Pastoral Search Committees

[paul]

Question?

Are your national directors appointed or choosen by a national board of directors.

Do these countries ever become their own organization? Such as COGOP/ Philippines Inc. Setting up their organization but still falling under the umbrella of the Parent organization. COGOP International.

National Overseers are appointed by Area Presbyters (Asia, Europe, Africa, etc.) -- sort of Continental General Overseers -- and more than 80-85% are indigenous nationals. I can't speak for all areas, but at least in hours we, as a group of leaders, have some input into the appointment and continued service of our peers.

PG, below is my statement to those who chose to work with us and support missions in some form. This is the platform that we work from.

Just last week we were able to allow the work in the Philpiines to take over the reign of the ministry there. They have selected their own board of directors, their own president and have set their goals in accordance with the work there.

They are fully recognized by the SEC our ( 501 c3). WMOF international now is in partnership with them and not an overseer or parent.

PARTNERSHIP ESSENTIALS
 
If missions and churches in the United States are going to effectively work in partnership with national ministries in other parts of the world, the two partners must view themselves as equals. For two centuries modern missions has been scarred by “paternalism,” with the Western missionary treating the national as a child, seeking to retain control of the ministries on the field. Parental Control” must be replaced with a biblical “fraternalism” in which mission leaders, churches in the west and national leaders treat one another as brothers in Christ and partners in ministry. “If we fail to take advantage of the tremendous human resources currently available to us in Africa, Asia, India, and other parts of the world, it will be the greatest failure in mission’s history!”
At the very heart of missionary work is the planting of local churches

[Pastor Gary]

If missions and churches in the United States are going to effectively work in partnership with national ministries in other parts of the world, the two partners must view themselves as equals. ...At the very heart of missionary work is the planting of local churches

You are preaching to the choir.

[paul]

If missions and churches in the United States are going to effectively work in partnership with national ministries in other parts of the world, the two partners must view themselves as equals. ...At the very heart of missionary work is the planting of local churches

You are preaching to the choir.

I realize that you have a unique approach that might not fit ito the traditional mold. I am curious as to the general approach from IQ in this area.

[Shellie]

stevenson wrote:

Again, doesn't matter what the church wants.

I think this is a large smear with a very large brush. It's a little rough on the SO that is NOT this way.

[stevenson]

I stand by my qoute. It was told to me that it is up to the SO and that it is only suggested that a SO consult with the church & pastor. He does not have to. And I will also stand by that! And the person who told me works at General Headquarters.

Shellie, I'm not saying their all that way... I'm saying they all have that power. And if they choose to use it, the church & the pastor has no say!

[PastorP]

I stand by my qoute. It was told to me that it is up to the SO and that it is only suggested that a SO consult with the church & pastor. He does not have to. And I will also stand by that! And the person who told me works at General Headquarters.

Shellie, I'm not saying their all that way... I'm saying they all have that power. And if they choose to use it, the church & the pastor has no say!

That's like saying someone works at the IRS and they can save you on your taxes. It is an Assembly Ruling that the appointments be made in consultation with the overseer, church and pastor. I am not where I can give you page and paragraph, but as soon as I can I will look this up.

[stevenson]

No it's not an Assembly ruling. It is a suggestion! Read this very carefully...it says.... "If at all possible, a mutual agreement should be...".

I was told by a higher up in General Headquarters, that it is up to the SO to decide if it is possible. If he feels that a mutual agreement can not be reached, he can appoint whomever he chooses without consulting anyone.

Now in all fairness, not all SO's take advantage of this power. But I know one who did and threw a minister and his family out a month before Christmas with no money. And the church had no say in the matter!

[DGBrock]

(CGP 2008 Ministry Policy Manual) “When a recommendation and/or recommendations are presented in proper order by the General Assembly Committees designated to do so, the said recommendation and/or recommendations, when accepted by the General Assembly, become the official ruling/rulings of this Church body. Moreover, we regard only those recommendations, which have been properly presented to and accepted by the General Assemblies of the past, as the official ruling/rulings of this Church body except in those instances where they have been subsequently amended.”

[PastorP]

(CGP 2008 Ministry Policy Manual) “When a recommendation and/or recommendations are presented in proper order by the General Assembly Committees designated to do so, the said recommendation and/or recommendations, when accepted by the General Assembly, become the official ruling/rulings of this Church body. Moreover, we regard only those recommendations, which have been properly presented to and accepted by the General Assemblies of the past, as the official ruling/rulings of this Church body except in those instances where they have been subsequently amended.”

Hmmm, could it be that we could have someone working outside the rulings of the Assembly? You know that would never happen!.

[Mountie12]

stevenson wrote:

stand by my qoute. It was told to me that it is up to the SO and that it is only suggested that a SO consult with the church & pastor. He does not have to. And I will also stand by that! And the person who told me works at General Headquarters.

I'll stand by my original statement, P 339 of the Manual states,
"[b]The Role of Overseer
H. Appointive Duties
1. To appoint pastors in consultation with the local church and minister."

Someone's opinion from GH is not more authoratative than the recommendations from the GA. There is nothing in the language of this statement that makes it suggestive. The issue is whether or not the pastor and local church hold the SO accountable to this recommendation. In our state, the SO unilaterally appoints pastors to churches that make no issue about the selection. However, there are other churches that follow the above procedure and interview pastoral candidates and express their opinions on the selection. The SO does not force his will upon these churches. He works with them to allow them to be a part of the process. I have never seen him exert his will on churches that voice a strong desire to be involved in the pastoral selection.

The reason there are places following different systems of appointment is because pastors and churches do not exercize their right to the above recommendation of the GA.

[RamboPreacher]

...Hmmm, could it be that we could have someone working outside the rulings of the Assembly? You know that would never happen!.

:)
hehehee
I was recently privy to a conversation of some COGOP folks that didn't know that the covenant church membership requirements were changed. they just didn't know.

Talked with another person/group (been about a year now) in the COGOP, that taught that wedding bands are a sin, and against the COGOP 29 prominent teachings. they didn't know that was changed - they just didn't know (and he was a COGOP minister).

had an email communication with another COGOP person (all three of these are in different states/regions) - and they couldn't believe that I was not only a member of the COGOP, but that I have gone before a ministerial review board to be come a licensed/ordained COGOP minister. they had no clue about the developments in the "D&R" issues. they just didn't know.

right, wrong; agree, disagree - there are folks that just don't otherwise know. further, even of they do "know", taking action on that is another issue. many pastors are intimidating (some of them even "use" that!). there are overseers that present themselves in the same intimidating, or at least standoffish manner, and a local congregant isn't comfortable discussing that with their pastor, let alone the overseer. unfortunately, that extends to the ministry as well, and their concern with their "job" when approaching the overseer (their "boss").

[PastorP]

stevenson wrote:


I'll stand by my original statement, P 339 of the Manual states,
"[b]The Role of Overseer
H. Appointive Duties
1. To appoint pastors in consultation with the local church and minister."

Someone's opinion from GH is not more authoratative than the recommendations from the GA. There is nothing in the language of this statement that makes it suggestive. The issue is whether or not the pastor and local church hold the SO accountable to this recommendation. In our state, the SO unilaterally appoints pastors to churches that make no issue about the selection. However, there are other churches that follow the above procedure and interview pastoral candidates and express their opinions on the selection. The SO does not force his will upon these churches. He works with them to allow them to be a part of the process. I have never seen him exert his will on churches that voice a strong desire to be involved in the pastoral selection.

The reason there are places following different systems of appointment is because pastors and churches do not exercize their right to the above recommendation of the GA.

Thank you, maybe people will not realize that it is not an option for the SO. In reality it helps lift some of the burden of appointments.

[darylscook]

stevenson wrote:

stand by my qoute. It was told to me that it is up to the SO and that it is only suggested that a SO consult with the church & pastor. He does not have to. And I will also stand by that! And the person who told me works at General Headquarters.

I'll stand by my original statement, P 339 of the Manual states,
"The Role of Overseer
H. Appointive Duties
1. To appoint pastors in consultation with the local church and minister."

Someone's opinion from GH is not more authoratative than the recommendations from the GA. There is nothing in the language of this statement that makes it suggestive. The issue is whether or not the pastor and local church hold the SO accountable to this recommendation. In our state, the SO unilaterally appoints pastors to churches that make no issue about the selection. However, there are other churches that follow the above procedure and interview pastoral candidates and express their opinions on the selection. The SO does not force his will upon these churches. He works with them to allow them to be a part of the process. I have never seen him exert his will on churches that voice a strong desire to be involved in the pastoral selection.

The reason there are places following different systems of appointment is because pastors and churches do not exercize their right to the above recommendation of the GA.

Mountie, don't get me wrong, I am sure there are many SO that consider and work with the local church and pastor. But, Sevenson is right. The SO appoints them. While the Assembly has passed what you quoted, the amount of consultation is not specified. A phone call to the pastor and to the church for their opinion may be all the consultation some overseers feel they need. He is charged to do it in consultation with -- so he has to talk to, get advice from, literally consult with but He is not mandated by the Assembly to follow the advice/discussion. He still has the authority to appoint them. He HAS to listen but He doesn't have to "follow" what the local church says. I am thankful for those SOs that consult with and consider.

God bless you
Bro. Daryl

[Mountie12]

darylscook wrote,

Mountie, don't get me wrong, I am sure there are many SO that consider and work with the local church and pastor. But, Sevenson is right. The SO appoints them. While the Assembly has passed what you quoted, the amount of consultation is not specified. A phone call to the pastor and to the church for their opinion may be all the consultation some overseers feel they need. He is charged to do it in consultation with -- so he has to talk to, get advice from, literally consult with but He is not mandated by the Assembly to follow the advice/discussion. He still has the authority to appoint them. He HAS to listen but He doesn't have to "follow" what the local church says. I am thankful for those SOs that consult with and consider.

I certainly understand what you are saying. I do recall the lengthy discussion and debate surrounding this recommendation. I believe the whole concept was to get away from the fact that one person had unquestionable authority over pastors and churches without their consent. I don't deny the fact that the SO has a part in the appointment process. I don't, however, agree with the thought that he can make unilateral decision in appointments without consulting the pastor and the church. The statment clearly says that he should make appointments in consultation with the pastor and the church.

I don't see where there are gray, suggestive areas in the recommendation. Whatever process he may use is between him and the pastor/church. If a church wants to let an overseer make the decision without their input it's up to them. Some overseers will allow churches to interivew candidates. In fact, I saw an advertisement in the White Wing Messenger a few months ago from a local church looking for a pastor.

I'm not arguing the fact that an overseer has to jump through the hoops laid out by a local church if he knows that a man is not a good candidate for a position. I think that whoever is handing out information from GH that overseers are not obligated to consult with pastors and churches is not in keeping with this recommendation. I think they are obligated to do so. Wisdom alone would dictate that concept.

I will say that any overseer who wants to lovingly look out for the welfare of pastors and churches will seek their consultation, and at times consent. It takes a lot of the load off the SO and truly makes the position one that comes along side the pastor and church to lead them instead of ruling over them.

[Mountie12]

Sorry I can't stay and play anymore guys. I'm headed to W. Helena, AK to do a funeral for the grandmother of a friend of my wife. The family has no church affiliation and are not acquainted with any other ministers but me. It was an honor to be asked to preside over the memorial service.

The drive will be about 5 hours one way. Please keep us in your prayers.

If you're still discussing this on Friday when I return, maybe I can play some more.