The Trouble With Patience

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

3. No resolution changing departmental structures, presented at the last minute, should ever be allowed for discussion at the general conference business session.

Get it together people!

or how about a step futher, any departmental change in structure should first require a vote one year to have a vote the next year.

that way they cant bring a last minute change, but they cannot "work" on the change without everyone knowing what is going on....

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Ferd

or how about a step futher, any departmental change in structure should first require a vote one year to have a vote the next year.

that way they cant bring a last minute change, but they cannot "work" on the change without everyone knowing what is going on....

Did I ever tell you, I LOVE YOU MAN!

That one really burnt my biscuits!

I'm the one picking up the pieces. It ain't pretty right now.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

2. I would like to see a more stringent licensing process implemented.

In what way?

I think it would do us good to limit the number of times men can come in and out of the organization.

No problem with that.

I think there should be minimum education requirements and/or testing.
Testing be equivelant no problem, as long as it is pertinet information required.

I also think we should rethink our anti-restoration attitude for ministers.

Not sure what it is now??? But I agree with restoration if at all possible.

Originally Posted by rrford

For the most part I agree. especially on the licensing. I would also like to see continuing education be required.

What kind of continuing education? Bible? Finance?

As for the restoration part, we probably are not toally on the same page with that one.

Originally Posted by rrford

Esther, I think you missed his point entirely. It is not the Simon's that there is an issue with. It is those that are licensed that have no idea what they are preaching is not true.

I guess this part is debatable? Not true? You talking something besides Acts 2:38?

Minimum education deos not mean college degree; it does mean the organization should supply education that is required before a man can be licensed or advance in licensing.

Are you talking the organization supply education at no cost, or offer education courses at a reasonable fee?

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Esther, nowadays ALMOST anyone can afford it. The question is, do they see the need for it? There are things that some are never taught that have nothing to do with opinion.

With the cost continued to go up, can't say most can afford. I think sometimes it is not the money as much as the hours of availability. I have long time been an avocate of night classes for the working people, like the community colleges offer.

It really riled me when I enrolled at Gateway and my first classes were Basic Bible Doctrine, and Simple Bible Study methods. I was insulted. But looking back I'm glad they offered those classes. There were some students who flunked.

They were pastors kids.

I KNOW that to be true.

Originally Posted by rrford

But as far as I know T.W. Barnes never negated the need for education and did not stop folks from going to Bible College.

Neither would I. However, there is a BIG difference in not negating it vs REQUIRING it.

Esther, there will always be folks that are the exception to the rule. Those are not the ones who need the education. It is the masses that are not the exception. But in order to be fair and balanced all should receive the education.

How is it fair to require it for those not in need of it? Or don't have the funds for it? But have the anointing. I know some that have gone to BC and regretted it, because they teach such structure that God can't move.

Originally Posted by rrford

But Esther, in all honesty, if that is all one has how do they run the business side of the church?

Many folks have run business' successfully without a degree and many have failed with a degree.

But I would think the board would be the main ones to handle the finances.

WHile I understand your view I imagine there are some men out that fit your two criteria yet you would not let them be your pastor. JMHO.

I truly believe in balance in all things.

Originally Posted by Advocate

There are many successful and good businessmen and businesswomen who do not have the kinds of education that some seem to feel is so necessary.

Pastors are qualified by experience with God, and not with Bible school or other education.

Education is good, but education neither prevents failure, nor guarentees success. The worst thing about this recent movement to more and more education is that Bible schools often have environments that actually work against spirituality. That is not a pleasant idea, and it is not necessary but it has often been found true.

It seems like, in the end, people are on their own and need to take their chances or heaven help us, pray in order to wisely elect leadership.

A man's Bible school certificate or even his baccalaureate or additional degrees would not be high on my list of criteria, if I were looking for help in the church, or even a successor. I have seen too many proud men sporting degrees who have scarce knowledge of spiritual things. There are plenty of organizational men willing to meet the criteria of their brethren but seem to simply echo popular ideas, and show no anointing of their own. It is really a cause for concern. I do not think that education plays a large part in our most pressing issues today.

Others will feel differently though and it is nice to be able to share thoughts with them.

I agree with you. good post

Originally Posted by Felicity

I understand what you all are saying. I'm not against education either. I'm just saying that it's no substitute for calling, anointing, and a love for lost humanity and people in general.

I know that you aren't saying anything different. I guess I just put the emphasis on anointing, calling and sacrificial love before education. I wish I had more education too, but I do think that we need to keep the emphasis in the right place and on the right things.

I don't see really where education makes much difference in pulpit ministry. As long as a man (or woman) can read and study they can be as educated as they need to be in regard to what they're preaching and the crowd they're ministering to.

What REALLY matters to the saint in the pew?

I mean I know men who are college educated who take scripture out of context and aren't really great preachers either.

I agree.
[QUOTE=rrford;3180]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Preferably before. You neve know what direction a young person will take and BC could make the difference. It will also give them a year to hear basci doctrines taught more in depth than what they have heard them previously.

I have heard all of the arguments that folks backslide at BC. My opinion is that if they would backslide at BC they would probably definitley backslide in secular college.

Agree!

What a complicated topic this is!

Too often we attempt to deal with this and other subjects without separating the cream, the milk, and the remnants from the barn where it was obtained.

First there is the question of the Bible School. It is not a substitute for secular education, and neither ought it to be considered as such. Some administrations are pressing for a conversion of their schools to satisfy the desires of young people to obtain degrees, consistent with our public acknowledgement that education is desirable for every individual.

If ever there was a concept that maturing young adults can likely obtain desired career paths apart from higher education then it is certainly obsolete now. But there are still some fallacies present.

Some young people can and do find the will of God and occupations and successful lives apart from extensive education. At the same time it is a sobering fact that others flounder, and lose their faith in the college environment. If this is denied, then it is sheer idealism speaking. Finally, the notion that a closed Bible school system can even provide an secular educational equivalent to numerous colleges and universities, or even focused trade schools is wishful thinking at best.

Then there is the fallacy of thinking that Bible schools ought to provide more than theological and ministerial training, or that these pursuits are not valid. Training ministry is a great objective and challenge. On one hand we can say that such training does not require Bible school. On the other hand we can say that it can very much benefit others.

The other question that we mix in too often is the issue of helping young people find the will of God. Maybe some Bible schools, when handed that job by careless parents or pastors, have succeeded here. Yet, this is no guarentee. The responsibility of local leadership to help young people hear the voice of God, even if as simplistically as Eli did with Samuel, is very great.

We can be certain that a young person who is superficially excited about the hope of becoming a minister who has no call of God, and who is not maturing as a Christian, is going to have problems.

Attempting to set a system in place that will meet every need, apart from Christians praying, walking in the Spirit, and individually choosing their career and education is a futile plan. Apostolic people become the laughing stock of the secularists, when they imagine that they can compete with the world's colleges with their efforts to staff a few schools with the paltry, and less than spectacular degree holders.

Finally, Apsotolic people have endorsed the Bible School as a cloistered environment. Emotionally, they have felt better about sending their children to schools where an Apostolic mentality was thought to prevail. However this has run crosswise with the trend to consider young people beyond the need or reach of extensive supervision. Also, history shows us that being a member of a Bible school staff whether accredited, endorsed or otherwise is certainly no guarentee that a teacher will impart only valid and healthy ideas to young people.

If the people who are to be benefited by the schools we have are really not aware of what limitations there are, and what promises ought to be made by the system, it is hard to conceive of increased financial and participatory support by our churches, pastors and families. It is not uncommon to hear of our (UPC) Bible schools as being strongly driven by financial, with policies created to boost enrolement, and to maximize revenue. All in all, the reputations, successes and prognosis for this program is unhappy at this time. Many would like to add their support, but see failings in the Apostolic mindset that may well prevent successful Bible School program.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Warning! You may want to turn your head if this is too painful to look at.

Galatians 5:22 states that one of the end results of the Spirit's work in us will be the addition of longsuffering. Longsuffering is a calmer, gentler synonym of that other word we're apt to run from - patience.

Now patience can be trying, frustrating and at times maddening to receive.
It is through the trying of our faith that patience is birthed. I'm sure you have heard that "tribulation worketh patience"?

But is patience always a virtue? Can patience lead into a general apathy of the soul? Do we confuse apathy and patience in Pentecost?

It would seem to me that some things can't wait. Perhaps this thread will help to identify which areas of life we need to exercise patience in and which areas require immediate change.

Specifically, let's consider the church.

What areas need reform, but not necessarily immediate reform?
What areas need immediate reform?

I will wait impatiently for your response.

Only doctors have patients.

If you don't want trials and tribulation, don't pray for patience. But, of course, if you don't undergo trials and tribulation you won't be conformed to the image of Christ.

[Nahum]

Esther,

We're going around in circles here. Let me ask you this.

Currently there are reading requirements for all ministerial applicants. Do you think we should do away with them? What if someone can't afford the required books?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Advocate

What a complicated topic this is!

Too often we attempt to deal with this and other subjects without separating the cream, the milk, and the remnants from the barn where it was obtained.

First there is the question of the Bible School. It is not a substitute for secular education, and neither ought it to be considered as such. Some administrations are pressing for a conversion of their schools to satisfy the desires of young people to obtain degrees, consistent with our public acknowledgement that education is desirable for every individual.

If ever there was a concept that maturing young adults can likely obtain desired career paths apart from higher education then it is certainly obsolete now. But there are still some fallacies present.

Some young people can and do find the will of God and occupations and successful lives apart from extensive education. At the same time it is a sobering fact that others flounder, and lose their faith in the college environment. If this is denied, then it is sheer idealism speaking. Finally, the notion that a closed Bible school system can even provide an secular educational equivalent to numerous colleges and universities, or even focused trade schools is wishful thinking at best.

Then there is the fallacy of thinking that Bible schools ought to provide more than theological and ministerial training, or that these pursuits are not valid. Training ministry is a great objective and challenge. On one hand we can say that such training does not require Bible school. On the other hand we can say that it can very much benefit others.

The other question that we mix in too often is the issue of helping young people find the will of God. Maybe some Bible schools, when handed that job by careless parents or pastors, have succeeded here. Yet, this is no guarentee. The responsibility of local leadership to help young people hear the voice of God, even if as simplistically as Eli did with Samuel, is very great.

We can be certain that a young person who is superficially excited about the hope of becoming a minister who has no call of God, and who is not maturing as a Christian, is going to have problems.

Attempting to set a system in place that will meet every need, apart from Christians praying, walking in the Spirit, and individually choosing their career and education is a futile plan. Apostolic people become the laughing stock of the secularists, when they imagine that they can compete with the world's colleges with their efforts to staff a few schools with the paltry, and less than spectacular degree holders.

Finally, Apsotolic people have endorsed the Bible School as a cloistered environment. Emotionally, they have felt better about sending their children to schools where an Apostolic mentality was thought to prevail. However this has run crosswise with the trend to consider young people beyond the need or reach of extensive supervision. Also, history shows us that being a member of a Bible school staff whether accredited, endorsed or otherwise is certainly no guarentee that a teacher will impart only valid and healthy ideas to young people.

If the people who are to be benefited by the schools we have are really not aware of what limitations there are, and what promises ought to be made by the system, it is hard to conceive of increased financial and participatory support by our churches, pastors and families. It is not uncommon to hear of our (UPC) Bible schools as being strongly driven by financial, with policies created to boost enrolement, and to maximize revenue. All in all, the reputations, successes and prognosis for this program is unhappy at this time. Many would like to add their support, but see failings in the Apostolic mindset that may well prevent successful Bible School program.

My head hurts, give me a few minutes to digest this.

Originally Posted by Ferd

or how about a step futher, any departmental change in structure should first require a vote one year to have a vote the next year.

that way they cant bring a last minute change, but they cannot "work" on the change without everyone knowing what is going on....

Unfortunately a large number of people neither pay attention to difficult issues, nor do that have the brains to keep up with debate.

In the last General Conference, a resolution was introduced from within the Executive Comittee that fits the description that Pastor Poster provided.

The body was free to reject it. It did not. Neither was there any discussion. I was with men who this affected personally and who were very interested in the question who were not favorable to it but who did not debate it. They were aware it was in the works, but did not have an suffcient argument against it. If there were more time to consider it apart from some details of who would fill the office, etc., surely it would have been seen even more favorably by the larger body.

People inside the organization who are departmentally conntected always have opinions and very distinct views on these matters but that does not mean that a legal introduction of legislation is, in and of itself, wrong.

I would hate to entertain the idea that government needs to be changed, just because things happened as a result of due process that we did not personally appreciate.

The formation of the Division of Publication was a good idea, in my view. Some did not like how it occured, and know personalities involved which color their thinking on the matter. Still, if General Superintendent Kenneth Haney is to be commended for organizational restructuring, even if every financial detail were not glistening with profitability, then this executive movement is also commendable. Having our publications all under single leadership is a very good idea.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Advocate

What a complicated topic this is!

Too often we attempt to deal with this and other subjects without separating the cream, the milk, and the remnants from the barn where it was obtained.

First there is the question of the Bible School. It is not a substitute for secular education, and neither ought it to be considered as such. Some administrations are pressing for a conversion of their schools to satisfy the desires of young people to obtain degrees, consistent with our public acknowledgement that education is desirable for every individual.

If ever there was a concept that maturing young adults can likely obtain desired career paths apart from higher education then it is certainly obsolete now. But there are still some fallacies present.

Some young people can and do find the will of God and occupations and successful lives apart from extensive education. At the same time it is a sobering fact that others flounder, and lose their faith in the college environment. If this is denied, then it is sheer idealism speaking. Finally, the notion that a closed Bible school system can even provide an secular educational equivalent to numerous colleges and universities, or even focused trade schools is wishful thinking at best.

Then there is the fallacy of thinking that Bible schools ought to provide more than theological and ministerial training, or that these pursuits are not valid. Training ministry is a great objective and challenge. On one hand we can say that such training does not require Bible school. On the other hand we can say that it can very much benefit others.

The other question that we mix in too often is the issue of helping young people find the will of God. Maybe some Bible schools, when handed that job by careless parents or pastors, have succeeded here. Yet, this is no guarentee. The responsibility of local leadership to help young people hear the voice of God, even if as simplistically as Eli did with Samuel, is very great.

We can be certain that a young person who is superficially excited about the hope of becoming a minister who has no call of God, and who is not maturing as a Christian, is going to have problems.

Attempting to set a system in place that will meet every need, apart from Christians praying, walking in the Spirit, and individually choosing their career and education is a futile plan. Apostolic people become the laughing stock of the secularists, when they imagine that they can compete with the world's colleges with their efforts to staff a few schools with the paltry, and less than spectacular degree holders.

Finally, Apsotolic people have endorsed the Bible School as a cloistered environment. Emotionally, they have felt better about sending their children to schools where an Apostolic mentality was thought to prevail. However this has run crosswise with the trend to consider young people beyond the need or reach of extensive supervision. Also, history shows us that being a member of a Bible school staff whether accredited, endorsed or otherwise is certainly no guarentee that a teacher will impart only valid and healthy ideas to young people.

If the people who are to be benefited by the schools we have are really not aware of what limitations there are, and what promises ought to be made by the system, it is hard to conceive of increased financial and participatory support by our churches, pastors and families. It is not uncommon to hear of our (UPC) Bible schools as being strongly driven by financial, with policies created to boost enrolement, and to maximize revenue. All in all, the reputations, successes and prognosis for this program is unhappy at this time. Many would like to add their support, but see failings in the Apostolic mindset that may well prevent successful Bible School program.

Complicated topic indeed & I was thinking earlier that the concerns here are quite varied and scattered.

Good post! I appreciate you taking the time to address this part of the conversation and doing it well.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Esther,

We're going around in circles here. Let me ask you this.

Currently there are reading requirements for all ministerial applicants. Do you think we should do away with them? What if someone can't afford the required books?

I think with in reason yes. But I believe the Bible is the best of course. There are some required reading such as Bernard's. He has some good material, but it is HIS opinions.

A lot of the recommended reading is just that opinions of the authors.

When you require reading their material you are then endorsing their opinions.

Most you may agree with, but who can possible agree with all?

I know there are a lot of good men out there now, that did not have required books to read and did not go bible college that does just fine.

Here again, is another thing to consider. Some pastors/teachers do more actual Bible teaching than others.

Then you have the conflict of my pastor taught this was wrong. The BC teaches it is ok. It of course, is going to cause confusion.

That is not a bad thing IF the student will study and pray and learn for himself.

I love BC and I am not against it. But I am so sick and tired of this generation becoming a generation of laws for everything. That concept seems to be bleeding into the church.

One of the main benefits of going to BC is making contacts for future revivals, it seems.

How many go and "learn" to preach but have not the anointing?

Why can't the Pastor recommend the person knowing that either they do know their Bible or they don't? Or why not have a reasonable test that shows whether or not they know the material?

After all, isn't that your main concern?