May 20, 2009

Judiciary Ruling

Filed under: C.O.G.I.C.,Church Justice — R.E. Stidham @ 10:44 PM
Tags: , , , ,

    After almost five years of struggle to prevent our church from being taken,Ammended ExparteAmmended Petition, and three years since we first notified the Judiciary Board, the members of Emmanuel Church of  God in Christ, Wichita, Kansas have gotten an opinion from the Judiciary Board.  They have agreed with the General Board in denying our request to transfer from the Kansas Southwest Jurisdiction to the Kansas Central Jurisdiction. 

     Due to what we felt was unjust treatment by the  prelate of Kansas Southwest Jurisdiction, Bishop J.C. Gilkey, we wanted to transfer after the founder of Emmanuel died.  The leaders of C.O.G.I.C.  interpret the constitution to include the “Proposed amendments in the Green and White book” as though they were currently in effect.  Yes, some of the things that are being discussed at the current Constitutional Convention are being enforced now.  The Bishops and the leaders of the church interpret  the Churches constitution to not allow a congregation to change jurisdictions without the Pastors approval.  This is contrary to what the written document says.  In the MajorityOpinion, Emmanuel Church of God in Christ was denied its constitutional right of being allowed to change jurisdictions once a year.  By adding the phrase “to be initiated by the Pastor”, this effectively gives the Pastor, or Bishop in our case, the right to veto the whole process.  This ruling creates two classes of people in the church,  protected and non-protected members.  Only Bishops and Pastors have any rights or protection.  If you as a member don’t like it, there is no where to turn, no one to protect the members from a tryant.   Is this what the General Assembly had in mind?   In the Dissenting Opinion, three justices have correctly interpreted the Constitution, while the Majority merely rubber stamped what the General Board said.  Two of the justices did not follow their own rules, we filed a Motion to Disqualify, which they decided was moot since they had already voted.   According to their rules they should have disqualified themselves at the very start.   Do the rules not apply to everyone?  This is truly a case of taking the mote out of your brothers eye but ignoring the beam in your eye.

More in my next blog


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: