 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Kyle Morrow |
| Phillip Johnson wrote: | | Kyle Morrow wrote: | | How do you know I haven't confronted them? I said they do not all write on this board. I'm not going to give someone's name on a public forum. Do you really think that would be appropriate? |
Do you think it is appropriate to throw generalized accusations that paint with a broad brush negatively those with whom you don't agree, completely attacking their integrity? Then you think it is appropriate to say "I wasn't talking about you" when someone is mentioned?. |
It is absolutely appropriate if it's the truth! How was I painting with a broad brush. I was stating an observation. That observation goes well beyond Actscelerate. It has been my experience that they ones who gripe the most contribute the least. I am not referring to Tom or any other specific poster. There are many!
To say non-reporting isn't a problem would be extremely naive of anyone. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2397
8/15/11 5:24 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| An Alternative Perspective, Perhaps? |
not4nothin |
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! |
Member
Posts: 25
8/15/11 6:21 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
FellowSoldier |
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 |
Friendly Face
Posts: 403
8/15/11 7:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| why not? |
FellowSoldier |
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 |
Friendly Face
Posts: 403
8/19/11 12:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Why Not? |
not4nothin |
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! |
Member
Posts: 25
8/20/11 1:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Kyle Morrow |
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.
Last edited by Kyle Morrow on 8/24/11 2:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2397
8/23/11 10:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: An Alternative Perspective, Perhaps? |
Jerry Lawson |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | I find it interesting that in a church that enjoys CENTRALIZED government - that the Great Commission is the only thing that has been pointedly de-centralized.
|
If you take the time to read everything Tom says, he will eventually say something brilliant....you just have to stay awake for it.
Jerry Lawson
www.daystarchurch.tv |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 720
8/24/11 11:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Travis Johnson |
| Kyle Morrow wrote: | | I just looked at the 2012 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. |
Kyle,
Check out when that level of disclosure began being listed in the Minutes. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
8/24/11 11:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
sheepdogandy |
There is a 2012 edition of the Minutes?
2012?
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God
www.spwc.church |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7304
8/24/11 1:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
NPS39 |
| Kyle Morrow wrote: | | I just looked at the 2012 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. |
Wow, you're either prophetic or psychic, this is only 2011    |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1458
8/24/11 1:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Kyle Morrow |
| 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? |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2397
8/24/11 2:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Travis Johnson |
| Kyle Morrow wrote: | | I don't know when that level of disclosure began being listed. What exactly is your point? |
If this level of disclosure was already being provided before the General Assembly mandated disclosure as articulated in the GA Minutes, especially as it pertains to construction of the HQ, it would seem to undermine the thought that the level of disclosure historically provided to the GA in the Minutes was adequate.
Wouldn't you agree? |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
8/24/11 3:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Kyle Morrow |
| 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. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2397
8/24/11 3:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Travis Johnson |
| Kyle Morrow wrote: | | 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. |
It's a logical, historical sequence:
CHRONOLOGICALLY:
A. Present level of disclosure made in the back of the Minutes.
B. COG ECouncil wanted to build a new HQ.
C. As a condition for building, the General Assembly required a detailed level of disclosure.
D. To my knowledge, no one has received that disclosure....only what has been in the back of the Minutes for who knows how many decades (should be easy enough to find that out).
What is at issue is, has the GA mandated level of disclosure been made? No is the truthful answer. It is what it is. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
8/24/11 3:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Daniel Rushing |
| Kyle Morrow wrote: | | 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. |
Somebody has a Kool-Aid mustache.   (This is spoken in jest Kyle)
At any rate, this is a discussion that must be had. On both sides. I have always reported faithfully and correctly. In fact, this year at my pastoral address I told my church to stop putting tithe generally in the plate, and marking it so we could honor the COG with our monthly TOT gift. I figure, if I'm going to fight for transparency in the COG, I need to be financially committed to it. Hopefully everyone on this thread has that same thought. |
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... |
Joshua Henson |
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  ) 
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 |
Friendly Face
Posts: 379
8/26/11 12:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| yep |
Jerry Lawson |
| Joshua Henson wrote: | | I have no clue...I am with Kyle. |
|
Acts-celerater
Posts: 720
8/26/11 2:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Kyle Morrow |
Jerry,
That was proof texting... |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2397
8/26/11 3:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| What? No proof texting? |
Jerry Lawson |
| Kyle Morrow wrote: | Jerry,
That was proof texting... |
If you start banning proof texting what will I do for sermons?
I'm not smart enough to preach Tom Sterbens' stuff! |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 720
8/26/11 8:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Kyle Morrow |
| Are you kidding me? I'm not smart enough to read Tom Sterbens' stuff |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2397
8/26/11 9:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
