 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Why the OP in COGOP? |
Link |
| Is 'Church of God of Prophecy' so named to mean that it fulfills prophecies about the great end-time church of God and/or the Field of the Woods vision? |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
5/1/23 11:01 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Why the OP in COGOP? |
Mat |
| Link wrote: | | Is 'Church of God of Prophecy' so named to mean that it fulfills prophecies about the great end-time church of God and/or the Field of the Woods vision? |
From the 1923 Split until 1952, the two factions (Elders and AJT for identification) of what was the Church of God" claimed the name "Church of God." Even after Tomlinson was cleared by the courts (the civil courts) any financial wrong doing and the property was awarded to the Elders (along with the debt), both groups used the name.
The Elders continued to take the AJT group to court regarding the name, and was awarded sole use of the name Church of God for business purposes (however, groups with the name Church of God which are based outside of Cleveland, TN, and still use the name - i.e. Church of God, Anderson, IN). The judge told the AJT group they could use the name Church of God in spiritual matters, but for legal matters they had to use the name Church of God of Prophecy.
Yes, the AJT group often referred to being the "Church of Prophecy" - though the use was not limited to developing Fields of the Wood. This is way the judge landed on adding the "of Prophecy." I'm come to think the AJT group should have moved out of Cleveland to someplace like Atlanta or Nashville for their General Offices, and they could have been Church of God, Atlanta, GA, or somewhere else.
Since this summer is the 100th Anniversary of the split I have felt that effort should be given to more research as to the reasons for the split and ways to reconcile. If your only source is Conn's 1955 edition of "Like A Mighty Army" you are seeing the past through a very narrow lens. Even Conn revised his book three times before he died. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
5/2/23 3:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| At first... |
Aaron Scott |
It was called something like "the Church of God over which Tomlinson presides." The "of Prophecy" part was meant to emphasize that it was THIS Church of God, not OUR Church of God, that was the one that was prophesied of in scripture, etc.
In other words, they were the Church of God as intended by God...and we were not quite that.
The reasons for the split were less than worthy. If I were a betting man, I think they real reason was that there were some men--good men, but ambitious men--who realized that they were never going to become GO as long as Tomlinson was, for all practical purposes, GO-for-life. They found something that force him out, even though it seems that they could have settled this over dinner, almost.
It has become my thinking that Lewellyn was the main culprit in the matter, but mainly because neither group put him in office after that.
Much of the harshness between the two groups post-split was due to hurt, I believe. In time, we have come to realize that we were really just estranged brothers. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
5/3/23 7:39 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: At first... |
Mat |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | It was called something like "the Church of God over which Tomlinson presides." The "of Prophecy" part was meant to emphasize that it was THIS Church of God, not OUR Church of God, that was the one that was prophesied of in scripture, etc.
In other words, they were the Church of God as intended by God...and we were not quite that.
The reasons for the split were less than worthy. If I were a betting man, I think they real reason was that there were some men--good men, but ambitious men--who realized that they were never going to become GO as long as Tomlinson was, for all practical purposes, GO-for-life. They found something that force him out, even though it seems that they could have settled this over dinner, almost.
It has become my thinking that Lewellyn was the main culprit in the matter, but mainly because neither group put him in office after that.
Much of the harshness between the two groups post-split was due to hurt, I believe. In time, we have come to realize that we were really just estranged brothers. |
Aaron,
In the assembly of 1914 some of the same men who would later want AJT removed made the motion to make him GO for life. Before that each year AJT would open the floor for a vote on leadership. During those early years, according to Dr. Roebuck, AJT would present to the assembly ideas he felt were need, like the Evangel, a church publishing house, a school, an orphanage, etc. The assembly would accept the suggest and then authorize AJT to go get it going. Perhaps AJT's greatest legacy is those ministries he started that are still operating today.
However, AJT spread himself too thin as he tried to do it all. After WWI there was a recession and that combined with a church financial plan from hell resulted in strain on the relationships in leadership (most of which AJT had developed). It seems the nature of the audit and its use to remove him was the defining moment, and I would say he felt his reputation was being impugned.
Llewellyn does seem to be a major instigator in the split, and it was not that long after the split that the Church of God had had enough of him and they parted company. However, well after Llewellyn's departure the court cases over the name continued, serving as a reminder of events for both sides.
I have felt that the generations who were taught their side of the spirit in both the COG and the COGOP will have to die off before there is reconciliation. Without a doubt, the COG found its way and developed a system which worked well, and while the distraction of the LBGTQ... issue at Lee U has some worried, I think that that will be handled and corrected.
On the local church level, I believe many/most COGOP folks would accept a reunification with the COG, as long as they were not treated as "step-children." Leadership is another issue, as there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians (can I say that any more?).
In the future, if you guys can hold it together and not have a major defection of local churches to independents, and we could see the positives for our local churches and pastors, there could be a "restoration" in the future. Now, as I said, some people need to die off, but its been 100 years!
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
5/4/23 4:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Anyone that cares (except a handful at most) have died off.
This won't happen as only half the leaders would get voted into office at the first combined General Assembly.
Whichever group has the most ordained ministers at the Assembly would rule the day.
That would lead to much unhappiness (if you are a former leader that has to find another job)
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
5/5/23 6:42 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| I volunteer .... |
Mat |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | Anyone that cares (except a handful at most) have died off.
This won't happen as only half the leaders would get voted into office at the first combined General Assembly.
Whichever group has the most ordained ministers at the Assembly would rule the day.
That would lead to much unhappiness (if you are a former leader that has to find another job) |
I volunteer the leaders of the COGOP to return to being pastors - there are some employees at the International Offices it would be good to hire, as they know where "the bodies are buried" and could assent in the transfer of assets.
It would take about a generation for the "cream to rise" to some kind of leadership, and in a few places around the world the COGOP world is comparable, or larger then the COG work.
You get a pool of conservative pastors, some property to utilize or sell off and, most importantly, an historic reconciliation.
If you don't want us with you, perhaps the AG will take us in.   
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
5/5/23 7:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
I'm in favor, as well.
If Christians can't reconcile, who can?
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
5/5/23 7:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Where does the CoGoP presently stand with regard to divorced and remarried ministers? I have heard in years past that the CoGoP was very old-school with regard to this issue, teaching that D&R folks had to divorce their current spouse and either be reconciled to their original spouse or remain single, which was a pretty standard view amongst early Pentecostals like my grandmother’s generation in the AG for instance.
The CoG has become quite liberal with regard to this particular issue over the past couple of decades. A while back I heard (from somebody who definitely would know) that the CoG had recently granted credentials to a man who had been divorced five times.
(While I don’t personally hold to the idea that D&R folks are in ‘perpetual adultery’ like some I’ve known, and while I can see allowing a D&R individual to be credentialed if otherwise qualified, I can’t see the wisdom in credentialing anybody who had been divorced five times).
I think this issue might be a bridge too far for some CoGoP folks. Of course it is possible the CoGoP has liberalized their view on this issue somewhat in recent decades too. I just don’t know, which is why I’m asking. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
5/5/23 8:45 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| The COGOP stand on D & R has changed ... |
Mat |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Where does the CoGoP presently stand with regard to divorced and remarried ministers? I have heard in years past that the CoGoP was very old-school with regard to this issue, teaching that D&R folks had to divorce their current spouse and either be reconciled to their original spouse or remain single, which was a pretty standard view amongst early Pentecostals like my grandmother’s generation in the AG for instance.
The CoG has become quite liberal with regard to this particular issue over the past couple of decades. A while back I heard (from somebody who definitely would know) that the CoG had recently granted credentials to a man who had been divorced five times.
(While I don’t personally hold to the idea that D&R folks are in ‘perpetual adultery’ like some I’ve known, and while I can see allowing a D&R individual to be credentialed if otherwise qualified, I can’t see the wisdom in credentialing anybody who had been divorced five times).
I think this issue might be a bridge too far for some CoGoP folks. Of course it is possible the CoGoP has liberalized their view on this issue somewhat in recent decades too. I just don’t know, which is why I’m asking. |
The COGOP stand on D & R has changed (early 2000s), with those who were D & R before they accepted Christ being eligible for membership and ministry. Even after becoming a Christian, members are not removed for D & R (generally), and yes, we have a few who had multiple marriages who are now ministers (which I question as well).
Those who would leave the COGOP over the issue have already done so. While the COGOP held on to many of the "old-school" teachings, starting in the 1990s those teachings have been discarded, so we could be like other Pentecostals I guess.
I did note that one of our former General Overseers, whose wife left and divorced him, has remarried (to a Lee U. professor I think - a woman to be clear). The State Bishop (we dropped "overseer" for "bishop" because we want to be like you guys) downgraded his ordination to a license, so he is a Bishop no more.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
5/5/23 10:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | I'm in favor, as well.
If Christians can't reconcile, who can? |
Amen! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
5/5/23 9:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Thanks for the update, Mat! Ever since I joined the CoG as a minister transferring in from the AG in the late 90s, I have felt there needs to be a reconciliation between CoG and the CoGoP. Perhaps the biggest issue would be what to do with all the officials whose positions would thereby become redundant. In my view, we already have far too much concentration of leaders in Cleveland as it is. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
5/6/23 12:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Yes, positions are a "speed bump" to reconciliation |
Mat |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Thanks for the update, Mat! Ever since I joined the CoG as a minister transferring in from the AG in the late 90s, I have felt there needs to be a reconciliation between CoG and the CoGoP. Perhaps the biggest issue would be what to do with all the officials whose positions would thereby become redundant. In my view, we already have far too much concentration of leaders in Cleveland as it is. |
Quiet,
Yes, all those positions and titles are a speed bump to reconciliation and unification, but 100 years is a long time to go without visible actions. Those in Cleveland would point to joint efforts and fraternal meetings, to friendships and visiting each others assemblies. To many that is enough, and as you said, redundancy is the order of the day.
I'm not sure true and visible reconciliation will come about from leadership in Cleveland, rather it will be generated on the local level and required by the forces of our changing global culture. Christians in a jail cell can reach unity quicker than general officials in separate offices on Keith Street.
In the past I have written about (ranted?) the religious culture of Cleveland. If you're somebody there, it can be a good life, after all both the COG and COGOP local churches send money to support "our guys." Nice homes, good schools, places to eat out and great churches to attend, plus, you can travel the world, preach in different nations, and have a global ministry without having to pay travel cost. Also, you have a "ministry" position which does not require you to pastor a local church.
Now maybe I'm seeing my hometown (born at Bradley County Hospital and attend Stuart Elementary School) through jaded eyes, as I have lived the majority of my life well outside of Cleveland (as we would say "on the field"), yet, the more things change the more they stay the same there.
Yet, God is bigger than Cleveland and He does not have to ask permission to fulfill His will.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
5/6/23 2:14 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
sheepdogandy |
"Yet, God is bigger than Cleveland and He does not have to ask permission to fulfill His will."
Yea and amen!
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God
www.spwc.church |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7298
5/6/23 3:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
FLRon |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Where does the CoGoP presently stand with regard to divorced and remarried ministers? I have heard in years past that the CoGoP was very old-school with regard to this issue, teaching that D&R folks had to divorce their current spouse and either be reconciled to their original spouse or remain single, which was a pretty standard view amongst early Pentecostals like my grandmother’s generation in the AG for instance.
The CoG has become quite liberal with regard to this particular issue over the past couple of decades. A while back I heard (from somebody who definitely would know) that the CoG had recently granted credentials to a man who had been divorced five times.
(While I don’t personally hold to the idea that D&R folks are in ‘perpetual adultery’ like some I’ve known, and while I can see allowing a D&R individual to be credentialed if otherwise qualified, I can’t see the wisdom in credentialing anybody who had been divorced five times).
I think this issue might be a bridge too far for some CoGoP folks. Of course it is possible the CoGoP has liberalized their view on this issue somewhat in recent decades too. I just don’t know, which is why I’m asking. |
While in the eyes of some the CoG has become quite liberal regarding D&R, I know for a fact that a twice divorced minister in Florida was told in no uncertain terms that there was zero possibility that he could be reinstated even though both of his ex wives committed adultery, and even though the affected minister did everything he legally could to prevent both divorces.
The real truth of this is it just depends on who the individual is and what their lineage in the CoG is. Real truth #2 is that divorce cases are NOT treated on a case by case basis, despite what Cleveland might want you to believe.
_________________
“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: 771
5/7/23 3:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Interesting that D&R is an ... |
Mat |
FLRon,
Its interesting that D&R is an issue within the COG today, or at least its application concerning ministers. Few discuss that D&R could have been a contributing factor in the 1923 Split as well. AJT took the position that Christian or not, marriage was a one man - one woman - for one life relationship. Thus, D&R before someone got saved was no different than after coming to Christ.
There was divided opinion on this issue, but it was difficult to challenge AJT for a change to the teaching. To him, marriage was a divine institution God gave mankind from the beginning, and entering marriage was an acknowledgement of God's plan.
We don't argue much for the nature of marriage in the same way now, as often what happens before getting saved is seen as being "washed away" in the Blood. After the fact the reasons for D&R are not strictly adultery, as abandonment and abuse carry the same weight.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
5/7/23 3:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| FLRon wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Where does the CoGoP presently stand with regard to divorced and remarried ministers? I have heard in years past that the CoGoP was very old-school with regard to this issue, teaching that D&R folks had to divorce their current spouse and either be reconciled to their original spouse or remain single, which was a pretty standard view amongst early Pentecostals like my grandmother’s generation in the AG for instance.
The CoG has become quite liberal with regard to this particular issue over the past couple of decades. A while back I heard (from somebody who definitely would know) that the CoG had recently granted credentials to a man who had been divorced five times.
(While I don’t personally hold to the idea that D&R folks are in ‘perpetual adultery’ like some I’ve known, and while I can see allowing a D&R individual to be credentialed if otherwise qualified, I can’t see the wisdom in credentialing anybody who had been divorced five times).
I think this issue might be a bridge too far for some CoGoP folks. Of course it is possible the CoGoP has liberalized their view on this issue somewhat in recent decades too. I just don’t know, which is why I’m asking. |
While in the eyes of some the CoG has become quite liberal regarding D&R, I know for a fact that a twice divorced minister in Florida was told in no uncertain terms that there was zero possibility that he could be reinstated even though both of his ex wives committed adultery, and even though the affected minister did everything he legally could to prevent both divorces.
The real truth of this is it just depends on who the individual is and what their lineage in the CoG is. Real truth #2 is that divorce cases are NOT treated on a case by case basis, despite what Cleveland might want you to believe. |
FLRon,
The reason I say the CoG has become quite liberal on this issue is because of the case I mentioned. I just heard this last year directly from someone who had direct knowledge of the case as an official in the CoG. He also seemed perfectly fine with it. I was absolutely stunned. It had to go through Cleveland to be approved. Signed off by the GO. I cannot for the life of me see any good reason why someone who had been divorced five times should be granted ministerial credentials. Even if he was the innocent party every single time, he quite obviously has no wisdom or discernment.
With regard to the case and points you raise, I definitely get the unfortunate feeling that “who you know” matters far more than it should in the CoG, the longer I’ve been in the organization. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
5/7/23 4:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
FLRon |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | FLRon wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Where does the CoGoP presently stand with regard to divorced and remarried ministers? I have heard in years past that the CoGoP was very old-school with regard to this issue, teaching that D&R folks had to divorce their current spouse and either be reconciled to their original spouse or remain single, which was a pretty standard view amongst early Pentecostals like my grandmother’s generation in the AG for instance.
The CoG has become quite liberal with regard to this particular issue over the past couple of decades. A while back I heard (from somebody who definitely would know) that the CoG had recently granted credentials to a man who had been divorced five times.
(While I don’t personally hold to the idea that D&R folks are in ‘perpetual adultery’ like some I’ve known, and while I can see allowing a D&R individual to be credentialed if otherwise qualified, I can’t see the wisdom in credentialing anybody who had been divorced five times).
I think this issue might be a bridge too far for some CoGoP folks. Of course it is possible the CoGoP has liberalized their view on this issue somewhat in recent decades too. I just don’t know, which is why I’m asking. |
While in the eyes of some the CoG has become quite liberal regarding D&R, I know for a fact that a twice divorced minister in Florida was told in no uncertain terms that there was zero possibility that he could be reinstated even though both of his ex wives committed adultery, and even though the affected minister did everything he legally could to prevent both divorces.
The real truth of this is it just depends on who the individual is and what their lineage in the CoG is. Real truth #2 is that divorce cases are NOT treated on a case by case basis, despite what Cleveland might want you to believe. |
FLRon,
The reason I say the CoG has become quite liberal on this issue is because of the case I mentioned. I just heard this last year directly from someone who had direct knowledge of the case as an official in the CoG. He also seemed perfectly fine with it. I was absolutely stunned. It had to go through Cleveland to be approved. Signed off by the GO. I cannot for the life of me see any good reason why someone who had been divorced five times should be granted ministerial credentials. Even if he was the innocent party every single time, he quite obviously has no wisdom or discernment.
With regard to the case and points you raise, I definitely get the unfortunate feeling that “who you know” matters far more than it should in the CoG, the longer I’ve been in the organization. |
I agree that five divorces are an indicator of a serious problem for anyone seeking ministerial credentials. On the other hand, Cleveland has been known to overlook other types of moral failures that have left some scratching their heads. As a former AB told me regarding multiple divorces, where do we draw the line? I say that if one is permitted, why not two if in fact the divorced minister was innocent?
In many ways, the CoG is lagging far behind in accepting that as society changes, some of those changes impact their ministers through no fault of their own. For example, in some states divorce is granted for “irreconcilable differences”, and the minister can fight it as long as he can but ultimately the judge will grant the divorce. The minister I know had this happen twice, once after 16 years of marriage simply because the wife backslid and said she wanted to party. His second marriage was to a CoG woman and the marriage was approved by the DO and the AB. After less than 3 years she decided she no longer wanted to be married. She has since married and divorced 4 more times!
Neither of these divorces should have happened but the courts forced the decision. To my way of thinking, either zero divorce should be the rule or an honest, case by case assessment of multiple divorces should take place to give the divorced minister an opportunity to plead his case. To state that he has zero chance of being credentialed without knowing the facts is just wrong.
_________________
“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: 771
5/11/23 9:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Serial Divorce is an indicator ... |
Mat |
Serial divorce and remarriage is an indicator of judgement, or lack there of. No doubt there are some Bible reasons for divorce, but if a minister keeps on marrying and divorcing women with the same results (often with the same story - it was all her not me), does he have the spiritual judgement needed to be a minister of the Gospel.
If we base our teaching concerning D&R on the law of the land (she divorced me and I could not stop it), it is that same law which allows for no fault divorce, same-sex unions and will be allowing multiple spouse unions one day. We tend to over look the Words of Jesus who said in Matthew 5:32 (ESV), "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Somethings you find both the stories of the husband and wife are the same, the divorce was their spouse's fault, as they were completely innocent.
That said, as we were discussing, D&R teaching is not a barrier to the COG and the COGOP reuniting.
Mat
PS From another discussion, someone said all COG ministers are eligible to be voted in to top leadership. Does that include the five-time divorced minister as well? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
5/12/23 10:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Mat,
I believe the CoG used to place D&R ministers only in exhorter category, but from what I know, they are not restricted from becoming ordained bishops now, and any ordained bishop can at least theoretically become a state overseer, general overseer, etc. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
5/12/23 2:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
