[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

When I read Steadfast's post, I never thought for a moment that he was referring to UPC churches when he gave the three specific examples: shacking up; questioning Jesus name baptism; and social drinking. Usually, when a UPC preacher uses the term "so called Apostolic churches," he is referring to ex-UPC congregations.

If these three points were used as part of his argument in favour of Tulsa, they form a pretty weak argument as I expect the incidents of such churches within the UPC would be so small as to be inconsequential.

I appreciate your feedback and your perspective, Maple Leaf.

He did make the points in favour of Tulsa. He said that it was situations like this that were "almost pushing out" men like those at Tulsa. What were the men at Tulsa being "almost pushed out" of? The UPC!

If he intended to say more that would clarify the matter he has had planty of opportunities. He did clarify the sexual orientation that was implied by his first post, but for me, sin is sin and the "orientation" is not the problem. Sin and the open promotion and toleration of sin is the problem that he alleged.

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I find it strange that anybody got "homosexual" from "shacking up." I have never heard the term "shacking up" applied to homosexuals. The term is generally applied to people living together without the benefit of a marriage covenant, and marriage for homosexuals is a relatively new practice.

The statement was "shacking up with young men..." An ambiguity to be sure, but the intention of the post was to provide justification for those who feel "almost pushed out" of the UPC by the promotion and toleration of open sin.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Again, in the post that I quoted, Steadfast did not say that the pastor was UPC or from Texas; neither did he say that she was ministering on the platform.

Steadfast said that she shacked up without backsliding. You've made the jump from there to Jezebel having the support of a UPC pastor. I think that it is more likely that she was sitting on the pew, claiming salvation, unrebuked - a totally different matter than ministering on the platform.

It was in a later post that he brought up the platform. And again, the context was those who were "alomst pushed out" of the UPC and then he gave examples of that "pushing." If he intended more than what was said, or even less, simple clarifications suffice.

I accepted the clarification that it was heterosexual sin and not the homosexual sin that appeared to be implied. Yet sin, is still sin.

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Now, that's a matter entirely between you and Steadfast.

Yes, but your thoughts are wise and appreciated.