The Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA), has produced documents describing their proposed permanent governance structure.
Should non-COGWA members of the Church of God be concerned about things happening in COGWA? Or is it none of our business what they do within their own fellowship?
"For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many....But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually" (1 Corinthians 12:12-27).
What happens in COGWA, or any other fellowship in the Church of God, should be of concern to all members of the whole Church of God, everyone who by reason of conversion through the receiving and indwelling of the Holy Spirit are members of God's true Church and the body of Christ.
Is what happens in COGWA really no business of non-COGWA Church of God members, whether members of other fellowships or scattered members not able to attend any fellowship at this time?
Should outsiders refrain from judging the decisions made by COGWA leaders, members, and ministers based on the principle that God will give wisdom and guidance to those who have the responsibility for making the decisions more than to outsiders who do not make those decisions? That is actually a good principle to keep in mind. We should be cautious about focusing on and judging the actions of others when we have no responsibility for making such judgments.
Yet outsiders have a stake in what is happening in COGWA. COGWA governance decisions potentially affect many Church of God members outside of that particular fellowship. For one thing, some of us have to make judgments about whether we can join or attend COGWA. Not everyone in the Church is in a satisfactory situation regarding attendance or membership with a COG fellowship. Some are looking for an organization to fellowship with and support. Some scattered members are at home on the Sabbath. Some need to make decisions about where to send tithes and offerings. Some attending other fellowships find that those fellowships are not serving their spiritual needs or are not faithful in their doctrines and practices, and those members may be looking for a better place to attend.
If a Church of God member needs a place to attend and support, if there is a COGWA congregation in his city, should he not be concerned about the state of COGWA? Does he not have a responsibility to judge those things he must judge to make a decision God has given him the responsibility for making?
We also have a mandate from God to love our brethren, and sometimes love requires correction and warnings about consequences of decisions, decisions that others make that could harm themselves. "Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter" (Proverbs 24:11).
The Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA), has made available to its ministers and members through its website three documents describing the proposed permanent governance structure of that organization. The three documents are, the Proposal for Governance, a Constitution, and Bylaws. There is a statement in the Proposal for Governance that states that the Constitution and the Bylaws should not be electronically transmitted to people outside of COGWA because they are legal documents internal to COGWA and not intended for the general public, so I will not comment on the details of those two documents. I find no restriction concerning the Proposal for Governance itself.
The governance documents were distributed to the entire COGWA ministry (unpaid elders as well as salaried ministers) to consider and vote on. They will be voting online and can vote between Monday, June 20 and Tuesday, July 12. The vote will decide whether or not to approve the proposed Governance Plan, the Constitution, and the Bylaws and also to decide between two alternative methods for choosing members of the Ministerial Board of Directors (MBOD).
The Long-Term Governance Committee, comprised of 18 men, did the initial work in producing the proposal for governance. In the proposal is a brief history of the steps that were taken in producing the three documents, which I will not cover here, and the Constitution and Bylaws were finally reviewed by Jim Franks, Ken Giese, Mike Hanisko, Doug Horchak, Clyde Kilough, David Register, Larry Salyer, Greg Sargent, Richard Thompson, and Leon Walker.
There will be a Ministerial Board of Directors consisting of seven men. They will select a president by a vote of 5 out of the 7 men on the board. The president will serve a 7 year term and can be reelected without any limit on the number of terms he can serve. The president will supervise the employees of COGWA and the ministry and serve as a spiritual leader of the Church. The members of the board will serve 8 year terms. Their terms will be staggered so that every four years there will be an election to elect 3 or 4 members of the board. The president may not also be on the board.
There will also be a Doctrine Committee composed of five men which will review doctrinal papers. It can propose changes to doctrine, but doctrinal changes must be approved by 75% of all elders who cast ballots. There will be a Moral and Ethics Assessment Committee (MEAC), also five men, which will handle charges of wrong doing. For both committees, members will be selected by being nominated by the president and approved by the board by at least 5 votes.
There is a distinction made between all elders and "career elders" or "career ministers". All ordained men credentialed as elders in COGWA are elders. Career elders are ministers currently employed by COGWA and who have been employed by COGWA or who have past employment experience in the Church for five years. This would include employment in Worldwide, United Church of God, or any organization that COGWA recognizes for this purpose. The distinction is important because some things can be voted on by all elders and some only by career ministers.
There are two alternative proposals for selecting board members, and COGWA elders will be voting on which of these two methods will be used as well as voting to approve the overall governance plan. In option one, career elders will vote to nominate candidates for the board. Each career elder may vote to submit seven names. To be nominated, an elder must receive 10% of the votes cast, and the top 14 names will be nominated. Then all credentialed elders may vote to select the 7 out of the 14 who will become board members. In option two, the nomination is the same except all credentialed elders can vote. But then, names will be drawn to randomly select 7 men out of the 14.
To produce staggered terms so that there will be an election every four years for about half of the board members, once the seven men are selected in this first selection, there will be a drawing to select 3 of those men to serve four-year terms and 4 to serve 8 year terms.
So basically, the governance will be similar to that of UCG, but with some differences. The main differences are that there will be longer terms, fewer elections, a smaller board, and more authority for the president and less for the board.
There are many more details in the proposal - I am just covering some main points.
This may reduce the politicking, and this governance structure may work better than UCG's governance structure has worked, but it is still government by men from the bottom up, in my opinion. This seems to be a proposal to make democracy work better.
When UCG started, ministers had little or no experience with voting and democracy. That first effort failed to preserve unity and may yet fail to preserve doctrinal integrity in UCG (time will tell). COGWA ministers seem to have learned some lessons from that and made improvements in the ballot-box structure they are using. It should work better. But I still feel the big lesson has not yet been learned. That will take more time and experience probably.
More to come...
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
When and How to Judge, Chapter 5
Government in the Church, Chapter 5
Following the Bible -- Pattern of Government, Chapter 6
Church Government, Chapter 7
How Is the Church Organized?, Chapter 7
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
author wrote: "Is what happens in COGWA really no business of non-COGWA Church of God members, whether members of other fellowships or scattered members not able to attend any fellowship at this time?"
If I, as an American, go to visit Germany or France, then do I have a right to criticize their government? What if I have to work in that country? It seems to me that I could either learn to deal with it or get another job. As a non-citizen, my rights will only get me so far.
Even if attending another organization's services on a regular basis, as a non-member do I have the right to complain about how they do things? Again, I think not. I am not a member; I am a guest at their services.
Your quote from 1Co 12 sounds good, but you have to realize that there already are divisions. That's why there are different organizations. If there were unity, then the different organizations would be rather redundant.
Let's try a different analogy. Instead of you or I going to Germany or France, suppose you or I are considering moving there. We want to leave the United States and are looking for a safe country to move to. Do we have the right to openly discuss the problems of those countries not only between ourselves but in front of an audience of people who may also be considering moving there? Likewise do I not have the right to publish news about any of the Churches of God and my opinions and views that I try to base on scripture about whether such places are good places for anyone to support and fellowship with? Or should Church of God bloggers never criticize a Church of God organization they do not attend with?
Also, the Church of God gives warnings to nations that will go through the tribulation or suffer God's punishment in the Day of the Lord for their sins, and that could include Germany, France, or any other nation on earth whether or not the Church is "in" that country as a "resident" so to speak. The Church warns nations of the consequences of their actions because we love them and do not want them to suffer. Why then is it wrong for a Church member to do the same regarding practices of a particular fellowship?
author wrote: "Let's try a different analogy. Instead of you or I going to Germany or France, suppose you or I are considering moving there. We want to leave the United States and are looking for a safe country to move to."
Then my suggestion would be to either get used to the government they have or find somewhere else. It is pretty arrogant for people to emigrate to another country and expect it to conform to their own ideas about how it should be run and function, don't you think? It happens in the US all the time, and guess what? I think they should be invited to leave.
Thank you for making my case for me.
John, you wrote, "Then my suggestion would be to either get used to the government they have or find somewhere else. It is pretty arrogant for people to emigrate to another country and expect it to conform to their own ideas about how it should be run and function..."
My point was, if I was considering immigrating to a country, I should be able to discuss the pros and cons of doing so with others who may be considering the same thing before making a decision, and to do that I have to be able to discuss the problems that exist there as well as the advantages. That is not arrogant, but prudent. There are many Church of God people who are looking for a place to attend but have not made a decision.
Besides, we have to be consistent on the point of whether or not it is wrong or arrogant for a member of the Church of God to post in his blog about problems in a Church of God fellowship he is not a member of. Have you not done so in posts in your own blog? In your December 1, 2010 post "A Very Brief COG Survey" you talk about a number of Church of God fellowships, and some of what you say is critical. Is that arrogance? Look at your post on January 1, 2011, or your post on May 16, 2011 entitled "The Hypocrisy and Beginning of the End for UCG", which you published after you left that organization. Has anyone accused you of arrogance because you write about problems in the Church?
Also, this is not just about one particular fellowship. It is about a doctrinal issue that is a great controversy between the various Church of God organizations into which the whole Church of God has been scattered. That doctrinal issue is government in the Church, and it is one of the issues that has contributed to the division and scattering of the Church since the death of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. You and I have different opinions on that issue, but it is an important issue. It is a shame upon the whole Church that we are scattered and divided as we are, and we should be seeking to understand the causes and solutions.
author wrote: "Also, this is not just about one particular fellowship. It is about a doctrinal issue"
No, it is not, and that is the problem. Government is not a doctrinal issue except in the minds of those who are intent upon reading their own ideas into the Scriptures just as the Pharisees did.
Besides, to take your analogy even further, I have no problem scoffing at France. I would never want to live there. If they want to scoff at America, so be it. Just let them stay in their own country in that case.
If someone really believes government is doctrine, then they need to go where government is considered doctrine. Otherwise, it is foolish whining.
Doctrine = teaching.
FROM: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrine
doc·trine
[dok-trin]
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Has the subject of government in the Church of God been a matter of teaching in the Church? Has the Church taught about it? Has Mr. Armstrong taught about it? Roderick Meredith? Has United Church of God taught about it? In its "Study Papers" page in the members website ( http://members.ucg.org/content/study-papers ) it lists a document titled "Godly Governance" and when you open it, it says at the top "Godly Governance Doctrinal Paper". Much of that paper teaches, in my own words, that the Bible does not forbid using voting to make binding decisions in the Church. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Meredith have taught differently. I agree with Mr. Armstrong's and Mr. Meredith's teaching on that subject, and you might agree more with UCG's teaching on that subject. But it is doctrine nevertheless.
You misspelled "false doctrine". The only reason that UCG had to write that paper was to counteract false doctrine.
HWA was wrong. Meredith is wrong. The Bible is on my side of interpretation, and those who cling to the one-man rule or any specific type of government before Christ's return and calls it doctrine is teaching false doctrine.
That includes HWA. He was just a man, after all, and he let the power get to his head and allowed others to fill it with nonsense about the "primacy of Peter", which another false doctrine.
@ John D Carmack= "No, it is not, and that is the problem. Government is not a doctrinal issue except in the minds of those who are intent upon reading their own ideas into the Scriptures just as the Pharisees did."
Or maybe I should have said @ John D Pharisee--because you do exactly as they did on many occassions--however it is a Laodicean tendancy to be blind to the self while critical of all others.
The author is correct and you are in error--it has been spelled out for you time and again but you will not hear of it. This the very reason that I quite going to your blog several months ago.
One good sign of a converted individual is that He/She will take correction. Where do you fit, if you want to even argue with clear Scripture? You have proved your mindset by arguing against truth, even on someone else's blog.
@ Author; "But it is doctrine nevertheless." Thank you very much for giving this definition--you are clearly on track with this post about doctrine and John just cannot see it. He and all those like him will come to see, in time hopefully,(is my prayer) that government is certainly a doctrine of Christ all the way through the Bible and will be implemented in the Kingdom.
The Editor
For the question of governance being doctrine, see my July 26 post "UCG is Changing" in which I point out that in the UCG question and answer session as reported by Dixon Cartwright in the Journal, several people refer to governance as doctrine. So on both sides of the issue, those who believe in balloting like UCG and those who believe in top-down government like Herbert W. Armstrong and Roderick Meredith, there is acknowledgement that the governance issue is a doctrinal issue.
Editor wrote: "The author is correct and you are in error--it has been spelled out for you time and again but you will not hear of it. This the very reason that I quite going to your blog several months ago."
What I refuse to do is bend to the ideas of men. Pharisees read into Scripture what is not there -- things like church government.
"He and all those like him will come to see, in time hopefully,(is my prayer) that government is certainly a doctrine of Christ all the way through the Bible and will be implemented in the Kingdom."
No, it is not. Show me where it says, "Thou shalt have one man rule", "Thou shalt have a board", "Thou shalt have a twelve man council", or any command to do such things. I argue because I refuse to accept wrong ideas. You are most certainly wrong.
No, instead, an attitude is commanded. One of love and cooperation. Unfortunately, the self-righteous Pharisees who read into Scripture what is not there are causing division and strife.
author wrote: "the governance issue is a doctrinal issue."
You are still misspelling "false doctrine".
@ John D. “What I refuse to do is bend to the ideas of men.”
(Yes and that includes the men who were inspired to write Scripture.) “Pharisees read into Scripture what is not there -- things like church government.”
Perhaps you would like to explain how your ideas are not that of a man? If not then where do they come from? Your argument is against Scripture, not men.
Rom 13:1-2 “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. (Do you John, think this would apply outside the COG but not inside? Who was Paul writing to?) “For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” (NKJ)
Teaching is doctrine as the author pointed out very well, so maybe you would like to argue with the apostle Paul’s teaching and those he included with him? Tell them their authority is not for governing in the COG!
2 Cor 10:8 For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame. (RSV)
2 Cor 13:10 I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down. (RSV)
John D. “I argue because I refuse to accept wrong ideas. You are most certainly wrong.”
What was that again, that was mis-spelled, John? OH yeah, that this is "false doctrine" is what you said! you also said this;
“Unfortunately, the self-righteous Pharisees who read into Scripture what is not there are causing division and strife.” I think converted people can see thru your bias to truth.
The Editor
MTOGSM wrote: "Your argument is against Scripture, not men."
Oh, right! You mean like 1MTOGSM 2:15: "Thou shalt have a top down government consisting of one apostle at the top," right?
I pray you repent of your idolatry before you miss out on the Kingdom.
@John D----"Oh, right! You mean like 1MTOGSM 2:15:"
(good for a chuckle) A typical response from someone who ignores Scriptural response that proves you wrong. I guess you would have everyone live by 2 John D. Carmack--the umteenth edition against righteous government. Get real John,---seriously now, why do you have such a blockage in your mind against doctrinal truth on government? Have you been that indoctrinated by an anti-government spirit?
Editor
MTCOGSM wrote: "A typical response from someone who ignores Scriptural response that proves you wrong."
You have not shown one single Scripture proving me wrong. Not even one. I have asked for it over and over, and it is obvious you cannot produce it. Instead you post tangential Scriptures that you twist to mean what you have already presumed them to mean. You are blinded by your idolatry, and anyone with eyes to see has already realized that by now.
"Have you been that indoctrinated by an anti-government spirit?"
That is a deliberate twisting of my view, and you know it. I am not now nor ever have been "anti-government", as you well know from reading my blog. You really should apologize for that lie. The Church has to organize itself to get things done. The Scriptures, however, nowhere say how, which is why you cannot produce any.
"
Post a Comment