[Bowas]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Would you examine a discrepancy of church practice with me?

All my Christian life I have been encouraged to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered.

The UPC Org licences preachers who are not in agreement with the majority-held head-covering doctrine; for, they license those who hold the veil-cover. (Presumably, the Org has not seen it possible to determine just one Biblical head-covering doctrine. Or, is the Org showing an accommodation for some by the acceptance of false doctrine? Can there be two correct Biblical head covering doctrines? No. Yet two are accepted. If two are accepted, then could not three or more also be?)

This acceptance happens on an Organizational level.

What may/does happen, on the saint's-level in churches, is a rejection from Word-serving positions of those not having the same head-covering doctrine as their Pastor, because of failure to agree.

Example: Bro. John Doe believes in the veil covering. He becomes licensed as a preacher. Into his church comes J. Smith, who believes neither in a veil or uncut hair cover; yet has another scriptural stance on 1Co11. J. Smith is refused any Word-serving positions because of lack of agreement with Pastor Doe. Thus, Pastor Doe has been accepted by the Org while not holding what the majority holds, yet Pastor Doe rejects J. Smith, who, like he, also does not hold the majority view.

Do you not see the use of a double standard?

No doubt you've heard it said that Pastors must preach their convictions. But should personal convictions be applied in practice as if they are the Word of God? No? One end result might be dogmatic unscriptural rules applied, as with Hutterites.

Why is what is practised at Org levels, acceptance of two head covering doctrines, not also uniformly practised at local church levels by Pastors? The ways of the Org have not been learnt/copied. What is good by the mother goose is not seen good by the gosling.

If J. Smith is rejected, then what happened to 'use the right judgment', or, 'don't have respect of persons'?

The end-result is, a Pastor is seemingly seen having the ability to determine one clear doctrine, which the Org has not seen the Word providing. The Pastor in a sense usurps the role/authority of the Org. Or: what can not be determined as only-one-head-covering-doctrine on an Organizational level, is seen as able to be determined in a local church, contradictorily.

Does anyone else see something askew? Is the reasoning used faulty?

While it may be that some Pastors would not ever reject J. Smith from Word-serving positions, this acceptance-method is not universally practiced or taught.

The practice which rejects J. Smith, causing them damage, spites a scriptural standard all must use: Ro14; 15.1-7. For a closer look at this scriptural standard, the following commentary is provided:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

How about not trying to bring back a topic that got stopped, under the guise of another topic?

Seems to me, that ship has sailed...let it go.