Assemblies of God vs. Christianity, Part 6
(see entire series)
Here is some online documentation about our court case, including the latest opinion from the Michigan Supreme Court. Please also read my comments further below in this post to see how the courts made the wrong decision by overlooking key evidence. I have also documented how the Assemblies of God changed their constitution and bylaws while this case was in litigation, and how the Assemblies of God deceifully submitted their updated constitution and bylaws as evidence which the courts used in deciding the case. In future posts I will document other details which further expose the deceit of the Michigan District of the Assemblies of God, as well as things the Michigan courts have overlooked in deciding the case.
ONLINE DOCUMENTATION:
2.a.: First appeal timeline. Opinion from first appeal 07 19 2007.
2.b. Second appeal timeline. Opinion from second appeal 06 18 2009.
3. California case where AOG lost because California uses neutral principles approach.
MY COMMENTS: (Martin Luther mode ON)
The Michigan Court opinions prefer and quote the Assemblies of God (AG) constitution/bylaws (c/b) over the local church’s c/b, despite the following facts:
1. The church’s original articles of incorporation in 1984 state, “We Gospel Lighthouse declare that we are in cooperative fellowship with the Michigan District Council of the Assembiles of God ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OF GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE” (emphasis added).
2. The church’s 1984 c/b state “we…do hereby recognize ourselves as…a part of The General Council of the Assemblies of God, and of the Michigan District of the Assemblies of God ACCORDING TO THE BYLAWS OF GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE…” (emphasis added).
3. The AG Michigan District c/b and District Yearbook in 1984 did not include the current definition of ‘voluntary cooperative fellowship’: “once one, of their own free will, decides to become a cooperating member of the Assemblies of God, this cooperation becomes obligatory and not optional.” This verbage was only drafted and adopted by AG in 2005!! How, then, do the courts now rule that the local church is subject to this unilateral change by the AG? This is like buying a car from a used car lot, only to find that 2 months later the car lot amends the contract to give them title to your house. It should be noted that AG adopted this change in definition in Aug 2005, TWO MONTHS AFTER THEY BROUGHT LAWSUIT AGAINST GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE. This is suing somebody over breech of contract and then surreptitiously changing the contract wording after you sue them in order to win the lawsuit. Yet courts have overlooked such details.
The fact that the church’s cooperation with AG was in accordance with its own c/b is extremely significant, a fact that the court overlooked in its opinions which extensively quoted the AG c/b. The local church’s c/b prescribed strict limitations on its relationship with AG:
1. Though it gave AG the right to disapprove doctrine and conduct contrary to the Statement of Fundamental Truths (a precisely defined set of theological beliefs), the issue that precipitated the lawsuit was not addressed by the Statement of Fundamental Truths. Rather, the lawsuit was initiated over the church’s modification of its c/b to remove all references to AG. The church still retained the Statement of Fundamental Truths in its c/b. None of the Fundamental Truths imply continued fellowship with AG or subjugation in matters of religious polity.
2. The church’s c/b prescribed a specific procedure by which it would submit to AG disapproval of the church’s doctrine and conduct. The disapproval must be submitted in writing to the church’s Pastor and Elders, and a 30-day reconciliatory period was required before AG could remove any persons from the church’s governing rule. This procedure was not followed by AG. Instead, the AG, without consulting the church’s leaders, immediately declared the church to be a “district supervised church”, which according to AG definition means the church belongs to AG. This language in the church’s c/b was to preserve correct doctrine. But now the AG and the Michigan courts have extended this authority to all matters of religious polity, without limit.
3. The church’s c/b called for reversion of property to the AG only in case of church cessation. However, the church exists to this day. Yet the Michigan courts somehow justify misreading this clause to mean unconditional subjugation, so that the AG can demand the church’s property at any time.
The limitations and conditions the church carefully placed in its c/b to circumscribe its relationship with AG have been rendered null and void by the courts of Michigan, who are turning their heads to a hostile corporate takeover in the name of freedom of religion. God help us all.
Recent Comments