Pastors move to withhold/lessen SFC offerings in protest of NAYC

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Others have pretty much beat this to death perhaps, but is choreography always wrong? Not just "steppin'" - but in general? In the Temple worship in Jerusalem they used what we might call choreography - even to to the point of having some participants' places carved in stone.

There was a procession and a "performance" that followed a set liturgy. CofC people would argue that the whole affair was "under the law" and that my attempt to appeal to the Temple worship pattern is something that was done away with in the New Covenant. But then again, they also throw out the musical instruments as well.

Is choreography "bad" or just certain styles of dance? Obviously some "styles of dance" are bad... but you know what I mean? In Jerusalem they had huge processions with a different program for the diiferent feasts. David intiated this with his celebrated dance and praise. By Solomon's time the whole thing was an elaborate affair. Would we be wrong to do this?

Also, what about other Jewish dances? People with their arms over each other's shoulders; dancing in a circle. The "steps" of each participant are the same, but hardly very elaborate. Does this honor God?

I have asked myself similar questions P. I don't know if the choreographed movements in dance are necessarily bad. I do know that some dancing is bad. I do not thing we should emulate dance styles that originated in tribal pagan cultures as a ritual in their religious devotions. I do not think that our bodies should move in ways that emulate sensuality. Our dancing should be vertically oriented, and not horizontally oriented. Perhaps the best way to avoid crossing the lines into choreographed tribal style dancing or sensual dancing, is to only allow the type of dance that is Spirit inspired and motivated in spontaneous response to the unction of the Spirit. Yes flesh will get in the mix sometimes, we are simply trying to minimize the opportunity for flesh to get involved.

Are there any anti-choreagraphed dance guys who care to share their thoughts on why ALL choreography is wrong and bad?

[H2H]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I have asked myself similar questions P. I don't know if the choreographed movements in dance are necessarily bad. I do know that some dancing is bad. I do not thing we should emulate dance styles that originated in tribal pagan cultures as a ritual in their religious devotions. I do not think that our bodies should move in ways that emulate sensuality. Our dancing should be vertically oriented, and not horizontally oriented. Perhaps the best way to avoid crossing the lines into choreographed tribal style dancing or sensual dancing, is to only allow the type of dance that is Spirit inspired and motivated in spontaneous response to the unction of the Spirit. Yes flesh will get in the mix sometimes, we are simply trying to minimize the opportunity for flesh to get involved.
Are there any anti-choreagraphed dance guys who care to share their thoughts on why ALL choreography is wrong and bad?

Sometimes there is a lot of flesh - like 500 lbs involved...


Ya know, I used to agree - nothing "organized". But I have seen many spontaneous responses that were sensual.... I am starting to think promoting a minimally organized dance response could help tone down the obnoxious flopping of certain body parts...

[CC1]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

its under the surface, but it is absolutely a race thing...

See, "stepping" is a part of black culture... and old white people don't get it, and since they don't get it they don't like it...

Is it overt purposeful racism? Absolutely not. But to act like race doesn't have a part in it is to ignore the obvious...

I'm not saying they are racist, don't take what I said that way... Simply that race has to do with it because it is outside of our culture to have stepping happen, whereas in black areas it is a normal thing...

I have no problem with "stepping" or other choreographed dancing in church.

However it is a stretch to say opposition to it is racism. Too much of a stretch.

In the case of conservative Pentecostals they would have the same objection to square dancing in the church and it does not come any more "white" than that!!!

I hate rap music because it is stupid. It has no tune or melody, etc, etc. Does that make me racist? I also hate Polka music. Does that make me anti German? What about Blue Grass? I don't like it. Does that make me anti Red Neck?

[CC1]

Originally Posted by H2H

Sometimes there is a lot of flesh - like 500 lbs involved...


Ya know, I used to agree - nothing "organized". But I have seen many spontaneous responses that were sensual.... I am starting to think promoting a minimally organized dance response could help tone down the obnoxious flopping of certain body parts...

Good luck in choreographing the "helicopter"!!!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by CC1

I have no problem with "stepping" or other choreographed dancing in church.

However it is a stretch to say opposition to it is racism. Too much of a stretch.

In the case of conservative Pentecostals they would have the same objection to square dancing in the church and it does not come any more "white" than that!!!

I hate rap music because it is stupid. It has no tune or melody, etc, etc. Does that make me racist? I also hate Polka music. Does that make me anti German? What about Blue Grass? I don't like it. Does that make me anti Red Neck?

You could NEVER be anti-redneck. No man hateth his own flesh.

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Can you please show me how you interpret Heb 13:17 as defining a district board, or prespytery system, or some other form of heirarchical organizational system? Can you give an example in the bible where a district board has authority over another pastor? The "them" in Heb 13:17 is referring to the many pastors over the several congregations that have been established throughout the world. Paul (or the writer of Hebrews), is instructing the constituents of the various local churches, to be subject to their (plural) own pastors (plural) of said various local congregations (plural), NOT the district board. The use of the "them" (plural) is simply in keeping the proper grammatical consistency in number.

Does Heb. 13:17 apply to pastors as well? If so, who has the rule over the pastor? Who watches for his soul? Who gives an account for him? Another pastor? (Your own form of "heirarchical organizational system" ) Or do you believe he suddenly becomes a spiritual authority unto himself, submitting only to God, once he becomes a pastor?

Who elevated the position of "pastor" to one of ultimate rule? This is dictatorship at its best and its not scriptural. As Deacon said, its a nice set up for someone who wants very little (if any) accountability.

You want scriptural support for district boards, presbyter systems, and heirarchical organization but have no scriptural support of your own for this "lone ranger" dictator pastor you speak of.

I guess the poor evangelist is just out of luck. If he ever wants to have "spiritual authority" he just needs to settle down and pastor somewhere. (TIC) Sadly, this does indeed happen. All the time! We have alot of "evangelists" that are pastoring. Not because GOD called them to pastor but because of the unscriptural elevation of the position of pastor!

The "them" and "they" in Heb. 13:17 refers to ALL those in positions of church leadership, by whatever name you choose to call them, in whatever organizational set up that you have agreed to be a part of. We are all subject one to another, as needed, if needed, and/or as appropriate.

Theres only one ultimate "dictator" and his title is NOT pastor.

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The bible speaks that we are to submit to them that have authority over them. When a man signs on the dotted line, he has agreed to the governing bylaws of the org, and he is to submit to those governing bylaws. This is very simple. If you are not willing to submit, then don't sign.

So simple!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

You could NEVER be anti-redneck. No man hateth his own flesh.

LOL!!! Yup. I am afraid my Alaska childhood is long gone. After 34 years in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and now Tennessee I am a redneck.

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Good post. And I agree... my initial response is to the outrage that some have expressed with regards to pastors holding funds from the WEC out of protest for "goings-on" at the national level. It seems the protest of the pastorates has far exceeded any level experienced heretofor. Someone suggested that WEC had authority over pastors, and that the pastors are "wrong" for objecting to national level decisions. I wholeheartedly disagreed. I suggest that it is not the local pastors who disagree with the decisions of national leadership who we should implicate in their protest, it is the national leaders who have made decisions and set a course for the organization that is not sympathetic to the concerns of the pastoral constituency of the organization who should be implicated.

There is still a right way and a wrong way to deal with issues. Two wrongs (by the perception of some) don't make a right.

Its wrong for pastors to take money that has been raised, given and designated for a particular cause and use it for another cause without FIRST obtaining the permission of those that gave and raised the money.

If I give $100 for SFC, I expect it to be submitted as a SFC offering to the powers that be. I don't expect my pastor to take my $100 and use it as mad money. He does not have this authority. Its not his money.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

There is still a right way and a wrong way to deal with issues. Two wrongs (by the perception of some) don't make a right.

Its wrong for pastors to take money that has been raised, given and designated for a particular cause and use it for another cause without FIRST obtaining the permission of those that gave and raised the money.

If I give $100 for SFC, I expect it to be submitted as a SFC offering to the powers that be. I don't expect my pastor to take my $100 and use it as mad money. He does not have this authority. Its not his money.

I agree with your post. It is a matter of integrity and honesty, not one of saints meddling.

A saint should never have to meddle into something like this as a pastor with integrity and honesty would do what you suggested.

I think that is also why it is a good idea for a church to have books that are open to the board for review and if the church is of any size that a CPA also signs off on the accounting every year. That protects the pastor from false accusations and also protects the church against unscupulous men posing as pastors who might borrow money against the church for personal use, etc.