Pilgrim Conference split

[JayP]

FWIIW, I intend this to be my last post here. It is just pointless because folks just ignore what you say, put their meaning on it, and off to the races we go,

I never claimed Northeast was a split off Pilgrim. But indeed a fair number of folks have left Pilgrim (and other groups) to join them. It does not have to be a split to still involve folks going from A to B.


Everyone is entitled to put whatever conclusions they want on things. So Pilgrim did not have a split, just a peaceful agreeable “reorganization “. Funny, that’s what LMC called it when Eastern was formed. I guess they still share pulpits, huh?

Anyway, things to do and I will be off doing them

[mike]

FWIIW, I intend this to be my last post here. It is just pointless because folks just ignore what you say, put their meaning on it, and off to the races we go,

I never claimed Northeast was a split off Pilgrim. But indeed a fair number of folks have left Pilgrim (and other groups) to join them. It does not have to be a split to still involve folks going from A to B.


Everyone is entitled to put whatever conclusions they want on things. So Pilgrim did not have a split, just a peaceful agreeable “reorganization “. Funny, that’s what LMC called it when Eastern was formed. I guess they still share pulpits, huh?

Anyway, things to do and I will be off doing them

Yes, I believe they still share pulpits between Pilgrim and its new conferences. Hopefully this post doesn't distract you too much from the other things you have to do. I know it is doing that for me.

[JohnH]

It is linguistic gymnastics to cover up what is really going on. In our form of church government, we simply don't have the authority to do that, and I personally don't think anyone should have that authority.

It strikes me as abusive to tell people of an existing church to leave and go somewhere else. The language is a cover for what is happening. It means that leadership can say "Jump" and the only acceptable answer is "how high"? Leadership with that sort of authority is likely to abuse it.

Dude what on earth are you talking about

The church dividing into two churches isn't something that is "top down" from the leadership. The congregation as a whole has to decide they want to do it in the first place. It is a multiyear planning process.

If/when it does happen, the congregation likewise agrees on exactly how it will happen. The custom is to assign people to each congregation randomly so that it is fair.

You say "it is abusive to tell people to go somewhere else"... that isn't happening. Formerly there was church A. Church A ceases to exist. Now there is church B and C. The members of church A agree that they don't want to operate that organisation anymore and want to operate church B and C.

It means that leadership can say "Jump" and the only acceptable answer is "how high"? Leadership with that sort of authority is likely to abuse it.

You'll be glad to know that's not what goes on at all. In fact, Holdemans are one of the few churches I've been around where it is relatively straightforward for the congregation to vote no confidence in an ordained minister/deacon and actually have them benched, as opposed to simply being stuck with them until they retire or die, which seems to be the norm in many other circles (including the Mid-West church I used to be a part of).

Considering their history of paneling, I would say it is extremely unlikely a member will oppose a "decree" that has come from the ministry. It is simply a characteristic of a high-control organization.

It is not a high control organisation, and I’m not sure what something that happened in the early 1970s has to do with dealing with churches getting too big for their building in 2026.

When a church is too big, we simply divide it in half and half of us go to one place and half to the other. The end.

[R7ehr]

Dude what on earth are you talking about

The church dividing into two churches isn't something that is "top down" from the leadership. The congregation as a whole has to decide they want to do it in the first place. It is a multiyear planning process.

If/when it does happen, the congregation likewise agrees on exactly how it will happen. The custom is to assign people to each congregation randomly so that it is fair.

You say "it is abusive to tell people to go somewhere else"... that isn't happening. Formerly there was church A. Church A ceases to exist. Now there is church B and C. The members of church A agree that they don't want to operate that organisation anymore and want to operate church B and C.



You'll be glad to know that's not what goes on at all. In fact, Holdemans are one of the few churches I've been around where it is relatively straightforward for the congregation to vote no confidence in an ordained minister/deacon and actually have them benched, as opposed to simply being stuck with them until they retire or die, which seems to be the norm in many other circles (including the Mid-West church I used to be a part of).

Considering their history of paneling, I would say it is extremely unlikely a member will oppose a "decree" that has come from the ministry. It is simply a characteristic of a high-control organization.

It is not a high control organisation, and I’m not sure what something that happened in the early 1970s has to do with dealing with churches getting too big for their building in 2026.

When a church is too big, we simply divide it in half and half of us go to one place and half to the other. The end.

If congregation A ceases to exist, and congregations B and C are formed, what happens to congregation A's building and name?

Do COGICM congregations have individual names like we do, or do they all simply referred to as COGICM? How do you generate a list of congregations if no unique name or identifiers are used for separate congregations?

[JohnH]

You seem really concerned about this.

A congregation is people, not a building.

Usually, the new building is a little nicer / fancier and is usually attempted to be built closer to wherever the centroid is of a binder distribution of families. Usually a new school too although not always right away.

The old congregation no longer exists, because the congregation is simply people. There are now two congregations.

[ohio jones]

You seem really concerned about this.

A congregation is people, not a building.

Usually, the new building is a little nicer / fancier and is usually attempted to be built closer to wherever the centroid is of a binder distribution of families. Usually a new school too although not always right away.

The old congregation no longer exists, because the congregation is simply people. There are now two congregations.

But congregations often own and occupy buildings. So if new building B is built for new congregation B, and new congregation C meets in old building A, people are going to view them as simply a continuation of old congregation A. This will be true even if they form a new legal entity and transfer the property and change the name, if most of the people in new congregation C were part of old congregation A.

Of course if they build two new buildings and sell the old one, confusion is avoided. Does that frequently happen?

[cmbl]

Wife: yeah, his link started me in the middle of the video, so I thought that was where Ernie wanted us to listen. I found it interesting, his banned list. I didn’t actually know about the anti- pink/lavender standard on men’s clothing, but I think most men I know of would find it weird, and most of the teens/youth I know wouldn’t be caught dead in it.

One time my wife and I were at my parents' for supper. Somehow we got on the topic of dress shirts, and my father said, "And if you're confident enough in your masculinity to wear a pink shirt, you can often get those for cheaper." I had to inform him that, although I am confident enough in my masculinity to do so, Pilgrim Conference is not.

We had a good laugh.

[JohnH]

But congregations often own and occupy buildings. So if new building B is built for new congregation B, and new congregation C meets in old building A, people are going to view them as simply a continuation of old congregation A. This will be true even if they form a new legal entity and transfer the property and change the name, if most of the people in new congregation C were part of old congregation A.

The identity resolves around the people, not the building. If half of the people in a congregation aren't there anymore, it's no longer a continuation of that congregation (at least in the Holdeman mindset, it isn't).

The "original" congregation is often renamed, too, since often it's a geographic or city name and they come up with new names so that it's less confusing. One of the more amusing examples, to me, was somewhere in Idaho where the name went with the new building since it was named after the nearest town and was a lot closer to it.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The end.

Which assumes a level of control that most of us simply would not try to assume, and which we really do not have. The fact that your leadership feels itself able to give such directives and expect them to be obeyed without dissent is emblematic of a high level of control. It's exsistence is almost certainly a result of the residual fear instilled by events in the recent history of the movement. In other words, a high control organization.

[JohnH]

The end.

Which assumes a level of control that most of us simply would not try to assume, and which we really do not have. The fact that your leadership feels itself able to give such directives and expect them to be obeyed without dissent is emblematic of a high level of control. It's exsistence is almost certainly a result of the residual fear instilled by events in the recent history of the movement. In other words, a high control organization.

As I have said several times, the leadership does not give a “directive”.

The congregation makes a decision whether or not to proceed (and it has to be strong, over 60% technically, realistically needs to be over 80% and in practice is usually unanimous).

I don’t see what you have an objection to. A group of people agree they can’t all fit in the building anymore. They don’t want to waste money building huge buildings and having the problems that come with being too big. So they wait until they can all agree on how to become 2 congregations. Then they do what they agreed to do.

Leadership has almost nothing to do with it - including choosing who the ministers are who end up at the 2 new congregations. The members themselves end up deciding that, although they usually choose it based on geography or other factors.

It is not a high control thing.