On the Yadon thread, I found this post -
The UPC was formed by a merger of two groups, the PCI and the PAJC. Both groups were Oneness, both were Pentecostal, and both believed in the necessity of baptism in the name of Jesus. They differed however in how they understood water baptism and Spirit baptism as relating to the new birth mentioned in
John 3:5. The PAJC believed
John 3:5 was referring to water baptism and spirit baptism, and thus the two baptisms were equated with regeneration and the new birth (and thus were essentials, without which a person would not be saved). The PCI, although believing in the necesity of both baptisms, did not make the same connection to the new birth that the PAJC did. As a result, the merger involved a compromise, a statement of faith asserting justification equated with repentance, and 'full salvation' as including water baptism in Jesus name and the Pentecostal experience.
Over time, the differences between the two beliefs grew until today.
Now, repeating the quote -
The PCI-style members have complained often that they are being 'forced out' by 'hardliners' (ie, the PAJC-style believers). What is interesting is it seems as if the PAJC-style believers are greater in number than the PCI-style believers. So I ask my first question:
Doesn't this indicate the PAJC part has had the greater impact and greater success evangelistically? Does it not indicate the PCI part to be dwindling in influence and therefore importance within the organization? (I do not mean importance in the larger scheme of things, but I mean within the organization itself.)
Now, the Affirmation statement had to do with what?
Yet this has created a humongous uproar in the UPCI, so much that the result has been dissension, dissimulation, schism, defections, etc etc etc.
I see nothing in the Affirmation Statement that would exclude any PCI-type member, nor any PAJC-type member. So why the hubbub?
Apparently, many PCI-types have felt the Affirmation Statement was somehow directed against them.
Also, many felt the Statement was directed against those ministers who had tv's, and/or who did not teach against having tv's or watching tv.
And of course there were some who felt that the need for the Affirmation Statement (especially every two years) was a clear signal the org was grasping at straws and having 'control issues'. Much like when an employer begins minute surveillance of employees, they feel the boss doesn't trust them, so why work there?
So there are several groups vying for control - the PCI and the PAJC groups, the pro-tv and the anti-tv group, and the pro-AS and the anti-AS group.
(I suspect, but cannot prove, that much of this also comes down to various family 'dynasties' inside the org vying for control... but that's another topic.)
So what is the real problem with the UPCI?
Again, the quote -
Notice the bolded part (bolded by me in all instances).
Baron, and obviously many others, believe that 'the attitude we must all believe the same thing on every passage and every issue' is a bad thing, destructive to unity, and rather unchristian.
But consider:
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
all speak the same thing, and that there
be no divisions among you; but that ye be
perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 cor 1:10)
There are quite a few people who do not seem to think that the apostle's admonition is something to be worked towards, let alone something to be attained. And, because people are people and often enough will not change their minds about what they preach and believe,
the quest for apostolic doctrinal unity will necessarily produce separation.
The Bible teaches we should be united in doctrine, faith, and practice, preaching and teaching. Not everyone will agree. Therefore, any attempt - ANY attempt - to bring about such unity must necessarily bring division.
The UPCI was formed out of a compromise merger between two groups who were not perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement, speaking the same thing. It was a noble attempt at unity, for sure, but doomed to failure from the beginning.
So this brings me to my second question:
Should Christians pursue doctrinal, Biblical unity? Or should we be content to find the lowest common (acceptable) denominator, and base our unity on that? (Keeping in mind the injunction of
Ephesians 4:1-13 to keep the unity of the Spirit until we come into the unity of the faith.)