Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

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

Don, may I suggest you don't poke the bear.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back.

[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!

[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!

Thx, for the feed back, Monterrey. While not entirely sure, I think you mean they are too long. Am I right? -Don

[Evang.Benincasa]

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!

[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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Why doesn't B. Smith go to the District Superintendent? Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI? Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? Seems like a lot of sour grapes, but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Why doesn't B. Smith go to the District Superintendent? Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI? Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? Seems like a lot of sour grapes, but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door.

The whole point of this thread is to point out that in some churches the Pastor may rule on some topics, contrary to the teaching of Ro14. This counter-to-scriptural practice should be stopped in all ministers, and especially so when their Apostolic Org has already demonstrated it practices Ro14 (as per its acceptance of multiple head covering views).

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Dom asks: Why doesn't B. Smith go to the District Superintendent? Good question. Why the necessity of bothering the Org's already busy Supt when the Org he represents has already shown acceptance of multiple head covering doctrines? Why is it that those who are parts of this Org are not aware of the practice of their Org and do not follow its example? Had proper emphasis of Ro14 been shown in the Org then this visit to the Supt would not have been necessary. Pastor Doe should be/is already aware of this, but ignores it and gets away with it because the Org lets him, either wittingly or unwittingly, spiting the many verses of Ro14;15.1-7 given expressly by the Lord for situations just like this. And Dom puts on his 'Defender' hat and argues against its proper practice. If the rationale which gains Pastor Doe's acceptance in the Org is not accepted by an esteemed member of AFF, YOU, then what hope does a saint, B. Smith, have when they go to the Org (which will usually back the Pastor when it is Pastor vs saint in a topic without acknowledged guidelines) when it has no acknowledged rule which says it must. Instead, Ro14 may be ignored.

Also, where would B. Smith go if their Pastor is the Supt, who rules just like Pastor Doe? Supts are well known to be Pastor-Supts. Where to go, Dom, in the absence of the acknowledgment all should have of Ro14? If Supt Doe has wrongly determined in his heart that any opposition to his view of Ro14/'his personal head-covering view' is an attack of Satan against the Org, where will B. Smith go for the scriptural-wrong done to them when they are rejected? The unscriptural harm done to them also causes harm to the Body which they are part of it. Had Ro14 been previously acknowledged, then nought of this would have happened. Zeal for protection of the church from attacks of Satan are good but misguided when contrary to Ro14. You, Dom, would not be rewarded in Heaven for wrongly opposing the correct interpretation of Ro14, would you? Yet, apparently you wish to loose this reward.

Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI? Does Ro14 only apply when they do?

Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? What in your 'discernment system' motivates YOU asking another irrelevant question? Does Ro14 only apply if there are many churches in town? No. Would B. Smith's going to another church then suddenly solve a problem which may be practiced in many churches by multiple ministers? No. If this were only an Org issue and not a Word issue, then the Org/Man may have the answer. The Word has the answers for this Word problem: compliance by all to Ro14.


Seems like a lot of sour grapes,(I think you may speak from personal experience. Have you moved on in spirit, from a circumstance causing you sour grapes? Hypothetically, had something in your past been treated in light of Ro14, then it may have had results different than it did. Is this the reason why you many times in this thread keep referring back to the Org?, in posts 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29) no real solution Says who? This has not been said by someone who wants to contend for the faith once delivered ("I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints." Post 20.) YOU reach your objective (no real solution), Dom, when you don't have an objective to reach. YOU don't want a solution. but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door. Who has greater authority for a solution in this matter? Pastor Doe, the Supt, or Ro14? Ro14 has the authority and it shows that B. Smith should be accepted; not judged, nor rejected; with many other words used to show him as OK while holding some doctrines contrary to Pastor Doe. Ro14/the Bible does not give any Pastor authority to reject anyone, as a solution, unless on matters clearly outlined an undeniably scriptural/only one conclusion. Paul's teaching in Ro14 is only about doctrines which are not able to clearly show only one correct conclusion.

The real solution is to follow what Ro14 teaches: acceptance of all who hold contrary doctrine (on topics which are not shown as 'one' doctrines. See below about 'one'.)

Eph4.3-6 shows doctrines which are 'one'. When you have only one of anything before you, it denies the possibility of another to compare with or choose from. When given a 'one' doctrine by God/the Apostles there is no possibility of another to hold. 'One' doctrines must be accepted to be a NT follower of Jesus. Eph4 shows their acceptance of 'multiple views of the same topic' when Paul says to them "Till we all come in the unity of the faith". Paul must think they were not yet united on every view of every topic, necessitating Paul to say this, to encourage them to maintain unity on 'one' topics.

When given the left boot of disfellowship because of lack of agreement on minor topics, it creates resentment which, if not resisted, may lead to rejection of major doctrines, to spite the group which booted you. Elevation of minor views to places as major views helps create this disunity. The opposite goal, disunity, is achieved when attempting to maintain unity through enforcement of compliance to minor unproveable views. Why do you want to be in that group, Dom? You are better than that. You are a man of God. Why not join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14?

Heb6 gives a list of elementary principles of Christ. These are the foundational 'one' doctrines of the NT. Not having these means you don't have the faith of the NT.

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

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The whole point of this thread is to point out that in some churches the Pastor may rule on some topics, contrary to the teaching of Ro14.

News flash, the pastor may rule on anything and everything contrary to the Bible. Still, you have three roads you can go down if you are a member of his group. Shut up, sit down, and enjoy the fellowship with the nice people. Go to the pastor and expound the word more perfectly. Or pack up your bags and exit stage left. You already told us why you started this thread. You are at a church, the pastor doesn't believe like you, and you want to get in his pulpit and straighten everyone out.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This counter-to-scriptural practice should be stopped in all ministers, and especially so when their Apostolic Org has already demonstrated it practices Ro14 (as per its acceptance of multiple head covering views).

In this case the district is cool with whatever the preacher believes concerning head coverings. You don't like it? Oh well.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good question. Why the necessity of bothering the Org's already busy Supt when the Org he represents has already shown acceptance of multiple head covering doctrines? Why is it that those who are parts of this Org are not aware of the practice of their Org and do not follow its example? Had proper emphasis of Ro14 been shown in the Org then this visit to the Supt would not have been necessary. Pastor Doe should be/is already aware of this, but ignores it and gets away with it because the Org lets him, either wittingly or unwittingly, spiting the many verses of Ro14;15.1-7 given expressly by the Lord for situations just like this. And Dom puts on his 'Defender' hat and argues against its proper practice. If the rationale which gains Pastor Doe's acceptance in the Org is not accepted by an esteemed member of AFF, YOU, then what hope does a saint, B. Smith, have when they go to the Org (which will usually back the Pastor when it is Pastor vs saint in a topic without acknowledged guidelines) when it has no acknowledged rule which says it must. Instead, Ro14 may be ignored.

I guess you are out of luck. From reading the above you have already convinced yourself that no one what's to deal with your thoughts and feelings. I think you already went a few rounds with Pastor Doe? You didn't do so well? So, what are your plans now?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Also, where would B. Smith go if their Pastor is the Supt, who rules just like Pastor Doe?

What are you chained to the pew? OK, how long has B. Smith been going to Pastor Doe's congregation?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Supts are well known to be Pastor-Supts. Where to go, Dom, in the absence of the acknowledgment all should have of Ro14? If Supt Doe has wrongly determined in his heart that any opposition to his view of Ro14/'his personal head-covering view' is an attack of Satan against the Org, where will B. Smith go for the scriptural-wrong done to them when they are rejected?

A more welcoming atmosphere where B. Smith can share his enlightening views of the book of Romans? I've just gotten a taste of you through this forum. I can just imagine why they think you are an attack of Satan against the Organization. But, Don, just consider for a moment why they aren't embracing your critique? Can you even think why they aren't ready to make you the bishop? Just put yourself in their shoes for a moment?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The unscriptural harm done to them also causes harm to the Body which they are part of it.

Don, it's just a local congregation. How many people are part of this church?
The world isn't coming to an end. Like I posted before, we really don't have a bird's eye view of the entire situation. If the shoe was on the other foot, I most certainly believe you would drag Pastor Doe around the parking lot until the meat fell off his bones. All because he vehemently disagreed with you. Put yourself in his shoes, what so hard about that? How long has he been the pastor of this congregation? How long have you been a member of this church family?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Had Ro14 been previously acknowledged, then nought of this would have happened. Zeal for protection of the church from attacks of Satan are good but misguided when contrary to Ro14. You, Dom, would not be rewarded in Heaven for wrongly opposing the correct interpretation of Ro14, would you? Yet, apparently you wish to loose this reward.

Oh, here we go, Dominic is going hell because he doesn't believe in Brother XY and Z. Whatever, so, Don, you believe you have the correct interpretation. Therefore you should be allowed to be used in a word-serving position. You ran this by the pastor, and it looks from where I'm sitting (which is pretty one dimensional) that the pastor gave it the thumbs down. Game over. Are you currently being used as preaching material from the pulpit? Still, I don't know how long the preacher has been over the church, and how long you have been with the preacher. I don't know if he placed you on the ecclesiastical pay no mind list. Which means you are currently being ignored. Or you really aren't dealing with this issue with the pastor, and are just hashing it out with us? All two of us?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI? Does Ro14 only apply when they do?

I just asked a question?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? What in your 'discernment system' motivates YOU asking another irrelevant question? Does Ro14 only apply if there are many churches in town? No. Would B. Smith's going to another church then suddenly solve a problem which may be practiced in many churches by multiple ministers? No. If this were only an Org issue and not a Word issue, then the Org/Man may have the answer. The Word has the answers for this Word problem: compliance by all to Ro14.

Don, moving on at this point may be best. Unless you want to stick around until you are asked to leave? But, Romans 14 is the least of the pastor's problem with a guy like you on the pew.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Seems like a lot of sour grapes,(I think you may speak from personal experience. Have you moved on in spirit, from a circumstance causing you sour grapes? Hypothetically, had something in your past been treated in light of Ro14, then it may have had results different than it did. Is this the reason why you many times in this thread keep referring back to the Org?, in posts 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29) no real solution Says who? This has not been said by someone who wants to contend for the faith once delivered ("I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints." Post 20.) YOU reach your objective (no real solution), Dom, when you don't have an objective to reach. YOU don't want a solution. but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door. Who has greater authority for a solution in this matter? Pastor Doe, the Supt, or Ro14? Ro14 has the authority and it shows that B. Smith should be accepted; not judged, nor rejected; with many other words used to show him as OK while holding some doctrines contrary to Pastor Doe. Ro14/the Bible does not give any Pastor authority to reject anyone, as a solution, unless on matters clearly outlined an undeniably scriptural/only one conclusion. Paul's teaching in Ro14 is only about doctrines which are not able to clearly show only one correct conclusion.

Yep, Romans 14 is the least of this pastor's problems. Don, you are rough and tough and hard to diaper. You can spout scripture until you peel the paint off the walls of the church's foyer. There is no way a pastor is going to take you serious. If you act half of how you post here, you would get the left foot of fellowship. But, since you may still be in this congregation, can only indicate this Pastor Doe is agape love PERSONIFIED when comes to dealing with you.

GOOD GOD IN ZION!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The real solution is to follow what Ro14 teaches: acceptance of all who hold contrary doctrine (on topics which are not shown as 'one' doctrines. See below about 'one'.)

Whoa there boy, I beg to differ. The real solution is the pastor turns over the keys to the pulpit to you. I don't care how many threads you start, you have convinced me. This pastor is the one who needs to sit down and wash your feet with his tears. Because you are probably the only man in a 100 mile radius who knows what is going on in the Spirit.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Eph4.3-6 shows doctrines which are 'one'. When you have only one of anything before you, it denies the possibility of another to compare with or choose from. When given a 'one' doctrine by God/the Apostles there is no possibility of another to hold. 'One' doctrines must be accepted to be a NT follower of Jesus. Eph4 shows their acceptance of 'multiple views of the same topic' when Paul says to them "Till we all come in the unity of the faith". Paul must think they were not yet united on every view of every topic, necessitating Paul to say this, to encourage them to maintain unity on 'one' topics.

You told the pastor all this stuff? He still didn't fall down speaking in tongues and pay you 20 years of back tithe? Don, how long have you been with Pastor Doe? How long has he had to deal with you? Cut the guy some slack. Until we all come to the unity of what Don believes, is more likely the real interpretation in your mind. Good God in Zion!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When given the left boot of disfellowship because of lack of agreement on minor topics, it creates resentment which, if not resisted, may lead to rejection of major doctrines, to spite the group which booted you. Elevation of minor views to places as major views helps create this disunity. The opposite goal, disunity, is achieved when attempting to maintain unity through enforcement of compliance to minor unproveable views. Why do you want to be in that group, Dom? You are better than that. You are a man of God. Why not join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14?

Don, so you told the pastor you are the weaker brethren? Then after you informed him of this revelation you expected him to put you in a word-serving position? You still in this congregation? Boy, Pastor Doe must be a sweetie pie!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Heb6 gives a list of elementary principles of Christ. These are the foundational 'one' doctrines of the NT. Not having these means you don't have the faith of the NT.

Don, Pastor Doe, should get a reward.

[Amanah]

I would welcome a completely new topic for discussion.