removed

[Mat]

removed

[rjjunior]

I need a little help concerning General Presbyters and the COGOP Policy Manual. Perhaps you can point me to the pages that answer the following questions:

1 - I see we are going to have a "New" General Presbyter due to retirement. Who selected the replacement and what was/is the process?

p.327 selected and approved by International Presbytery.

2 - Why do we have seven General Presbyters? I could only find two on a rotating basis. Where does it say seven and how does the "two" relate to the church operation?

It doesn't say 7. It says "at least 3" in the 88th Assembly minutes, p.155. Based on the MPM, I would say 'the two' function on the behalf of the 7 between assemblies and GP meetings, much like the GO acts on the behalf of the Assembly.

3 - Who removes a Presbyter when the need arises?

Safe to assume those who 'select and approve,' the International Prebytery.

4 - Where is the authorization for the Presbyters to be over the Overseers in their "region" and to make those appointments?

moot. They are 'over' them by function. Just makes practical sense that they do it rather than the General Overseer. I don't any fruitful reason to challenge this.

Also, I thought at one time that the guy in Europe was Chris Stathis (sp?). Was he a Presbyter and whatever happened to him?

He was a national overseer of Greece, if I recall. There's more to his story that is old news and doesn't need to be hashed out. In short, he fell.


Mat[/quote]

[Mat]

removed

[rjjunior]

rjjunior,

Maybe you know, when the concept of "plurality of leadership" was introduced, I understood the concept as the leadership group being comprised of individuals whose first "job" might be as pastor, overseer, missionary, or General Official. Then from that prospective leadership group would come together with the GO to deal with issues and set vision.

I don't remember it quite that way. I remember thinking that they were tryng to share some of the responsibilities of GO. I never assumed they would continue to function as pastor/state overseer, etc. The first General Presbyters (I think) were Bishops Jose Reyes, Perry Gillum, and Larry Wilson.

I was just wondering how we moved from the less structured model to the present structure of seven defined Presbyters as a separate level of leadership from the GO. It seems that the GO is "blocked" from operational decisions in the various Presbyter regions and at the same time must get "permission" from the Presbyters to operate the International Offices. In an over-statement, one GO said to me, "I have to send seven letters around the world and get seven replies just to buy stamps." His point being, the seven Presbyters have to be consulted before the GO can lead.

I don't remember which year they made the area presbyters the general presbyters. I agree there are some political issues with the structure. The general presbyters wield tremendous authority in their regions (which I don't have as much problem with) but may have too much political power in the functioning of the international church. (I like the quote from "one GO." Wonder who that was?????)

Now I have always contended that the committee that introduced this "plurality of leadership" was more focused on undermining the GO office and entrenching their position then on giving us a dynamic Biblical leadership model. In other words they had an "ax to grind".

Actually, I know one of the committeemen very closely and I would say his motivations were honest and forthright. He didn't have a need for power or an axe to grind. He was 'just a pastor.'

Likewise, as you study such details as the "first among equals" concept for the GO, you see the influence of the Orthodox mind set.

Could it also be a New Testament mindset, though?

As a matter of fact the COGOP is moving more towards the Orthodox Church concept of separate ethnic based churches, with each having its own leadership, and the leaderships of each church forming a ruling counsel of committee with the GO, like the prelate of Constantinople, being the first among equals.

agreed.

I guess I’m just trying to understand how we got to the point that the churches in North American can not even decide how we will support our area of ministry without getting "permission" from the other regions or the world. It seems like an "unequal balance". With the changing economic conditions around the world, that is the global economy these separate regional/ethnic based church may be in a better position to support themselves without NA funds.
Mat

I actually think we may move more toward greater autonomy in regions. In fact, we are already on that path (i.e. d&r). I wouldn't be surprised if years from now, the church resembles a loose network of regions with distinctive policies and perhaps even doctrinal distinctives.

[Mat]

removed

[PastorDaniel]

I agree Mat...voting seems to work well for other groups. I believe that voting can still be influenced and directed by the Holy Spirit. Is it always....probably not.

But even in our current and former systems there are problems with carnality. People that insist on being led by tongues and interpretation can't tell me that people are "always" in the Spirit when doing that. Look at our past assemblies and all the groups that left by giving their "own" tongues and interpretation.

People will find a way to twist anything and still do what they want.

[Pastor Gary]

Without going into details that would violate confidentiality, let me say that I believe at least SOME of your concerns may be addressed by the International Presbytery Meeting before the Assembly.

[Pastor Chip]

Mat's comments/concerns are held by more than a few people. I sometimes wonder what the CGP will look like just 2 years down the road. I hope some of these concerns are given serious consideration.

[Mat]

removed

[rjjunior]

However, I feel we are undergoing a process of a new "legalism" in which, via the policy manual, we are seeing a new legalism of structure and control that is primary focused on pastors.
Mat

With the greater leniency and flexibility given in doctrine/worship/local church structure, etc. it may be a reaction that "we've got to be able to control something, though I don't think it's completely conscious on the part of committees, etc.

To be sure, we should collectively guard against a pendulum swing towards a new brand of legalism or even a carnal libertarianism in the church (though that might describe more of what I think it ought to look like..minus the carnal part, of course).

[Mat]

removed