PDA

View Full Version : A Really Good UPCI Letter...from MO DS


Theophil
01-18-2008, 10:56 AM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting. If you decide to go, please be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent

rgcraig
01-18-2008, 11:06 AM
Very good letter!

Joseph Miller
01-18-2008, 11:10 AM
That is a very good letter.

AGAPE
01-18-2008, 11:24 AM
If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?



The "body" was anit-tv for years....somebody contended for their individual beliefs to ever even get r4 to the floor

Joseph Miller
01-18-2008, 11:28 AM
If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?



The "body" was anit-tv for years....somebody contended for their individual beliefs to ever even get r4 to the floor


No so, people are allowed to write resolutions and have them presented. It is up to the body of voters to either vote for it or against it. Resolution 4 was presented and the body voted. ONE person can't get it done alone. Since it passed I would say that it was the desire of the majority present.

I understand that there were people who were unable to attend that would have been another vote against it. Maybe in the future there will be a way to set up voting via the internet. Then maybe a greater voice of both sides will be heard but the passing of res 4 was not someone contending for disunity. The majority spoke and now some are not happy with it.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 11:30 AM
If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?



The "body" was anit-tv for years....somebody contended for their individual beliefs to ever even get r4 to the floor

I believe it was 1975 when the prohibtion against tv advert. and preaching was instituted. Res. 4 just undid a previously disunifying res.

Ferd
01-18-2008, 11:30 AM
If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?



The "body" was anit-tv for years....somebody contended for their individual beliefs to ever even get r4 to the floor

you lost the ablilty to make that argument in 1992.

Sweet Pea
01-18-2008, 11:31 AM
If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?



The "body" was anit-tv for years....somebody contended for their individual beliefs to ever even get r4 to the floor

Your logic in this statement would then lead to the conclusion that no resolution could ever be brought before the "body" for a vote ..... JMHO -

rgcraig
01-18-2008, 11:33 AM
If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?



The "body" was anit-tv for years....somebody contended for their individual beliefs to ever even get r4 to the floor

Tulsa is NOT about TV.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 11:34 AM
you lost the ablilty to make that argument in 1992.

I agree.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 11:35 AM
Your logic in this statement would then lead to the conclusion that no resolution could ever be brought before the "body" for a vote ..... JMHO -

I agree.

Joseph Miller
01-18-2008, 11:35 AM
Tulsa is NOT about TV.


I agree with this. Tulsa is about some personal agendas.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 11:37 AM
Tulsa is NOT about TV.

AGREED! BUT, I'LL TAKE WHAT I CAN GET!! :happydance

Michael Phelps
01-18-2008, 11:42 AM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting. If you decide to go, please be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent

Now THIS is a great letter! I may stop in and see Bro. Gleason when I'm in KC next time.

Apprehended
01-18-2008, 12:07 PM
you lost the ablilty to make that argument in 1992.

That's right, Ferd.

Brother Gleason made this statement:

What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time.

The Salt Lake City business meeting where and when the AS was adopted was when the attitude began to develop. It has been seething beneath the surfice ever since, only now reaching to the surface like the Old Faithful geiser at Yellowstone National Park.

It always happens when men get political mixing it with God's business.

AGAPE
01-18-2008, 12:18 PM
you guys are real fun....

I love the response...

Hey Ferd,.how you been doing??

BoredOutOfMyMind
01-18-2008, 12:21 PM
you guys are real fun....

I love the response...

Hey Ferd,.how you been doing??

Typical rip apart what no one posting can change, instead of respond to the letter or issue.

All we need now is to have someone throw in a standards question and it will be totally hijacked.

I personally am against the banning of blenders BTW.

DividedThigh
01-18-2008, 12:23 PM
Now THIS is a great letter! I may stop in and see Bro. Gleason when I'm in KC next time.

bro gleason is a personal friend of mine, and this is his heart, cant knock that, and at least he is open and honest, god bless him, dt

MissBrattified
01-18-2008, 12:26 PM
The thing is, AGAPE, there are many more scriptures about loving your brethren, having love one to another, being kind to one another, NOT causing division, striving for unity...than there are about tv. (Even speaking of principles relating to content.)

So scripturally speaking, those asking these Tulsa ministers to stop causing division are much more within scriptural bounds than those who are leaving because of TV and outward appearance issues.

Michael Phelps
01-18-2008, 12:28 PM
The thing is, AGAPE, there are many more scriptures about loving your brethren, having love one to another, being kind to one another, NOT causing division, striving for unity...than there are about tv. (Even speaking of principles relating to content.)

So scripturally speaking, those asking these Tulsa ministers to stop causing division are much more within scriptural bounds than those who are leaving because of TV and outward appearance issues.

Don't confuse him with the facts Miss........what does scripture have to do with anything?:tantrum

DividedThigh
01-18-2008, 12:31 PM
Don't confuse him with the facts Miss........what does scripture have to do with anything?:tantrum

you funny, mp, i love it, dt:boxing

str8gate
01-18-2008, 12:34 PM
There's no such thing as a "good letter" on either side.
Printed material very rarely gives off the emotion or true tone of what a person says. Let's be honest, the only letter any of us thinks is good is one that we agree with.

Joseph Miller
01-18-2008, 12:36 PM
There's no such thing as a "good letter" on either side.
Printed material very rarely gives off the emotion or true tone of what a person says. Let's be honest, the only letter any of us thinks is good is one that we agree with.


The only ones that I think are good are the ones that make sense. A couple of them have appeard on here this week, one by GM and this one by SG.

MissBrattified
01-18-2008, 12:40 PM
There's no such thing as a "good letter" on either side.
Printed material very rarely gives off the emotion or true tone of what a person says. Let's be honest, the only letter any of us thinks is good is one that we agree with.

That's not true, Str8. I can and do recognize and acknowledge good arguments and logic when I see them, whether I agree with it or not. I've seen some letters from both sides that are very good, and some from both sides that are weak and futile.

DividedThigh
01-18-2008, 12:43 PM
The only ones that I think are good are the ones that make sense. A couple of them have appeard on here this week, one by GM and this one by SG.

i have to agree joseph tha bro mallory and bro gleasons letters were very well done and tactful , as well as honest, dt, :boxing

hometown guy
01-18-2008, 01:02 PM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting.[/U] If you decide to go, please [/U][/U]be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent

this letter has nothing to do with the Word of God and salvation.why doesnt he talk about something about reaching the lost.(thats what you guys tell all of us when we preach against tv).maybe if he wouldnt waste his time writing letters like this and focus on tv ads he could win some souls.

DividedThigh
01-18-2008, 01:06 PM
this letter has nothing to do with the Word of God and salvation.why doesnt he talk about something about reaching the lost.(thats what you guys tell all of us when we preach against tv).maybe if he wouldnt waste his time writing letters like this and focus on tv ads he could win some souls.

that is a little rough ht guy , bro gleason is a good man with a good heart, dt:boxing

hometown guy
01-18-2008, 01:20 PM
that is a little rough ht guy , bro gleason is a good man with a good heart, dt:boxing

sorry. the point was not to bro Gleason.

DividedThigh
01-18-2008, 01:31 PM
sorry. the point was not to bro Gleason.

no prob ht guy, i know bro gleason well, if anyone means the best it is him, god bless you bro, dt:campfire

MissBrattified
01-18-2008, 01:37 PM
this letter has nothing to do with the Word of God and salvation.why doesnt he talk about something about reaching the lost.(thats what you guys tell all of us when we preach against tv).maybe if he wouldnt waste his time writing letters like this and focus on tv ads he could win some souls.

Asking men of God to remain unified and cease causing division does have to do with the Word of God.

Your sarcasm accomplishes nothing, except to represent the attitudes that are likely going to be present at the Tulsa meeting.

What I find funny is that I know for a fact there are going to be some ministers who are going to sit back on their laurels and count the souls won through tv advertisement, and gloat if those numbers are not high enough in their eyes to justify its use. The fact is, though, no one (that I'm aware of) has stated that tv is going to win thousands or millions of new converts. I believe the whole point was just to get permission to use another form of media, which is sort of a moot point, since tv is stuck, technologically speaking, somewhere between radio and the internet.

TV is NOT the issue.

hometown guy
01-18-2008, 01:52 PM
Asking men of God to remain unified and cease causing division does have to do with the Word of God.

Your sarcasm accomplishes nothing, except to represent the attitudes that are likely going to be present at the Tulsa meeting.

What I find funny is that I know for a fact there are going to be some ministers who are going to sit back on their laurels and count the souls won through tv advertisement, and gloat if those numbers are high enough in their eyes to justify its use. The fact is, though, no one (that I'm aware of) has stated that tv is going to win thousands or millions of new converts. I believe the whole point was just to get permission to use another form of media, which is sort of a moot point, since tv is stuck, technologically speaking, somewhere between radio and the internet.

TV is NOT the issue.

my point was that some people on this forum hear of a preacher preaching agaist something they think is alright then they jump all over posting things of the nature of what i did.like you said it was sarcasm.
and you are right tv is not the only issue i have been raised in upc churches and have seen the org change over the years.the men who have left and are leaving had not changed.they belive the same as when they joined.and if they havent changed then that means the upc must have changed.

Joseph Miller
01-18-2008, 01:57 PM
my point was that some people on this forum hear of a preacher preaching agaist something they think is alright then they jump all over posting things of the nature of what i did.like you said it was sarcasm.
and you are right tv is not the only issue i have been raised in upc churches and have seen the org change over the years.the men who have left and are leaving had not changed.they belive the same as when they joined.and if they havent changed then that means the upc must have changed.


Is change ALWAYS bad? NO, it is is not. Sometimes change is good. If the changes allow for ways of spreading the gospel then the change is good.

God never changes, the message never changes but methods are always changing. Where we messed up is when we tried to make TV part of the message. It has never been a heaven or hell issue.

MissBrattified
01-18-2008, 02:02 PM
my point was that some people on this forum hear of a preacher preaching agaist something they think is alright then they jump all over posting things of the nature of what i did.like you said it was sarcasm.
and you are right tv is not the only issue i have been raised in upc churches and have seen the org change over the years.the men who have left and are leaving had not changed.they belive the same as when they joined.and if they havent changed then that means the upc must have changed.

Things change, often for the better. (But not always.) I admire men who are consistent, even when I think they are wrong. However, I feel that the Christlike approach is to remove oneself from the offending entity (in this case, the UPCI), without consorting with others in order to shore up your efforts, or to make your cause appear larger than life.

Again, I have no problem with a man saying, with his integrity and Christianity intact, "This is not the organization for me." I do have a problem with men going to other ministers and giving them organizational options, or suggestions, that, if left out of the equation, may have allowed those other men to cool off and come to terms with a solution other than pulling out of the organization.

SoCaliUPC
01-18-2008, 02:04 PM
The only ones that I think are good are the ones that make sense. A couple of them have appeard on here this week, one by GM and this one by SG.

The "tone" of the 2 letters you reference are also fact based and one of genuine concern vs. the other letter that was posted on here that name-called and had an overal pious tone to it. The "spirit" behind the letters is very evident.

KarenJo
01-18-2008, 02:15 PM
Things change, often for the better. (But not always.) I admire men who are consistent, even when I think they are wrong. However, I feel that the Christlike approach is to remove oneself from the offending entity (in this case, the UPCI), without consorting with others in order to shore up your efforts, or to make your cause appear larger than life.

Again, I have no problem with a man saying, with his integrity and Christianity intact, "This is not the organization for me." I do have a problem with men going to other ministers and giving them organizational options, or suggestions, that, if left out of the equation, may have allowed those other men to cool off and come to terms with a solution other than pulling out of the organization.

I agree, I think everyone has a choice to go or stay but don't drag everyone with you. I think that these men shouldn't even take their own churches especially if the churches were built with the help of the UPCI.

Joseph Miller
01-18-2008, 02:15 PM
The "tone" of the 2 letters you reference are also fact based and one of genuine concern vs. the other letter that was posted on here that name-called and had an overal pious tone to it. The "spirit" behind the letters is very evident.


Which letter had a pious tone? It wasn't SG or GM.

hometown guy
01-18-2008, 02:18 PM
The "tone" of the 2 letters you reference are also fact based and one of genuine concern vs. the other letter that was posted on here that name-called and had an overal pious tone to it. The "spirit" behind the letters is very evident.

REALLY, i must have had my sound off when i read them because i didnt hear any kind of tone from any of the letter.(maybe it was how you read it)

hometown guy
01-18-2008, 02:20 PM
Things change, often for the better. (But not always.) I admire men who are consistent, even when I think they are wrong. However, I feel that the Christlike approach is to remove oneself from the offending entity (in this case, the UPCI), without consorting with others in order to shore up your efforts, or to make your cause appear larger than life.

Again, I have no problem with a man saying, with his integrity and Christianity intact, "This is not the organization for me." I do have a problem with men going to other ministers and giving them organizational options, or suggestions, that, if left out of the equation, may have allowed those other men to cool off and come to terms with a solution other than pulling out of the organization.
they have been trying for years.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 02:25 PM
The "tone" of the 2 letters you reference are also fact based and one of genuine concern vs. the other letter that was posted on here that name-called and had an overal pious tone to it. The "spirit" behind the letters is very evident.

Right on!!! :yourock

Mrs. LPW
01-18-2008, 02:26 PM
I'm a good old fashioned conservative by most standards... but I'd be a liberal to some (because I watch movies once in a while and love to watch a good ole hockey game) and a UC to some...

But what I strive to be most of all is not a liberal, conservative or any other such thing but a Christian. I try (don't always succeed at every moment of every day) to be balanced and moderate in all things. I try to love everyone, even when I disagree with them and/or think they are a moron of some type.

I've been known to judge things in my past. Before facing things in my own life I've been hard on people. But when you walk through the same valley you get a different perspective altogether.. and when you come out triumphant and they've come out defeated you don't look down on them any longer, but you say... wow... God was gracious and I've got to be as gracious to them as He was to me!

No.. that above paragraph has little or nothing to do with tv advertising or any other such thing...

But being the person I am... wanting to be gracious even when I completely think someone is off the wall or heading straight below in a hand basket...
I still have the good sense God gave me to see when someone's intentions aren't all they claim to be.

I don't know any of the men who are heading up this new alternative from Adam... I can't personally judge their character or motives over the years. (some on here have known them in the past and can) But I can see, and I can hear, and I'm no fool.

It's been stated, and it's the truth.

Tulsa is not about tv advertising... Tulsa may or may not even be about outward holiness issues, which I hurt to see fall by the wayside as much as any.

Tulsa, in my mind, has proven itself to be about having control. That's the one and only reason I am in disaproval of it.

Wait... not the only reason... the other reason is the distain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness.

I applaud all of our ministers and leaders who will write strong but still kind letters about this issue. Because there will be those who follow after these men unwisely...

TrmptPraise
01-18-2008, 02:30 PM
Asking men of God to remain unified and cease causing division does have to do with the Word of God.

Your sarcasm accomplishes nothing, except to represent the attitudes that are likely going to be present at the Tulsa meeting.

What I find funny is that I know for a fact there are going to be some ministers who are going to sit back on their laurels and count the souls won through tv advertisement, and gloat if those numbers are not high enough in their eyes to justify its use. The fact is, though, no one (that I'm aware of) has stated that tv is going to win thousands or millions of new converts. I believe the whole point was just to get permission to use another form of media, which is sort of a moot point, since tv is stuck, technologically speaking, somewhere between radio and the internet.

TV is NOT the issue.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing because of the point you made in bold.

Think about.....if TV advertising = 1 soul saved. Justified! JMO:toofunny

StillStanding
01-18-2008, 02:34 PM
.....Tulsa, in my mind, has proven itself to be about having control.

ding! ding! ding! We have a winner! :D

hometown guy
01-18-2008, 02:40 PM
I almost fell out of my chair laughing because of the point you made in bold.

Think about.....if TV advertising = 1 soul saved. Justified! JMO:toofunny

ive went to church with a guy for 5 years and didnt see him bring anyone to church and then he fell into sin left the church and then won someone to god(he even came to church the day this person came to church but didnt pray). so is this justified for backsliding.

SoCaliUPC
01-18-2008, 03:01 PM
Which letter had a pious tone? It wasn't SG or GM.

No...not those. The one from, Pitman I think is his last name. The one thread that said...Now a real GOOD letter. :blah

TrmptPraise
01-18-2008, 03:01 PM
ive went to church with a guy for 5 years and didnt see him bring anyone to church and then he fell into sin left the church and then won someone to god(he even came to church the day this person came to church but didnt pray). so is this justified for backsliding.

I'm sorry HTG, that correlation is very weak. Equating the use of advertising to backsliding? really?

I doubt very seriously that a convert has ever been won by the witness of backsliding. However, I do believe that the experiences of someone who has been in church and the relating of those experiences can influence and even win someone to salvation. That I have seen.

SoCaliUPC
01-18-2008, 03:03 PM
I almost fell out of my chair laughing because of the point you made in bold.

Think about.....if TV advertising = 1 soul saved. Justified! JMO:toofunny

Brings me back to a couple sermons I have heard over the last couple of years....what is the price of a soul? (Can you put a price on a soul?)

Walkbyfaith7
01-18-2008, 03:11 PM
I have seen a few people say that Tulsa is NOT about TV.

Here is how the statement should be made: Tulsa is not ALL about TV. TV has part to do with it.

Don't you think?

Ron Turner
01-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Great letter. I am so glad to hear from the balanced side of the organization.

bishoph
01-18-2008, 03:21 PM
Tulsa, in my mind, has proven itself to be about having control. That's the one and only reason I am in disaproval of it.

Wait... not the only reason... the other reason is the distain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness.

I applaud all of our ministers and leaders who will write strong but still kind letters about this issue. Because there will be those who follow after these men unwisely...

With all due respect this misrepresentation of the "Tulsa" framers, (bolded) is just as dangerous as the attitudes of which they are accused. (This is not directed at you, Mrs LPW, it just represents a sentiment that I have seen repeated often)

I challenge anyone on this forum, to provide one written letter, email, or other communication from even one of the "Tulsa" framers that demeans or in any way vilifies other ministers of the UPCI (including it's leadership) who will remain with the organization. I have had conversations with several of the leaders of the "Tulsa Group" and not one time have they spoke with disdain about their fellow brethren of the UPCI.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 03:34 PM
Tulsa, in my mind, has proven itself to be about having control. That's the one and only reason I am in disaproval of it.

Wait... not the only reason... the other reason is the distain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness.

I applaud all of our ministers and leaders who will write strong but still kind letters about this issue. Because there will be those who follow after these men unwisely...

With all due respect this misrepresentation of the "Tulsa" framers, (bolded) is just as dangerous as the attitudes of which they are accused. (This is not directed at you, Mrs LPW, it just represents a sentiment that I have seen repeated often)

I challenge anyone on this forum, to provide one written letter, email, or other communication from even one of the "Tulsa" framers that demeans or in any way vilifies other ministers of the UPCI (including it's leadership) who will remain with the organization. I have had conversations with several of the leaders of the "Tulsa Group" and not one time have they spoke with disdain about their fellow brethren of the UPCI.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think any charges were being made against the "Tulsa framers"(in particular), but if there were, I agree some evidence would be required.

bishoph
01-18-2008, 03:40 PM
If you reference the bolded portion of the post you'll notice that the reason stated for not wanting anything to do with "Tulsa" is because of their disdain for the brethren "under the guise of standing for holiness." That is what I was addressing. It is very hard to separate the event from the framers IMO.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 03:44 PM
If you reference the bolded portion of the post you'll notice that the reason stated for not wanting anything to do with "Tulsa" is because of their disdain for the brethren "under the guise of standing for holiness." That is what I was addressing. It is very hard to separate the event from the framers IMO.

Mrs. LPW, care to respond?
What men are you referencing in your post?

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 03:54 PM
Tulsa, in my mind, has proven itself to be about having control. That's the one and only reason I am in disaproval of it.

Wait... not the only reason... the other reason is the distain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness.

I applaud all of our ministers and leaders who will write strong but still kind letters about this issue. Because there will be those who follow after these men unwisely...

With all due respect this misrepresentation of the "Tulsa" framers, (bolded) is just as dangerous as the attitudes of which they are accused. (This is not directed at you, Mrs LPW, it just represents a sentiment that I have seen repeated often)

I challenge anyone on this forum, to provide one written letter, email, or other communication from even one of the "Tulsa" framers that demeans or in any way vilifies other ministers of the UPCI (including it's leadership) who will remain with the organization. I have had conversations with several of the leaders of the "Tulsa Group" and not one time have they spoke with disdain about their fellow brethren of the UPCI.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think any charges were being made against the "Tulsa framers"(in particular), but if there were, I agree some evidence would be required.

I would say that Mrs LPW DID in fact point to the Tulsa framers when she stated that Tulsa was only about control. Who else would be "controlling" this new group?

So Mrs LPW, what is the proof that this is all about control??

Theophil
01-18-2008, 03:59 PM
I would say that Mrs LPW DID in fact point to the Tulsa framers when she stated that Tulsa was only about control. Who else would be "controlling" this new group?

So Mrs LPW, what is the proof that this is all about control??

It was not the issue of control, but the vilification of the UPCI by some or one of the "Tulsa framers" that was being called into question.

Mrs. LPW
01-18-2008, 04:04 PM
Mrs. LPW, care to respond?
What men are you referencing in your post?

:toofunny

Yes... give me a chance. I don't stay on the forum 24/7 to see what people have posted after moi! :-)

I really didn't think anyone would care a lick what I thought, since I'm just a Canadian.

But actually, I said previously I don't know any of the "framers" (I hadn't heard that term before so I first read farmers... and thought WHAT?)

I have only heard what others have said who have known them but I don't know them at all.

I was referring to Bro Pitman's letter... if he represents the rest of the Tulsa group... than I'm completely turned off.
(as well as some statements by other "UC's" on the forum... )

From what I've heard, read, seen, I don't believe Tulsa is about the tv issue... that, of course, is just my humble opinion.

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 04:07 PM
I'm a good old fashioned conservative by most standards... but I'd be a liberal to some (because I watch movies once in a while and love to watch a good ole hockey game) and a UC to some...

But what I strive to be most of all is not a liberal, conservative or any other such thing but a Christian. I try (don't always succeed at every moment of every day) to be balanced and moderate in all things. I try to love everyone, even when I disagree with them and/or think they are a moron of some type.

I've been known to judge things in my past. Before facing things in my own life I've been hard on people. But when you walk through the same valley you get a different perspective altogether.. and when you come out triumphant and they've come out defeated you don't look down on them any longer, but you say... wow... God was gracious and I've got to be as gracious to them as He was to me!

No.. that above paragraph has little or nothing to do with tv advertising or any other such thing...

But being the person I am... wanting to be gracious even when I completely think someone is off the wall or heading straight below in a hand basket...
I still have the good sense God gave me to see when someone's intentions aren't all they claim to be.

I don't know any of the men who are heading up this new alternative from Adam... I can't personally judge their character or motives over the years. (some on here have known them in the past and can) But I can see, and I can hear, and I'm no fool.

It's been stated, and it's the truth.

Tulsa is not about tv advertising... Tulsa may or may not even be about outward holiness issues, which I hurt to see fall by the wayside as much as any.

Tulsa, in my mind, has proven itself to be about having control. That's the one and only reason I am in disaproval of it.

Wait... not the only reason... the other reason is the distain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness.

I applaud all of our ministers and leaders who will write strong but still kind letters about this issue. Because there will be those who follow after these men unwisely...

It was not the issue of control, but the vilification of the UPCI by some or one of the "Tulsa framers" that was being called into question.

I see nothing in Mrs LPW's post that said anything about vilification of the UPCI. What I do see is her accusation that the Tulsa meeting is all about control. I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest this.

The fact is that NO official from the Tulsa group (that I have seen thus far) has sent out a letter telling folks if they stay in the UPCI that they will be shipwreck, and that the men in the UPCI are going to draw men away and ruin their ministry.

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 04:10 PM
:toofunny

Yes... give me a chance. I don't stay on the forum 24/7 to see what people have posted after moi! :-)

I really didn't think anyone would care a lick what I thought, since I'm just a Canadian.

But actually, I said previously I don't know any of the "framers" (I hadn't heard that term before so I first read farmers... and thought WHAT?)

I have only heard what others have said who have known them but I don't know them at all.

I was referring to Bro Pitman's letter... if he represents the rest of the Tulsa group... than I'm completely turned off.
(as well as some statements by other "UC's" on the forum... )

From what I've heard, read, seen, I don't believe Tulsa is about the tv issue... that, of course, is just my humble opinion.

I have heard over and over from a number of conservatives that the TV Resolution was just the final slap in the face to most conservatives. The direction of the UPCI for some time now has been moving away from a conservative organization.

Mrs. LPW
01-18-2008, 04:10 PM
When men pull out of an organization because a vote has been cast by the majority (slim, I heard, but still a majority) to allow churches to advertise on tv... and begin to court all the ministers they think will follow them to start a new organization... putting people's names on websites without permission...

When men would rather see families split, and churches split, and the body split, than to allow for advertising on television when they use the internet themselves (which everyone who is honest will admit has much worse content available)... there is something a little more behind this. I would say it's a control issue. Just from my human experiences.

I'm not going to debate this... I have said before the "framers" are men I've never known... Bro. Pitmans letter spoke very clearly for itself.

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 04:15 PM
When men pull out of an organization because a vote has been cast by the majority (slim, I heard, but still a majority) to allow churches to advertise on tv... and begin to court all the ministers they think will follow them to start a new organization... putting people's names on websites without permission...

When men would rather see families split, and churches split, and the body split, than to allow for advertising on television when they use the internet themselves (which everyone who is honest will admit has much worse content available)... there is something a little more behind this. I would say it's a control issue. Just from my human experiences.

I'm not going to debate this... I have said before the "framers" are men I've never known... Bro. Pitmans letter spoke very clearly for itself.

Do you realize that the UPCI regularly courts ministers in the ALJC to join them??

bishoph
01-18-2008, 04:18 PM
I see nothing in Mrs LPW's post that said anything about vilification of the UPCI. What I do see is her accusation that the Tulsa meeting is all about control. I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest this.

The fact is that NO official from the Tulsa group (that I have seen thus far) has sent out a letter telling folks if they stay in the UPCI that they will be shipwreck, and that the men in the UPCI are going to draw men away and ruin their ministry.


Tulsa, in my mind, has proven itself to be about having control. That's the one and only reason I am in disaproval of it.

Wait... not the only reason... the other reason is the distain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness.

I applaud all of our ministers and leaders who will write strong but still kind letters about this issue. Because there will be those who follow after these men unwisely...

The bolded portion is my whole point. Mrs LPW stated that it, "Tulsa," is about control, and the "disdain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness."

This is a clear indictment of the "Tulsa" men as vilifying their UPCI brethren. IMO

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 04:21 PM
The bolded portion is my whole point. Mrs LPW stated that it, "Tulsa," is about control, and the "disdain with which men are speaking of their brethren under the guise of standing for holiness."

This is a clear indictment of the "Tulsa" men as vilifying their UPCI brethren. IMO

I see. So the Tulsa Group are now controlling, vilifying dissenters according to Mrs LPW?

Theophil
01-18-2008, 04:28 PM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting. If you decide to go, please be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent

BUMP

Monkeyman
01-18-2008, 04:28 PM
I see. So the Tulsa Group are now controlling, vilifying dissenters according to Mrs LPW?Awwwwwwwww come on!!!!!!!! Puhleeze! Her point is AND you know it, is that since they have not controlled the decisions/directions that the UPC has made, they are leaving to "control" their own destinies, come on, your s m r t e r than that, sheesh!:boxing:ouch:tantrum:drama

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 04:39 PM
Awwwwwwwww come on!!!!!!!! Puhleeze! Her point is AND you know it, is that since they have not controlled the decisions/directions that the UPC has made, they are leaving to "control" their own destinies, come on, your s m r t e r than that, sheesh!:boxing:ouch:tantrum:drama

Monkey, Mrs LPW is welcome to correct me, but what I am reading from her post is that the founders of this new group are just doing it because they can "lord" over it. If I am misunderstanding her, then I apologize in advance.

bishoph
01-18-2008, 04:42 PM
Awwwwwwwww come on!!!!!!!! Puhleeze! Her point is AND you know it, is that since they have not controlled the decisions/directions that the UPC has made, they are leaving to "control" their own destinies, come on, your s m r t e r than that, sheesh!:boxing:ouch:tantrum:drama

I agree that may be her point............however, she has repeated rhetoric that is a flagrant misrepresentation of the "Tulsa" framers actions and intent. I find it interesting that not one letter has been authored by the "Tulsa" men suggesting that the UPCI as an entity or its ministers, are somehow less spiritual or for that matter any disparaging remarks period. Yet the UPCI letters keep coming!

Monkeyman
01-18-2008, 04:48 PM
I agree that may be her point............however, she has repeated rhetoric that is a flagrant misrepresentation of the "Tulsa" framers actions and intent. I find it interesting that not one letter has been authored by the "Tulsa" men suggesting that the UPCI as an entity or its ministers, are somehow less spiritual or for that matter any disparaging remarks period. Yet the UPCI letters keep coming!Actions good sir, not words! "Some" of them have acted their suggestions out for many years...remember, I was there...I saw it. (psr)
When you have a seperate meeting/camp/rally and state the reasons as your folks need to stay away from worldliness, you are making a BIG statement.

Do they have a right to leave? Of course. Do they have a right to contact others, hmmm, not sure. Does LPW have a right to state these men have an agenda other than TV? YES!!!! I know for a fact it ain't just about tv...I know some in their camp, who watched TV at my house!!!!

TrueNorth
01-18-2008, 04:48 PM
I agree that may be her point............however, she has repeated rhetoric that is a flagrant misrepresentation of the "Tulsa" framers actions and intent. I find it interesting that not one letter has been authored by the "Tulsa" men suggesting that the UPCI as an entity or its ministers, are somehow less spiritual or for that matter any disparaging remarks period. Yet the UPCI letters keep coming!

For the Tulsa men to do so would be repetitious. The entire "mapping out a preferred Apostolic future" is a slap at all of the nonpreferreds who don't go to Tulsa.
The entire published reason for Tulsa is that the UPCI is not holy enough.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 04:58 PM
For the Tulsa men to do so would be repetitious. The entire "mapping out a preferred Apostolic future" is a slap at all of the nonpreferreds who don't go to Tulsa.
The entire published reason for Tulsa is that the UPCI is not holy enough.

Interesting and logical! Letters from the "Tulsa" people...redundant. Hmmmm.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 05:00 PM
Actions good sir, not words! "Some" of them have acted their suggestions out for many years...remember, I was there...I saw it. (psr)
When you have a seperate meeting/camp/rally and state the reasons as your folks need to stay away from worldliness, you are making a BIG statement.

Do they have a right to leave? Of course. Do they have a right to contact others, hmmm, not sure. Does LPW have a right to state these men have an agenda other than TV? YES!!!! I know for a fact it ain't just about tv...I know some in their camp, who watched TV at my house!!!!

I think this is the point Mrs. LPW was making...Good post M!

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 05:02 PM
For the Tulsa men to do so would be repetitious. The entire "mapping out a preferred Apostolic future" is a slap at all of the nonpreferreds who don't go to Tulsa.
The entire published reason for Tulsa is that the UPCI is not holy enough.

I am not an ultra con, but even i can see that the UPCI is moving slowly toward a more liberal place. What they say they stand for, and what they live, is 2 different things.

Monkeyman
01-18-2008, 05:04 PM
I am not an ultra con, but even i can see that the UPCI is moving slowly toward a more liberal place. What they say they stand for, and what they live, is 2 different things.Oh puhleeze, now your starting to bug me. Liberal cuz they want to ad on tv, whatever Matt. Love ya man, but your waaaaaaaaay off of your usual game tonight.

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 05:07 PM
Oh puhleeze, now your starting to bug me. Liberal cuz they want to ad on tv, whatever Matt. Love ya man, but your waaaaaaaaay off of your usual game tonight.

I am not even talking about tv advertisement. There are preachers right now that watch very worldly shows, and do not have any standard in regards to tv that they present to the saints. I won't even mention the makeup and stuff like that, because its not "salvational".

Monkeyman
01-18-2008, 05:18 PM
I am not even talking about tv advertisement. There are preachers right now that watch very worldly shows, and do not have any standard in regards to tv that they present to the saints. I won't even mention the makeup and stuff like that, because its not "salvational".I'm sorry that you don't know the UPC preachers that I get to hang around, they portray something else than what you say their/my org does.

And, I re-read my last post, please forgive me if that sounded like I was mad at you, I'm not. You can bug me yet still be cool with me, lol!

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 05:18 PM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting. If you decide to go, please be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent


Without taking any sides here at all....

Can I just say I am proud to be from Missouri....

... and would love to take Bro Gleason to Ruth's Chris Steak House in Kansas City (Country Club Plaza).

:happydance:happydance:happydance:happydance

stmatthew
01-18-2008, 05:22 PM
I'm sorry that you don't know the UPC preachers that I get to hang around, they portray something else than what you say their/my org does.

And, I re-read my last post, please forgive me if that sounded like I was mad at you, I'm not. You can bug me yet still be cool with me, lol!

No problems here. I like to bug people. Just as long as I don't get squashed. :toofunny

jrLA
01-18-2008, 05:56 PM
Bro. Gleason spoke from his heart. THis letter along with Bro. Mallory's was two of the best I have seen. Very well written and makes me proud to be UPCI! Yea Baby! lol

Whole Hearted
01-18-2008, 07:17 PM
More UPC propaganda. Trying to patch the hole in the Titanic.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 07:29 PM
More UPC propaganda. Trying to patch the hole in the Titanic.

LOL:toofunny
That ship sailed(and sank) in '92.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 07:33 PM
Without taking any sides here at all....

Can I just say I am proud to be from Missouri....

... and would love to take Bro Gleason to Ruth's Chris Steak House in Kansas City (Country Club Plaza).

:happydance:happydance:happydance:happydance

NO!
Just kidding. Yes.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 07:40 PM
More UPC propaganda. Trying to patch the hole in the Titanic.

hmmm... you really do hate the United Pentecostal Org. don't you?

...and I was thinking you were just a conservative brother.

Since you think the letter is a patch, are you aware of any plans for a great exodus out of the DS's state?

I'll answer for you, "NO!".

Whole Hearted
01-18-2008, 07:42 PM
I don't hate any one THANK YOU.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 07:44 PM
More UPC propaganda. Trying to patch the hole in the Titanic.

I don't hate any one THANK YOU.

No one said you did, but your contempt for the org is showing.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 07:44 PM
I don't hate any one THANK YOU.

Not even ... THE DEVIL???!!! :toofunny

Theophil
01-18-2008, 07:47 PM
hmmm... you really do hate the United Pentecostal Org. don't you?

...and I was thinking you were just a conservative brother.

Since you think the letter is a patch, are you aware of any plans for a great exodus out of the DS's state?

I'll answer for you, "NO!".

No one said you did, but your contempt for the org is showing.

Revision ...anyone??? :toofunny

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 07:50 PM
Revision ...anyone??? :toofunny

????

If you think I was saying the DS - I was not - that is why I specified "ORG"

For example I hate the Democratic party, but that does not mean I hate Hillary...

FRINGE_NUTTER
01-18-2008, 07:51 PM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting. If you decide to go, please be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent

The true body is the Body of Christ. UPC folks not having anything much to do with independent oneness folks is not pleasing to God. If a man don't have a card no matter how dedicated to God he is, he's not allowed to preach in a UPC church and is looked on as lower than 2nd class. Please somebody tell me how that is right in the eyes of God. Contending for unity of the faith needs to go past organizational barriers. I'm not bashing UPC here. Telling it how I see it. Reaching out to those who feel disenfranchised can mean reaching out to independents, too.

Nahum
01-18-2008, 07:56 PM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting. If you decide to go, please be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent

I'm being a total jerk here, but this is the same thing I was saying a year ago, and everyone thought I was the problem, had a bad attitude and the like.

Maybe we should start calling all of these johnny-come-lately letter writers "Mr. Obvious.":drama

Theophil
01-18-2008, 07:57 PM
????

If you think I was saying the DS - I was not - that is why I specified "ORG"

For example I hate the Democratic party, but that does not mean I hate Hillary...

I'm confused now...Thanks Alot! On with the show...:happydance

Theophil
01-18-2008, 08:00 PM
I'm being a total jerk here, but this is the same thing I was saying a year ago, and everyone thought I was the problem, had a bad attitude and the like.

Maybe we should start calling all of these johnny-come-lately letter writers "Mr. Obvious.":drama

Don't be so hard on yourself. You must remember that you are a man of vision and foresight. Others are just now catching up. :toofunny

TrmptPraise
01-18-2008, 08:01 PM
Without taking any sides here at all....

Can I just say I am proud to be from Missouri....

... and would love to take Bro Gleason to Ruth's Chris Steak House in Kansas City (Country Club Plaza).

:happydance:happydance:happydance:happydance

Me too, Steve. Me too. We do have some great leadership here at the district level.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 08:02 PM
I'm being a total jerk here, but this is the same thing I was saying a year ago, and everyone thought I was the problem, had a bad attitude and the like.

Maybe we should start calling all of these johnny-come-lately letter writers "Mr. Obvious.":drama

I think you, and others knew it early on, but there are some who may be influenced (and perhaps consoled) positively with strong statements just prior to this event. To know where your leaders stand is a good thing, I think.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 08:03 PM
Me too, Steve. Me too. We do have some great leadership here at the district level.

:thumbsup:highfive

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 08:07 PM
I'm confused now...Thanks Alot! On with the show...:happydance


ok...ok... so I DO hate Hillary Clinton a weeee little bit! God is workin on me ... But I will NOT vote for her!

TrmptPraise
01-18-2008, 08:08 PM
The true body is the Body of Christ. UPC folks not having anything much to do with independent oneness folks is not pleasing to God. If a man don't have a card no matter how dedicated to God he is, he's not allowed to preach in a UPC church and is looked on as lower than 2nd class. Please somebody tell me how that is right in the eyes of God. Contending for unity of the faith needs to go past organizational barriers. I'm not bashing UPC here. Telling it how I see it. Reaching out to those who feel disenfranchised can mean reaching out to independents, too.


Hmmmm....*just checking my wallet* Nope, I don't hold a card from the UPC. Yet, I have ministered in several UPC churches.

No offense, but just on this forum alone (not counting the other forums I am member of) I can count numerous independent ministers who have ministered or been asked to minister at UPC affiliated churches.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 08:16 PM
The true body is the Body of Christ. UPC folks not having anything much to do with independent oneness folks is not pleasing to God. If a man don't have a card no matter how dedicated to God he is, he's not allowed to preach in a UPC church and is looked on as lower than 2nd class. Please somebody tell me how that is right in the eyes of God. Contending for unity of the faith needs to go past organizational barriers. I'm not bashing UPC here. Telling it how I see it. Reaching out to those who feel disenfranchised can mean reaching out to independents, too.

I know what you're saying and understand that is true in alot of cases, but not always. Good post, though. Alot of truth.

"Contending for unity of the faith needs to go past organizational barriers." Absolutely right!

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:18 PM
I think you, and others knew it early on, but there are some who may be influenced (and perhaps consoled) positively with strong statements just prior to this event. To know where your leaders stand is a good thing, I think.

Why is it that some people can't decide things for themselves? It's funny (in a sad kind of way) that people follow men, not truth.

I think that is the number one problem in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Theophil
01-18-2008, 08:24 PM
Why is it that some people can't decide things for themselves? It's funny (in a sad kind of way) that people follow men, not truth.
I think that is the number one problem in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Very insightful!

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 08:26 PM
Why is it that some people can't decide things for themselves? It's funny (in a sad kind of way) that people follow men, not truth.

I think that is the number one problem in Oneness Pentecostalism.

I agree, but it is what it is.

No doubt some are "weaker brethren", while others simply have a devout desire to be submitted to a Godly leader.

The main reason I believe such a letter is important, is the solicitation that has been going on for months from the other side. Their literature would have one think there is a mass exodus going on.

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:32 PM
I agree, but it is what it is.

No doubt some are "weaker brethren", while others simply have a devout desire to be submitted to a Godly leader.

The main reason I believe such a letter is important, is the solicitation that has been going on for months from the other side. Their literature would have one think there is a mass exodus going on.

iT'S ALL SPIN.

It's all about control.

For instance, how wrong is it for the leaders of the mothership to try and act like no one was leaving because they only had around twenty cards turned in as of a couple of weeks ago?

They put out spin, through various dept. heads, in order to minimize the damage - knowing all the while that many men did not intend to "turn in" their cards.

They just let their dues lapse.


I think that is lying.


Pure and simple.

Plain as plain.

Wrong as two boys kissin'.

TrmptPraise
01-18-2008, 08:33 PM
These letters possibly would not had been written if the Tulsa group had left (or is leaving) by just removing themselves from the UPC, hanging out their sign and left it at that. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. If we are to believe that those involved have behaved in a manner that one feels is unethical, either by recruiting within the organization of the UPC, by soliciting interest via letters, e-mail or phone, or by some other means, then is it not worthy of leaders to challenge those who are involved and seek to communicate with those whom they are leading in regards to it?

I could leave my church tomorrow and set up the Apostolic Church of Preferred Musicians, set my sign out and wait for the throngs to appear. I would be ethical as long as I did not start canvassing outside my previous church, or other churches for that matter, waiting for all those carrying instrument cases to appear; then start explaining why I have a better church for them to attend and how their talents sure could be used more in a Orchestra Director position.

An illustration I used in another thread might shed some light on my thinking, especially for those of you who might pastor. If a minister left your church and formed a new fellowship, called your parishioners, emailed your leadership or fellow ministers in your church, offered positions of leadership in the new fellowship; would you not have the right and some might say God provided obligation to challenge that individual and have a responsibility to counsel those members/ministers in your church who might be influenced?

Paul's opening remarks in his letter to the church in Galatia seems to validate this response. I understand he was referring to the church being persuaded unto another gospel, but IMO the correlation holds water. The leadership, either from the national, district and even local level are taking opportunity to reach out to those under them that may feel persuaded by means that are not necessarily considered honorable. I believe the leadership and other respected ministers are not just challenging the formation of another fellowship/org., but in addition are challenging the ways and means that it is campaigning for its membership.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 08:37 PM
iT'S ALL SPIN.

It's all about control.

For instance, how wrong is it for the leaders of the mothership to try and act like no one was leaving because they only had around twenty cards turned in as of a couple of weeks ago?

They put out spin, through various dept. heads, in order to minimize the damage - knowing all the while that many men did not intend to "turn in" their cards.

They just let their dues lapse.


I think that is lying.


Pure and simple.

Plain as plain.

Wrong as two boys kissin'.

You may turn out to be right PP, but this seems very harsh to me.

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:39 PM
You may turn out to be right PP, but this seems very harsh to me.

The truth is like that, sometimes.

Joseph Miller
01-18-2008, 08:40 PM
Hmmmm....*just checking my wallet* Nope, I don't hold a card from the UPC. Yet, I have ministered in several UPC churches.

No offense, but just on this forum alone (not counting the other forums I am member of) I can count numerous independent ministers who have ministered or been asked to minister at UPC affiliated churches.

I agree me to.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 08:40 PM
These letters possibly would not had been written if the Tulsa group had left (or is leaving) by just removing themselves from the UPC, hanging out their sign and left it at that. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. If we are to believe that those involved have behaved in a manner that one feels is unethical, either by recruiting within the organization of the UPC, by soliciting interest via letters, e-mail or phone, or by some other means, then is it not worthy of leaders to challenge those who are involved and seek to communicate with those whom they are leading in regards to it?

.

Right. The membership deserves/ed to hear something of a defense by those in authority.

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:41 PM
Steven, can you really say the dept heads who issued public emails poo-pooing the idea of many men leaving were telling the truth?

At the very least it was misleading.

Barb
01-18-2008, 08:45 PM
The truth is like that, sometimes.

Ya think, PP?! Do you really think your anger or upset or outrage is heping anything?!

As someone who respects you, I fear it is hurting you more than anyone.

Saying folks may have been misleading is one thing...I am disappointed in some beyond what I can say or will say here, but the rest just seems unnecessary and not like you.

But it's none of my business I guess...just how I see it...

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:48 PM
Ya think, PP?! Do you really think your anger or upset or outrage is heping anything?!

As someone who respects you, I fear it is hurting you more than anyone.

Saying folks may have been misleading is one thing...I am disappointed in some beyond what I can say or will say here, but the rest just seems unnecessary and not like you.

But it's none of my business I guess...just how I see it...

I am neither angry nor outraged.

In fact, I'm not even surprised any longer by this stuff.

Just trying to keep it real around here.

What's sad is just how normal this stuff is.

Sadder still is how easily folks buy into it.

Sorry I offended you, though I thought my posts were tame. Further, it's not right to blast the WWPF for something our own org has done in the past.

Whole Hearted
01-18-2008, 08:51 PM
I am neither angry nor outraged.

In fact, I'm not even surprised any longer by this stuff.

Just trying to keep it real around here.

What's sad is just how normal this stuff is.

Sadder still is how easily folks buy into it.

Sorry I offended you, though I thought my posts were tame. Further, it's not right to blast the WWPF for something our own org has done in the past.

OH NO I AM AGREEEING WITH PP AGAIN.

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:51 PM
The older I get, the more religiosity disturbs me.

Lying in the name of defending truth bothers me just as much.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 08:52 PM
Steven, can you really say the dept heads who issued public emails poo-pooing the idea of many men leaving were telling the truth?

At the very least it was misleading.

First, we don't know that "many" will not renew...

Second, you may be privy to info I am not, but I have no evidence that these leaders "knew" when they claimed otherwise

Barb
01-18-2008, 08:54 PM
I am neither angry or outraged.

In fact, I'm not even surprised any longer by this stuff.

Just trying to keep it real around here.

What's sad is just how normal this stuff is.

Sadder still is how easily folks buy into it.

Sorry I offended you, though I thought my posts were tame. Further, it's not right to blast the WWPF for something our own org has done in the past.

No need to apologize to me, but thank you...sorry I jumped in like that.

Frankly, I am surprised and saddened by it all.

I see this as not just a rift/split of an organization, but as brethren with a fundamental likemindedness dividing over something that those leaving can't even put a name to.

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:55 PM
First, we don't know that "many" will not renew...

Second, you may be privy to info I am not, but I have no evidence that these leaders "knew" when they claimed otherwise

I knew it. I saw it. (Seriously.)

They did too.

They just chose not to share those little details, hmm?:ohplease

Love ya Man

Nahum
01-18-2008, 08:57 PM
No need to apologize to me, but thank you...sorry I jumped in like that.

Frankly, I am surprised and saddened by it all.

I see this as not just a rift/split of an organization, but as brethren with a fundamental likemindedness dividing over something that those leaving can't even put a name to.

But I disagree with you big-time!

We do not have a "fundamental likemindedness."

Not at all.

That's the problem.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 09:02 PM
I knew it. I saw it. (Seriously.)

They did too.

They just chose not to share those little details, hmm?:ohplease

Love ya Man


I would still think it's a bit spectulative - people threaten and say alot - especially if they think it may change policy.

Just how many is "many men leaving"?

3% ? What a vendor pays for accepting credit cards... the cost of doing business

4% ? considered a "healthy" unemployment rate


I maintain this event has potential to be a GOOD thing provided informed choices are made.

TrmptPraise
01-18-2008, 09:02 PM
I knew it. I saw it. (Seriously.)

They did too.

They just chose not to share those little details, hmm?:ohplease

Love ya Man


Just so I know, what is your definition of "many?" Yes, we know that 27 have turned in their cards. We know that.

If a minister decides not to renew by the end of the month for the purpose of reviewing the WPF, are they not saying, "I don't believe in this cause enough to actually sever ties, but if it works out I can say I no longer hold a vaild license. On the other hand, if it doesn't work out, I can just write a check and be reinstated."

With so much insight,PP, what is your prediction on the number of men/women who will discontinue their fellowship? Will it be 100, 200, 500?

FRINGE_NUTTER
01-18-2008, 09:03 PM
In your family, sometimes you "put on a happy face" in hopes that things will be better. Spin may be defined as "the art or science of establishing and promoting a favorable relationship with the public." A public relations firm does this mainly by promoting favorable news. I agree with Steven Hoover on this. I don't always agree with UPC, but if I was in it, I'd probably have used similar procedures to what the leaders used.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 09:05 PM
9000 minus 4% is 360

Nahum
01-18-2008, 09:06 PM
Oh, I'm sure I am wrong about all of this.

It will definitely only be 27.

G'night all.

Hoovie
01-18-2008, 09:09 PM
Oh, I'm sure I am wrong about all of this.

It will definitely only be 27.

G'night all.

Bless you my friend. I hope you find peace in all of this for yourself.

Mrs. LPW
01-18-2008, 09:11 PM
More UPC propaganda. Trying to patch the hole in the Titanic.

These statements among others I have read are what make me question the Tulsa motives.

So is it safe to say Bro Pitman's letter does not voice the opinion of the Tulsa founders? I hope it doesn't.

TrmptPraise
01-18-2008, 09:12 PM
Oh, I'm sure I am wrong about all of this.

It will definitely only be 27.

G'night all.

I made no mention that it would remain at 27. I wasn't trying to be naive. I apologize if I offended you with my questions. God Bless

Nahum
01-18-2008, 09:13 PM
Bless you my friend. I hope you find peace in all of this for yourself.

I have.

This is me -------peaceful and all..

:happydance

Mrs. LPW
01-18-2008, 09:16 PM
These letters possibly would not had been written if the Tulsa group had left (or is leaving) by just removing themselves from the UPC, hanging out their sign and left it at that. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. If we are to believe that those involved have behaved in a manner that one feels is unethical, either by recruiting within the organization of the UPC, by soliciting interest via letters, e-mail or phone, or by some other means, then is it not worthy of leaders to challenge those who are involved and seek to communicate with those whom they are leading in regards to it?

I could leave my church tomorrow and set up the Apostolic Church of Preferred Musicians, set my sign out and wait for the throngs to appear. I would be ethical as long as I did not start canvassing outside my previous church, or other churches for that matter, waiting for all those carrying instrument cases to appear; then start explaining why I have a better church for them to attend and how their talents sure could be used more in a Orchestra Director position.

An illustration I used in another thread might shed some light on my thinking, especially for those of you who might pastor. If a minister left your church and formed a new fellowship, called your parishioners, emailed your leadership or fellow ministers in your church, offered positions of leadership in the new fellowship; would you not have the right and some might say God provided obligation to challenge that individual and have a responsibility to counsel those members/ministers in your church who might be influenced?

Paul's opening remarks in his letter to the church in Galatia seems to validate this response. I understand he was referring to the church being persuaded unto another gospel, but IMO the correlation holds water. The leadership, either from the national, district and even local level are taking opportunity to reach out to those under them that may feel persuaded by means that are not necessarily considered honorable. I believe the leadership and other respected ministers are not just challenging the formation of another fellowship/org., but in addition are challenging the ways and means that it is campaigning for its membership.

I agree with this.

bishoph
01-18-2008, 09:51 PM
I agree, but it is what it is.

No doubt some are "weaker brethren", while others simply have a devout desire to be submitted to a Godly leader.

The main reason I believe such a letter is important, is the solicitation that has been going on for months from the other side. Their literature would have one think there is a mass exodus going on.

This is the kind of statements that I have been trying to address in this thread. Whose literature are you referring to? If you are referring to the WPF please post copies of literature coming from them that suggests any such thing.

The older I get, the more religiosity disturbs me.

Lying in the name of defending truth bothers me just as much.

PP thank you for this statement, I concur completely!

Hoovie
01-19-2008, 06:46 AM
This is the kind of statements that I have been trying to address in this thread. Whose literature are you referring to? If you are referring to the WPF please post copies of literature coming from them that suggests any such thing.

Bish, I am not a minister so I have not recieved them myself. Many others have though and it's apparant they are using the UPC mailing lists.

It is known that people had their names added on the web site without their knowledge and consent. That does indicate a false effort to inflate membership in the new org.

AmazingGrace
01-19-2008, 07:11 AM
This is the kind of statements that I have been trying to address in this thread. Whose literature are you referring to? If you are referring to the WPF please post copies of literature coming from them that suggests any such thing.

Duh hello!!! Ummm lets see,,,, Their website, which is a lie to begin with... oh well.. I guess youve been livin under a rock. If you have may I suggest going back and reading the threads about this... which has the letters and the original website and all that fun stuff?

Theophil
01-19-2008, 08:25 AM
January 8, 2008



To all of the Ministers of the Missouri District,

…….

I desire to include some comments in this letter concerning the upcoming meeting in Tulsa. This meeting is being promoted as a preferred alternative to the UPC. It is very clear that the men who have created this forum intend to start a new organization (although we're not sure who preferred them as their leaders, having conducted no elections that I'm aware of to this point). If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting. The Tampa General Conference did not initiate this meeting. This attitude has been brewing for quite some time. We have history to know what will come of this new organization if it ever gets off the ground. The creation of this group is not about vision, passion for the lost, or reaching the world more effectively. (Do we become more effective by becoming smaller?) Because its impetus is of a negative bent, it will attract discontentment that will chronically focus on what's wrong with the mother organization. What kind of an organization would we have if every time the majority voted in favor of something, those who didn't like the results left? If we appeal to the manual, how about starting with "We shall not contend for our individual beliefs to the disunity of the body"?
Some are curious about going to Tulsa, others may think it profitable for entertainment purposes, while yet others are sincerely interested in what Tulsa has to offer. I am respectfully requesting that none of our Missouri District ministers attend this meeting. If you decide to go, please be advised that your presence there will only lend credibility to their agenda and possibly insert confusion into your own spirit. Some who are leading this meeting have well-earned reputations for not finishing what they start, proselytizing, and wanting to be the kingpin of something. Some of the names printed on promotional materials for "Tampa" have been used without consent (another ploy previously used by some of the preferred leaders).

I do not want any licensed minister to feel that he has no choice but to leave the UPC. If you know someone who feels disenfranchised, please reach out to them. These are the greatest days for the kingdom of God. How sad it would be to miss the greatest revival the world has ever known because of discontentment through association. If we're going to fully reap the promised harvest, then it will take all of us and more to bring it in. Brethren, we are fighting a "scattering spirit" within our local congregations in this end time. Let us not feed this spirit on a national level and may we not contribute to the enemy’s agenda by sowing discord among the brethren. My prayer for our fellowship is that "we ... endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith ..." (W. T. Witherspoon).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I stand ready to help or encourage any men of God who are sincerely seeking God's will for their ministry or the congregation they are leading.

Respectfully submitted,


Stan Gleason
Missouri District Superintendent

BUMP

"If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?[Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting".

Comments on this???? :stirpot

Barb
01-19-2008, 09:19 AM
But I disagree with you big-time!

We do not have a "fundamental likemindedness."

Not at all.

That's the problem.

PP, both groups of men and women stand for and teach that upon hearing and believing the gospel, men must repent, be baptized, and Spirit filled.

That is the fundamental likemindedness I was referring to...

Hoovie
01-19-2008, 05:53 PM
BUMP

"If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?[Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting".

Comments on this???? :stirpot

THeo, good luck.

This should be commented on by Bish or those formulating this meeting.

The irony, of course, is that these same men are likely quite heavy handed when it comes to local church discipline and leadership.

bishoph
01-19-2008, 08:31 PM
BUMP

"If these men still hold their UPC credentials, then this meeting is ministerially unethical. The Oklahoma District was not contacted or informed about this meeting. What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?[Let's be honest, brethren: this is an anti-UPC meeting".

Comments on this???? :stirpot

I will try to address these points, however, it is important to state that my opinion on these matters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the "Tulsa" framers.

On the first point:If these men still hold their UPC credentials then this meeting is ministerially unethical.

If we are referring to the "framers" of the WPF, then this is a moot point, as it is common knowledge that they had all agreed to leave/surrender their license prior to launching the "new fellowship." As it relates to others who may have pledged their allegiance to WPF, I do not feel that there is a need at this time for them to disaffiliate themselves from the UPCI in order to invite fellow brethren to attend the planned "Tulsa" meeting. Remember, if someone is inclined to go to Tulsa, and they want to invite others, it is very unlikely they are going to invite someone who does not share their feelings somewhat.

This mindset that one cannot belong to anything other than the UPCI exclusively is a somewhat skewed ideology. The actual wording (In the UPCI Manual) as noted on another thread only prohibits one from belonging to another organization which ordains/credentials ministers/pastors. This rule has been tested and subsequently proven by UPCI minsters who affiliate with the AWCF, IAF, and several other ministerial based fellowships, which have many of the trappings of an organization, yet insisting they are simply Apostolic networking fellowships.

On the Second point: What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?

I have a two part answer to this question. First, as a pastor/shepherd, I can honestly say that I have approved this very thing. There have been people who have come under my leadership that over time I/we realized would be better served by another ministry, and in the interest of seeing them saved, and reaching their full potential in Christ, I have encouraged them to seek out a more preferred leadership. It is not about me and my ego, nor about my agenda, it is about the kingdom. When we realize this the kingdom will grow exponentially, otherwise we confine ourselves to an empire mentality where growth is limited to the emperor's expertise.

Secondly, to compare this scenario to a church/saint or pastor/saint relationship is quite flawed. In an organization, ministers apply for membership based on said organization being in alignment with their own beliefs, and pay dues, for the privilege/benefits of belonging to said organization. If the organization or the minister changes their stand on issues, doctrinal or otherwise, the minister may decide he/she is no longer obligated to remain associated. Herein lies the problem as I see it, to say that these men who have decided to build another fellowship are bringing division to the Body of Christ, is to assume that the UPCI as an organization is THE Body of Christ, this would mean that anyone who ever left/leaves would/will be leaving the Body of Christ. JMHO

Humbly Submitted

Hoovie
01-19-2008, 08:54 PM
I will try to address these points, however, it is important to state that my opinion on these matters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the "Tulsa" framers.

On the first point:If these men still hold their UPC credentials then this meeting is ministerially unethical.

If we are referring to the "framers" of the WPF, then this is a moot point, as it is common knowledge that they had all agreed to leave/surrender their license prior to launching the "new fellowship." As it relates to others who may have pledged their allegiance to WPF, I do not feel that there is a need at this time for them to disaffiliate themselves from the UPCI in order to invite fellow brethren to attend the planned "Tulsa" meeting. Remember, if someone is inclined to go to Tulsa, and they want to invite others, it is very unlikely they are going to invite someone who does not share their feelings somewhat.

This mindset that one cannot belong to anything other than the UPCI exclusively is a somewhat skewed ideology. The actual wording (In the UPCI Manual) as noted on another thread only prohibits one from belonging to another organization which ordains/credentials ministers/pastors. This rule has been tested and subsequently proven by UPCI minsters who affiliate with the AWCF, IAF, and several other ministerial based fellowships, which have many of the trappings of an organization, yet insisting they are simply an Apostolic networking fellowship.

On the Second point: What pastor among us or them would approve members of his congregation seeking out a preferred leadership for their families while still in fellowship with that church?

I have a two part answer to this question. First, as a pastor/shepherd, I can honestly say that I have approved this very thing. There have been people who have come under my leadership that over time I/we realized would be better served by another ministry, and in the interest of seeing them saved, and reaching their full potential in Christ, I have encouraged them to seek out a more preferred leadership. It is not about me and my ego, nor about my agenda, it is about the kingdom. When we realize this the kingdom will grow exponentially, otherwise we confine ourselves to an empire mentality where growth is limited to the emperor's expertise.

Secondly, to compare this scenario to a church/saint or pastor/saint relationship is quite flawed. In an organization, ministers apply for membership based on said organization being in alignment with their own beliefs, and pay dues, for the privilege/benefits of belonging to said organization. If the organization or the minister changes their stand on issues, doctrinal or otherwise, the minister may decide he/she is no longer obligated to remain associated. Herein lies the problem as I see it, to say that these men who have decided to build another fellowship are bringing division to the Body of Christ, is to assume that the UPCI as an organization is THE Body of Christ, this would mean that anyone who ever left/leaves would/will be leaving the Body of Christ. JMHO

Humbly Submitted


Thank you for responding.

Would you not agree, the "dual membership" idea is temporary at best? In your analogy there was no long-term intention for dual leadership.

While, WPF is saying there is no need to leave, it is quite clear the intent is not to supplement, but to provide an alternative... "a preferred apostolic future".

bishoph
01-19-2008, 09:20 PM
Thank you for responding.

Would you not agree, the "dual membership" idea is temporary at best? In your analogy there was no long-term intention for dual leadership.

While, WPF is saying there is no need to leave, it is quite clear the intent is not to supplement, but to provide an alternative... "a preferred apostolic future".

I cannot say at this time. According to the conversations I have had with the "framers" it appears they have no intention of making this a full fledged organization. If this remains the case, and it simply is a more structured IAF/AWCF type entity, then "dual membership" may be a long term reality. I think that the "alternative" is mainly for those that would have left the UPCI regardless of whether an "alternative" was in place or not.

Remember that more than 40% of the ministers who responded to the UPCI poll on the TV issue stated that the passing of Res 4 would negatively affect their relationship with the organization. To me, this is a strong indication that many of those polled were looking at an "alternative" (possibly going independent) before the vote. I feel that the Tulsa framers wanted to provide an alternative to what some feared would be independent isolation.

In all fairness, this may evolve into a full fledged organization. If it does, however, that in and of its self does not prove this was the intentions of the "framers." As other men come together and have the power to form the WPF it may evolve into something that was not the original vision.

I do not have any position with the WPF, nor do I have any weight in making decisions, however, I have suggested that the WPF revisit their fee structure as I do not feel it is conducive to dual membership.

Apprehended
01-19-2008, 09:50 PM
Where the glory of the Lord is manifested, the power of God is present to heal, deliver, set free, where men and women are being thrilled and filled, there is no need to worry about who is coming and who is going. The Lord will add to and take away as he sees fit.

To worry about losing a saint, or worry about losing a preacher has its roots in ungodliness. That worry is based on fear of loss. Where the presence of the Lord is, there is love. Perfect love cast out fear. Fear is an abomination to the Lord. The fearful are going to end up in the same place as the unbeliving, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers and all. See Rev. 21. Fear hath torment.

So, to fret over who is coming and who is going whether it in and out of a church, in and out of an organization to cause one to worry about it is not pleasing to the Lord since it is void of faith, which faith is anchored in the full assurance that HE has all things in his control.

Meanwhile, just keep the golden oil of the anointing by the fine art of the Apothecary fresh in the Temple of the Lord. The presence of the Lord will make glad the hearts of all in need of a refreshing. Don't let the flies get into your oil.

Theophil
01-20-2008, 01:32 PM
Where the glory of the Lord is manifested, the power of God is present to heal, deliver, set free, where men and women are being thrilled and filled, there is no need to worry about who is coming and who is going. The Lord will add to and take away as he sees fit.

To worry about losing a saint, or worry about losing a preacher has its roots in ungodliness. That worry is based on fear of loss. Where the presence of the Lord is, there is love. Perfect love cast out fear. Fear is an abomination to the Lord. The fearful are going to end up in the same place as the unbeliving, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers and all. See Rev. 21. Fear hath torment.

So, to fret over who is coming and who is going whether it in and out of a church, in and out of an organization to cause one to worry about it is not pleasing to the Lord since it is void of faith, which faith is anchored in the full assurance that HE has all things in his control.

Meanwhile, just keep the golden oil of the anointing by the fine art of the Apothecary fresh in the Temple of the Lord. The presence of the Lord will make glad the hearts of all in need of a refreshing. Don't let the flies get into your oil.

Excellent words Apprehended, I believe from the Lord.

Psalm 62:5 (KJV)
5 My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.