Jude 2

what christian group do you support when considering the way it is structured? (What seems to be best for you)?

dawgs10 wrote:what christian group do you support when considering the way it is structured? (What seems to be best for you)?

personally, there are several elements that I considered, prayerfully when I joined the COGOP (In order of my personal priority of importance):
God's leading
Soteriological implications in Theology (official, and local)
local environment/goverment/pastorship
(not on the list is the ecclesiastic government)

of course I am not even sure if that is answering the question you were asking, but it is how I read it.

I have been under three different sorts of church government in the past.

1. Elder-dominant; the elders of the church, of whom the pastor is considered one, tells everyone else what the direction is. The pastor has no more voice than any other elder.

2. Pastor-dominant; the pastor tells everyone one else what the direction of the church is, and has the only voice with authority.

3. Pastor-driven; the pastor and the elders come into agreement on what the direction of the church is, and if they disagree, the pastor has the deciding voice. If they are in serious disagreement after that, third-party arbitration from outside the church decides between the two majority directions.

# 1 had serious troubles between the elders and pastor after a few years. Those troubles continued unknown by anyone but the elders and the pastor for several years after that, and evrentually got so bad they could barely stand the sight of each other. It all eventually blew up in their faces. One elder resigned and walked away from the church, which made adding two new elders necessary, which in turn uncovered the entire mess. The other long-time elders eventually all resigned. Third party arbitration came in at the remanining elder's request, and the pastor was eventually dismissed. New elders were chosen, a new pastor was brought in, and the church government was changed to more of the #3 type.

#2 fell apart after about 4 years, and had a lot of people come and go in the meantime.

# 3 is still going, as far as I know.

If those of you that are interested have previous firsthand knowledge....I think dawgs is talking about the difference between the COG/COGOP style of church government and structure verses the Assembly of God type government or independent church types of government.

I grew up in the cogop, but was in the cog, and the UPC as an adult. The UPC is set up alot like the AG.

I believe that there are strengths and weaknesses to each form of church governement.

The ideas of government and structure is ordained of God and therefore a perfect idea....but the organizations are ran by men, who are imperfect, therefore we have the problems that we have.

PastorDaniel wrote:If those of you that are interested have previous firsthand knowledge....I think dawgs is talking about the difference between the COG/COGOP style of church government and structure verses the Assembly of God type government or independent church types of government.

I grew up in the cogop, but was in the cog, and the UPC as an adult. The UPC is set up alot like the AG.

I believe that there are strengths and weaknesses to each form of church governement.

The ideas of government and structure is ordained of God and therefore a perfect idea....but the organizations are ran by men, who are imperfect, therefore we have the problems that we have.

i said government and structure so that leaves out independent churchs. just kidding.

PastorDaniel wrote:If those of you that are interested have previous firsthand knowledge....I think dawgs is talking about the difference between the COG/COGOP style of church government and structure verses the Assembly of God type government or independent church types of government.

I grew up in the cogop, but was in the cog, and the UPC as an adult. The UPC is set up alot like the AG.

I believe that there are strengths and weaknesses to each form of church governement.

The ideas of government and structure is ordained of God and therefore a perfect idea....but the organizations are ran by men, who are imperfect, therefore we have the problems that we have.

The independent church I was associated with nearly had no church government. everything was owned by the pastor, not matter how much they said it was the "church's", it was theirs. there was very little checks and balances, and with veto power, any that was supposed to be there, wasn't.

With that said, please don't get me wrong, there was only really a few things that I personally didn't agree with how was run and structured; and then only after some time since I really didn't know any better at first, and when I was young in the Lord.

I much prefer the COGOP hierarchy. at least what I know of and participate in, of it. there is some checks and balances for administrative and spiritual matters (at least at the local level, where I attend).

The finances are run, completely above board, accountable, nothing hidden or "shadowed", no "creative-financing", issues that might be gray, ethically speaking.

My pastor and I don't always see eye to eye, but he knows that I love and respect him, and would lay my life down for him and his family. The local church is leadership driven. sometimes we are a bit slow on some things, but overall very spirit-led.

I really like the paradigm of the church paying tithe to HQ BEFORE any other salaries/tithe salaries are made. our region also has an optional 2% "tithe" offering that goes to the region. we do this after pastoral salary.

our voice at GA is based on number of members, and I believe this to be a fair and equitable arrangement (when it actually starts).

Sorry, no experience in COG/AOG.

RamboPreacher wrote:

PastorDaniel wrote:If those of you that are interested have previous firsthand knowledge....I think dawgs is talking about the difference between the COG/COGOP style of church government and structure verses the Assembly of God type government or independent church types of government.

I grew up in the cogop, but was in the cog, and the UPC as an adult. The UPC is set up alot like the AG.

I believe that there are strengths and weaknesses to each form of church governement.

The ideas of government and structure is ordained of God and therefore a perfect idea....but the organizations are ran by men, who are imperfect, therefore we have the problems that we have.

The independent church I was associated with nearly had no church government. everything was owned by the pastor, not matter how much they said it was the "church's", it was theirs. there was very little checks and balances, and with veto power, any that was supposed to be there, wasn't.

With that said, please don't get me wrong, there was only really a few things that I personally didn't agree with how was run and structured; and then only after some time since I really didn't know any better at first, and when I was young in the Lord.

I much prefer the COGOP hierarchy. at least what I know of and participate in, of it. there is some checks and balances for administrative and spiritual matters (at least at the local level, where I attend).

The finances are run, completely above board, accountable, nothing hidden or "shadowed", no "creative-financing", issues that might be gray, ethically speaking.

My pastor and I don't always see eye to eye, but he knows that I love and respect him, and would lay my life down for him and his family. The local church is leadership driven. sometimes we are a bit slow on some things, but overall very spirit-led.

I really like the paradigm of the church paying tithe to HQ BEFORE any other salaries/tithe salaries are made. our region also has an optional 2% "tithe" offering that goes to the region. we do this after pastoral salary.

our voice at GA is based on number of members, and I believe this to be a fair and equitable arrangement (when it actually starts).

Sorry, no experience in COG/AOG.

pastor daniel, there is that checks and balance fact again. it seems that we have talked about that.

I believe that there should be C&B in administrative, financial and spiritual matters, but these enforcements should be different for each element.

Yeah, I agree that the checks and balances are good. I definitly feel covered with our reporting system...even though I hat filling them out

Also, I'm glad that the new proxy system was mentioned. I'm very interested in seeing how it works after complete implementation. It sounds very good on paper.

I think that it will also be much more fair to the international church. I saw it as a major weakness that we have a million members and only a few thousand was showing up to make the decisions.

The proxy system will remove the economic barriers to churches having a voice. It won't matter if anyone in a local church can afford to make it or not. Someone will carry their vote to the assembly. Either the pastor, district overseer, or state overseer.

I see this as a very positive change and had forgotten about it in our private converstation the other day Dawgs10.