UPC to Change Stance on Military Combatants?<<

[Charnock]

The most divisive issue in the United Pentecostal Church in my lifetime has been television. The debate was not about whether we should own televisions and use them for recreational viewing in our homes, but whether we should advertise our churches on television. That issue sent us in to a tailspin. The stench wafted across two General Conferences. I received e-mail about the issue. I sent e-mail about the issue. There were blogs. There were Internet forums. There were threats that some would leave the UPCI if the conference did not vote their way. Some published booklets in defense of their view. An entire issue of the Forward, the magazine for UPCI ministers in North America, was devoted to the debate. A survey of all ministers was conducted. Ultimately a group of ministers left the UPCI citing the outcome of that conference as their reason.

We have before us now the resolutions that will be presented at the upcoming General Conference of the United Pentecostal Church International. These resolutions include one, Resolution 6, that relaxes our historical position against Christians taking life in military service, leaving the decision up to individuals. I am writing this article two weeks before the General Conference, and I have not heard one comment about Resolution 6. I have not received any e-mail about Resolution 6. Most people I have talked to are unaware the resolution exists.

Can we delete the following text from our Manual, as Resolution 6 proposes to do, without a vigorous debate?

http://rodneyshaw.wordpress.com/2011...lowing-camels/

Very interesting.

[Charnock]

Basically, it boils down to this.

It's okay to kill someone. Just don't have a TV in your home.

Yep, we've officially gone off the deep end.

[TJJJ]

You are not upc so what does it matter?

[TJJJ]

I am not upci so I could really care less what they do.

They have so many wacky contradictions in their manual....

[houston]

I was going up for license soon. This is a deal breaker for me. I wasted hours reading the required revised history and fiction novels.

[canam]

Originally Posted by houston

I was going up for license soon. This is a deal breaker for me. I wasted hours reading the required revised history and fiction novels.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiit !

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by DKB

No, I think it basically boils down to, you move a line once, its easier to move it again.

Yes

[MissBrattified]

I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue. It's one I haven't totally sorted out. It's easy to say: Don't kill other human beings in defense of a country, but I would quickly and easily do so in defense of my family. On a larger scale, there's not much difference between the two.

That said: RS made some excellent points about the lack of debate and insurrection over this Resolution. Very interesting.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue. It's one I haven't totally sorted out. It's easy to say: Don't kill other human beings in defense of a country, but I would quickly and easily do so in defense of my family. On a larger scale, there's not much difference between the two.

That said: RS made some excellent points about the lack of debate and insurrection over this Resolution. Very interesting.

I am not that indecisive on the matter. People, Christian or otherwise, have the right to kill to protect their family or their country. On the other forum, on this subject, someone took the position that killing is killing yet she turned around and said "but I respect the military!". No, you cannot hold to the position that ANY killing is wrong and still respect the military (or cops or FBI or Homeland security, or border patrol, etc). It is like saying to them "Thank you for sinning, so I don't have to! I really appreciate it!".

[houston]

Clinging to their guns and their religion.

AND their Republican Jesus.