Motions and Seconds

[darylscook]

I thought when a committee's recommendation was properly presented to the assembly that is was before the Assembly. We didn't need motions and seconds anymore. Did I miss something?

Pastor Daryl

[Pastor Gary]

The General Overseer keeps forgetting that change... did it for several days during the International Presbytery Meetings, too.

[RamboPreacher]

I still don't get what the number of expressions represented. there were only just over 400. that is a max of about 40,000 (keeping easy round numbers), and as I understood, was really a number about half that.

that is only a tiny percentage of the 1.5 mil. of the church. were there no proxy's sent in that weren't represented on the floor?

[Pastor Gary]

I still don't get what the number of expressions represented. there were only just over 400. that is a max of about 40,000 (keeping easy round numbers), and as I understood, was really a number about half that.

that is only a tiny percentage of the 1.5 mil. of the church. were there no proxy's sent in that weren't represented on the floor?

Want a blunt, frank answer? At the international grass-roots level the actions and decisions of this meeting are not seen as quite as vital and important as some in the U.S. might feel. I mean no offense by that — just speaking reality. Folks in many places are just kind of "meh" about the whole thing.

[RamboPreacher]

I still don't get what the number of expressions represented. there were only just over 400. that is a max of about 40,000 (keeping easy round numbers), and as I understood, was really a number about half that.

that is only a tiny percentage of the 1.5 mil. of the church. were there no proxy's sent in that weren't represented on the floor?

Want a blunt, frank answer? At the international grass-roots level the actions and decisions of this meeting are not seen as quite as vital and important as some in the U.S. might feel. I mean no offense by that — just speaking reality. Folks in many places are just kind of "meh" about the whole thing.

I suppose, and I am sure nobody will complain (much), but it just seems that these kinds of things might "add-up" after a while... just wonderin'

[darylscook]

I still don't get what the number of expressions represented. there were only just over 400. that is a max of about 40,000 (keeping easy round numbers), and as I understood, was really a number about half that.

that is only a tiny percentage of the 1.5 mil. of the church. were there no proxy's sent in that weren't represented on the floor?

Want a blunt, frank answer? At the international grass-roots level the actions and decisions of this meeting are not seen as quite as vital and important as some in the U.S. might feel. I mean no offense by that — just speaking reality. Folks in many places are just kind of "meh" about the whole thing.

Are these overseas local churches going to either:
1. Budget a monthly amount for TC
2. Conduct one or more annual fundraisers for TC
3. Receive a promotional offering for TC on the last Sunday of May, each year.

Just curious.

[Pastor Gary]

I still don't get what the number of expressions represented. there were only just over 400. that is a max of about 40,000 (keeping easy round numbers), and as I understood, was really a number about half that.

that is only a tiny percentage of the 1.5 mil. of the church. were there no proxy's sent in that weren't represented on the floor?

Want a blunt, frank answer? At the international grass-roots level the actions and decisions of this meeting are not seen as quite as vital and important as some in the U.S. might feel. I mean no offense by that — just speaking reality. Folks in many places are just kind of "meh" about the whole thing.

Are these overseas local churches going to either:
1. Budget a monthly amount for TC
2. Conduct one or more annual fundraisers for TC
3. Receive a promotional offering for TC on the last Sunday of May, each year.

Just curious.

Okay -- man, you're going to lose me some friends and get me in trouble here...
TC? It is part of our history, but not likely to be part of our future. The nostalgia for TC is not widely shared. When we were centered on exclusivist ecclesiology it made some sense to "need our own" college. The extensive opportunities available today in Christian higher education make TC a moot point. It is far better to do what we have done with Gordon-Conwell, in my view — make an alliance and use existing institutions.

[darylscook]

I still don't get what the number of expressions represented. there were only just over 400. that is a max of about 40,000 (keeping easy round numbers), and as I understood, was really a number about half that.

that is only a tiny percentage of the 1.5 mil. of the church. were there no proxy's sent in that weren't represented on the floor?

Want a blunt, frank answer? At the international grass-roots level the actions and decisions of this meeting are not seen as quite as vital and important as some in the U.S. might feel. I mean no offense by that — just speaking reality. Folks in many places are just kind of "meh" about the whole thing.

Are these overseas local churches going to either:
1. Budget a monthly amount for TC
2. Conduct one or more annual fundraisers for TC
3. Receive a promotional offering for TC on the last Sunday of May, each year.

Just curious.

Okay -- man, you're going to lose me some friends and get me in trouble here...
TC? It is part of our history, but not likely to be part of our future. The nostalgia for TC is not widely shared. When we were centered on exclusivist ecclesiology it made some sense to "need our own" college. The extensive opportunities available today in Christian higher education make TC a moot point. It is far better to do what we have done with Gordon-Conwell, in my view — make an alliance and use existing institutions.

Aaah, that is the crux of my question. Did it not matter b/c it won't be something they do either way? I was not for it, but I figured it would pass.

[Mat]

I still don't get what the number of expressions represented. there were only just over 400. that is a max of about 40,000 (keeping easy round numbers), and as I understood, was really a number about half that.

that is only a tiny percentage of the 1.5 mil. of the church. were there no proxy's sent in that weren't represented on the floor?

Want a blunt, frank answer? At the international grass-roots level the actions and decisions of this meeting are not seen as quite as vital and important as some in the U.S. might feel. I mean no offense by that — just speaking reality. Folks in many places are just kind of "meh" about the whole thing.

Are these overseas local churches going to either:
1. Budget a monthly amount for TC
2. Conduct one or more annual fundraisers for TC
3. Receive a promotional offering for TC on the last Sunday of May, each year.

Just curious.

Okay -- man, you're going to lose me some friends and get me in trouble here...
TC? It is part of our history, but not likely to be part of our future. The nostalgia for TC is not widely shared. When we were centered on exclusivist ecclesiology it made some sense to "need our own" college. The extensive opportunities available today in Christian higher education make TC a moot point. It is far better to do what we have done with Gordon-Conwell, in my view — make an alliance and use existing institutions.

Aaah, that is the crux of my question. Did it not matter b/c it won't be something they do either way? I was not for it, but I figured it would pass.

(Yes, this is a "hit-and-run" return of Mat)

Darlyscook,

On February 13, 2012, according to the letter from the General Overseer's office that accompanied the packet, the proxy info and reports for the upcoming International Assembly were mailed. My local church did our “due-diligence” in completing the proxy votes and forms within the time frame allotted. The proxy form was sent in and acknowledged by the International Offices. Remember, we were only making expression on one report (TC offering) and the larger Tithing Report was not presented to the Assembly for vote, it was placed in the minutes by “edict”.

As the proxy representative for my church I arrived a day early (Tuesday, July 24th) for a “Mission Meeting” on Tuesday evening and to be ready to pick-up up my voting card on Wednesday before the business.

On Wednesday, July 25th, the TC Report was given without change or comment and voted on. Interestingly, my proxy card did not work. I handed it to another pastor to try it in several different “voting machines” and it did not work. I tried to get someone’s attention but we had already moved on in the “business”.

Wednesday evening, to the best of my memory, there was no mention of a “change” of direction in the structure of TC during the Annual Address.

On Friday morning, July 27th, as per a letter dated April 16, 2012, from the General Overseer’s Office, requesting that a special offering be received called, “Tomlinson Center Assembly Offering”. I asked my church for such an offering and gave our check during that offering. Again, no mention was made concerning any changes to the direction of TC though the implies a campus based church college.

There was no mention of changes to the direction of TC in the Friday night service that were focused on Leadership development, nor was there any announcement to the TC Alumni at their gathering Saturday afternoon.

On Sunday morning during the “appointments” there was no explanation as to the dissolving of the Tomlinson Center Board or the creation of the new Tomlinson Center Advisory Committee (with a slate of new committee members).

Darlyscook, you are right in your assessment, it did not matter and it does not matter.


Pastor Gary,

You are a member of the International Presbyters (as an Overseer) so your opinion does matter, and I would say that your opinion on TC is the current position held by the International Presbyters and the General Presbyters, as well as those at the International Offices. That’s fine, you’re in charge and you can do as you please. If there is a vision for the future of the organization concerning education and it does not include a TC campus, that’s fine. Its your world not mine.

However, I have made a formal request to the leadership of the Church of God of Prophecy on behalf of the Tomlinson family that the name “Tomlinson” be removed from all “church” institutions. Since the vision of M.A. Tomlinson and the past General Assemblies who authorized the establishment of TC was of a campus based accreted Christian liberal arts college the Church of God of Prophecy should not be “bound” by the use of the name, nor should the denomination use the name as a merchandizing or fund raising “tool”. I first made this request concerning the college back in the 1990s before its “improper” demise that cost 40 staff their jobs and hundreds of students their plans.

I renewed the request when the college was started back up, including multipule contacts with the Fishers and the TC Board. However, I relented on the use of the Tomlinson name due to their request to use the name. Now for the third time in twenty years I have again requested that since the vision for the future does not encompass the original vision that the name “Tomlinson” be retired to the history books.

Just to be clear (for all you Tomlinson haters) the descendents do not want the name used anymore then you do. Let the ministry of the Tomlinsons be debated in an historical context, fine. If you want to blame them for your “bitterness” due to your upbringing in the COGOP, fine. If on the other hand, you feel what they stood for is right, still, don’t use their name; stand on your own merits.

The Church of God of Prophecy owes nothing to them, not honor or allegiance. You are free! Free to go or stay, free to complain or praise, but you are asked not to use their name to raise money are justify your own ministry. Back in the 1990s a deacon of a church I was pastor of told me how he and the former pastor would laugh and make jokes about an old picture of A. J. Tomlinson that was in the church attic. That’s fine, their free to do that, everybody is, but why not just throw the old pictures out and move on?

I promise you, the only thing I will oppose is the continued us of the name Tomlinson on any denominational institution. I do discourage any financial support or giving to those institutions so named.

Pastor Gary, and everybody else who feels bound by the past, help me set this church free by “retiring” the Tomlinson name from active use. I know it will set their family free.


Mat
Michael H. Edwards

[scooter]

So does the future hold any promise of a church college or are we just going to sub that out?

All these other church colleges, are they just holding on to their exclusive past?

[Pastor Gary]

Pastor Gary,

You are a member of the International Presbyters (as an Overseer) so your opinion does matter...

If that is what you believe, I have to assume you have never sat in an International Presbytery Meeting. I would describe those meetings, perhaps, as inspirational and informational at best. They are 90% monologue and 10% dialogue. At those meetings the International Presbytery is informed of decisions and directions already set in motion... we are not asked to propose changes, debate changes or — frankly — do much other than receive and acknowledge changes a couple of days before they are announced on the floor of the Assembly. Not sure why, in that context, you think my opinion matters any more, or carries any more weight, than yours.

...I would say that your opinion on TC is the current position held by the International Presbyters and the General Presbyters, as well as those at the International Offices. That’s fine, you’re in charge and you can do as you please.

Again — let me emphasize — decisions in this church are NOT made by the International Presbytery. We are not even CLOSE to being "in charge."

Its your world not mine.

Don't know how many more ways to say it. Simply not correct.

Just to be clear (for all you Tomlinson haters) the descendents do not want the name used anymore then you do. Let the ministry of the Tomlinsons be debated in an historical context, fine. If you want to blame them for your “bitterness” due to your upbringing in the COGOP, fine. If on the other hand, you feel what they stood for is right, still, don’t use their name; stand on your own merits.

The Church of God of Prophecy owes nothing to them, not honor or allegiance. You are free! Free to go or stay, free to complain or praise, but you are asked not to use their name to raise money are justify your own ministry.

Again: not a Tomlinson hater here. IMHO the name Tomlinson is part of our heritage and history in the same way the name Aimee Simple McPherson is part of the heritage and history of the Foursquare church, or Lottie Moon is tied to the Baptist Church; history, with both positive and negative connotations. History, nothing more or less.

Pastor Gary, and everybody else who feels bound by the past, help me set this church free by “retiring” the Tomlinson name from active use. I know it will set their family free.

Michael, I consider you a friend, and it kind of saddens me to learn that you view me in this light. I sure hope I am not bound by the past, or troubled by the past. The past shapes each of us into who and what we are.

[Pastor Gary]

So does the future hold any promise of a church college or are we just going to sub that out?

I have no idea. Read my response to Mike Edwards. I am in no way in the decision-making loop in this organization.

All these other church colleges, are they just holding on to their exclusive past?

No. They have money. We don't.

[Mat]

Pastor Gary,

You are a member of the International Presbyters (as an Overseer) so your opinion does matter...

If that is what you believe, I have to assume you have never sat in an International Presbytery Meeting. I would describe those meetings, perhaps, as inspirational and informational at best. They are 90% monologue and 10% dialogue. At those meetings the International Presbytery is informed of decisions and directions already set in motion... we are not asked to propose changes, debate changes or — frankly — do much other than receive and acknowledge changes a couple of days before they are announced on the floor of the Assembly. Not sure why, in that context, you think my opinion matters any more, or carries any more weight, than yours.

...I would say that your opinion on TC is the current position held by the International Presbyters and the General Presbyters, as well as those at the International Offices. That’s fine, you’re in charge and you can do as you please.

Again — let me emphasize — decisions in this church are NOT made by the International Presbytery. We are not even CLOSE to being "in charge."

Its your world not mine.

Don't know how many more ways to say it. Simply not correct.

Just to be clear (for all you Tomlinson haters) the descendents do not want the name used anymore then you do. Let the ministry of the Tomlinsons be debated in an historical context, fine. If you want to blame them for your “bitterness” due to your upbringing in the COGOP, fine. If on the other hand, you feel what they stood for is right, still, don’t use their name; stand on your own merits.

The Church of God of Prophecy owes nothing to them, not honor or allegiance. You are free! Free to go or stay, free to complain or praise, but you are asked not to use their name to raise money are justify your own ministry.

Again: not a Tomlinson hater here. IMHO the name Tomlinson is part of our heritage and history in the same way the name Aimee Simple McPherson is part of the heritage and history of the Foursquare church, or Lottie Moon is tied to the Baptist Church; history, with both positive and negative connotations. History, nothing more or less.

Pastor Gary, and everybody else who feels bound by the past, help me set this church free by “retiring” the Tomlinson name from active use. I know it will set their family free.

Michael, I consider you a friend, and it kind of saddens me to learn that you view me in this light. I sure hope I am not bound by the past, or troubled by the past. The past shapes each of us into who and what we are.

So Pastor Gary, you are saying the International Presbyters are not in charge and I think I just demonstrated that the International Assembly is not in charge; so how has the COGOP changed from the days of the Tomlinson dictatorship (as so stated in the "Study of the Office of the General Overseer")? If there are so few who are making decisions then it should be easy to “retire” the name and move on. That’s all I care about, I do not care what institutions the denomination does or does not have. Not my job, above my pay grade.

As to friendship verse position, I can consider you a friend and admire your work in the ministry. Yet at the sometime you are part of a leadership group that holds increased authority in the denomination. Whither you feel its fair or not, when you accepted the position you accepted a portion of the accountability for the direction of the organization. I want you to be free to speak your heart as a leader and it seems like with all this “accountability” and “plurality of leadership” that is talked about, you should be able to. I want every church member, local church and pastor alike to know they do not have to be bound by a false since of loyalty to this denomination.

As to direction of the organization, that’s up to leadership, whoever that may be. As to the question of if anyone stays and supports the direction of this denomination, well that depends on their conscience. However, may I restate, this organization needs to be set free from the current use of the Tomlinson name on any and all of its institutions.

Gary, Jude2 has been the home of some of the most “spirited” debate concerning the leadership and role of the Tomlinsons in the formation of the COGOP. Jude2 could now take a leading role in setting the church free of any residue of obligation to their legacy. Just think, your forum could bring historic perspective on the COGOP and its relationship to both the Church of God Movement and the Pentecostal Movement. You could be an instrument to set free other groups who have mistakenly waved the “flag” of church and the name of Tomlinson. We do not endorse any group/church using the Tomlinson name, images or artifacts in any manner to justify their existence. They need to be set free also so that they may stand in their own merits and ministry. Help me out here, let’s retire the name.


It is disingenuous for anyone to characterize the Tomlinsons as having a negative influence on the organization and at the same time continue operating institutions that bare their name, or to merchandise their memory for the sake of mere money or misplaced loyalty. That kind of behavior is detrimental to both the individual who engages in it and the organization that perpetuated it. Again, please help me to retire the name.

Mat

[Pastor Gary]

So Pastor Gary, you are saying the International Presbyters are not in charge and I think I just demonstrated that the International Assembly is not in charge; so how has the COGOP changed from the days of the Tomlinson dictatorship (as so stated in the "Study of the Office of the General Overseer")? If there are so few who are making decisions then it should be easy to “retire” the name and move on. That’s all I care about, I do not care what institutions the denomination does or does not have. Not my job, above my pay grade.

WAY above my pay grade, too. (I think many people would be quite surprised at how low that pay grade actually is...)

I am not privy as to who calls the shots in COGOP anymore; all I can tell you is that, increasingly, they seem made at higher levels by a smaller circle of decision makers. The General Presbyters? The Executive Committee? I have no idea. Like the rest of you, I am presented with decisions that are a done deal... I may hear of them 72 hours before you do, but I am not involved at any level in setting policy or making decisions.

[Mat]

So Pastor Gary, you are saying the International Presbyters are not in charge and I think I just demonstrated that the International Assembly is not in charge; so how has the COGOP changed from the days of the Tomlinson dictatorship (as so stated in the "Study of the Office of the General Overseer")? If there are so few who are making decisions then it should be easy to “retire” the name and move on. That’s all I care about, I do not care what institutions the denomination does or does not have. Not my job, above my pay grade.

WAY above my pay grade, too. (I think many people would be quite surprised at how low that pay grade actually is...)

I am not privy as to who calls the shots in COGOP anymore; all I can tell you is that, increasingly, they seem made at higher levels by a smaller circle of decision makers. The General Presbyters? The Executive Committee? I have no idea. Like the rest of you, I am presented with decisions that are a done deal... I may hear of them 72 hours before you do, but I am not involved at any level in setting policy or making decisions.

You keep being so honest in "print" and you may hear from "them" sooner then you want.

Remember, "duck and cover"!

Mat