Rings with a twist

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Thu, 8 Aug 1996 06:25:53 PST, you wrote:


>>It is not ANY district board's business or right to violate the
>>fundimental doctine by imposings its will on a pastor or church other
>>than as relates to concurance with articles of faith, and personal
>>morality for which he is accountable.

>>I think you are misinformed as to the operation of church governemt.

>Fundamental Doctrine?  I thought the "fundamental doctrine" was that we
>believe in Jesus name baptism? 

"The basic and fundamental doctrine of <one good organization> shall
be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism
in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial
sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

[THIS FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WAS IN FOCUS]

We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come
into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing brethren
that they should not contend for their different views to the disunity
of the body."

Regarding this last paragraph "different views" may include "personal
convictions" and it may include "opposition to personal convictions".
It ought normally to be defined as everything which may be preached or
taught which is NOT particularly mentioned in the articles of faith...

So, if a pastor believes that the local definition of modesty happens
to be that women ought not to wear sleeveless tops, and some guy down
the street has a few people coming in that fashion, pastor A does not
get the district board to come down to pastor B's church and put him
on trial.

If Pastor A teaches that the saints should never darken the doors of
the local BlockBuster video, and pastor B has people that ask Pastor
A's people over to watch videos with them... then, PERHAPS there is a
case which may require some mediation. But one thing is for sure, it
won't be the district board coming down and closing up Pastor B's
church unless he teach against video right away.

If Mississippi pastor A says that the women in his congregation must
wear their long hair UP (a long standing tradition that I as a New
Englander cannot fathom for anything), and pastor B (that's me) thinks
that long hair is just plain uncut, then Pastor A says in a public
place that pastor B's saints are not saved because they don't tie up
their hair right, THEN MAYBE pastor B may appeal to the district board
to ask for pastor A to refrain from such comments.


In fact, in a "real world" even the articles of faith ought not to be
used as a basis for punitive power, unless essential components of the
gospel are at stake For example, there may be some, indeed we all know
there are who cannot abide with some comments on conscientious
scruples (i.e. active military service) in their fellowship's manual.
These men (ministers) are called into active duty as national guard or
otherwise. Will their licenses be revoked because they believe that
they can defend themselves by sword in some circumstances? Probably
not.

Anyway, it pains me to see people who are not licensed in ministry
suggesting that church government does not have enough power to
prosecute. It does, but thanks to an ample supply of the Spirit of
God, it is not used liberally.