I previously postulated a few of what the final initials would be for Church of God, a Worldwide Association – somewhat tongue in cheek. Today, it was announced it is “CGWA”. I have a feeling, though, that “COGWA” is going to stick around as long as that is part of the official URL (web address). It remains to be seen if “branding” will take on the same significance as it has in UCG, but my current feeling is that it will be less touchy about it.
I want to take the opportunity to state a few other things, though. In particular, CGWA has done a lot in the way of soliciting input from the membership. Everything from the name, to the type of governance to even ideas on finances has been solicited from the leadership in a very active way. Over the years, UCG seems to have moved away from that type of member input. CGWA seems to have taken it to heart the idea that “it is my church too”.
I say this because certain writers that seem to thrive on speculation and sensationalism even before a particular group has the opportunity to form.
Other CGWA news of note: An interim doctrinal committee has already been formed to ensure official communications are vetted before being put out. This might not seem very significant unless you remember that UCG failed to do that with a couple of their papers, which caused issues. Also, the CGWA website now has a Local Churches section that lists local congregations and their contact information.
Finally, a member’s letter went out late on Thursday to pastors of CGWA to forward to members, and one thing caught my eye. Twice, the letter stressed the need to assist those who require assistance, in particular “widows” caught my eye, as well as retirees. I’m delighted they have continued to show Christian love in this way and are even stressing it. I have criticized one “COG” organization in particular for their neglect of widows. In fact, true religion is defined in part by paying attention to the fatherless and widows (Jas 1:27).
Meanwhile, Robert Thiel now is putting a picture of a Bible on his UCG updates. No more ruins of Laodecia?! Significent?!?
So glad I am not going through this again.
Makes ya kinda wonder if there is a God who rules instead of men.
I reemeber when I was in UCGaia and was told "The doctrines are protected now that we have the Constitution & By Laws.
Have ya'll ever considred that "a" meaning one of the definitions of Laodocia is "rule of the people" just a thought.
Now lemme get this str8 COGWA wants one man rule as instead of 12 COE's wow
for those of you who were around in 1997 was'nt that a choice then.
In light of Hevb 6 "laying on of hands" doctrine (fundamental basic) it appears that the man who was originally voted into being the President was actually ordained by HWA (might want to look into that) and none of the other COE that existed at the death of HWA was ordained this way, ask them prove me wrong.
well anyway it seems to me that HWA wrote a book called MOA (Aaron Dean claims he did but actually it was a synopsis of the culmination of HWA teaching) Dean only helping get it on paper but basically already written long before. well I am rambling about stuff that people did not listen to 13 years ago.
Getting back to the book HWA wrote MOA it states something that provable by reading the Bible and carefully study of it.and that is this
PETER is a title and there is 1 person who is PETER the pebble that the ROCK which is Christ said the church would be built on.
Anonymous wrote: "Now lemme get this str8 COGWA wants one man rule as instead of 12 COE's wow"
Proof, please.
"well anyway it seems to me that HWA wrote a book called MOA (Aaron Dean claims he did…)"
Source, please.
"Getting back to the book HWA wrote MOA it states something that provable by reading the Bible and carefully study of it.and that is this
PETER is a title and there is 1 person who is PETER the pebble that the ROCK which is Christ said the church would be built on."
Yeah, but then HWA also claimed to be the one man in charge and that Peter was the chief apostle and set the pattern. This is an idea I do not find in Scripture.
The Aaron Dean thing could be a misconstruing of some of his words.
Even in my edition of MoA there's a dedication that thanks Aaron Dean for all his help in preparing the manuscript and writing.
COGWA asks for member input. True – but, did it really make any difference?
Over 400 names for Church suggested:-
– but “our name is now officially the "Church of God, a Worldwide Association, Inc."
Should we have a random ballot on who leads, as was a suggestion?
Well – no, actually -“The elders selected… the existing temporary board of directors and leadership team to continue serving in their roles until a permanent form of governance is established.”
And this governance team consists of – “Jim Franks, Doug Horchak, Clyde Kilough, David Register and Richard Thompson” – rather familiar names.
And what happened next? A new face, Mike Hanisko, to stay as president? Well, no – The Interim Governance Team … appointed Clyde Kilough as president. Wow, what a surprise!
Mike Hanisko – originally president of COGWA, for its first few days, if you heard his Q & A session, clearly favours localised churches, and localised collection of tithes.
While this was temporally permitted which things were being set-up, the policy is now laid down:-
“While there is nothing wrong with collecting funds locally, decades of experience has taught us that having a centralized method for receiving and disbursing the majority of the tithes and offerings is by far the most equitable and effective means for fulfilling our commission to preach the gospel and care for the brethren.”
The voice of the people? Lip service has been paid to the idea – but the reality is that ‘nothing has changed – the rulers will continue to rule.”
And no surprise really – after all wasn’t THAT the reason COGWA came into existence anyway?
Questeruk asked, "after all wasn’t THAT the reason COGWA came into existence anyway?"
Depends upon whom you ask. It is obviously what James Malm believes. However, there was an organization that briefly formed before CGWA, and it definitely was a much flatter organization that was an umbrella for some more autonomous organizations. Do the leaders that created that organization have no voice at all in the new one?
John, I am sure that the 'flatter organisation' people do have a voice – but a minority one.
A minority in an organisation that has said it wants less change in leaders – they won't have much of a voice.
Having listened with interest to Mike Hanisko's Q & A, he will now find he is in a minority. What to do then, stay or leave?
I give Mike Hanisko a maximum of a year, and he will be packing his bags, and moving on – as will a number of the others.