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, deny them the position but don't give them homosexuality as the reason for it.

2. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, do not deny them the position. (on that basis alone)


Subtle difference I know (1 seems like its asking to lie, 2 seems like its saying hire them if they meet the rest of the criteria ), and I hope neither are truly being advocated, but that is what I was told. This is third-hand I know, that is why I'm asking here.

Is the COG at a point where it is worried about litigation more than truth? Would this time where we have a president appointing more conservative judges than in years be the best time to tackle this head-on? Nobody want's to lose money in court, but what happens if you successfully avoid litigation for a few years, but then, once more liberal judges are in power, it comes out then?

Does anyone have a better understanding of the ask here?


Why does an employer have to explain why he didn't hire an applicant?

I've worked for private business, for 2 state agencies , and been in the ministry for 19 years. There have been occasions when I didn't get positions. No one ever gave me a reason. They didn't owe me an explanation.... They simply said, "We appreciate your interest, but you were not chosen for the position".
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
1/16/19 11:44 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: ministerial program suggested allowing gay leaders UncleJD
skinnybishop wrote:

Why does an employer have to explain why he didn't hire an applicant?

I've worked for private business, for 2 state agencies , and been in the ministry for 19 years. There have been occasions when I didn't get positions. No one ever gave me a reason. They didn't owe me an explanation.... They simply said, "We appreciate your interest, but you were not chosen for the position".

Ask the EEOC
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
1/16/19 1:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: ministerial program suggested allowing gay leaders Mat
skinnybishop wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
I'm not in the clergy of the COG so forgive me if I've got it all wrong (that's why I'm asking). But a close friend told me that there are ongoing meetings across the denomination right now regarding homosexuals in leadership (teachers, worship leaders, etc..) The way it was worded was a little vague so maybe someone here can clarify. (bty - I think this topic is germane to the board here in light of today's political and theological issues.)

It seems that the gist is one of the following and I'm wondering what your take is (one of these 2, or something else)

1. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, deny them the position but don't give them homosexuality as the reason for it.

2. If you have known homosexuals applying for leadership positions, do not deny them the position. (on that basis alone)


Subtle difference I know (1 seems like its asking to lie, 2 seems like its saying hire them if they meet the rest of the criteria ), and I hope neither are truly being advocated, but that is what I was told. This is third-hand I know, that is why I'm asking here.

Is the COG at a point where it is worried about litigation more than truth? Would this time where we have a president appointing more conservative judges than in years be the best time to tackle this head-on? Nobody want's to lose money in court, but what happens if you successfully avoid litigation for a few years, but then, once more liberal judges are in power, it comes out then?

Does anyone have a better understanding of the ask here?


Why does an employer have to explain why he didn't hire an applicant?

I've worked for private business, for 2 state agencies , and been in the ministry for 19 years. There have been occasions when I didn't get positions. No one ever gave me a reason. They didn't owe me an explanation.... They simply said, "We appreciate your interest, but you were not chosen for the position".


Exactly! When it comes to hiring someone, the church does not have to give the reasons why. To do so, even if the applicant ask why is to open the church up to lawsuits.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
1/16/19 3:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Mat..."Moral Clause" Aaron Scott
Mat wrote:
Brandon Bohannon wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Brandon Bohannon wrote:
This isn't true.

Not trying to stifle discussion or hypotheticals but this isn't happening. Someone misunderstood or is misinformed.

As always, the COG still believes in the whole Bible, rightly divided for our rule and standard for living a Christian life and testimony.


It may not be exactly what is happening (that's why I'm asking), but something HAS happened. I am suspecting, however, that it might have been a local (and unofficial) implementation of a national ministerial program where the local administrator of the program spoke his own "wisdom" about such a scenario. I won't speculate further, just wanted to see if anyone had heard it first hand, I'm relieved you haven't and I hope this incident is cleared up at the level that it did happen soon.
Yes sir.


I don't know any COG ministers, local churches or institutions that would "stray" into such compromise. Even ministry jobs are "at will" and an employee can be dismissed without cause. When writing employment contracts/agreements/Job Descriptions always list salaries on a pay period bases and not on monthly or annual totals, less they sue for their full salary due. Remember to stipulate the "at will" nature of the position and any benefits, including severance pay. In general you should not document reasons for dismissal, such as "homosexual behavior" or "adultery." Don't let your own employment records be used as evidence in court against you and your church.


Might I suggest, Mat, that it might serve to protect a church to insert a morality clause that, if broken, is grounds for dismissal. Advertising contracts are dropped at times because the athlete did something morally repugnant, etc.

While it's impossible to go into all the details, it might be reasonable to stipulate certain key issues, along with anything that, in the view of the pastor/church leadership, would serve to tarnish the reputation of the church and/or would be at odds with church standards, etc.

At least the person knows in advance that if they cross the line, they stand to lose their job.





Mat
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
1/16/19 3:58 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: ministerial program suggested allowing gay leaders UncleJD
Mat wrote:


Exactly! When it comes to hiring someone, the church does not have to give the reasons why. To do so, even if the applicant ask why is to open the church up to lawsuits.

Mat


So you don't think there are any gay activists that would accuse you of not hiring gays because of whatever made-up reason? You don't think there are some wanting to go to court? They only have to suggest that your motivation was their gayness. In my opinion this can't be "avoided" and must be met head on and the sooner the better.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
1/16/19 3:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a bylaw stating that any staff member or employee of the CoG must either be a member in good standing of the local CoG he is applying for employment to, or to become one prior to employment. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/16/19 4:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a bylaw stating that any staff member or employee of the CoG must either be a member in good standing of the local CoG he is applying for employment to, or to become one prior to employment.


Nah - there are some preachers out there that would let all kinds of debauched folks be members. Being a member means nothing.

Adultery,
Gay,
Thief,
Murderer

You can keep three of those out on moral clauses - but not the gay ones.

Gay no longer allowed to be an exception - psychology tells us that it is no longer abnormal...and they are now protected class.

And, consequently, pink puffy shirts are also allowed.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
1/16/19 4:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
According to the CoG Minutes (except for the pink puffy shirt, haha) members can be removed for such things as you list. At the very least, such could not be considered to be in good standing. Perhaps the scenario of having to deal with a sexual pervert who wanted to join might make us have to actually respect and abide by our own standards of church discipline as stipulated by our Minutes. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/16/19 5:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post membership verses employment Mat
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
According to the CoG Minutes (except for the pink puffy shirt, haha) members can be removed for such things as you list. At the very least, such could not be considered to be in good standing. Perhaps the scenario of having to deal with a sexual pervert who wanted to join might make us have to actually respect and abide by our own standards of church discipline as stipulated by our Minutes.


While we want to have membership living right, we all know there is a process, including efforts for restoration. Standards for paid (or volunteer) ministry positions do and must have a higher threshold of expectations in lifestyle, as well as preference in duties. If the church janitor refuses to clean the restrooms, you fire him no manner what his standing as to church membership. If the church janitor is the best restroom cleaner ever, but smells like liquor and makes the women uncomfortable, you still fire him.

You don't have to give a reason for dismissal from a church payroll, and when it comes to hiring and firing church ministry staff, its the same principle. The employee works for the church at will - he can leave when he wants and the church can let him go when they want. It is no difference if there were not enough funds to continue keeping a position. To announce and document much beyond this principle is to open yourself up to being taken to court. The smelly and course church janitor might have recourse for a wrongful firing if your job description was "clean the bathrooms" but you documented that he was let go for "not smelling good," which could have been the result of cleaning the bathrooms.

I have seen overseers/state bishops, denominational leaders and church institutional leaders let pastors and staff "go" for many reasons - perceived preference - staff loyalty (they want their own people, or family) - and even on divine direction - so they say, God told them. When you firer someone, don't spell it out - a closeted homosexual choir director may be popular and very good at the mechanics of his position, but if you as the pastor feel their needs to be a change, make the change. Don't spell out the reason in his personnel file, or even in a reference letter.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
1/17/19 8:01 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post UncleJD
Mat,
Is your advice for hiding the true reason for terminating or not hiring gays conveyed at any official program in your state, either by you or by others? Since your opinion mirrors at least one of the scenarios I was given then I'm curious.

Also, do you honestly believe that churches can continue to just hide the true reasons? Should they (I don't think so)? If/when you are taken to court over it, what then? Continue to deny? Isn't that a lie?

I really think the window for fighting this is now. I think the tactic of deny and delay will play right into the enemies' hands.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
1/17/19 10:17 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.