Thoughts on Church of God Polity

The following "Thoughts" are generally collected from my series of "Thoughts" posted on Facebook. As the title indicates, they all concern issues of Church of God polity. New items are added from time to time.


Thought on the 2014 General Council: For me the most troubling item on the General Council agenda was one which attempted to divide the Supplement to the Minutes into two sections, one of which would become an “Operations Manual.” I believe a dear friend of mine who I greatly respect largely wrote this item, but I strongly disagree with him on this matter. If passed, the item would have placed the sections dealing with “State Government,” “Local Church Government,” and “Personnel” in an operations manual. The argument included a description of these items as managerial and not doctrinal in nature. Items such as the Bylaws and General Church Government would remain in the Supplement to the Minutes and continue to require General Assembly action to revise. The Items in the Operations Manual would be overseen by the Executive Council, which would be authorized to amend as needed. Should they determine a revision would significantly alter Church of God polity they would submit it to the Ordained Bishops for approval through online and snail-mail voting.

This item contradicts our theological heritage and, if adopted, it would have contradicted the founding vision of the Church of God. One of the foundational principles of our movement is that we follow the New Testament as our “only rule for government.” Our founders were driven to renew the Christian church through the restoration of Biblical government. They placed emphasis on love and personal conscience in the life of the church, including its government. Unfortunately, and ironically, their commitment to be guided only by Scripture led to the loss of this vision. We have interpreted the mandate to limit government to Biblical statements, i.e., we have no rules that are not specifically stated in Scripture. A proposal we both reaffirmed and ignored for decades. In my opinion this is what led to the development of a polity that is guided by pragmatism instead of the Bible. The results are an eclectic set of policies shaped by the whim of whatever seemed right in our own eyes at any given time; Scripture quotations alone are inadequate for a defined polity for a large organization. What is needed is a defined understanding of Biblical government. It is the absence of a clearly stated ecclesiology that has brought us to this point where some in leadership can now see the polity of the state/regional and local church as an issue of mere management, which is therefore not subject to the General Assembly. The “management” of the church is a theological task and not mere management as though management and administration are not to be governed by the Word of God. Rather, our position must be that whatever rules of administration we adopt they must be grounded in the Biblical patterns of government.

Finally, if this motion had passed it would have shut down the voice of the laity on the things most directly affecting them, i.e., local church government, including the rules governing membership and spiritual discipline. This is illogical an untenable. It would make more sense to me to place the sections of general church government under the control of the Ordained Bishops; with the General Assembly completely limited to an agenda set by the General Council that is after all our functioning polity. We need to move in the direction of more voice for the laity, not less.

Just a Thought: I am at the Church of God General Council meeting in Orlando. As I listened to our deliberations this morning I kept thinking of the old adage “a large ship cannot turn on a dime” and adding my on thought that this is especially true when the ship is locked into a circular motion by circular reasoning. Today, we debated a motion to amend the qualifications for ministers by adding a statement that we must “agree with and adhere to” the teachings and doctrines of the church. Someone rightly pointed out that if we adopted this wording we could no longer discuss the doctrines of the church even in a General Council meeting without fear of loosing our credentials. The “agree with” portion was dropped and the motion to “adhere to” passed with near if not total agreement. Immediately afterwards I leaned to my neighbor and whispered “I hope we all understand that we just voted to go home and start practicing footwashing in our churches.” Everyone get ready for am emphasis on “Social Obligation,” including a commitment to correct social injustices and care for the environment – the first of our Practical Commitments. I can hope, even if it is in vain. JDJ # 476

Just a Thought: Yesterday the General Council approved an agenda item that prohibited our ministers from performing weddings and civil unions under any circumstances other than the marriage of one man to one woman. It was a somewhat lengthy but well worded item that also instructed our ministers that when discussing this subject they were to do so in a manner that reflects the love of Christ. I believe it passed unanimously. There were however a couple of attempts to make minor amendments, but they failed. One motion to amend was made by my dear friend Dr. Dale Coulter who attempted to revise a clause requiring that ministers who perform such ceremonies have their credentials revoked. Dale’s substitution was to use the exact language already used in situations of adultery, which specifies that the credentials be suspended for a period not less than two years. I could feel the rejection of the amendment before he every spoke. The body liked the original motion just the way it was and resented any attempt to change it. The speeches against the change reflected more emotion than reason. By that I mean they were off topic having nothing to do with the discipline of an errant minister; instead they all focused on how we must take a firm stand against the tide of cultural acceptance of homosexual marriage. It was clear to me they had fixated on the words “revoked” and “suspended” believing the former to convey a stronger message. I sat there, literally with a headache, amused at the irony that Dale’s motion would actually make the revocation of the credentials more definitive, i.e., for a period not less than two years. In its current form, within our current polity, I believe any minister who has his or her credentials revoked for this offence could in fact have them reinstated within a matter of months if they jump through the right hoops in front of the right people. Sitting in the General Council sessions is highly frustrating for those of us with highly analytical personality types. JDJ # 477

Just a Thought: Another motion was offered to amend the General Council item forbidding our ministers from performing weddings or civil unions for gays and bigamists by adding the words “or baby dedications” to the list. Form some unknown reason the maker of the motion wanted it inserted between “weddings” and “civil unions.” As I listened to the debate my head throbbed with pain and simultaneously tingled with amusement. Most of the argument centered on “our” beliefs about baby dedications. [I will not take time to describe the debate surrounding an amendment to the amendment, which attempted to substitute the word “child” for the word “baby.” I will note that my good friend Dr. Ken Archer gave a passionate plea from Scripture that we must bless children and not punish them for the sins of their guardians.] The speakers seemed certain in what we believe; they just kept contradicting each other about what we believe. In truth, the Church of God has not defined the purpose and nature of baby/child dedications. This failed attempt to use them as a form of spiritual discipline for the unredeemed suggests we seriously need to have that discussion, but I truly fear the outcome if it is decided by our deliberative process. JDJ # 478

Just a Thought: For me the most troubling item on the General Council agenda was one which attempted to divide the Supplement to the Minutes into two sections, one of which would become an “Operations Manual.” This item contradicts our theological heritage and, if adopted, it would have contradicted the founding vision of the Church of God. Our founders were driven to renew the Christian church through the restoration of Biblical government. Unfortunately, and ironically, their commitment to be guided only by Scripture led to the loss of this vision. Scripture quotations alone are inadequate for a defined polity for a large organization. What is needed is a defined understanding of Biblical government. The absence of a clearly stated ecclesiology has brought us to this point where some can now see the polity of the state/regional and local church as issues of mere management, which is therefore not subject to the General Assembly. But the “management” of the church is a theological task and not mere management as though management and administration are not to be governed by the Word of God. Rather, our position must be that whatever rules of administration we adopt they must be grounded in the Biblical patterns of government. If I understand this motion correctly, if passed it would have shut down the voice of the laity on the things most directly affecting them, i.e., local church government, including the rules governing membership and spiritual discipline. This is illogical an untenable. We need to move in the direction of more voice for the laity, not less. JDJ # 479

Just a Thought: The following is a list of principles I have tried to live by as a pastor. I first wrote them over twenty years ago.

Principles of Ministry Development

*The church belongs to Jesus Christ and he desires to give direction to the ministries of the church through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

*The chief responsibility of the church is not to carry out pre-packaged programs but to jointly discover and fulfill the will of God.

*The holy Scriptures clearly reveal God's will for the church but each congregation must discover and live out that will in its own setting.

*All believers are to be joined to the church and in the context of the church they are to discover the will of God for their lives and "work out their salvation with fear and trembling."

*Every member of the church is a voice through whom God can speak to make his will known to the congregation and therefore must be heard with discernment.

*All members of the church must work together to plan and carry out the ministries of the church.

*The primary tasks of the pastor and elders in ministry development are to (1) instruct the congregation in the truths of God's Word, (2) hold the congregation accountable for living according to God's Word, (3) "perfect the saints for works of service" by preparing them to serve others through their individual talents, (4) release the members of the church to fulfill the ministries God has called them to, and (5) oversee the entire process so that all work together for the glory of God.  JDJ # 480

Just a Thought: What follows is another list of principles I wrote decades ago. As the title states, they address the processes of making decisions within the church.

Principles of Decision Making Within the Church

*All decisions are spiritual in nature and should be preceded by prayer.

*All decisions are personal and corporate.  They will affect people in the church locally and universally.  Therefore, their impact on persons and programs should be considered.

*All decisions are theological and should be made in dialogue with the beliefs and traditions of the church.  They must be made with a focus on knowing and doing the will of God.

*The persons who are directly affected by them should make decisions. Direction should emerge from the persons responsible for the ministry, the workers.

*Decisions directly affecting the church as a whole should be submitted to the church in conference for approval.

*It is the responsibility of the pastor and elders of the church to oversee all ministries and assure decisions within the church are made in harmony with the Scriptures, church tradition, denominational polity, and the other programs of the church.

*The central questions to be asked are: (1) is this in harmony with the known will of God?, (2) will it contribute to the mission of the church?, (3) is this in harmony with the mission statement and other established beliefs and programs of the church?, (4) will this make our shared ministry more effective?, (5) will this place an undue burden on people?, (6) will this build the church up in unity, strengthening the fellowship of the saints? JDJ # 481

Just a Thought: One of the great errors of the General Assembly in years past was when we adopted the wording “hierarchical government.” Historically, the church had used the term “centralized” to describe our polity. I was a young minister when there was an attempt to adopt “hierarchical” as a descriptor. Dr. Gause, the Parliamentarian of the General Council and Assembly, stepped out of that position to speak against the change. He powerfully described the difference between “hierarchical” and “centralized,” convincing the Council to reject the change. A few years later the change came back with an argument that it was needed on legal grounds, society (and the courts) knew the meaning of “hierarchical” but not of “centralized” and the change was made. But there is a difference. “Hierarchical” means rule from above or rule by the sacred (i.e., priests) and is viewed as a synonym for “Episcopal.” In this model, authority resides in the “Episcopos” or “Bishop(s)” of the church. Decisions are made from the top downward. The very statement that the General Assembly is the highest authority of the Church of God combined with the definition that the Assembly is comprised of all members sixteen years or older who wish to attend and who register contradicts the statement that we are hierarchical. “Centralized” coveys the image of order and control but also implies interconnectivity and interaction. In my opinion, this simple change in terminology solidified the transition from seeing the church organically to seeing it institutionally; ever since we have been gravitating more and more into clergy control of all aspects of the church including congregational life. It is no wonder that we lament that our people are voting with their feet; we have gagged their voice by robbing them of opportunity to speak and we have treated them like children with no authority or influence. We have forced our members into the role of spectators. JDJ # 482