My Response to "The Devolution of Government - Globally & in the Church" by the NCO

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Posted yesterday on the New Church Order website

---------------------------------------------------

The Devolution of Government- Globally & in the Church
by James Griffin, ESQ

http://www.newchurchorder.com/content/view/83/45/

One principle long recognized in the Church is that movements in governments and principalities often reflect what is happening in the spirit-world and vice versa. Also as pointed out in a previous article in this forum sometimes a new phenomenon will give raise to a new vernacular. The term “devolution” is one currently making the rounds among social scientists and economists. It is used to describe a globally impacting trend currently epicentered in Europe but spreading.

Devolution is the break down of strong federal government in favor of regional, cultural, and economic units. Examples include the breakup of the USSR into Russia and several satellite countries. This directly resulted in the explosion of Yugoslavia into approximately six (and counting) countries. No industrialized country is immune including such powerhouses as United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, and even Germany. There are currently no less than 18 such hot spots in Europe and new countries are splintering also on the continents of Africa and Asia.

However, how does this apply to the Church? Even as this article is being composed, one of the premier “church” organizations in the world is locked in such debate. The divisive question is not over the plan of salvation, but what means of technology is “holy enough” to be used to disseminate the gospel! Proponents from both sides have publicly stated that no matter what the vote on the resolution they intend on withdrawing from fellowship and go independent.

Such mentality is foreign to Scripture. Has not the fragmentation and infighting among religious bodies and church organizations gone on long enough? Is it not time to concentrate on our commonality instead? How does refusing to fellowship over such matters (by either side) fit into agape? How much more could be done for the kingdom with the blending of our talents and gifts?

No one would deny any denomination has an absolute right to delineate its standards, and seek to uphold them within their organization. However, to deny fellowship with believers over such matters smacks of elitism at best, and is pharisaical legalism at worst.

It is also understandable that those caught in the crossfire of such infighting would desire to be totally independent. But those brethren so wounded might want to recall the history of our own country. When the colonials successfully overcame what they perceived to be a tyrannical government, they immediately formed an alternative. They realized that non-governance equates to anarchy.

The New Testament clearly recognizes strong governance within the church body. This should of course be centered in the five-fold ministry. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into how such a unified governing body should be set up, but we should hope that at the least, men and women everywhere would start the necessary dialogue.

Brother Griffin,

The article is definitely very well written.

I agree with your assessment that "devolution" is occuring, but let me give you a different take on the phenomenon, and why I think it is happening. I will attempt to use the same lingo you used in the article from NCO.

It is my opinion that devolution is not always negative. Sometimes fragmentation occurs due to irreconcilable differences arising when leaders of a centralized social or religious group enact ordinances that smack of oppressive tyranny. Men and women will always seek personal liberty which, of course, leads to many splinter groups breaking off from the original religious, political, or social power.

I do not believe it was ever God's plan to have a Vatican type model of church government. I do not believe it was ever God's plan to have a centralized seat of Christian power on earth that was led by a man, or group of men.

Instead, I believe that God scattered (through Roman persecution) early Christians to the four corners of the earth to combat such a religious system. We men are great at messing up the simplicity of God's plan. We ministers tend to want to be mediators between God and man, when He really doesn't need our help. All he wants us to do is "go" and "preach."

I believe what you are hoping for is ecumenicalism. It is clear the NCO is willing to set aside every bit of core doctrine for some misguided sense of Christian unity. I can't for a moment believe that God is pleased.

Further, you seem to play off of the UPC's current fragmentation, mentioning it on the front page of your website. What is your goal in doing so? Why does the NCO need to slap at us? This is contrary to the spirit of your article, in which you state a desire for unity and ecumenicalism.

I feel your article, and past blogs on the NCO site, is in poor taste, and not befitting model Christian motives. After all, isn't the NCO a splinter group?

[Nahum]

No comment?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

No comment?

Apparently your editing caused the response to crash as it was being posted, I will retype.

[James Griffin]

RESPONSE TO PASTOR POSTER



"""I believe what you are hoping for is ecumenicalism. It is clear the NCO is willing to set aside every bit of core doctrine for some misguided sense of Christian unity. I can't for a moment believe that God is pleased.

Further, you seem to play off of the UPC's current fragmentation.. What is your goal in doing so? Why does the NCO need to slap at us? This is contrary to the spirit of your article, in which you state a desire for unity and ecumenicalism.

I feel your article, and past blogs on the NCO site, is in poor taste, and not befitting model Christian motives. After all, isn't the NCO a splinter group?””””

PP, I usually find your posts to be well reasoned, respectful, and something I can give a hardy amen to as well. However, I must say in this case I am confused by your posting both as to content and tone. Why do you equate a call to unity as a call to "ecumenicalism"? If so then we may well have to revise opinions of some of the august leaders of the UPC that have made similar calls in times past.

There is nowhere anything I have ever written in public nor said in private that is even remotely anti-UPC. Even the posts I have made in here have been emphatically and prayerfully made that NO ONE from EITHER SIDE of the Resolution 4 issue leave the UPC!!! To do so would be a tragedy of the highest order. Apostolic ministers threatening to “disfellowship” over personal standards? Once again regardless of which side of the desire to evangelize by means of Television that one is on, it is still personal conviction, and that should not be a basis to breaking fellowship. (Even Paul and James when in disagreement over whether rites of Judaism should be kept post-conversion never suggested doing such.) While certain ministers feel they must make a statement by starting their own organizations,it may be regrettable but understandable if there is an image they wish to maintain. But to refuse fellowship outside their clique??

No one should be ridiculed for desiring to maintain high standards; on the other hand those with these extra-Biblical convictions should not be elitist and exclusionary in attitude. They can and should hold their personal convictions as standards within their local assemblies.

For example, I personally believe that television is for the most part evil. Watching it usually promotes immorality, destabilizes the family, and studies have even proven it to increase violence, ADD, and even obesity. However, for me to refuse to fellowship a fellow One God, Apostolic, tongue talking, Jesus Name baptized believer over it???

The Bible strongly promotes unity- if two or three agree- a three fold cord is not easily broken,-one can put a thousand to flight two can put 10,000. We should be able to celebrate our diversity of talents and gifting without sacrificing the personal convictions of the local assembly.



As far as the underlying tone both in your post and several I have seen in this forum that the NCO is being proposed as an alternative to the UPC (or any denomination), shows an unfortunate understanding of both its purpose and structure.

The NCO is not now, nor ever shall be a denomination or organization of anything of that ilk. Any minister disgruntled with their organization and seeking to join solely for that reason will be disappointed. It is simply a fellowship seeking the free exchange of ideas and concepts on how further the kingdom. Nothing more nothing less. We have minister members from a plethora of denominations including UPC.

As such, to call the NCO “a splinter group” once again shows an unfortunate misunderstanding as to its content and structure, both philosophically and in membership. Future projects include seminars ranging from local church government, to legal issues, to integrating technology into evangelism. For example we already have ACT29TV.COM broadcasting Apostolic messages over the internet 24/7

The entire thrust of the article was to promote unity within all of Christendom regardless of denomination. On a personal level I pray the United Pentecostal Church remains United.

While maintaining I have never written anything “anti-UPC”, I do sincerely apologize to anyone offended by promoting the concept “they shall know you are Christians by your love one to another” and promoting unity among the brethren.

[Nahum]

Brother Griffin,

Though I only have been exposed to your posts for a few weeks now, I have formed an opinion that you are a good man, and an excellent writer.

Sir, the thing that disturbs me is that on one hand you call for unity, but on the other the site that you administer has decided to post blogs that seem to gouge at an open wound in the flesh of the UPC.

The article by Brother Saulters is an unfortunate blend of elitism and liberty gone amuck. Further, to use the current fractured political climate within the UPC as a reference point in your blog shows a lack of decorum and civility.

The UPC is not perfect, but men like me have given almost our entire lives nurturing it's values and distinctives - especially fundamental doctrine.

The articles by Saulters and Langston seem to be NCO's version of a trophy case. I find this distasteful and tacky.

If the NCO is to flourish, it needs to do so on the basis of what it has to offer - not what the UPC supposedly doesn't.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Brother Griffin,

Though I only have been exposed to your posts for a few weeks now, I have formed an opinion that you are a good man, and an excellent writer.

Sir, the thing that disturbs me is that on one hand you call for unity, but on the other the site that you administer has decided to post blogs that seem to gouge at an open wound in the flesh of the UPC.....

The UPC is not perfect, but men like me have given almost our entire lives nurturing it's values and distinctives - especially fundamental doctrine.

While repeating my respect for you, I echo CC1 response that your reaction is uncharacteristic.

If something someone else said gave offense for that I can give no response.

But personally I apparently am lacking in words to express my personal affinity for the UPC. And which "fundamental" doctrine was challenged?

Your response stated that I personally have displayed an anti-UPC sentiment, I simply fail to see how that is possible from anything I have ever posted or said.

And once again the POINT of the NCO article which was reposted here seems to be IGNORED.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

While repeating my respect for you, I echo CC1 response that your reaction is uncharacteristic.

If something someone else said gave offense for that I can give no response.

But personally I apparently am lacking in words to express my personal affinity for the UPC.

Your response stated that I personally have displayed an anti-UPC sentiment, I simply fail to see how that is possible from anything I have ever posted or said.

And once again the point of the NCO article which was reposted here seems to be ignored.

Let me be clear then.

Here are two questions that demand an answer Brother Griffin.

1. Why mention the political climate in the UPC at all in your article? What purpose did that serve?

2. Why allow Saulters to give an open invitation that paints the UPC as dead, dry, and traditional as opposed to the new, shiny, sleek NCO?



BTW, I am not upset in any way. You had asked me to respond to your article and I was trying to be kind by doing so.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Let me be clear then.

Here are two questions that demand an answer Brother Griffin.

1. Why mention the political climate in the UPC at all in your article? What purpose did that serve?

2. Why allow Saulters to give an open invitation that paints the UPC as dead, dry, and traditional as opposed to the new, shiny, sleek NCO?



BTW, I am not upset in any way. You had asked me to respond to your article and I was trying to be kind by doing so.

Care to respond Sir?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Care to respond Sir?

As to your second question I really cannot think of anything to add to CC1's response

"""PP,

No doubt NCO appeals to those who are progressive within Oneness Pentecostalsim. That article is one man's journey that seemed to be written in a very honest way with no mention of the organization he was referring to that he had left.

Do you really want a site where men cannot express their view, their spiritual journey? Do you think progressives should just post generic warm fuzzies like "I love the Lord and I am just glad to be here and on my way to heaven!"?

If he had called out the UPC by name and said ugly things about it I could understand your concern."""

As to your first,

1. There once again (in my article) was no mention of the organization referred to.

2. Article is addressed to "Christendom"

3. The article says NOTHING derogatory about the unnamed organization, it references (ACCURATELY) what individuals within said organization have publically stated

4. REALLY would like for you to locate a better example ANYWHERE in ANY denomination with Christianity regardless of position on godhead, standards, or beliefs which currently would be a better fit for and example on topic in the article and I will request ADMIN to pull it and put that in its place.

[CC1]

PP,

I am also surprised at you calling the NCO a "splinter group" as you full well know it is only an association of Oneness folks and not a replacement for any ogranizational membership any Preacher may have.

The NCO has never presented itself as an "alternative" to the UPC, ALJC, or any other Oneness organization but rather as an umbrella association of fellowship that should transcend the different organizations.

You may have legitimate gripes with the NCO but I thought that part of your post was unfair and a mischaracterization. That is not typical of you.