View Full Version : Another SPLIT from the UPCI???
SoCaliUPC
06-22-2009, 09:56 AM
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
Sandra
06-22-2009, 10:06 AM
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
WOW!!!!! splitting again... there isn't alot left to split JMO
Rhoni
06-22-2009, 10:40 AM
WOW!!!!! splitting again... there isn't alot left to split JMO
ditto:thumbsup
Hoovie
06-22-2009, 10:48 AM
In all fairness the WPF formation was something much less than a split.
Sandra
06-22-2009, 10:55 AM
In all fairness the WPF formation was something much less than a split.
I didn't realize that WPF is a division of UPC.. I am shocked at that!! Interesting
Scott Hutchinson
06-22-2009, 11:05 AM
WPF is definitely a seperate organization from The UPCI.
Likeminded individuals find ways to congregate so another split would not surprise me.
n david
06-22-2009, 11:11 AM
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
Who were the two prominent UPCI leaders?
bishoph
06-22-2009, 11:14 AM
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
According to the men who were present in this meeting, (a couple of them have communicated what took place) the rumor that you and others have heard is totally false. According to these men the meeting was NOT in any way to form a new organization nor to split from the UPCI, but rather to re-affirm certain things and discuss other things for the sake of unity, fellowship, and growth.
bishoph
06-22-2009, 11:16 AM
I didn't realize that WPF is a division of UPC.. I am shocked at that!! Interesting
It is not a division of the UPCI............reduce the voltage....no shock today.....lol
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 11:18 AM
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
Here is an important concept to keep in mind when reading unsubstantiated "news reports:"
The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
Bro. SocaliUPC
Here is the phone number of the church that hosted last week's meeting: 248-373-4500.
It'll only take you the price of a phone call to find out whether you're telling the truth or peddling a "big lie."
For the record: I don't know whether its true or not, but then again I'm not the one that started a Thaddean type thread.
Sandra
06-22-2009, 11:22 AM
Who were the two prominent UPCI leaders?
come on socali.... tell us who they were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
n david
06-22-2009, 11:28 AM
Bro. SocaliUPC
Here is the phone number of the church that hosted last week's meeting: 248-373-4500.
It'll only take you the price of a phone call to find out whether you're telling the truth or peddling a "big lie."
For the record: I don't know whether its true or not, but then again I'm not the one that started a Thaddean type thread.
Challenge extended ...
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 11:31 AM
Challenge extended ...
Not a challenge, but simply a courtesy.
If I posted such a serious rumour, I would want to have the chance to confirm the story.
I just wanted to extend Bro. SocaliUPC the chance to "man-up" and make the call.
Scott Hutchinson
06-22-2009, 11:33 AM
My dear canuck friend how are things in the great North ? Nice to see you Maple Leaf.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 11:34 AM
My dear canuck friend how are things in the great North ? Nice to see you Maple Leaf.
Just peachy, Bro. Hutchinson, just peachy.
All is well in Alabama?
Sandra
06-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Not a challenge, but simply a courtesy.
If I posted such a serious rumour, I would want to have the chance to confirm the story.
I just wanted to extend Bro. SocaliUPC the chance to "man-up" and make the call.
Maple Leaf... I just talked to a pastor who attended ..he told me who the speakers were.. it did happen!! I may get to post names in a bit
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 11:39 AM
Maple Leaf... I just talked to a pastor who attended ..he told me who the speakers were.. it did happen!! I may get to post names in a bit
I have no doubt that a meeting took place. I just doubt the whole "starting a UPC lite rumour."
Are you Bro. SocaliUPC's source?
Scott Hutchinson
06-22-2009, 11:45 AM
Maple Leaf it's warm here,I suppose your weather is cool.
Hey friend start a thread on Justification by faith,since you are a expert in that area.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 11:52 AM
Maple Leaf it's warm here,I suppose your weather is cool.
Hey friend start a thread on Justification by faith,since you are a expert in that area.
We're about 60* today with rain. The normal high for this time of year is about 70* and it looks like we'll probably hit a high of about 80* this week.
Justification by faith is the only hope I have of making Heaven.
About the only thing that I am expert in is garbled cogitation.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 11:54 AM
Does any one else want to chat about the weather while we're waiting for Bro. SocaliUPC to track down some confirmation of his news?
Scott Hutchinson
06-22-2009, 11:57 AM
BTW is the goverment provided health care good in Canada ? I understand you have private health care there as well.A two tier system or something it's called.
Pastor Keith
06-22-2009, 11:59 AM
It was my understanding that the purpose of the meeting was not to form a new organziation or fellowship, but loose knit network with people with a similar vision. At the risk of using a buzz work, network is in, not forming a old school organization with all of the encumberments. This was from one of the organizers.
While I don't have word on what took place or discussed, this was the intent going into the meeting. As what took place or what came out, I am not privy.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 12:05 PM
BTW is the goverment provided health care good in Canada ? I understand you have private health care there as well.A two tier system or something it's called.
I've never heard a Canadian suggest that we get rid of our healthcare system.
Our system has always worked very well for my family.
Could it be better?
I'm sure that it could, but we are a country with a small population spread over a large peice of real estate, trying to maintain fiscal responsibility.
They may have private health care in some part of Canada, but not where I hang my hat.
Scott Hutchinson
06-22-2009, 12:10 PM
By and Large your health care system would be better than England ?
I have offically gone and hi-jacked this thread.
n david
06-22-2009, 12:10 PM
It was my understanding that the purpose of the meeting was not to form a new organziation or fellowship, but loose knit network with people with a similar vision. At the risk of using a buzz work, network is in, not forming a old school organization with all of the encumberments. This was from one of the organizers.
While I don't have word on what took place or discussed, this was the intent going into the meeting. As what took place or what came out, I am not privy.
Carefull, the leaf may extend the challenge to you too!
Scott Hutchinson
06-22-2009, 12:12 PM
Ask Thad,he always reports the truth on such matters he will give us the inside scoop.
Pastor Keith
06-22-2009, 12:14 PM
Carefull, the leaf may extend the challenge to you too!
I am up to it, I have good sources, I should have been there but I lacked the $!
Sandra
06-22-2009, 12:14 PM
I have no doubt that a meeting took place. I just doubt the whole "starting a UPC lite rumour."
Are you Bro. SocaliUPC's source?
He has his sources!!
many are leaving the upc.. yes! not sure where he got starting another org... could be... don't know.
Scott Hutchinson
06-22-2009, 12:16 PM
Hey Sandra how is things with the recording company ?
moniker
06-22-2009, 12:17 PM
This is old news.
The facts, as SoCali posted them, are true, with one exception.
I do not believe another organization is in the works.
Big names were there. Little names were there.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 12:19 PM
Carefull, the leaf may extend the challenge to you too!
Nope, no more phone #s.
A little call for accountability seems to have thrown a wet blanket on a rather sensational story.
What I want to know is:
Who was the psalmist at this charismatic convocation?
Would we recognize the name of the organist?
Did Bill Clinton have any friends in attendance?
Did Oprah endorse this meeting?
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 12:23 PM
This is old news.
The facts, as SoCali posted them, are true, with one exception.
I do not believe another organization is in the works.
Big names were there. Little names were there.
So, everything was true except the main point of the story?
moniker
06-22-2009, 12:26 PM
I perceive Mr. Maple Leaf is upset that the details of this meeting may be posted.
However, I understand that Brother Tenney and Brother Rex Johnson did a fine job explaining that the meeting was simply to connect with, and strengthen, those like-minded brothers in attendance.
moniker
06-22-2009, 12:28 PM
Mr. Maple Leaf, when one considers the news that the meeting was by invitation only, and those invitations were sent to men of a very liberal persuasion within the UPC, one is left with the impression that an agenda is being very carefully created, and hidden. ;)
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 12:31 PM
I perceive Mr. Maple Leaf is upset that the details of this meeting may be posted.
However, I understand that Brother Tenney and Brother Rex Johnson did a fine job explaining that the meeting was simply to connect with, and strengthen, those like-minded brothers in attendance.
I can't imagine why I would care whether or not the details of the meeting are posted. I'm not a big name. Not even a little name. I'd have to get a makeover and a publicist even to make it to being a no-name.
You've already posted that the main thrust of the origonal post was in error.
What else about the meeting really matters?
moniker
06-22-2009, 12:33 PM
This is the first time I've heard of an "invitation only" meeting of ministers within the UPC.
One would think that one would seek to create a broader sphere of influence than can be created by an invitation only meeting.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 12:35 PM
Mr. Maple Leaf, when one considers the news that the meeting was by invitation only, and those invitations were sent to men of a very liberal persuasion within the UPC, one is left with the impression that an agenda is being very carefully created, and hidden. ;)
Boy, they sure didn't do a very good job of hiding it, did they?
I am not UPC, live in the hinterlands of nowhere, and heard about it before it happened.
moniker
06-22-2009, 12:37 PM
I can't imagine why I would care whether or not the details of the meeting are posted. I'm not a big name. Not even a little name. I'd have to get a makeover and a publicist even to make it to being a no-name.
You've already posted that the main thrust of the origonal post was in error.
What else about the meeting really matters?
The sheer volume of names involved in this "invitation only" meeting.
All liberal. Most, very educated.
The more important question is "why was this meeting necessary, and what events conspired to make it invitation only?"
James Griffin
06-22-2009, 12:38 PM
The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.
The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI
Justin
06-22-2009, 12:42 PM
The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.
The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI
But only for the liberal-minded Apostolics?
n david
06-22-2009, 12:42 PM
Sounds like it was a good meeting. Wish I could've been there.
Pastor Keith
06-22-2009, 12:42 PM
The sheer volume of names involved in this "invitation only" meeting.
All liberal. Most, very educated.
The more important question is "why was this meeting necessary, and what events conspired to make it invitation only?"
Do you have to ask? Before the meeting happened, those of other persuasions (Holiness or Hell) were crying fowl.
Somethings needed to be done on the low down, akin to Jesus telling those he healed not tell anyone less his message be crowded out by the wonder seekers.
My point being that not all will understand this meeting and they wanted some level of unity without having to jump through the hoops of reaffirming that we are a one God, tongue talking, true holiness movement that many of these larger gatherings have to jump through lest you be labeled something that your not.
moniker
06-22-2009, 12:43 PM
The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.
The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI
That is my understanding.
The meeting was held to form alliances with like-minded individuals throughout the country. Who can know what changes will come from such a great effort?
Sarah
06-22-2009, 12:43 PM
The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.
The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI
If this is the truth, then I see no problem with it. My only question is: why couldn't these men discuss this at General Conference where ALL ministers could get involved?
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 12:48 PM
The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.
The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI
If this is the truth, then I see no problem with it. My only question is: why couldn't these men discuss this at General Conference where ALL ministers could get involved?
I think that the record will bear out that Bro. Griffin is a truthful man.
Pastor Keith
06-22-2009, 12:49 PM
If this is the truth, then I see no problem with it. My only question is: why couldn't these men discuss this at General Conference where ALL ministers could get involved?
There is the sense that not all ministers would want to or even understand the vision of these men.
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
Wrong info SoCali!
Why don't you contact some of the Ministers in your State?
James Griffin
06-22-2009, 12:51 PM
But only for the liberal-minded Apostolics?
Labeling? One man's liberal is another man's conservative.
FRIENDS invited friends. Size was limited to facilitate discussion and interaction.
n david
06-22-2009, 12:52 PM
If this is the truth, then I see no problem with it. My only question is: why couldn't these men discuss this at General Conference where ALL ministers could get involved?
:lol
One problem with that ... it would go from a productive conversation to an all-out shouting match and nothing would get done.
This was the right way to do it, IMO.
ForeverBlessed
06-22-2009, 12:52 PM
Boy, they sure didn't do a very good job of hiding it, did they?
I am not UPC, live in the hinterlands of nowhere, and heard about it before it happened.
well, I am no longer attending upc, live in the burbs and I heard about it too... of course I do have my upc friends and family. You're are right...no secret.
btw, it is hot and humid here and I just got in from break where I sat in the sun... whew... believe me it is hot and I would enjoy your weather... it jumps too fast into the hot stuff here.
tstew
06-22-2009, 12:53 PM
Sounds like it was a good meeting. Wish I could've been there.
ditto
moniker
06-22-2009, 12:53 PM
Labeling? One man's liberal is another man's conservative.
FRIENDS invited friends. Size was limited to facilitate discussion and interaction.
I believe size was limited so that the meeting would not be subject to outside "handlers" from within the organization.
Sarah
06-22-2009, 12:56 PM
I think that the record will bear out that Bro. Griffin is a truthful man.
I have no doubt that Bro Griffin is a truthful man. But from reading these posts, I wonder if anyone really knows the whole truth of the matter......unless you were one of the ones who got a 'special' invitation.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 12:59 PM
well, I am no longer attending upc, live in the burbs and I heard about it too... of course I do have my upc friends and family. You're are right...no secret.
btw, it is hot and humid here and I just got in from break where I sat in the sun... whew... believe me it is hot and I would enjoy your weather... it jumps too fast into the hot stuff here.
The only problem with this time of year here in the northlands is that the igloo begins to drip on the warm days. (Oh, and the mukluks get a little warm too.)
n david
06-22-2009, 01:08 PM
I believe size was limited so that the meeting would not be subject to outside "handlers" from within the organization.
If it's true TFT was part of the meeting ... I'd like to see someone try to "handle" him! LoL If there is an untouchable in the UPC, TFT is the one.
moniker
06-22-2009, 01:17 PM
I wonder if the handlers within the organization have already made phone calls and sent letters, to the organizers of this meeting, in order to express their displeasure?
James Griffin
06-22-2009, 01:21 PM
I have no doubt that Bro Griffin is a truthful man. But from reading these posts, I wonder if anyone really knows the whole truth of the matter......unless you were one of the ones who got a 'special' invitation.
I was invited but unfortunately unable to attend. I know five of the seven main organizers.
I have spoken to five of the attendees already and will be sharing coffee with two of the young ministers later this week.
Anyone who has followed my posts through the years knows I don't speculate without labeling it such. There was no talk of split period end of story. :-)
GrowingPains
06-22-2009, 01:39 PM
If this doesn't move to a split, the other "liberal" group of Westerners and Southerners will soon be splitting. Hey... why don't want of them just wait it out and things will split for them. No need to get new HQ, logo, website and T-Shirts... the others will leave and you can still keep your branding!
POWERUP
06-22-2009, 01:51 PM
101 Degrees In Mississippi with Heat Index!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ForeverBlessed
06-22-2009, 01:52 PM
The only problem with this time of year here in the northlands is that the igloo begins to drip on the warm days. (Oh, and the mukluks get a little warm too.)
do you swap them out for flip flops? :D
MomOfADramaQn
06-22-2009, 02:05 PM
101 Degrees In Mississippi with Heat Index!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow - glad I don't live there anymore!!
n david
06-22-2009, 02:11 PM
102.9 in my neck of the woods ... but it's a dry heat. :lol
Was this only for UPC members, or were like-minded individuals outside of the org invited?
POWERUP
06-22-2009, 02:51 PM
:spit:icecreamMy Bad. 107 with the Heat index!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It will never happen as long as the upci insists on carrying the excess baggage.
It's time to quit piddling around and just do it. Force the organization to make a move.
The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.
The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI
Hoovie
06-22-2009, 04:13 PM
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
Here is an important concept to keep in mind when reading unsubstantiated "news reports:"
Bro. SocaliUPC
Here is the phone number of the church that hosted last week's meeting: 248-373-4500.
It'll only take you the price of a phone call to find out whether you're telling the truth or peddling a "big lie."
For the record: I don't know whether its true or not, but then again I'm not the one that started a Thaddean type thread.
Maple, It may very well be a loosely affiliated "organization" within the UPC... Of course that did not work for the WPF...
I was a part of a the "Republican Assembly" for a few years they existed inside the Republican Party without official sanction.
Jaxon
06-22-2009, 04:50 PM
Can someone please extrapolate on this phrase...."FORMING ALLIANCES WITH LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUALS"..........would these individuals be in the UPCI?.....Outside the UPCI?......Does this phrase refer to fellowshipping other organizations?.......More info please
GraceAmazing
06-22-2009, 04:50 PM
Well, I'm no longer UPC and I didn't hear about this meeting...hummmm...I feel really left out :( Especially since I'm only 4 hours away from Detroit...my husband would have enjoyed that meeting I'm sure :D
Jermyn Davidson
06-22-2009, 05:18 PM
I perceive Mr. Maple Leaf is upset that the details of this meeting may be posted.
However, I understand that Brother Tenney and Brother Rex Johnson did a fine job explaining that the meeting was simply to connect with, and strengthen, those like-minded brothers in attendance.
Brother Tenney was at my church last Sunday morning!
Woo Hoo!!!
He has quite a few interesting sayings and he asked a question I won't soon forget:
"Why don't you join a church-- I'm talking to those folks who come here and still say that you're in between churches. Does it matter what church you stay home from on Sundays?"
I laughed so hard.... It was a great moment!
With a couple names I heard. I wouldn't be suprised in a couple years the quietly turn in their card. Right now the politics and the history has too much pull. These guys will eventually get sick and tired of waiting for the upci to stop playing games. The more these preachers toy with the devil, the more likely they are to get burned.
Well, I'm no longer UPC and I didn't hear about this meeting...hummmm...I feel really left out :( Especially since I'm only 4 hours away from Detroit...my husband would have enjoyed that meeting I'm sure :D
Could the alliances include the awcf?
Can someone please extrapolate on this phrase...."FORMING ALLIANCES WITH LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUALS"..........would these individuals be in the UPCI?.....Outside the UPCI?......Does this phrase refer to fellowshipping other organizations?.......More info please
Sandra
06-22-2009, 07:10 PM
I perceive Mr. Maple Leaf is upset that the details of this meeting may be posted.
However, I understand that Brother Tenney and Brother Rex Johnson did a fine job explaining that the meeting was simply to connect with, and strengthen, those like-minded brothers in attendance.
I am singing at REX JOHNSON's CHURCH.. I am going just as I am!! I DON'T LOOK upc : )
moniker
06-22-2009, 07:15 PM
I am singing at REX JOHNSON's CHURCH.. I am going just as I am!! I DON'T LOOK upc : )
Oh my.
Sandra
06-22-2009, 07:20 PM
Oh my.
lol : )
freeatlast
06-22-2009, 07:22 PM
I wish my pastor could have made it this meeting. He wanted to make it but was out of the country.
Sandra
06-22-2009, 07:23 PM
I wish my pastor could have made it this meeting. He wanted to make it but was out of the country.
did he get an invitation? I hope next time they open it up to others.
freeatlast
06-22-2009, 07:29 PM
did he get an invitation? I hope next time they open it up to others.
Yes he did.
Open to others..... not sure how Elder Epley would fit in amongst those in attendance. :ursofunny
Pretty sure they would just as soon not waste time answering foolish and unlearned questions that some might bring with them. We've got General Conference for that. ;-)
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 08:08 PM
I am singing at REX JOHNSON's CHURCH.. I am going just as I am!! I DON'T LOOK upc : )
Bro. Johnson wholeheartedly disapproves of women cutting their hair and wearing makeup.
How will you feel on the platform of a pastor who wholeheartedly disapproves of your apppearance?
mizpeh
06-22-2009, 08:15 PM
Bro. Johnson wholeheartedly disapproves of women cutting their hair and wearing makeup.
How will you feel on the platform of a pastor who wholeheartedly disapproves of your apppearance?He must not be the type of preacher to force his convictions on others but let's the Holy Spirit do the convicting.
GraceAmazing
06-22-2009, 08:18 PM
He must not be the type of preacher to force his convictions on others but let's the Holy Spirit do the convicting.
Hallelujah! I feel a shockamoo coming on!!! Isn't that the way it should be????
GraceAmazing
06-22-2009, 08:19 PM
And furthermore, I personally don't know what Rex Johnson believes, so if he asked Sandra to sing then I'd say he's okay with her "outside"! :D
*AQuietPlace*
06-22-2009, 08:21 PM
Bro. Johnson wholeheartedly disapproves of women cutting their hair and wearing makeup.
How will you feel on the platform of a pastor who wholeheartedly disapproves of your apppearance?
He must not disapprove too much if he's invited her to sing. :)
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 08:23 PM
He must not be the type of preacher to force his convictions on others but let's the Holy Spirit do the convicting.
He is the type of preacher who has signed an oath to preach and teach that he wholeheartedly disapproves of women cutting their hair and wearing makeup.
Do you think that preachers should be silent on lifestyle issues?
Jaxon
06-22-2009, 08:23 PM
ML.......I would hope you are right.......Rex Johnson has always been a favorite of mine...........I know in the past he certainly did not approve of cutting hair and makeup. .......
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 08:27 PM
And furthermore, I personally don't know what Rex Johnson believes, so if he asked Sandra to sing then I'd say he's okay with her "outside"! :D
He's a card carrying UPCI preacher - why would you not know what he believes?
You can't be a card carrying UPCI preacher without signing a promise to preach and teach that you wholeheartedly disapprove of women cutting their hair and wearing makeup.
Maybe he's hoping to win Sandra by showing her kindness?
berkeley
06-22-2009, 08:36 PM
He's a card carrying UPCI preacher - why would you not know what he believes?
You can't be a card carrying UPCI preacher without signing a promise to preach and teach that you wholeheartedly disapprove of women cutting their hair and wearing makeup.
Maybe he's hoping to win Sandra by showing her kindness?
Maybe he's a hypocrite? And I'm not a UC
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 08:40 PM
He must not disapprove too much if he's invited her to sing. :)
Maybe he just cares about her and feels that he can do more to reach her with kindness than condemnation.
The UPCI seal on his ministerial credentials plainly declares to the whole world that he wholeheartedly disapproves of cut hair and makeup.
Sandra may feel the love in Austin, but I hope that she doesn't mistake it for approval.
The love is free, but approval will cost her a bun and a bare face.
*AQuietPlace*
06-22-2009, 08:41 PM
You know, I can see where the uncut hair doctrine comes from, but where in the world does the no-makeup doctrine come from? There is absolutely no scriptural support for that. I am totally amazed that it has held on this long.
Why are high heels okay? Sheer nylons? Hair curlers? Hairspray? Oil of Olay? Slinky fabrics? All of these things were designed to enhance a woman's appearance. And most of them started out with prostitutes.
Just seems so weird to me.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 08:42 PM
Maybe he's a hypocrite? And I'm not a UC
Hypocrite is a strong word.
You won't find me using it in a conversation concerning such a great man of God as Bro. Johnson.
I've never noticed that UCs have a corner on integrity.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 08:44 PM
You know, I can see where the uncut hair doctrine comes from, but where in the world does the no-makeup doctrine come from? There is absolutely no scriptural support for that. I am totally amazed that it has held on this long.
Why are high heels okay? Sheer nylons? Hair curlers? Hairspray? Oil of Olay? Slinky fabrics? All of these things were designed to enhance a woman's appearance. And most of them started out with prostitutes.
Just seems so weird to me.
From the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International - the Third Testament.
*AQuietPlace*
06-22-2009, 08:46 PM
From the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International - the Third Testament.
Oh. Okay.
;)
berkeley
06-22-2009, 08:55 PM
Hypocrite is a strong word.
You won't find me using it in a conversation concerning such a great man of God as Bro. Johnson.
I've never noticed that UCs have a corner on integrity.
UC's don't have a corner on integrity. I didn't sa that he is, only promoted the idea that it is a possibility.
Perhaps I should have used a more mild word like "liar."
Pressing-On
06-22-2009, 09:02 PM
He's a card carrying UPCI preacher - why would you not know what he believes?
You can't be a card carrying UPCI preacher without signing a promise to preach and teach that you wholeheartedly disapprove of women cutting their hair and wearing makeup.
Maybe he's hoping to win Sandra by showing her kindness?
Well, all righty then! We'll see what Sandra has to say when she gets back from Austin. :D
Sandra
06-22-2009, 09:05 PM
ML.......I would hope you are right.......Rex Johnson has always been a favorite of mine...........I know in the past he certainly did not approve of cutting hair and makeup. .......
his church is not upc... he is a license... church not affiliated. His platform has cut hair ..jewelery etc.
Have you ever heard him preach against it. I think we assume alot... if you have.. He could of changed his veiws.. that is allowed : )
Pressing-On
06-22-2009, 09:06 PM
his church is not upc... he is a license... church not affiliated. His platform has cut hair ..jewelery etc.
Have you ever heard him preach against it. I think we assume alot... if you have.. He could of changed his veiws.. that is allowed : )
That would be correct. :thumbsup
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 09:13 PM
his church is not upc... he is a license... church not affiliated. His platform has cut hair ..jewelery etc.
Have you ever heard him preach against it. I think we assume alot... if you have.. He could of changed his veiws.. that is allowed : )
The fact that he signs an affirmation statement to obtain his UPC license allows us the luxury of assuming that he preaches and practices what he pledges to preach and practice.
Doesn't it?
Hoovie
06-22-2009, 09:14 PM
Perhaps this says more about how some Pastors lead than anything else... not all of them carry sledgehammers and demolition tools to the pulpit.
Disappoving is just that, disapproving. It does not mean a hard and fast standard to judge others by, or, God forbid, condemn others by. It means we have this tradition...
I personally disapprove of consumming Sushi without Wassabi.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 09:19 PM
Perhaps this says more about how some Pastors lead than anything else... not all of them carry sledgehammers and demolition tools to the pulpit.
Disappoving is just that, disapproving. It does not mean a hard and fast standard to judge others by, or, God forbid, condemn others by. It means we have this tradition...
I personally disapprove of consumming Sushi without Wassabi.
But, what if you, as a pastor, sign an oath to practice, preach and teach that you wholeheartedly disapprove of consuming Sushi withour Wassabi?
Would you not look a little goofy if you allowed a visiting psalmist to consume Sushi without Wassabi on your platform?
jaxfam6
06-22-2009, 09:21 PM
his church is not upc... he is a license... church not affiliated. His platform has cut hair ..jewelery etc.
Have you ever heard him preach against it. I think we assume alot... if you have.. He could of changed his veiws.. that is allowed : )
I am shocked you would suggest such a thing
:jaw
:slaphappy
Hoovie
06-22-2009, 09:22 PM
But, what if you, as a pastor, sign an oath to practice, preach and teach that you wholeheartedly disapprove of consuming Sushi withour Wassabi?
Would you not look a little goofy if you allowed a visiting psalmist to consume Sushi without Wassabi on your platform?
NO! Because I realize it is not all about ME.
The fact is - dress codes and wassabi are important secondary issues.
Pressing-On
06-22-2009, 09:22 PM
But, what if you, as a pastor, sign an oath to practice, preach and teach that you wholeheartedly disapprove of consuming Sushi withour Wassabi?
Would you not look a little goofy if you allowed a visiting psalmist to consume Sushi without Wassabi on your platform?
If you were ever in his presence, you would understand ALL about him. He exudes everything Biblical and good - everything solid and everything true.
jaxfam6
06-22-2009, 09:24 PM
NO! Because I realize it is not all about ME.
becareful someone might think you are a wolf in sheepskin
j/k
...
Do you think that preachers should be silent on lifestyle issues?
Yes for stuff like
-hair length for both men and women,
-facial hair on men,
-shaving, plucking, waxing body hair for women,
-manscaping for men
-sleeve length for men and women,
-jewelry, including neckties (cloth necklaces), including belt buckles, including metal tips on shoe laces,
-caffeine, nicotine, sugar, chocolate,
-golf, softball, card playing, board games, corn hole, marbles (marvels),any game that includes dice, basketball, hockey
-movies, tv, computers, newspapers, comic books, novels,
-Branson, Six Flags, Grand Ole Opry
-red or other specific colors for shoes or clothes,
-pajamas on women
-sexy underwear on women
-britches for men only and dresses/skirts for women only
to name a few
Sandra
06-22-2009, 09:27 PM
If you were ever in his presence, you would understand ALL about him. He exudes everything Biblical and good - everything solid and everything true.
You are sooo right.. He is one of my Favorite people...He is the real deal!
Pressing-On
06-22-2009, 09:28 PM
You are sooo right.. He is one of my Favorite people...He is the real deal!
Yes, he is!!!!! :thumbsup God Bless him!!!
The fact that he signs an affirmation statement to obtain his UPC license allows us the luxury of assuming that he preaches and practices what he pledges to preach and practice.
Doesn't it?
Nathan Urshan wrote and told the ministers to just go ahead and sign and not worry about anyone calling you to account for it. In other words, the signature is a just formality with no meaning
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 09:47 PM
Nathan Urshan wrote and told the ministers to just go ahead and sign and not worry about anyone calling you to account for it. In other words, the signature is a just formality with no meaning
Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that?
Bro. Urshan wrote: "If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications."
You must have received a different letter than the one I have.
Wholehearted disapproval of cut hair and makeup doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.
Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that?
Bro. Urshan wrote: "If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications."
You must have received a different letter than the one I have.
Wholehearted disapproval of cut hair and makeup doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.
Maple Leaf,
I am not UPC so I did not get the letter sent to me.
I have seen a copy of it and the way I remember the gist of it, that was the impression I got. In other words, Bro. Urshan was saying, "Just sign it and don't worry about it. We don't really care what you preach or teach. We just want your signature."
It has been a long time since I've seen the letter. I don't know if I have a copy of it any more, and if I do, I don't know where it's filed. And, I may have drawn some inference from it that someone else might not have.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 09:56 PM
If you were ever in his presence, you would understand ALL about him. He exudes everything Biblical and good - everything solid and everything true.
You are sooo right.. He is one of my Favorite people...He is the real deal!
Yes, he is!!!!! :thumbsup God Bless him!!!
Colour me confused.
The posts here both praise and condemn Bro. Johnson.
I choose to believe the best of him and honour him as a man of God.
Pressing-On
06-22-2009, 09:58 PM
Colour me confused.
The posts here both praise and condemn Bro. Johnson.
I choose to believe the best of him and honour him as a man of God.
Who condemned him? I just said that his church, for the most part, doesn't follow standards. Some still do. I have a good friend that attends and she still follows the outward dress.
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 10:02 PM
Who condemned him? I just said that his church, for the most part, doesn't follow standards. Some still do. I have a good friend that attends and she still follows the outward dress.
To me, saying that a man has a UPCI license and doesn't teach the "standards" mandated in the manual condemns him. I'm glad that you don't, and appreciate the complimentary remarks that you have made about him.
Your point is irrelevant since years ago the original upci charter was tossed out the window. The original upci charter had nothing to do with subjective clotheslines. The unity clause was ignored by the hardliners.
I've never been told how the clothes nazis expect to enforce teaching and preaching the clothesline doctrine. It it were required to preach, one would figure a minimal number of times per year would suffice. How much witchcraft does one have to preach from the pulpit?
But, what if you, as a pastor, sign an oath to practice, preach and teach that you wholeheartedly disapprove of consuming Sushi withour Wassabi?
Would you not look a little goofy if you allowed a visiting psalmist to consume Sushi without Wassabi on your platform?
Your point is irrelevant since years ago the original upci charter was tossed out the window. The original upci charter had nothing to do with subjective clotheslines. The unity clause was ignored by the hardliners.
I've never been told how the clothes nazis expect to enforce teaching and preaching the clothesline doctrine. It it were required to preach, one would figure a minimal number of times per year would suffice. How much witchcraft does one have to preach from the pulpit?
TV1A your views on standards are well known, but this borders on Blasphemy!
I would hope that you would retract it!
Pressing-On
06-22-2009, 10:08 PM
To me, saying that a man has a UPCI license and doesn't teach the "standards" mandated in the manual condemns him. I'm glad that you don't, and appreciate the complimentary remarks that you have made about him.
I understand that people DO have personal convictions. Some even, absolutely, have some of the same ones that the organization believes in. But, many in my circle do not believe pushing them on other people is Biblical to qualify them in the Body of Christ.
I'm not going to belabor this point, but we discuss this pants vs. dress thing. There are some women that are convicted of wearing pants and to say that ALL can wear them is not true for some women. I don't think we should be taking a strong stand either way!
It is still true, as I have experienced this when I was in sales - I was received on a much better level and with more agreeability when I was wearing a dress.
So to push the pants issue - it's not going to work for me.
Brother Johnson has so much depth that it leaves no doubt that any sincere person would find the place God wants them.
The manual standards are not heaven and hell issues. Sometimes for change to occur, one must make extreme changes. All things are lawful, but not all things expedient. Remember that? If Rosa Parks used the same mentality as you propose, I'd would be getting the front seat of the bus today. Instead she broke the law. Was condemned by many for "sitting" down for her rights. We are a better country today because Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.
There is a lot of garbage in the upci manual. The manual isn't even a shell of the founding father's intentions. Sometimes in order to make change, one has to make the change and challenge the status quo. Integrity isn't compromised. It is one way of challenging inconsistent and unbiblical mandates.
To me, saying that a man has a UPCI license and doesn't teach the "standards" mandated in the manual condemns him. I'm glad that you don't, and appreciate the complimentary remarks that you have made about him.
TV1A your views on standards are well known, but this borders on Blasphemy!
I would hope that you would retract it!
Blasphemy is a pretty strong word.
He may have been referring to the "magic hair" doctrine which some preachers compare favorably to witch craft.
As far as the original charter being tossed out the window, what began as an agreement to fellowship based on mutual respect became a hostile takeover by what might be considered "the lunatic fringe."
Blasphemy is a pretty strong word.
He may have been referring to the "magic hair" doctrine which some preachers compare favorably to witch craft.
As far as the original charter being tossed out the window, what began as an agreement to fellowship based on mutual respect became a hostile takeover by what might be considered "the lunatic fringe."
Yes Sam it is & so is Witchcraft!:thumbsup
Maple Leaf
06-22-2009, 10:15 PM
Your point is irrelevant since years ago the original upci charter was tossed out the window. The original upci charter had nothing to do with subjective clotheslines. The unity clause was ignored by the hardliners.
I've never been told how the clothes nazis expect to enforce teaching and preaching the clothesline doctrine. It it were required to preach, one would figure a minimal number of times per year would suffice. How much witchcraft does one have to preach from the pulpit?
When the conversation sinks to this level, I'm out.
I will refrain from commenting on this post to avoid offending idiots and morons by association.
Take it up with the Apostle Paul. Galatians 3:1 summarizes the garbage that fills a good chunk of the upci manual, especially the wardrobe doctrine.
My position on standards is modesty, gender separation, and not drawing unecessary attention to oneself. All three principles are Biblical based. There has not been one conservative who has challenged the principles. The women in my family follows these principles. The men in my family follows these principles. Got a problem with my view? Tell me where I am wrong.
Meanwhile It is arrogance to define one's salvation by the article of clothing between the waist and the thigh.
The fact a subjective dress code plays an integral part of an organization's identity shows how far off people are. Paul identifies that spirit as a spirit of withcraft. Can't help what the Word says.
TV1A your views on standards are well known, but this borders on Blasphemy!
I would hope that you would retract it!
Take it up with the Apostle Paul. Galatians 3:1 summarizes the garbage that fills a good chunk of the upci manual, especially the wardrobe doctrine.
My position on standards is modesty, gender separation, and not drawing unecessary attention to oneself. All three principles are Biblical based. There has not been one conservative who has challenged the principles. The women in my family follows these principles. The men in my family follows these principles. Got a problem with my view? Tell me where I am wrong.
Meanwhile It is arrogance to define one's salvation by the article of clothing between the waist and the thigh.
The fact a subjective dress code plays an integral part of an organization's identity shows how far off people are. Paul identifies that spirit as a spirit of withcraft. Can't help what the Word says.
I do not agree with you & further, I find discussing things with you to be as productive as talking to a brick wall!
And you ain't no Apostle Paul!:thumbsup
Your original premise was a red herring. Trying to justify a non biblical standard as gospel truth while subtly suggesting that preachers who don't preach the manual are not men of integrity.
Who has more integrity? The people who don't preach the manual after signing a statement, or the people who put the unbiblical garbage in the manual? The manual is private interpretation that is forced on its constituents. Paul told the Galatians that is witchcraft. Look at it from God's viewpoint, and it will make you sick as well.
When the conversation sinks to this level, I'm out.
I will refrain from commenting on this post to avoid offending idiots and morons by association.
Do you have another interpretation of scripture I don't know about? I don't claim to be the apostle Paul, but I do know how to read and comprehend. Paul deals with this issue more than once.
I do not agree with you & further, I find discussing things with you to be as productive as talking to a brick wall!
And you ain't no Apostle Paul!:thumbsup
Do you have another interpretation of scripture I don't know about? I don't claim to be the apostle Paul, but I do know how to read and comprehend. Paul deals with this issue more than once.
TV1A, I will not continue a conversation with you. I will say this, you are on dangerous ground to be speaking so casually of Witchcraft from the Pulpit!
Good Night!
Thanks for the kind words. But I'm covering the whole enchilada. It is ridiculous a preacher's character is questioned because he allows a woman to minister in his church who isn't a upci clone.
It is a shame we judge woman's character and integrity by what she wears to cover her private parts. Why do we tie a person's salvation with the clothes they wear? Maybe it's because a lot of us have a desire to play God. Why else do we judge others.
It's the same evil spirit Paul dealt with in the Galatian church. Instead of pork, now it's clothes. Nothing new under the sun. If it was witchcraft when Paul said. It is witchcraft now. Even a caveman can figure that out.
Blasphemy is a pretty strong word.
He may have been referring to the "magic hair" doctrine which some preachers compare favorably to witch craft.
As far as the original charter being tossed out the window, what began as an agreement to fellowship based on mutual respect became a hostile takeover by what might be considered "the lunatic fringe."
When an entity is attempting to coerce someone to preach another gospel, they are no different the Jewish leaders trying to force their belief systems down the throats of the Galatian church.
It's not a casual comment. It is years of observation. The undue burden of forcing non biblical issues on people.
Whether or not you continue the conversation with me is irrelevant. Galatians 3:1 was set in stone when Paul wrote to the Galatian church. I can't in all good conscience read the Book of Galatians and come up with the conclusion Paul didn't mean what he said.
TV1A, I will not continue a conversation with you. I will say this, you are on dangerous ground to be speaking so casually of Witchcraft from the Pulpit!
Good Night!
Aquila
06-22-2009, 10:58 PM
Galatians 3:1-3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Interesting.
GrowingPains
06-22-2009, 11:00 PM
Yes for stuff like
-hair length for both men and women,
-facial hair on men,
-shaving, plucking, waxing body hair for women,
-manscaping for men
-sleeve length for men and women,
-jewelry, including neckties (cloth necklaces), including belt buckles, including metal tips on shoe laces,
-caffeine, nicotine, sugar, chocolate,
-golf, softball, card playing, board games, corn hole, marbles (marvels),any game that includes dice, basketball, hockey
-movies, tv, computers, newspapers, comic books, novels,
-Branson, Six Flags, Grand Ole Opry
-red or other specific colors for shoes or clothes,
-pajamas on women
-sexy underwear on women
-britches for men only and dresses/skirts for women only
to name a few
Sam do women in tank tops lead worship at your church? Do you have a platform rule different than a recommended/suggested length for modesty?
I can see the Apostle Paul writing a letter to Corinth if the churches started getting off-track, playing poker, and having disputed over money. Most of us would refuse any hints/suggestions toward these behaviors?
Honest question.
GrowingPains
06-22-2009, 11:05 PM
Take it up with the Apostle Paul. Galatians 3:1 summarizes the garbage that fills a good chunk of the upci manual, especially the wardrobe doctrine.
My position on standards is modesty, gender separation, and not drawing unecessary attention to oneself. All three principles are Biblical based. There has not been one conservative who has challenged the principles. The women in my family follows these principles. The men in my family follows these principles. Got a problem with my view? Tell me where I am wrong.
Meanwhile It is arrogance to define one's salvation by the article of clothing between the waist and the thigh.
The fact a subjective dress code plays an integral part of an organization's identity shows how far off people are. Paul identifies that spirit as a spirit of withcraft. Can't help what the Word says.
It sounds like we like to stay in the abstract but avoid making any application. What if half your church thought short shorts on Sunday was modest and the other half was appalled. How do you settle this?
Where does Paul identify this "spirit" as the spirit of witchcraft. I think we often use too much hyperbole to make a point. This isn't an issue of salvation, it's an issue of ecclesiology.
Again, testing opinions with honest challenges.
GrowingPains
06-22-2009, 11:08 PM
Your original premise was a red herring. Trying to justify a non biblical standard as gospel truth while subtly suggesting that preachers who don't preach the manual are not men of integrity.
Who has more integrity? The people who don't preach the manual after signing a statement, or the people who put the unbiblical garbage in the manual? The manual is private interpretation that is forced on its constituents. Paul told the Galatians that is witchcraft. Look at it from God's viewpoint, and it will make you sick as well.
tv1a, you really make that equal to witchcraft??? That's not sound hermeneutic, even if you disagree with some of these misinterpreted biblical standards. We have to be honest on either position, and so far your thought process isn't logically flowing. Call a spade a spade. These men SHOULDN'T sign the affirmation statement if they don't believe it -- plain and simple, and no matter what you think of what's in it. That's garbage. These are men of God, and dishonesty and false representation is just what it is. Let's be fair.
GrowingPains
06-22-2009, 11:11 PM
When an entity is attempting to coerce someone to preach another gospel, they are no different the Jewish leaders trying to force their belief systems down the throats of the Galatian church.
It's not a casual comment. It is years of observation. The undue burden of forcing non biblical issues on people.
Whether or not you continue the conversation with me is irrelevant. Galatians 3:1 was set in stone when Paul wrote to the Galatian church. I can't in all good conscience read the Book of Galatians and come up with the conclusion Paul didn't mean what he said.
Preach another gospel? You're missing it. The jewish equated the old covenant circumcision to be a necessity for salvation. We have made a big straw man of many conservative positions on standards, where they are not soteriological as much as they are ecclesiological. Not everyone thinks modesty standards are salvific -- that misses the point. So saying the preacher that admonishes his congregation to wear modest clothing, and makes application to say "let's keep it around the elbow" to a Judaizer as a literal parallel, is outrageous. Same with the Pharisee accusations. While I see major lessons, and even some eery similarities with the Pharisees and some sects of the church today, most are a LONG ways from Pharisees. That's just spouting ignorance -- and any reading on who the Judaizers were, and who Pharisees were with an objective lens would tell you that.
GrowingPains
06-22-2009, 11:13 PM
Sorry - I'm on this forum to learn, but arrogant and misinformed posts like that get under my skin. I enjoy challenging both sides as I test and challenge my own ideas in the process. I'm not identifying myself as a conservative spokesperson, but we have to be fair about the words we throw around. Some are just pure hateful.
Galatians 3:1 is the culmination of the first two chapters where Paul is frustrated with the Galatian church turning away from the the gospel of grace and walking in a spirit of the law/legalism. The jewish christians attempted to force the galatian christians to follow jewish customs for salvation. This made Paul mad. Galatians 3:1 Paul hits the mother load when he asked the Galatians to identify those who bewitched them from turning from the Gospel. It may have been a rhetorical question, but there is no doubt the comparison Paul makes. To make salvation issues out of subjective interpretation of scripture is witchcraft.
Good opening question. In my experiences the people in modest shorts tend to be better christians than those who are appalled at those wearing shorts. Although I would be fair and take it on a case by case basis, I'd probably go with the shorts crowd. In my experience, they seem to be the ones getting things done while those who are appalled are more often the problem than the solution.
It sounds like we like to stay in the abstract but avoid making any application. What if half your church thought short shorts on Sunday was modest and the other half was appalled. How do you settle this?
Where does Paul identify this "spirit" as the spirit of witchcraft. I think we often use too much hyperbole to make a point. This isn't an issue of salvation, it's an issue of ecclesiology.
Again, testing opinions with honest challenges.
GrowingPains
06-22-2009, 11:18 PM
I find some standards to be reminiscent of legalism, but it wasn't what Judaizers were. I mean, read on these folks. It was gruesome and insane. Yes, Paul got angry and told them to mutilate themselves. The fallacy of the argument, however, is that not all who admonish their saints to a particular standard equate those on the basis of salvation -- but the Judaizers did. That's the HUGE difference.
Study the book of Galatians. There are some principles which are errily similar to the situation discussed on this thread. Subjective mandates for salvation does not come from God. As you can see on this thread, the manual for some is more important than the Bible. That is a disturbing trend. Does anyone have the audacity to say bewitch doesn't mean what it says?
Your question was cool. You may not like my answer. But you asked. lol
Sorry - I'm on this forum to learn, but arrogant and misinformed posts like that get under my skin. I enjoy challenging both sides as I test and challenge my own ideas in the process. I'm not identifying myself as a conservative spokesperson, but we have to be fair about the words we throw around. Some are just pure hateful.
There are very few who do not put standards on par with salvation. Maple Leaf's post questioning the integrity of someone trying to change the status quo of a man made opinion in his own church. Maple Leaf appeared to suggest a well known woman of God had not place in a upci church because her wardrobe wouldn't fit the upci clone mode.
If the standard is not based on salvation, then we should not suppress anyone from being used to their fullest potential.
I find some standards to be reminiscent of legalism, but it wasn't what Judaizers were. I mean, read on these folks. It was gruesome and insane. Yes, Paul got angry and told them to mutilate themselves. The fallacy of the argument, however, is that not all who admonish their saints to a particular standard equate those on the basis of salvation -- but the Judaizers did. That's the HUGE difference.
HeavenlyOne
06-22-2009, 11:48 PM
Your point is irrelevant since years ago the original upci charter was tossed out the window. The original upci charter had nothing to do with subjective clotheslines. The unity clause was ignored by the hardliners.
I've never been told how the clothes nazis expect to enforce teaching and preaching the clothesline doctrine. It it were required to preach, one would figure a minimal number of times per year would suffice. How much witchcraft does one have to preach from the pulpit?
In addition, the manual says nothing about women wearing pants.
HeavenlyOne
06-22-2009, 11:55 PM
Sam do women in tank tops lead worship at your church? Do you have a platform rule different than a recommended/suggested length for modesty?
I can see the Apostle Paul writing a letter to Corinth if the churches started getting off-track, playing poker, and having disputed over money. Most of us would refuse any hints/suggestions toward these behaviors?
Honest question.
I'm always puzzled why people resort to the extremes in an attempt to make their point.
Hoovie
06-23-2009, 06:13 AM
I'm always puzzled why people resort to the extremes in an attempt to make their point.
Yeah that is an extreme - but not outside reality. I would think there needs to be platform rules of some sort.
Hoovie
06-23-2009, 06:16 AM
There are very few who do not put standards on par with salvation. Maple Leaf's post questioning the integrity of someone trying to change the status quo of a man made opinion in his own church. Maple Leaf appeared to suggest a well known woman of God had not place in a upci church because her wardrobe wouldn't fit the upci clone mode.
If the standard is not based on salvation, then we should not suppress anyone from being used to their fullest potential.
Hairstyles and dress code aside, it is still typical for many denominations to only have those on the platform that have a reciprocity agreement with them.
Raven
06-23-2009, 06:57 AM
I find some standards to be reminiscent of legalism, but it wasn't what Judaizers were. I mean, read on these folks. It was gruesome and insane. Yes, Paul got angry and told them to mutilate themselves. The fallacy of the argument, however, is that not all who admonish their saints to a particular standard equate those on the basis of salvation -- but the Judaizers did. That's the HUGE difference.
I'm with TV1. But you're right that not all equate standards with salvation but most do! I'm personally acquainted with many of them. They will bob and weave and obfuscate but when forced to answer they clearly attach salvation to standards. It is clearly Galatians 3 and deja vu all over again. There is no "huge" difference!
Raven
*AQuietPlace*
06-23-2009, 07:17 AM
But you're right that not all equate standards with salvation but most do! I'm personally acquainted with many of them. They will bob and weave and obfuscate but when forced to answer they clearly attach salvation to standards.
Raven
It is definitely a tight rope to walk, and most fall over into the legalism pit. You can say - 'Around here, we're going to wear our sleeves at our elbows just because we think that's a good stopping point' - but in practical application, it soon becomes a matter of salvation in people's minds.
I dearly love my ultra-con friends, but almost every single one of them view standards as salvational.
freeatlast
06-23-2009, 07:45 AM
The fact that he signs an affirmation statement to obtain his UPC license allows us the luxury of assuming that he preaches and practices what he pledges to preach and practice.
Doesn't it?
The AS is one of the biggest jokes or farces that the UPC ever swallowed.
When it was first issued @ 93 it came with a cover letter that kind of apologized for it and said, just sign it and send it back.
Many preachers cross stuff out and write stuff in, I'll uphold the manual..cross out manual and write in bible.
The AS are excepted and licences renewed as long as there is a check $$ included.
freeatlast
06-23-2009, 07:52 AM
ML.......I would hope you are right.......Rex Johnson has always been a favorite of mine...........I know in the past he certainly did not approve of cutting hair and makeup. .......
You know there a lot preachers that decided they'd read the bible themselves,instead of parroting what their pastor or some camp evangelist preached.
Many of them could not find in the bible, what they had been told was in there.
Henceforth we now have many among us that have decided that if it is not clearly in scripture then clearly I should not teach that it is.:heart
harleypreacher
06-23-2009, 08:34 AM
Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that?
Bro. Urshan wrote: "If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications."
You must have received a different letter than the one I have.
Wholehearted disapproval of cut hair and makeup doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.\
This is part of the letter that Nathaniel A. Urshan sent out, dated January 18, 1993 concerning the resolution that now forced ministers to sign a statement, called the Minister's Affirmation.
The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.
Sounds to me that it's left to the pastor's discretion on how he wants to manage and run his church when it comes to standards.
harleypreacher
06-23-2009, 09:02 AM
One more thing concerning the Articles of Faith. A minister can sign the Affirmation Statement saying he believes and preaches what is set forth in the Articles of Faith and never have to preach against pants on women, jewelry or facial hair on men. These items are not in the AOF under Holiness, the AOF is only from page 29 to 37 in the manual. What most people don't realize is that the Articles of Faith is not the whole UPCI Manual, only a few pages.
Pressing-On
06-23-2009, 09:08 AM
\
This is part of the letter that Nathaniel A. Urshan sent out, dated January 18, 1993 concerning the resolution that now forced ministers to sign a statement, called the Minister's Affirmation.
The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.
Sounds to me that it's left to the pastor's discretion on how he wants to manage and run his church when it comes to standards.
Thanks for putting the conversation into perspective! :thumbsup
Maple Leaf
06-23-2009, 10:04 AM
This is part of the letter that Nathaniel A. Urshan sent out, dated January 18, 1993 concerning the resolution that now forced ministers to sign a statement, called the Minister's Affirmation.
The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.
Sounds to me that it's left to the pastor's discretion on how he wants to manage and run his church when it comes to standards.
Did you read what you quoted?
If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement.
If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith,
For the interested reader, here is the actual and complete wording of the Affirmation Statement:
"I do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the Fundamental Doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set forth in said Articles of Faith, and I pledge to practice, preach and teach the same."
Where is the ambiguity in "I pledge to practice, preach and teach the same?"
Bro. Urshan's letter was written to calm the fears of a witch hunt, but it did not, nor did he have the power to, undo the force and requirement of the Affirmation Statement.
Bro. Urshan's comments dealt with peripheral issues, but did not contradict the plain statements of the Articles of Faith:
"We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in . . . women cutting their hair, make up, . . . any of our people having television sets in their homes."
How in the world can a pledge to "practice, preach and teach" not be seen as a commitment to require these practices in the local church? How can Articles of Faith that repeatedly refer to "our people" not be seen as having force in the local assembly?
Have we entered a world where words have no meaning and a signed pledge is a matter to snicker over?
harleypreacher
06-23-2009, 10:18 AM
What two sections of the Articles of Faith? There are 23 sections in the Articles of Faith. This Westberg resolution has been a mess since it was passed; no one set down and thought it out. Westberg and Urshan are now pasted on to glory and the UPC is left with a real mess. It was all political to start with. Again I can sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry.
Maple Leaf
06-23-2009, 10:24 AM
What two sections of the Articles of Faith? There are 23 sections in the Articles of Faith. This Westberg resolution has been a mess since it was passed; no one set down and thought it out. Westberg and Urshan are now pasted on to glory and the UPC is left with a real mess. It was all political to start with. Again I can sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry.
You may be able to sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry, but you can't sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against cut hair, make up, and your people having televisions in thier homes. Not if words have meaning and your signature has value.
Timmy
06-23-2009, 10:25 AM
You may be able to sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry, but you can't sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against cut hair, make up, and your people having televisions in thier homes. Not if words have meaning and your signature has value.
...and your cover letter doesn't "work".
Maple Leaf
06-23-2009, 10:28 AM
...and your cover letter doesn't "work".
If you sign the Affirmation Statement and then write a cover letter that contradicts what you have signed, Which one is a lie?
HeavenlyOne
06-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Yeah that is an extreme - but not outside reality. I would think there needs to be platform rules of some sort.
Platform rules, sure, but the question was asked if he'd allow a woman in a tank top to be on the platform, as if that was the point being made by CC1. My grandma is Methodist, and of the times I've visited there (which is about twice a year), I have yet to see anyone on their platform dressed immodestly by even my standards. MOST people know how to dress when it comes to church. If there is an issue, it's about as extreme as suggesting that if someone doesn't have 'standards', they must allow women in tank tops on their platforms! LOL!
I think platform rules are a good thing, regardless what the church believes about standards, if any. ;)
HeavenlyOne
06-23-2009, 10:33 AM
I think it comes down to what the preacher thinks the definition of 'is', is.
Kim Komando
06-23-2009, 10:36 AM
I agree with Mr. Maple Leaf in his general reading of Urshan's letter . Although Urshan seems to be pointing to having to accept the Holiness Article at face value the wording is very muddy and clearly states that the Westberg Resolution doesn't provide for enforcement. Whether signed in good faith or not, a signature will not be contested or challenged.
There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
The Affirmation Statement only tells a minister to affirm two of the 23 articles of Faith. However, the Westberg Resolution as a whole seems to point to the Articles of Faith as whole being "affirmable".
It reads:
Whereas Jesus warned us concerning the last days saying that "many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many" (Matthew 24:11) and "false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22), and
Whereas the apostle Paul likewise warned the church saying, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils [subversive doctrines inspired by devils-NEB]" (I Timothy 4:1) and that "grievous wolves [shall] enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things [perversions of truth-TCNT] to draw away disciples after them; (Acts 20:29-30), and
Whereas we are seeing these things being fulfilled before our eyes with false doctrines and seductive spirits rampant throughout the earth, and some even within our fellowship being led astray by them, and
Whereas we are commanded, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us [who despises the teachings we gave you-PHILLIPS]" (II Thessalonians 3:6) and to "mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them [disassociate yourselves from-TCNT]" (Romans 16:17), and
Whereas the Fundamental Doctrine and the Articles of Faith of our organization are scriptural teachings, and
Whereas it is our pledge to wholeheartedly teach and preach our standards of holiness, which we all agreed to abide by when we applied for membership in the United Pentecostal Church International, and
Whereas we are forbidden to speak or write in opposition to any of the Articles of Faith (General Constitution, Article VII, Section 7, paragraph 16), and
Whereas some have endeavored to retain their current fellowship card while departing from the faith as outlined in our Articles of Faith and have even threatened to go to law to sue the United Pentecostal Church International if they are dealt with by their district board,
Therefore be it resolved that the following statement be sent to each minister to be signed before his or her fellowship card for the following year is mailed from World Evangelism Center.
(Your signature attests only to the following statement.)
Statement of Affirmation – 2008
I do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the Fundamental Doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set forth in said Articles of Faith, and I pledge to practice, preach, and teach the same.
As HarleyPreacher has stated a preacher is not obligated to preach against jewelry or pants. He can also preach that salvation happens at repentance since the Fundamental Doctrine and other articles to not spell out the New Birth.
In signing the affirmation statement, ministers also affirm to actively preach and teach their disapproval of televisions in the homes of their people. They also affirm not contend about views open to interpretation like pants, jewelry, and salvation. But, the recent committee appointed by the General Superintendent has done just this. In the end, many of the men and women that sign this document are made to be liars.
Some have argued that by contending for a particular view, Westberg, was contending against the binding validity of the unity statement.
Timmy
06-23-2009, 10:38 AM
If you sign the Affirmation Statement and then write a cover letter that contradicts what you have signed, Which one is a lie?
I'm with ya!
Kim Komando
06-23-2009, 10:52 AM
If you sign the Affirmation Statement and then write a cover letter that contradicts what you have signed, Which one is a lie?
What's worse the liar or the system that turns a blind eye to it (see the Urshan letter) or promotes it then turns around and singles out and contends against those not in the majority view having they themselves attested not to do so to the disunity of the body?
From BeforeYouSignIt.com
Further mixed messages include the admission by a former General Secretary, Cleveland M. Becton, in a 1999 interview, that a number of ministers have signed the affirmation statement with qualifying statements of their own or with cover letters. He also admitted that many of these protestations have been generally accepted while some returned and ministers dropped from the rolls.
While some have reported that their district elders have told them to sign even if the individual minister does not affirm the statement in it’s entirety.
Integrity seems to be a two-edged sword.
Sandra
06-23-2009, 11:06 AM
socali.... look what you started !!! LOL
Justin
06-23-2009, 11:44 AM
socali.... look what you started !!! LOL
... all based off of a rumor. :sad
rgcraig
06-23-2009, 11:55 AM
If this is the truth, then I see no problem with it. My only question is: why couldn't these men discuss this at General Conference where ALL ministers could get involved?
Then there would have been a split.
I appreciate what these men are attempting to do!
Scott Hutchinson
06-23-2009, 12:01 PM
I suppose the truth of the matter is out there somewhere.
harleypreacher
06-23-2009, 12:23 PM
I agree with Mr. Maple Leaf in his general reading of Urshan's letter . Although Urshan seems to be pointing to having to accept the Holiness Article at face value the wording is very muddy and clearly states that the Westberg Resolution doesn't provide for enforcement. Whether signed in good faith or not, a signature will not be contested or challenged.
The Affirmation Statement only tells a minister to affirm two of the 23 articles of Faith. However, the Westberg Resolution as a whole seems to point to the Articles of Faith as whole being "affirmable".
It reads:
As HarleyPreacher has stated a preacher is not obligated to preach against jewelry or pants. He can also preach that salvation happens at repentance since the Fundamental Doctrine and other articles to not spell out the New Birth.
In signing the affirmation statement, ministers also affirm to actively preach and teach their disapproval of televisions in the homes of their people. They also affirm not contend about views open to interpretation like pants, jewelry, and salvation. But, the recent committee appointed by the General Superintendent has done just this. In the end, many of the men and women that sign this document are made to be liars.
Some have argued that by contending for a particular view, Westberg, was contending against the binding validity of the unity statement.
Who and What is the committee appointed by the General Superintendent?
GrowingPains
06-23-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm always puzzled why people resort to the extremes in an attempt to make their point.
You have me pegged wrong.
But on what basis do you decide tank tops are extreme?
GrowingPains
06-23-2009, 01:40 PM
It is definitely a tight rope to walk, and most fall over into the legalism pit. You can say - 'Around here, we're going to wear our sleeves at our elbows just because we think that's a good stopping point' - but in practical application, it soon becomes a matter of salvation in people's minds.
I dearly love my ultra-con friends, but almost every single one of them view standards as salvational.
Really? I have many "ultra-con" friends, and none of them would call sleeve length salvational. Their buddies church does it different than them -- they decided something different. Most see it as ecclesiological, not soteriological, and that's the major difference. I'm not promoting sleeve length, I'm just engaging the conversation on this.
GrowingPains
06-23-2009, 01:42 PM
Platform rules, sure, but the question was asked if he'd allow a woman in a tank top to be on the platform, as if that was the point being made by CC1. My grandma is Methodist, and of the times I've visited there (which is about twice a year), I have yet to see anyone on their platform dressed immodestly by even my standards. MOST people know how to dress when it comes to church. If there is an issue, it's about as extreme as suggesting that if someone doesn't have 'standards', they must allow women in tank tops on their platforms! LOL!
I think platform rules are a good thing, regardless what the church believes about standards, if any. ;)
Okay, well actually that's where I was going with it HeavenlyOne. You agree to a platform standard. It's interesting what we decide that to be, and why we decide that. For the record, I've seen plenty of "free pentecost" churches have praise services and concerts in a tank top.
GrowingPains
06-23-2009, 01:44 PM
I think MapleLeaf is saying, if you're going to sign it, believe it. Otherwise, show what you believe by refusing to sign it. If more people did that, things would change (for better or for worse, depending what is better or worse to you).
rgcraig
06-23-2009, 02:33 PM
If you were ever in his presence, you would understand ALL about him. He exudes everything Biblical and good - everything solid and everything true.
You are so correct!
GraceAmazing
06-23-2009, 02:51 PM
I think MapleLeaf is saying, if you're going to sign it, believe it. Otherwise, show what you believe by refusing to sign it. If more people did that, things would change (for better or for worse, depending what is better or worse to you).
I agree with this statement and I understand where Maple Leaf is coming from...that's why we left the UPC. We couldn't preach the standards message anymore and we didn't want to be a hinderance to the UPC. So, we left. It costs us a lot, but it was worth it!
If Rex Johnson doesn't preach what the UPC believes and endorses, he should probably find another Ministerial Fellowship to join up with! That being said, I would love it if things would change in the UPC, but I just don't see that happening. Now people are leaving in groves...it's sad and scary and exciting at the same time!
I personally love TFT and Rex Johnson! I think they are GREAT men of God and I believe wholeheartedly that they love God and they want what is the best for God's children!
Maple Leaf
06-23-2009, 04:14 PM
I agree with this statement and I understand where Maple Leaf is coming from...that's why we left the UPC. We couldn't preach the standards message anymore and we didn't want to be a hinderance to the UPC. So, we left. It costs us a lot, but it was worth it!
If Rex Johnson doesn't preach what the UPC believes and endorses, he should probably find another Ministerial Fellowship to join up with! That being said, I would love it if things would change in the UPC, but I just don't see that happening. Now people are leaving in groves...it's sad and scary and exciting at the same time!
I personally love TFT and Rex Johnson! I think they are GREAT men of God and I believe wholeheartedly that they love God and they want what is the best for God's children!
Well said. Now, why didn't you just come along and say it at the beginning and save me a whole lot of two fingered typing.
If you want to have Sandra sing on Sunday morning and if you want to preach on TBN on Monday night, go ahead and do it, but, for sanity's sake, get rid of the card in your wallet that says that you wholeheartedly disapprove of Sandra's paint and powder, and that you reject the doctrinal foundation upon which the Trinity Broadcasting Network is built.
Verily, verily, Akiro Kurosawa had this thread in mind when he wrote: "In a mad world, only the mad are sane."
Back to the basis of this thread I think it is interesting that "progressive" UPCers may be forming a support / fellowship group within the UPC.
The ironic thing is that in the case of AM for all of the talk of him being progressive or liberal I just don't see it in anything other than the use of television. He preaches against women cutting their hair, etc with the best of them.
Now RJ is definitely more progressive and his church reflects it.
Jermyn Davidson
06-23-2009, 05:28 PM
Back to the basis of this thread I think it is interesting that "progressive" UPCers may be forming a support / fellowship group within the UPC.
The ironic thing is that in the case of AM for all of the talk of him being progressive or liberal I just don't see it in anything other than the use of television. He preaches against women cutting their hair, etc with the best of them.
Now RJ is definitely more progressive and his church reflects it.
How about Bishop Tenney?
Hoovie
06-23-2009, 05:40 PM
I agree with this statement and I understand where Maple Leaf is coming from...that's why we left the UPC. We couldn't preach the standards message anymore and we didn't want to be a hinderance to the UPC. So, we left. It costs us a lot, but it was worth it!
If Rex Johnson doesn't preach what the UPC believes and endorses, he should probably find another Ministerial Fellowship to join up with! That being said, I would love it if things would change in the UPC, but I just don't see that happening. Now people are leaving in groves...it's sad and scary and exciting at the same time!
I personally love TFT and Rex Johnson! I think they are GREAT men of God and I believe wholeheartedly that they love God and they want what is the best for God's children!
I think MapleLeaf is saying, if you're going to sign it, believe it. Otherwise, show what you believe by refusing to sign it. If more people did that, things would change (for better or for worse, depending what is better or worse to you).
I do not agree. When the fundamental doctrine has provision made for different views, how much more should we admonish "all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."
There needs to be room for the RJ's in the UPC - even if it means returning to the old paths and changing the tolerance level and language to what it once was.
Scott Hutchinson
06-23-2009, 05:47 PM
See I don't agree with manual on somethings therefore I'm not UPCI,it seems to me if one can't agree with the AOF or the manual why not be independent or join another group.
Now there are great Christians in The UPCI if you are going teach some things differently than the org. why stay in it ?
Hoovie
06-23-2009, 05:51 PM
I would contend pretty much everyone disagrees with parts of the AOF.
Scott Hutchinson
06-23-2009, 06:01 PM
I couldn't get a license with them if I wanted to.
But if one knows they are supposed to contend for certain things,and then they don't ,it would seem like another affliation or being independent might be best for them.
Of course I understand there are those who feel they should stay in it and work for change.
Of course an affliation does not make one saved or lost,and orgs are not the call of God upon a person's life.
Scott Hutchinson
06-23-2009, 06:04 PM
The Lord founded a body of The Day Of Pentecost,Christ is the head of the church and I don't see The church going down any time soon ,Christ said the gates of hell won't prevail agains't her.
The church will be strong and vibrant until she is caught away.
GraceAmazing
06-23-2009, 06:18 PM
For me, it's an issue of integrity. I feel you are sowing discord no matter which way you slice that pie. I agree Hoover that there should be room, but I don't think that will work. Period. Look at what happened at the General Conference in 2003. They practically destroyed a great man just because his viewpoint didn't match theirs. I don't know, just don't think it best to stay in something that teaches and upholds certain truths when I don't live nor preach those certain truths.
The people who should be leaving are the ones who changed the intent of the original upci charter. It's ok to promote change when one is looking at the backside of the leader, but by god one they get in charge opposing views have to leave. That is garbage and you know it.
By 1992, the upci was nothing like the it was at the merger.
Well said. Now, why didn't you just come along and say it at the beginning and save me a whole lot of two fingered typing.
If you want to have Sandra sing on Sunday morning and if you want to preach on TBN on Monday night, go ahead and do it, but, for sanity's sake, get rid of the card in your wallet that says that you wholeheartedly disapprove of Sandra's paint and powder, and that you reject the doctrinal foundation upon which the Trinity Broadcasting Network is built.
Verily, verily, Akiro Kurosawa had this thread in mind when he wrote: "In a mad world, only the mad are sane."
Jaxon
06-23-2009, 07:04 PM
This is very simple....The affirmation statement is not ambiguios.......If you are a UPC preacher and don't agree with it then don't sign it.........If there are enough preachers that feel like you do, then get it changed if you have the votes.............Isn't that the way things work??? If you're using a cover letter or white out you are circumventing the process......If you don't like it...get it changed (if you can)....If you can't, then take it for what it is.
Jaxon
06-23-2009, 07:12 PM
You don't have to belong to the UPCI to be saved........If you feel very strongly you cannot support the affirmation stmt then do yourself a favor and preserve your honesty and don't sign it.
freeatlast
06-23-2009, 07:20 PM
I think it comes down to what the preacher thinks the definition of 'is', is.
Yeah? That line didn't work so good for Bill Clinton.
Your point may be valid only if the abominable actions by the legalists over the course of the years suffocated the intentions of the merger. The affirmation statement pretty much leaves people with the assumption a dress code is salvational. If that isn't a pot of witches brew, I don't know what is.
A district superintendent said it best when he says the upci will lose its identity if they relax their dress code. He pretty much wrapped up the reason why they fight so hard for against reality.
I have a lot to learn about being a disciple of Christ if my identity is wrapped up in my wardrobe.
You don't have to belong to the UPCI to be saved........If you feel very strongly you cannot support the affirmation stmt then do yourself a favor and preserve your honesty and don't sign it.
Jaxon
06-23-2009, 08:36 PM
You also have a lot to learn in the way you word things.........."abominable"....according to who????????
Uh... God? His apostle, Paul. There's two.
Read what happened to another group of people with similar ideas a couple thousand years ago.
The name Pharisee in its Hebrew form means separatists, or the separated ones. They were also known as chasidim, which means loyal to God, or loved of God - extremely ironic in view of the fact that by His time, they made themselves the most bitter, and deadly, opponents of Jesus Christ and His message.
The Pharisees perhaps meant to obey God, but eventually they became so devoted and extremist in very limited parts of The Law (plus all that they themselves added to it), that they became blind to The Messiah when He was in their very midst. They saw His miracles, they heard His Words, but instead of receiving it with joy, they did all that they could to stop Him - eventually to the point of getting Him killed because He truthfully claimed to be the Son of God.
Source: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/pharisee.htm
Food for thought.
You also have a lot to learn in the way you word things.........."abominable"....according to who????????
I'm through pretending like this stuff doesn't stink up the nostrils of God. There is only so much of the outhouse one can tolerate before splitting.
You also have a lot to learn in the way you word things.........."abominable"....according to who????????
mizpeh
06-23-2009, 09:15 PM
I do not agree. When the fundamental doctrine has provision made for different views, how much more should we admonish "all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."
There needs to be room the RJ's in the UPC - even if it means returning the the old paths and changing the tolerance level and language to what it once was.:thumbsup
Sam do women in tank tops lead worship at your church? Do you have a platform rule different than a recommended/suggested length for modesty?
Honest question.
We are not a UPC church nor is our pastor UPC.
The church is independent.
Our pastor was ordained through RHEMA where he went to Bible School.
He is also ordained in an organization called WME (Worldwide Missionary Evangelism). The website for that organization is
http://www.wmeinc.org/
I don't know of any "platform standard" for the singers, etc. I have never heard of it if there is, but I do not lead worship. I have taught midweek Bible Study in a Tee shirt, shorts, and sandals and it has been no problem. I don't remember ever seeing anyone in a tank top leading worship but I personally would have no problem with it. My pastor has facial hair and wears shorts but I don't ever remember seeing him preaching on Sunday morning in shorts. He ordinarily does not wear a tie when he preaches.
It is my personal opinion that it is none of my business how a brother or sister dresses. That is between the brother or sister and his or her Lord.
Yeah? That line didn't work so good for Bill Clinton.
Well, during and after the impeachment trial, his party stood with him and Al Gore called him one of the greatest presidents of our country. If he could run again, he probably would be voted in again.
...
Have we entered a world where words have no meaning and a signed pledge is a matter to snicker over?
When it comes to the Affirmation Statement,
the answer to that question would be "yes"
The AS is viewed as
a joke,
a departure from reality,
out of touch,
the opinion of a few neanderthals,
a pain in the posterior but something to put up with and not take seriously,
something that has to be returned to HQ periodically with some sort of signature to maintain your license/credentials/union affiliation,
etc.
It's like the "blue laws" on our books.
They're still there but nobody pays any attention to them.
GraceAmazing
06-23-2009, 09:53 PM
Back to the basis of this thread I think it is interesting that "progressive" UPCers may be forming a support / fellowship group within the UPC.
The ironic thing is that in the case of AM for all of the talk of him being progressive or liberal I just don't see it in anything other than the use of television. He preaches against women cutting their hair, etc with the best of them.
Now RJ is definitely more progressive and his church reflects it.
This statement I would agree with. I don't think he's as progressive or liberal as one might believe...now that's JMO and we all know that opinions are sometimes dead wrong! :hanky
commonsense
06-23-2009, 09:53 PM
Maple Leaf,
I am not UPC so I did not get the letter sent to me.
I have seen a copy of it and the way I remember the gist of it, that was the impression I got. In other words, Bro. Urshan was saying, "Just sign it and don't worry about it. We don't really care what you preach or teach. We just want your signature."
It has been a long time since I've seen the letter. I don't know if I have a copy of it any more, and if I do, I don't know where it's filed. And, I may have drawn some inference from it that someone else might not have.
That's the way I heard it too.
My husband no longer has UPCI Lic, but our DS basically stated it was ok to sign it based on the letter Bro Urshan sent with it.
It's been my observation that individual districts accept or reject the signatures.
I do not agree. When the fundamental doctrine has provision made for different views, how much more should we admonish "all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."
There needs to be room for the RJ's in the UPC - even if it means returning to the old paths and changing the tolerance level and language to what it once was.
Amen!! :thumbsup
I have been saying this for the longest...where is the spirit of the merger?!
rgcraig
06-24-2009, 07:00 AM
Amen!! :thumbsup
I have been saying this for the longest...where is the spirit of the merger?!
A lot of us have and many have given up even believing it could ever happen - - sad.
Falla39
06-24-2009, 07:02 AM
It is each individual's personal responsibility to keep our own spirit and heart right!
We are accountable to God for ourselves, not anyone else! Whether it be good or evil.
We can't say, "Well the organization (whichever it might be) said we have to do this or
do that. They told me this is the right way. They, they, they...... Would our Judge per-
haps say, But what about the Word and the Spirit I sent you. To lead and guide you.
I came to you and you would not allow ME to lead you. Now depart, I never knew you.
You would not allow me close enough to hear My Voice. The noise of all the other voices
drowned out My Voice. I asked you to "Be still and know", but you would not! You did not
hear my Voice. You are not Mine! My sheep hear My Voice and they do follow Me. No
one can take Mine out of The Father's Hand. I and Father are ONE. In John 17, I prayed
for you along with my disciples I taught on earth. But just as the city (Jerusalem) where
I chose to put My Name, you would not. How I longed for you, but you would not.
Not to offend. Just some sober thoughts.
Falla39
Sandra
06-24-2009, 07:29 AM
my my my.. socali .. look what you started ..then you run off ...hmmmm!!!
Falla39
06-24-2009, 07:36 AM
my my my.. socali .. look what you started ..then you run off ...hmmmm!!!
Hi, Sandra,
Those little boys of yours are little dolls! :mama
Hugs,
Falla39
Maple Leaf
06-24-2009, 07:57 AM
When it comes to the Affirmation Statement,
the answer to that question would be "yes"
The AS is viewed as
a joke,
a departure from reality,
out of touch,
the opinion of a few neanderthals,
a pain in the posterior but something to put up with and not take seriously,
something that has to be returned to HQ periodically with some sort of signature to maintain your license/credentials/union affiliation,
etc.
It's like the "blue laws" on our books.
They're still there but nobody pays any attention to them.
The Affirmation Statement was endorsed and retained by a majority vote of the General Conference, and not just by "a few neanderthals."
You may view it as a joke, but I can assure you that the congregations it split and the minister's it disfellowshipped don't.
GraceAmazing said it earlier: "It's a matter of integrity."
I'm surprised, given your vintage, that you view the matter of a signature and a man's word so flippantly.
It's hardly a "blue law" that nobody pays any attention to; if you fail to sign it, you lose your credentials, and potentially your livelihood.
oletime
06-24-2009, 07:58 AM
for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo
rgcraig
06-24-2009, 08:07 AM
The Affirmation Statement was endorsed and retained by a majority vote of the General Conference, and not just by "a few neanderthals."
You may view it as a joke, but I can assure you that the congregations it split and the minister's it disfellowshipped don't.
GraceAmazing said it earlier: "It's a matter of integrity."
I'm surprised, given your vintage, that you view the matter of a signature and a man's word so flippantly.
It's hardly a "blue law" that nobody pays any attention to; if you fail to sign it, you lose your credentials, and potentially your livelihood.And that is exactly why so many signed it and don't believe or uphold it.
rgcraig
06-24-2009, 08:09 AM
for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo
Huh? He was GS in '93
What are you talking about that he wouldn't have allowed to have passed? The AS or the advertising on TV?
Timmy
06-24-2009, 08:27 AM
We are not a UPC church nor is our pastor UPC.
The church is independent.
Our pastor was ordained through RHEMA where he went to Bible School.
He is also ordained in an organization called WME (Worldwide Missionary Evangelism). The website for that organization is
http://www.wmeinc.org/
I don't know of any "platform standard" for the singers, etc. I have never heard of it if there is, but I do not lead worship. I have taught midweek Bible Study in a Tee shirt, shorts, and sandals and it has been no problem. I don't remember ever seeing anyone in a tank top leading worship but I personally would have no problem with it. My pastor has facial hair and wears shorts but I don't ever remember seeing him preaching on Sunday morning in shorts. He ordinarily does not wear a tie when he preaches.
It is my personal opinion that it is none of my business how a brother or sister dresses. That is between the brother or sister and his or her Lord.
Hey, did you see me wave at you on my way by, on the slippery slope? :ursofunny :ursofunny
KWSS1976
06-24-2009, 08:56 AM
Timmy how many times do I need to tell you it is a SLIP & SLIDE...lol
http://www.sungsblog.com/images/500-slip-n-slide.jpg
Timmy
06-24-2009, 09:14 AM
:lol
rgcraig
06-24-2009, 09:16 AM
Timmy how many times do I need to tell you it is a SLIP & SLIDE...lol
http://www.sungsblog.com/images/500-slip-n-slide.jpg
A slip-n-slide placed on a slope results in a slippery slope!
When I was conservative, I felt that doing anything besides what the AOF states would be a compromise of personal integrity. That's what I was taught, believed and lived. However, I spent the last 4 years in the UPC as more of an undercover liberal. I began to see things differently. I have great understanding for the conservative view. As time went on, however, I saw it wasn't so cut and dried for people who are more liberal bending...ESPECIALLY since you can put clarifying notes on the affirmation statement with no question. This clears many a conscience. For me, I still wanted to leave. I wanted to speak my mind outright. If my husband wanted to stay in, I would have and lived undercover best I could.
The Affirmation Statement was endorsed and retained by a majority vote of the General Conference, and not just by "a few neanderthals."
You may view it as a joke, but I can assure you that the congregations it split and the minister's it disfellowshipped don't.
GraceAmazing said it earlier: "It's a matter of integrity."
I'm surprised, given your vintage, that you view the matter of a signature and a man's word so flippantly.
It's hardly a "blue law" that nobody pays any attention to; if you fail to sign it, you lose your credentials, and potentially your livelihood.
The AS passed by "questionable" procedure and because of a lie by a high ranking official.
The original (1945) statement on holiness in the Articles of Faith would have been fine but it was amended in 1954 to include opinions of a militant minority.
It is my opinion that the proposal, adoption, and subsequent blood-letting and upheaval of the Affirmation Statement is pretty well described in Proverbs 6:16-19.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a licensed or ordained minister in the UPC (Under Privileged Children) organization so my opinion is not important.
POWERUP
06-24-2009, 01:20 PM
ILG you hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!! Undercover. Thats what we did. Some would say thats hypocritical. But, the real reason is that you or no one else would want anyone to talk about them.
Sure I signed the AS. For Integrity sake. I was involved in the District, one of the associate Pastors in my local assembly about 15 years, Evangelized for a while, I loved the UPC. But I was not going to keep signing something I didn't believe.
I don't have anything bad to say about the UPC. I am not part of it anymore. My dad and other family are, however.
My Grandfather used to be one of the board members im the Mississippi District.
But, even he understood what I believed. Along with 100's of others!!
I have friends who still minister and Pastor in MS. who believe like I do. But, don't want to make waves.:thumbsup
God Bless
*AQuietPlace*
06-24-2009, 01:24 PM
I think it would interesting to know how many Pentecostals who still attend conservative churches and live conservative lifestyles, don't really believe that it's biblically required?
I've noticed an undercurrent among my own friends... little comments and discussions that let me know that they have serious questions about it all. Many of us just feel caught in the system.
POWERUP
06-24-2009, 01:27 PM
You just don't want to be a cast out, or a castaway for that matter!!!!!!!!!!!!
You just don't want to be a cast out, or a castaway for that matter!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believed it all, hook, line, and sinker for 16 years. It was hard to walk away....
Maple Leaf
06-24-2009, 02:53 PM
The AS passed by "questionable" procedure and because of a lie by a high ranking official.
The original (1945) statement on holiness in the Articles of Faith would have been fine but it was amended in 1954 to include opinions of a militant minority.
It is my opinion that the proposal, adoption, and subsequent blood-letting and upheaval of the Affirmation Statement is pretty well described in Proverbs 6:16-19.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a licensed or ordained minister in the UPC (Under Privileged Children) organization so my opinion is not important.
I take umbrage with the accusation that a high ranking official lied to facilitate the passing of the resolution that implemented the Affirmation Statement.
I was personally in a meeting where that godly brother apologized for the impression his words gave. He may have expressed himself poorly on the General Conference floor, but I reject the assertion that he lied.
Whether or not the procedure was questionable is a moot point. There has been ample time and opportunity to rescind the Affirmation Resolution, and the will of the body has been to retain it.
oletime
06-24-2009, 03:06 PM
Huh? He was GS in '93
What are you talking about that he wouldn't have allowed to have passed? The AS or the advertising on TV?
the advertising on tv because of the division it would and did cause
KWSS1976
06-24-2009, 03:11 PM
Where is all this advertising at I have yet to see anything UPC related on tv I see plenty of latter day saints which I like there commercials cause they are always focusing towards family...
oletime
06-24-2009, 03:11 PM
I take umbrage with the accusation that a high ranking official lied to facilitate the passing of the resolution that implemented the Affirmation Statement.
I was personally in a meeting where that godly brother apologized for the impression his words gave. He may have expressed himself poorly on the General Conference floor, but I reject the assertion that he lied.
Whether or not the procedure was questionable is a moot point. There has been ample time and opportunity to rescind the Affirmation Resolution, and the will of the body has been to retain it.
there have been other questionable tactics also like the time my son on law was at one of the gcs when the tv issue was voted down and then after a bunch of people got up and left because that was the issue they showed up to take a stand on then their was an attempt to bring it back to the floor for another vote after many opponets left dirty politics i believe its called
oletime
06-24-2009, 03:20 PM
Where is all this advertising at I have yet to see anything UPC related on tv I see plenty of latter day saints which I like there commercials cause they are always focusing towards family...
no one can afford it ? i dont know, which makes it even worse with the divsion it caused
Hoovie
06-24-2009, 03:38 PM
no one can afford it ? i dont know, which makes it even worse with the divsion it caused
Well, I think both camps know/knew the vote was somewhat symbolic rather than about advertising/broadcasting only.
Justin
06-24-2009, 04:15 PM
Well, I think both camps know/knew the vote was somewhat symbolic rather than about advertising/broadcasting only.
I agree. It seems like some were trying to "test the waters" to see how many within the org would be wiling to reconsider "culture related" topics (i.e: Holiness "Standards")
How about Bishop Tenney?
Jermyn,
That is a very interesting question that I am not sure anyone but him has the answer to.
On one hand he has been very open to appearing on non UPC, non Oneness television programs and occasionally preaching in a non Oneness pulpit.
On the other hand I heard a recent sermon by TFT in which he pretty much affirmed old time Pentecostal traditions on many things. (Now don't ask me when and where that sermon was because I don't remember but I listened to it online and it was within the last year or so and it may have been from BOTT). I was surprised because there has been speculation that he is a closet liberal more in line with Tommy T than the UPC.
Sarah
06-24-2009, 05:26 PM
Jermyn,
That is a very interesting question that I am not sure anyone but him has the answer to.
On one hand he has been very open to appearing on non UPC, non Oneness television programs and occasionally preaching in a non Oneness pulpit.
On the other hand I heard a recent sermon by TFT in which he pretty much affirmed old time Pentecostal traditions on many things. (Now don't ask me when and where that sermon was because I don't remember but I listened to it online and it was within the last year or so and it may have been from BOTT). I was surprised because there has been speculation that he is a closet liberal more in line with Tommy T than the UPC.
I have always believed that Bro T is a moderate, CC1. As for preaching where he does, he's probably just using common sense and taking the true gospel to people who don't fully believe yet. I think the apostles would too.
Jermyn Davidson
06-24-2009, 05:29 PM
Jermyn,
That is a very interesting question that I am not sure anyone but him has the answer to.
On one hand he has been very open to appearing on non UPC, non Oneness television programs and occasionally preaching in a non Oneness pulpit.
On the other hand I heard a recent sermon by TFT in which he pretty much affirmed old time Pentecostal traditions on many things. (Now don't ask me when and where that sermon was because I don't remember but I listened to it online and it was within the last year or so and it may have been from BOTT). I was surprised because there has been speculation that he is a closet liberal more in line with Tommy T than the UPC.
Well my ipression of him from Sunday was that he was anything but a clothesline holiness preacher.
In fact, he said something that pretty much criticized the empty religiosity of the past and how that we must move on to be more effective TODAY.
He did not use all of those exact words (just some of them) but the above is what he implied to me.
And what is most interesting, personally, I am closer now to recommitting to forsaking shorts and television completely because in my church, my Pastor does not present these things as salvational. Or maybe he does I have misunderstood him.
But I know he teaches of the value of sacrifices and consecrations in your relationship with God.
Hoovie
06-24-2009, 08:48 PM
Well my ipression of him from Sunday was that he was anything but a clothesline holiness preacher.
In fact, he said something that pretty much criticized the empty religiosity of the past and how that we must move on to be more effective TODAY.
He did not use all of those exact words (just some of them) but the above is what he implied to me.
And what is most interesting, personally, I am closer now to recommitting to forsaking shorts and television completely because in my church, my Pastor does not present these things as salvational. Or maybe he does I have misunderstood him.
But I know he teaches of the value of sacrifices and consecrations in your relationship with God.
I would not want to be known as one who tries to get others to get/watch TV, however - a preacher preaching one is damned if he does... now that would be a great reason to get one - to demonstrate his teaching is far more dangerous than TV.
About shorts, if they are reasonable length, what could possibly be wrong with them?
Jermyn Davidson
06-25-2009, 03:06 PM
I would not want to be known as one who tries to get others to get/watch TV, however - a preacher preaching one is damned if he does... now that would be a great reason to get one - to demonstrate his teaching is far more dangerous than TV.
About shorts, if they are reasonable length, what could possibly be wrong with them?
TV and shorts are not inherently evil in themselves.
What you watch on the tv is the key.
Your intent in wearing shorts or not wearing shorts is the key.
If I make these commitments, it will be to get closer to God, not because they are inherently wrong or sinful.
TV and shorts are not inherently evil in themselves.
What you watch on the tv is the key.
Your intent in wearing shorts or not wearing shorts is the key.
If I make these commitments, it will be to get closer to God, not because they are inherently wrong or sinful.
Keep us posted on how that goes. Will be interesting to see if not wearing shorts gets you closer to God. (I am having trouble finding Bible for that but will withhold judgement until you report back).
there have been other questionable tactics also like the time my son on law was at one of the gcs when the tv issue was voted down and then after a bunch of people got up and left because that was the issue they showed up to take a stand on then their was an attempt to bring it back to the floor for another vote after many opponets left dirty politics i believe its called
I was on the floor of that conference, and I have an entirely different opinion.
If people were stupid enough to get up and leave after the TV vote, they deserved whatever happened. Plus, a lot of those guys who left early had been bused in from all over the country. Many of them weren't even qualified to vote.
Besides being rude, leaving in the middle of a business meeting shows a complete lack of concern about important organizational issues.
for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo
Friend, I think it would be best if you just closed your trap for a bit.:smack
The UPC currently has around 8700 ministers worldwide, not 30,000.
And of those 8700, only around 2000 showed up in Tampa to vote. The margin of passage was around 2-3%. That is very common in many ballot initiatives, and most Presidential elections fall within a similar margin.
Please, don't rewrite history to fit your agenda.
And btw, the resolution prohibiting tv that was passed back in the eighties cleared by around the same margin.
Jaxon
06-25-2009, 07:58 PM
Sam: You said the AS passed because of a questionable procedure and a lie by a high ranking official......you've also stated you 've never been UPC licensed (so obviously you were not there).........When you say "a high ranking official lied" and you were not there I am curious as to how you know this.........If this was as egregious as you claim I would like to know who lied.......If you know about this who else does?
oletime
06-25-2009, 08:02 PM
first of all dont tell me to shut my trap and then call me friend cause i aint yours you dont even know me and i sure dont know you i can have my opinions and 2 percent changing bed rock principals written by men far greater than you or me aint right but i suppose the upc is better off without the godairs bookers etc what a joke my points still stand being off on the numbers doesnt change the point oh and no one on the other side was bussed in and they all were qualified to vote? sure! but you wont have to worry about me anymore because you are officialy self banned ignored whatever congrats! goodbye
Tim Rutledge
06-25-2009, 08:02 PM
I am not on here much anymore, but, thought some of you would like to hear this piece of information:
There was an "invitation only" meeting in Detroit this past week to talk about the formation of a new organization. This is not an "emergent group" and not an "ultra con" group...but one with the same doctrinal views minus some of the "other" stuff.
Two prominent UPCI leaders were the speakers at this meeting.
Anyone else hear anything about this??
The UPCI has no problem with splits.:thumbsup
Sandra
06-25-2009, 09:57 PM
socali.... where you be?? look what you stirred up... ; )
for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo
Friend, I think it would be best if you just closed your trap for a bit.:smack
The UPC currently has around 8700 ministers worldwide, not 30,000.
And of those 8700, only around 2000 showed up in Tampa to vote. The margin of passage was around 2-3%. That is very common in many ballot initiatives, and most Presidential elections fall within a similar margin.
Please, don't rewrite history to fit your agenda.
first of all dont tell me to shut my trap and then call me friend cause i aint yours you dont even know me and i sure dont know you i can have my opinions and 2 percent changing bed rock principals written by men far greater than you or me aint right but i suppose the upc is better off without the godairs bookers etc what a joke my points still stand being off on the numbers doesnt change the point oh and no one on the other side was bussed in and they all were qualified to vote? sure! but you wont have to worry about me anymore because you are officialy self banned ignored whatever congrats! goodbye
Let the record show that I said "closed" and not "shut.":sad Sorry bout that.
Also, the idea that the tv ads ban was somehow a "bed rock principle" made me laugh out loud.
As for ignoring me? Oh well, don't feel too special. There seems to be a long line of fine folk who have chosen to follow the same path.:spit
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Better than late night TV!!!!
Someday we will look back at the debate over tv and laugh ourselves silly.
What a waste of time!
Dontcha just love it when folks start spewing incorrect facts and figures?
Then when you call 'em on it, they get all red-faced and sweaty as they try to defend the indefensible junk they posted?
Funny stuff.
30,000 ministers in the UPC? In our dreams, maybe! lol
Dontcha just love it when folks start spewing incorrect facts and figures?
Then when you call 'em on it, they get all red-faced and sweaty as they try to defend the indefensible junk they posted?
Funny stuff.
30,000 ministers in the UPC? In our dreams, maybe! lol
That was kinda funny. He put you on ignore though so it's almost like your not here!:ursofunny
oletime
06-26-2009, 05:27 AM
That was kinda funny. He put you on ignore though so it's almost like your not here!:ursofunny
tj you missed the point too. the point wasnt the number factor, if you notice i put a question mark at the end of the numbers indicating it wasnt my guess, only what i read somewhere. the point was the miniscule fors vs against and the divsion it caused. but i suppose that is a debate tactic, find a point no matter how small and hammer it, hoping everyone will forget the big picture. that dog dont hunt with me. finding a pimple on carrie underwood doesnt prove her any less than vava voom!! but i will volunteer to try find one if you think it would !
freeatlast
06-26-2009, 05:48 AM
tj you missed the point too. the point wasnt the number factor, if you notice i put a question mark at the end of the numbers indicating it wasnt my guess, only what i read somewhere. the point was the miniscule fors vs against and the divsion it caused. but i suppose that is a debate tactic, find a point no matter how small and hammer it, hoping everyone will forget the big picture. that dog dont hunt with me. finding a pimple on carrie underwood doesnt prove her any less than vava voom!! but i will volunteer to try find one if you think it would !
...and you are against entertainment media. LOL
your rants make you appear to be as one who has gone of his meds.
tj you missed the point too. the point wasnt the number factor, if you notice i put a question mark at the end of the numbers indicating it wasnt my guess, only what i read somewhere. the point was the miniscule fors vs against and the divsion it caused. but i suppose that is a debate tactic, find a point no matter how small and hammer it, hoping everyone will forget the big picture. that dog dont hunt with me. finding a pimple on carrie underwood doesnt prove her any less than vava voom!! but i will volunteer to try find one if you think it would !
I respectfully disagree with you. I also happened to be a part of that aforementioned org at the time much of that was happening. You need to get your facts straight to be able to have credibility when you engage in discussion like this or don't take it so serious!
You get on this forum, write a serious sounding post using ficticous and exaggerated numbers, then get angry and offended when someone calls you on the point.
Dear sir, we all make mistakes and get called on them once in a while! You shrug, laugh and go on, apologizing if you desire! But when you make statements like you did, expect to get called on it! Either substantiate your statement with facts or clarify it!
As far as Carrie Underwoods pimple, don't have a clue what you are talking about. Sorry.
TJJJ
Hoovie
06-26-2009, 07:05 AM
Friend, I think it would be best if you just closed your trap for a bit.:smack
The UPC currently has around 8700 ministers worldwide, not 30,000.
And of those 8700, only around 2000 showed up in Tampa to vote. The margin of passage was around 2-3%. That is very common in many ballot initiatives, and most Presidential elections fall within a similar margin.
Please, don't rewrite history to fit your agenda.
Ed, you are actually wrong on these numbers. The UPC has over 30,000 ministers.
Maple Leaf
06-26-2009, 07:21 AM
Ed, you are actually wrong on these numbers. The UPC has over 30,000 ministers.
Worldwide being the key.
I wonder what percentage of the 30,000 had television privileges before the resolution that has Oletime's knickers in a knot?
If memory serves me right, the UPC of Jamaica has allowed television for several years.
Hoovie
06-26-2009, 07:32 AM
Worldwide being the key.
I wonder what percentage of the 30,000 had television privileges before the resolution that has Oletime's knickers in a knot?
If memory serves me right, the UPC of Jamaica has allowed television for several years.
Sure, but that was Oletime's assertion too.
Ed, you are actually wrong on these numbers. The UPC has over 30,000 ministers.
Worldwide being the key.
I wonder what percentage of the 30,000 had television privileges before the resolution that has Oletime's knickers in a knot?
If memory serves me right, the UPC of Jamaica has allowed television for several years.
Sure, but that was Oletime's assertion too.
The assertion was that there was a voting bloc of 30,ooo ministers. That is, quite simply, not true.
The assertion was that the issue passed by 900 votes. Again, not true.
The assertion was that all ministers, worldwide, operate from the same manual. Again, not true.
The assertion was that ALL ministers had a vote. Not true.
Until last year, only a select number of ministers within the UPC could vote, even though all of them held license and paid dues.
Methinks oletime is having fun pretending.
oletime
06-26-2009, 12:48 PM
Ed, you are actually wrong on these numbers. The UPC has over 30,000 ministers.
tanks sh, appreciate the confirmation. when i said upc i didnt mean just our little corner of the world and the usa is just a fly speck in the ocean but i didnt say WORLDWIDE my bad ! btw just to set he record straight for everyone, i never got anything in a bunch i didnt bash anyone for watching whatever, i dont live thier life and im not responsible for them , im just saying it was wrong to do this the way it was done it was contending to detriment unless someone wants to believe that its no big deal that the upc lost the bookers, godairs,coons personaly i dont think so, but that is just my opinion do i have a tv? no, will i get one anytime soon? no, have i been know too catch part of a sporting event now and then on one somewhere? sshhh !.would i watch one in front of you if i knew you would be offended ?no , if meat offendeth my brother ... know what im saying? a lot of people seem to have forgotten that m leaf , dont know probably a bunch that still doesnt change my basic point jmho ,the carrie underwood thiing? just a joke, if you think you found something minor it doesnt mean the whole thing is bad . ill take her with more then one pimple, just as long as she doesnt turn into lyle lovett, look up a picture of him.although it didnt seem to matter to julia roberts was it ? again just a joke folks !
POWERUP
06-26-2009, 01:22 PM
:ursofunnyUPC didn't lose anyone!!!!!!! They know where they are.:ursofunny
Hoovie
06-26-2009, 02:09 PM
Oletime et all, I don't see it as "losing" these folks like Wilson and Goodair.
It simply frees up people to follow their direction in good conscience.
As far as that goes all ultra conservatives could have stayed and been free to live as they wished. It is the intolerance that divides. I don't enjoy that fact, but if it must be then perhaps cordial is best.
...
The assertion was that all ministers, worldwide, operate from the same manual. Again, not true.
Is "The Manual" as we know it only applicable to the continental U.S.A.?
How many "Manuals" are there?
If tv is not an issue in some of the countries, how about hair? I had heard somewhere that the requirement for long hair on ladies was only an American UPC issue. Is that correct? Are UPC ladies allowed to trim/cut their hair in other countries?
oletime
06-26-2009, 06:49 PM
Is "The Manual" as we know it only applicable to the continental U.S.A.?
How many "Manuals" are there?
If tv is not an issue in some of the countries, how about hair? I had heard somewhere that the requirement for long hair on ladies was only an American UPC issue. Is that correct? Are UPC ladies allowed to trim/cut their hair in other countries?
i would assume its suppose to be applicable worldwide there is only one gs,and if ya go to brazil or anyplace else the majority that i have seen dress appropaitely etc etc im sure there are those dont, but just like here you can do whatever you want to. thats why we are free moral agents. you cant pass enough rules to make some people follow anything" ya gotta have the want to" Sam, to quote one of the great ones. ps Sam i didnt assert anything . i said what i said it was pretty clear. nor did i bash anyone for doing whatever it is they want to do.
oletime
06-26-2009, 07:10 PM
Oletime et all, I don't see it as "losing" these folks like Wilson and Goodair.
It simply frees up people to follow their direction in good conscience.
As far as that goes all ultra conservatives could have stayed and been free to live as they wished. It is the intolerance that divides. I don't enjoy that fact, but if it must be then perhaps cordial is best.
so true and its merely the upc repeating history if you can get a copy of bro chambers message in 1968 at atlantic city. i have heard it. it was powerful and prophetic. it happens to all org unfortunately its human nature i guess
Steve Epley
06-27-2009, 08:38 AM
We are not a UPC church nor is our pastor UPC.
The church is independent.
Our pastor was ordained through RHEMA where he went to Bible School.
He is also ordained in an organization called WME (Worldwide Missionary Evangelism). The website for that organization is
http://www.wmeinc.org/
I don't know of any "platform standard" for the singers, etc. I have never heard of it if there is, but I do not lead worship. I have taught midweek Bible Study in a Tee shirt, shorts, and sandals and it has been no problem. I don't remember ever seeing anyone in a tank top leading worship but I personally would have no problem with it. My pastor has facial hair and wears shorts but I don't ever remember seeing him preaching on Sunday morning in shorts. He ordinarily does not wear a tie when he preaches.
It is my personal opinion that it is none of my business how a brother or sister dresses. That is between the brother or sister and his or her Lord.
Do they baptize in Jesus Name and preach tongues is the initial evidence? Are they Trinitarian in theology?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.