Pastoral Search Committees

[Pianoman]

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.

Mountie (or anyone in the know) - do you recall when (or if) this wording was changed? I was raised in the "old school" where the SO had absolute authority and wasn't aware this was now worded this way. I've never known of our SO ever consulting our local church when we had a pastorial change. We never had a clue who it was until the Territorial Convention.

Our last 3 pastors were from out of state - so even then - we had no clue what we were in for or what to expect.

I have mixed feelings on this. If the SO has visited the church and knows
the people well - he may have a good feel for who he should send. I have also seen the "family" run church where one family runs everything and the church's voice as a whole is not fairly represented.

Unfortunately - in our state - we seem to have a shortage of pastors & it's hard to get somebody to come in from out of state to one of our many small churches that can't afford to pay a full time pastor. Most of our pastors are either older & semi-retired or working a secular job as well.
Our current pastor actually came to us after having been retired from the ministry for 12 years.

I certainly would like to have input on our next pastor - but honestly - we're in an area that is lucky to get one at all. For those of you in areas that don't have this problem - you are blessed!

[Pastor Gary]

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.

If I might interject: There might be situations where a local church thinks Pastor X would be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and just what they need. but the Overseer may have knowledge about X that indicates trouble ahead... bad fit for that church, series of problems in the past... let's say, for example, the church runs a Day Care or Kindergarten, and the Overseer knows (but the church does NOT) that Pastor X really is not very good with children, and not very good engaging the unchurched parents of said children... or that X is not a good manager and has a track record of financial train-wrecks. Should the Overseer, in that cited example, politely listen to the church and then appoint someone who is a better fit? Tell the church of X's issues (and risk legal action for any number of reasons) or just hope they will trust him?

It's a messy system, but there is some value to it. I know, Ron and others who have founded and lead independent churches/ministries believe their system to be superior, but all systems have strengths and witnesses. (Ted Haggard was founder and leader of his independent ministry, and the LACK of hierarchal accountability was part of his downfall.)

[stevenson]

PG, let me first say I love you. But it may also be that an SO has a friend who needs a church.

[Pastor Gary]

PG, let me first say I love you. But it may also be that an SO has a friend who needs a church.

And -- I feel the love -- there are abuses in every system, and you have apparently experienced or seen one... or more. But I can tell you that if you think COG is free of good-ole-boy, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, it's-who-you-know advancement and selection, you are in for a major shock.

[stevenson]

I don't think any organization is free from the good ole boy network. I just think that some organizations have better checks and balances and better appeal processes. I think it's very dangerous to give one man all that power. I also don't endorse independent churches because normally one man has all the power.

Now with that said, I have some great friends in the COGOP and they will be my friends forever. No State Overseer can stop that. I also have friends that have independent churches. But I have chosen my path and love it very much.

[paul]

I don't think any organization is free from the good ole boy network. I just think that some organizations have better checks and balances and better appeal processes. I think it's very dangerous to give one man all that power. I also don't endorse independent churches because normally one man has all the power.

Now with that said, I have some great friends in the COGOP and they will be my friends forever. No State Overseer can stop that. I also have friends that have independent churches. But I have chosen my path and love it very much.

In defense of the independant church, personally I feel that for the most part they are indeed acountable. As has been pointed out Ted Haggard, yes he founded the church, built the church, fell, and was replaced by the church.

I have seen abuses by both. And good in both. For myself, myself alone, denominations inhibit personal growth of ones ministry, are way to top heavy and generally allows more abuse than should be allowed. If I was in the cogop or cog, who would appoint me, where would I be told I could work ? What if it was not where God has told me that I am suppose to work ? Do I just submit and fail to obey the voice of the Holy Spirit and set the ministry on some shelf and not fulfill my calling ? If I failed to submit I would be told I was in rebellion.

I agree that no system is perfect nor will it be because no man is perfect. Nor, as some may think, do we as independants think our system is better. It is simply better for the purposes that we feel God has for our organization or ministry. It might be cumbersome for another.