Tulsa Report Day 2

[stmatthew]

are we having fun yet????

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Bro. Steadfast,

I am convinced that you are sincere and that your heart is pure in this regard.

But, it never ceases to amaze me how it is that men justify what they do. It seems that men are able to justify almost anything.

I might point out that while Paul was a Pharisee that he had not received the heavenly vision nor had he been obdient to call on the house of Simon the Tanner who instructed him to arise and be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord.

Had there been an issue so great as this among the Tulsaites, certainly I would not only commend them but I would also be among them too.

The great strides toward the light that the reformers took which caused them to be cast out of their ranks as in the case of John Wesley and others. They were not willing to be rebellious.

It is impossible for me to see the need of so great devastation brought on by their actions over such a small, almost insignificant thing, none of which needed to affect them in the least way.

But, I remember the scriptures when they speak of every man's ways are justified in their own eyes. Yet, none of their ways are justified from my point of view since this will have the needless effect of inflicting great damage on the cause of God, world-wide.

It's the way it goes. And it's been this way since the beginning of time pretty much. There's nothing that can be done to prevent this. It's the way of man.

But the Church goes on and we get to keep the main thing the main thing and the focus -- preaching the Gospel and winning the lost. That is our ultimate purpose and we need to keep this in sight regardless of schisms and mergers.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Felicity

It's the way it goes. And it's been this way since the beginning of time pretty much. There's nothing that can be done to prevent this. It's the way of man.

But the Church goes on and we get to keep the main thing the main thing and the focus -- preaching the Gospel and winning the lost. That is our ultimate purpose and we need to keep this in sight regardless of schisms and mergers.

Amen, sister.

You are a wise woman.

The church of Jesus will continue to march on. Even the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. She is predestinated to be crowned with His glory and nothing shall prevent.

[stmatthew]

At this point, some of us need to learn the wisdom of Gamaliel.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

PP, I can only speak those things which I 'see and hear' and what I was told -from the coordinator himself - is that it wouldn't be an 'organization' as such was EXACTLY what I was told by the individual. His precise words, beyond that, were that "What we're doing is NOTHING that will mandate turning in your license with the UPC. We're forming a network of fellowship between conservative minded men."

I'm not so sure that they are defining it as an organization, a network or a fellowship.

As for Bro. Prince being the speaker against the resolution? It was he who was the representative of the anti-TV advertising crowd and, as such, the one designated to speak and asked for from the floor.

Outside of that there wasn't much conversation on either side and a quick call for the question. That no more means this was a premeditated genesis of a new organization than the fact that you didn't speak FOR it was a premeditated act by yourself to start an organization of your own.

And, as for my credibility? I make myself of no reputation and my life is before enough people that it's an open book. For what it's worth, I think enough people on AFF know me and respect me that I'm not in any danger of being excommunicated anytime soon.



No, PP, if my unwillingness to devour either side of this equation is wrong then, well, I'm guilty as sin. If, however, I'm right in not devouring my brothers... well... it would appear a lot of others are in serious trouble.

For the record, I'll take my chances right where I am.

Please Sir, don't insult me.

This was deception in its purest form.

Are you really so naive as to think I would buy the argument that the WWPF is not an organization?

You continue to defend these men at all costs.

Further, my mention of Bro Prince was not an insult to him (though I do have a personal history with the man). He quitted himself well on the floor of GC.

Very eloquent.

My point is that our system of governance is one of following. We follow men.

Where were the men who could have turned the tide?

They were silent.

Totally silent.

This little charade has been fun, but anyone with two functioning brain cells can see it for what it is.

A charade.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

At this point, some of us need to learn the wisdom of Gamaliel.

Matthew, I think that is a little unfair.

May we speak about this issue, and the integrity issues involved, or not?

It would be very sad if only one side of this ongoing story was told here.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your post was questioned here and here - and questioned rather gently, I think, given the inflamatory nature of your accusations.



You said:

"These brethren" are the men forming a new org. and leaving the UPC. You opened your post with this statement, thus setting the context for the "issues" that you go on to describe. That context is the UPC and "issues" that are "almost pushing" men out.

This is the context that you created for your post. It is a context very narrowly aimed at the United Pentecostal Church.


Well, here is progress. We've gone from me "calling you a liar" to an implication. But what about other motives that you may have had in saying what you did. It is most likely that deceit never entered your heart. However, when you saw (the "Tulsa 6") having their motives questioned you sought for some sort of defense for these men. That defense was the accusations you made in your post which was aimed directly at the UPC.


Your confusion reigns here.


I said "No harm; no foul." If we were contesting to the blood then I would be truly concerned. And, I said that in your defense. And the "one solitary instance" is posted above. I did not need to search for it because it is what we've been talking about all along.

You sought to justify the actions of the WPF men by bringing up the "shacking up without backsliding" anecdote and social drinking. You brought these "issues" up in the context of men being "almost pushed" out of the UPC.

When called on it, you responded by clarifying that it was a heterosexual "shacking up" with the "young men" (but the 'men' remains plural thus giving the inference of homosexual activity). You also now appear to say that this was not a discussion of the UPC?

The ball is back in your court.

Let me help you out here, Pelathais. You made it VERY clear that I was a liar in your post. (Hence, by doing that you actually became the personification of what you wrongly accused me of). How you said it isn't as important to me as the fact you did seek to say I was a liar.

You obviously are incabable of saying, "I didn't realize you hadn't seen the questions of someone being gay in this whole process."

You STILL won't admit that I've NEVER slammed the UPC... not remotely or by implication even one time. I said that some of these men feel pushed out. That's a fact. I then went on to describe how I find myself in my own dilemma of having fellowship. That has nothing to do with UPC as my world is much bigger than the UPC.

YOU are the one who tried to connect them all together with your own strange reasoning. I won't take the blame for that. Actually, nothing in your post remotely justified the conclusions you came to.

I tell you what, Pelathais... call me whatever you want to call me. I'm more than glad to let my reputation stand on it's own merit.

Do I enjoy being all but called a liar? No. But, then again, I'm now convinced that you don't have the integrity to say, "Yes, I made a mistake and impugned the character of someone without real cause."

For that reason, I'll let you deal with the opinions of those who find your lack of integrity less than palatable because, frankly, I have no desire to dialogue with anybody who lacks in the simple ability to say, "I shouldn't have fired a shot where it wasnt' merited."

If defamation of another's character is the best tool you have to flex your critical tongue muscles then have at it... surely you can do that without my assistance.

[RevBuddy]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

PP, I can only speak those things which I 'see and hear' and what I was told -from the coordinator himself - is that it wouldn't be an 'organization' as such was EXACTLY what I was told by the individual. His precise words, beyond that, were that "What we're doing is NOTHING that will mandate turning in your license with the UPC. We're forming a network of fellowship between conservative minded men."

I'm not so sure that they are defining it as an organization, a network or a fellowship.

As for Bro. Prince being the speaker against the resolution? It was he who was the representative of the anti-TV advertising crowd and, as such, the one designated to speak and asked for from the floor.

Outside of that there wasn't much conversation on either side and a quick call for the question. That no more means this was a premeditated genesis of a new organization than the fact that you didn't speak FOR it was a premeditated act by yourself to start an organization of your own.

And, as for my credibility? I make myself of no reputation and my life is before enough people that it's an open book. For what it's worth, I think enough people on AFF know me and respect me that I'm not in any danger of being excommunicated anytime soon.



No, PP, if my unwillingness to devour either side of this equation is wrong then, well, I'm guilty as sin. If, however, I'm right in not devouring my brothers... well... it would appear a lot of others are in serious trouble.

For the record, I'll take my chances right where I am.

Of course, you will. You will take your chances and you'll remain right where you are...on either side of the issues...depending upon the hour and the amount of information available...

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Matthew, I think that is a little unfair.

May we speak about this issue, and the integrity issues involved, or not?

It would be very sad if only one side of this ongoing story was told here.

I have no problem with speaking about the issues, and most are doing a fine job doing so (yourself included). I just have some concerns with some that have stated "the whole bunch are a cow pen full of rebels", and have likened them to "Korah". IMHO, it seems some are judging these men to hell over their departure. While I have been adamant about the ethics of the tv issue here in TN, I do not think I ever placed them in hell over their decision.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I have no problem with speaking about the issues, and most are doing a fine job doing so (yourself included). I just have some concerns with some that have stated "the whole bunch are a cow pen full of rebels", and have likened them to "Korah". IMHO, it seems some are judging these men to hell over their departure. While I have been adamant about the ethics of the tv issue here in TN, I do not think I ever placed them in hell over their decision.

Understood.

I agree with you on the tv thing, and logic would say that the men who demand honesty regarding tv and the affirmation statement would demand it from the Tulsa group as well.

I have never condemned them to Hell, but I think there actions - and the deception involved - will leave a lasting mark on all of us for some time to come.