One Accord & Overwhelming Consensus

[Pastorbps]

The submission we're talking about is submission to the corporate direction, not asking someone to violate their personal convictions. If someone over you in the Lord says, "Sit down" at a corporate gathering, you sit down. If they say, "Down this Jack Daniels," feel free to resist.

Submitting to a report regarding a doctrinal issue is by nature a matter of conscience. The color of the carpet or matters of order are a different story and I would agree with you.

I just believe there's a point where standing against a few thousand of your brothers and sisters in the Lord (including those in authority) reeks of self-importance, not pure convictions.

You would have to judge a person's heart to know that. By your statement any time a person stands in opposition to the majority and their leaders they would have to "reek of self importance." The Episcopal Bishops who stood in opposition to their leaderships ordination of homosexuals must have "reeked of self-importance." I guess Martin Luther, John Wesley, and every other reformer must have smelled to high heaven. It would seem easy to stand for your convictions if you only had to stand when you were in the majority. As the great theologian Groucho Marx once said, "These are my conviction. If you don't like them I have others."

[Dr. Ron]

This last post is why this idea is dangerous,

How many times in the bible do you see that the majority was simply wrong. They did not listen to the leadership and got in trouble for it,

Nope, this ain't the way.

For example, some of you have family meetings. Do you let your children have the same vote as you and your spouse? If you do , you are a fool.

Some of you would wind up eating at McDonald's every night.....because the family voted that way.

It is ridiculous to give a vote to someone who has been a member for 6 months who can over ride those who have been there for 6 years. Stupid.

Go back to the biblical method. That is the right way.

[RamboPreacher]

we live in a fallen world. a theocratic gubbamint may work at a smaller, local level. but I can't see it happening at a large scale organizational level (again, in this current kosmos).

[one love]

This last post is why this idea is dangerous,

How many times in the bible do you see that the majority was simply wrong. They did not listen to the leadership and got in trouble for it,

Nope, this ain't the way.

For example, some of you have family meetings. Do you let your children have the same vote as you and your spouse? If you do , you are a fool.

Some of you would wind up eating at McDonald's every night.....because the family voted that way.

It is ridiculous to give a vote to someone who has been a member for 6 months who can over ride those who have been there for 6 years. Stupid.

Go back to the biblical method. That is the right way.

did you insinuate one is a fool???????

How is your way biblical could you explain please? I know you dont agree with the way of buisness for them or us but they did meet in one accord in the bible and if you dont agree fine but how is your way biblical, if you dont mind?

yes I edited this because when I read it again I was in a wrong spirit, sorry, came out wrong

[one love]

we live in a fallen world. a theocratic gubbamint may work at a smaller, local level. but I can't see it happening at a large scale organizational level (again, in this current kosmos).

can I ask would that not limit Gods ability to move on his people in a unified manner? just curious?

[Pastorbps]

Dr. Ron:
I agree with you. I am not sold on any kind of representative system whether that includes the whole or proxies. However, I wasn't talking about building projects but doctrinal issues. Our church came into existence based upon a common agreement regarding doctrinal positions as did most denominations. A change in the doctrinal stand then has profound affects upon the membership which joined based upon those doctrinal stands. The western view of church is changing. People no longer choose churches based upon doctrinal positions thus the generic names and the rise of independent churches. Independent churches such as yours don't exist because of doctrinal positions. People come because of the location, good preaching, strong children's or youth programs, etc. They didn't come because they espoused your clearcut doctrinal positions. You say, "Let the leadership decide issues and just go along with it" but that's referring to non-doctrinal issues. The willingness of your membership to go along with you would quickly change if you began to openly espouse heresy. This really gets to be an interesting subject based upon today's church views.

[Dr. Ron]

It's not "my" way........

It is clear in the NT, that most decisions were made at the local level. The only time GHQ was brought in, was when there was something that needed an unbiased approach.........even that was an issue.

Denom. rules and regs. dont' equate NT order. The largest Pentecostal movement is COGIC. Their General Presbyter is the pastor of a church. Why can't that work in COGOP/COG.

That is the same in the SBC.

This way, nothing is too far from the local church order. That is where the rubber meets the road. Nothing wrong with local churches working together....but each must have it's own vision. MOre than one vision.....division..... it doesn't work.

So, look to the NT and do likewise.

[oletimer]

Pastorbps Posted:
Bill:
I understood you were joking and I didn't take offense at all. I don't agree with some of your other statements though. I still see it as a double standard to say someone stimulating discussion with the hopes of pointing out a doctrinal misstep is being rebellious when that was done for years by those who brought about the current changes. One is considered a patriot and visionary and the other is seen as a blind rebel.
Submitting is an interesting concept when it comes to matters of your convictions. How do you submit your convictions? Can others take votes on your convictions? To abstain is an agreement on a person's part to stand by silently while a wrong is occurring. This may seem strange but I think I would prefer a majority rule decision which says, "These disagreed but we did it anyway."

Think that is why so many of us got sick to stomach and left. Wasn't easy, but everyone needs to have peace in their heart and soul, even at the expence of having to start over some where else were you can feel live, preach, teach, and practice your convictions on the scriptures.

I've seen the value of being the ones in control. BTW I grew up in the COGOP and held license for a long time. I just could not go against my convictions. My two cents

[RamboPreacher]

we live in a fallen world. a theocratic gubbamint may work at a smaller, local level. but I can't see it happening at a large scale organizational level (again, in this current kosmos).

can I ask would that not limit Gods ability to move on his people in a unified manner? just curious?

yes, and it probably does, but we have no Moses (who also failed, and wasn't allowed to enter, BTW)

[dawgs10]

There really seems to be some gray area here. I wish they would clarify what they mean. I would agree that "Overwhelming Consensus" means a majority but does it mean 51% or 66%? As far as "One Accord" is concerned I am really confused. This is especially frustrating when it is only needed in matters of doctrine. How do you submit if you believe something is Biblically incorrect? This wasn't my intention when asking this question but it does bring up some interesting questions. My intention was to explain it to the people of my church when they ask me about these terms. I really don't know how to answer for sure.

it means overwhelming. thats not 51%. a good example would be the last assembly. that was overwhelming. thousands vs. less than 100.

[Pastor Bill]

Bill:
I understood you were joking and I didn't take offense at all. I don't agree with some of your other statements though. I still see it as a double standard to say someone stimulating discussion with the hopes of pointing out a doctrinal misstep is being rebellious when that was done for years by those who brought about the current changes. One is considered a patriot and visionary and the other is seen as a blind rebel.
Submitting is an interesting concept when it comes to matters of your convictions. How do you submit your convictions? Can others take votes on your convictions? To abstain is an agreement on a person's part to stand by silently while a wrong is occurring. This may seem strange but I think I would prefer a majority rule decision which says, "These disagreed but we did it anyway."

No problem, please remember I'm trying to describe the system, not saying that I love the way it is or the way it works.

I don't see someone questioning as rebellious, but someone submitting, then purposefully working against something I think would be. It would be better not to submit, or to abstain.

[oletimer]

Dr Ron posted

Nothing wrong with local churches working together....but each must have it's own vision. MOre than one vision.....division..... it doesn't work.

So, look to the NT and do likewise.

I'm glad that Bro Price couldn't hear you say that, he would bust your breeches (my looked over my shoulder and said that if he was alive today, he might have changed to), I miss him sometimes.

Isaiah 52:8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.

I guess this verse doesn't preach too good no more.

Philippians 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

John 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Ron, I know you can preach these verse better then I ever could. I wonder if our feel good religions of today will ever fit into the finial program of God? I think I understand "the I would rather be independant then under bondage to a theology you can no longer agree with".

Again my two cents worth