Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

I regard Steadfast as highly as the rest of the posters here, but I can see the point Pelathais is making. There is a misunderstanding going on and hopefully they will both see it.

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

Steadfast's accusation against the UPC was exaggerated at least, in my opinion. If Coonskinner's hatred for his own brethren runs so deep that he feels justified in allowing the accusations that Steadfast has made to go unchallenged then Coonskinner needs our prayers as well.

Again for Coonskinner and Steadfast: Can you honestly say that the charges of "shacking up without even backsliding" and the "social drinking" characterize the United Pentecostal Church? I'm no apologist for the UPC, but I do have brothers that I care for very much in the org. I won't sit by while their integrity is tarred.

Help me out here, Coon. Have I missed something about this fellowship? Has the Texas District sunk so low that women are openly allowed to minister on the platform of UPC churches with the pastor's full knowledge that she is "shacking up with young men?"

Brother Coonskinner, why do you let such accusations go unchallenged? I implore you to "take your integrity seriously," as you yourself have said. Look at the accusations Steadfast has made. A couple of people questioned him gently before I even spoke up. Since then even his friends have challenged him to rethink his accusation and tone. My own PM inbox has overflowed with support - even from people with whom I have had disagreements with before.

Steadfast simply went too far in trying to express support for the Tulsa men. Plain and simple. And now he appears to be mulling over his next response. Help him out and be his friend, Coonskinner. It's not a big deal to say, "I went too far in slamming the UPC."

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

Go back and actually read my posts this time and see for yourself if the word "blithley" is appropriate.

And the "issues" I discussed are the very things that Steadfast himself called "the issues:" "shacking up" and "social drinking" in the UPC. I say it didn't happen the way he describes it.

At first he worded the "shacking up with young men" to make it sound as if openly homosexual men were being used on the platform. Everyone who responded to his post read the "homosexual" implication, myself included. I'm left to wonder - based upon Steadfast's response - if that wasn't intentional. But he clarified and said it was a "woman" who was "shacking up with young men."

How would you like it if someone made that accusation about yourself and your church? "Coonskinner can't be fellowshipped anymore because he is using a woman on his platform and he knows that she is openly 'shacking up' with the young men in the church."

I would think that you might appreciate it if someone a couple hundred miles away spoke up and said, "I don't think Coonskinner would allow that to happen. No, it didn't happen." Would you come to my defense then, or try and defend the one who accused you of allowing gross immorality on the very platform of your church?

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

The context that Steadfast creates here is a discussion of how there are "issues" that are "almost pushing" the Tulsa men out. What are the men being "pushed out" from? A bowling league? No, the UPC. His concerns are very narrowly aimed at the UPC, though they would be just as alarming if they were aimed at any other Apostolic body.

This is the statement that until Steadfast cleared it up, everyone thought involved "homosexual" "shacking up." But sin is sin, so the accusation remains. Are there UPC churches allowing this kind of behavior?

Like I said before, I obviously can't know everything about every church everywhere, but does this characterize the UPC in Texas?

Maple Leaf, do you really believe that right now there is a UPC pastor in Texas who openly allows a woman from Steadfast's church to minister on the platform with full knowledge that she is "shacking up with young men?" That was the implication of Steadfast's charge. When pressed about it, he did clarify the sexual orientation involved, but his accusation still stands.

I asked if there weren't "complexities" involved that might help us to understand the situation as being something else. Are we dealing with a rogue Jezebel on the loose in the Texas District? Does this "Jezebel" have the actual support of at least one UPC pastor as Steadfast has charged?

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

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

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

Steadfast was not broad brushing the entire UPC; he spoke of some individual situations he knew of.

Please point out where the UPC was slandered.

Are you still questioning the accuracy of his report?

And I don't hate anybody. Nice try there, but no soap.

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

No individual was named.

And this is really neat--you becoming a defender of the UPC.

Who would have ever thought you would take off the critic's garb and go that route? :)

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

Here you have it--he is STILL denying the truth of Steadfast's testimony regarding an individual situation he has knowledge of.

Still going to maintain he isn't questioning his honesty?

Not to mention what could be perceived as a veiled threat to report this conversation to the Texas District Board.

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

While the jury is out....


I think we must acknowledge some fundamental differences in pastoral discipline.

IF the young lady was "shacking up" yesterday, how long should she be "sat down" before singing in the choir? I dare say the answers from pastors could be as varied as one day to two years. This different approach may be at the heart of an accusation such as in this thread.

Also, there are some in the UPC who do not see alcohol as the enemy. Even some AMF ultra-cons who post here have alcohol in their homes. So are they social drinking winos??

Re: Tulsa Report Day 2
 

I am absolutely going to be quicker to come to the defense of someone whose character and integrity is wellknown to me than I am some one I don't know.

Unlike some of the more pure and noble, I will readily admit to that kind of bias, and have never madeany claims ofsome pristine and flawless consistency in matters like this...at least not as some define it.