Dissatisfied Member of a future WWPF Church

[Seeker]

One thing that has not been addressed in these discussions is that of the individual church member. My pastor is on the WWPF site and the I personally do not want to leave the organization. He has not made an official announcement about his plans, but he has been working over the past year to secure votes to remove the church from the UPCI. I also was approached about leaving the organization some months ago and the pastor even mentioned that possibly some other fellowship was being formed. At this point, I believe that he has enough votes to pull the church from the UPCI, because he has been working on this for at least a year.

We have had fellowship with some of the men listed on the site and with their churches. I sincerely believe that those men whom we have had preach for us are very sincere and godly men. These include Larry Booker, Johnny Godair, Floyd Odom, and Nate Wilson and some others. Some of these, I have been acquainted with for many years and I do not question their motives and intentions (it is not for me to judge the heart, which I cannot see), but I do doubt their wisdom in forming this fellowship.

Over the years following my conversion, I have become more moderate in my views and have moved away from some conservative positions (although I have the highest respect for those who hold to stronger standards) because I feel that they pull a person away from true spirituality. The standards, I believe, do have their place in defining who we are as a people, but many churches teach standards and do not teach the biblical principles that led to the establishment of the standards. This causes weakness in believers and creates a multitude of inconsistencies in their lives. For example, many would never watch a movie, but would read a novel that has graphic content, simply because the former is preached against (even though it may be more wholesome) and the latter is not. I sincerely believe that the conservatism that is represented by this new fellowship is one full of such inconsistencies. This also I have noticed in my church and in the churches that we fellowship with.

Also among this group are some of the more ultra conservatives that preach in an offensive manner and dare anyone to question them. I have observed this many times over the years since my conversion. It always produces more harm than good and many sit under it year after year not knowing the damage it is doing to their spirit.

I believe very much in sincere submission and obedience to my pastor and I do not want to be a rebel, but I am very concerned about the direction that our church is taking and I feel that I may not want to be a part of it. I have considered that if my pastor can rebel against his organization because he feels his principles are being violated, then I can rebel against him for the same reason, however, I am not sure that this logic is sound. This is a very delicate matter and there are others out there in the same situation, so I ask that anyone who responds considers carefully what they write and how it may affect others.

Please understand that I am not necessarily asking for advice (although I will take good advice from any source). My question is an ethical one about rebellion to church leadership and its possible justification especially during the current situation. I think I can argue either side quite well, but I want further input for myself and others who may be in similar situations.

I am new to this site and this is my first post here. Because of the nature of the situation, I will not reveal information about myself. I do enjoy reading the various threads and have found many to be quite informative. Thanks.

[IAintMovin]

Personally I would discuss it with my pastor and not seek advice from a forum...........but that is just me.......

[pelathais]

Your post actually reflects the dilemma that many people are facing. In answer (sort of) to your question: A lot depends upon the role that your current pastor had in founding the church. If he wasn't a part of the church's founding or even the founding pastor, then his responsibilities are a little different than that of a founder.

This is reflected in the By-Laws of the UPCI. A founding pastor has greater leeway and autonomy in an affiliated church than a man that is hired, comes in and then wants to take the church out of the org. The ethics around taking a church out of fellowship or affiliation is the same.

As far as your role, I feel that if you have invested a substantial amount of your life and resources to a church then you have an important say. The fact that the pastor intimated to you earlier what his plans were to be would make it seem like he respects your input in some way as well. It's a difficult decision to make.

One thing that could be a likely scenario- though I obviously have no idea about your particular case - is that a board member could call for a board meeting to discuss "the office of pastor." Article 3, Section 3 (b) of the Local Church Government in the UPCI Manual details the steps involved.

Now this would be contingent upon the following:

1) Either that the church in question is affiliated with the UPCI or,

2) That a similar form of Local Church Constitution is in place despite the church not being affiliated.

But if the church does have this in their local By-Laws (a likelihood in most UPC type churches), then a single board member could set things in motion to remove the pastor.

[TrmptPraise]

I am by no means going to suggest or even advise you in an action one way or the other. However, perhaps my experience will help in your journey.

In choosing a church that we attend (whether it may be moving into the area or the church we were “born” into) we are bound, I believe biblically, to place ourselves under submission of the pastor. Now there were many times, because of the nature of my father’s vocation, that we had to move and choose a church to attend. On occasion we were “stuck,” for lack of a better word, in attending a certain church. It may be the only church in the area or it may have not been feasible to travel to another. We may not have agreed eye-to-eye with everything our pastor held in regards to standards, but because of God’s view of subjection, we did not make a fuss or create discord. We simply abode by the pastor’s guidelines.

Your case seems to be much similar now. You have a decision to make whether you feel that your current church (in its atmosphere, its worship, its outreach, etc…) is of greater value to you than what may be your “beefs” with it. You bring up rebellion. I think rebellion in this case would be you staying and creating something that would not be to the benefit of yourself or the body of that church. You may have to ask yourself can I hang here with out this troubling my mind and without it hindering my walk. However, if you believe that you cannot in good faith remain under the subjection of the pastor, perhaps finding another congregation would be better for you. It may be that finding a pastor that you can place all your confidence in and saying your heart “I can subject myself to this pastor” would not only benefit you, but also decrease the chance of creating disunity within your current assembly.

Before anyone blasts me, I would say this about anyone and any church no matter its affiliation.

As Pelathais states, there are other resources dependent on your role and investment in the church. I wish you all the best and pray that God wisdom and direction will be with you during this difficult time.

[Praxeas]

I know of a church that faces something similar...in this case it's not to join a new group but just to go independent. The pastor is working hard to secure as many yes-men as possible. If they don't want to go then that should be final, rather than to try to change their minds.

[Neck]

One thing that has not been addressed in these discussions is that of the individual church member. My pastor is on the WWPF site and the I personally do not want to leave the organization. He has not made an official announcement about his plans, but he has been working over the past year to secure votes to remove the church from the UPCI. I also was approached about leaving the organization some months ago and the pastor even mentioned that possibly some other fellowship was being formed. At this point, I believe that he has enough votes to pull the church from the UPCI, because he has been working on this for at least a year.

We have had fellowship with some of the men listed on the site and with their churches. I sincerely believe that those men whom we have had preach for us are very sincere and godly men. These include Larry Booker, Johnny Godair, Floyd Odom, and Nate Wilson and some others. Some of these, I have been acquainted with for many years and I do not question their motives and intentions (it is not for me to judge the heart, which I cannot see), but I do doubt their wisdom in forming this fellowship.

Over the years following my conversion, I have become more moderate in my views and have moved away from some conservative positions (although I have the highest respect for those who hold to stronger standards) because I feel that they pull a person away from true spirituality. The standards, I believe, do have their place in defining who we are as a people, but many churches teach standards and do not teach the biblical principles that led to the establishment of the standards. This causes weakness in believers and creates a multitude of inconsistencies in their lives. For example, many would never watch a movie, but would read a novel that has graphic content, simply because the former is preached against (even though it may be more wholesome) and the latter is not. I sincerely believe that the conservatism that is represented by this new fellowship is one full of such inconsistencies. This also I have noticed in my church and in the churches that we fellowship with.

Also among this group are some of the more ultra conservatives that preach in an offensive manner and dare anyone to question them. I have observed this many times over the years since my conversion. It always produces more harm than good and many sit under it year after year not knowing the damage it is doing to their spirit.

I believe very much in sincere submission and obedience to my pastor and I do not want to be a rebel, but I am very concerned about the direction that our church is taking and I feel that I may not want to be a part of it. I have considered that if my pastor can rebel against his organization because he feels his principles are being violated, then I can rebel against him for the same reason, however, I am not sure that this logic is sound. This is a very delicate matter and there are others out there in the same situation, so I ask that anyone who responds considers carefully what they write and how it may affect others.

Please understand that I am not necessarily asking for advice (although I will take good advice from any source). My question is an ethical one about rebellion to church leadership and its possible justification especially during the current situation. I think I can argue either side quite well, but I want further input for myself and others who may be in similar situations.

I am new to this site and this is my first post here. Because of the nature of the situation, I will not reveal information about myself. I do enjoy reading the various threads and have found many to be quite informative. Thanks.

Unless you are a minister you have no voting voice in the UPCI. You are nothing more than a number in the UPC or the WPF.

[StMark]

I know of quite a few people leaving their churches here in CA.-churches that are leaving UPC and going with WFP.

one family I heard today shocked the daylights out of me!

I don't think that some in WFP took into account that many people have deep roots in the UPC- just my take.

I know one church that will be affected greatly financially.


I think that we'll look back in 2 years and see the real effects this has on both the UPC and WPF.

I have wondered what i would do if my church had joined WPF.I doubt very highly that we ever will so i know I have little to be concerned about

[TrmptPraise]

Unless you are a minister you have no voting voice in the UPCI. You are nothing more than a number in the UPC or the WPF.

I'm not sure what that has to do with being a member in good standing at his local assembly and whether a church disaffiliates or not.

[pelathais]

I am by no means going to suggest or even advise you in an action one way or the other. However, perhaps my experience will help in your journey. ...
You put that very well TrmptPraise. Upon re-reading I think that if my words were left there alone, then I really gave a lopsided angle on the issue. I suppose my own thinking on a "non-founding pastor" reflects too narrow of a scope- but it is one hypothetical.

TrmptPraise provides wisdom and balance. :thumbsup

[Neck]

I'm not sure what that has to do with being a member in good standing at his local assembly and whether a church disaffiliates or not.


Was the pastor their spiritual father last year in the UPCI? Then why can't he be their spiritual father in the WPF.

[TrmptPraise]

You put that very well TrmptPraise. Upon re-reading I think that if my words were left there alone, then I really gave a lopsided angle on the issue. I suppose my own thinking on a "non-founding pastor" reflects too narrow of a scope- but it is one hypothetical.

TrmptPraise provides wisdom and balance. :thumbsup


You keep doing that and I won't be able to fit my head back in this thread.:highfive

[scotty]

Happy its nothing I have to worry about. Someone mentioned the other day that they were glad our pastor wasn't going WPF. An elder made the response that "all he would be contributing is himself and an empty building." LOL I love that old man...LOL

:TulsaNO:

[TrmptPraise]

Was the pastor their spiritual father last year in the UPCI? Then why can't he be their spiritual father in the WPF.

I believe what Seeker was conveying in his post was that his views "over the years" since his conversion have become more moderate. He is troubled by the direction of his pastorate and the church's possible affiliation with the WPF. I don't believe he has questioned his pastor's ability to be a shepherd. He has stated that he respects him. I believe he is questioning his responsibility as a saint if he feels that his convictions are now differing from what they once were.

[pelathais]

Was the pastor their spiritual father last year in the UPCI? Then why can't he be their spiritual father in the WPF.
Hi Nathan. I'm not a UPC minister nor do I even "fit the mold" in many ways, but that's their loss. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anyhoo, I do have some strong sentimental attachments to the UPC. I genuinely love my family's new pastor (UPC). I also spent a lot of my life going back and forth to and from St. Louis when I was a UPC minister and I would like to think that those parts of my life were not wasted somehow.

"UPC" is kind of a brand name. It's like finding a box of genuine Kellogg's Corn Flakes at a hotel overseas or a cold bottle of Coca Cola in the Yucatan. You know what to expect after "experimenting" with the local cuisine - and there's a lot of comfort in that.

And so, alot of people will get stirred up about anything changing and losing the "UPC" brand indentification. Of course "change" is what the WPF profess to be stirred up about as well.

For me, it's just the fact that since they didn't do "Step #1" right (recruiting) then all the other steps are doomed to procede along a predictable and disappointing path. A lot of others who feel the same way deserve to have their voices heard. I would encourage them to speak out.

[Seeker]

I am sorry that I did not make this more clear. My pastor and I have a good relationship and I am certain that we can work through this as well, but this may not be the case for everyone. I included the background information so that the readers could have a sense of who I am along with my beliefs and principles, and also to show that the emotion of this movement is reaching down to individual church members who are not ministers. It was probably too much information, since some think I was looking for advice. Still, I will take any good advice.

My question is an ethical one, not one of advice. When does a person take a stand against an organization or against elders or pastors and it become justified? These men who have started this new fellowship did so because they felt that their beliefs were compromised. Does this give them justification? Are church members justified for standing up for their beliefs against a pastor, especially in light of the current situation? Is there a good and justifiable reason for the rebellion that we are seeing , and if so does that same justification trickle down to the non ministerial church members? Are these issues so small that rebellion is not justified in either case? This is a very difficult subject biblically, and I would like to get more input on it.

[RevDWW]

A whole lot of shake'n go'n on. Could it be that the Lord is in all of this to get some out of their ruts and moving in the Kingdom?

[pelathais]

I am sorry that I did not make this more clear. My pastor and I have a good relationship and I am certain that we can work through this as well, but this may not be the case for everyone. I included the background information so that the readers could have a sense of who I am along with my beliefs and principles, and also to show that the emotion of this movement is reaching down to individual church members who are not ministers. It was probably too much information, since some think I was looking for advice. Still, I will take any good advice.

My question is an ethical one, not one of advice. When does a person take a stand against an organization or against elders or pastors and it become justified? These men who have started this new fellowship did so because they felt that their beliefs were compromised. Does this give them justification? Are church members justified for standing up for their beliefs against a pastor, especially in light of the current situation? Is there a good and justifiable reason for the rebellion that we are seeing , and if so does that same justification trickle down to the non ministerial church members? Are these issues so small that rebellion is not justified in either case? This is a very difficult subject biblically, and I would like to get more input on it.
I think the answer concerning their justification lies in the history of the UPC. In some people's eyes we were a fellowship that was supposed to be making "progress" in coming into the "unity" of the Apostolic faith. Whenever this "progress" seemed to slow or to diminish in importance, they became frustrated and agitated for more radical measure to keep the "progress" going.

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

The current divisions within the UPC exist in this milieu. Therefore, I think it is always necessary to stand up for truth. Challenge the false allegations of "corruption" and "sin" in the "compromising churches." Of course when sin does come up, we must speak out against it while also offering a hope of forgiveness and restoration to the fallen.

For myself, I walked out of the UPC because of "tough guy" preachers demanding the very worst sort of accommodations. I was angry at the UPC as a whole for several years and felt like I had been betrayed. In time I began to see that the UPC had also been betrayed by those who let me down. And further, because of my silence I hurt good men in the UPC myself.

When does taking a stand become justified? It is always justified. Just keep the right spirit, remember that Jesus is the Judge and that He has committed to us a ministry of reconciliation. And then plant your feet, square your shoulders and stand.

[TrmptPraise]

I have not posted in these threads so I am not sure it will help.:ursofunny

I haven't read all the way through them either, but perhaps there are some nuggets in them that you can glean from.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1524

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1525

[Minty]

When you have been born and raised in the UPC, it is hard to just drop out. It is very disturbing because families, friends and churches are being torn apart. I know that several of the ministers leaving have different view points and things that they don't allow their congregations to participate in. Christmas for one...some leaving even allow trees and others condemn you to hell for having one. What about colored shirts (ok for some but not others)? Wedding bands? How long will this new organization be united before they split because of something else?

[Felicity]

My question is an ethical one, not one of advice. When does a person take a stand against an organization or against elders or pastors and it become justified? These men who have started this new fellowship did so because they felt that their beliefs were compromised. Does this give them justification? Are church members justified for standing up for their beliefs against a pastor, especially in light of the current situation? Is there a good and justifiable reason for the rebellion that we are seeing , and if so does that same justification trickle down to the non ministerial church members? Are these issues so small that rebellion is not justified in either case? This is a very difficult subject biblically, and I would like to get more input on it.This is what I thought was the main thrust and concern of your post.

I don't see a pastor leaving an "organization" as rebellion. And I don't see a church member leaving a church as rebellion necessarily. The individual is simply making a decision based on their own convictions and beliefs. Sometimes that involves taking a stand and leaving. I just don't see where that is necessarily "rebellion".

The pastor's leaving doesn't necessarily justify another doing the same thing. Why is justification even needed? You don't do what you do based on what he or what someone else does.

Your own decision needs to be made because you have convictions and a belief and have hopefully sought the will and approval of God and do what you feel is the "right" thing to do for the "right" reasons.

[ForeverBlessed]

When you have been born and raised in the UPC, it is hard to just drop out. It is very disturbing because families, friends and churches are being torn apart. I know that several of the ministers leaving have different view points and things that they don't allow their congregations to participate in. Christmas for one...some leaving even allow trees and others condemn you to hell for having one. What about colored shirts (ok for some but not others)? Wedding bands? How long will this new organization be united before they split because of something else?

You are so right, and I believe they will eventually have division among their own organization. That is just the nature of people... that is why everyone should focus on what they do have in common as an org and get along with each other.... let the trivial things go. Especially when it doesn't have to do with salvation.

I am more liberal than I was raised...but I was born and bred in this organization (4th generation and even I can't make a break). I totally understand the uneasy feeling that saints in these churches might be feeling. It is dividing families... and I don't think anything is worth the dividing of families.

I see a lot of faults in the UPCI... but I have choosen to look at all the good that they do and choose to remain a part of a UPC church. Change is very difficult for me... it took me over a year to make a move from the church I was raised in, to another UPC church where the views were more aligned with how I believed on these more trivial things.... and now some 4 years later, my home church is progressively changing.

[CaliG]

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!

[Rev]

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!


"Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women"

You must really pick and choose the threads you read because there have been many scriptures posted on those topics!

[pelathais]

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!
Hey, thanks for the kind words. And I agree very much with the part of your post that I bolded above. However, in the history of the United Pentecostal Church, women wearing slacks and having uncut hair is a "new" teaching for most of the fellowship.

I have seen family photos from the late 1940's of women you would probably know wearing slacks at outdoor events. Also women cutting their hair was never a prohibition until recently. All of these represent things that were added to the holiness and doctrines of the Oneness movement. Prohibiting men's facial hair is another example.

To say that the "no slacks on women" and no "cutting of women's hair" are "things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever;" is to reveal a sad oversight on your part in reading the Word of God. In fact, "pants" and "slacks" etc. were not even invented or used until long after the Bible had been written.

These topics have been discussed endlessly here. And so far, still no scripture can be shown to "command" anything in this regard.

But I wish you well. I was glad to see your post. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[CaliG]

You must really pick and choose the threads you read because there have been many scriptures posted on those topics!

Actually, I do pick and choose the threads I read since I am a brand new member of the forum--I was really only commenting on the aforementioned comments of 'Pelathais', not the opinions or former postings of any one else, but thanks for your help! Blessings!

[pelathais]

"Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women"

You must really pick and choose the threads you read because there have been many scriptures posted on those topics!
Nope, you'll probablly even find me posting in those threads. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[CaliG]

I do realize that the words 'slacks' and 'pants' were not mentioned in the Bible--however, the distinction between the sexes is as old as the written Word itself. My family too has been in the UPC since nearly the beginning, and as long as I can remember women have been taught against the wearing of pants and cutting of their hair.

[pelathais]

I do realize that the words 'slacks' and 'pants' were not mentioned in the Bible--however, the distinction between the sexes is as old as the written Word itself. My family too has been in the UPC since nearly the beginning, and as long as I can remember women have been taught against the wearing of pants and cutting of their hair.
By way of introduction, let me say this: Neither my wife nor our teen aged daughter have ever cut a single hair on their head in the course of either of their entire lives. Not one hair, not ever.

But that's not a "commandment" that I enforce or one that they observe. It is a custom. They do it because they feel that they are honoring God by that practice. Their salvation doesn't depend upon it, but there is an extra element of power in their lives that they feel they might not otherwise have. The point is, they are free to do it, or not to do it. So when they do it - it comes from a heart that is free.

Also, my wife and daughter don't wear slacks. The "commandment" here involves "that which pertaineth to a man..." and vice versa. I've never seen a man wear a pair of pink ladies jeans (and I don't want to!). But my point is THAT would be wrong.

Pants were invented by pagan horsemen of the Northern latitudes. They represent a garment style that is often more modest for a woman than a skirt. As long as the "pants" are feminine and "pertain" to a woman, then they are women's apparel. The enforcement of a stricter code is based upon misogynist elements within our broader culture and really is new to much of the OP movement (by "new" I mean in the last 60 years or so).

I have family members that work in the health care industry. These ladies wear scrubs. Skirts are available, but are frowned upon for many reasons of safety, etc. Also, the scrub pants are just more modest for a lady.

I teach the principle of a distinction between boys and girls to my boys and girls and the result is pretty much the same as what the "clothse line" preacher gets. But my kids are my friends and they take away with them principles that will apply no matter what the world throws at them.

[Neck]

Hi Nathan. I'm not a UPC minister nor do I even "fit the mold" in many ways, but that's their loss. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anyhoo, I do have some strong sentimental attachments to the UPC. I genuinely love my family's new pastor (UPC). I also spent a lot of my life going back and forth to and from St. Louis when I was a UPC minister and I would like to think that those parts of my life were not wasted somehow.

"UPC" is kind of a brand name. It's like finding a box of genuine Kellogg's Corn Flakes at a hotel overseas or a cold bottle of Coca Cola in the Yucatan. You know what to expect after "experimenting" with the local cuisine - and there's a lot of comfort in that.

And so, alot of people will get stirred up about anything changing and losing the "UPC" brand indentification. Of course "change" is what the WPF profess to be stirred up about as well.

For me, it's just the fact that since they didn't do "Step #1" right (recruiting) then all the other steps are doomed to procede along a predictable and disappointing path. A lot of others who feel the same way deserve to have their voices heard. I would encourage them to speak out.

I come from the same background. When it comes to a UPCI church. Your voice is trained not to question direction or authority.

[pelathais]

I come from the same background. When it comes to a UPCI church. Your voice is trained not to question direction or authority.
Yes. And in my travels, some of the "scary" types of churches tended to be ones that ran afoul of the UPC. Almost all of the so-called "anti-cult" horror stories you see on the Internet involve churches or preachers that were in trouble with the org in some way. So "UPC" became something of a "safety" rating. But even then you have to be wary. But to be fair, I guess; you really should be wary wherever you go.

[Neck]

Yes. And in my travels, some of the "scary" types of churches tended to be ones that ran afoul of the UPC. Almost all of the so-called "anti-cult" horror stories you see on the Internet involve churches or preachers that were in trouble with the org in some way. So "UPC" became something of a "safety" rating. But even then you have to be wary. But to be fair, I guess; you really should be wary wherever you go.

I agree. I like the fact that my current pastor. Former UPCI has an open door policy.

He will talk things through and will not beat you down.

He knows the past and the ropes.

[Jekyll]

Please understand that I am not necessarily asking for advice (although I will take good advice from any source). My question is an ethical one about rebellion to church leadership and its possible justification especially during the current situation. I think I can argue either side quite well, but I want further input for myself and others who may be in similar situations.

I am new to this site and this is my first post here. Because of the nature of the situation, I will not reveal information about myself. I do enjoy reading the various threads and have found many to be quite informative. Thanks.

I don't know if I would believe everything I read here.

If you don't trust your pastor to lead your local assembly, what do you trust him to do?

[Praxeas]

I don't know if I would believe everything I read here.

If you don't trust your pastor to lead your local assembly, what do you trust him to do?
make a mean peanut brittle?

[Jekyll]

make a mean peanut brittle?
I'm afraid that this is all some saints would have a pastor do.

[Praxeas]

I'm afraid that this is all some saints would have a pastor do.
many saints would be just fine if the Pastor taught the word...all the other stuff about micro managing someones life...manipulating the board to go the pastors way on something not related to church doctrine like pulling out of the UPC or things have nothing to do with being a good saint or not

[Jekyll]

many saints would be just fine if the Pastor taught the word...all the other stuff about micro managing someones life...manipulating the board to go the pastors way on something not related to church doctrine like pulling out of the UPC or things have nothing to do with being a good saint or not
Reviling a pastor who changes organizations is a sappy point at best. Kinda like saying that those who waste time on internet forums should use their time to witness or pray or whatever.

[Dan'D]

I know of quite a few people leaving their churches here in CA.-churches that are leaving UPC and going with WFP.

one family I heard today shocked the daylights out of me!

I don't think that some in WFP took into account that many people have deep roots in the UPC- just my take.

I know one church that will be affected greatly financially.


I think that we'll look back in 2 years and see the real effects this has on both the UPC and WPF.

I have wondered what i would do if my church had joined WPF.I doubt very highly that we ever will so i know I have little to be concerned about

We have had the reverse effect within the last weeks with saints from other churches coming to ours and we are WFP. Our building plan will need to go on the fast tract

Dan’D
:TulsaROCKS:

[ForeverBlessed]

We have had the reverse effect within the last weeks with saints from other churches coming to ours and we are WFP. Our building plan will need to go on the fast tract

Dan’D
:TulsaROCKS:

Our church continues to grow from people getting saved and not move in's from other churches.... we are going to have to fast track phase two of our building as we are already putting out folding chairs in a three year old bldg... growth the right way is great!

:TulsaNO:

[Dan'D]

Our church continues to grow from people getting saved and not move in's from other churches.... we are going to have to fast track phase two of our building as we are already putting out folding chairs in a three year old bldg... growth the right way is great!

:TulsaNO:

I agree 100%.

But when saints are dissatisfied with the direction there pastor is taking there church regardless of the org. his saints will look elsewhere to get fed. That is a fact.

Parents #1 concern is there family and they will take there family where they are fed.

We were growing very fast as it was but this change the dynamics of everthing.

Dan’D
:TulsaROCKS:

[Praxeas]

Reviling a pastor who changes organizations is a sappy point at best. Kinda like saying that those who waste time on internet forums should use their time to witness or pray or whatever.
thats not the issue. The issue is a persons not being happy with their pastor and church when that person likes being a part of the UPC and the Pastor is actively trying to change the church to pull out when the church as it stands does NOT want to pull out

[Joseph Miller]

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.



Sorry I may not even be considered moderate by some on this forum but let me say that there are clear scripture and scriptural principle for women not cutting hair and for them not wear pants. If you think this is made up stuff you are badly mistaken.

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!


I agree with you CaliG.

[Praxeas]

Whoa--some things are totally sound scriptural doctrine and not arbitrary--they are not just manmade 'standards' of the UPCI. Hopefully I misinterpreted what you were saying here, that it's ok for women to cut their hair and wear pants??? A lot of pastors have 'preferences' that they may teach their flock that can be argued one way or the other, but some things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever and the cutting of women's hair and distinction between the sexes are a couple of them!! God Bless!
Yea, thou hast spoken what is in thine heart. Therefore, now, thou shalt surely speaketh in King James English all the days of thine life

[Fiyahstarter]

Sorry I may not even be considered moderate by some on this forum but let me say that there are clear scripture and scriptural principle for women not cutting hair and for them not wear pants. If you think this is made up stuff you are badly mistaken.




I agree with you CaliG.

YAWNS OUT LOUD.

[Praxeas]

Sorry I may not even be considered moderate by some on this forum but let me say that there are clear scripture and scriptural principle for women not cutting hair and for them not wear pants. If you think this is made up stuff you are badly mistaken.

I think he is aware of the scriptures you refer to and disagrees that they are infact principles for a woman not cutting her hair or not wearing pants.

[Joseph Miller]

Hey, thanks for the kind words. And I agree very much with the part of your post that I bolded above. However, in the history of the United Pentecostal Church, women wearing slacks and having uncut hair is a "new" teaching for most of the fellowship.

I have seen family photos from the late 1940's of women you would probably know wearing slacks at outdoor events. Also women cutting their hair was never a prohibition until recently. All of these represent things that were added to the holiness and doctrines of the Oneness movement. Prohibiting men's facial hair is another example.

To say that the "no slacks on women" and no "cutting of women's hair" are "things are fully supported by, yea even commanded by God's Word and will never change regardless of the WPF, UPCI, or whoever;" is to reveal a sad oversight on your part in reading the Word of God. In fact, "pants" and "slacks" etc. were not even invented or used until long after the Bible had been written.

These topics have been discussed endlessly here. And so far, still no scripture can be shown to "command" anything in this regard.

But I wish you well. I was glad to see your post. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


I disagree that this is a "new" teaching. I think that this is something always taught and believed in the UPCI. It is also a Biblical principle so there is not argument against it.

[Praxeas]

YAWNS OUT LOUD.
Yea, even YEA. Thou hast yawned the yawn of loudness. Therefor thou shalt surely be going to bed sooneth

[Joseph Miller]

I think he is aware of the scriptures you refer to and disagrees that they are infact principles for a woman not cutting her hair or not wearing pants.


It is sad that he is so deceived.

[Praxeas]

It is sad that he is so deceived.
or even sadder that YOU are so deceived....Hey...wanna be my friend? :tvhappy

[Praxeas]

It is sad that he is so deceived.
yea....even Yea, surely thou shalt be esteemeth to be an Ultra Con two, yea, not more than three days and on the fourth day thou shalt be as one with which thou esteemeth mostly...thus saith the Prax

[Joseph Miller]

or even sadder that YOU are so deceived....Hey...wanna be my friend? :tvhappy


Sure I can be friends with people I don't agree on every issue with.

[Praxeas]

just remember this entitles you to only ONE get out of ban free card....use it wisely :toofunny

[Joseph Miller]

just remember this entitles you to only ONE get out of ban free card....use it wisely :toofunny

Ok, I don't intend to do anything to get banned but I will remember the card. :toofunny

[Sister Alvear]

really my opinion would be for the pastor to explain how he feels to his church family and talk things over. I personally would not do anything in haste but in much prayer.

[Praxeas]

really my opinion would be for the pastor to explain how he feels to his church family and talk things over. I personally would not do anything in haste but in much prayer.
Exactly....see we already have a stigma of being a cult hanging over us plus the charge of having abusive pastors by some....being manipulative and controlling often goes hand in hand with an abusive relationship

[Felicity]

I don't know if I would believe everything I read here.

If you don't trust your pastor to lead your local assembly, what do you trust him to do?

I'm afraid that this is all some saints would have a pastor do.

Reviling a pastor who changes organizations is a sappy point at best. Kinda like saying that those who waste time on internet forums should use their time to witness or pray or whatever.Good points! All three of them!

[stmatthew]

Was the pastor their spiritual father last year in the UPCI? Then why can't he be their spiritual father in the WPF.

This makes a lot of sense. It seems many people are more loyal to an organization that they do not even belong to than the Pastor God has put over them to watch for their souls.

[Pragmatist]

I disagree that this is a "new" teaching. I think that this is something always taught and believed in the UPCI. It is also a Biblical principle so there is not argument against it.

It is a "new" teaching in some areas. Uncut hair and no pants on women was a regional belief in the early years of the UPC. My mother grew up UPC in the 1950s and the women cut their hair and wore pants for play and cold weather activities. It was not until a different pastor came in the early 1970s that no pants and uncut hair was taught at the church she grew up in.

[Seeker]

really my opinion would be for the pastor to explain how he feels to his church family and talk things over. I personally would not do anything in haste but in much prayer.

I don’t think that there is necessarily an easy answer to the question of rebellion against pastoral authority, but anything we do must be done with prayer. We have to make sure that our motivations are right and that we are behaving in a righteous manner. Too often, people become critical and whenever the pastor makes a mistake or says something wrong they are offended. Then over time they start looking for a reason to leave or to rebel in some way. When they get to the next church and find that it is less than perfect then they are unhappy there and a cycle of unhappiness is the result. Whatever a person’s choice in this particular situation is to be, he or she must be certain that there are no false motives. There can’t be a desire for revenge or even justice in their actions. They have to do what is right because it is right for themselves and their families. In my opinion, this is the only way a person can rebel right. If I were to take a position against my pastor publicly (or even privately), I would want to saturate the problem in prayer and have no doubts about my intentions. Otherwise, I think it best to leave the matter alone and continue in prayer, because the real problem may be in my own heart and outlook.

There is wisdom in Sister Alvear’s words.

In the current situation, some pastors are moving from one organization to another and others are staying and this may bring dissatisfaction in individual members. I think it is important to remember that even though some aspects of our fellowship have changed (not a new thing for many conservatives whose pastors have already withdrawn their fellowship), our pastors (in most cases) have not changed what they believe and teach and I do not think that (in most cases) fellowship with those on the other side will be limited to the individual member. This is a restructuring of churches, but not necessarily of friendships and families. We are not truly identified by a label (WWPF or UPC), but by our relationships with God and with each other.

This is a bit more complicated for me personally, having been really disillusioned with the conservative message as a result of the methods of my original pastor. He was the type to say “I’m right and if you don’t like it, get out.” He was never afraid to call people down from the pulpit and challenge them. Almost no one could leave the church without it being clearly understood that they were not right and that they would be lost. After years of this, and after a complete spiritual breakdown, I realized that this could not be right and looked for a way out. God blessed me and I was able to escape this man’s ministry without feeling that I would be lost, and the person I accepted as my new pastor appeared to be more moderate in belief and very kind and gentle. After a few years, he started becoming more conservative and started to associate with men that were even more conservative than what I was used to before. He ended our fellowship with the UPC and we started fellowshipping with other extreme conservatives (They all wear dark suits, white shirts, dark ties and he started dressing the same way).

All of this I can handle as I have no love for television, flashy dress, sports, etc., but I cannot handle the nasty and harsh attitudes of some of these men. If my pastor is not careful in his selection of evangelists, etc., and does not protect the church from this harsh conservative attitude, then I will have to seek another church. The harsh attitudes are something that almost caused me to make some very bad choices years ago and I know that I have to protect myself regardless of what anyone thinks.

Still, after having said all of that, I genuinely love my pastor and my church and the thought of leaving is not something that is appealing to me. My pastor has given me his word that he will protect the church from this level of harshness ( I have expressed my concerns to him)).

I would say to anyone in a similar position to give it some time. I am somewhat surprised to hear of members instantaneously leaving churches to go across town to the WWPF church or to the UPC church. This should be a matter of thought and prayer and time. Just because the church as changed affiliation does not mean the church itself will be any different. My case is an exception and the reason that I share it is that anyone in a similar situation may benefit from my thoughts even if some of them may be flawed.

[Seeker]

I am by no means going to suggest or even advise you in an action one way or the other. However, perhaps my experience will help in your journey.

In choosing a church that we attend (whether it may be moving into the area or the church we were “born” into) we are bound, I believe biblically, to place ourselves under submission of the pastor. Now there were many times, because of the nature of my father’s vocation, that we had to move and choose a church to attend. On occasion we were “stuck,” for lack of a better word, in attending a certain church. It may be the only church in the area or it may have not been feasible to travel to another. We may not have agreed eye-to-eye with everything our pastor held in regards to standards, but because of God’s view of subjection, we did not make a fuss or create discord. We simply abode by the pastor’s guidelines.

Your case seems to be much similar now. You have a decision to make whether you feel that your current church (in its atmosphere, its worship, its outreach, etc…) is of greater value to you than what may be your “beefs” with it. You bring up rebellion. I think rebellion in this case would be you staying and creating something that would not be to the benefit of yourself or the body of that church. You may have to ask yourself can I hang here with out this troubling my mind and without it hindering my walk. However, if you believe that you cannot in good faith remain under the subjection of the pastor, perhaps finding another congregation would be better for you. It may be that finding a pastor that you can place all your confidence in and saying your heart “I can subject myself to this pastor” would not only benefit you, but also decrease the chance of creating disunity within your current assembly.

Before anyone blasts me, I would say this about anyone and any church no matter its affiliation.

As Pelathais states, there are other resources dependent on your role and investment in the church. I wish you all the best and pray that God wisdom and direction will be with you during this difficult time.

This statement I highlighted is an interesting view that I had not considered before.

[Seeker]

I think the answer concerning their justification lies in the history of the UPC. In some people's eyes we were a fellowship that was supposed to be making "progress" in coming into the "unity" of the Apostolic faith. Whenever this "progress" seemed to slow or to diminish in importance, they became frustrated and agitated for more radical measure to keep the "progress" going.

Because they had no real Biblical arguments to support some of the changes in standards, like the introduction of the doctrine of uncut hair on women and no slacks on women- they often would exaggerate about a perceived decline in morals around them. Suddenly, everyone had "gone Charismatic" or "backslid" into some error.

The current divisions within the UPC exist in this milieu. Therefore, I think it is always necessary to stand up for truth. Challenge the false allegations of "corruption" and "sin" in the "compromising churches." Of course when sin does come up, we must speak out against it while also offering a hope of forgiveness and restoration to the fallen.

For myself, I walked out of the UPC because of "tough guy" preachers demanding the very worst sort of accommodations. I was angry at the UPC as a whole for several years and felt like I had been betrayed. In time I began to see that the UPC had also been betrayed by those who let me down. And further, because of my silence I hurt good men in the UPC myself.

When does taking a stand become justified? It is always justified. Just keep the right spirit, remember that Jesus is the Judge and that He has committed to us a ministry of reconciliation. And then plant your feet, square your shoulders and stand.

I am curious about what you have said about standards and the UPC. Do you have any references you could share so that I can look at this? I know that the Pentecostal movement did not start as a holiness movement, but I understand that holiness was generally accepted well before the merger. At this point I must admit that I find what you have said to be doubtful and it is much disputed here.

[Praxeas]

I don’t think that there is necessarily an easy answer to the question of rebellion against pastoral authority, but anything we do must be done with prayer.
The problem is Pastoral authority is not absolute. Questioning is not rebellion either. The person is not infallible

[Seeker]

When you have been born and raised in the UPC, it is hard to just drop out. It is very disturbing because families, friends and churches are being torn apart. I know that several of the ministers leaving have different view points and things that they don't allow their congregations to participate in. Christmas for one...some leaving even allow trees and others condemn you to hell for having one. What about colored shirts (ok for some but not others)? Wedding bands? How long will this new organization be united before they split because of something else?

This is also a concern of mine. Someone said that WWPF was an appropriate name because it sounds like a wrestling match. I don't know that this is a good way to express it, but it is a genuine concern. Conservatives and especially utlra conservatives have been known to splinter over relatively minor issues.

[TrmptPraise]

This statement I highlighted is an interesting view that I had not considered before.

I hope that I expressed it clearly enough. My question there was what is the best for your walk with God and for your current assembly. Sometimes when we stay in a situation that is not conducive for us spiritually (meaning that there is something that bugs us, hinders us or we do not agree with), as human beings we tend to let that wash over into our attitudes of worship, prayer, and other involvement within the assembly.

Please do not take my statement to indicate that just any disagreement or lack of unity between one's views and the pastor's is justification for the saint to leave. I have seen the subjection argument work both great and very badly.

I hope I didn't muddy the waters too much there.

[AGAPE]

Personally I would discuss it with my pastor and not seek advice from a forum...........but that is just me.......

ditto

[Seeker]

ditto

I know that the information presented here is personal and I have used this forum as a method for sorting through my thoughts. If I have done wrong in that then I sincerely apologize. From the beginning, I have said that I was not seeking advice and that I wanted to explore the question of pastoral authority and rebelling against it. If you read my posts I am sure that you will not get the impression that I am a desperate soul reaching out for help. This is merely a discussion and the background, although it was unnecessary to the actual question, was helpful in fleshing out the meaning of the question and showing the emotions that these events are causing. I have no plans harm anyone, nor do I have any radical changes in mind for my personal life. I will continue in my genuine submission to my pastor. When him and I discuss these matters again (he already knows how I feel) then I will again tell him the same that I have revealed here. I am dissatisfied with the turn of events and would prefer that things were different, but since they are as they are, I will do the best I can with what God has given me. I desire first to please God and if I fail in that, then nothing else matters.

When I said that I was open to good advice please understand that in the light of what else I said. I AM open to good advice. I think that I can learn from anyone who has knowledge on any subject. If anyone can think of a way for me to do things better in anything at all, then I am open. If you do give me advice though, don't be offended if I do not take it. Everything must be in harmony with God's word and also we all must seek for God's direction in our lives.

Also, I made this statement about being open to advice to make the other statement about not seeking advice to not seem too harsh and closed-minded.

Does anyone really think that this type of forum should be used for getting advice? Should I just take a poll and base every important decision of my life on it? I think that the very idea of this is silly. I will with the help of God and my pastor make the important decisions of my life.

Some have offered advice, and in reality I think most of it is good and well meaning and I mean no offense to you at all. I am only a little frustrated that I have had to make this point three times.

Please forgive me if this seems offensive. I really do not mean for it to be.

The focus here is one of ethics and responsibility both within the local assembly and within the organizations in view of the current situation.

[Michael Phelps]

One thing that has not been addressed in these discussions is that of the individual church member. My pastor is on the WWPF site and the I personally do not want to leave the organization. He has not made an official announcement about his plans, but he has been working over the past year to secure votes to remove the church from the UPCI. I also was approached about leaving the organization some months ago and the pastor even mentioned that possibly some other fellowship was being formed. At this point, I believe that he has enough votes to pull the church from the UPCI, because he has been working on this for at least a year.

We have had fellowship with some of the men listed on the site and with their churches. I sincerely believe that those men whom we have had preach for us are very sincere and godly men. These include Larry Booker, Johnny Godair, Floyd Odom, and Nate Wilson and some others. Some of these, I have been acquainted with for many years and I do not question their motives and intentions (it is not for me to judge the heart, which I cannot see), but I do doubt their wisdom in forming this fellowship.

Over the years following my conversion, I have become more moderate in my views and have moved away from some conservative positions (although I have the highest respect for those who hold to stronger standards) because I feel that they pull a person away from true spirituality. The standards, I believe, do have their place in defining who we are as a people, but many churches teach standards and do not teach the biblical principles that led to the establishment of the standards. This causes weakness in believers and creates a multitude of inconsistencies in their lives. For example, many would never watch a movie, but would read a novel that has graphic content, simply because the former is preached against (even though it may be more wholesome) and the latter is not. I sincerely believe that the conservatism that is represented by this new fellowship is one full of such inconsistencies. This also I have noticed in my church and in the churches that we fellowship with.

Also among this group are some of the more ultra conservatives that preach in an offensive manner and dare anyone to question them. I have observed this many times over the years since my conversion. It always produces more harm than good and many sit under it year after year not knowing the damage it is doing to their spirit.

I believe very much in sincere submission and obedience to my pastor and I do not want to be a rebel, but I am very concerned about the direction that our church is taking and I feel that I may not want to be a part of it. I have considered that if my pastor can rebel against his organization because he feels his principles are being violated, then I can rebel against him for the same reason, however, I am not sure that this logic is sound. This is a very delicate matter and there are others out there in the same situation, so I ask that anyone who responds considers carefully what they write and how it may affect others.

Please understand that I am not necessarily asking for advice (although I will take good advice from any source). My question is an ethical one about rebellion to church leadership and its possible justification especially during the current situation. I think I can argue either side quite well, but I want further input for myself and others who may be in similar situations.

I am new to this site and this is my first post here. Because of the nature of the situation, I will not reveal information about myself. I do enjoy reading the various threads and have found many to be quite informative. Thanks.

I don't have any advice, but I certainly appreciate your spirit!