 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 ... |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/19/17 8:43 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
UncleJD |
I'd love to discuss the tough issues. I even lean closer to CP's position on modesty than I do toward the other extreme of "no such thing as too much skin". It was his rude manner of calling out specific leaders' wives and posting pictures of them, etc.. that was just wrong.
Lets talk about the tough issues, start a thread on it. I'm game. I'm sure there will be the usual 3 camps. 1. You're an old legalist 2. You're right 3. The answer is somewhere in the middle (my camp). |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
7/19/17 8:50 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
As I tried to explain to CP while he was here, there really can be no problem with people having personal convictions which they feel the Spirit has led them to have. We all have them to some degree or another. However, it must always be kept distinctly in mind that such convictions or personal applications of scriptural holiness are not in and of themselves what scriptural holiness is.
I may feel personally convicted that smoking is contrary to loving God supremely and my neighbor as myself (holiness), but that does not mean that I can necessarily quote a verse that essentially says, "Thou shalt not smoke." So I cannot be dogmatic and say that smoking is in and of itself a sin, since Scripture does not say so, though I can validly make the personal application in my own life that it would be a sin for me to smoke, since it would violate my conscience to do so.
I find this principle to be crucial, distinguishing between scriptural holiness itself (loving God and man appropriately) and any personal application of scriptural holiness in one's life. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/19/17 8:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| For instance, it does not offend me in the least to see Mennonites or Amish or UPC ladies in public dressed according to their religious convictions. I may not share their personal convictions as to how Christian ladies should dress, but I cannot just assume they are all Pharisaical or legalistic just by the way they choose to dress. As we know, or should know, it all comes down to the heart. They could no doubt truly love God and their fellow man, and could be genuinely convinced that the way they dress is proper in light of how they understand the Scriptures with regard to modesty. In this day and age, it's rather nice to see someone who gives some consideration to the issue of modesty, isn't it? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/19/17 9:14 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/19/17 9:18 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | ... In this day and age, it's rather nice to see someone who gives some consideration to the issue of modesty, isn't it? |
Yes it is. I remember the change in the COG (and the Pentecostal movement in general) back in the late 70s through the 80s. It was a welcomed change in that people who had been taught that dress was essential to "holiness" suddenly found there is a freedom from that actual legalism to dress and live according to God's word and not necessarily by traditions that might have made sense at one point but did so no longer.
For instance, "women shouldn't appear as a man", that is true! However, it was interpreted from a 19th century viewpoint that meant "women should never wear pants". Well at some point the church missed the fact that pants were no longer designed for men only but there were indeed women's pants. If a man wore them, they would look like a woman! That didn't matter to the legalistic, so when an actual wave of enlightenment hit the church, it was VERY freeing indeed!
Now, nearly 2 generations of young people have grown up in a "post legalist" era of the church, and have no idea of what that transformation was like. All they have inherited is some notion that "its wrong to 'judge' anyone's dress or appearance". There is no longer any context to that notion so therefore it has become quite different than what it was when the transition first occurred. Now, we have moved to a time that says "if you don't embrace the culture and look just like them, you are 'legalistic' and irrelevant".
There is no longer seemingly any room for teaching on modesty in most of the "black paint and laser" charismatic/neo-Pentecostal churches of today. And that's a shame. I in no way would want to go back to the right side ditch of "pants are evil just because I said so", but neither do I like what I see in the left-side ditch of "looking just like the world is just fine", there IS a middle of the road, I intend to try to stay there. [/u] |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
7/19/17 9:34 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| ... |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/19/17 9:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| ... |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:33 am; edited 2 times in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/19/17 10:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
I think you hit on a problem for sure.
If you disagree with the general view on this board, even agreeably, there is rarely any discussion. You simply get labeled a slanderer or heretic or (insert other negative term here) and folks start pressuring Doyle to "rid the board of the scalawag!"
It's too bad.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
7/19/17 10:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/19/17 10:52 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
caveator |
My issue with Charles Page has absolutely nothing to do with a conservative dress standard. Like others have said, I lean more toward that viewpoint myself. I do not think that censorship is a good thing and I have overlooked a lot of issues that have been discussed on this board, and other places, that I disagree with.
My issue with this particular poster is that he has a track record of stirring up trouble and creating controversy just for the sake of controversy. He has been banned from numerous Facebook pages because of his blatant disregard of standards and rules. He has repeatedly, on multiple sites and pages, attempted to embarrass, humiliate, and disrespect wives of various COG pastors and officials. Without giving myself away, he even attacked my wife by copying a picture from deep within her facebook page (trolling) and posting it on a public site. When I approached him about it personally, his response was flippant and unapologetic.
I will admit it! I have major issues with the man that I need to work through in my own heart. When someone attacks my family, I have little tolerance for it! |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 586
7/19/17 2:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| bradfreeman wrote: | I think you hit on a problem for sure.
If you disagree with the general view on this board, even agreeably, there is rarely any discussion. You simply get labeled a slanderer or heretic or (insert other negative term here) and folks start pressuring Doyle to "rid the board of the scalawag!"
It's too bad. |
Actually Brad - while I continually disagree with your conclusions - I do appreciate that you turned down the amount of posts that you produced - which was my main problem with your posts.
It has made them much easier to ignore - so much so that I hardly know you are here anymore - to which I say - thank you. 
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
7/20/17 6:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Does discussion lead any where? |
Mat |
As I read the "back and forth" of the discussion about the role of COG women in ministry (ordain or not to ordain), I must asks the COG governmental experts on this board, does this discussion lead any where? As I understand it, if the subject is brought to the General Assembly it must first pass through the "Bishops", who are all men.
Likewise, perhaps I'm wrong on this, the top leadership (all men) do not take an active role in expressing the direction they would like to see the church take (other than allowing the subject to come to the floor, after which they just sit there in their chairs on stage). So if your top "men" set the agenda, yet do not take a position on it and if the issues must be first "filtered" through a body of older men (or those who have come up in the system to the level of "Bishop"), how in the world are you going to change such a closed system.
You could apply this to just about any subject, and yes, I have seen pronouncements against issues like abortion and immigration come from the top, but these generally reflect the already established policies of the church and are a safe "play" on their part. I see a closed system that is designed to maintain the status quo. I have heard that the goal is to avoid the rise of a dictator like AJT, but I also hear admiration for the leader who helped the church deal with the jewelry issue some years back (was that Horton?).
Help me understand how the COG system settles this issues, whichever way it goes. Discussions, articles and position papers seems to come "crashing down" when it comes time to vote, and yet the issues is not settled. What does your top leadership believe on this issues and will they, or can they, use their position to shape the direction of the COG? Dare they, less they lose their seat on the stage?
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
7/20/17 7:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | As I read the "back and forth" of the discussion about the role of COG women in ministry (ordain or not to ordain), I must asks the COG governmental experts on this board, does this discussion lead any where? As I understand it, if the subject is brought to the General Assembly it must first pass through the "Bishops", who are all men. |
I vaguely remember some proposal about women being ordained as bishops actually passing through the first hurdle but failing in the General Assembly. (I think that might have been in 2012?)
I remember a dear lady who was the wife of a pastor getting up to the mic and explaining how that a different Greek word was used for Phoebe than for the other deacons. Maybe a little discussion can at least shed light to people who are factually wrong about things like that. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/20/17 7:14 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| ... |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/20/17 7:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/20/17 7:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Does discussion lead any where? |
Mat |
| wayne wrote: | | Mat wrote: | As I read the "back and forth" of the discussion about the role of COG women in ministry (ordain or not to ordain), I must asks the COG governmental experts on this board, does this discussion lead any where? As I understand it, if the subject is brought to the General Assembly it must first pass through the "Bishops", who are all men.
Likewise, perhaps I'm wrong on this, the top leadership (all men) do not take an active role in expressing the direction they would like to see the church take (other than allowing the subject to come to the floor, after which they just sit there in their chairs on stage). So if your top "men" set the agenda, yet do not take a position on it and if the issues must be first "filtered" through a body of older men (or those who have come up in the system to the level of "Bishop"), how in the world are you going to change such a closed system.
You could apply this to just about any subject, and yes, I have seen pronouncements against issues like abortion and immigration come from the top, but these generally reflect the already established policies of the church and are a safe "play" on their part. I see a closed system that is designed to maintain the status quo. I have heard that the goal is to avoid the rise of a dictator like AJT, but I also hear admiration for the leader who helped the church deal with the jewelry issue some years back (was that Horton?).
Help me understand how the COG system settles this issues, whichever way it goes. Discussions, articles and position papers seems to come "crashing down" when it comes time to vote, and yet the issues is not settled. What does your top leadership believe on this issues and will they, or can they, use their position to shape the direction of the COG? Dare they, less they lose their seat on the stage?
Mat |
Matt,
I believe these discussions will make a difference if, we take what is discussed here and put it before out leadership. In regards to woman Bishops, if enough people continually press their Pastor's DO's, SO's and leaders, I believe something will happen. Here is the next step, figuring out a way to get more people to the Assembly to watch and hear what their leaders are discussing. |
This is a "bottom up" approach, yet with the voting machines, who knows how anyone votes (when it comes to the Bishops). But what of the "top down" approach, where elected leaders stand up to the mic and share their understanding of the issue and where they think the COG should go?
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
7/20/17 8:09 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Does discussion lead any where? |
Cojak |
| Mat wrote: | I have heard that the goal is to avoid the rise of a dictator like AJT, but I also hear admiration for the leader who helped the church deal with the jewelry issue some years back (was that Horton?).
Help me understand how the COG system settles this issues, whichever way it goes. Discussions, articles and position papers seems to come "crashing down" when it comes time to vote, and yet the issues is not settled.
Mat |
I was not at that Assembly, I was in the USAF and an Exhorter, when the 'ring' situation came up. My dad was there. My dad, knowing I was at the time pretty 'legalistic' (No Jewelry, no TV, no pants, etc) drove hundreds of miles out of his way from Memphis (I think) to Keesler to soften the blow.
Our families were close (Hortons/Darnells) I loved and respected Wade Horton, a dedicated man. Dad was convinced if Wade had wanted to, he could have split the COG at that point, but in the end Dad said Wade make an anointed speech calling for unity, and for the most part it worked.
From that day forth I started to modify my 'legalistic' stance, looking at the Word. My dad was very seldom legalistic, but his messages were mostly the love of Jesus. I lost contact with Wade's son Johnny, in our teens we were both thorns in our dad's sides. (anyone know about Johnny?)
I am not familiar with any leaders at present. I do not know if they are of the caliber of Wade or not, I sure hope so.
We travel a lot and attend many churches on both sides of the fence. The only time it bothers me is when a preacher from the pulpit down grades his/our leadership. THAT my friends is counter productive. I do agree with many independents who left the COG, but only the ones who after the divorce, do not continue to FIGHT a denomination. I do respect the ones who seek souls for the harvest. I don't have time to fight with them.
I have no idea if this is productive as a comment or not. I am a middle-of -the-roader. Not long ago we visited an Alliance Church, Except the name, I would have thought I was in a middle of the road COG! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
7/20/17 8:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Does discussion lead any where? |
Mat |
| Cojak wrote: | | Mat wrote: | I have heard that the goal is to avoid the rise of a dictator like AJT, but I also hear admiration for the leader who helped the church deal with the jewelry issue some years back (was that Horton?).
Help me understand how the COG system settles this issues, whichever way it goes. Discussions, articles and position papers seems to come "crashing down" when it comes time to vote, and yet the issues is not settled.
Mat |
I was not at that Assembly, I was in the USAF and an Exhorter, when the 'ring' situation came up. My dad was there. My dad, knowing I was at the time pretty 'legalistic' (No Jewelry, no TV, no pants, etc) drove hundreds of miles out of his way from Memphis (I think) to Keesler to soften the blow.
Our families were close (Hortons/Darnells) I loved and respected Wade Horton, a dedicated man. Dad was convinced if Wade had wanted to, he could have split the COG at that point, but in the end Dad said Wade make an anointed speech calling for unity, and for the most part it worked.
From that day forth I started to modify my 'legalistic' stance, looking at the Word. My dad was very seldom legalistic, but his messages were mostly the love of Jesus. I lost contact with Wade's son Johnny, in our teens we were both thorns in our dad's sides. (anyone know about Johnny?)
I am not familiar with any leaders at present. I do not know if they are of the caliber of Wade or not, I sure hope so.
We travel a lot and attend many churches on both sides of the fence. The only time it bothers me is when a preacher from the pulpit down grades his/our leadership. THAT my friends is counter productive. I do agree with many independents who left the COG, but only the ones who after the divorce, do not continue to FIGHT a denomination. I do respect the ones who seek souls for the harvest. I don't have time to fight with them.
I have no idea if this is productive as a comment or not. I am a middle-of -the-roader. Not long ago we visited an Alliance Church, Except the name, I would have thought I was in a middle of the road COG! |
I think your father's, and your, observation of Wade Horton's leadership in dealing with a divisive issue is insightful. One could say the leaders who have the most impact are those who risk the most.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
7/20/17 8:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| ... |
wayne |
...
Last edited by wayne on 3/23/18 8:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
7/20/17 9:21 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
