Old ministers application form

ichthus · Postby **ichthus** » May 1st, 2008, 10:43 am

pastorables wrote:The application that I filled out in 1988 still asked about the gum. I had to quit chewing gum to be able to answer "no" on the form.

Wow! In the late 80s??? I find this so hard to believe! So all new COGOP ministers had to give up gum and medicine to get credentials? Why didn't they just change it at the assembly?

Gerald Creasy · Postby **Gerald Creasy** » May 1st, 2008, 11:17 am

ichthus wrote:Wow! In the late 80s??? I find this so hard to believe! So all new COGOP ministers had to give up gum and medicine to get credentials? Why didn't they just change it at the assembly?

I remember not being able to chew gum so MY DAD could be a Bishop.

RamboPreacher · Postby **RamboPreacher** » May 1st, 2008, 11:20 am

policy manual in the back of the minutes has a test, but no application form. (nothing there, BTW - that says that I can not be ordained - interesting.)

dolfan · Postby **dolfan** » May 1st, 2008, 12:26 pm

pastorables wrote:The application that I filled out in 1988 still asked about the gum. I had to quit chewing gum to be able to answer "no" on the form.

Me, too.

RamboPreacher · Postby **RamboPreacher** » May 1st, 2008, 12:56 pm

so I shouldn't be chewing gum, while I am preaching? :twisted:

heheheee

PastorP · Postby **PastorP** » May 1st, 2008, 1:47 pm

Shellie wrote:At one time, a letter was sent out to pastors asking if they believed that the COGOP was THE Bride of Christ. Ministers that answered "no" lost their licenses.

Are you talking about what one SO did in the state where he was appointed? I seem to remember that it was Va. and overseer was David Risch. Not certain about that, just wondering if I am right about that. Don't think that ever came down from then "General H.Q."

PastorP · Postby **PastorP** » May 1st, 2008, 1:48 pm

ichthus wrote:Wow! In the late 80s??? I find this so hard to believe! So all new COGOP ministers had to give up gum and medicine to get credentials? Why didn't they just change it at the assembly?

Long time before the 80's. Changed when Billy Murray was the G.O, I think!

Postby **Shellie** » May 1st, 2008, 2:00 pm

PastorP wrote:

Are you talking about what one SO did in the state where he was appointed? I seem to remember that it was Va. and overseer was David Risch. Not certain about that, just wondering if I am right about that. Don't think that ever came down from then "General H.Q."

I believe it was Florida. I think Kenya's dad received one as well and I BELIEVE he was in Florida at that time.

free · Postby **free** » May 1st, 2008, 5:26 pm

It did happen in VA...Probably other states as well.

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » May 1st, 2008, 6:01 pm

me too Rambo!

ichthus · Postby **ichthus** » May 3rd, 2008, 3:45 am

OK, preacher! I saw that!
Now spit out that Wrigleys spearment or that Juicy Fruit before I turn ya in!!

Pastorbps · Postby **Pastorbps** » May 3rd, 2008, 4:28 am

At one time Chewing Tobacco was much more common than chewing gum so the thought was for a minister not to give the appearance of chewing tobacco. Was that wrong? I'm not so sure it was wrong initially. I don't think I would have made it a ministerial standard but there are certain things to consider. For a long time we were tough on women who cut their hair. We used the scripture from 1Cor. 11:5-6. In school we were taught we were wrong about that interpretation and that Paul was speaking about the practice of shaving the heads of adulterous wives. Thus a woman with short hair would be looked at as someone who lived impure. The women were then told not to wear their hair short because it could be construed as something else. Now we know the short hair "law" doesn't apply but what about the principle? Does this principle still apply? Was this the same principle as chewing gum so as not to give an appearance of impropriety? What about dressing seductively? What about not wearing a wedding ring when you're pregnant (Perhaps we not only shouldn't have been against wedding bands but in fact we were guilty of breaking the principle of leaving a false impression. Imagine sending your pregnant wife to teach in school with no wedding band. What kind of impression could that leave)? What about bishops not drinking wine at all so as not to leave a false impression or to live above reproach or blameless? What do you think? The rule about chewing gum seems ridiculous in 2008 but maybe it wasn't in 1930.

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » May 3rd, 2008, 9:36 am

Long time before the 80's. Changed when Billy Murray was the G.O, I think!

Are you saying that Murray was the GO before the 1980's? If so, interesting perspective.

PastorP · Postby **PastorP** » May 3rd, 2008, 9:55 am

Full Quiver wrote:
Long time before the 80's. Changed when Billy Murray was the G.O, I think!

Are you saying that Murray was the GO before the 1980's? If so, interesting perspective.

That is not what I am stating. The questions concerning chewing gum and administering medicine to your family was before the 80's. The application changed when Billy Murray was GO, I think I am correct in this.

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » May 3rd, 2008, 10:53 am

What I am saying is that if the application CHANGED when murray was GO then it was in the 90's and not before the 80's.

Jude 2