Special Note: The information contained in this section of the website deals with internal matters specific to members of The Church of God. If you are not a member of The Church of God, please avail yourself to the other pages listed at the left. If you need to experience a relationship with Christ, please visit the Spiritual Help page of the site. Thank You.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Frequently Asked Questions...
...regarding The Church of God in this Region
Attention Members: Many of you have called and/or emailed the Regional Office with your questions and concerns about what is currently facing TCOG at large, and what is happening specifically in this region. We would like to take the time to address your concerns publicly so that there is no confusion, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the facts.
The following are some of the most frequently asked questions from you, the members and ministers of The Church of God. We hope this information will provide accurate insight into the distressing situations at hand.
Note: See the bottom of the page for instructions on forwarding
more questions of clarification to be addressed here.
_________________________________________
1. We were told that your Prayer Conference was a "solemn assembly." Was your Prayer and Fasting Conference held in Richmond, Kentucky, in October intended to be a "Solemn Assembly" similar to the one in 1993?
Absolutely not. It was not advertised or announced to be a "solemn assembly" of any kind. It was simply a prayer and fasting conference, hence the name "Prayer & Fasting Conference." It was open to any and all members of The Church of God who were concerned with the current state of the Church.
The General Overseer was notified in advance of this Prayer Conference. The only one, to our knowledge, that was advertising this event as a "Solemn Assembly" was the Administrative Assistant to the General Overseer.
_________________________________________
2. Did you 're-organize' as 'The Church' during the Conference?
No.
_________________________________________
3. Did you 'renew' members' covenants into a 're-organized' church?
No.
_________________________________________
4. Why did you remove the messages in tongues and interpretations from the Prayer & Fasting Conference from your site? Will you post them again?
We felt the timing of their posting wasn't right and that they detracted from the purpose of this website. Since then, numerous events have continued to unfold and we feel we are now at a crucial time when we can no longer be silent. For that reason, these interpretations have been re-posted to this website.
_________________________________________
5. Are there plans for any other Prayer & Fasting Conferences?
Yes, there will be other Prayer & Fasting Conferences in the future. They will be announced on the Announcements page of this website as they are scheduled.
_________________________________________
6. Have you split from The Church of God?
No. We have not 'split' from The Church of God, and there is no desire to do so.
In contrast, however, The Church of God has taken steps that direction by unjustly revoking licenses, disbanding local churches and disfellowshipping members who had no desire to separate from The Church of God.
It is our sincere prayer and desire that these things be duly dealt with from within The Church of God, and that there be complete restitution and restoration made toward all innocent parties who have been wronged.
_________________________________________
7. What is going on in The Church of God?
A shaking in which the true heart, spirit and motives of individuals are being exposed.
_________________________________________
8. The TCOG website has removed Brother Carter's name from the Overseer appointments and replaced it with other names. Is Brother Carter still the Regional Overseer for your region?
That depends on who you ask. If you ask General Headquarters, the answer is, "No, 'Danny' is no longer the Regional Overseer." If you ask the predominant membership of the region itself, the answer is, "Brother Carter is still our Regional Overseer." Those of this region who have chosen to stand up for righteousness and reject the corruption and strong-arming of certain officials at General Headquarters have also chosen to reject the appointments made in corruption and thus continue to recognize Bishop Danny Carter as their Regional Overseer. There are currently 20 churches out of the Region's original 30 that are standing with Bishop Carter... that's two-thirds of the entire region that have rejected the corruption of General Headquarters and continue to recognize Bishop Carter as their overseer.
_________________________________________
9. Is it true that someone sold the Franklin, Indiana church's property to General Headquarters without consent of the local church? If so, what happened?
Yes, it is true. Two members of the Franklin, Indiana congregation (one who is a youthful novice, and the other, a newcomer to the congregation present for only 47 days) fraudulently stole the deed of the local church and then illegally sold the property to General Headquarters.
How did these two individuals steal the church property and sell it to General Headquarters? They took it upon themselves to act in open defiance of General Assembly rulings (cited below*). They removed the names of the trustees of the local church from the deed and placed their names on it instead. They did so without the consent or commission of the local church conference as is dictated by the business guide of the general church (cited below*). They signed their names to the deed, claiming, under penalty of perjury, that they had a right to do so. Since the local church conference had not commissioned them to assign themselves as trustees, and since unanimous consent had not been given for the changing of trustees in the first place, the entire transaction was illegal. These two individuals have committed legal perjury by signing their names to legal documents that they were not duly authorized to change, and then took it a step further by selling the property that they illegally obtained.
These two individuals, however, are not the only ones party to this illegal action. General Headquarters must also be questioned on their purchase and acceptance of the deed which was illegally obtained. Until they choose to return the deed that they illegally hold (which, so far, they have refused to do), they are also implicated in the theft of the Franklin property from its congregation.
It is our sincere prayer and desire that these individuals who have openly lied and stolen church property will see the error of their actions and make restitution to the congregation they have defrauded by seeing to it that the deed and property they stole is returned to the hands who rightfully own it... the true local church congregation who continue to meet there.
*Refer to the following which clearly demonstrates that the actions committed by these
individuals is in open defiance and violation of established General Assembly rulings:
Subject: Local Church Trustees...1997 Assembly Minutes - 92nd General AssemblyPage 38 - Questions & Subjects Committee ReportPart II - Section 8 (revised)"Be it further resolved that the local trustees are to be appointed by the pastor and approvedby the local church in an officially scheduled business conference. All trustees so appointedshall require unanimous approval by the conference."Subject: Local Church Deeds...1999 Assembly Minutes - 94th General AssemblyPage 38 - Questions & Subjects Committee ReportSection IILOCAL CHURCH PROPERTY"With regard to local church property, we agree with the General Assembly recommendation of1993 of the Questions and Subjects Committee report, Section 3 under the heading "ChurchProperty," Item 1 entitled "Local Church," page 13, which reads as follows:"Section IIIItem 1: Local Church"We recommend that the deeds of local church properties no longer require any reference togeneral headquarters, general trustees, state headquarters, or state trustees. Thisrecommendation supersedes any previous Assembly rulings requiring the consent of thegeneral trustees or state trustees to hold, bargain, buy, sell, convey or encumber local churchproperty (88th - A.M. 1993, page 13, QSC)."Rationale:"We believe that because of the State/National Overseer oversight responsibilities that heneeds to be aware of the property status of all local church properties. However, the dispositionof local church property is an entirely local matter of the local church."Respectfully submitted:Questions and Subjects CommitteeJames C. Nabors, ChairmanDanny L. Carter, SecretaryMelvin KramerAlmon G. DenardRobert F. StrongPaul S. JerniganJerry WildaBusiness Guide (revised through 2002)Page 86 - Local Church BusinessUPDATE: 1993 General Assembly RevisionSection 3: CHURCH PROPERTYItem 1: Local ChurchRECOMMENDATION:"We recommend that the deeds of local church properties no longer require any referenceto general headquarters, general trustees, state headquarters, or state trustees. Thisrecommendation supercedes any previous Assembly rulings requiring the consent of thegeneral trustees or state trustees to hold, bargain, buy, sell, convey or encumber local churchproperty (88th A.M., 1993, p. 13, QSC).Rationale:"We believe that because of the State/National Overseer oversight responsibilities that heneeds to be aware of the property status of all local church properties. However, the dispositionof local church property is an entirely local matter of the local church."_________________________________________
10. Has the Franklin Church given up their building?
No. The congregation of the Franklin Church refuses to relinquish the church building that they have worked so long and hard to obtain and maintain as a place of worship.
_________________________________________
11. Is it true that you're being sued by TCOG for not turning the building [in Franklin] over to them?
Yes. The local church in Franklin has suggested dialog, but the General Headquarters of The Church of God refuses any form of dialog. They have blatantly disregarded the biblical prohibitions of 1 Corinthians 6 and chosen to sue Bishop Carter and the local congregation of Franklin for possession of their church.
_________________________________________
12. Is the Franklin Church standing up against this legal challenge?
Bishop Danny Carter and his family founded and purchased the Franklin Church many years ago with the commission and blessing of the late Bishop Bill White, the then-State Overseer of the Church of God of Prophecy in Indiana. Brother Carter fought to maintain the church during the disruptions of 1993 and continues to do so now. Pastor Chris Newport and the congregation of the Franklin Church continue to meet, worship, and carry on the business of the local church in their rightful church building, and will not be intimidated by this bogus challenge to steal their church.
_________________________________________
13. Is it true that General Headquarters has agreed to loan money for legal expenses to those who are suing Brother Carter and the Franklin congregation?
For those of you who are still members of The Church of God, perhaps this would be a great question to ask of General Headquarters. ...Are your tithe dollars being used to sue your brothers and sisters? Are your tithe dollars being used for a practice that is in blatant disregard of 1 Corinthians 6, which prohibits Christians from suing their brothers in the faith?
It has come to our attention that the General Headquarters of The Church of God has issued, or plans to issue, financial backing to the approximately nine individuals in the Franklin area who are suing Bishop Danny Carter, Pastor Chris Newport and the congregation of Franklin, Indiana, for possession of their property.
Two of the individuals benefiting from the financial backing of General Headquarters are the individuals that illegally stole the deed to the Franklin Church property and subsequently sold it to General Headquarters (see questions 9-12 above).
_________________________________________
14. Are these things happening to other churches in your region?
Yes, there are local congregations within this region who have been completely disbanded (such as Palmyra Indiana, Clays Ferry Kentucky, Eubank Kentucky, Florence Kentucky, Magnolia Kentucky, Willisburg Kentucky, Carey Ohio, Castalia Ohio, Catawba Island Ohio, Jackson Ohio, Goshen Ohio), while other congregations are being legally sued for possession of their properties (such as Franklin Indiana and Elizabethtown Kentucky).
_________________________________________
15. Is it true that an entire local church in Tennessee was completely disbanded without cause? If so, why?
Yes, it is true. The local church in Fairview, Tennessee, was disbanded unjustly, without cause. They have asked for our assistance in providing pulpit ministry, and we would be privileged to send ministers from our region to minister in their services on occasion.
_________________________________________
16. Does Brother Pruitt know all this is going on against you? If so, what is he doing about it?
The General Overseer is well aware of these events. Numerous appeals have been made to him through phone calls, letters and personal visits. At this point and time, he has not made any moves toward harnessing the corruption coming out of General Headquarters, and has refused any and all requests for meetings with the Presbytery and/or the Counseling Committee.
_________________________________________
17. Have you asked to have a Presbytery Meeting about these things?
Yes, presbytery meetings have been requested on numerous occasions. Each request for such a meeting has been denied.
_________________________________________
18. Are others receiving their licenses revoked for standing up like you are? Are their voices being heard concerning requests for a Presbytery Meeting?
There are numerous ministers who have had their bishops', evangelists', deacons', certified teachers' and lay ministers' licenses revoked (or revoked by virtue of local disbanding) for refusing to submit to corruption, and their requests for a meeting of the presbytery have also gone unheard.
_________________________________________
19. How many members are standing with you? How many in your region have had their licenses revoked?
The number of churches in this Region standing in unison with Bishop Danny L. Carter as their Regional Overseer is two-thirds of the entire original region... 20 out of 30.
The total number of ministers receiving their licenses revoked is too numerous and ever-changing to keep an accurate number posted here. We can, however, post for you a rough estimate.
As of January 1, 2006, in this Region alone, there have been...
- approximately 15+ churches disbanded by The Church of God
- approximately 43+ ministers licenses revoked by The Church of God (by virtue of individual revocation or local church disbandonment)
- approximately 158+ individuals turned out of The Church of God (by virtue of individual letters or local church disbandonment)
(Please see the main index page of the "Straight Talk" section for a limited listing of some of the official documents from General/Regional officials which performed these actions.)
The numbers posted above seem to be continually on the rise. We will continue to compile and publicly post these numbers as accurately as possible.
_________________________________________
20. Is it true that The Church of God is now stating that if a minister has his/her license revoked, then he/she is no longer a member of The Church of God either?
Near the conclusion of a 12-hour Presbytery Meeting in September, 2005, the Administrative Committee handed out "The New Overseer Handbook 2005." There was no in depth examination or discussion of the handbook since it was handed out near the end of the meeting when everyone was preparing to leave.
A "General Declaration of the Association and Principles Which Govern The Church of God," dated November 23, 2004, appeared on page 81, and read as follows:
Section IX - Termination of MembershipMembership in this Church shall be terminated by ceasing to be a minister, either byresignation, death, or having been removed for cause, or when in violation of theteachings or practices of The Church.The Administrative Committee,Robert J. Pruitt, General OverseerJames C. Nabors, Administrative Assistant/Field SecretaryKevin D. Werkheiser, General TreasurerHerman D. Ard, World Missions CoordinatorThis declaration had not been discussed or passed by the General Assembly. The response from the field in opposition to this administrative directive was so overwhelming that a revision was issued, dated October 26, 2005, which reads as follows:
Section IX - Termination of MembershipMembership in this Church shall be terminated by the local church when in violationof the teachings or practices of The Church.The Administrative Committee,Robert J. Pruitt, General OverseerJames C. Nabors, Administrative Assistant/Field SecretaryKevin D. Werkheiser, General TreasurerHerman D. Ard, World Missions CoordinatorThis declaration had also not been discussed or passed by the General Assembly.
Nevertheless, although the administrative directive dated November 23, 2004 has been revised and replaced by the October 26, 2005 directive on paper, the earlier directive continues to be the common practice from General Headquarters. This is confirmed by several (currently eleven [11]) letters from General Headquarters representative H. L. Cannon (one dated November 17, 2005; one dated November 29, 2005; one dated December 1, 2005; and eight (8) others dated December 2, 2005, all of which are available under the "License Revocation Letters from/to General Headquarters Officials" section of the "Setting the Record Straight" page of this site) which plainly state:
"Anything that would cause you to lose your license, will also cause you to loseyour membership with the Church..." This continuing practice has been identified through these several letters sent out by a General Headquarters official. This directive and practice has set a new precedent for General Headquarters which has not been passed, or even discussed, by the General Assembly.
_________________________________________
21. Is it true that the overseer positioned by TCOG in Brother Carter's place in Kentucky went to the Prayer & Fasting Conference ahead of time to tell the facility's staff that there had been a split in the Church and Brother Carter had been kicked out?
Yes, this is true. A worker at the facility shared the news of the unannounced visitor's comments to Bishop Carter upon his arrival to the conference, in the hearing of numerous members of The Church of God. The newly positioned overseer intentionally misinformed and misled this individual to believe that there had been a split in The Church of God when in fact there had not, and that Brother Carter was no longer with The Church of God when in fact he was.
(Special Note: Since that time, Brother Carter has, in fact, been disfellowshipped from The Church of God from a local pastor positioned by General Headquarters. His disfellowship letter stated that he was being disfellowshipped for "the same charges" on which his license was revoked from General Headquarters. Yet, those charges listed on the disfellowship letter were different than the charges on the license revocation letter from General Headquarters, indicating that the local pastor positioned by The Church of God had apparently been in discussion with General Headquarters officials and thought he truly knew the charges against Brother Carter. Since the charges in each letter were different [both of which appear in the "Setting the Record Straight" section], it indicates there was already much public discourse originating from General Headquarters concerning Brother Carter's charges and ministerial status before he had in fact been charged or had his license officially revoked.)
_________________________________________
22. Is it true that several of the pastors of your region were called into individual meetings with the General Overseer and the Administrative Committee at General Headquarters and given an ultimatum to either sign a prepared statement of support and submission, or to lay their ministerial licenses on the table? The Administrative Assistant to the General Overseer says there was never such a document. Which is the truth?
A meeting was requested by some of the pastors of Kentucky. Bishop Carter made the request on their behalf. The request was made via a live telephone conversation with Gayle Brooks, the secretary to the General Overseer. The request was for an audience with the General Overseer at his convenience, with Kentucky's three District Overseers and the Regional Field Secretary. The request was for all parties to have a single meeting together with the General Overseer. This request never received a response.
Later, the Administrative Assistant to the General Overseer scheduled two days of meetings, which were to take place on September 26 and 27, 2005. He scheduled individual meetings instead of one unified meeting as originally requested, and refused to allow representation by Brother Carter as some had also requested.
On the first day of September 26, there were six individual meetings to take place. The first three meetings, however, address the events of the question above.
Let us parenthetically insert here that upon seeing there were so many meetings to take place with so many ministers, the General Overseer speculated why they did not have just one meeting with the whole group. Bishop Carter commented that a single unified meeting was what had been requested in the first place, but that the Administrative Assistant scheduled them individually. The General Overseer commented that he had been led to believe that they were having individual meetings because Brother Carter had "demanded" them individually. Brother Carter again clarified that he had been misinformed. The original request was for a single unified meeting.
In those first three meetings, two ministers from Kentucky (Bishop Earl Hazel and Evangelist Eric Phelps) and one from Indiana (Bishop Danny Carter), were called into the General Overseer's office individually. The Administrative Committee was present, and the Administrative Assistant coordinated the scripts from which the General Overseer read. As the General Overseer read the personalized form-letters to the individual ministers sitting before him, they found themselves facing this ultimatum: submit, sign the paper and leave the meeting with your ministerial license intact; or, don't submit, lay your license on the table and walk away without your ministerial license.
The first three ministers refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the paperwork, and left the meeting with their licenses intact. Between the third and fourth meetings, two of the three members of the Administrative Committee commented to the General Overseer that they felt the paper that the ministers were being asked to sign was unfair and inappropriate, indicating that they did not have foreknowledge of the document's existence or that it was going to be discussed. As a result of their comments, the form was not addressed beyond the third meeting.
Three more ministers from Kentucky were en' route for their meetings scheduled on September 27, but were called on September 26 at the direction of the Administrative Assistant and told their meetings for the next day were canceled.
All these individuals had made appointments in advance and traveled great distances in search of a meeting to share their hearts as a unified group. But the ministers who had already arrived at Headquarters found themselves individually defending their intentions and licenses in the office of the General Overseer, and the meetings for those ministers en' route to Tennessee were canceled and denied audience before they ever even arrived.
It is an absolute, undeniable fact that the first three ministers were simply given the choice to sign their names in submission, or lay their licenses (and apparently their memberships, per the new practice mentioned in question 20 above) on the table and walk away in silence without so much as the opportunity to further address their concerns.
Even the officers, priests and Pharisees of the Law declare, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" (John 7:51). If a Pharisee, under the Law, can discern the need to hear a man before it judges him, how much more should the Church, in grace and love for the brethren, discern the need to hear many men before judging them?
_________________________________________
23. How is it that when Brother Nabors and Brother Estep visited the Elizabethtown, Kentucky Church on October 16, 2005, they claimed they had no standing charges against themselves, even though the charges against Brother Nabors were signed for on October 12, 2005, and the charges against Brother Estep were also signed for on October 12, 2005? How can Ministers who have standing charges continue to conduct Church Business until the charges are addressed? Doesn't anyone hold these brethren accountable?
Good question.
_________________________________________
24. Aren't Brothers Estep and Hatton Evangelists? How can they rebuke a Bishop? Isn't Brother Estep divorced? If so how can he hold the position he is in? We have an Evangelist in our Church and they would not allow him to become a Bishop because he was divorced, but Estep is in the position as a Bishop. What's the difference? Looks like Cannon fired his iron ball at your Region, so return the fire ball.
Yes, Donald Estep I and Scott Hatton hold Evangelist’s Licenses.
Yes, Donald Estep I is divorced. When Brother Carter asked James Nabors about it, he was told that there were two men in the COGOP who held Evangelist’s Licenses who were used as Overseers at one time.
Donald Estep I used to serve in the office of Bishop, however, then Regional Overseer, Bishop Bill J. White, changed his rank to Evangelist after his divorce (see I Tim. 3:2, Tit. 1:6-9, Tit. 2:2,7,8).
The purpose for this website is only to present the facts, not to fire Cannon balls at anyone.
_________________________________________
What can people in the field do to help confront
the corruption coming out of General Headquarters?
- Fast and pray, for Jesus warned that some spirits can only be dealt with "by prayer and fasting" (Matthew 17:21).
- Walk in the character and love of Christ, with grace and mercy toward those who are doing wrongly. Be merciful and gracious toward those who are wrong-doers, but stand your ground for what is right. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16).
- Bind, rebuke, and resist the enemy in the name of Jesus!
- Contact the General Headquarters of The Church of God to voice your concern for the mis-treatment being handed down from those in positions of authority at the General Headquarters level of The Church of God. Do your part... request a General Presbytery Meeting.
- The congregations facing these actions from a corrupt General Headquarters do not have the same financial backing that General Headquarters is providing against them. Please consider contributing to our Legal Defense Fund so that we may legally defend our local churches from unlawful theft by out-of-control overseers and renegade members running roughshod over innocent congregations and ministers who have done nothing to warrant such actions.
Heard a Rumor? Have a question? Know the Truth...
We can be silent no more. There is too much at stake.
Click here to submit the questions and rumors
that need to be candidly and truthfully addressed.
________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) Bishop Danny L. Carter & The Church of God in IN, KY, OH | Created & Maintained by Chad D. Carter & OnCoursePublishing.com
This page was last updated: June 15, 2010
