WWPF General Council Question

[CC1]

I have a question regarding the WWPF General Coucil. I just went to their website and noticed that the link listing the General Council still shows a lot of UPC preachers who I am not certain actually went ahead and left the UPC for the WWPF when the UPC drew the line in the sand.

For starters T.L. Craft is still listed as a GC member and his wife as on the Women's committee. Did TLC in fact turn in his UPC card? Talmadge French?

[Balanced]

According to information I got from a General Council member, you don't have to be a member of WPF to serve on the General Council.

So, if they don't pay dues to the WPF then can the UPC pull their license?

[CC1]

According to information I got from a General Council member, you don't have to be a member of WPF to serve on the General Council.

So, if they don't pay dues to the WPF then can the UPC pull their license?


Interesting. That was what I was wondering since I think some of these men who were willing to be on the General Council and a WWPF member might have done so with the thought that they could be members of both the UPC and WWPF, which did not turn out to be the case.

Obvously the hard core leaders of the WWPF wanted to cut ties with the UPC but I would imagine not everybody who was interested in a conservative fellowship are ready to do that.

[NW Pastor]

According to information I got from a General Council member, you don't have to be a member of WPF to serve on the General Council.

So, if they don't pay dues to the WPF then can the UPC pull their license?

So, you don't have to join in order to lead? Rediculous! I can't believe that to be true.

However, if it turns out to be the case, how disengenuous is that? Honest preachers turn in fellowship cards and lead churches out of the UPCI, following ministerial icons who themselves never made that sacrifice at all.

This would not be a case of the blind leading the blind. Rather, just the blind being led.

[TCSQ]

So, you don't have to join in order to lead? Rediculous! I can't believe that to be true.

However, if it turns out to be the case, how disengenuous is that? Honest preachers turn in fellowship cards and lead churches out of the UPCI, following ministerial icons who themselves never made that sacrifice at all.

This would not be a case of the blind leading the blind. Rather, just the blind being led.


Nah.....It's probably much more likely that it is a case of men whose eyes are open to the deviousness, dishonesty and the great harm that the leadership of the United Pentecostal Church in their area has wrought in other mens churches both at home and abroad. If they were dealing with men of ethics and integrity I am sure they would have done as you suggest, but when they are dealing with the political machine that is the United Pentecostal Church all bets are off and you do what you have to do. (Spoken from YEARS of first hand experience) That men who are coming out of the United Pentecostal Church have to resort to such protective measures speaks volumes.

[Timmy]

LOL

[Blaylock]

Nah.....It's probably much more likely that it is a case of men whose eyes are open to the deviousness, dishonesty and the great harm that the leadership of the United Pentecostal Church in their area has wrought in other mens churches both at home and abroad. If they were dealing with men of ethics and integrity I am sure they would have done as you suggest, but when they are dealing with the political machine that is the United Pentecostal Church all bets are off and you do what you have to do. (Spoken from YEARS of first hand experience) That men who are coming out of the United Pentecostal Church have to resort to such protective measures speaks volumes.

Harsh words spoken from someone who seems to have been hurt pretty badly. Why is it that Apostolic's seem to hurt other Apostolic's worse than anyone else. Whoever hurt you let me be the first to say I am sorry for that.

In looking back though could it have been the men that hurt you and not the so called "machine of the UPCI"? Even in our district and section there are some that can be seen as devious and dishonest, but I don't lump the little into the lot. A wise man gave me a great piece of advice when I was ready to give up on it all and said "There are always going to be idiots wherever you go. Stick it out with the idiots you know rather than leaving and finding even more idiots to deal with." Pretty rough but true.

Seems to me that those who have left are leaving one political regime to go to another.

My honest opinion is - God bless them :drama

[Melody]

of course the ruling was after the council was formed, there are many UPC officials that sit on boards,

[Mr. Steinway]

So, you don't have to join in order to lead? ...........
Wouldn't this be like having your personal banker on your church board. He's not a member of your church, but he can help make good sound financial decisions.

Actually in business, usually the board of directors are not an active part of the day to day business. They are outsiders that are hired to help make sound financial decisions.

[grace_seeker]

Wouldn't this be like having your personal banker on your church board. He's not a member of your church, but he can help make good sound financial decisions.

Actually in business, usually the board of directors are not an active part of the day to day business. They are outsiders that are hired to help make sound financial decisions.

Consultants! Who is paying them now?

[CC1]

Nah.....It's probably much more likely that it is a case of men whose eyes are open to the deviousness, dishonesty and the great harm that the leadership of the United Pentecostal Church in their area has wrought in other mens churches both at home and abroad. If they were dealing with men of ethics and integrity I am sure they would have done as you suggest, but when they are dealing with the political machine that is the United Pentecostal Church all bets are off and you do what you have to do. (Spoken from YEARS of first hand experience) That men who are coming out of the United Pentecostal Church have to resort to such protective measures speaks volumes.

It is clear you don't have an axe to grind! Yikes!!!!:tissue

[TCSQ]

Seems to me that those who have left are leaving one political regime to go to another.


Exactly! I was going to call it "Reinventing the wheel" but actually it's more like "Reinventing the SQUARE wheel".


I had to go and delete the rest of this reply, as I am so Sick of the man made organization stuff as well as the Liberal/Conservative "One stepper/two stepper/three stepper (I'm a FOUR stepper myself) stuff that it just wasn't fit to be posted.

You may all now proceed to taunt me. I'm done.

[TCSQ]

It is clear you don't have an axe to grind! Yikes!!!!:tissue




No, no axe to grind, just reminiscing about some of the axes I have had to REMOVE from various parts of my body....LIKE MY SKULL!!!! (Metaphorically speaking that is) Really folks sometimes thinking about these different man made organizations I am put in mind of Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz who were "good" nazis and who knew nuthink....NNNNUUUUUUUTTTTHHHHIIIIIINNNNNNKKKKKK!

[Blaylock]

No, no axe to grind, just reminiscing about some of the axes I have had to REMOVE from various parts of my body....LIKE MY SKULL!!!! (Metaphorically speaking that is) Really folks sometimes thinking about these different man made organizations I am put in mind of Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz who were "good" nazis and who knew nuthink....NNNNUUUUUUUTTTTHHHHIIIIIINNNNNNKKKKKK!

What district were you from?

Why not try and make it better than running to the hills

[jrLA]

According to information I got from a General Council member, you don't have to be a member of WPF to serve on the General Council.


This is true. Heard it myself. This is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard! Couldn't believe it when it was told to me. This wwpf thing just gets better and better!:crazywalls

[bishoph]

According to information I got from a General Council member, you don't have to be a member of WPF to serve on the General Council.

So, if they don't pay dues to the WPF then can the UPC pull their license?

This is true. Heard it myself. This is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard! Couldn't believe it when it was told to me. This wwpf thing just gets better and better!:crazywalls

Again this is another example of false information and it intentionally being spread as though it were truth. I have copied from the WPF's Constitution (Which anyone who desired to state the facts accurately instead of repeating gossip could have looked up) the following:


Article I

Section 1. Officers of Councils and Chairmen of Committees


Officers shall be known as members of the Executive Council and members of the General Council. Non-scriptural titles for such leaders shall be purposely utilized in recognition of the fact that the only biblical office of this nature which has a name is that of ‘helps’ (1 Corinthians 12:28). It should be the desire of this fellowship to ‘help’ (i.e. to ‘facilitate’) the work of the Kingdom of God throughout the world.
Officers of WPF shall consist of:
a) An Executive Council of six members

b) A General Council of fifty members

c) The Executive Chairman is one of the members of the Executive Council

d) All members of both Executive and General Councils must be members of WPF and at least (30) thirty years of age, who have been faithful to the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ as expressed in Scripture and as enunciated for fellowship purposes in the Articles of Faith.

BTW if a General Council member told you this they were sadly mistaken according to the by-laws.

[Melody]

there are lots of folks who serve on boards while not necessarily being members of that organization,

isn't there a community in your area that needs witnessing to, rather than waste time discussing something you aren't a member of?

[CC1]

there are lots of folks who serve on boards while not necessarily being members of that organization,

isn't there a community in your area that needs witnessing to, rather than waste time discussing something you aren't a member of?

Melody, this may be true in secular situations but it is just plain silly to not admit it is strange for the WWPF to have members on it's General Council who are not even members of the org. itself.

We are talking about an org. whose aim is to be a "preferred" future for OP's. That very mantra indicates they don't approve of the UPC's "future".

It doesn't take Albert Einstein to find it strange that men who were unhappy enough with the UPC to be on the formation council of this new org. to then remain with their old org. rather than actually joining the one they birthed and nurtured.

[bishoph]

Again this is another example of false information and it intentionally being spread as though it were truth. I have copied from the WPF's Constitution (Which anyone who desired to state the facts accurately instead of repeating gossip could have looked up) the following:


Article I

Section 1. Officers of Councils and Chairmen of Committees


Officers shall be known as members of the Executive Council and members of the General Council. Non-scriptural titles for such leaders shall be purposely utilized in recognition of the fact that the only biblical office of this nature which has a name is that of ‘helps’ (1 Corinthians 12:28). It should be the desire of this fellowship to ‘help’ (i.e. to ‘facilitate’) the work of the Kingdom of God throughout the world.
Officers of WPF shall consist of:
a) An Executive Council of six members

b) A General Council of fifty members

c) The Executive Chairman is one of the members of the Executive Council

d) All members of both Executive and General Councils must be members of WPF and at least (30) thirty years of age, who have been faithful to the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ as expressed in Scripture and as enunciated for fellowship purposes in the Articles of Faith.

BTW if a General Council member told you this they were sadly mistaken according to the by-laws.

BUMP............ for all those who seem bent on perpetuating this mischaracterization.

[CC1]

bishoph,

Thanks for the clarification. Very interesting.

[tstew]

Again this is another example of false information and it intentionally being spread as though it were truth. I have copied from the WPF's Constitution (Which anyone who desired to state the facts accurately instead of repeating gossip could have looked up) the following:


Article I

Section 1. Officers of Councils and Chairmen of Committees


Officers shall be known as members of the Executive Council and members of the General Council. Non-scriptural titles for such leaders shall be purposely utilized in recognition of the fact that the only biblical office of this nature which has a name is that of ‘helps’ (1 Corinthians 12:28). It should be the desire of this fellowship to ‘help’ (i.e. to ‘facilitate’) the work of the Kingdom of God throughout the world.
Officers of WPF shall consist of:
a) An Executive Council of six members

b) A General Council of fifty members

c) The Executive Chairman is one of the members of the Executive Council

d) All members of both Executive and General Councils must be members of WPF and at least (30) thirty years of age, who have been faithful to the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ as expressed in Scripture and as enunciated for fellowship purposes in the Articles of Faith.

BTW if a General Council member told you this they were sadly mistaken according to the by-laws.

But I see people on the general council who appear to still be with the UPCI. I wonder what that means?

[bishoph]

But I see people on the general council who appear to still be with the UPCI. I wonder what that means?

This is true! Simply because the UPCI's official stance allows them to remain a member of the WPF, until their initial membership period (based on dues paid) with the WPF has expired. At that point they will have to choose between the two, per the UPCI ruling.

**Enforcement of the ruling has been left up to the individual districts, and some (according to my sources) have decided not to make "dual" membership an issue.**

[Thinking]

It puzzles me that a member of the UPCI who has chosen to join the WPF (presumably because of dissatisfaction with the UPCI) would want to remain a part of the UPCI. Anyone have ideas about this?

[Mr. Steinway]

It puzzles me that a member of the UPCI who has chosen to join the WPF (presumably because of dissatisfaction with the UPCI) would want to remain a part of the UPCI. Anyone have ideas about this?
You think too much! :D

[SOUNWORTHY]

It puzzles me that a member of the UPCI who has chosen to join the WPF (presumably because of dissatisfaction with the UPCI) would want to remain a part of the UPCI. Anyone have ideas about this?

I quit trying to figure out why anyone does anything a long time ago. Sometimes I can't even figure out why I do some things!:crazywalls All I know if I was displeased with an organization and found an organization that was better (I'm sure it's not) I would by all means cut all ties immediately and never look back.
:happydance

[jrLA]

Again this is another example of false information and it intentionally being spread as though it were truth. I have copied from the WPF's Constitution (Which anyone who desired to state the facts accurately instead of repeating gossip could have looked up) the following:


Article I

Section 1. Officers of Councils and Chairmen of Committees


Officers shall be known as members of the Executive Council and members of the General Council. Non-scriptural titles for such leaders shall be purposely utilized in recognition of the fact that the only biblical office of this nature which has a name is that of ‘helps’ (1 Corinthians 12:28). It should be the desire of this fellowship to ‘help’ (i.e. to ‘facilitate’) the work of the Kingdom of God throughout the world.
Officers of WPF shall consist of:
a) An Executive Council of six members

b) A General Council of fifty members

c) The Executive Chairman is one of the members of the Executive Council

d) All members of both Executive and General Councils must be members of WPF and at least (30) thirty years of age, who have been faithful to the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ as expressed in Scripture and as enunciated for fellowship purposes in the Articles of Faith.

BTW if a General Council member told you this they were sadly mistaken according to the by-laws.



Ok....I see it. But why do the General Council Members explain it otherwise! A member of the General Council stated otherwise! Sounds like confusion.

I am not spreading false hoods....just repeating what a WPF official explained. Maybe they need to read the articles for themselves!

[MissBrattified]

Ok....I see it. But why do the General Council Members explain it otherwise! A member of the General Council stated otherwise! Sounds like confusion.

I am not spreading false hoods....just repeating what a WPF official explained. Maybe they need to read the articles for themselves!

Which official was that? Was it A.U. by any chance? :D

[Balanced]

Again this is another example of false information and it intentionally being spread as though it were truth. I have copied from the WPF's Constitution (Which anyone who desired to state the facts accurately instead of repeating gossip could have looked up) the following:


Article I

Section 1. Officers of Councils and Chairmen of Committees


Officers shall be known as members of the Executive Council and members of the General Council. Non-scriptural titles for such leaders shall be purposely utilized in recognition of the fact that the only biblical office of this nature which has a name is that of ‘helps’ (1 Corinthians 12:28). It should be the desire of this fellowship to ‘help’ (i.e. to ‘facilitate’) the work of the Kingdom of God throughout the world.
Officers of WPF shall consist of:
a) An Executive Council of six members

b) A General Council of fifty members

c) The Executive Chairman is one of the members of the Executive Council

d) All members of both Executive and General Councils must be members of WPF and at least (30) thirty years of age, who have been faithful to the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ as expressed in Scripture and as enunciated for fellowship purposes in the Articles of Faith.

BTW if a General Council member told you this they were sadly mistaken according to the by-laws.

Ok....I see it. But why do the General Council Members explain it otherwise! A member of the General Council stated otherwise! Sounds like confusion.

I am not spreading false hoods....just repeating what a WPF official explained. Maybe they need to read the articles for themselves!


Also not spreading falsehoods, just repeating what a WPF Board Member told me. (I am sure it was not the same one jrLA spoke with)

I noticed the by-laws stated something different, but it was my understanding that this was discussed at the Branson meeting.
Maybe a change was made and the online by-laws haven't been updated?

bishoph, the following questions are not meant to be "smart" or rude so please don't take them that way, they are just for clarification. (after typing them it seemed they could be taken wrong and I didn't want to be misunderstood)

Are you on the WPF Board? Were you at the Branson meeting?
If so, was this discussed? Were there any changes to the by-laws voted on?

Thanks,
Balanced

[CC1]

It puzzles me that a member of the UPCI who has chosen to join the WPF (presumably because of dissatisfaction with the UPCI) would want to remain a part of the UPCI. Anyone have ideas about this?

Here are some possibilities;

1. They want to have their cake and eat it to.

2. They wanted to chart a "preferred Apostolic future" while hanging around to grip and complain about the un-preferred future in the UPC.

3. Cold Feet - Once they found out they could not join the WWPF and still be a disgruntled UPCer boycotting UPC functions and griping about everything under the son they got cold feet and decided that perhaps the UPC isn't all that bad after all. (For all of his angst over the TV resolution I can't see T. L. Craft throwing away a lifetime in the UPC over it)

[bishoph]

Also not spreading falsehoods, just repeating what a WPF Board Member told me. (I am sure it was not the same one jrLA spoke with)

I noticed the by-laws stated something different, but it was my understanding that this was discussed at the Branson meeting.
Maybe a change was made and the online by-laws haven't been updated?

bishoph, the following questions are not meant to be "smart" or rude so please don't take them that way, they are just for clarification. (after typing them it seemed they could be taken wrong and I didn't want to be misunderstood)

Are you on the WPF Board? Were you at the Branson meeting?
If so, was this discussed? Were there any changes to the by-laws voted on?

Thanks,
Balanced

Balanced,

Sorry for my delay in answering your question. FTR, I am not on the WPF board, and I was not in attendance at Branson. I have spoken with some of the Board however, and was informed that no such topic was discussed/voted on. According to the structure of the WPF, any such change to the By-laws would have to be presented as a resolution, and ratified by a majority of members in attendance. No such resolution, nor vote was done in Branson (which was the first official Annual Summit)

Here is the rules for amending the By-laws per the WPF website.

Section 1. Amendments

1. These Bylaws may be amended at any Annual Summit by a majority of votes of members in attendance.
2. The only amendments considered are those which have been submitted to the Resolution Committee prior to the Annual Summit and have been subsequently passed by the Resolutions Committee.
3. Any resolution affecting the method of election, requirements to hold office or length of terms of office, may be passed in any Annual Summit only after the elections of that conference are completed.

[bishoph]

It puzzles me that a member of the UPCI who has chosen to join the WPF (presumably because of dissatisfaction with the UPCI) would want to remain a part of the UPCI. Anyone have ideas about this?

Here are some possibilities;

1. They want to have their cake and eat it to.

2. They wanted to chart a "preferred Apostolic future" while hanging around to grip and complain about the un-preferred future in the UPC.

3. Cold Feet - Once they found out they could not join the WWPF and still be a disgruntled UPCer boycotting UPC functions and griping about everything under the son they got cold feet and decided that perhaps the UPC isn't all that bad after all. (For all of his angst over the TV resolution I can't see T. L. Craft throwing away a lifetime in the UPC over it)

CC1, I enjoy reading your posts and respect your input, even when I disagree with you viewpoint. I know many people feel very passionately about this particular issue, and probably will for many years to come. However, I think we must be very careful in painting the intentions of good men with a broad brush of being embittered, malcontents with a less than ethical agenda.

There may indeed be men who want their cake and eat it too. There may be men who wish to hang around and gripe and preach their UPCI doomsday message. And there may be those that have developed "cold feet." Just as within the framework of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, PCAF, PAofJC, AWCF, NCO, CIA, FBI, etc. who may be less than honorable in their intentions. However, in each of these aforementioned organizations/fellowships, for every unethical, discontented, embittered minister, there are scores of good well meaning men of integrity.

With the recent UPCI ruling, (which is somewhat ambiguous, as each district has the right to enforce it or ignore it. Another topic for another time) Many of these men find themselves in a situation they did not foresee. Many of them love the UPCI, and or the men who they have worked with for many years. They however, feel as though the organization has forced them into smaller circles of fellowship as it (the org) becomes more liberal. (I don't think anyone who is honest will argue that the UPCI has not become more liberal than they were 25 years ago.)

These men, however, have much invested in missions, youth, and many other areas that the UPCI has experienced some measure of success. Why should they forced to choose between UPCI brethren or WPF brethren? I assure you that many of those you feel may have gotten "cold feet" will make a decision that they nor the UPCI wants them to make if forced to. (This is IMO why some districts have refused to enforce the ruling, because they realize these men are good men and they don't want them to have to choose.)

[CC1]

CC1, I enjoy reading your posts and respect your input, even when I disagree with you viewpoint. I know many people feel very passionately about this particular issue, and probably will for many years to come. However, I think we must be very careful in painting the intentions of good men with a broad brush of being embittered, malcontents with a less than ethical agenda.

There may indeed be men who want their cake and eat it too. There may be men who wish to hang around and gripe and preach their UPCI doomsday message. And there may be those that have developed "cold feet." Just as within the framework of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, PCAF, PAofJC, AWCF, NCO, CIA, FBI, etc. who may be less than honorable in their intentions. However, in each of these aforementioned organizations/fellowships, for every unethical, discontented, embittered minister, there are scores of good well meaning men of integrity.

With the recent UPCI ruling, (which is somewhat ambiguous, as each district has the right to enforce it or ignore it. Another topic for another time) Many of these men find themselves in a situation they did not foresee. Many of them love the UPCI, and or the men who they have worked with for many years. They however, feel as though the organization has forced them into smaller circles of fellowship as it (the org) becomes more liberal. (I don't think anyone who is honest will argue that the UPCI has not become more liberal than they were 25 years ago.)

These men, however, have much invested in missions, youth, and many other areas that the UPCI has experienced some measure of success. Why should they forced to choose between UPCI brethren or WPF brethren? I assure you that many of those you feel may have gotten "cold feet" will make a decision that they nor the UPCI wants them to make if forced to. (This is IMO why some districts have refused to enforce the ruling, because they realize these men are good men and they don't want them to have to choose.)

I agree with your post responding to mine. However I think it would have been a very unhealthy situation for men who feel so strongly that the UPC is not the "preferred" Apostolic future that they carved out another fellowship
to have tried to chart that preferred future while still trying to remain members of the "unpreferred" Apostolic future.

A man cannot serve two masters and despite the best of intentions these two org.'s have very different perspectives. I have a hard time believing someone who would find the WWPF attractive would be anything but unhappy and disgruntled in the UPC and probably would not be a supportive member.

The UPC has had enough disunity the last few years with these ultra cons boycotting official meetings to hold their own and griping about everything under the sun. They should just make the break for their preferred future despite any emotional or historical attachments.

[NW Pastor]

I agree with your post responding to mine. However I think it would have been a very unhealthy situation for men who feel so strongly that the UPC is not the "preferred" Apostolic future that they carved out another fellowship
to have tried to chart that preferred future while still trying to remain members of the "unpreferred" Apostolic future.

A man cannot serve two masters and despite the best of intentions these two org.'s have very different perspectives. I have a hard time believing someone who would find the WWPF attractive would be anything but unhappy and disgruntled in the UPC and probably would not be a supportive member.

The UPC has had enough disunity the last few years with these ultra cons boycotting official meetings to hold their own and griping about everything under the sun. They should just make the break for their preferred future despite any emotional or historical attachments.


Amen, brother!

Like our dearly beloved brother, the late Louis L'amour, once said, "Ridin' the fence can give a man a mighty sore crotch."

Preach it, brother Louis!

[Mr. Steinway]

There are good men on both sides of the fence. While there is safety on either side, when you strattle the fence, you put yourself in harm's way. Not only from the fence itself, but from the grenades tossed over the fence.

[rrford]

CC1, I enjoy reading your posts and respect your input, even when I disagree with you viewpoint. I know many people feel very passionately about this particular issue, and probably will for many years to come. However, I think we must be very careful in painting the intentions of good men with a broad brush of being embittered, malcontents with a less than ethical agenda.

There may indeed be men who want their cake and eat it too. There may be men who wish to hang around and gripe and preach their UPCI doomsday message. And there may be those that have developed "cold feet." Just as within the framework of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, PCAF, PAofJC, AWCF, NCO, CIA, FBI, etc. who may be less than honorable in their intentions. However, in each of these aforementioned organizations/fellowships, for every unethical, discontented, embittered minister, there are scores of good well meaning men of integrity.

With the recent UPCI ruling, (which is somewhat ambiguous, as each district has the right to enforce it or ignore it. Another topic for another time) Many of these men find themselves in a situation they did not foresee. Many of them love the UPCI, and or the men who they have worked with for many years. They however, feel as though the organization has forced them into smaller circles of fellowship as it (the org) becomes more liberal. (I don't think anyone who is honest will argue that the UPCI has not become more liberal than they were 25 years ago.)

These men, however, have much invested in missions, youth, and many other areas that the UPCI has experienced some measure of success. Why should they forced to choose between UPCI brethren or WPF brethren? I assure you that many of those you feel may have gotten "cold feet" will make a decision that they nor the UPCI wants them to make if forced to. (This is IMO why some districts have refused to enforce the ruling, because they realize these men are good men and they don't want them to have to choose.)

As a point of clarification I think your statement is incorrect. Each District has the latitude to decide WHEN they will enforce the ruling not IF they will enforce it. My understanding is that by the end of this year each District will have to enforce it. The latitude was given for those who had paid dues for the year in either organization. But ultimately no District will be permitted to allow dual membership.

[stmatthew]

As a point of clarification I think your statement is incorrect. Each District has the latitude to decide WHEN they will enforce the ruling not IF they will enforce it. My understanding is that by the end of this year each District will have to enforce it. The latitude was given for those who had paid dues for the year in either organization. But ultimately no District will be permitted to allow dual membership.

It is interesting that they will make each district enforce this, but will not make each district enforce the use of tv in license ministers homes.

[Thinking]

"It is interesting that they will make each district enforce this, but will not make each district enforce the use of tv in license ministers homes." St. Matthew

To what ruling do you refer? When did the UPC pass any regulation that would "enforce the use of tv in license(d) ministers homes?

[bishoph]

"It is interesting that they will make each district enforce this, but will not make each district enforce the use of tv in license ministers homes." St. Matthew

To what ruling do you refer? When did the UPC pass any regulation that would "enforce the use of tv in license(d) ministers homes?

He is referring to enforcing the bylaws of the UPCI which forbids licensed ministers to own a "TV."

[George]

I agree with your post responding to mine. However I think it would have been a very unhealthy situation for men who feel so strongly that the UPC is not the "preferred" Apostolic future that they carved out another fellowship
to have tried to chart that preferred future while still trying to remain members of the "unpreferred" Apostolic future.

A man cannot serve two masters and despite the best of intentions these two org.'s have very different perspectives. I have a hard time believing someone who would find the WWPF attractive would be anything but unhappy and disgruntled in the UPC and probably would not be a supportive member.

The UPC has had enough disunity the last few years with these ultra cons boycotting official meetings to hold their own and griping about everything under the sun. They should just make the break for their preferred future despite any emotional or historical attachments.

Now this sounds like someone speaking with sense.
I nominate you for president.

[U376977]

Help me understand this thread, PLEASE. I am a complete outsider to UPCI and attend a non demon oneness church so I really do not know what is going on. From reading this thread it appears that the UPCI is forcing all their ministers to not have a TV? And some people have left and formed their own group because of it? I thought the no TV rule was a UPCI by-law for years already?

[bishoph]

Help me understand this thread, PLEASE. I am a complete outsider to UPCI and attend a non demon oneness church so I really do not know what is going on. From reading this thread it appears that the UPCI is forcing all their ministers to not have a TV? And some people have left and formed their own group because of it? I thought the no TV rule was a UPCI by-law for years already?

Your take is a little bit off.:D

As you stated it has been a UPCI "rule" officially since 1977. At the GC in Tampa Fl, last year, the UPCI voted to allow TV advertising, and by way of thew wording it allows for broadcasting services as well. The manuel still states that licensed ministers cannot own a TV, and that saints are discouraged from it as well. (kinda silly if you ask me, you can win your world with a TV but then when they get saved, tell them to get rid of what brought them to God. My unsaved FIL called this hypocrisy of the highest order.)

Some who left as a result of the passage of this resolution, (not all who left joined the WPF) Formed a new "fellowship" called the Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship. (WPF)

[CC1]

Now this sounds like someone speaking with sense.
I nominate you for president.


It has been awhile since I have been paid that compliment!

Thank You.

[stmatthew]

Help me understand this thread, PLEASE. I am a complete outsider to UPCI and attend a non demon oneness church so I really do not know what is going on. From reading this thread it appears that the UPCI is forcing all their ministers to not have a TV? And some people have left and formed their own group because of it? I thought the no TV rule was a UPCI by-law for years already?

You got it backwards. The UPCI just passed a resolution at last years GC to allow tv to be used for advertising. As far as tv in the ministers home, where I live, the DS stated to my former pastor (who was going before the district board for his ordination) that there would be no enforcement in this district of tv being in any ministers homes.

The group that left (WPF) did so because they continue to hold against tv.

[stmatthew]

It has been awhile since I have been paid that compliment!

Thank You.

He really meant cents, as he knows how poor you are. :D

[CC1]

He really meant cents, as he knows how poor you are. :D

This month that is an all too accurate statement!