Please keep in mind that I’m still having issues with the site. Your comment will likely generate an error page, but it should go through. Please hit back and refresh to check before re-submitting your comment (you might want to compsose your words in another program so they aren’t lost). I’m working on finding a new host, please bear with me. Thanks.
There’s been some good discussion on the proposal here, thanks everyone. There are also discussions going on at Clarke’s site and in the forums at ICOCnews (registration required for the forums). Most of those places are pretty negative on the proposal, some more than others. I am not aware of any discussions or commentary that is primarily positive. That, of course, doesn’t mean they aren’t happening, just that I don’t know about them. I’d like to see some, frankly, because I want to hear from ‘the other side’ on why they are for it. Balance is a good thing.
My wife is curious as to why this is such a big deal for me. Good question, I wish I knew. I think, frankly, that my opposition reveals a weakness in my faith, much as a strong desire for it may reveal a weakness in others’ faith. (She, on the other hand, doesn’t really care one way or another. She probably has a greater faith than the rest of us.) What I mean is, it makes me nervous and insecure knowing that there are folks in my fellowship of churches, perhaps in my own church, who think this is a good idea. What will that mean for my relationship with these folks? My church’s relationship with those churches? I need to grow up in my faith and just pursue God, trust my brothers and sisters and not worry about such things, but that’s not where I am. Lord help me grow!
My church has only just begun to discuss it. Actually, there have been no discussions yet, only letting the leaders know that it’s out there and they should go read it and prayerfully consider it. The deacons and evangelist have not yet had a discussion about it. Someone mentioned that my comments may be seen as signifying the direction the church is heading on this. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I hope that I did not convey that message. Perhaps we will go the way I feel comfortable with, but it is very premature to speak to that at all.
Which brings me to the title of this post:
Doug, what if the overwhelming opinion of your church is that you should sign on?
Then we will. Heck, even if it’s not overwhelming, if most of the leadership think this is good for our church, then we should sign on. Oh, I’ll speak my piece, for sure, but I’ll listen too. While I cannot see my mind being changed, I hope that I am not so entrenched in my view as to prevent myself from being swayed. In the end, whether my mind is changed or not, I will happily sign this proposal if it’s the way most of our leadership feels we should go.
You see, I am committed to God, this church and these people far more than I am committed to my ideas and opinions. Unity does not mean uniformity or everyone agreeing, it means a commitment to the team over the individual. We may not get a consensus (complete agreement, that is) on this issue, but we already have a commitment to each other, to our church and collectively to God. Commitment is more valuable than consensus, and easier to obtain.
How utterly foolish we would be to allow this church and this leadership team that we have invested so much into to be divided over a Unity Proposal.

Please keep in mind that I’m still having issues with the site. Your comment will likely generate an error page, but it should go through. Please hit back and refresh to check before re-submitting your comment (you might want to compsose your words in another program so they aren’t lost). I’m working on finding a new host, please bear with me. Thanks.
In light of the current buzz on the Unity Proposal in my ICOC fellowship and my recent study of this passage, I decided to create a paraphrased version of Romans 14 (ESV) tailored to our current dilemma:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he needs no written statements of unity, while the weak person feels compelled to sign on. Let not the one who does not sign despise the one who signs, and let not the one who signs pass judgment on the one who does not, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One person esteems this unity plan as valuable and needed, while another thinks it unnecessary. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who signs, signs it in honor of the Lord. The one who does not sign, does not in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who signs, signs in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

In this first passage, I’ve placed the signers in the weaker position. It seems appropriate to the passage. They feel more at ease with a written agreement defining their church to church relationships while others have no need of any such agreement to be unified just as, in that day, some needed rules about what to eat to feel secure in their faith while others did not. Their rules about eating helped support their faith just as this agreement will help support their feelings of unity. No judgment here, just and observation and comparison.
In the second passage, however, it seems more natural to reverse the roles, to make the non-signers in the insecure position and the signers secure:

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by your signing, you are no longer walking in love. By your signature, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of signing agreements but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
Do not, for the sake of a document, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by signing a paper. It is good not to sign this agreement or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he signs, because the signing is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Those of us who don’t like the agreement feel insecure about signing it. Our faith is perhaps challenged or weakened by it’s existence (I know I feel a little uneasy about it) and are not sure what those who feel great about it will do with it.
So, by taking either side, we are perhaps proclaiming a weakness in our faith. (Could it be that those who don’t care one way or another who are the strong ones?) If either side demands their way is right and best and refuses to be sensitive to the weakness inherent and revealed in the other’s position, unity – and the work of God in us – will be damaged or even destroyed. Love demands sensitivity, tolerance and patience.
Of course, this is not a perfect analogy and I’ve probably mucked it up a bit, but I think that both sides would do well to keep this passage of scripture in mind as we proceed down this road.

Please keep in mind that I’m still having issues with the site. Your comment will likely generate an error page, but it should go through. Please hit back and refresh to check before re-submitting your comment (you might want to compsose your words in another program so they aren’t lost). I’m working on finding a new host, please bear with me. Thanks.
OK, I’ve read the proposal and the Q&A. Read it several days ago now. This is my 4th draft of my thoughts on it. I’m having a little trouble putting my thoughts into words, but tonight it finally hit me how I feel about it:
Sad.
Sad that we are not sucure in what we believe and so think that there is a need to put our doctrine on paper in order for it to be evident.
Sad that we think that we need folks to sign the paper so we can be sure they are with us.
Sad that the things we felt needed to be ratified are little different than the things we have been saying for years and years.
Sad that we cannot just trust in God, the Holy Spirit and each other to produce unity and cooperation.
Sad that we were afraid that the winds of change might blur the lines we had carefully drawn in the sand, so we re-drew them.
Sad that there is now a line, and it seems that I have to pick one side or the other. Can I have a foot on each?
Sad that ignoring the line puts me on one side of the line.
Sad that we think that a signature on a document will make us any more unified than we are now.
Sad that this will distract, even if only a little, from the real work of building unity in my local congregation.
Sad that this may somehow hurt or hinder the new found spirit of cooperation between the ICOC churches in Ohio. I hope it does not, but I fear it may.
Sad that unity is only for the ICOC, not for those outside it.
Sad that we still seem to treat The Great Commission as The Greatest Commandment, which it is not. Ask Jesus, he knew which was which.
Sad that we can’t seem to let secondary issues – like dating outside of the church, expectations of giving and attendance – be secondary issues. Instead we must elevate them to tests of fellowship, or at least tests of membership in the club.
Sad that we continue to elevate our definitions of some Bible terms like by adding adjectives like ‘total’ to commitment and ‘baptized’ to disciple. They are redundant and only seem to be there to show that our understanding of these terms is different and perhaps better than yours.
Sad that after the three years we’ve had to re-evaluate who are and what we are about, it turns out all we need to do is be a little kinder and gentler.
As you might notice, I do not like this proposal. Moreover, I do not like the idea of this creed-like proposal. Time will tell what it means for our churches.
Before I finish, I want to make one thing clear. Do not mistake my pointed criticism of the proposal and the ideas in it for criticism of the men who wrote it. While we clearly come from very different perspectives on this issue, I respect the time and effort they put into it. Some, in different discussions on the proposal, have questioned their motives and suggested there is something else at work here. I don’t question their motives at all. I do not doubt that they entered into this with good intentions and sober and humble intentions. I don’t doubt that they did the best they could with prayer and much advice. I think we do them a disservice to publicly criticize their ideas and words, sometimes quite strongly, without acknowledging their sincere hearts.
I believe that they truly think that this will help bring our churches together. I suppose for those that sign on, that may be true. But, I believe, they will be further divided from those who do not. Maybe that doesn’t matter to those who sign. As I said, time will tell.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything substantial, besides my QT notes. I’ve been basking in the new car glow. I seem to be a pretty popular guy with new wheels. Went to lunch with co-workers the other day and they were fighting for a change to ride in it, even running across the parking lot to secure their spot. LOL.
I’ve also been spending my online time at a couple of Mazda Forums, msprotege.com and mazda3forums.com, reading up on popular modifications and known issues. I’m looking at tinted windows and clear paint protection film for the nose as well as mods to keep the AC from kicking on when the heat or defrost is selected and to allow the use of the fog lights with the parking lights. I likely won’t do any of them, but it’s car-geek fun to read up on it and learn.
Anyway, in the mean time things at church have been going great, on a lot of fronts. I’ve already mentioned the baptisms that we’ve had this year, and I’ll have more on that later. Here’s an update on some things:
In our leaders meetings we’ve begun a series of training classes for our house church leaders based on a book by John Louis in the Singapore Christian Church. The Cinci church did a similar class from the same book with positive results. It feels good to have some focused teaching & training for our house church leaders.
Our leadship group of the four deacons and the minister has grown a lot over the past months. There’s a level of trust, respet and unity that I thought would take longer to achieve. My lack of faith, I guess. Our relationships are closer and our commitment to cooperation in leading the church is solid. I have a lot of respect for theses men, more and more each day, and I fell the sae from them. We each bring something unique to the table and it’s very good. I’m also reminded of a desire I expressed (in writing somewhere, I thought, but I couldn’t find it) a year or so ago to get closer to our minister. Our relationship was strained, and my trust in him was not where I wanted it to be. I had forgotten that desire until I recognized God at work in our friendship, even more so in my heart.
One of the most encouraging thing is that we all see the need in the church for deeper relationships and strengthening our small groups. We are unified in our commitment to strengthen these groups. That’s why we are doing the family group leaders training. We’re also committed to seeing it through. What I mean is that this will not be, as so many of our activities in the past, a short term project. Nor do we intend to let ourselves become distracted by some new project or idea. We’re committed to taking it slowly and seeing it through, as long as that takes.
To that end, we’ve changed our midweek and Bible talk schedules. We will meet as house churches 3 Wednesdays a month to encourage building ‘family’ in those groups and provide opportunity for that to happen. These will also take the place of our other Bible Talks, placing all of our small group emphasis in these house churches and the relationships in them. We will bring our friends on Wendesday, as we have opportunity. The primary objective is not to evangelize, but to worship God and Love each other.
All in all, not glamorous “Hey look at us” kind of changes. No one will be fighting for this story to write up. But it’s mighty encouraging to me because it’s a solid foundation that we can build upon. We are changing who we are in some ways, while remaining true to our past in others. It’s a good thing.

Well, the ICOC Unity Proposal Group has gotten their work done. The proposal has been drafted and is complete.
Unfortunately, you can’t see it yet. (EDIT: I guess it came out today, 2 days earlier than intended but still several days after some recieved it.) It was sent out to certain church leaders and others. I’m not sure who got on the list and why. My minister evidently did not get it, or so it would seem from an email I received from him yesterday. I have a copy, but only because a friend got it off an anti-ICOC site where it had been published and sent it to me. I’ve only read as far as the first page introduction to see that it has explicit instructions against electronic distribution. So I closed it and will read it after it’s officially released, it says Monday the 13th. No offense to the brother who sent it to me, I just couldn’t in good conscience read it if the authors didn’t want it public yet, even if I think that’s silly.
But I wonder, why all this secrecy and clandestine spreading the word to only certain leaders? Are only some leaders important enough to receive it in advance? If it was meant to go to all leaders and only did not because of a lack of contact info, do they mean to imply that the leaders are more important than the run-of-the-mill members?
Once again we’ve managed to create a controversy over a side issue (distribution of the Proposal) that will distract and taint the actual debate on the proposal itself. It seems so silly, but maybe it’s just me.
I’ll be reading it this week as will the other deacons and our minister, I’m sure. I’ll be able to comment on the actual content then.
Though I have an opinion on whether we as a church will sign it, I’ll keep that to myself until it’s been read and debated. Sorry.

For the past two weeks we’ve had something at church that hasn’t happened during service for a long, long time. In fact, except for the inaugural service 9 1/2 years ago, I’m not sure that we’ve ever closed a service this way.
We’ve had baptisms at each service.
To be fair, as a church without a building, having baptisms at service is generally challenging. We’ve met mostly at hotels and some at the two student unions at Ohio State. That makes baptisms at service a bit challenging. But our current meeting place, a middle school, has agreed to let us bring in a baptistery (agricultural feeding tub) so we can have them at church and it’s been amazing. In fact, this year already we’ve exceeded the baptisms for last year at 6 (I think), 3 in the past two weeks all 3 of them at church.
Two Sundays ago we had two, and what a contrast. A short, white, blond single Mom of an adopted boy and a tall, skinny black teenage boy. Yesterday it was a young, single white woman who’s boyfriend was baptized last month. Two other single folks were baptized in January as well.
The best thing about this sudden upswing in conversions is that we didn’t go seeking them. Oh, of course we’re looking for folks to get saved, that’s always the case. What I means is these conversions have not come from a focus on evangelism or some campaign to grow the church. That’s been our past means of doing business, grow, grow, grow, evangelize, evangelize, evangelize. That’s what we talked about, that was our point of existence.
But that’s not what we’ve been talking about lately at all. Instead we’ve been talking about true biblical repentance (metenoia), loving each other and the heart of God. We’ve taken a hard look at ourselves, our church, our God and the vast gulf between us & Him. No push to share. No call to evangelize. None. Yet people are getting saved, and in increasing numbers.
Imagine that.