2010 UPCI Resolutions

[harleypreacher]

I received the resolutions for the UPCI conference a few weeks ago, and just heard in the last few days that there is going to be another resolution coming from the general board at conference time. David Bernard has called a few of his men together and come up with a resolution that will give the district boards power to deal with churches that are not abiding by the UPCI manual, and not preaching and teaching the manual. Has any one on here heard this?

[Truthseeker]

Well, that would wipe out majority of the churches.

[harleypreacher]

Well, that would wipe out majority of the churches.

I was thinking the same thing; it would be the final days of the UPCI. We think the organization is having financial problems now, another split will be soon, and the men that left in 2007 over resolution 4 are not coming back, it was never about TV, but about political power. So why is the UPCI leadership so busy trying to show the men that left that we can be holier than you with our standards.

[Timmy]

:popcorn2

[Sister Alvear]

The most dependable of all vices is greed....

[Sister Alvear]

If I were them I would push forward...not enter into some kind of race with others...There are good men and women everywhere...
I received an awesome puplication from the Brazil UPC the other day...I will never belong but I do have great respect for their leaders in Brazil...Probably some of the most fruitful missionaries that ever walked...Hats off to Brother and Sister DeMerchant....

[Truthseeker]

I was thinking the same thing; it would be the final days of the UPCI. We think the organization is having financial problems now, another split will be soon, and the men that left in 2007 over resolution 4 are not coming back, it was never about TV, but about political power. So why is the UPCI leadership so busy trying to show the men that left that we can be holier than you with our standards.

One of the greatest deliverances is from other people.

[Aquila]

Who'd ever have thought that "holiness standards" (largely based on conviction) would become so divisive to the body? This is sad for the UPCI. :(

[Timmy]

Who'd ever have thought that "holiness standards" (largely based on conviction) would become so divisive to the body? This is sad for the UPCI. :(

I made them a new logo.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee225/arraywie/topheader.jpg

[Aquila]

I've always heard it refered to as the "Untied Pentecostal Church".... or as being UPC (God's Under Previledged Children).

It's sad to watch an organization in such confusion that it begins to dissolve itself out of existance.

[Aquila]

The UPCI was a glorious ship. They are sinking her. The same "conservatives" that value smaller government and less regulation are imposing an authoritarian religious system that controls the districts and local churches with the power of Big Religion.

It's a new day... UPCI is slowly becoming an old wineskin. :(

Eventually UPCI Christians will be a small and quaint group of people like the Amish that we find interesting, though they will still believe that they have a monopoly on absolute truth.

Honestly, I love the UPCI. But if you love something.... you have to be honest with it.

[Sam]

Who'd ever have thought that "holiness standards" (largely based on conviction) would become so divisive to the body? This is sad for the UPCI. :(

The "holiness standards" are traditions of men and supplant the Word of God in some churches and ministries. They vary from person to person, place to place, and time to time. I am not UPC so my opinion does not count, but in my opinion the UPC should have adopted the PCI article of faith on holiness and left it in the manual unchanged.

Holiness
Godly living should characterize the life of every child
of the Lord, and he or she should live according to the pat-
tern and example, given in the Word of God (Rom. 6:6;
Titus 2:11, 12; 1 Peter 2:21-23); otherwise we shall not
escape the judgment of the great day. (Heb. 12:14; 1 Peter
1:15-17,)

:grampa

[ILG]

If I were them I would push forward...not enter into some kind of race with others...There are good men and women everywhere...
I received an awesome puplication from the Brazil UPC the other day...I will never belong but I do have great respect for their leaders in Brazil...Probably some of the most fruitful missionaries that ever walked...Hats off to Brother and Sister DeMerchant....

Too bad they've never had a woman super. Maybe you should run. ;)

[ILG]

First, we called it the Untied Pentecostal Church and, in more recent years, The UPChuck. Hey, just being honest. ;)

[Sam]

First, we called it the Untied Pentecostal Church and, in more recent years, The UPChuck. Hey, just being honest. ;)

UPChuck?
I thought UPC stood for Under Privileged Children.

Yes, they are children of God but held in bondage/domination/control by a large religious/political organization so they do not get to enjoy the liberty of Christ and the freedom and rest of His grace. It has become, in many places, a performance based religion. There is no confidence in their salvation. They are always in fear that they may not have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" properly. And many are not allowed fellowship with other children of God because they do not look, act, think, or talk like the domineering parent figure thinks they should.

[Mr. Smith]

I received the resolutions for the UPCI conference a few weeks ago, and just heard in the last few days that there is going to be another resolution coming from the general board at conference time. David Bernard has called a few of his men together and come up with a resolution that will give the district boards power to deal with churches that are not abiding by the UPCI manual, and not preaching and teaching the manual. Has any one on here heard this?


Can I just say, with a certain amount of glee in my voice, that as of 1993, I don't give a blue hoot in hades about any of their resolutions. It's SO nice not to have to waste a single minute of my life worrying about this.

[coadie]

If I were them I would push forward...not enter into some kind of race with others...There are good men and women everywhere...
I received an awesome puplication from the Brazil UPC the other day...I will never belong but I do have great respect for their leaders in Brazil...Probably some of the most fruitful missionaries that ever walked...Hats off to Brother and Sister DeMerchant....

It looks like some folks consider it a very bad church? I wonder if the ones that complain are soul winners?

[Michael]

This is awesome! I used to think of DKB being more on the lib side, but he seems to be on the right path....I'd prefer Moony though....

[Jack Shephard]

IDK. If it true then basically it is just taking the responsibility from a Regional Board or from Headquarters and taking to a district level, right?

[A.W. Bowman]

What should one expect, when a manual trumps the scriptures?

[CC1]

If it is true they will present a resolution empowering districts to further discipline / sanction Pastors who do not preach or adhere to the manual I think there could be a backlash from many, including conservatives, as that would further erode the autonomy of the local church.

As I recall aren't many of the so called "holiness standards" written in the context of verbage like "we recommend" or "we urge" rather than absolutes?

Of course they may limit these new powers to pastors who do not actrively enforce the standards they consider biblical like uncut hair on women, no pants on women, no makeup on women, no jewelry, etc.

[Jack Shephard]

If it is true they will present a resolution empowering districts to further discipline / sanction Pastors who do not preach or adhere to the manual I think there could be a backlash from many, including conservatives, as that would further erode the autonomy of the local church.

As I recall aren't many of the so called "holiness standards" written in the context of verbage like "we recommend" or "we urge" rather than absolutes?

Of course they may limit these new powers to pastors who do not actrively enforce the standards they consider biblical like uncut hair on women, no pants on women, no makeup on women, no jewelry, etc.

Si, Si Juan, you made me think of something. If they are going to "discipline" someone for not teaching the standards, etc. would they do something to those that are preaching something over and above the standards? Like something that isn't in the MANual or the HANDbook like Holy-Magic-Hair?

[Hoovie]

First, we called it the Untied Pentecostal Church and, in more recent years, The UPChuck. Hey, just being honest. ;)

Can I just say, with a certain amount of glee in my voice, that as of 1993, I don't give a blue hoot in hades about any of their resolutions. It's SO nice not to have to waste a single minute of my life worrying about this.

I find these posts offensive personally. Constructive criticism? - bring it on, but please keep the slime to yourself.

[Mr. Smith]

I find these posts offensive personally. Constructive criticism? - bring it on, but please keep the slime to yourself.

My apologies and offense wasn't my intent.

I'm just trying to say, if I were ever on the outside looking in and I wanted to destroy a group, whatever that group was, I'd set them off against each other fighting about meaningless things such as this. With them paying so much attention to meaningless points of argument, they'd have no time to get their real job done.

I'm trying to express my personal opinion that these resolutions and their impact are worthless...I feel like that's a constructive thing to say...and I'm thrilled that I don't have to be in the middle of it.

Again, apologies and if I'm still not saying it right, let me know.

[Jason B]

I made them a new logo.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee225/arraywie/topheader.jpg

:ursofunny

[Michael]

My apologies and offense wasn't my intent.

I'm just trying to say, if I were ever on the outside looking in and I wanted to destroy a group, whatever that group was, I'd set them off against each other fighting about meaningless things such as this. With them paying so much attention to meaningless points of argument, they'd have no time to get their real job done.

I'm trying to express my personal opinion that these resolutions and their impact are worthless...I feel like that's a constructive thing to say...and I'm thrilled that I don't have to be in the middle of it.

Again, apologies and if I'm still not saying it right, let me know.

Still not saying it right...

[Hoovie]

My apologies and offense wasn't my intent.

I'm just trying to say, if I were ever on the outside looking in and I wanted to destroy a group, whatever that group was, I'd set them off against each other fighting about meaningless things such as this. With them paying so much attention to meaningless points of argument, they'd have no time to get their real job done.

I'm trying to express my personal opinion that these resolutions and their impact are worthless...I feel like that's a constructive thing to say...and I'm thrilled that I don't have to be in the middle of it.

Again, apologies and if I'm still not saying it right, let me know.


Very well, Please post the resolution in question so we can discuss it.

[Jason B]

I'm just trying to say, if I were ever on the outside looking in and I wanted to destroy a group, whatever that group was, I'd set them off against each other fighting about meaningless things such as this. With them paying so much attention to meaningless points of argument, they'd have no time to get their real job done.

I'm trying to express my personal opinion that these resolutions and their impact are worthless...I feel like that's a constructive thing to say...and I'm thrilled that I don't have to be in the middle of it.

Again, apologies and if I'm still not saying it right, let me know.

Exactly. The UPC believes they are truly "the" church, at lest most of them do. I was in the UPC for 8 years, and then began attending an indepentent onenesss church. One night we had a UPC preacher come, and after service we were talking to him, and he said in the tribulation his church would be protected because they were in the UPC, but out independent church would be "on your own". This is ridiculous, yet it is the mindset of many in the UPC, if not most.

Mr. Smith's makes an extremely valid point. DKB preached in his inuarguration speech how that he believed we were going to see the biggest "apostolic revival" the world has ever see (or something to that effect), yet majoring on minors will continue to dwindle the UPC to nothing. There has been no significant growth in the UPC for years, any growth is offset by churches pulling out.

The only way for the church to have revival is focus on the lost, go into the world and teach all nations (teach them Jesus Christ, not legalism), and the UPC seems more concerned with whether or not someone puts on a pair of shorts to mow the lawn. Sad.

[coadie]

I find these posts offensive personally. Constructive criticism? - bring it on, but please keep the slime to yourself.

That is the intent. Gay marriage and Muslim Mosques are what is called righteousness now.

[Michael]

That is the intent. Gay marriage and Muslim Mosques are what is called righteousness now.

Sounds like muslim mosques are gay, is that what you are trying to convey?
:spit:ursofunny

[Hoovie]

Exactly. The UPC believes they are truly "the" church, at lest most of them do. I was in the UPC for 8 years, and then began attending an indepentent onenesss church. One night we had a UPC preacher come, and after service we were talking to him, and he said in the tribulation his church would be protected because they were in the UPC, but out independent church would be "on your own". This is ridiculous, yet it is the mindset of many in the UPC, if not most.

Mr. Smith's makes an extremely valid point. DKB preached in his inuarguration speech how that he believed we were going to see the biggest "apostolic revival" the world has ever see (or something to that effect), yet majoring on minors will continue to dwindle the UPC to nothing. There has been no significant growth in the UPC for years, any growth is offset by churches pulling out.

The only way for the church to have revival is focus on the lost, go into the world and teach all nations (teach them Jesus Christ, not legalism), and the UPC seems more concerned with whether or not someone puts on a pair of shorts to mow the lawn. Sad.


What a joke! I know many hardcore three steppers in the UPC but never heard of this.

Wait - it seems you yourself are equating UPC and "Apostolic" groweth (lack of) ! :)

I have no reason to believe those who "leave" or are only peripherally influenced by the UPC are non-Apostolic.

[Jason B]

What a joke! I know many hardcore three steppers in the UPC but never heard of this.


I'd never heard of that either. I don't think most UPCers would make that statement, but I do think it shows the loyalty that many have for that organization.

When I was in UPC the fear of God was put into us, that if we ever left God would judge us. When I moved to a city where there was no UPC, I joined an independant church (the only oneness church in town) and that kind of helped me transition. Many posters have been open on this forum about the mental struggle involved in leaving the "org". They make it seem your walking away from Christ Himself, when in reality, your only wanting to walk more closely with Him, and search the riches of his grace and mercy.

Wait - it seems you yourself are equating UPC and Apostolic Groweth! :)
No, I'm not, I'm okay tking the oneness movement as a whole, I think there should be more fellowship between fellowships/orgs. I would like to see conferences for all oneness people, attended by all oneness organizations, with a concentrated effort to send out and support missionaries (instead of each group sending their own missionaries) and a more concerted effort to evangelize America. The questions shouldn't be "Does Boston have a UPC church?" It should be "Does Boston have an APOSTOLIC church"-regardless of fellowship, yet each fellowship is trying to win the world to themselves, not to Christ, so the movement is as splintered as a broken baseball bat. PS-until we drop the initial evidence doctrine, and the legalism that some hold, this can never be.

Those things said, many UPCers equate revival with what happens in the UPC, that was the context of my statement.

I have no reason to believe those who "leave" or are only peripherally influenced by the UPC are non-Apostolic.


I agree, I considered myself Apsotolic while I was in the independent church, but now, I just consider myself a Christian. Other call me a compromiser, heretic, etc. So i guess I'll just be called whatever, so long as Jesus calls me faithful. :)

[Mr. Smith]

Still not saying it right...


Wasn't asking you or talking to you.

[Mr. Smith]

Very well, Please post the resolution in question so we can discuss it.

I was referring to the potential resolution mentioned in the thread starter.

[Mr. Smith]

I find these posts offensive personally. Constructive criticism? - bring it on, but please keep the slime to yourself.

And by the way, Steven, since we're talking about offenses, I wasn't crazy about having my post called, "Slime." That seems a bit beneath you.

[Hoovie]

I'd never heard of that either. I don't think most UPCers would make that statement, but I do think it shows the loyalty that many have for that organization.

When I was in UPC the fear of God was put into us, that if we ever left God would judge us. When I moved to a city where there was no UPC, I joined an independant church (the only oneness church in town) and that kind of helped me transition. Many posters have been open on this forum about the mental struggle involved in leaving the "org". They make it seem your walking away from Christ Himself, when in reality, your only wanting to walk more closely with Him, and search the riches of his grace and mercy.

No, I'm not, I'm okay tking the oneness movement as a whole, I think there should be more fellowship between fellowships/orgs. I would like to see conferences for all oneness people, attended by all oneness organizations, with a concentrated effort to send out and support missionaries (instead of each group sending their own missionaries) and a more concerted effort to evangelize America. The questions shouldn't be "Does Boston have a UPC church?" It should be "Does Boston have an APOSTOLIC church"-regardless of fellowship, yet each fellowship is trying to win the world to themselves, not to Christ, so the movement is as splintered as a broken baseball bat. PS-until we drop the initial evidence doctrine, and the legalism that some hold, this can never be.

DKB is committed to increased fellowship among OP org/membership. I do agree to your PS

Those things said, many UPCers equate revival with what happens in the UPC, that was the context of my statement.

But I really don't think DKB feels that way - and the thread was started questioning his intent to purge

I agree, I considered myself Apsotolic while I was in the independent church, but now, I just consider myself a Christian. Other call me a compromiser, heretic, etc. So i guess I'll just be called whatever, so long as Jesus calls me faithful. :)

Personally, I would like to see increased fellowship, respect and love among all Christian denominations and membership.

[Hoovie]

And by the way, Steven, since we're talking about offenses, I wasn't crazy about having my post called, "Slime." That seems a bit beneath you.

Possibly it just hit me wrong.

Nevertheless, prejudging a not yet revealed, serious and prayerful process by people I love with "glee", saying you have no care in hell, is just very crummy to me.

[Norman]

The UPC believes they are truly "the" church, at lest most of them do.

I don't doubt that there are some that think that way, but not any that I know.
The UPC does have a very good foreign missions program.

[coadie]

Personally, I would like to see increased fellowship, respect and love among all Christian denominations and membership.

The underground movements. I can name a lot of home bible studies with one ness teachers of senior pastors of very large trinitarian churches. I recall a Nazarene pastor getting baptized in jesus name on a sunday afternoon. His job security eroded after he spoke in tongues and he was a free agent in a year.

[coadie]

I don't doubt that there are some that think that way, but not any that I know.
The UPC does have a very good foreign missions program.

Great Missions program.

[Mr. Smith]

Possibly it just hit me wrong.

Nevertheless, prejudging a not yet revealed, serious and prayerful process with "glee" saying you have no care in hell is just very crummy to me.


Well, having my post called, "Slime" is crummy to me. At least I apologized and tried to further explain.

Hoovie, I don't wanna play the, "You're not a minister" card because it reeks of spiritual superiority and I don't see an "Us" and "Them" mentality between the ministry and the so-called, "Laity."

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.

[Michael]

Well, having my post called, "Slime" is crummy to me. At least I apologized and tried to further explain.

Hoovie, I don't wanna play the, "You're not a minister" card because it reeks of spiritual superiority and I don't see an "Us" and "Them" mentality between the ministry and the so-called, "Laity."

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.

:ursofunny

[Sweet Pea]

I find these posts offensive personally. Constructive criticism? - bring it on, but please keep the slime to yourself.

Thank you, Hoovie! I also found them offensive.

[Sweet Pea]

And by the way, Steven, since we're talking about offenses, I wasn't crazy about having my post called, "Slime." That seems a bit beneath you.


I thought "slime" was pretty mild..... :toofunny

JMHO

[Mr. Smith]

Thank you, Hoovie! I also found them offensive.


Like I said, have your life virtually destroyed by a resolution at general conference, and then I'll give your criticism a little more credibility.

[coadie]

Can I just say, with a certain amount of glee in my voice, that as of 1993, I don't give a blue hoot in hades about any of their resolutions. It's SO nice not to have to waste a single minute of my life worrying about this.

:neener

[Sweet Pea]

Well, having my post called, "Slime" is crummy to me. At least I apologized and tried to further explain.

Hoovie, I don't wanna play the, "You're not a minister" card because it reeks of spiritual superiority and I don't see an "Us" and "Them" mentality between the ministry and the so-called, "Laity."

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.


I understand what you are saying here..... there is a lot of politics ........... but that is not limited to the UPC - I think ANY organization has that.

It just seems to me that some of you seem to think that the UPC is the "only" organization with these problems - and believe you me..... it isn't!

[Hoovie]

I understand what you are saying here..... there is a lot of politics ........... but that is not limited to the UPC - I think ANY organization has that.

It just seems to me that some of you seem to think that the UPC is the "only" organization with these problems - and believe you me..... it isn't!

True. I am a part of some professional organizations and one is having a serious spat as we speak.

The problematic component is humanity not upcitus.

[Mr. Smith]

I understand what you are saying here..... there is a lot of politics ........... but that is not limited to the UPC - I think ANY organization has that.

It just seems to me that some of you seem to think that the UPC is the "only" organization with these problems - and believe you me..... it isn't!

I didn't say they're the only one. In fact, I've stated here and I often say it to friends, that the UPC does NOT have a monopoly on legalism, politics, or in-fighting. I had a long conversation with Baron the other day in which I said, "The exclusivity outside the UPC is worse than the UPC."

I'm just telling how I feel about being rid of the burden of legalistic, organizational politics. I, personally, have felt the full force of it and it is completely devastating. I do not now, and will never again, belong to a denomination.

[Mr. Smith]

True. I am a part of some professional organizations and one is having a serious spat as we speak.

The problematic component is humanity not upcitus.



???

[*AQuietPlace*]

???
UPC-itis

[Hoovie]

Well, having my post called, "Slime" is crummy to me. At least I apologized and tried to further explain.

Hoovie, I don't wanna play the, "You're not a minister" card because it reeks of spiritual superiority and I don't see an "Us" and "Them" mentality between the ministry and the so-called, "Laity."

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.

Why do this Smith? Why blame anyone actually. You have stated you have never "spoken in tongues". Why is that not enough to excuse yourself? Perhaps you should thank the organization for helping you come to terms with your preexisting odds with the AOF?

[Jack Shephard]

I didn't say they're the only one. In fact, I've stated here and I often say it to friends, that the UPC does NOT have a monopoly on legalism, politics, or in-fighting. I had a long conversation with Baron the other day in which I said, "The exclusivity outside the UPC is worse than the UPC."

I'm just telling how I feel about being rid of the burden of legalistic, organizational politics. I, personally, have felt the full force of it and it is completely devastating. I do not now, and will never again, belong to a denomination.

I can confirm he has told me this..more than a few times I do believe.

[Mr. Smith]

Why do this Smith? Why blame anyone actually. You have stated you have never "spoken in tongues". Why is that not enough to excuse yourself? Perhaps you should thank the organization for helping you come to terms with your preexisting odds with the AOF?


Oh, I'm thrilled now. It all worked out and I couldn't be happier. I think I've made that clear.

What does my never having spoken in tongues have to do with anything? See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The "Articles of Faith"???? I was in FULL COMPLIANCE with them. Go read them and see where there was to be no contention of the faith between those of a PCI leaning (salvation by grace, not the three steps) and those who saw it otherwise. Nowhere in the Article of Faith, or the ministerial applications or interviews was it ever demanded that I "Practice, preach and teach" certain extra-rules. Yet, I was eliminated because of my viewpoints!! It didn't have to be!! Yes, I'm thrilled to be where I am, but there was never a need to be tossed to the curb because I couldn't sign an oath that was in ADDITION to the Article of Faith.

[Hoovie]

Oh, I'm thrilled now. It all worked out and I couldn't be happier. I think I've made that clear.

What does my never having spoken in tongues have to do with anything? See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The "Articles of Faith"???? I was in FULL COMPLIANCE with them. Go read them and see where there was to be no contention of the faith between those of a PCI leaning (salvation by grace, not the three steps) and those who saw it otherwise. Nowhere in the Article of Faith, or the ministerial applications or interviews was it ever demanded that I "Practice, preach and teach" certain extra-rules. Yet, I was eliminated because of my viewpoints!! It didn't have to be!! Yes, I'm thrilled to be where I am, but there was never a need to be tossed to the curb because I couldn't sign an oath that was in ADDITION to the Article of Faith.

Quite honestly, I think it depends on how you read and interpret it (the affirmation statement). The same can be said about "three persons" - it depends a great deal whether the early church meaning in poured into the word/s.

Nevertheless, you are thrilled and could not be happier. Time to thank the UPCI and practice a bit of posthumous shockamoo!! :shockamoo:shockamoo

[Sweet Pea]

Can I just say, with a certain amount of glee in my voice, that as of 1993, I don't give a blue hoot in hades about any of their resolutions. It's SO nice not to have to waste a single minute of my life worrying about this.

Well, having my post called, "Slime" is crummy to me. At least I apologized and tried to further explain.

Hoovie, I don't wanna play the, "You're not a minister" card because it reeks of spiritual superiority and I don't see an "Us" and "Them" mentality between the ministry and the so-called, "Laity."

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.


Why do this Smith? Why blame anyone actually. You have stated you have never "spoken in tongues". Why is that not enough to excuse yourself? Perhaps you should thank the organization for helping you come to terms with your preexisting odds with the AOF?

I find the above very interesting:

1) I have to conclude from the first and second quotes that you must be referring to the 1992 A.S. resolution.
2) You've never spoken in tongues ?
3) Speaking in tongues (whether you have/had PCI or PAJC leanings) seems to be one of the basic tenets of the UPC. How could one of the UPC resolutions have had THAT must impact on your life, if you had never even adhered to this part of their doctrine?

I'm just curious. Not being confrontational at all. (Have you and I had PM conversations before ?)

[Mr. Smith]

Quite honestly, I think it depends on how you read and interpret it (the affirmation statement). The same can be said about "three persons" - it depends a great deal whether the early church meaning in poured into the word/s.

Nevertheless, you are thrilled and could not be happier. Time to thank the UPCI and practice a bit of posthumous shockamoo!! :shockamoo:shockamoo


No, no, no, Hoovie, it's not open to interpretation. That provision was included specifically for the two groups to merger in 1945. The PCI predominantly taught salvation by grace and the PAJC taught 3 steps. That line was written pointedly to the two different sides so that they could co-exist in peace and there would be no contention of the faith over the issue.

No interpretation on this one.

[Hoovie]

No, no, no, Hoovie, it's not open to interpretation. That provision was included specifically for the two groups to merger in 1945. The PCI predominantly taught salvation by grace and the PAJC taught 3 steps. That line was written pointedly to the two different sides so that they could co-exist in peace and there would be no contention of the faith over the issue.

No interpretation on this one.

Not saying the AS isn't problematic or desirable - it's not. Still yet, it was something that was added to the existing line of "no contention" - it was not removed. Therefore one would need to take the AOF and the AS in it's entirety and wrestle with the meaning.

[Mr. Smith]

I find the above very interesting:

[B]1) I have to conclude from the first and second quotes that you must be referring to the 1992 A.S. resolution.
2) You've never spoken in tongues ?
3) Speaking in tongues (whether you have/had PCI or PAJC leanings) seems to be one of the basic tenets of the UPC. How could one of the UPC resolutions have had THAT must impact on your life, if you had never even adhered to this part of their doctrine?




1) Yes, of course.

2) No, not as "The Spirit gave the utterance." I gave it my best shot, learned how, but finally had to admit it was something I'd never truly experienced.

3) Sure it seems to be one of the tenets of the UPC because those that insist on tongues have, over the years, squashed those who don't. I'd say the "Tongues-to-Cross" ratio in preaching content in the UPC was, at least, 20-1. To be fair, my departure wasn't over the tongues issue, but Hoovie brought up something I'd said. But, to be fair again, if I'd openly said in those days that I had never spoken in tongues, I could have never had a license which would have been in violation of the AOF provision written in 1945.

[Mr. Smith]

Not saying the AS isn't problematic or desirable - it's not. Still yet, it was something that was added to the existing line of "no contention" - it was not removed. Therefore one would need to take the AOF and the AS in it's entirety and wrestle with the meaning.

But my departure wasn't over tongues. I would not sign an oath that made me swear to "Practice, preach, and teach" certain rules, something that was never demanded in the AOF.

[Hoovie]

I think we can all pretty much agree that "speaking in tongues" in a basic tenet of the general Pentecostal/Charismatic movement that comprises one of the largest groupings in Christianity.

[Hoovie]

But my departure wasn't over tongues. I would not sign an oath that made me swear to "Practice, preach, and teach" certain rules, something that was never demanded in the AOF.

I would need to see it again....

nevertheless, I also have no serious qualms with the many who use "line item veto" :) as long as the final agreement is accepted by the powers that be.

[Mr. Smith]

I think we can all pretty much agree that "speaking in tongues" in a basic tenet of the general Pentecostal/Charismatic movement that comprises one of the largest groupings in Christianity.


I wouldn't. At all. In the pentecostal/charismatic genre of religion, there are many groups who practice complete inclusion for those who haven't spoken in tongues. All make it available and believe in it, but many include completely those who believe, as I Corinthians 12 states, that not all speak in tongues.

[Hoovie]

I wouldn't. At all. In the pentecostal/charismatic genre of religion, there are many groups who practice complete inclusion for those who haven't spoken in tongues. All make it available and believe in it, but many include completely those who believe, as I Corinthians 12 states, that not all speak in tongues.

Right, individual experience might vary, still yet a basic tenant of the movement.

[Mr. Smith]

I would need to see it again....

nevertheless, I also have no serious qualms with the many who use "line item veto" :) as long as the final agreement is accepted by the powers that be.


Oh boy, I do. Big time. There was NEVER a "Line-item" provision provided but many made it up so that could sign the paper with a lie and thereby, save their ministerial rears.

No way. To sign the "OATH" while have no intention of obeying a SWORN OATH is an absolute LIE.

[Mr. Smith]

Right, individual experience might vary, still yet a basic tenant of the movement.


A tenant as in "It's there for you if you want". But really, the word, "Tenant" means, in the context you're using, "Law" so in that context, tongues is not a tenant of most pentecostal groups.

[Hoovie]

Oh boy, I do. Big time. There was NEVER a "Line-item" provision provided but many made it up so that could sign the paper with a lie and thereby, save their ministerial rears.

No way. To sign the "OATH" while have no intention of obeying a SWORN OATH is an absolute LIE.

I think attorneys have actually stated that crossing out is legitimate if it's properly done and accepted by the issuing party.

[Hoovie]

A tenant as in "It's there for you if you want". But really, the word, "Tenant" means, in the context you're using, "Law" so in that context, tongues is not a tenant of most pentecostal groups.

We are really beating this one to death. Point is, you could not even affirm to "It's there for you if you want". Correct?

Perhaps that should have been reason enough for you to part ways - before the bad guys nabbed you.

[Mr. Smith]

I think attorneys have actually stated that crossing out is legitimate if it's properly done and accepted by the issuing party.

Only if the written contract is changed. The oath wasn't changed.

Yes, accepted by the issuing party IF they get wind they're about to lose half of the denominational population. Yes, accepted by private phone calls telling friends to go ahead and sign it anyway. Yes, accepted by allowing a letter of disagreement with the oath to accompany the signed oath.

But many of us did the honest thing and didn't sign.

[Mr. Smith]

We are really beating this one to death. Point is, you could not even affirm to "It's there for you if you want". Correct?

Perhaps that should have been reason enough for you to part ways - before the bad guys nabbed you.

Incorrect. Of course I would affirm that.

[Hoovie]

Incorrect. Of course I would affirm that.

I then stand corrected. You are even more Pentecostal than I thought! :bliss:bliss:bliss

[Mr. Smith]

I then stand corrected. You are even more Pentecostal than I thought! :bliss:bliss:bliss


:shockamoo

Is it ok if I don't necessarily encourage it?:lol

If people want/need to speak in tongues, I would never stop them. But I will always insist that they fall in compliance with the absoluteness of the I Corinthians 14 guidelines, and I'm not sure that I've ever been around a pentecostal church that fully complies.....but that's another discussion!:)

G'nite, Hoovie. Love you. And I've never thought any of your posts were slimy.

[Sarah]

Oh, I'm thrilled now. It all worked out and I couldn't be happier. I think I've made that clear.

What does my never having spoken in tongues have to do with anything? See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The "Articles of Faith"???? I was in FULL COMPLIANCE with them. Go read them and see where there was to be no contention of the faith between those of a PCI leaning (salvation by grace, not the three steps) and those who saw it otherwise. Nowhere in the Article of Faith, or the ministerial applications or interviews was it ever demanded that I "Practice, preach and teach" certain extra-rules. Yet, I was eliminated because of my viewpoints!! It didn't have to be!! Yes, I'm thrilled to be where I am, but there was never a need to be tossed to the curb because I couldn't sign an oath that was in ADDITION to the Article of Faith.

Mr Smith....just a quick question. Did your DS and Presbyter know that you did not have the Holy Ghost by speaking in tongues when you applied for your original license? Just wondering.

[Timmy]

You know how they say God always answers prayers, and sometimes the answer is "No"? I guess this one is a good example of that:

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

:popcorn2

[Mr. Smith]

Mr Smith....just a quick question. Did your DS and Presbyter know that you did not have the Holy Ghost by speaking in tongues when you applied for your original license? Just wondering.


Heck, *I* didn't know. I was doing my best to believe it myself and still working hard to manufacture "tongues." If you wanna take shots at me for that, go ahead, I deserve it. I'm not proud of it myself. But when the pressure is on and it's expected/demanded, one tends to convince oneself of anything necessary.

It was only later, during an extreme self-spiritual-introspection and coming to terms with grace, truth, and integrity, that I was able to admit, in a very humbling moment before God, that I had never really had the experience as it had been presented to me all my life.

One correction, though, in the bolded....I absolutely had then, and still do have the Holy Spirit.

[ILG]

I find these posts offensive personally. Constructive criticism? - bring it on, but please keep the slime to yourself.

Do ever post anything that could be considered slime by anyone on this forum? Sorry if you were offended, but I'm a little offended by your being so easily offended. In respect to you though, I will try to remember this in the future.

[ILG]

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.

I understand it, personally. Yeah, glee is a pretty good word when you have been through all that. I'm pretty gleeful myself.

However, I like Hoove and hold him with respect above a great many on this forum. I always read his posts and when he said he was offended, I was bummed out. I don't like to offend my friend, Hoove. On the flipside, Hoove doesn't get some things.

[Mr. Smith]

I understand it, personally. Yeah, glee is a pretty good word when you have been through all that. I'm pretty gleeful myself.

However, I like Hoove and hold him with respect above a great many on this forum. I always read his posts and when he said he was offended, I was bummed out. I don't like to offend my friend, Hoove. On the flipside, Hoove doesn't get some things.


Make sure and read everything and hopefully you'll understand. If not, I'll try to explain further.

[Falla39]

One thing about it, the LORD knows those that are His. Says so in 2Tim.2:19, in part!

[Hoovie]

Do ever post anything that could be considered slime by anyone on this forum? Sorry if you were offended, but I'm a little offended by your being so easily offended. In respect to you though, I will try to remember this in the future.

I am sure I have do and will.

Awe shucks - that was an overstatement I am NOT easily offended actually.

[Mr. Smith]

I find these posts offensive personally. Constructive criticism? - bring it on, but please keep the slime to yourself.


So what does this verse mean?

"Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them." Psalm 119:165

[Hoovie]

OK Smithy and ILG. I am sorry, let me try this again without unnecessary provocation.

ILG, it seems awkward reading disparaging slang about the UPC on an Apostolic Forum. Why do you feel free to speak of such a large group of Christians as puke? I do not doubt you may have had a very unpleasant experience. Yet you should know many or most see their UPC connection as a wonderful thing. You know I myself do not agree with all and am very outspoken at times. Yet, when I read "UPChuck" I think of my pastors who are humble men of God and some of the finest Christians on earth. I find the comment less than funny and can only imagine how those more devoted to the UPC denomination must feel when they read your post.

Smith, Though I resisted last night, I am sorry for the "slime" comment. I am also sorry that you care so little, especially knowing you also had a bad experience. It seems you of all people would indeed give a care in "hades". How is it that you are only gleeful? Do you not wish them well? After all are we not brothers in Christ?

[Hoovie]

So what does this verse mean?

"Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them." Psalm 119:165

Right. I should have said it's objectionable and offensive language in my personal opinion. I have no hard feelings here at all. In fact, if ILG were fixing a wonderful supper tonight, I would love partake of it with you and propose a toast to you both.
:thumbsup
Boy that was self serving eh? :spit

[Mr. Smith]

Right. I should have said it's objectionable and offensive language IMO.


:lol
I'm just rubbing it in. You're not offended, are you?:) Most other translations don't use the word, "Offend" but instead say, "Nothing can make them stumble." I don't think I made you stumble, did I?:bliss

[ILG]

OK Smithy and ILG. I am sorry, let me try this again without unnecessary provocation.

ILG, it seems awkward reading disparaging slang about the UPC on an Apostolic Forum. Why do you feel free to speak of such a large group of Christians as puke? I do not doubt you may have had a very unpleasant experience. Yet you should know many or most see their UPC connection as a wonderful thing. You know I myself do not agree with all and am very outspoken at times. Yet, when I read "UPChuck" I think of my pastors who are humble men of God and some of the finest Christians on earth. I find the comment less than funny and can only imagine how those more devoted to the UPC denomination must feel when they read your post.

Smith, Though I resisted last night, I am sorry for the "slime" comment. I am also sorry that you care so little, especially knowing you also had a bad experience. It seems you of all people would indeed give a care in "hades". How is it that you are only gleeful? Do you not wish them well? After all are we not brothers in Christ?

S'alright, Hoove. Maybe I should have left it as a private joke between myself and a few others. It just seemed to fit the conversation, so I threw it in. Sorry to have offended you. I certainly wish all those well that are in the UPC. That's part of the reason I write. I want to help people see the whole picture, as distasteful as people sometimes find that. I am what I am and I am who I am. I find that I have things to share and I believe in that myself. In this, I find good in what I have been through.

Why do you feel free to speak of such a large group of Christians as puke? I don't know, but I feel no guilt whatsoever and find it uproarously funny. If you find fault with that, please pray for me.

[Hoovie]

But see ILG, you are also laughing at me, my family and others who aren't intended targets...

[ILG]

But see ILG, you are also laughing at me, my family and others who aren't intended targets...

Sorry to have offended you. I can have a difference of opinion and still be sorry to have offended.

[Michael]

Sorry to have offended you. I can have a difference of opinion and still be sorry to have offended.

Hey, just cook him and Smith dinner (and me of course) and we'll kiss and huge like bro and sis in the Lord....What say ye?


:bbq

[ILG]

Hey, just cook him and Smith dinner (and me of course) and we'll kiss and huge like bro and sis in the Lord....What say ye?


:bbq

:bbq

[Hoovie]

I'm sorry Mikie - you will have to "kiss and huge" someone else. I learned a long time ago one has to draw the line somewhere.

[Michael]

I'm sorry Mikie - you will have to "kiss and huge" someone else. I learned a long time ago one has to draw the line somewhere.

:ursofunny

[Jermyn Davidson]

I don't doubt that there are some that think that way, but not any that I know.
The UPC does have a very good foreign missions program.

Many that I know today, but more from my past, think just like this.

[Timmy]

Exactly. The UPC believes they are truly "the" church, . . .

Maybe they are. How could we tell?

[Justin]

Do we know what the resolutions are this year?

[POWERUP]

Who'd ever have thought that "holiness standards" (largely based on conviction) would become so divisive to the body? This is sad for the UPCI. :(

I thought it 10 years ago........... Thats why I bailed!!! Just Saying...

[scotty]

Sorry to have offended you. I can have a difference of opinion and still be sorry to have offended.

One can also express their difference of opinion without being offensive. Adding the offensive attitude is a choice.

[ILG]

One can also express their difference of opinion without being offensive. Adding the offensive attitude is a choice.

That's true.

[Timmy]

I hear they're going to vote on whether to allow women to wear bifurcated jammies.

[Falla39]

No, no, no, Hoovie, it's not open to interpretation. That provision was included specifically for the two groups to merger in 1945. The PCI predominantly taught salvation by grace and the PAJC taught 3 steps. That line was written pointedly to the two different sides so that they could co-exist in peace and there would be no contention of the faith over the issue.

No interpretation on this one.

A very elderly minister told me just this past year that he was of the PCI
persuasion at the time of the merger, but he said, "we didn't believe it the
way they are trying to say we believed it back then". This man has been in
positions very high in the UPC. Still highly respected in the UPC today. I plan
to talk more with this elder, the Lord willing. We were at a funeral and time
was limited. I have confidence in this man's walk with GOD.

As I have grown older, I have increasingly desired to know ALL of the TRUTH,
for the Word of God declares that the truth will set you free. Jesus told some
Jews in John 8, that believed on him, that IF they continued in his Word, then
they would be his disciples indeed. Jesus continued that they would know the
truth and the truth would make them free. It is the KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH
that makes us free.


They took issue with Jesus' words, and declared that they were never in bondage
to any man because they were Abraham's seed. Jesus told them they were of their
father, the devil. What an indictment! Jesus told them that those who sin, they are
the servants of sin. We aren't saved because we are Abraham's seed according to
the flesh, but if we are IN CHRIST, Abraham's seed, according to the promise.
Simply put, if we have received the PROMISE of the FATHER, the HOLY GHOST!!!
If we have not received the Holy Ghost, we are no different than those Jews who
believed, but not to the saving of the soul!!

Those Jews fathers were bondmen in Egypt and Moses told them in Deut 15,
(when he was rehearsing the wilderness journey) vs15,

15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt,
and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing
today.

Moses was telling them not to FORGET their REDEMPTION! Those Jews in John 8
didn't think they needed to be REDEEMED! And the Redeemer was right there
to lead them to Redemption, IF they would just continue in his Word. Were
these the same Jews that crucified Jesus! If they had known who HE was, they
would not have crucified the King of Glory! He died for them and He died
for you and I! Why not CONTINUE in His Word and FOLLOW ON to know the
LORD, THE KING OF GLORY!

How many today have believed until they are told to "continue in the Word"
then shall you be my disciples indeed! They seemed to resent that they need
to do anything but believe. Believing brings action. How many people today feel
they have never really been in bondage to sin. We've all sinned and come short
of the glory of God, but there is an antidote for sin. Calvary led to Pentecost!

Perhaps we should all examine ourselves to see IF we be in THE faith. The
faith that was once delivered unto the saints. And humble ourselves under
the MIGHTY HAND OF GOD!!!

Falla39

[Scott Hutchinson]

I vote for Mr.Smith to get a haircut he has more bad hairdays than Phil Spector.

[ILG]

I vote for Mr.Smith to get a haircut he has more bad hairdays than Phil Spector.

LOL!!:ursofunny Sometimes, you are hilarious, Scott!

[Scott Hutchinson]

I know some barbers around here ,that would love to get ahold of that hair.

[rgcraig]

I vote for Mr.Smith to get a haircut he has more bad hairdays than Phil Spector.

LOL!!!!! :ursofunny

[Scott Hutchinson]

After yesterday I have to think something funny.

[Sam]

I know some barbers around here ,that would love to get ahold of that hair.

I just wish I had hair

[Justin]

Do we know what the resolutions are this year?

bump.

[Sam]

Do we know what the resolutions are this year?

It would be neat if they would add one like this that is in the ALJC manual

SECTION 4. RULES AND OBLIGATIONS
1. Our ministers may conduct meetings in any city and for any
church, regardless of its organizational ties, in the Oneness movement,
as long as the conduct of both the church and its pastor is in
harmony with godly living and Christian ethics.

or, better yet, a shorter version like this:

1. Our ministers may conduct meetings in any city and for any
church, regardless of its organizational ties.

[missourimary]

A very elderly minister told me just this past year that he was of the PCI
persuasion at the time of the merger, but he said, "we didn't believe it the
way they are trying to say we believed it back then". This man has been in
positions very high in the UPC. Still highly respected in the UPC today. I plan
to talk more with this elder, the Lord willing. We were at a funeral and time
was limited. I have confidence in this man's walk with GOD.


So... do you think he meant "they" as in those who state that grace is "greasy" and love waters down the message, "they" as in those who say that PCI believed baptism wasn't necessary to salvation, or "they" as in those who say there were some who were one-steppers instead of three-steppers and who weren't as hard on standards issues... or something else entirely? Are "they" outsiders or insiders? The statement is rather ambiguous by itself, so I'm curious.

[Falla39]

So... do you think he meant "they" as in those who state that grace is "greasy" and love waters down the message, "they" as in those who say that PCI believed baptism wasn't necessary to salvation, or "they" as in those who say there were some who were one-steppers instead of three-steppers and who weren't as hard on standards issues... or something else entirely? Are "they" outsiders or insiders? The statement is rather ambiguous by itself, so I'm curious.


As I stated in my original post, " I plan to talk more with this elder, the Lord willing. We were at a funeral and time was limited. I have confidence in this man's walk with GOD.

[missourimary]

I read that part, just thought you might know more about who "they" was or what "they" say PCI believed. Thanks anyway.

[canam]

I know some barbers around here ,that would love to get ahold of that hair.

Mr smith is actually bald !

[Mr. Smith]

I vote for Mr.Smith to get a haircut he has more bad hairdays than Phil Spector.


This is a good hair day, what are you talking about??? My feelings are hurt. :sad

[Scott Hutchinson]

Well at least Mr.Smith has some magic hair.

[canam]

Well at least Mr.Smith has some magic hair.:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

[areyourucky]

Bro David Benard has his work cut out for him. Its like letting kids do what ever they want for years, then when things have been let go for years, tell them, we now have rules. And wonder why the kid runs away from home after hearing the rules layed down.
.

[Praxeas]

Bro David Benard has his work cut out for him. Its like letting kids do what ever they want for years, then when things have been let go for years, tell them, we now have rules. And wonder why the kid runs away from home after hearing the rules layed down.
.
Eh...weren't we doing this before and then someone forced a Affirmation Statement down the throats of the UPC?

We need rules that make sense and rules that promote outreach, not rules that promote "us 4 and no more, circle the wagons" mentality

[Praxeas]

I received the resolutions for the UPCI conference a few weeks ago, and just heard in the last few days that there is going to be another resolution coming from the general board at conference time. David Bernard has called a few of his men together and come up with a resolution that will give the district boards power to deal with churches that are not abiding by the UPCI manual, and not preaching and teaching the manual. Has any one on here heard this?
I dunno but they need a resolution that prevents them from pushing forward other resolutions that ministers have not all already received notice of...in otherwords these last minute, "I see that most of the liberal pastors won't be here" resolutions should be outlawed