Because...why? Our leaders have taught us to keep out mouths shut about any and everything. Church members in the UPCI have no voice with regards to any church business. Anyone who does in rebelious and out of line. Speaking from 50 years of observation...

Church members have no say on an organizational level. Voting members of the church have a lot of say. Thing is, many 'voters' don't want to make decisions. They want "whatever you feel is best, pastor." I've sat through those kind of business meetings. Frustrating. LoL

The Veggie Tales guys are "bad" in E.B.'s book but the late outspoken atheist Bertrand Russell is quotable? :dunno

Did you not read what i just said to WH? In case you didn't, I told him I hope him well in his endeavors.

Church services aren't a good time and place to discuss organizational politics. I see nothing wrong with a pastor sharing information if he wants to, or if someone is interested, but taking up precious time during service? It's not important enough.

I don't believe a pastor should hide information from those who want to know.

Coonskinner's quote was right on--how an organization votes shouldn't affect the way an assembly believes or teaches. It could affect their practices, if they believed something, but were being hampered by the organization, and then the organization removes the obstacle, as with the TV resolution. But inherent beliefs and teachings should remain exactly as they were before.

I think saints should expect normalcy and honesty. But not necessarily out-of-character full disclosure, especially in a time frame normally set aside for worshiping God and ministering to saints and sinners, neither of which should include irrelevant politics that only a few will have a vested interest in.

Do anyone of you feel like if a church is affiliated then they have a right to be informed? My pastor last night mentioned that there where changes in the way the UPC was going and that we should pray about it, but he never mentioned what those changes were.

I am not to sure that the people in my church care to be informed but I feel like if someone wanted to know I think my pastor would discuss it with them but he just isn't going to go there from the pulpit.

I myself would rather be informed than to be ignorant of the whole situation.

Exactly!! I can't understand why that is so hard to understand. At our church if the pastor got up and started talking about stuff like that, the saints would be looking at him like he was crazy. Our services would not be an environment for that kind of discussion to be taking place. If it was something that would affect how we do business or our doctrinal stances, then he would have a special business meeting. In this case, nothing that happened at conference would affect us one way or the other. Well, I take that back, the WD split will affect our district, but not our local assembly so much, and most of the people already knew that was coming.

I am more willing to quote an atheist who makes some sense than a Trinitarian or Rabbinical cucumber who is flying under the radar to decive children. At least Bertrand Russell allows you to know where he is coming from, but the talking lettuce is desguised as something Biblical?

The United Pentecostal Church voting in Television is not telling us where she is going, but it tells us where's she at.

Evangelist Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Yes I noticed your offer of blessing, but that came after you hassled him.
Go back and re-read your posts.

As I read the later posts, CS has a situation totally different from the Church I attend. Read my posts #53 and #54. This resolution will change what has been taught and is a topic that has the congregation split. It is to the point some saints won't fellowship with others because of what goes on in their homes. (not just TV) The topic of this thread now seems to show that each church's situation is different and unique. Does he just keep sweeping the strife under the rug or should he address it and let the members decide to go or stay?

If a church is affiliated then members of that church ARE members of the UPC, and I can back that up with the manual...

So are you saying your sheep are ignorant and would change their beliefs and convictions when the UPC votes and that is why you don't tell them? Or like me, would you agree your post was just a red herring?:hypercoffee

If the shoe fits.
.

The topic isn't what you teach based on the manual being changed. The topic was informing them or giving them information. You apparently feel the need to keep certain things of the UPC secret from your congregation

Buying Coke on a local shelve does not entitle me to hearing what happens in all the stockholder meetings.

Nor does it make me available to present my view of how I don't like the packaging to the Board of Directors.

:hypercoffee

Right...so the UPC is not a fellowship of believers, just anyone that happens to get a license. Everyone else is made to feel disenfranchised, though they are often asked to financially support the UPC. Churches are called UPC, even though it's only a fellowship of ministers...

Why does the UPC count churches and non-licensed members to show how big it is, if the UPC is only a fellowship of licensed ministers?

Oh I see. So the UPC is just a business the sheeple are expected to pour their money into without any say?

If you are stock owner you can and are entitled to hear what goes on at the meetings and those decisions are also publicly reported. And if you work for that local grocery store and there is any big decision of the store chain you might just be informed too.

However comparing a religious organization to a store is not a good analogy. Many "UPCers" really feel or felt they were part of this organization or fellowship. You can be sure even non-UPCers like the various cult watchers are going to know about this. How is a UPCer to respond when they are confronted with news for the first time from OUTSIDE their own organization (though they never really even belonged to it because it's only a fellowship of licensed ministers)?

And don't forget that until the last few years, most UPC churches actually said "United Pentecostal Church" on their signs...

That is like going to Wal-Mart and finding out that it really isn't Wal-Mart, but all of the managers belong to a "Wal-Mart" fellowship. :D

A couple hundred churches are going to have to get new signs and stationary! :)

This brings up a question - Can the UPCI force a church to change the name of their church if United Pentecostal Church is part of the name? (e.g. First United Pentecostal Church or Batavia United Pentecostal Church)

Kudos To Praxeas
 

Brother, I agree with you on this as stated in earlier posts. For a pastor to not "burden" their people with the politics of the UPC may as just as well not be in any organization. But to be a part of a group as a pastor does include the church they pastor whether they are affiliated or not!! Good post Praxeas!!!

Stop putting words in my mouth, please.

I was responding to some of the posts that implied that local churches would change their beliefs if the UPC decided to change. I think that is ignorant.

I am not trying to keep things "secret" from anyone.

I just don't think it is in any way relevant to the local church.

As I said, I had one young preacher ask me about it this past Sunday, and I answered his question.

I am not into red herrings, Prax.

Not accurate
 

I could not get over this post. If, If, If, you are a member of a group, whether UPC, AOG, ALJC, and you pastor a church, you have a reponsibility to your congregation to keep them updated. To withhold information might be a sign of insecurity on the minister's part.

Missing the point
 

[QUOTE=MissBrattified;269198]Church services aren't a good time and place to discuss organizational politics. I see nothing wrong with a pastor sharing information if he wants to, or if someone is interested, but taking up precious time during service? It's not important enough.

I don't believe a pastor should hide information from those who want to know.

QUOTE]

Carpenter's original post in this thread was a comment about a "letter", not a sermon blasted from the pulpit! The brethren that are defending their pulpit activities are side stepping the issue. Aside from sermons preached from the pulpit, would you onform your people of what went on after you returned from GC. The answer to this question should be yes, albeit not from a sermonized pulpit. Just simply inform your congregation and quit defending that you have UPC license and your church does not.

Let's throw out some more "If's."

If....

I changed my message every time the constituency changed its mind...

The practices and teaching of our local church were going to be signifigantly altered by a vote at GC...

It mattered in any way...

I could see your point.

I wouldn't withhold the info from anyone who asked, but I see absolutely no profit whatsoever in blathering on about a bunch of political maueverings, many of which I am not proud to even be a part of, and which put some of the ministry in a negative light.

And some have admitted to using it against evangelist that didn't vote like him. :(

I think CS is saying HE isn't changing anything based on the vote. Business as usual. :)

[QUOTE=anapko81;269407]Basically this whole discussion (IMO) comes down to agreeing to disagree, once more. Obviously some feel very strongly about needing to hear this type of information in your church services. Just as strongly, others do not want to, or need to hear this type of information during a church service. As far as I can see it, the best option is to make sure that you attend a church that fulfills your own personal need. I just don't understand why it has to be a right way or a wrong way issue. I thought this was a personal opinion discussion, not an attack if you don't agree discussion. :drama

I was asking you, since you were responding to my quote

no, you responded to MY post and I never said any local church should change their beliefs CS....

ok

It might not be relevant, it might be important to them personally though.

Cool

Smoked Salmon?

What if a "saint" only started attending a UPC affiliated church because of their anti-television stance... does that "saint" have a right to know that the stance has changed? :D

Do the AOF of the UPC apply only to Licensed Ministers?

Wait a Second!!!
 

But in your effort to not politicalize the pulpit you do not inform your people, one finds out through other means that a resolution has passed that you were not in favor of, what then? I am not attacking your preaching style or methods! The question was, do you inform your people of what happens at GC. Your responses sidestep the issue and are turning it into a preaching mandate. No sir, instead of feeling odd at a resolution(s) that didn't go your way to not tell the people, face up to it and say, "It was voted in this fashion, I am not in favor of it, but it won't stop our church for Jesus". That is all you have to say.

I agree.. and most saints, unless they are very involved in district functions, don't even know who the superintendent is. They just belong to a church.

I know at camp they show video about SFC, and after talking with some people really realized just how many of the average saints have no clue who anyone is at HQ. I was surprised at the lack of name recognition.

I think those more involved in ministry or part of minister's families or connected really have any knowledge of organizational politics.

The UPC is a ministerial fellowship, period.

You said this, Prax:


Prax, I don't teach our people to be "UPC."

I never justify anything I preach on the basis that "this is what we believe because we are UPC."

I teach what I teach because it is Bible.

That is the safe way.

Since I don't talk much about UPC stuff to the people, they don't consider it greatly important, by and large.

Thus, this is a moot point where we are concerned.

Bro,

Our local UPC is affiliated.
The basis for membership in it, is belief in and compliance with the AOF.
Sad thing is most members don't even KNOW what the AOF ARE.
I know this because I've asked them.

Nina

I've copied a few excepts from the manual and bolded parts for my own amusement. :)

I wonder if every church pastored by a UPC minister follows that one? :)

and finally... (Drumroll please....)

Kudos to Sheltiedad!!!
 

Precisely what I have been saying!!! The UPC book defines it as such! Now, the "burden" falls to the pastors and ministers to inform their congregation of what happens in the people's church, not the fellowship of minister's church.

Good Post!!!

I have always felt that I was a member of the United Pentecostal Church. However, recent events have shaken my belief in this and now I realize that the UPCI is a ministerial organization and I have no place in it as a member. I attend a UPCI church, we support UPCI outreaches, but I am not a member. Uhmm- I have always been proud to say I was UPCI, whenever I when to visit a city I always looked up the UPCI church, but from now on I think I will identify myself as Apostolic and leave it at that.

Prax, you know full well that the United Pentecostal Church International is a ministerial fellowship of licensed ministers. That is why the group was formed to license ministers only. Its rules are for those who hold license with the organization. These licensed members must adhere to what the organization believes, and they are admonished to pass the doctrine to those they preach to, but as far as ministerial issues are concerned that is up to the minister and his own discretion on what he will bring to his congregation.

Those who would happen to get licensed would happen to be ministers and not just anyone. Why would you push to have every person in the congregation to hold license? Would you also have little children to hold license?

It's a ministerial fellowship? So please tell me what parts of the voting should the congregations vote on? What ages should be granted a voting right?
I think your argument is un founded.


The people are asked to support ministry and those ministries they are asked to support are United Pentecostal? Why would that be strange? Should they have to hold a license with the organization in order to help support it?



It's because the have ministers and there is a constituency.

con·stit·u·en·cy (kn-stch-n-s)
n. pl. con·stit·u·en·cies

a. A group of supporters or patrons.
b. A group served by an organization or institution; a clientele


It's all pretty simple and I cannot understand your compliants.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Well that would be up to that local group, and from past experiences church families really don't care what another congregation, fellowship, or community is doing. As far as they are concerned what ever their minister is focusing on is all that matters with them. A congregation wants to know what their minister has on his mind and what anyone else is doing really does not effect them.

Listen anyone here has heard time and time again from their ministers when they would go to a fellowship another church or group that they may see or hear things that are not taught in their local congregation. So those Brothers and Sisters are told that they should handle themselves in a proper manner and not take things the wrong way. Always to keep in mind of the standards that are taught in their perticular congregation.

Same thing with those who choose to stay with the UPCI they will still preach as they always have and teach their people how they always taught them. Time proves all things and we will have to wait and see how everything jells out over the years.



My question is what if he doesn't, does that change anything for the local congregation, I mean if they are not even informed of who the General Superintendent is, then why worry about the other issues?


The Elder is not sidestepping anything, and why bring up an issue that everyone will be looking at him and saying "and.....?" Brother leave it be, I think there is no issue, the Elder has been preaching and teaching and the people are made to feel they are part of the Body of Christ and not Hazelwood.

I cannot see why you all would continue to carry on with this argument with Elder CS.


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

It don't matter to me....wasn't that a song?