Discrepancy in Church Practice

[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

[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.

[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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Bowas

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.

You can say that again.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Bowas

.

Bowas has said: How about not trying to bring back a topic that got stopped, under the guise of another topic? Why this reading between the lines with so much suspicion? Had I taken efforts to surreptitiously start another thread you might have a case for using the word guise. I've been open and upfront. There might be a lesson in this somewhere.

This thread's first post contains two topics. These are not necessarily related. They are separate topics. One is: giving proper regard to those who hold opposing opinions; shown in Ro14. The other is: head coverings; 1Co11. The focus for me as the originator of this thread is Ro14. Do you have enough trust in me to believe so? What is the source of this distrust if not so?

I wish you didn't think that this is an attempt to re-open/continue the closed thread. Do I wish the other thread had remained open? Yes. But this thread is written to show that Ro14 is ignored by some Apostolics, when God gave it to be practiced. Correct interpretation and application of it are as necessary as with any other scripture. I am personally aware of church issues caused by its lack of application, needlessly happening when Ro14 is there to be heeded. The head covering topic was only coincidently the topic which, to me, brought Ro14 to the open. I want to share what I learnt.

Errors or neglect in the first topic, Ro14, may lead to wrongs in any other second. Whether or not any second wrong may happen in Apostolic practices, may be dependent on the right understanding of the first. Hence, the reason I write. I'd rather see the due regard given to Ro14, which prevents the error which may occur in any second.

Ro14; 15.1-7 is a long portion of scripture on one topic, but seemingly does not get much attention. Paul thinks it is an important grassroots issue by spending so many words on it. When is the last time you've heard it preached, or referenced it yourself? Regard to Ro14 is applicable in many areas, certainly not just head coverings. Ro14 shows 2 such topics, but does not limit the number of them to just 2.

Had due regard been given to Ro14, the animus shown in some posts in the "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame" thread might not have happened. Their animus highlights the need to highlight Ro14. This thread's topic is relevant here in AFF and in any church/Christian's life.

Your rejection of the possibility of discussion on Ro14 in a new thread, might leave some with an impression that you would prefer if errors of both topics should remain in the practices of Apostolics. Is that what you want others to believe of you? Of course not. What steps will you take to correct this impression?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, why don’t you start a thread concerning ecclesiastical manipulative lying?
How about explaining how this thread is any different from the one that you exhausted? Can you prove it’s vastly different? Or are we correct to point out it is similar to a degree of being the same old gal just in ( your case) a different pair of pants?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You can say that again.

Dom has said: Don, may I suggest you don't poke the bear.

And he also has said: 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.

Hi, Dom. Thx for the friendly advice.

Are we friends now? You'll no doubt agree that many past words spoken to me by you would make it difficult for me to see them as friendly. But do keep up with this new trend. No one knows where it might lead.

Therefore, I see them not as friendly advice but again as posturing as the authority all should want to take heed to.

If you are Apostolic, and I am Apostolic, and the UPC or any other Org is Apostolic, it testifies to a scriptural stand. The Apostolic mantra is 'we've got the Truth'. I love Truth. All should love Truth.

If I say that I love the Word and my church says the same; and my church family then departs from Truth, the responsibility any Christian has is to make efforts to have it to return. That is what "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered" means. You offer unscriptural advice when you say to move on. Or, have I missed something? Plz convince me otherwise.

If you in the past have 'moved on' from a place you should have stayed to fight, then it's not yet too late to return. Perhaps you took the easy road to leave, instead of trying to make things right? Was it related to the topics Ro14 says should have made you acceptable to stay?

I suppose you see yourself as the arbiter of acceptable topics for threads in AFF, by saying what you said. That would make you an Admin. I have yet to see your name anywhere as associated with Admins. As such you may be usurping the role and authority of others.

You thus show two errors: unscriptural advice and usurping. Why should anyone take heed to your advice when you've demonstrated you do not take your own advice? You referred to lines of authority seen in District Boards but circumvented the authority structure seen in AFF leadership to operate outside of it.

The reason some wrongs persist in church practice, leading to some of the fracturing of the Body and countless needless church Orgs seen in the world, is because of the lack of the ability to fight fairly when contending. Proper teaching and acceptance of the teaching of Ro14 would undermine and prevent some of this from occurring.

Your positioning yourself in AFF as the authority which should be heeded demonstrates your place outside of the influence of Ro14. You demonstrate that you think your way is the only way. Ro14 teaches against this. Perhaps you more than any other need to spend some time with Ro14 and prayer. Unity would then be better preserved, while your style of doing things leads to people separating themselves. Is your style of posting slurs the reason why AFF is not used as much as it could be?

It's been refreshing seeing some of your replies use logic and reason, not ranting with disapproving slurs of others. Plz keep it up. Adding theological arguments along with scripture would also make your posts more appealing to those wanting to get into the depths of the Word. You actually had started to do so in the last posts of "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame", but we were cut short in its continuance by its closing.

Let's get back to the Word and be the Church we are supposed to be, by including the teaching and practice of Ro14.

Lets talk about scripture, Ro14. Do you want to move on from "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame"? Let's do that too.

[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