View Single Post
Old 06-10-2007, 08:36 PM
TrueNorth TrueNorth is offline
Registered Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed View Post
The UPC of Canada is roughly the same size as the ACOP, perhaps a little bit smaller. We seem to function very well on a national level. I personally believe an independent Canadian organization would serve the best interest of future growth in the Canadian church.

I would be interested in specific commentary on the points I have made in the earlier post. Why would Canadians not want to be a national body like every other UPC cosnstituency? Have they become so dependent upon Hazelwood that they simply don't believe in their own potential?
I will try to respond to some of your points.
Whether in Canada or the US evangelism and planting churches is a district operation, not national. As you know Home Missionaries are approved by their districts before receiving funding. Having a national organization will not jump start the process.
In my opinion the UPCI has one of the better Missions programs in existence. Currently with the joint venture working as it is Canadian Missionaries receive tremendous benefit. Why change it now?
Canadians may want on one level to be a separate organization however on a practical level there are benefits to remaining as part of the UPCI. A separate organization creates another level of bureaucracy with all of it's attendant costs.
I don't know very many Canadian ministers or leaders who are dependent on Hazelwood for much of anything. I do think Canadians are realists - recognizing that the united thrusts of evangelism and missions that we share with our US brothers and sisters are more effective than what we can do on our own.
It might just be me, but I don't see the ACOP as being a shining example of a Canadian success story. It has neither a great organized missions program or coordinated Home Missions program and remains primarily a western organization with no clear definition of what it is.
Reply With Quote