Brad,
         I don't think that it is a question of leadership as much as 
it is a form of checks and balances, as in our government.  Let's 
face it, the sheep shepherd analogy can only go so farr in describing 
the relationship  of
  the pastor to the church.  Yes, there is one pastor, or perhaps two 
or three depending on the size of the church, but in a real flock of 
sheep, there is only one being, that being the shepherd, who is even 
capable of decision making.  Sheep are pretty stupid and there is no 
hope of them changing.  However, in a healthy church, growth and 
evolution is exactly what you want.  You don't want the people to 
remain dumb sheep.  You hope for them to grow up and become 
shepherds, of sorts, of ministries of their own.  They are capable of 
making decisions also and, if they can support there decision 
biblically, it is only right to dialogue with them.
         Paul himself longed for the people of his congregations to 
grow up and take on responsibility and not remain as infants.  I have 
an idea that, especially for Paul's day we would be talking about a 
Roman flag, he'd throw the things out, but, then again, maybe 
not.  He himself, in Romans 13, cautions us to respect the governing 
authorities, so I can't even say that with 100%  certainty.
         Paul planted many churches, but they did not become cookie 
cutter replicas of one another, as you might expect if Paul was that 
emphatic that his way was the only way.  Paul allowed for 
individuality.  It was when they sinned that he corrected.  He 
himself, granted a great deal of freedom in Christ.  He had too if he 
was going to move on.  He trusted the holy spirit to be in the 
church, not just in one person in the church, as in the old 
testament, but the body should work together as a whole to discern 
the will of God.Different gifts were given for different purposes, 
but they weren't exclusive to one person or another and they were all 
intended to help the body.  I see this as becoming something far 
different than the shepherd sheep analogy.
Kathy

At 03:43 PM 4/24/2006, you wrote:
>Kathy,
>
>Do you think God intended the church, that is the congregation to 
>lead the church or the man of God appointed  or charged with that 
>responsibility to lead the church? If such an incident were to stand 
>before James or Paul, would it be a decision for the congregation or 
>the one discipling them? Curious where this lihne of leadership is drawn.
>
>Brad
>
>
>on 08:10 AM 4/24/2006, Kathy Du Bois said:
>
>Phil,
>         We don't say the pledge during worship, but your post 
> causes me to ask you another question.  The words, "under God," 
> were not added until 1954 in response to McCarthyism and the 
> communist witch hunts of the 50s.  This means that, during world 
> war 2, those words were not there.  Soldiers of that day were 
> fighting under a pledge that simply said, "one nation, 
> indivisible."  Now, there is talk again of removing those words 
> from the pledge.  Would you feel differently about the American 
> flag and it's position next to the Christian flag if those words 
> are once again removed?  I'm just curious.
>         As far as Greg and I deciding anything, our denomination is 
> more locally run, meaning that congregations have a lot of say over 
> how things go.  The pastor may have his opinion, and, biblically, 
> he could be right, but majority will rule.  If the congregation had 
> voted yesterday to keep the American flag in the honored position, 
> we would have to accept it as the rule of the people.  The majority 
> supported Greg, but the veteran's all opposed him.  Actually, Greg 
> didn't even start this fight, one of the Veterans did so we have 
> been put in the position of responding, more or less.  I'd still 
> prefer just getting the things out of the worship space 
> altogether.  I suppose I'm just a wimp at heart.
>Kathy
>
>
>At 09:02 PM 4/23/2006, you wrote:
>Kathy,
>
>I honestly don't know what I would do.  Frankly, at my advanced age, I
>probably wouldn't make a big deal over it but I have been known to make a
>big deal before and out of something I probably should have let go.  I
>understand the spiritual side of the issue, however, and I am referring to
>taking a standing and putting God first.  As I see it, though, I don't feel
>putting the American flag where protocol says it should be displayed, as
>putting God second, or lower, or anything else.  I feel that way, simply
>because, as I said, the American flag, in my opinion, stands for religious
>freedom.  Without its symbolism, there would be no Christian flag even
>possible.  I don't consider them equals but if it were truly an issue of not
>putting God first, that would be different.  I really don't think most
>people, and I can't speak for those in your church because you know them
>better than anybody on this list, consider the American flag putting God
>second.  If we were talking about the Bible here, as I mentioned, that would
>be worth fighting for.  I like the Christian flag and the pledge that goes
>with it.  I like the pledge that goes with the Bible, too, for that matter,
>but the pledge to the American flag does still say, one nation under God, so
>that carries a lot of weight in my opinion.  The Christian pledge says
>nothing about America, freedom, or liberty, without which, again, there
>would be no Christian flag.  So I don't know.  I'm just glad you and your
>husband have to decide on this one.  If it were me?  I'd probably leave it
>just like it is since that's how others want it.  By the way, one nation
>under God, is spoken exactly that way, too, in the pledge because there is
>no comma in the phrase.  If you aren't saying the pledges to the American
>flag and the Christian flag each service, I'd leave it alone but frankly,
>there is truth on both sides of this issue and I honestly don't know which
>is which.
>
>Phil.