Jude 2

I know some of those who post here are pastors of independent churches. I would be curious to know, "Did you found the church or did you accept the pastoral position at an already existing independent church?" Do you have a statement of beliefs? Does it address sin? Should any statement of beliefs address sin? For the COGOPers, It would seem the COGOP has sort of promoted a "local church driven" mentality. The organization has pushed local church autonomy but "How does the COGOP practically espouse local church autonomy while still jointly deciding doctrinal positions, disciplining its ministers based upon false teaching, and regulating financial practices?" As the COGOP changes its view of itself from a centralized government to a more Assembly of God style of government there would seem to be a multitude of issues to be addressed.

Pastorbps wrote:The organization has pushed local church autonomy...

How so? I have never heard the word "autonomy" used in an Assembly discussion of the primacy of the local church. In fact, we passed in '06 the exact opposite, declaring COGOP an official hierarchy.

Pastorbps wrote:...disciplining its ministers based upon false teaching...

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

I accepted the position of pastor at Christway, an already (though relatively new) established congregation.

We do have a statement of beliefs. But that has been an addition since I arrived. Our statement of faith itself does not address sin, directly. However our "easy-to read" overview of beliefs does. Those were adapted from a draft written by J2's very own Dolfan for me sometime back.

Sin must be addressed in some fashion by one's beliefs if they intend to believe, promote, and practice the gospel.

You don't think we are leaning more toward local church self-government? I have heard the word "autonomy" used in Assembly discussions but I would have to check all assembly minutes to find where and when it was used (don't have time for that). The hierarchy issue was raised based upon property rights wasn't it? We weren't establishing the church as a hierarchy to control doctrinal differences were we? We may believe that but that wasn't why the "hierarchy" issue was raised. We have made statements regarding local churches setting their own vision and made statements regarding doctrinal interpretations such as "Let the umpire on the field make the call" which seem to lean toward local church autonomy. We have also allowed local churches to have varied interpretations on membership requirements based upon varied interpretations of who is Saved and who is not. We have allowed local churches (Including your church and mine) to rename themselves. We have redefined our International Offices as a "Resource Center" almost disgusted by the term "Headquarters." Doesn't that seem to lean more toward local church autonomy? I'm not saying we are autonomous but we are leaning more that direction than ever before. Would you not agree that we are moving toward an Assembly of God style more than a Church of God style of government? If not, I must really be imagining things.
As far as false doctrine is concerned - Are you saying we don't or won't discipline our ministers based upon false teaching?

Pastorbps wrote:Are you saying we don't or won't discipline our ministers based upon false teaching?

Could you give a more direct, concrete example? I have ministers in my area with whom I do not see eye to eye on all doctrinal issues. We have discussed those differences, but I have never disciplined any of them to attempt to force them to change their view. I have asked them not to cause problems by making their views a point of division, and that has worked here.

Again, can you cite something more direct?

Pastor Gary wrote:

Pastorbps wrote:Are you saying we don't or won't discipline our ministers based upon false teaching?

Could you give a more direct, concrete example? I have ministers in my area with whom I do not see eye to eye on all doctrinal issues. We have discussed those differences, but I have never disciplined any of them to attempt to force them to change their view. I have asked them not to cause problems by making their views a point of division, and that has worked here.

Again, can you cite something more direct?

its agree with pastor gary day!!!! a great way to handle that. i wish that was the way more state offices handled that issue. and to end this i will not kiss up anymore. i must find something to complain about now!

Pastorbps wrote:You don't think we are leaning more toward local church self-government? I have heard the word "autonomy" used in Assembly discussions but I would have to check all assembly minutes to find where and when it was used (don't have time for that). The hierarchy issue was raised based upon property rights wasn't it? We weren't establishing the church as a hierarchy to control doctrinal differences were we? We may believe that but that wasn't why the "hierarchy" issue was raised. We have made statements regarding local churches setting their own vision and made statements regarding doctrinal interpretations such as "Let the umpire on the field make the call" which seem to lean toward local church autonomy. We have also allowed local churches to have varied interpretations on membership requirements based upon varied interpretations of who is Saved and who is not. We have allowed local churches (Including your church and mine) to rename themselves. We have redefined our International Offices as a "Resource Center" almost disgusted by the term "Headquarters." Doesn't that seem to lean more toward local church autonomy? I'm not saying we are autonomous but we are leaning more that direction than ever before. Would you not agree that we are moving toward an Assembly of God style more than a Church of God style of government? If not, I must really be imagining things.
As far as false doctrine is concerned - Are you saying we don't or won't discipline our ministers based upon false teaching?

A bit of friendly advice: Paragraphs are your friend and mine.

I like paragraphs.
Don't you.
I will try to do better.
Please don't get mad at me.
I may not have this right.
I am seriously bad at punctuation and paragraphs. My dad was in the military and so we moved around a lot during the years they were teaching paragraphs & punctuation so I didn't catch on too well.
Pastor Gary:
I agree with you about accepting differences in most cases but are you saying there are no occasions when you would discipline a pastor? What about if they started teaching Jesus was one of many ways? Would you just agree to disagree with them on something that big? Carlton Pearson and his doctrinal changes comes to mind.

Pastorbps wrote:Pastor Gary:
I agree with you about accepting differences in most cases but are you saying there are no occasions when you would discipline a pastor? What about if they started teaching Jesus was one of many ways? Would you just agree to disagree with them on something that big? Carlton Pearson and his doctrinal changes comes to mind.

No. Of course there are some fundamental doctrines of the faith that are non-negotiable.
Can you cite an example of a doctrine you would discipline a Pastor over if your were an SO?

First, I wouldn't have your job and couldn't have your job because of my personal convictions. I have a deep appreciation for the difficulties of the position.
The one I cited would be one. If one taught contrary to the clear teachings concerning the identity of Jesus, the infallibility of scripture, the virgin birth, Salvation by faith, and then I would discipline them if they started teaching as acceptable certain conducts which are clearly taught in scripture (fornication, adultery, drunkeness, homosexuality, and more).

I have asked them not to cause problems by making their views a point of division, and that has worked here.

What would you do if they disregarded your instruction and made their views a point of division? Would you discipline them then?

Pastorbps wrote:What would you do if they disregarded your instruction and made their views a point of division? Would you discipline them then?

I guess I hope to never have to cross that bridge, but, yes: if we could not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement to agree to disagree, and if a minister under my oversight taught heresy, or taught anything in a way that it caused division, I would have little choice but to invoke some form of discipline.