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

Have an opinion on Affiliate Churches?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Have an opinion on Affiliate Churches? Change Agent
At the last GA an issue was tabled for study concerning churches affliiating with the COG but remaining under local control. How will this be brought up again at the upcoming GA?. Does it stand a chance of passing? What are your views? Does anyone have a copy of the wording as was presented at the last GA? Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
2/14/12 1:31 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Darrell Garrett
I am much more torn on this now than I was at the last GA; largely because of something I've witnessed in my town with the Assembly of God. I don't know their terminology, but the church here is of the affiliate type, where the AG does not own it. It came to light that the pastor had been sending very inappropriate and suggestive text messages to several women in the church, even inviting them out to his place when his wife was out of town to keep him company. When one of the women came to the church board, she and her family were asked to leave the church. Then others came forward. Same thing. They contacted the AG Superintendent and they were told that they could not override the local Body because they were an affiliated church, not under their control. Long story short, the church has split, the pastor started a new church. But the point of sharing it here is that IF the COG looks at doing an affiliate church, there has to be some clearly defined lines of authority and accountability. I'm not so sure I'm for this at this time until there is a clear and detailed plan of action as to how it would all work out. Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5329
2/14/12 2:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
One thing I would like to see the CoG do (which I know the A/G and Foursquare used to do and probably still do) is create a category for affiliate churches, which stay independent but who have denominationally credentialed ministers under the denominational jurisdiction and who may choose to participate in denominational programs and projects to the extent they may desire. I see such an arrangement as a win/win, though admittedly it might make some CoG churches and ministers uncomfortable or perhaps even jealous of the affiliate status.

I also agree with Darrell's caveat. I know from family experience that the A/G's weaker form of gov't makes it much more difficult for them to handle local church conflicts when necessary. Basically, if the local church has enough money to get good legal representation, they can usually win against the district in court, and district superintendants are understandably reluctant to being sued.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
2/14/12 2:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Change Agent
Darrell Garrett wrote:

"Long story short, the church has split, the pastor started a new church. But the point of sharing it here is that IF the COG looks at doing an affiliate church, there has to be some clearly defined lines of authority and accountability. I'm not so sure I'm for this at this time until there is a clear and detailed plan of action as to how it would all work out."

Darrell, this was definitely a bad situation but these same situations happen in COG's. Know one pastor that was very controlling who asked a member and a few of his friends to stop meeting at their homes during the week. This resulted in a big church split. It doesn't take pastor's infidelity to cause a split.

Thanks for your response.

Another question I have is "would it allow current churches to switch over to affiliate status?"
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
2/14/12 2:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post sheepdogandy
In my case.

It is the Conference not the "board" that has the power to declare the office of Pastor vacant.

Checks and balances are in place to protect me and the Church.
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God

www.spwc.church
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7294
2/14/12 2:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Change Agent
sheepdogandy wrote:

"It is the Conference not the "board" that has the power to declare the office of Pastor vacant."

What organization or group are you affiliated with?
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
2/14/12 3:54 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Travis Johnson
The more people we can get cooperating with us in Global Missions, the better.

The more people we can get working with us in our communities, the better.

If we're looking to keep things utterly organized and orderly, this isn't the way to go. In fact, the way to go is backwards. The smaller, the more easily controlled. I say, let's aim for mission collaboration. Let's get more Gospel-faithful, Spirit-led, brothers on board. We've got a good thing going. Let's get some more folks around our camp fire.

Affiliate churches are a good thing. Let's not get hung up in the detail. And, let's not lose out because it isn't exactly like we want it to go down (if it doesn't sort out exactly like we want it). But, let's get a good win. This is a good win for us and good brothers and sisters who want to cooperate and who want to have good fellowship with one another!
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
2/14/12 4:26 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Darrell Garrett
Travis, I understand what you are saying, but man, you sound like Nancy Pelosi with, "we need to pass it to find out what's in it." We need to be careful. I'm definitely in favor of affiliate churches, however, lets cover the bases and not rush into something foolishly. Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5329
2/14/12 4:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Travis Johnson
Darrell Garrett wrote:
Travis, I understand what you are saying, but man, you sound like Nancy Pelosi with, "we need to pass it to find out what's in it." We need to be careful. I'm definitely in favor of affiliate churches, however, lets cover the bases and not rush into something foolishly.


I'm just saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm definitely willing to accept the good, even though I'd rather have the better...if the alternative is to keep it like it is.

Take a look at the goodness of cooperation. Life church in Oklahoma so much believes in the good work that ARC is doing that they voluntarily cooperate by send 2.5% of their giving to the ARC to plant churches. They don't feed over their land and sign away their lives. They just give 2.5% of the giving of some 30,000 people to cooperate in mission.

We could create the same type of environment...unless we overly concern ourselves with perfecting it. We can get it good and allow our forward momentum to help us tweak it as we go.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
2/14/12 5:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Randy Johnson
Darrell Garrett wrote:
I am much more torn on this now than I was at the last GA; largely because of something I've witnessed in my town with the Assembly of God. I don't know their terminology, but the church here is of the affiliate type, where the AG does not own it. It came to light that the pastor had been sending very inappropriate and suggestive text messages to several women in the church, even inviting them out to his place when his wife was out of town to keep him company. When one of the women came to the church board, she and her family were asked to leave the church. Then others came forward. Same thing. They contacted the AG Superintendent and they were told that they could not override the local Body because they were an affiliated church, not under their control. Long story short, the church has split, the pastor started a new church. But the point of sharing it here is that IF the COG looks at doing an affiliate church, there has to be some clearly defined lines of authority and accountability. I'm not so sure I'm for this at this time until there is a clear and detailed plan of action as to how it would all work out.


Darrell,

When I started in the A/G in 1981 there were three levels of churches:

- Sovereign churches that had a membership of 20 or more and had enough willing and qualified men to serve on the board. Sovereign churches were totally self governing with their own constitution and bylaws and the ability to call and fire their pastor in a congregational meeting called for that purpose. The only requirement of sovereign churches was that they preach/teach the A/G doctrine and have a credentialed A/G minister in good standing as their pastor. They were also encouraged to have a property reversion clause in their bylaws that gave ownership of the property to the state in case the church dissolved.

- District affiliated churches which were self-governing for the most part but didn't meet all the qualifications to be sovereign (e.g. they might have more than 20 members but not enough men qualified or willing to serve on the board).

- District supervised churches which usually had less than 20 members.

The district (state) usually only exercised direct control over the district supervised churches. In those cases, the district superintendent (AB), sectional presbyter (DO), and pastor formed the board of the church. The district affiliated churches were allowed to elect their own pastor. The district supervised churches had their pastor appointed by the superintendent.

When I started out, most of the A/G churches nationwide averaged 75-100 in attendance, only a small percent were over 200, but the A/G counted attendance of adherents as well as members, so it was possible for a church to have a smaller number of actual members than adherents. The pastor's salary was set by the church board, so it wasn't tied to membership, but usually to attendance and income.

This story you shared is interesting to me. I'm surprised that pastor had the board's support, but it sounds like stuff finally caught up with him which is why he left and started another church.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5433
2/14/12 5:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post I think the main issue will be money Randy Johnson
Right now, a COG church pays TOT and pastors tithe to their churches, correct?

If we have affiliate churches, will they required to pay TOT to be affiliated with the COG? If so, that might be an issue with churches that are now independent. Would they want to pay TOT simply to affiliated with the COG? Maybe so, maybe not.

A/G sovereign churches are encouraged, but not required, to give to General Headquarters. World Missions is a separate department itself and most missionaries itinerate in several states to raise their own monthly support, plus a fund to launch their missions work.

I don't think current COG churches should be allowed to switch to affiliate status. It would be better to simply change our structure and "get out of the real estate business" as someone aptly put it in another thread.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5433
2/14/12 5:40 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Travis Johnson
Other reasons churches would want to affiliate and participate in our TOT system:

If you've labored and built a church...but, don't have a solid system in place for pastoral transition, I completely understand why a church would want to protect it's mission, assets, and future pastoral placement to an organization like the COG. It's a sad thing to see a solid, Gospel church be built and through internal politics, see a hostile takeover happen that undercuts the mission and purpose of that local church.

That's a very positive aspect of the COG. We have a good system to place solid, Bible pastors. I think we could definitely improve our pastoral placement process by decentralizing it...while filtering qualified pastors through our credentialing process...then allowing local churches select on their own from among those candidates. But, still, our present process allows for good protections for local churches as it pertains to Gospel faithful men/women who are in good moral standing with our fellowship.

This is another good reason why affiliate church arrangements would be a win/win for our fellowship and prospect churches.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
2/14/12 6:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Darrell Garrett
I agree with you that it could be a win/win, and as I said, I'm for it... with caution. My questions would be, if the proposal is accepted, is there any accountability to the denomination? I'm not talking about a long list of rules and regulations, but if they are to be affiliated, then what they do, say and preach reflects on the COG. Therefore, there should be some accountability. If problems arise in the church, would the COG be involved or take a hands off approach? I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me go back to the AoG I first referenced. It turns out that this pastor had done this before in this church and it was swept under the rug. He had had other issues with women in 2 previous churches, and he was simply allowed to go to another church in the denomination, without any involvement of the AoG because they were all churches that were not under the direct supervision of the AoG. So, he's done this at least 4 times and nothing was done. There was also other issues that came to light and he walked out with nearly half the church to plant a new one, leaving this church to pay for a multi-million $$$ building, which they are in danger of defaulting on their loan. One of their members told me that they have 90 days to bring it in order or they will lose their building. This is all terrible in and of itself, but here is the point I want to make. All over our area, it is the AoG that is having their name drug through the mud. People are mad wanting why they did not do anything. Others are mad because they don't make the payments on the building for the people. The AoG simply cannot win for losing in this situation. This is my concern for the COG. How would we protect ourselves from this type of mess?
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5329
2/14/12 7:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Travis Johnson
Darrell,

There isn't a denominational or independent church system that can fully stop that kind of nonsense. We deal with it. I'm sure we could create a nice list here ranging from long-term, serial offending pedophiles posing as pastors to guys who have bilked churches for mega dollars to denominational administrators who have engaged in straight-up craziness.

We can't stop it.

We can decide who is able to be and who is not able to be affiliated with us after it happens. I don't think we should pre-emptively diminish our capacity to reach out with greater force because of which other character may or may not come into our fold. We're always going to have some pretenders among us...and some good, Jesus loving people who make terrible mistakes. Let's warm to the knowledge that it's our human-ness that allows that kind of stuff to go down and get busy working together in spite of that fact.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
2/14/12 9:00 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Affiliation with Church of God ( from agenda) COG Blessed
We recommend:
That we amend page 133,S51. Affiliation with Church of God, by substituting the following:
That non-Church of God churches that wish affiliation 1
status with the Church of God, be allowed to join as as- 2
sociate churches.
3
Local churches affiliating with the Church of God as as- 4
sociate churches would be able to retain ownership of 5
their properties. These churches would enjoy the benefits 6
of covenant mentoring groups. Church of God doctrine, 7
global networking, leadership development, membership 8
privileges and ministry opportunities while showing ac- 9
ceptance of the faith, government, polity, and practices of 10
the Church of God. 11

When there is a need for a pastoral change in an associate 1
church, the associate church governing board shall work in 2
conjunction with the administrative bishop in the selection of 3
a pastor. 4

( How would a pastor cope with the differences of procedure
if he were to go from pastoring an associate church to one
"owned" by the Church of God?)
Friendly Face
Posts: 160
2/15/12 12:49 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post sheepdogandy
Change Agent wrote:
sheepdogandy wrote:

"It is the Conference not the "board" that has the power to declare the office of Pastor vacant."

What organization or group are you affiliated with?


None. Very Happy
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God

www.spwc.church
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7294
2/15/12 10:11 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post As a Leader (presbyter) in the AG MS7777
I can assure you there is more going on in the church the OP mentioned. There is NO way a District Supt. would sweep the issue under the rug. Even Jimmy Swaggert ultimately got what he deserved, and he contirbuted $50 million a year to our missions budget in 1986. IF this pastor had a history that could be proved, he would have been brought under charges and investigated by the presbytery and recommendations made as to rehabilitation or removal from the ministry and disfellowshipping.

I have been involved in a number (far too many I might add) of these situations and have never been asked to sweep it under the rug. Something else is going on. Recently here in this district a pastor was accused of misappropriation of funds by some board members. An investigation was held, even a public meeting held afterwards and the pastor was cleared of all charges. These board members were merely trying to "take over', they ultimately left becasue they lost and went down the raod and started their own mess, I mean church.

Things aren't always what they seem from a distance. We NEVER "sweep things under the rug", at least in any cases I have been involved in.
_________________
Acts 1:8
Acts-celerater
Posts: 727
2/15/12 1:20 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: As a Leader (presbyter) in the AG Randy Johnson
MS7777 wrote:
I can assure you there is more going on in the church the OP mentioned. There is NO way a District Supt. would sweep the issue under the rug. Even Jimmy Swaggert ultimately got what he deserved, and he contirbuted $50 million a year to our missions budget in 1986. IF this pastor had a history that could be proved, he would have been brought under charges and investigated by the presbytery and recommendations made as to rehabilitation or removal from the ministry and disfellowshipping.

I have been involved in a number (far too many I might add) of these situations and have never been asked to sweep it under the rug. Something else is going on. Recently here in this district a pastor was accused of misappropriation of funds by some board members. An investigation was held, even a public meeting held afterwards and the pastor was cleared of all charges. These board members were merely trying to "take over', they ultimately left becasue they lost and went down the raod and started their own mess, I mean church.

Things aren't always what they seem from a distance. We NEVER "sweep things under the rug", at least in any cases I have been involved in.


It may not be "swept under the rug" but there is a lot of politics in the A/G, as much as there is in any organization. If a church is sovereign, the only thing the General Council can do really is remove their certificate of affiliation or disfellowship their pastor from the A/G, however, they cannot remove the pastor from the church without a congregational vote (in which case, if the church 'stuck with' the pastor, the church would lose their A/G affiliation) but in a sovereign church only the congregation can remove the pastor by voting him out.

The only other option for the General Council would be to try to get the property through the reversion clause (if there was one) and fight it in the courts. Now, I read in recent years of a case in one of the districts where the state superintendent (representing the General Council) fought to get control of church property, and if I recall correctly, the courts ruled that the A/G is a hierarchical organization (despite arguments to the contrary that it is a voluntary cooperative fellowship) and the state (Michigan I believe) won the case and got the property.

Since there was a church "split" in this case, I am thinking that the state disfellowshipped the pastor (maybe he refused to enter the rehab program) and the pastor took the people who were personally loyal to him (not to the A/G) and started a new church.

Some rules to remember about the A/G is that ministers are disciplined by the General Council, sovereign churches cannot really be disciplined at all, they just lose their "franchise" (fellowship certificate) and are fought for ownership of property. The prime directive for a district superintendent in a church crisis is to keep as many A/G adherents as possible. The individual minister is on his own and has to fend for him/herself.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5433
2/16/12 6:58 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: I think the main issue will be money bradfreeman
Randy Johnson wrote:
Right now, a COG church pays TOT and pastors tithe to their churches, correct?

If we have affiliate churches, will they required to pay TOT to be affiliated with the COG? If so, that might be an issue with churches that are now independent. Would they want to pay TOT simply to affiliated with the COG? Maybe so, maybe not.

A/G sovereign churches are encouraged, but not required, to give to General Headquarters. World Missions is a separate department itself and most missionaries itinerate in several states to raise their own monthly support, plus a fund to launch their missions work.

I don't think current COG churches should be allowed to switch to affiliate status. It would be better to simply change our structure and "get out of the real estate business" as someone aptly put it in another thread.


Finally, the issue that will decide this measure is on the table. TOT! I'm sad to say that cash will drive the fate of this issue from all sides. Independent churches will not want to pay the TOT. If they are willing to pay the TOT, they will likely join the COG outright. Yes, who owns and controls the property is another hurdle.

If the COG creates this hybrid, some (probably many) current churches would likely want to switch to this status if it would lift the burden of the TOT off of them. I can't see the COG creating this option without getting some cash (TOT) for it despite all the good that would come from a closer relationship with other churches. I wish I could.

Affiliation would be a beautiful way to connect the body of Christ. Right now, we place several unbiblical requirements on members and churches. I can't see us not requiring these affiliate churches to swallow ALL of our doctrine (even the non-core elements) especially since many don't even want our preachers speaking at these churches and since our policy is to pull the papers of any preachers who attend or begin to pastor these fellowships. Many in the organization view the COG as "the super church" and feel other doctrinal positions are deficient or inferior. I can't see us "affiliating" with or "accepting" them without total doctrinal agreement.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
2/16/12 7:21 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Money Change Agent
bradfreeman wrote:

"Finally, the issue that will decide this measure is on the table. TOT! I'm sad to say that cash will drive the fate of this issue from all sides. Independent churches will not want to pay the TOT. If they are willing to pay the TOT, they will likely join the COG outright. Yes, who owns and controls the property is another hurdle.

If the COG creates this hybrid, some (probably many) current churches would likely want to switch to this status if it would lift the burden of the TOT off of them. I can't see the COG creating this option without getting some cash (TOT) for it despite all the good that would come from a closer relationship with other churches. I wish I could.

Affiliation would be a beautiful way to connect the body of Christ. Right now, we place several unbiblical requirements on members and churches. I can't see us not requiring these affiliate churches to swallow ALL of our doctrine (even the non-core elements) especially since many don't even want our preachers speaking at these churches and since our policy is to pull the papers of any preachers who attend or begin to pastor these fellowships. Many in the organization view the COG as "the super church" and feel other doctrinal positions are deficient or inferior. I can't see us "affiliating" with or "accepting" them without total doctrinal agreement."

bradfreeman, I think you hit the mark on the above post. It's a shame that change won't come to the COG unless its an issue of "money". Look at all the posts where churches are having money problems. The struggling churches rebeled on TOT and got a reduction after a hard fought battle. Now we hear where state offices can't do what they did in the past because of the reduction of TOT. Positions in the COG organization have been cut because of lack of money.

You will never get churches to affiliate with the COG if we require them to take on the whole position and requirements that the current churches meet.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
2/16/12 8:26 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can 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.