Prosthelizing from new org

[SOUNWORTHY]

I've always felt WPF is a power play, the more members the more power. Let them solicit those who are independent. What they are doing is the same as my pastor sending our church bulletin to all the members of your church.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

I've always felt WPF is a power play, the more members the more power. Let them solicit those who are independent. What they are doing is the same as my pastor sending our church bulletin to all the members of your church.

Try this and see what happens.
Find an issue(s) in which you have a disagreement with your pastor in his church. While still attending the church, talk to other saints about your disagreements with the pastor and the church and when you get a sufficient number of saints from that church that you have convinced you are more right than the church in which you all have been attending, well, just split and start your own church across town.
Oh, and while you are over there, get together with those that you convinced to go out with you to develop a mailing list of all the saints/friends from the church you just left and keep them informed of what you have going on in your new church across town. And while you are at it, make a magazine that you can send to the church members you just broke away from and think of a name for the magazine that would describe your spirit and attitude. Hey. I have an idea, call it "Together". Makes since to me. Break off with several saints from a church and keep the saints that stayed up to date with a message of "togetherness".
Naw. Nothing unethical about that.
Try it at home. Remember, it is not unethical if you allow them to unsubscribe to your advances.
This is all just my opinion as I see it...but I am right.

[Melody]

In all probability those who oppose WPF it will never matter what they do good, they are wrong and forever will be wrong, WPF would have never started had the UPC upheld the manual. There is never to be a resolution that would bring about a division and the leadership went ahead, lets see how many years until they felt they had the conference loaded enough to get the failed resolution passed.

How far does the upci org have to go before it is shocking enough?
Isnt' youth congress a good enough example? How about the CO convention isn't is a good enough example?

At least Phillips disagreed and left, Hutchins disagreed and left, Suber disagreed and left.

So the resolution passes albeit marginally, so men who had a different view left, but they also left letting ministers who also disagree that they would be open to fellowship, I do believe all the name calling has been one sided, from the UPCI org, any letters from any of the other men? Didn't think so.

Amazing how all those letters haven't been termed as unethical.

As for the mailing list information headquarters can be contacted at 314-837-7300. You can even email them go to upci.org.

[A.W. Bowman]

Beloved sister - Melody

You really do well in your comments. You open up so many doors for exposure to "the light".

For example, you have exposed a great lie: Here were have two (of the great many) oneness organizations and who knows how many independent churches, who all proudly proclaim that they have “the truth”. When compared to other O/A/P churches and organizations, each proclaims that they alone possess (live, preach, teach) “the truth” or a better version, or "more of the truth" than those churches (organizations) across town. Now, what is wrong with that picture?

One of our religious mantras is that those who teach (or accept) false doctrines are going to hell. Well, we can’t get a full agreement of what constitutes the true and absolute doctrines even within with in a single congregation over 25 people, much less throughout the entire Christian community.

Which brings us to my final two questions:

First, if you exist, will the one person who does not hold to any false doctrine (i.e., judged as worthy of heaven according to holding to only true and pure doctrines. i.e., doctrines without any error) please stand up and identify yourself?

Second, why would anyone think the members of your church are better suited (ensured) of going to heaven than the members of another church (same organization) who will not fellowship with you over doctrinal issues?

My conclusion: I am more obsessed with being justified in my own eyes and in the eyes of my congregation, than I am in establishing my personal and intimate relationship with God and being justified by Him alone.

Shalom v'Shalom
Peace be multiplied unto your peace.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Melody

In all probability those who oppose WPF it will never matter what they do good, they are wrong and forever will be wrong, WPF would have never started had the UPC upheld the manual. There is never to be a resolution that would bring about a division and the leadership went ahead, lets see how many years until they felt they had the conference loaded enough to get the failed resolution passed.

How far does the upci org have to go before it is shocking enough?
Isnt' youth congress a good enough example? How about the CO convention isn't is a good enough example?

At least Phillips disagreed and left, Hutchins disagreed and left, Suber disagreed and left.

So the resolution passes albeit marginally, so men who had a different view left, but they also left letting ministers who also disagree that they would be open to fellowship, I do believe all the name calling has been one sided, from the UPCI org, any letters from any of the other men? Didn't think so.

Amazing how all those letters haven't been termed as unethical.

As for the mailing list information headquarters can be contacted at 314-837-7300. You can even email them go to upci.org.

It appears you are attemting to justify unethical behaviour (prosthelizing by the WPF) by detailing why an individual(s) may want to leave.
The topic is Prosthelizing or the ethics of it.
The men you mentioned as having left the UPCI did things very differently than the WPF. They did not actively send unsolicted literature to the memembers of the organization they had just left.
The reasons are way obvious.
If an individual wants to leave, they may, That is not unethical. If however,
they try to take members with them, that is.
I have left a church because of majors differences with the pastor and the direction he was taking the church. I did not in any way try to sway other members in that church to leave with me. I could have swayed some to see it my way had I been laying the foundation (subversive) in the years prior to me leaving. I had already conferred with the pastor long before I left, and when the time came for me to leave, I left. I did not cause a ruckus and confuse other members, I left. I could have callled the members staying informing them of what I was doing and how the Lord really was continuing to blessed me after I left. I did not. Ethics!
Either it is or it isn't.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Unethical?

To receive unsolicited mailings (news papers, political advertisements, store sales, catalogs, outreach mailings/door hangers at houses for folks to attend other churches, inviting friends, family and even strangers to visit your church for special events, etc.) one considers to be trash, then simply trash it. No one is "required" to read such magazines - and yet, who knows, there just might be an article in there you could find interesting, perhaps even valuable. I can't say - I don't get any. LOLOL

The lack of ethics comes merely from the issue that ministers left the UPCI and are now using that mailing list obtained while they were members to promote defection.

It is a clear understanding the list is not to be used for solicitation purposes.

It was and still is an unethical use of that information.

OTHER than that I agree with your assertion above.

[A.W. Bowman]

Excellent point, Encryptus! And, it is good to see you again!

If the mailing list is used for a purpose other than intended by the issuing organization, then there is a breach in trust and confidence, even if the mailing of the magizine is not a clear solicitation effort. If there is no clear statement concerning the used of the mailing list (membership list/book, etc.), or if there is a claus against non-members using the list, then there is a true ethics issue.

The problem is that these agreed to understandings have not been published until now, rather than at the start of the thread. Actually, the official agreement to the use and/or dissemination of any official membership list is still rather vague. The additional item is does anyone know for certainty the mailing list come from the official UPCI list, and were not names contributed from private lists of defecting members? If this latter point is the case, then while the use of such lists might be legal, it could still constitute an ethics issue.

Now, who among the UPCI membership receives these complementary mailings? Everyone? Only a few? Are these mass mailings or selected mailings? Are they overt invitations for membership or informational and/or instructional in content? Sometimes black and white issues are not always so black and white.


For example:

If there is a membership agreement clause that states that members of this organization shall not use any personal or organizational information derived from their membership in this organization for any purpose not specifically sanctioned by this organization, it shall be deemed as a breach of trust. Or, some other such wording which is used to preclude any non-member (including former members) from using any information (personal or organizational) for any purpose other than that intended by the bylaws of such organization.

Then perhaps there also needs an additional clause that prohibits fellowship between members of the organization and those who have left it. That would make mailing/phone lists containing friends among several organizations null and void, along with the exchange of information among (former?) friends.

So, the entire issue now stands or falls on what does the membership agreement actually state? Anyone care to publish it here? Or, would that constitute another breach in trust?

If any of my speculations are supported by facts, then you have an ethical issue. If not, then the discussion remains unresolved. And, like beauty, the issue shall remain defined only in the eye of the beholder.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Excellent point, Encryptus! And, it is good to see you again!

If the mailing list is used for a purpose other than intended by the issuing organization, then there is a breach in trust and confidence, even if the mailing of the magizine is not a clear solicitation effort. If there is no clear statement concerning the used of the mailing list (membership list/book, etc.), or if there is a claus against non-members using the list, then there is a true ethics issue.

The problem is that these agreed to understandings have not been published until now, rather than at the start of the thread. Actually, the official agreement to the use and/or dissemination of any official membership list is still rather vague. The additional item is does anyone know for certainty the mailing list come from the official UPCI list, and were not names contributed from private lists of defecting members? If this latter point is the case, then while the use of such lists might be legal, it could still constitute an ethics issue.

Now, who among the UPCI membership receives these complementary mailings? Everyone? Only a few? Are these mass mailings or selected mailings? Are they overt invitations for membership or informational and/or instructional in content? Sometimes black and white issues are not always so black and white.


For example:

If there is a membership agreement clause that states that members of this organization shall not use any personal or organizational information derived from their membership in this organization for any purpose not specifically sanctioned by this organization, it shall be deemed as a breach of trust. Or, some other such wording which is used to preclude any non-member (including former members) from using any information (personal or organizational) for any purpose other than that intended by the bylaws of such organization.

Then perhaps there also needs an additional clause that prohibits fellowship between members of the organization and those who have left it. That would make mailing/phone lists containing friends among several organizations null and void, along with the exchange of information among (former?) friends.

So, the entire issue now stands or falls on what does the membership agreement actually state? Anyone care to publish it here? Or, would that constitute another breach in trust?

If any of my speculations are supported by facts, then you have an ethical issue. If not, then the discussion remains unresolved. And, like beauty, the issue shall remain defined only in the eye of the beholder.

I am not sure if this is true, but I believe EVERY member of the UPCI recieves these publications. The UPCI is not the saints in the pews. It is a fellowship of licensed ministers.
One reason to only target that select group is no doubt varied, but if they can get the ministers, it is easier and cheaper to get the saints that would invariably follow the minister in the church they attend.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Melody

... There is never to be a resolution that would bring about a division and the leadership went ahead, ....

The revision to the fundamental doctrine statement in 1973 could be considered divisive. The adoption of the affirmation statement could be considered divisive. Could these two resolutions fall in the category of Proverbs 6:19?

[A.W. Bowman]

Sorry, I had to make a few editorial corrections to my original post, above. Plus this additional note:

I was remiss when I joined into the discussion for not requesting the clarifying information - that I noted in my latest post. Conclusions and decisions based on insufficient information almost always lead to bad conclusions and decisions.