Acts20.com

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.

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.

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.

...

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.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/

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.

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.

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?

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?)

Re: Does discussion lead any where?