[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Don, your posts are exhausting to read. I really really try to follow them but it's impossible. If your preaching is the same then.... whoooooo!

Perhaps the following re-writing will help.

Examining a Discrepancy Between Organizational Policy and Local Church Practice

Throughout my Christian life, I have been encouraged to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered.” I do so in the following.

I would like to examine what appears to be an inconsistency between UPC Organizational practice and the way some local churches apply the same issue—specifically, in the doctrine of the head covering, 1Co11. Local church practices may contradict the principles taught in Ro14. The theme of this thread is the correct pratice of Ro14.

1. Organizational Practice: Acceptance of Multiple Head‑Covering Doctrines

At the Organizational level, the UPC licenses ministers who do not all hold the same head‑covering doctrine.

For example, the Organization licenses ministers who teach the veil‑covering view, even though this is not the majority position - uncut hair. This raises several questions:

- Scripture would teach only one correct view of a doctrine. How can two contradictory views both be accepted? Yet they are.
- Two are shown as acceptable. Three or more should then also be acceptable, using the same methods.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains: the Organization permits more than one doctrinal stance on head coverings. Apparently the Org may be trying to practice the teaching of Paul seen in Ro14;15.1-7.

2. Local Church Practice: Restriction to a Single Doctrine

At the local level, however, the situation may look different. Some Pastors restrict Word‑sharing positions (teaching, preaching, etc.) only to those who agree with their own head‑covering doctrine.

Example: Pastor John Doe believes in the veil‑covering doctrine. The UPC licenses him, even though this is not the majority position. B. Smith joins his church. Smith does not hold the veil view, nor the uncut‑hair view, but has another scriptural interpretation of 1Co11. Although the organization accepts Pastor Doe’s minority view, Pastor Doe refuses to allow Smith to serve in any Word‑sharing role because Smith does not agree with his own doctrine.

Thus: The Organization accepts Pastor Doe despite doctrinal disagreement. But Pastor Doe does not accept Smith. This appears to be a double standard.

It is often said that Pastors must preach their convictions. However, should their personal convictions be forced on others as though they were the Word of God? If so, the result can be the creation of dogmatic rules that Scripture does not clearly mandate— as in Hutterites.

4. Inconsistency

If the UPC Organization accepts multiple head‑covering doctrines per Ro14, why is this same openness not practiced uniformly at the local level? The ways of the Org have not been learnt/copied by Pastor Doe. What the mother goose eats is rejected by the gosling.

If B. Smith is rejected from ministry roles, what becomes of Biblical principles such as: “Use right judgment”? OR: “Do not show respect of persons.”

The end result is that a Pastor claims the ability to determine only one doctrine while the Organization has not done so. Doe rejects the influence of Ro14. This gives the impression that this Pastor is, in practice, usurping or contradicting the Organization which has authorized/commissioned his position as Pastor. Pastor Doe thumbs his nose to the Org who makes him possible.

5. Finally

Does anyone else see something inconsistent here? Is the reasoning used sound? While some Pastors may indeed accept people with differing head covering views, their approach is not universally taught or practiced.

The practice which rejects B. 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