Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, hmm?

[Jehoram]

So, let's recap.



The UPC rarely enforces:

1. The no tv issue with ministers.
2. The no organized sports policy.
3. The orgs dress codes.

It never addresses

1. Trinitarians speaking at major conferences.
2. Dual membership in the NCO.
3. Dual membership in local ministerial alliances.


But it will now force out WPFers?


To which I say....


huh?:ursofunny

I think there is an obvious precedent being set.
I think a new agenda is taking root.
I think the UPC is in the fires of a liberal reformation.

And....



I am surprised.



(a little)

[Ferd]

i dont agree. if anything Dan pointed out that DB was a major proponent of the Infernal Document and is likely a major proponent of the move to block this dual membership movement.

that cuts both libs and cons out, making the UPCI more moderate.


....more to come on the NCO.

[SDG]

Consistently looking to disfellowship.

[Jehoram]

i dont agree. if anything Dan pointed out that DB was a major proponent of the Infernal Document and is likely a major proponent of the move to block this dual membership movement.

that cuts both libs and cons out, making the UPCI more moderate.


....more to come on the NCO.

Interesting thought.

I think DB has to be a part of this new move to slice and dice.

Especially since he has already written about it in great detail.

Apparently he finds the issue large enough to capture his attention, and to share his thoughts with others.

When I consider this, I'm not sure if his is just attempting moderation, or if he is overstepping. His political manueverings are divisive - at the least.

[Ferd]

The UPCI blocks dual membership with the ALJC and when the AWCF came along, there was a block of dual membership with that organizaiton. The same happened with the AMF (though, none of those men WANTED dual membership)

NCO has none of the organizational trappings that ALJC/AWCF/AMF/WWPF.

WWPF has couched themselves as a fellowship and not an organizaiton. but their structure is certainly more "organized" than a simple fellowship.

NCO is little more than a loose fellowship that from what I have seen, really isnt even that... nor has it produced any kind of ground swell that would think it will become one.

WWPF has a bible school, magiznine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benifits, bible quizing, youth camps, and alternitive meetings to the UPCI.

these are vastly different organizational structures. One which has nor impact on the UPCI (NCO) the other that clearly has a direct impact on the UPCI (WWPF)

NCO and WWPF are apples and oranges.

[Jehoram]

I believe he is positioning himself for the top job in 2009.

He has already modified some of his holiness positions over the past few years.

[Jehoram]

The UPCI blocks dual membership with the ALJC and when the AWCF came along, there was a block of dual membership with that organizaiton. The same happened with the AMF (though, none of those men WANTED dual membership)

NCO has none of the organizational trappings that ALJC/AWCF/AMF/WWPF.

WWPF has couched themselves as a fellowship and not an organizaiton. but their structure is certainly more "organized" than a simple fellowship.

NCO is little more than a loose fellowship that from what I have seen, really isnt even that... nor has it produced any kind of ground swell that would think it will become one.

WWPF has a bible school, magiznine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benifits, bible quizing, youth camps, and alternitive meetings to the UPCI.

these are vastly different organizational structures. One which has nor impact on the UPCI (NCO) the other that clearly has a direct impact on the UPCI (WWPF)

NCO and WWPF are apples and oranges.
I think you would have a hard time proving that legally.

Both groups are, by definition, orgs.

Both offer membership.

It really is that simple.

[SDG]

Interesting thought.

I think DB has to be a part of this new move to slice and dice.

Especially since he has already written about it in great detail.

Apparently he finds the issue large enough to capture his attention, and to share his thoughts with others.

When I consider this, I'm not sure if his is just attempting moderation, or if he is overstepping. His political manueverings are divisive - at the least.

I don't think this was done intentionally but a product of his being a vocal apologist - theologically and politically. Also in his passion to define the movement. Will history record him as such if the speculations about this are founded?

[SDG]

I believe he is positioning himself for the top job in 2009.

He has already modified some of his holiness positions over the past few years.

He has indeed evolved somewhat... but in very superficial areas.

[Jehoram]

I don't think this was done intentionally but a product of his being a vocal apologist - theologically and politically. Also his passion to define the movement. Will history record him as such if the speculations about this are founded?
How can it not?

What will the total loss of ministers be after we calculate the ministers who left over the AS, and now this edict?

He is a major player in both issues.

[SDG]

The UPCI blocks dual membership with the ALJC and when the AWCF came along, there was a block of dual membership with that organizaiton. The same happened with the AMF (though, none of those men WANTED dual membership)

NCO has none of the organizational trappings that ALJC/AWCF/AMF/WWPF.

WWPF has couched themselves as a fellowship and not an organizaiton. but their structure is certainly more "organized" than a simple fellowship.

NCO is little more than a loose fellowship that from what I have seen, really isnt even that... nor has it produced any kind of ground swell that would think it will become one.

WWPF has a bible school, magiznine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benifits, bible quizing, youth camps, and alternitive meetings to the UPCI.

these are vastly different organizational structures. One which has nor impact on the UPCI (NCO) the other that clearly has a direct impact on the UPCI (WWPF)

NCO and WWPF are apples and oranges.

Don't forget $$$$$$$$$$$ dues and offerings.

[SDG]

How can it not?

What will the total loss of ministers be after we calculate the ministers who left over the AS, and now this edict?

He is a major player in both issues.

He will have helped pared down the movement in a sense, huh?

[SDG]

Do you think DB regrets the AS? I don't think he does.

[Ferd]

Interesting thought.

I think DB has to be a part of this new move to slice and dice.

Especially since he has already written about it in great detail.

Apparently he finds the issue large enough to capture his attention, and to share his thoughts with others.

When I consider this, I'm not sure if his is just attempting moderation, or if he is overstepping. His political manueverings are divisive - at the least.

I certainly oppose the Infernal Document, but I fully understand the action taken here. Not only do I understand it but I applaud it!

[Ferd]

Do you think DB regrets the AS? I don't think he does.

this is a good question!

I would like to know. I do know there are many on the GB that regrets the Infernal Document.

[RevBuddy]

First, I think you guys are giving way too much credit to DB. I really only see him in an ancilliary role, and that primarily with his own district.

I also agree with Ferd. There are major difference between WPF, ALJC, etc. and the NCO and other "loose" felowships. WPF clearly has all the trappings of an "organization" while the NCO has almost none.

As to the AS, it's days may well be numbered, but not because of a serious ground swell of opposition, but under the rationalization of "cost cutting, etc." I opposed the AS because I thought it divisive from both ends of the spectrum, and a needless affront and insult to brethren who were polar opposites. In the last 20 years, it seems we, as an organization, have been dead-set on driving as many ministers away with our constant manipulation of the manual. As a result, we have lost valuable and anointed ministers from all sectors of our fellowship.

I'm not so concerned as to our exact spiritual and political direction, but rather am somewhat pleased that we may (I said, may) have gotten over our "holiness by legislation" tendencies...

[RevBuddy]

Also, one other consideration...an organization's response to an internal "uprising" cannot be based on the number of ministers who will be lost. That is a serious concern, but from a leadership view, it cannot be the deciding factor. The organization's response must be to do what is right, in light of God's Word and in light of the overriding best interests of its constituency and churches.

In this case, to do nothing is an option, and may have well been the correct response early on. But, the time for that option to have been selected is well past. The best strategy in going forward is to be consistent...and whether you like the strategy or not, leadership is being consistent.

[RevBuddy]

The UPC rarely enforces:

1. The no tv issue with ministers.
2. The no organized sports policy.
3. The orgs dress codes.

It never addresses

1. Trinitarians speaking at major conferences.
2. Dual membership in the NCO.
3. Dual membership in local ministerial alliances.


But it will now force out WPFers?


To which I say....


huh?

You see this as negative...I see it as a positive...I personally don't want national or district officials down meddling in the affairs of autonomous churches and their pastors.

When this occurred in the past (AMF), the organization reacted essentially the same.

[SDG]

First, I think you guys are giving way too much credit to DB. I really only see him in an ancilliary role, and that primarily with his own district..

Elder, DB"s role with the 92 GC and passage of the AS is well-known ... His paper on "Affirming our Fundamental Doctrine and Holiness" and esentially gave a voice to the Westburg Resolution and defended it's passage and implementation...

He also was the first of the nationally known leaders to say that dual membership was not acceptable under the bylaws in his January 21, 2008 letter to his district.

Are we to believe he did not hold this position ... and probably advocated this position at the GB meeting?

[RevBuddy]

No, you misunderstand my point...maybe you "misremembered!" Too much credit is given to him on the current issue - WPF - not what he did in 1992. I agree with you on his participation in the AS issue. But, I don't believe he has been as influential or as visible on the current controversy...

As to the issue about whether a minister can hold two fellowship cards, this is a non issue. The manual is clear on the matter. There was very little drama or uncertainty as to what conclusion the GB would come to...does that make better sense???

[Ferd]

No, you misunderstand my point...maybe you "misremembered!" Too much credit is given to him on the current issue - WPF - not what he did in 1992. I agree with you on his participation in the AS issue. But, I don't believe he has been as influential or as visible on the current controversy...

As to the issue about whether a minister can hold two fellowship cards, this is a non issue. The manual is clear on the matter. There was very little drama or uncertainty as to what conclusion the GB would come to...does that make better sense???

I tend to agree with this.

While he did write the letter stating being in both was not possible, I dont think he was the mover on this deal.

I suspect the majority of the board all felt this way individually.

[SDG]

No, you misunderstand my point...maybe you "misremembered!" Too much credit is given to him on the current issue - WPF - not what he did in 1992. I agree with you on his participation in the AS issue. But, I don't believe he has been as influential or as visible on the current controversy...

As to the issue about whether a minister can hold two fellowship cards, this is a non issue. The manual is clear on the matter. There was very little drama or uncertainty as to what conclusion the GB would come to...does that make better sense???

Elder, I know that he's written a series of letters since Columbus in 2006 .... to his district of which by now he knows have become widely circulated and read by not just those under his jurisdiction ...

They have essentially become public domain.

He's well aware of the effects of electronic media as we saw w/ the CAF incident and in the content of said letters. I think he's been very visible on this ... issue.

I don't think it's a stretch to believe he knows that his opinions are well-respected and publicized throughout the entire fellowship using his district as a platform.

In his last letter that went straight after the WPF... which I think might be #4 on the topic of the resolution and the resolution fallout...

It stated:

"To fulfill this plan, the WPF will need to identify ministerial license in some way in order to qualify members, qualify officers, conduct votes, and enforce adherence to its Articles of Faith. However, the Manual of the UPCI states that its ministers cannot be licensed with another “organization or association” (Art. VII, Sec. 2, Par)" - January 21, 2008

If you like I can post the four or so letters that have ran the electronic forum and mail circuit ... starting in 2006.

[RevBuddy]

Historically, I have not put much value on the "letter writers" of our movement. So, maybe I'm undervaluing his contributions in this area. And, I don't generally take a position on issues based on who publishes the most correspondence.

But, I do see and respect your conclusions about him. It's probably my personal take. He may very well be attempting to have a major influence on as many ministers as possible.???? I just not certain....

[RevBuddy]

If he's gone "political" on me...I'm disappointed. I always felt his value was in his academic research and skills. Even though, he shouldn't be the only voice on doctrinal issues. In some quarters, if he said, "it," "it" is fact, and therefore doctrinal truth...

[SDG]

Historically, I have not put much value on the "letter writers" of our movement. So, maybe I'm undervaluing his contributions in this area. And, I don't generally take a position on issues based on who publishes the most correspondence.

But, I do see and respect your conclusions about him. It's probably my personal take. He may very well be attempting to have a major influence on as many ministers as possible.???? I just not certain....

DB is a well-respected voice because he's viewed as the prominent theologian in the movement ... certainly it's not the quantity of his corrrespondence but who DB is ... He's part of the intelligentsia

[SDG]

If he's gone "political" on me...I'm disappointed. I always felt his value was in his academic research and skills. Even though, he shouldn't be the only voice on doctrinal issues. In some quarters, if he said, "it," "it" is fact, and therefore doctrinal truth...

Agreed ... he has that type of influence ...

[Whole Hearted]

So, let's recap.



The UPC rarely enforces:

1. The no tv issue with ministers.
2. The no organized sports policy.
3. The orgs dress codes.

It never addresses

1. Trinitarians speaking at major conferences.
2. Dual membership in the NCO.
3. Dual membership in local ministerial alliances.


But it will now force out WPFers?


To which I say....


huh?:ursofunny

I think there is an obvious precedent being set.
I think a new agenda is taking root.
I think the UPC is in the fires of a liberal reformation.

And....



I am surprised.



(a little)

I agree. it picks and chooses which rules it wants to enforces.

[RevBuddy]

I agree. it picks and chooses which rules it wants to enforces.

Thank God!

[James Griffin]

The UPCI blocks dual membership with the ALJC and when the AWCF came along, there was a block of dual membership with that organizaiton. The same happened with the AMF (though, none of those men WANTED dual membership)

NCO has none of the organizational trappings that ALJC/AWCF/AMF/WWPF.

WWPF has couched themselves as a fellowship and not an organizaiton. but their structure is certainly more "organized" than a simple fellowship.

NCO is little more than a loose fellowship that from what I have seen, really isnt even that... nor has it produced any kind of ground swell that would think it will become one.

WWPF has a bible school, magiznine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benifits, bible quizing, youth camps, and alternitive meetings to the UPCI.

these are vastly different organizational structures. One which has nor impact on the UPCI (NCO) the other that clearly has a direct impact on the UPCI (WWPF)

NCO and WWPF are apples and oranges.

I think you would have a hard time proving that legally.

Both groups are, by definition, orgs.

Both offer membership.

It really is that simple.

LEGALLY they are apples and oranges, as was stated-

WWPF has a bible school, magazine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benefits, bible quizzing, youth camps, and alternative meetings to the UPCI.

The NCO does not have dues, Bible School, magazine, missions plan, HQ space, benefits (like insurance), Bible quizzing, youth camps, or alternative meetings.

Furthermore it does not have ANY layers of organizational hierarchy, nor even written Articles of Faith.

It does not even have 501 (c) (3) status.

It is a fellowship, primarily web based dedicated to sharing ideas and means to propagate the gospel. Nothing more nothing less.

Legally speaking comparing it to an organization such as WWPF is a total non sequitur!!!


James Griffin
Attorney at Law

[RevBuddy]

Exactly right, Brother Griffin...

[bishoph]

Bro. Griffin, good to see your input. I agree that the NCO may be a poor specimen for comparison, However I feel that the AWCF, and the IAF are fair comparisons. Both charge dues (even though they may be significantly less than WPF, due are dues) they both have division/departments/arms that mirror organizational structure, both have regional and national meetings, and both have headquarters.

All I am stating is that if we are going to deal with this fairly, IMO the UPCI must make membership in the AWCF and the IAF, and all other ministerial "fellowships/associations" off limits as well. While some here on AFF have repeatedly stated that the UPCI does in fact disallow for AWCF, IAF, and others, it is simply not true. In the beginning of the AWCF the UPCI took a very harsh stand against the AWCF, however over time they have relented, and today a good number of UPCI men are members of the AWCF, and even represent the UPCI on the board.

If any remember when the AWCF was starting, the UPCI in taking such a harsh stand, lost some ministers that would have never thought about leaving because they (the UPCI) made them make a choice, and they seem doomed to repeat themselves. BTW all of the WPF "haters" (I use that term very TIC) have no problem with UPCI members being members of the AWCF, so what is the difference? IMO it is a matter of personal perception because of a perceived injustice to a beloved entity.

[SDG]

LEGALLY they are apples and oranges, as was stated-

WWPF has a bible school, magazine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benefits, bible quizzing, youth camps, and alternative meetings to the UPCI.

The NCO does not have dues, Bible School, magazine, missions plan, HQ space, benefits (like insurance), Bible quizzing, youth camps, or alternative meetings.

Furthermore it does not have ANY layers of organizational hierarchy, nor even written Articles of Faith.

It does not even have 501 (c) (3) status.

It is a fellowship, primarily web based dedicated to sharing ideas and means to propagate the gospel. Nothing more nothing less.

Legally speaking comparing it to an organization such as WWPF is a total non sequitur!!!


James Griffin
Attorney at Law


Doh ... there goes that myth.

[Sam]

i dont agree. if anything Dan pointed out that DB was a major proponent of the Infernal Document and is likely a major proponent of the move to block this dual membership movement.

that cuts both libs and cons out, making the UPCI more moderate.


....more to come on the NCO.

Maybe because of the new organization's affect in Texas?

[Sam]

How can it not?

What will the total loss of ministers be after we calculate the ministers who left over the AS, and now this edict?

He is a major player in both issues.

Any numbers for those leaving will be fudged or covered over by, "we're growing and adding ministers and churches every day" type damage control.

Also, how do you really measure the numbers for those who leave by just not renewing their dues?

[pelathais]

Elder, DB"s role with the 92 GC and passage of the AS is well-known ... His paper on "Affirming our Fundamental Doctrine and Holiness" and esentially gave a voice to the Westburg Resolution and defended it's passage and implementation...

He also was the first of the nationally known leaders to say that dual membership was not acceptable under the bylaws in his January 21, 2008 letter to his district.

Are we to believe he did not hold this position ... and probably advocated this position at the GB meeting?
From my impressions of 1992 and recollections of DB's involvement I would tend to agree with Rev. Buddy. I remember DB's pre-Conference article as being something that he seemed to have been asked to write. I've shared platforms with both DB and LW and believe me- they were never in lock step and seemed to be uncomfortable with each other. Just my impression.

At the 1992 Conference LW made an impassioned plea for the AS but it seemed to have been met with skepticism. DB was called upon only once (as I recall) to make some sort of explanation as parlimentarian. I don't remember him ever speaking in favor of the resolution.

The whole AS was going down until one man spoke. That one man made all the difference in the vote and has gone on record since expressing his profoundest regrets. He in fact apologized to the conference the following year.

The "inconsistencies" that AE seems to lament are a product of the haphazard whims of an org trying to legislate holiness. Whoever can move the crowd on one particular day will determine the way in which everyone else is supposed to live their lives. Then when time passes, many of the one-time crowd pleasers are ignored because the crowd has learned through hard experience that such whims are not the way to lead God's church.

[RevBuddy]

Dan...did you see how intelligent Pelathais is above...this guy has insight and depth!!! :bliss

[SDG]

Dan...did you see how intelligent Pelathais is above...this guy has insight and depth!!! :bliss

The Mighty Warrior is one of my cyber hero favorites!!!!

[James Griffin]

Bro. Griffin, good to see your input. I agree that the NCO may be a poor specimen for comparison, However I feel that the AWCF, a fair comparison....

All I am stating is that if we are going to deal with this fairly, IMO the UPCI must make membership in the AWCF, and all other ministerial "fellowships/associations" off limits as well....

IMO it is a matter of personal perception because of a perceived injustice to a beloved entity.

It is a little bit more than perceived injustice to a beloved entity. Some of the recruiting techniques employed, whether sanctioned or not, were at best unethical.

Furthermore, the AWCF is inclusionary by its nature and includes over 180 affiliate organizations under its umbrella.

The WPF by contrast is exclusionary by nature and a major catalyst to its formation in present form was the passage of Res 4 by the UPCI in Tampa. Most importantly it was intended from its inception to provide an alternative to the UPCI, to deny that now would be somewhat disingenuous by the leadership.

However, other than the unfortunate recruiting tactics, and dissemination of misinformation in the formulative stages (something that could happen among the membership of anyone passionate about starting something new) I personally believe the WPF men to be men of integrity and would not presume to impinge their motives.

Which brings us back to the original premise of the thread; organizational consistency.

Ignoring the foundational intent of the various organizations, and looking at the matter dispassionately, Bishoph has a valid point: AWCF does also have HQ, organizational hierarchy, an official magazine, missions board, Bible Quizzing, Articles of Faith, are involved in licensing, regularly hold meetings and conferences etc. IF the UPCI were to enforce dual membership ban against the WPF and not in the AWCF it would indeed be hard to justify.