Acts20.com NEW Acts-Celerate

My first impression is that this would not be a good idea, and that it would serve to diminish the importance of the vast majority of our pastors, most of whom lead small churches.

My first impression is that this would not be a good idea, and that it would serve to diminish the importance of the vast majority of our pastors, most of whom lead small churches.A pastor of a large church can carry more weight by having credentialed ministers on staff (especially OBs), and by having his church send his staff or other lay leaders to vote in the GA. Plus they are already THERE, while many small church pastors are not________________More of Him…less of me.twitter.com/camiracle77www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name

If a pastor represents a greater number of members and sends in a greater amount of money then that pastor should have a great day so in the direction of the church.

Interesting. Using this logic, the biggest tither in your church should have the biggest say-so in the direction of the church, no? Doesn’t he? Don’t you take his calls if his name appears on the phone________________

Interesting. Using this logic, the biggest tither in your church should have the biggest say-so in the direction of the church, no? The deal is that in a local church, members can walk away from one Sunday to the next and attend another church. It’s definitely painful to leave a body of believers. But, when you do, you don’t lose your home, social security number, your bank account, etc… But, that’s what happens with a local church.To me, there is no big church/little church divide. We have very few larger churches relative to some other organizations. I don’t know that we need to be leaning hard on the General Council. Actually, the General Assembly and General Council are the most innovative body in our institution.In my mind, this discussion is better made concerning the Executive Council. Only 37% of the Executive Council is a local church leader. We are required to have 9 pastors. We have 9 (almost all of them have pastored smaller church and stayed…some are pastoring smaller and medium sized churches now). Every member of the Executive Council that I know are godly, Jesus loving people…salt-of-the-earth. But, the local church thinks radically different than our administration…and needfully so because we all have unique and needful roles. We need all of us.With that being said, the local church is substantially underrepresented on the Executive Council, which is where the GA Assembly Agenda is formed every two years. All of our resources come from the local church. We need to have our hand firmly on that pulse. Having more local church input and influence is a smart move in just about every way.The answer to a more local church-sensitive structure/direction/feel isn’t to pit larger churches and smaller churches against each other. Neither is our future in pitting pastors and administrators against one another.But, if we want to create a denominational flow that increases the odds of greater local church participation and also considers the pastoral care load of a local church, the school calendars, flow of our people, best times for camp meetings (because of the ideal times for VBS), best times for state meetings, discussions about the TOT, what is effective and actually working today (which very well may not be working 1 year from now), we really need more pastors in the room.We need more pastors on the Executive Council from any size church. I just spent 3 hours at the hospital with a family. There are fresh messages that have to be put together weekly, budgets to be managed, staff to be led and developed. That is the flow of the vast majority of our pastors, regardless of the context. We very much need that insight.If we don’t trust our churches and pastors, we should limit their influence and input. The present Executive Council doesn’t want to do that. Some people do. Some people would seek as few pastors and as little local church input as possible. For obvious reasons, that doesn’t seem to be the best path to take.

Let me clear some stuff up:To the naturegirl – this may come as a shock to you but the meetings that you’re invited to(prayer conference, camp meeting, General Assembly.etc) aren’t the only meetings that take place regarding the direction of the COG. There are other meetings where the top 200 pastors gather and some meetings where the top 5% of pastors meet and are asked what direction they would see the to be the most healthy direction for the church. There is no DOUBT that the COG was built and is maintained with the small church pastor in mind. But there is also little doubt that the big churches pay the bills. Think about larger churches in georgia, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee etc. not only does their TOT keep this thing a float but their missions giving and other dollars are what keeps the COG alive. Just think about Central church- how many 60 member churches do you think it would take to replace that TOT alone. So when you ask what meetings and what initials , the question reveals quite a bit about you and if I were to answer with initials it would reveal too much about me. Da Shiek- you better answer when your lead giver calls. And you better listen. They don’t have to control you but how arrogant is it for anpreacher ask for the dollars and not take the advice? Plus, this isn’t just 1 giver asking, it’s a group. A better question is- would you answer if your top 10 givers called? What does a big church benefit from their franchise fee? So… to keep those dollars the leadership from time to time will entertain conversation about weighted voting. I’m not sure why we think everyone should have equal voice in denominational matters? If you contribute more, then you should be given more say so. Unless you’re a woman. Then you should get no say so. You guys want inclusion when it benefits you and exclusion when it doesn’t benefit you.