Jude 2

I know this topic has been discussed but I don't have time to look in the archives. What is the difference between "Overwhelming Consensus & One Accord?"

My oponion: "Overwhelming Consensus 99 out of 100 & One Accord 100 out of 100

As I understand it, and overwhelming consensus is basically a majority decision. The one accord is a bit different. To have a one accord expression, any objectors would need to either abstain from making an expression, submit, or acquiesce. It is neither majority rule or unanimous agreement.

I don't believe that there is an actual definition. From another thread:

RamboPreacher wrote:...
As to the definition and interpretation of overwhelming consensus and the difference between that and one accord goes, that may be a bit of gray area, and left to interpretation of the presbytery. What I do know is that one accord does not (necessarily) equate unanimous consensus (decision). Many want to make the unanimous decision be one accord, and that is simply not the case. I believe the 97:several thousand ratio is more than an overwhelming consensus and is one accord. that is apparently how the presbytery believes as well.
...
just mi dos centavos

from yet another thread:
http://www.jude2.com/viewtopic.php?t=19532
in my document (the documents in reference have changed a bit since this, BTW):

#6 – the mention of “one accord” for decisions, is acceptable for this kind of report and recommendations, in my opinion, but I believe that this needs to be more clearly defined as to meaning that universal unanimity does not equate one accord, and further that if possible a certain, very high percentage be used. I mentioned 2/3rds for overwhelming consensus, I think that 91% should be acceptable for “one accord”, especially in light of the new and established use of the proxy system we have accepted to use.

was offered as a suggestion (personal opinion, only) for definition.

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.

I thought last assembly they explained it a little during the meeting. My understanding was that "Overwhelming Consensus" was probably closer to 2/3s, but basically not about a fixed number, but if it seemed many more people were for than against, that is the way it would go, and "One Accord" meant everyone either agreed, abstained or submitted.

If you didn't agree, you could choose to just not vote, or you could register your disagreement, but submit to the leadership and majority's decision. If you could not do that, then you either held up the entire denomination with your stand, or left the organization (cause we're all apostate anyway right )

This whole idea is ludicrious.

It is an attempt to give scriptural credibility to "majority rule" and dress it up in clean venacular.

How silly. Just say "the majority rules".......that is the way it has always been any way.

Since none of this is the scriptural way to do business, why convolute "Robert's Rules". Just use them properly and go on with business.

However you vote , voting causes disunity. Period.

We don't do that here..........and ain't gonna start.....

Bill:
While I agree with not holding up the whole denomination, I do understand the reason why one couldn't submit (Go along with what others decided) or abstain (Which could be viewed by the one abstaining as agreeing to stand by while something wrong is being done). The third option seems reasonable to me but it is something I never heard during the last Assembly. If the Assembly chooses to pass something I will agree they passed it but with my recorded objection. That seems to be an option which could be worked with. On your last comment about leaving because the church is apostate I don't understand the inconsistency. One day before the Assembly made the changes 2 years ago, there were lots of people who didn't agree with the church's official stand on D&R but they didn't leave because it was apostate. They worked for change. Yet, when the change was made, those who disagreed with the change were to go along with it. Any attempt to work to change it back would be considered rebellious. Why the inconsistency?

Dr. Ron:
How do you decide things like building programs, etc? I'm for choosing a pope, making him infallible and being done with it.

Pastorbps wrote:Bill:
While I agree with not holding up the whole denomination, I do understand the reason why one couldn't submit (Go along with what others decided) or abstain (Which could be viewed by the one abstaining as agreeing to stand by while something wrong is being done). The third option seems reasonable to me but it is something I never heard during the last Assembly. If the Assembly chooses to pass something I will agree they passed it but with my recorded objection. That seems to be an option which could be worked with. On your last comment about leaving because the church is apostate I don't understand the inconsistency. One day before the Assembly made the changes 2 years ago, there were lots of people who didn't agree with the church's official stand on D&R but they didn't leave because it was apostate. They worked for change. Yet, when the change was made, those who disagreed with the change were to go along with it. Any attempt to work to change it back would be considered rebellious. Why the inconsistency?

OK the apostate part was a joke, just blowing off steam due to a close friend who is dealing with this mentality right now. Sorry if it offended.

Yes submitting is registering your objection, and I believe that was stated before, but in submitting you are agreeing to go along with the decision made although you have registered your disagreement. If you can't do that, then it doesn't make sense to stay and try to change things back, and if you did choose to submit, then you need to stand behind that as well, and submit, not work against.

I can't speak for others, but I came into this organization plainly stating my views, and I was accepted and told that while there were things that the church officially stood for that didn't line up with me, those were changing. I continued as I had committed to, and would have submitted in actions on some things had I been asked to, but I have never had to compromise my beliefs, or rebel either one. Changes have taken place, and God worked it out so that I was not put in a position that I had to defy my leadership.

Dr. Ron, I am not saying I like the way it is, but it's the system we have, and I'll work with it till there's something better. I like that we are making some changes, and the changes (at least in our voting) are moving more to a "leader led" structure.

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."

Pastorbps wrote:
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."

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.

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.

Bill, I know you are comfortable with the status quo.....whether it is scriptural or not......and I don't have a problem with that.

When I was there, I tolerated a lot of stuff because I didn't know a better way at that time. Now that I do, it is very plain what the scripture says about business. Why don't we use it? Because it will mess up things in the status quo......

To answer the question about how we make decisions about building and things....we have teams that make decisions based on building space requirements and needs. I listen to them and then the construction team makes decisions based on the needs. It is not a hard thing to do.

In our new members class we teach that to all new comers and they know how we operate. It is never an issue here. I guess you could say we are all in one accord.

When we bought our present building, I had the banker present the facts of the loan. Then, I gave a mortgage loan agreement and a loan application to each member. I had them fill them out at home and mail them to the bank. I have no idea who did and who did not.......nor do I ever want to know. There was no vote about it. I told the banker " when you feel that you have enough applications to support a loan of this size, call me and we will close" He called two weeks later and said we are satisfied that this is a good loan. We closed on a 650K deal and never had a message and interpretation, nor a vote.

We recently bought the property next door for 100k. I had a meeting of the membership and said "If you want this property, we have to pay for it...I won't go into debt for it..." Within an hour we had the money.....and no , I don't have a lot of big money people here. It was just 1K here and 2 -5K there and it was over.

But then, I have never passed an offering plate in this church either. We have a couple of tithe boxes on the wall.....that's it.

It's not that I like the status quo, just that this is what we have, and it's what I have to deal with, until we can change it more to the better.

We probably operate much more like you do in our local congregation.