Originally Posted by Pianoman (Post 373211)

The core of UPCI has the exact same track record!

Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 373206)

I served for two years, ending this past May.

Originally Posted by dizzyde (Post 373213)

Thanks! I thought you might have known a relative of mine, but he was probably leaving as you were coming on.

Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 373187)

The men who founded the WWPF have proven track records that makes their direction a matter of public knowledge.

It is the direction of the UPC that some question, with certain changes taking place.

Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 373215)

I might know him.

PM me if you like.

Your id will remain confidential.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 373226)

What "certain changes" to you allude to? Res. #4 perhaps being one. But are there more "changes" in the UPC that disturb you? And what are they?

Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 373252)

Resolution 4 is in my opinion a symptom of what troubles me, moreso than the substance of what troubles me.

I am hesitant to say too much in this medium, because of how easy it is to be misunderstood and quoted out of context. I have been burned pretty bad that way a time or two. But you asked, so here goes...

I think we are losing our sense of uniqueness as a people. We are plagued by a craving for the acceptance and affirmation of the world Jesus said would hate us.

I don't think we should try to be offensive in our manner or our presentation of the Gospel, but the truth is He is referred to as a rock of offense, and s stone of stumbling. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can get all cozy with the trinitarians and the denominational world and still please God.

I think we are reaping the results of a couple of decades of men screaming "Revival!" at all our big meetings rather than preaching and teaching something that would have helped us a lot more--like evangelism and righteousness.

We took down the sign that identified us as the carriers of the message of the Mighty God in Christ and traded it for the sign that said "Revival!"

I believe in revival if I believe in anything, but I'm afraid we are hooked on hype and are willing to swallow most anything if it gives us a false sense of the signifigance in the eyes of the world that we so desperately crave.

I think we are so concerned with being "relevant" to the world that we are in danger of becoming irrelevant to the plan of God.

I don't think we place nearly enough emphasis on the Teacher in the five fold ministry. We like entertainment oriented preaching much better.

We place more value on what appears to be success, I'm afraid, than we do on character. It sways the crowds better and produces better offerings.

We are in love with the machinery of the organization so much that we have a hard time seeing how dysfunctional it is becoming.

There.

That's a start. That ought to be enough to get me shot full of holes from both, or rather all, sides.

Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 373252)

Resolution 4 is in my opinion a symptom of what troubles me, moreso than the substance of what troubles me.

I am hesitant to say too much in this medium, because of how easy it is to be misunderstood and quoted out of context. I have been burned pretty bad that way a time or two. But you asked, so here goes...

I think we are losing our sense of uniqueness as a people. We are plagued by a craving for the acceptance and affirmation of the world Jesus said would hate us.

I don't think we should try to be offensive in our manner or our presentation of the Gospel, but the truth is He is referred to as a rock of offense, and s stone of stumbling. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can get all cozy with the trinitarians and the denominational world and still please God.

I think we are reaping the results of a couple of decades of men screaming "Revival!" at all our big meetings rather than preaching and teaching something that would have helped us a lot more--like evangelism and righteousness.

We took down the sign that identified us as the carriers of the message of the Mighty God in Christ and traded it for the sign that said "Revival!"

I believe in revival if I believe in anything, but I'm afraid we are hooked on hype and are willing to swallow most anything if it gives us a false sense of the signifigance in the eyes of the world that we so desperately crave.

I think we are so concerned with being "relevant" to the world that we are in danger of becoming irrelevant to the plan of God.

I don't think we place nearly enough emphasis on the Teacher in the five fold ministry. We like entertainment oriented preaching much better.

We place more value on what appears to be success, I'm afraid, than we do on character. It sways the crowds better and produces better offerings.

We are in love with the machinery of the organization so much that we have a hard time seeing how dysfunctional it is becoming.

There.

That's a start. That ought to be enough to get me shot full of holes from both, or rather all, sides.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 373289)

I have risen and said, "No." And for that Steadfast has said that I "lack integrity."

Better still, I humbly submit the matter to Brother Steadfast's own conscience. .

Originally Posted by IAintMovin (Post 373340)

Hey, Pelathais.........why did you go and change this post??????????

I thought we were not supposed to threaten people on here.............makes me say a huge ........... HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..............

Oh how I love the consistancy of the AFF.................

Originally Posted by pelathais

I have risen and said, "No." And for that Steadfast has said that I "lack integrity."

Better still, I humbly submit the matter to Brother Steadfast's own conscience.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373342)

My mouth is hanging open.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373346)

I just don't understand why something that Steadfast stated from his personal experience is being so heavily challenged.

Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 373212)

Well...

Tampa could be the beginning of a different direction, Pianoman. I hope not.

Originally Posted by Felicity (Post 373362)

I think Tampa was just indicative of a general mindset already present in the UPC and that has been present for a while now. Keeping in mind of course that the vote was a very close one and thousands weren't there to represent their feelings with a yes or no vote. ;)

Television in the UPC is a fact and has been for some time now. Most church members have tv and many pastors do too. I just can't see what the big issue is. I can't see how this is going to take the UPC down a slippery slope. There are other things that I think are more troublesome than the passing of Res. 4.

I'm not terribly worried, personally. I think it would be great for the UPCI to get back closer to what they were at the beginning. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 372662)

I don't know every preacher in Texas, but I know Steadfast.

If he says it happened, take it to the bank.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 373375)

But he has been mistaken before. He said that there would be no organization formed from the defectors - and here we are.:TulsaTime:


That's a lot of trust in hearsay.

(nothing against Steadfast)

Originally Posted by AmazingGrace (Post 373379)

No actually I will correct this statement.. he did not say there would not... he said their original intentions were not to ... but then he also came back later and said that now it did seem that they were intending to... (I know this because he corrected me on the matter also and showed me the posts... which I will not search out right now) but he did correct that statement when he saw that the info he was given was not up to par.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 373375)

But he has been mistaken before. He said that there would be no organization formed from the defectors - and here we are.:TulsaTime:


That's a lot of trust in hearsay.

(nothing against Steadfast)

Originally Posted by AmazingGrace (Post 373379)

No actually I will correct this statement.. he did not say there would not... he said their original intentions were not to ... but then he also came back later and said that now it did seem that they were intending to... (I know this because he corrected me on the matter also and showed me the posts... which I will not search out right now) but he did correct that statement when he saw that the info he was given was not up to par.

Originally Posted by IAintMovin (Post 373383)

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 373388)

My point is that it is probably not wise to trust someone (Tulsa organizers) who "changes" that much in such a short time.:TulsaNO:

Originally Posted by IAintMovin (Post 373391)

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 373382)

Yes, but he defends those men and says that their intent must have "changed" over the past three months.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373394)

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 373392)

OMG, we AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!:stretch:

Originally Posted by IAintMovin (Post 373399)

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373394)

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373394)

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 373398)

:TulsaROCKS:



Consistency Miss B.

Consistency.





That is all.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373394)

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 373404)

Maam...you are hard to argue with...so I'll just say.....good post

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Great Post Mrs. B................

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 373409)

Miss B, I just have a hard time believing all the garbage about "they changed their mind since conference."

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373421)

I understand. I just don't see the point in trying to force men who love and respect the WPF founders to say something negative about them.



I guess I missed something, because I don't know what you're referring to here.



Inconsistency always reeks, but then we're all a little smelly, dontcha think? :coffee2

Originally Posted by CC1 (Post 371019)

LOL!!! I thought you would appreciate that.

BTW - Has the WWPF affected Canada much? Are there many churches conervative enough there for the pastors to leave the UPC and join the WWPF?

Originally Posted by IAintMovin (Post 373340)

Hey, Pelathais.........why did you go and change this post??????????

I thought we were not supposed to threaten people on here.............makes me say a huge ........... HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..............

Oh how I love the consistancy of the AFF.................

Originally Posted by IAintMovin (Post 373344)

LOL............. If you only knew................

Originally Posted by Admin (Post 373461)

So true brother.

Pelathais was not the one that changed the post.

I believe everyone has moved on.

Originally Posted by IAintMovin (Post 373340)

Hey, Pelathais.........why did you go and change this post??????????

I thought we were not supposed to threaten people on here.............makes me say a huge ........... HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..............

Oh how I love the consistancy of the AFF.................

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 373394)

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.