FACTNet is now in "Archive" mode, un-postable and non-registrable ...

FACTNet Discussion board is now in "Archive" mode and there will be no more new postings nor new registrations. We are keeping the board as history book. A reference and informational resource. is still fully functional and our News blog is now interactive and we encourage you all to leave your comments there...

We want to thank all of you for your participation and it has been our honor to serve all yall! Sincerely, The FACTNet Family...
See more
See less

Where have we heard this before

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where have we heard this before

    Skip with all due respect read what you wrote and ask yourself the question where have you heard this before. I swear it sounds just like a rational of CHS for his way of doing things. Like proof GGWO was ok when it continued to grow.

    You said:

    "Some of the comments above indicate that church members have no control over what the church administration does. In reality that has never been the case, in my opinion. Members are always free to leave if they donít like the way the church is run and if they are unable to find a solution for their grievances. Dwindling attendance is one of the surest ways to either correct or bring the demise of a church government that will not respond to the complaints brought against it. Is that not what we are seeing at GG?"

    How many times I have heard CHS say something to the affect that GGWO was being blessed by God and they were doing nothing wrong! Look at what we are doing on the mission fied, look at how we are growing in the city....

    Sorry I think this is a real RED FLAG. Its a Pastors Only Club from the get go, and its a bad way start off. Its not going to set people up for any faith in what the puprose behind the group.

    I hope that those in the churches rethink on the idea of being part of a an organization that is protecting its Pastors more than it is protecting its familes, children and other members.

  • #2
    "[b]Sorry I think this is

    "Sorry I think this is a real RED FLAG. Its a Pastors Only Club from the get go, and its a bad way start off. Its not going to set people up for any faith in what the puprose behind the group.

    I hope that those in the churches rethink on the idea of being part of a an organization that is protecting its Pastors more than it is protecting its familes, children and other members.


    (Message edited by ariel on July 18, 2005)


    • #3
      [b]<font color="000000"><font

      <font color="000000"><font face="arial&#44;helvetica"></font>
      Outside objective and experienced help is essential in this attempt to start an affiliation.
      Without it nothing new will become exsistant.

      A &#34;good old boys&#34; club is not the answer.

      Resistance to outside intervention should be suspect as insincere.



      • #4
        IAGM is protecting no one if i

        IAGM is protecting no one if it isn&#39;t protecting congregations. If you&#39;ll read what I wrote concerning accountability and polity requirements for member churches, I think our goal is to do the best job possible to protect congregations.

        Additionally, you posted a criticism, and I&#39;m not telling you you shouldn&#39;t, but how would you propose that we give members of 100 churches a voice in anything? We have a provision for conflict resolution for church members who feel they need it, but I don&#39;t understand what else you would look for.

        Finally, the organization is a service organization, not an oversight organization. As such, churches can be members for the sake of receiving benefits. We are trying to give the local church the autonomy that it should have, not establish an organization where a headquarters office mandates what each church does.

        I just don&#39;t understand what you are looking for.



        • #5
          In the Southern Baptist model

          In the Southern Baptist model delegates are elected from the congregation based on the size of the church &#40;up to a certain limit.&#41; The SBC is not an oversight organization either, but congregations are represented when major decisions are made. The IAGM model only gives non-pastors a voice when there&#39;s a problem. That seems to be a road to more problems.

          The greatest issue facing churches that have left GGWO is overcoming &#34;pastor dependency.&#34; I have no doubt most men forming the IAGM have good intentions, but the good intentions of those same men did not prevent decades of deception in the old order. How will you raise up a new generation of &#34;elders,&#34; people who know and live the Bible and love God with their whole being, capable of protecting the church when and if the pastor goes bad &#40;and that will happen occasionally&#41; if they are not trained from the beginning to be truly self-governing?

          I have lived both sides of the issue. We attended a local SBC church that recently forced the pastor to resign because some didn&#39;t like all the new people in the church. That was an abuse of power by entrenched personal interests in the congregation. We went with the pastor to start a new plant and are having fun, by the way.

          My point is that you have an opportunity to avoid both extremes and build on a legacy of love for the Word to develop a flock of well-trained, discerning, and active people from the ashes of GGWO to &#34;do the work of the ministry.&#34;


          • #6
            I do not think that that the a

            I do not think that that the association governance has to mirror church governance. As you said, it&#39;s a service organization. As such, you should have representation of those you serve. Have congregant members representing every continenet, or every country...I don&#39;t know, but you need to have some sort of representation.

            Also, you need to have women represented. There&#39;s no reason why they should have no representation in the association. Women see and understand things that men don&#39;t, you need the balance.

            Inherent in your model is the idea that peers will only be answerable to peers and by default you have said that only pastors are peers to other pastors. I think there needs to be broader accountability. And accountabily that comes as a result of appeal is tainted and weird. Appeals feel personal whether they are or aren&#39;t. Real accountability comes on the front end. It&#39;s knowing up front what expectations must be considered when one makes any decison. God, congregants, peers, association, etc. These are the things to consider when a decsion is made, not after the fact. You cannot know what these expectations are unless they have been expressed prior to the decision, that&#39;s why you need a broader base of representation.

            If you do this, you will need a small working group &#40;officers&#41; that will have enough authority to make day to day decisions quickly to offset the problems of trying to get a lage group of people to agree on anything.

            Finally, when I draft something and I want it to be right and I want it to do what it&#39;s intended to do, I give it to a disinterested 3rd party and I say &#34;be brutal, tell me where the holes are.&#34; If you want to know what your weaknesses are, you&#39;ve gotta ask. It&#39;s unpleasant and can make you feel like a complete idiot, but you&#39;ve got to do it to get things right. You cannot depend on your own perception of things. Just the way it is.


            • #7
              Right now it sounds like a ser

              Right now it sounds like a service organization for the ordained. The phrase that keeps running through my head is &#34;Hair Club for Pastors&#34; . Sorry, my sense of humor tends to get carried away.


              • #8

                Seeing how CHS nev


                Seeing how CHS never got a chance to become Pastor Emeritus this phrase seems to be fitting.

                IAGM AKA &#34;Hair Club for Pastahs&#34; seems like a great idea to honor those who went before.

                Now my sense of humor has gone to far.


                • #9
                  [b]<font color="000000"><font

                  <font color="000000"><font face="arial&#44;helvetica"></font>

                  The concern that congregants are left out of the decision making process is a legitimate concern.
                  After all,pastors should not be above the assembly but coequal in its operation.

                  Inclusion fosters trust.If only pastors have access to Iagm in all of its modes then what truelly has changed?

                  The concerns and wellbeing of the flock must be formost in all decisions made.
                  What is best for the flock.



                  • #10
                    As a congregant, my concern is

                    As a congregant, my concern is my church. Most of the elders from my church came from the congregation. What IAGM does for me is give me the assurance of knowing what my church believes and that the leaders are accountable in both conduct and finances. Beyond that, I am not sure what more I would expect.

                    However, I have not thoroughly read the IAGM website. I am very happy with the code of conduct and the requirements for churches to become members, but I do not fully understand what if any proactive policies are in place to ensure that the churches operate according to their by laws and that leaders follow the code of conduct. Do we need the IAGM police to go around checking up on churches and pastors to see if they are in compliance? I don&#39;t think so. Is there a balance? I do not know. Maybe someone here does.

                    Where I see the checks and balances right now is peer pressure and desire to succeed. There are many pastors who want this to be a success and are working hard to see to it. They, more than anyone do not want a scandal to tarnish the IAGM name.

                    One more thought, then I am all out. I just want to remind us that many of the churches that disaffiliated were doing quite well on their own and did not need an association of any kind to belong to in order to continue that success.


                    • #11
                      LMAO writes: &#34;Do we need t

                      LMAO writes: &#34;Do we need the IAGM police to go around checking up on churches and pastors to see if they are in compliance?&#34;

                      I ask....Why Not?

                      Hospitals and other healthcare institutions which are in the business of healing are audited on a annual basis.

                      A number of corporations are audited more frequently now especially after the WorldCom/ Enron etc. scandals and abuses which destroyed the retirement accounts of some 40,000 men and women.

                      What is IAGM afraid of?

                      Don&#39;t they sincerely want to know from an outside agency if they are up to par with some type of standard? What better testimony to &#39;the world&#39; outside of IAGM that they are not afraid of transparency?.
                      I personally don&#39;t subscribe to some fundementalist thinking that any type of outside professional acredidation makes them &#39;wordly&#39; or less spiritual.

                      LMAO again says:
                      &#34; I do not fully understand what if any proactive policies are in place to ensure that the churches operate according to their by laws and that leaders follow the code of conduct.&#34;

                      I ask: If you do not understand what policies are in place etc., maybe you better start asking some questions....real soon.

                      Do you really trust any closed body or organization to police itself honestly?

                      A partial example of an outside agency would be the &#39;Evangelical Council Financial Accountabilty&#39;
                      &#40;ECFA&#41; to vouch for a certain level of honesty with the money side of things.

                      What about the religious organizational side of showing credibilty?.CHS rejected his chances when The Christian Research Inst. came to lenox some 20 years ago. I&#39;m not sure if they do the the same thing nowdays but some organization like this would be helpful.

                      What about the New England Institute for Religious research? They are run by Bob Pardon &#40;M.Div., Th.M&#41; and his wife Judy Barba Pardon &#40;B.A., M.Ed.&#41; Their organization has worked with a number of ex TBS and GGWO people from the Northeast United States.
                      Their website can be googled by typing in: NEIRR

                      &#40;Message edited by ariel on July 22, 2005&#41;


                      • #12
                        [b]<font color="000000"><font

                        <font color="000000"><font face="arial&#44;helvetica"></font>
                        Looks like accountability issues with good answers.</font>


                        • #13
                          Sorry for my lack of clarity A

                          Sorry for my lack of clarity Ariel.

                          I will restate that my primary concern is the church I attend. Any affiliation my church may have including IAGM is a distant secondary concern unless that affiliation becomes a problem in my church as we recently saw with many GG affiliates feeling the effects of what happened in Baltimore.

                          The affiliation does give me a confidence that I would not have if we were just a small independent unaffiliated church. My Pastor and elders have already proven that they will no longer tolerate affiliation with an organization that has no accountability and I think he and the elders would leave IAGM if it became that way.

                          As far as a third party reviewing bylaws and standards, I have no problem. But this is not rocket science. All these guys have already learned how NOT to do it. I think in situations like this, the problem is often that people go too far the other way to prevent what happened from happening again. We cannot just look at GG&#39;s system and do the opposite. What IAGM appears to have done is abandon the underlying distinctive doctrines that lead to the problems of GG and put together an organization that has accountability to and of its members. But there is alot of sound Christian doctrine that we all embrace that can be misused and abused. We cannot abbandon those doctrines, can we? I think IAGM will prove to be a great organization over time.