Unfortunately, we are having to deal with multiple issues in one proposal, which creates a challenging environment. That was obvious on the floor of the last GA.

What makes more sense to me is 2.5% to the International Offices, 2.5% to the State Offices, 2.5% to our International Missional endeavors, and 2.5% to our State Missional Endeavors.

I feel confident that the International Offices can withstand this 50% cut if done over a similar span that is now proposed for COGWM and State Evangelism. Perhaps the State Offices would feel the greatest pressure. However, the surge of new churches and church growth would also bring new revenues in and conceivably make up the difference.

Is that a stupid idea? If so, why? If not, why has it not been offered as a potential option? It seems more in line with what the pastors would like to see.

Our use of the tool, centralized government, is our problem. The perspective of our leaders is to disagree is to be disloyal and oppose “God’s man.” Do you wonder why our founding fathers thought separation of church and state was a good idea? So to hold our leaders accountable, to see them as fallible, is seen as rebellious.

I do not know where we got the idea that hiding our financial records from the world was a good idea. But apparently, we have been doing that for many years in fear that someone in the world will twist our expenditures and embarrass the COG. FEAR! It is to the point that a member, even an ordained bishop cannot get a copy of the budget or a detailed copy of the audit.

The general starting point for denominations going liberal is their seminaries. Traditionally the kindling wood for this fire is higher Biblical criticism, although a “social justice” emphasis helps things along too.

After a season the seminary products find their way into parishes and bishoprics, where they can preach, teach and (in the case of diocesan bishops) influence the appointment of rectors and other officials. What they say will resonate with at least part of their flock for a variety of reason, although lay people tend to be slower than clergy in adopting a more liberal idea.

How this all comes to a head in a denomination’s life varies. In the case of the Episcopalians, that took place in 1966, and is described here:

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/palmbeach/around.php#pike

Once the leadership loses its nerve, the rest is, as they say, history.

In the case of the Church of God, the dynamic is different than in churches such as the Episcopalian for two important reasons.

The first is that reappraisers, having lost so many members by making doubt their leitmotif, have shifted tactics by calling what they do the move of the Holy Spirit. That’s, for example, what Gene Robinson claims on behalf of homosexuals in the episcopate. That shift of tactics is something that our church is more vulnerable to than straight-up evisceration of the truth content of the Scriptures, but I think we’re a ways off from having to confront the new reappraiser paradigm on a widespread basis.

The second is that our denomination’s demographics are opposite of Main Line churches. It’s ironic, but it’s easier to get traction with a “social justice” emphasis of the Gospel in higher income brackets than it is with the intended (well, sometimes) beneficiaries of social justice. That’s because the latter generally take a more realistic world view of where they’re at and how they can get to someplace different. And let me assure you, that’s refreshing.

That’s not to say that things cannot change in our denomination. American churches are about to experience intense pressure from above (not just the “culture” to conform to the idea of this secular world. A centralised church is better equipped up front to resist such pressure, but if is caves, the downhill run is a lot faster.

In other words, who was leading the church? An elected executive? Or the assembly, which presumably reflects a fair diverse representation of the denomination? Also coming into play are the seminaries that trained the pastors.

However, my more immediate question has nothing to do with the content of this recommendation. Instead, it seems as though the author is attempting to downplay the importance of centralized government. If so, then why? Is this a appeal for the COG to shift to a more decentralized system?

And one of my long-term hypotheses has been that the pastors’ desire to reduce the ToT (in the general sense, not necessarily as presented in the 2008 agenda) is desire (for many at an unconscious level) for decentralization.

Email me at dubya@askdubya.com to get the password.

Thanks Chris for being the first to do so on the other post. Please leave your thoughts