17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Eating too much while others are hungry can happen at the local level, the regional level or at a worldwide level. A church or an organization is no better than the people who are in it.
There are different kinds of splits and factions. Some are the result of disagreements or ill will between people.
Other splits are done intentionally for the furtherance of God's kingdom. If you believe Jesus and the apostles favored a decentralized power structure, and a smaller or more localized leadership hierarchy, what Pilgrim is doing is wise. I worry about denominations and large churches that can't split because leaders are holding on to power or because they are trying to preserve a name, or because they don't want their organization to lose market share.
2 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:55 pm
1 Corinthians 11:17
Paul has some words about church factions
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
Which has nothing at all to do with Pilgrim’s organizing themselves into multiple conferences.
If you are aware of a Pilgrim church which has one member starving at communion and another is drunk, please tell us.
I think Ernie’s observations about Pilgrim and Hope are both accurate and astute.
I still do not see the logic of Pilgrim splitting over size when each of the new groupings could be called small, medium and large.
But I confess that while absolutely not in the “the Pilgrim split was Steve’s fault” I am not a fan either.
It just strikes me as odd that a split over size is done the first time the overall membership size takes a step BACK in size, but maybe they concluded size was a factor in the Northeastern thing (which I do not think is true).
Anyway, appreciate the feedback from folks that are closer. I spoke to a minister in Eastern this week whose son is in Pilgrim. He indicated there is pretty universal “at peace” over the whole thing so that is good.
Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 4:05 pm
If you believe Jesus and the apostles favored a decentralized power structure, and a smaller or more localized leadership hierarchy, what Pilgrim is doing is wise. I worry about denominations and large churches that can't split because leaders are holding on to power or because they are trying to preserve a name, or because they don't want their organization to lose market share.
I attended many of the meetings when Pilgrim was being formed. At the outset, there was concern that the organisation not become too large and that the power structure not become too centralised. At that time, in Eastern, I forget how many bishops there were, but one bishop in particular was co-bishop in several districts, giving him control of, as I recall, over more than 50% of the membership. Pilgrim wanted to avoid that. For years, each Pilgrim bishop had a(n) advisory/assistant bishop from another district to go to for advice when needed. These were rotated, I believe, on an annual basis. Many times, the membership did not know who that advisory bishop was,
In the early days of Pilgrim there was much talk of wanting to avoid "Pilgrim Pride"
JayP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 8:34 pm
I think Ernie’s observations about Pilgrim and Hope are both accurate and astute.
I still do not see the logic of Pilgrim splitting over size when each of the new groupings could be called small, medium and large.
It just strikes me as odd that a split over size is done the first time the overall membership size takes a step BACK in size, but maybe they concluded size was a factor in the Northeastern thing (which I do not think is true).
As I recall, It was decided early on that when they exceeded 12 bishops, the conference would divide. When that time came, they realised the division would be more painful than anticipated. When the division finally took place the number of bishops was well over 12
JayP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 8:34 pm
I think Ernie’s observations about Pilgrim and Hope are both accurate and astute.
I still do not see the logic of Pilgrim splitting over size when each of the new groupings could be called small, medium and large.
But I confess that while absolutely not in the “the Pilgrim split was Steve’s fault” I am not a fan either.
It just strikes me as odd that a split over size is done the first time the overall membership size takes a step BACK in size, but maybe they concluded size was a factor in the Northeastern thing (which I do not think is true).
Anyway, appreciate the feedback from folks that are closer. I spoke to a minister in Eastern this week whose son is in Pilgrim. He indicated there is pretty universal “at peace” over the whole thing so that is good.
I actually think any binding structure larger than one congregation is too big. So I can see your point - even the new conferences are all quite large.
JayP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 8:34 pm
I think Ernie’s observations about Pilgrim and Hope are both accurate and astute.
I still do not see the logic of Pilgrim splitting over size when each of the new groupings could be called small, medium and large.
But I confess that while absolutely not in the “the Pilgrim split was Steve’s fault” I am not a fan either.
It just strikes me as odd that a split over size is done the first time the overall membership size takes a step BACK in size, but maybe they concluded size was a factor in the Northeastern thing (which I do not think is true).
Anyway, appreciate the feedback from folks that are closer. I spoke to a minister in Eastern this week whose son is in Pilgrim. He indicated there is pretty universal “at peace” over the whole thing so that is good.
I actually think any binding structure larger than one congregation is too big. So I can see your point - even the new conferences are all quite large.
How well did the “let’s all be an independent church” thing work out, though, for groups like charity?
Does anybody have a membership number and bishop number before Northeastern left?
And what it was at the end of 2024?
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
