Executive Summary

Across the Church of God community—including Sabbatarian COG fellowships (UCG, COGWA, LCG, COG-7, and independent congregations)—disciplinary actions involving members or ministers often suffer from low perceived procedural fairness, even when leadership believes decisions are biblically or administratively justified.

The absence of transparent due process consistently produces:

Legitimacy deficits (members no longer trust leadership motives) Appeal to outside authority (civil litigation, public exposure, or schism) Reputational damage within and outside the denomination Moral injury to disciplined individuals Long-term erosions of organizational unity

Because trust is the spiritual “currency” of church governance, the structural weaknesses in disciplinary procedure predictably result in conflict, alienation, and fragmentation.

This white paper identifies the core legitimacy threats and proposes operational, theological, and governance-level reforms that balance biblical authority, pastoral discretion, and procedural fairness.

I. The Nature of Due Process in a Church Context

1. Scriptural Patterns of Fair Process

Several biblical passages establish recognizable procedural norms:

Matthew 18:15–17 – escalation, documentation, plural witnesses Deuteronomy 19:15 – requirement of two or three witnesses Acts 15 – open deliberation among elders; opportunity for dissenting voices 1 Timothy 5:19–21 – careful, impartial procedure for accusations against elders Proverbs 18:13, 17 – hearing both sides before judgment John 7:51 – no one should be judged before being heard

These passages do not outline modern judicial processes but do establish:

Notice Opportunity to respond Prohibition of secret accusations Impartiality Transparency before the congregation or representative leaders

2. Definition of “Perceived Due Process”

In church governance, perceived due process is the congregation’s evaluation that:

Decisions are not arbitrary Procedures are consistent Both sides are heard Authority is not abused Restoration—not punishment—is the underlying motive

A process may be technically compliant with bylaws yet still fail the test of perceived legitimacy if communication is poor, motives seem suspect, or leadership appears biased.

II. Recurrent Due Process Failures in COG Disciplinary Actions

Across case studies in multiple COG organizations, the following pattern regularly emerges.

**1. Secret Complaints and Anonymous Accusations

Symptoms

Member or minister learns of accusations only after discipline is already underway. Complainants are shielded for “confidentiality,” even when biblical procedure requires witnesses. Accused parties are told “multiple complaints were received” without specifics.

Legitimacy Consequences

Perception of political maneuvering or agenda-driven targeting Suspicion that leadership is hiding motives Accused feels ambushed, not shepherded Congregational rumoring increases

**2. No Clear Written Charges or Standards

Symptoms

Vague accusations such as “a bad attitude,” “disunity,” or “conduct unbecoming.” No objective standard to measure the alleged misconduct. Ministers disciplined for perceived relational or political threats rather than doctrinal or moral violations.

Legitimacy Consequences

Members assume discipline is selective or politically motivated Ministers fear arbitrary removal The organization appears to lack theological or policy coherence

**3. Inconsistent Application of Policies

Symptoms

Some sins treated with pastoral counseling; others with immediate suspension. Friendships, political alliances, or geographic distance influence outcomes. High-profile ministers treated differently from rank-and-file members.

Legitimacy Consequences

Perception of favoritism Congregations conclude discipline is not based on righteousness but on relationships Leaders lose moral authority

**4. Lack of Impartial Review or Appeals

Symptoms

Accused party must appeal to the same body or individuals who made the original decision. Appeals are discouraged as “rebellious.” No independent investigatory panel exists. Ministers removed without opportunity for defense before equals or broader councils.

Legitimacy Consequences

Members view outcomes as pre-determined Appeals are perceived as futile Organizations appear authoritarian rather than shepherd-like

**5. Poor Communication and Rumor-Based Narrative

Symptoms

Disciplinary action is announced without context. Congregations receive incomplete or one-sided summaries. Leadership emphasizes confidentiality in ways that imply guilt.

Legitimacy Consequences

Congregations fill the narrative vacuum with speculation Disciplined parties feel publicly shamed without fair representation Members lose confidence in the transparency of church leadership

**6. Over-reliance on Ministerial Discretion

Symptoms

Biblical texts used to justify unlimited pastoral authority (“obey them that have the rule over you”). Minister’s personal preferences viewed as binding doctrine. Culture discourages questioning leadership decisions.

Legitimacy Consequences

Perception of dictatorship Ministers feel insecure and “one mistake away from removal” Members fear retaliation for expressing concern

III. Predictable Organizational and Spiritual Consequences

**1. Fragmentation and Schism

COG history demonstrates that organizational splits are often rooted in:

Perceived injustice Leadership heavy-handedness Unresolved conflict between ministers Lack of transparent procedure

**2. Loss of Ministerial and Member Trust

Without procedural safeguards, members interpret decisions as:

Biased Arbitrary Vindictive Politically motivated

Where trust erodes, compliance turns into resentment.

**3. Increased Civil Litigation

When internal processes lack legitimacy, disciplined individuals increasingly:

Seek external mediation Consider defamation or employment-law claims Appeal to public opinion

**4. Spiritual Disillusionment

Perceived injustice in a spiritual community can produce:

Moral injury Loss of faith Alienation from the church community Transfer to other denominations or abandonment of organized religion

IV. Structural Reforms to Improve Outcomes

**1. Codify Clear, Accessible Disciplinary Standards

A constitution or governance manual should provide:

Defined categories of offenses Distinction between moral, doctrinal, pastoral, and interpersonal violations Standardized escalation pathways Time-bound steps for response and appeal

This reduces uncertainty and protects both ministry and membership.

**2. Implement Written Notification and Charge Requirements

Every accused party should receive:

A written statement of allegations Identification of witnesses (unless genuine safety concerns apply) Scriptural or policy standards allegedly violated A clear outline of next steps

This protects against arbitrary or secret discipline.

**3. Establish an Independent Review Panel

A rotating body of elders or seasoned members (not appointed solely by the pastor) to provide:

Objective review Summary of evidence Written recommendations

This panel should have autonomy from the original decision-makers.

**4. Create a Transparent Appeals Process

A meaningful appeals process includes:

A separate body with authority to overturn decisions Hearing both sides Allowing representation or advocacy Written decisions with theological and policy rationale

This fosters confidence that leadership can self-correct.

**5. Communication Framework for Congregations

A public-facing communication model should:

Protect privacy Provide clarity on process Avoid rumor-fueling gaps Maintain pastoral tone (“restoration with humility”)

Communication must foster confidence, not gossip.

**6. Conflict-of-Interest and Recusal Rules

Leadership must:

Recuse themselves in cases involving personal conflict Prohibit decision-making in relationally entangled cases Maintain accountability through documentation and oversight

This prevents perceptions of vendettas or favoritism.

**7. Restorative Discipline Frameworks

Discipline should not merely punish but:

Restore relationships Rehabilitate reputations where possible Provide opportunities for spiritual growth Encourage forgiveness and reconciliation

Members accept discipline more readily when they perceive redemptive intent.

**8. Ministerial Employment and Contractual Clarity

To avoid confusion about authority and rights, organizations should:

Define ministerial employment status Clarify expectations for conduct and performance Establish severance protocols Detail rights of appeal

Clarity prevents the ambiguity that fuels conflict.

V. Cultural Reforms Necessary for Sustainable Legitimacy

Procedural reforms will fail without cultural adaptation within the ministry and congregations.

**1. Shift from “Authority-Centric” to “Accountability-Centric” Leadership

Authority-centered governance invites:

Heavy-handed discipline Suspicion of motives

Accountability-centered leadership emphasizes:

Transparency Mutual submission (Eph. 5:21) Listening before judging Humility in administration

**2. Normalize Biblical Conflict Resolution (Matthew 18)

Most disciplinary crises occur because conflicts were:

Avoided Mishandled Addressed too late

Training and policy must reinforce Matthew 18 as the first resort.

**3. Encourage Theological Framing of Due Process

Teach that:

Justice is an attribute of God Fair procedures reflect divine character Discipline is pastoral care, not power projection

**4. Train Ministers in Organizational Ethics

Ministers often lack training in:

Investigative procedure Conflict de-escalation Bias awareness Administrative law principles

Professionalizing ministry without secularizing it is essential.

VI. A Model Due Process Framework for COG Fellowships

Below is a consolidated model framework that COG fellowships could adopt.

Step 1: Initial Concern

Pastoral conversation Documentation Opportunity for self-correction

Step 2: Formal Allegation

Written notice Identification of witnesses Explanation of standards violated

Step 3: Hearing Before an Impartial Panel

Both sides present evidence Advisors permitted Written findings generated

Step 4: Decision Announcement

Clear rationale Scriptural basis Terms of discipline or restoration

Step 5: Appeals

To a distinct and higher-level body Right to new evidence Written decision provided

Step 6: Congregational Communication

Minimal but sufficient description Avoid shaming Emphasize restoration

Step 7: Restoration Planning

Accountability partnerships Counseling Periodic review Rebuilding trust intentionally

This framework balances doctrinal fidelity with procedural fairness.

VII. Conclusion: Due Process as a Spiritual Witness

When discipline lacks perceived due process, COG organizations face predictable crises:

Loss of trust Division Organizational decline Moral injury Loss of credibility in the eyes of outsiders

A transparent, impartial, and biblically grounded disciplinary system is not merely administrative; it is a witness of God’s justice and mercy.

Churches that establish robust due process become:

More resilient More peaceful More unified More respected More spiritually healthy

If you would like, I can also prepare:

A full book-length outline from this white paper A governance manual with templates for policies A model constitution for disciplinary procedures A case-study appendix using real-world COG scenarios

Just tell me what you’d like next.