Brethren:
As you, of course, know ministers, every two years, must affirm 2 of 23 Articles of Faith. Among them is the Fundamental Doctrine which includes a unity clause that reads:
Quote:
|
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 all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.”
|
With this context, and based on the recent reports by a sub-committee appointed by General Superintendent Haney called the Committee of Inquiry on the Emerging Church in which various dangers and recommendations were made by sitting members of the General Board and published by a General Board Member certain pertinent questions have arisen:
1.
If ,the Committee has identified some of these items as dangers and linked them with fellow ministers in the fellowship, such as:
a. There does not appear to be much of distinction between those who sit in the pew and those who stand on the platform.
b. Pastors often depart from traditional “church dress” to a casual look of open collar, un-tucked shirt, sport coat and jeans.
c. Pastors prefer sitting in a chair or behind a table. Generally there is no physical pulpit visible.
d. Emerging Church leaders typically believe full salvation occurs at repentance. Those who fully embrace Emerging Church philosophy would readily agree that although the Blood is applied at repentance, water and spirit baptism are good and could and should be experienced if the individual is open and receptive.
While recommending that the Articles of Faith be taught and understood now, not only ministers but their churches too -
Where do the the Articles of Faith speak against these dangers?
If they do not, when will the Articles of Faith address things such as church layout, "authoritative" dress code for platform ministry, and the when and how of the New Birth?
Some of these items seem to fall under the personal interpretations that General Superintendent Nathaniel Urshan said would not be challenged or imposed upon after the institution of the Affirmation Statement.
Quote:
The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.
|
However, the same committee has recommended that "District boards may wish to directly address individual pastors who are adrift to carefully reconsider their position."
It may be construed by some in the fellowship that these conclusions are very much contending for one's "different views to the disunity of the body", therefore, a careful and prayerful re-examination of these views and suggested actions may be in order.
God Bless and Good Day.
Threaded Mode
