James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Debacle

[Chateau d'If]

Over the years I've often heard it said that Brother Kilgore expressed sorrow over his "misrepresentation of facts" during the 92 General Conference business session.

However, after reading Fudge's book, I find no record that he ever formally apologized for his deceit.

Am I looking in the wrong places? Did he publicly apologize?

[Dedicated Mind]

can anyone explain what actually happened? I love brother Kilgore.

[pelathais]

Yes. At the 1993 General Conference he apologized in a closed minister's meeting - that was the venue where he had spoken in 1992. He also has said many times things like, "I'm sorry I said anything at all..." and "I'm sorry for the way I said that..."

I was present at both 1992 and 1993 meetings. My recollections of 1992 are the most vivid. By 1993 I just wanted to crawl under my chair.

Brother Kilgore is a great man and it is a shame that his most lasting "contribution" to the UPCI may end up being that one afternoon in 1992. The Conference was headed to voting the whole thing down until he spoke, such is the enormous power and influence his word wielded over us. I was going to vote against the measure and so was my pastor sitting next to me. Instead, immediately after Bro. Kilgore spoke and vote was finally called for by the chair (Bro. Urshan). Both myself and my pastor rose to stand in favor of the resolution.

I have regretted that ever since; probably as much as Brother Kilgore has come to regret his own part.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Can someone remind me what the 92 resolution said exactly?

[Dedicated Mind]

pel, what did bro. kilgore say that was misleading?

[pelathais]

can anyone explain what actually happened? I love brother Kilgore.

This has been discussed on AFF quite a bit over the years. Here's how the whole meeting came down from my perspective:

I found my seat alongside my pastor. I was a full time minister and held a district/national committee position as well, so I had full voting privileges. Just before the business meeting, a large group of about 100 or so men came into the meeting led by Dan Rigdon. The men were all shouting "Question!" - In a Parliamentary proceeding, when the floor wants a vote on a matter they call for the "Question" to be put before them immediately.

These guys wanted an immediate vote on Resolution 2 without anyone having the chance to "politic" for its passage. Brother Urshan called the meeting to order and a few things that had carried over were discussed before getting to Resolution 2. Throughout the proceedings the cry of "Question!" was heard almost continuously from the floor.

Brother L. Westberg spoke briefly in support of the resolution (he had written the resolution itself). Brother Paul Price (who had contributed the "Where as" statements) spoke about how "we" needed to be "protected" from those who don't believe the Fundamental Doctrine and would sue us in court (a direct reference to his own troubled relationship with Richard Gazowsky). About 3 or 4 guys were allowed to put their own questions to those on the rostrum.

I remember 2 of the guys who spoke from the floor were from the Atlantic District. For those who are unaware, the Atlantic District (Eastern Canada) was merged with the UPC without any of the ministers there ever having to agree to the Fundamental Doctrine and the Articles of Faith. That was the primary condition of their agreement to join. So, these ministers had NEVER even agreed to any of the stuff that Resolution 2 was now about to bind them.

Someone had then asked Bro. Urshan straight out - "Just what was the vote on this matter in the General Board?" (Words to that effect). It had already been stated that the GB had voted on the issue though Bro. Urshan said that they had never voted on this resolution. This discrepancy came down to the fact that the GB's vote was done under the proviso that it was not "binding" and that it was not be seen as either an endorsement nor a condemnation of the resolution. For whatever reasons, Bro. Urshan had decided that this did not represent an actual vote.

Once Bro. Urshan's political parsing was untangled, the question was asked again. In response, Brother Urshan sort of stepped back from the pulpit and gestured to the officials seated behind him on the platform. After the briefest of pauses, Brother Kilgore stood up and gave his speech. He answered the question concerning the GB vote by saying, "99% of the General Board supported this resolution."

An audible gasp could be heard from the direction of where the General Board members were seated - though it did appear that there were only a few guys who were obviously taken aback. The rest sat poker faced looking out at the rafters in the arena. Brother Kilgore later said that he was "evangelistically speaking." This was always a playful catch-phrase used to describe how numbers of converts were boosted by evangelists to create a greater sense of success.

This is how business was generally done under the leadership in place when I was a minister of the UPC. Vague prevarications coupled with threats that we were all "going to be sued" by unnamed provocateurs were the basis for much of the direction being given to us by the rostrum.

That the Evangel (Greek = εὐαγγέλιον The Gospel of Jesus Christ) is so commonly and so easily coupled with a professed lie or two really goes to the heart of many of our problems.

[commonsense]

Interesting thread title. My father would have agreed with the debacle part of the resolution. He died in 1995 and had been upset with how it was affecting churches and districts.
With our present day knowldege of it I'm sure he would be even more saddened at its results.

[Chateau d'If]

In Fudge's book, he states a different opinion.

He says that Kilgore did not regret that the Affirmation Statement was passed, only that he spoke in favor of it. He regretted that he did not research the resolution, and its author, before speaking for it.

[Chateau d'If]

In an ironic twist of fate, JK's own son's ideology aligns with the group of men that he and Westberg desperately worked to remove.

[pelathais]

Can someone remind me what the 92 resolution said exactly?

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/afirm1.jpg

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/afirm2.jpg

From pages 202 and 203 of Christianity Without the Cross, Thomas Fudge.

[crakjak]

In an ironic twist of fate, JK's own son's ideology aligns with the group of men that he and Westberg desperately worked to remove.

And apparently Papa Kilgore embraces his son's direction.

[Scott Hutchinson]

This might help.
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/affirmation.html

[pelathais]

In Fudge's book, he states a different opinion.

He says that Kilgore did not regret that the Affirmation Statement was passed, only that he spoke in favor of it. He regretted that he did not research the resolution, and its author, before speaking for it.

I understand that as being regret for the "whole affair."

I haven't spoken to Brother Kilgore since about 1993 or so and I never personally pressed him about this - I didn't have the nerve. He said at the time - and these are the last words I recall him saying in person, "I'll walk all the way from Houston to plead with any preacher who is going resign to reconsider..." He said the same thing from the pulpit at GC.

I've still got a place for him in my home whenever he gets here.

[CC1]

In an ironic twist of fate, JK's own son's ideology aligns with the group of men that he and Westberg desperately worked to remove.

You beat me to it with this post! I was thinking the same thing. Of couse I always wonder how much is true about how liberal the son is. Sometimes I heard some guy is a lib and then you hear them railing against makeup and jewelry, etc just like any other "good" UPC preacher.

[ReformedDave]

My father died the next year. I've often wondered how it's affects would set with him....

[pelathais]

pel, what did bro. kilgore say that was misleading?

"99% of the General Board supports this Resolution..."

The actual numbers came down to something between 60 - 66% or so. He could have said, "The GB overwhelmingly supports this resolution..." and been quite correct, but Bro. Urshan was being pressed for a number.

It was the fact that he spoke at all that carried so much weight, however, my feelings and recollections are that for anyone to give anything less than a figure that represented "wholehearted approval" by the GB would have doomed the resolution.

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.rickross.com/reference/upci/upci23.html

[pelathais]

In Fudge's book, he states a different opinion.

He says that Kilgore did not regret that the Affirmation Statement was passed, only that he spoke in favor of it. He regretted that he did not research the resolution, and its author, before speaking for it.

The idea that Bro. Kilgore was somehow "unfamiliar" with both Leonard Westberg and Paul Price seems silly. Brother Westberg's venom was infamous and legendary.

Perhaps Bro. Kilgore is referring here to just how Westberg's statment about "the Movement needing a bowel movement..." was intended. I don't know.

[Chateau d'If]

The affirmation is now "signed" every other year by clicking one button on a computer screen. Also, I know of virtually no ministers who agree with everything in the fundamental doctrine and holiness sections of the manual. There are thousands of nonconformists clicking that little button without really considering the consequences.

A few years ago I spoke to my presbyter as well as my District Superintendent and told them I could no longer sign it in good conscience. They both said to sign it anyway because it's understood that no one agrees with everything in the manual.

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/history/fudgewhy.html

[pelathais]

My father died the next year. I've often wondered how it's affects would set with him....

Both men's churches are taking something of a different approach to things today - something of a departure from the "mainstream UPC way of doing things."

Life goes on. Change is good.

[Chateau d'If]

The idea that Bro. Kilgore was somehow "unfamiliar" with both Leonard Westberg and Paul Price seems silly. Brother Westberg's venom was infamous and legendary.

Perhaps Bro. Kilgore is referring here to just Westberg's statment about "the Movement needing a bowel movement..." was intended. I don't know.

From page 255 of the book...

"It's wise on a resolution of that magnitude to find out who the author of the resolution is and what his real purpose was in forming that resolution. That I did not know." James Kilgore

[ReformedDave]

Life goes on. Change is good.

But VERY painful......

[pelathais]

From page 255 of the book...

"It's wise on a resolution of that magnitude to find out who the author of the resolution is and what his real purpose was in forming that resolution. That I did not know." James Kilgore

I've read that and quite honestly, I have trouble processing it. Brother Kilgore knew who the author(s) of the Resolution were. Both men stood right there in front of him and declared it to be so right on the platform and in front of everyone else as well BEFORE Bro. Kilgore spoke. Moreover, both men had circulated letters to the constituency in the year running up to the GC vote.

Both men were also members of the General Board. This thing was hashed and rehashed for the better part of two years in GB meetings and JK was the Assistant General Superintendent and present in all of those meetings.

It took no "research" to know LW wrote the resolution and PP had written the "Whereas" preamble. It was no secret and both men were vigorously politicking to get the thing passed.

[Sam]

I've read that and quite honestly, I have trouble processing it. Brother Kilgore knew who the author(s) of the Resolution were. Both men stood right there in front of him and declared it to be so right on the platform and in front of everyone else as well. Moreover, both men had circulated letters to the constituency in the year running up to the GC vote.

Both men were also members of the General Board. This thing was hashed and rehashed for the better part of two years in GB meetings and JK was the Assistant General Superintendent and present in all of those meetings.

It took no "research" to know LW wrote the resolution and PP had written the "Whereas" preamble. It was no secret and both men were vigorously politicking to get the thing passed.

So Brother Kilgore was also "less than honest" in his interview with the author of CWTC?

[pelathais]

But VERY painful......

Yes. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Sometimes. But it can be refreshing, too. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ReformedDave]

Yes. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Sometimes. But it can be refreshing, too. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There have been a million times when I've wished I could have stayed....but I just couldn't.

[pelathais]

So Brother Kilgore was also "less than honest" in his interview with the author of CWTC?

I have no idea, but I sincerely doubt he was being "dishonest" to Fudge. We don't know the contents of the complete conversation. Tom Fudge was a preeminent gentleman in his presentation - despite the way the book was received by much of the UPC. It was anything BUT a "hit piece."

Fudge went to pains to portray the "other side" (Westberg, et. al.) as "gentlemen" and "men of conviction." Fudge's interest was to give voice to a sequestered and silenced minority in way that would be acceptable to the men who had silenced them. In part, I imagine, he wanted the "revisionists" to read his book and feel some pity toward those who they had ostracized.

I suspect... and this is just me, I have no "evidence" or anything like that to prove it... this is just the impression I got from reading the book... I suspect that Fudge's quotes of Kilgore were selected in a manner that Fudge thought might prove to be a "balm of healing" to the fractured group he was interviewing.

[Hoovie]

Pel, thanks for the details.

Now that a rather large segment of those opposed to the resolution have left, there still appears to be a lot of hesitation and lack of support of the affirmation statement. Most of the ministers I know feel like Chateau's superiors (no one believes it all" so just sign it. Or, they sign it and voice particular objections.)

What chance would there be in reversing this now, after 20 yrs?

[pelathais]

There have been a million times when I've wished I could have stayed....but I just couldn't.

Me too. I miss a lot of things and mostly, a lot of people.

But, I wouldn't trade anything for the truth of the Gospel and the sovereignty of Almighty God.

[ReformedDave]

Me too. I miss a lot of things and mostly, a lot of people.

But, I wouldn't trade anything for the truth of the Gospel and the sovereignty of Almighty God.

:thumbsup

[Apprehended]

I too was in that meeting in '92.

It was the first business meeting that I attended since E.E. McNatt of Memphis made a big stink in a business meeting in Little Rock in 1957. It was so ugly that I had purposed to never attend another UPCI business meeting. I guess I forgot since I found myself in that side meeting room that afternoon.

I was shocked and appalled. I wrote an article about it entitled, "The Broken Reed of Egypt and the Rod of God." I have often spoken with Elder Kilgore about the events of that day. He has deep regrets regarding his part.

[pelathais]

Pel, thanks for the details.

Now that a rather large segment of those opposed to the resolution have left, there still appears to be a lot of hesitation and lack of support of the affirmation statement. Most of the ministers I know feel like Chateau's superiors (no one believes it all" so just sign it. Or, they sign it and voice particular objections.)

What chance would there be in reversing this now, after 20 yrs?

Dunno. Slim to none right now... just my take. Maybe others have an opinion or a better view from where they're at.

[*AQuietPlace*]

But VERY painful......
:thumbsup

[DoubtingThomas]

You have to wonder if JK had 1992 in his mind when he wrote this open letter to PP during the Divine Flesh controversy - saying he was sowing discord among the brethren and violating ministerial ethics regarding unity?

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/position/kilgore.pdf

With the Westberg resolution as a backdrop, this letter seems to show Kilgore being fed up with the PP's of the world?

[DoubtingThomas]

Would we be shocked if it was revealed that JK Jr. voted against the Westberg resolution?

[pelathais]

You have to wonder if JK had 1992 in his mind when he wrote this open letter to PP during the Divine Flesh controversy - saying he was sowing discord among the brethren and violating ministerial ethics regarding unity?

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/position/kilgore.pdf

With the Westberg resolution as a backdrop, this letter seems to show Kilgore being fed up with the PP's of the world?

Dunno. He certainly has every right to be, though one would also hope that the "PP's of the world" might have received a little instruction from this letter dated 2003, and that no one is necessarily "fed up" with anyone else today.

... oh, but just look at how they gnash and tear at JK Jr. Jesus Christ needs to be the focus of what we do. Jesus Christ and His work on the cross must be at the center of our theology or we will never overcome the hurdles that have limited our growth and development.

[POWERUP]

The affirmation is now "signed" every other year by clicking one button on a computer screen. Also, I know of virtually no ministers who agree with everything in the fundamental doctrine and holiness sections of the manual. There are thousands of nonconformists clicking that little button without really considering the consequences.

A few years ago I spoke to my presbyter as well as my District Superintendent and told them I could no longer sign it in good conscience. They both said to sign it anyway because it's understood that no one agrees with everything in the manual.

The very reason Im not part of the UPC anymore!!! Lot of good folks still
in it............ Also a lot of Pansies in it also.......... I would like to say
something else.......... But I'll refrain.........:foottap

[POWERUP]

Pel, thanks for the details.

Now that a rather large segment of those opposed to the resolution have left, there still appears to be a lot of hesitation and lack of support of the affirmation statement. Most of the ministers I know feel like Chateau's superiors (no one believes it all" so just sign it. Or, they sign it and voice particular objections.)

What chance would there be in reversing this now, after 20 yrs?

Not a snowballs chance!!! Especially here in Ms............ But who am I...

Maybe a few of those who don't believe it..... They just sign it...... Man
some folks just don't have the guts!!!!

[onefaith2]

Me too. I miss a lot of things and mostly, a lot of people.

But, I wouldn't trade anything for the truth of the Gospel and the sovereignty of Almighty God.

Gentlemen I understand your point of view but must humbly proclaim that I understand the Soveriegnty of ALmighty God quite well within the org and also the truth of the gospel. I haven't always been this way, perhaps you were so this is coming from a different perspective of one who had almost decided to leave, but was led to stay.

[onefaith2]

Not a snowballs chance!!! Especially here in Ms............ But who am I...

Maybe a few of those who don't believe it..... They just sign it...... Man
some folks just don't have the guts!!!!

My pastor was for the affirmation. He quite frequently railed against those who had a TV in their home and signed the paper every year. True they are there but the wording of the manual is not binding as definite either way in some areas (like we disapprove of our people having TVs in their homes)

The WPF is quite frank I understand, no DVDs whatsoever.

The UPCI statement is not so frank and therefore people still sign it.

[CC1]

The affirmation is now "signed" every other year by clicking one button on a computer screen. Also, I know of virtually no ministers who agree with everything in the fundamental doctrine and holiness sections of the manual. There are thousands of nonconformists clicking that little button without really considering the consequences.

A few years ago I spoke to my presbyter as well as my District Superintendent and told them I could no longer sign it in good conscience. They both said to sign it anyway because it's understood that no one agrees with everything in the manual.

For me this is the saddest result of the affirmation statement. It has made liars out of men. The "wink,wink,nod,nod" practice started almost immediately after the affirmation passed and the org. realized what a nightmare it was.

By actively urging preachers to lie by signing something they were not going to uphold this was a terrible chip in the wall of ethics. You keep chipping and eventually there will be no wall.

[POWERUP]

My pastor was for the affirmation. He quite frequently railed against those who had a TV in their home and signed the paper every year. True they are there but the wording of the manual is not binding as definite either way in some areas (like we disapprove of our people having TVs in their homes)

The WPF is quite frank I understand, no DVDs whatsoever.

The UPCI statement is not so frank and therefore people still sign it.

of2,I know what you mean.............It just frustrates me sometimes when
people talk out of both sides of thier mouth!!!!:foottap

Especially ministers............. I've never tried to convince anyone to change
thier view on anything.........

I have sit at dinner tables, meeting tables, etc.... and heard prominient preachers and leaders laugh and joke
about standards and some doctrine......... saying its no big deal............ we just do it to keep the peace..

Then those same get in the pulpit and rail on standards and talk about keeping the old paths..

Makes me want to vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ReformedDave]

For me this is the saddest result of the affirmation statement. It has made liars out of men. The "wink,wink,nod,nod" practice started almost immediately after the affirmation passed and the org. realized what a nightmare it

"made liars" or just gave an opportunity?

[POWERUP]

"made liars" or just gave an opportunity?

No need to sugar coat it!!!!!!!!!!! Liars Liars............ If its not the truth,
then it's a lie!!:foottap

[deacon blues]

You beat me to it with this post! I was thinking the same thing. Of couse I always wonder how much is true about how liberal the son is. Sometimes I heard some guy is a lib and then you hear them railing against makeup and jewelry, etc just like any other "good" UPC preacher.

I can assure you, Jim Kilgore will not be heard railing on the above mentioned items. Nancy Kilgore, Jim's wife, just this week had a FB status that said, "I'm not concerned about looking different. Oi want to make a difference." I got to spend some time with them in Pontiac a few years ago. Really genuine and humble people.

[onefaith2]

of2,I know what you mean.............It just frustrates me sometimes when
people talk out of both sides of thier mouth!!!!:foottap

Especially ministers............. I've never tried to convince anyone to change
thier view on anything.........

I have sit at dinner tables, meeting tables, etc.... and heard prominient preachers and leaders laugh and joke
about standards and some doctrine......... saying its no big deal............ we just do it to keep the peace..

Then those same get in the pulpit and rail on standards and talk about keeping the old paths..

Makes me want to vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes thats sad. It happens because of pressure and I admit its wrong. Sort of like me, I leave someone's salvation to God if they don't speak in tongues, etc. People on this forum portray that an impossibility in regards to UPC views of salvation. Some just need to learn to let a conscience decide the matter for personal beliefs. If these preachers really examined what they believe and why, it would help them decide to stay or decide to leave. Thats what I had to do and while I no longer condemn people for the things I did in the past, I am staying because I can find peace with the beliefs and still uphold my conscience. These men need to also. If they stand in the pulpit and say women go to hell for cutting their hair, they need to believe that. If not, they need to stop saying things that are cookie cutter beliefs that people will say "Amen" to.

Bro. Dillon was approached by a guy who went to JCM who wholeheartedly disagreed with the uncut hair doctrine. He told Bro. Dillon that he doesn't believe it because he doesn't preach it. Bro. Dillon affirmed that he believes the doctrine and quite frequently refers to his wife as to what he believes. But he doesn't condemn and I think thats the part people have trouble with in the UPC or outside the UPC looking in. Everything has to be heaven or hell, sink or swim, white or black. Nothing seems to be able to be church teachings based on the Bible to further please the Lord in our lives. The spirit of the Pharisee isn't just in the UPC, its in every church org in existence in some form.

[POWERUP]

Yes thats sad. It happens because of pressure and I admit its wrong. Sort of like me, I leave someone's salvation to God if they don't speak in tongues, etc. People on this forum portray that an impossibility in regards to UPC views of salvation. Some just need to learn to let a conscience decide the matter for personal beliefs. If these preachers really examined what they believe and why, it would help them decide to stay or decide to leave. Thats what I had to do and while I no longer condemn people for the things I did in the past, I am staying because I can find peace with the beliefs and still uphold my conscience. These men need to also. If they stand in the pulpit and say women go to hell for cutting their hair, they need to believe that. If not, they need to stop saying things that are cookie cutter beliefs that people will say "Amen" to.

Bro. Dillon was approached by a guy who went to JCM who wholeheartedly disagreed with the uncut hair doctrine. He told Bro. Dillon that he doesn't believe it because he doesn't preach it. Bro. Dillon affirmed that he believes the doctrine and quite frequently refers to his wife as to what he believes. But he doesn't condemn and I think thats the part people have trouble with in the UPC or outside the UPC looking in. Everything has to be heaven or hell, sink or swim, white or black. Nothing seems to be able to be church teachings based on the Bible to further please the Lord in our lives. The spirit of the Pharisee isn't just in the UPC, its in every church org in existence in some form.

I wholeheartily agree with you. If you believe it, say you believe it. Stick
with it..........

I have a friend who pastors in Sebasstopool, Ms. You may know him. He is
as strict as they come. Trust me. Do I agree? Nope..... But I respect his
stand on what he preaches......

He's a young man, and a awesome minister.

I haven't spoke with him in some time, but last time I did he don't associate
with the UPC to much........

To liberal for him..LOL

[onefaith2]

I wholeheartily agree with you. If you believe it, say you believe it. Stick
with it..........

I have a friend who pastors in Sebasstopool, Ms. You may know him. He is
as strict as they come. Trust me. Do I agree? Nope..... But I respect his
stand on what he preaches......

He's a young man, and a awesome minister.

I haven't spoke with him in some time, but last time I did he don't associate
with the UPC to much........

To liberal for him..LOL

Are you talking about Mark Copeland? I think thats his name and I've preached there years ago.

[deacon blues]

The affirmation is now "signed" every other year by clicking one button on a computer screen. Also, I know of virtually no ministers who agree with everything in the fundamental doctrine and holiness sections of the manual. There are thousands of nonconformists clicking that little button without really considering the consequences.

A few years ago I spoke to my presbyter as well as my District Superintendent and told them I could no longer sign it in good conscience. They both said to sign it anyway because it's understood that no one agrees with everything in the manual.

I used to sign it with the same perspective. I always felt disengenuious about it but justified it in my mind by telling myself, "No one obeys the manual to the letter of the law." I would still feel miserable signing it and mailing it in.

Then a few years ago, we started getting grief from a local pastor and his son in law over the fact that our music minister's wife had been seen wearing jeans in public. Our MM and his wife were invited by the district to do the music at the annual holiday youth convention. This pastor or his son in law played politics and "ratted" on our MM wife for her jean wearing. The district deemed that our MM would be "too divisive" to use for the youth convention and withdrew their invitation.

This was after a summer youth camp where our guy was doing music and a controversy concerning his wife's hair being cut. An "anonymous tipster" called the youth president and told him about it. 5 minutes before service the youth president tells my guy he can't do the music.

Okay. I understand the rules. And if they were applied consistently and fairly I could agree to disagree with the rules but feel like at least they are equitable about their application. But this sint the case.

I knew for a fact that this son-in-law routinely goes to organized and professional sporting events. I know this pastor goes to professional sporting events. I know they watch TV, I know they purchase and watch DVD sets of TV shows that I won't watch because of content. They have a family night where they get together with their adult children and spouses and watch these shows, and they're giddy about it. They just LOVE their shows.

But come campmeeting time, who's choir is singing on the platform? Who's sitting on the platform receiving the offering? Who is helping to run the youth camps and is camp director? You guessed it. When my District Supt met me for lunch one day, he asked me why we weren't as involved as we used to be. I told him the stories. He admitted that the manual was applied inconsistently.

The real problem is that the guys with the big churches, or the right connections, friends, family, the guys who command a lot of money and send in large sums to support the ministries of the organization get a pass on all the ways they violate the manual. Blue collar preachers with smaller congregations, or people without the names, or the political influence are held to a higher standard.

There are preachers who are very high office holders that go to the sporting events, watch every kind of DVD movie out there, TV shows, some own televisions or watch it on the internet, they break as many rules as anyone. But they are safe because of the system they are a part of protects them from scrutiny. As long as the women's standards (holy magic hair, dresses, make up, jewels) and any other outward appearance standards are maintained (beards, shorts, etc---keeping up appearances), you can get a pass on these other things.

I signed my last AS in 2009. As I drove away from the post office I asked God to forgive me for my dishonesty. I vowed to Him I would never sign another one.

I remember Bro Kilgore standing up at a GC, it might have been in Columbus when there was a resolution to remove the AS. He made the statement that the AS made too many liars out of too many people and requested we vote to remove the AS from our fellowship. It wasn't enough to convince the constituency to remove it. Unfortunate.

[onefaith2]

I used to sign it with the same perspective. I always felt disengenuious about it but justified it in my mind by telling myself, "No one obeys the manual to the letter of the law." I would still feel miserable signing it and mailing it in.

Then a few years ago, we started getting grief from a local pastor and his son in law over the fact that our music minister's wife had been seen wearing jeans in public. Our MM and his wife were invited by the district to do the music at the annual holiday youth convention. This pastor or his son in law played politics and "ratted" on our MM wife for her jean wearing. The district deemed that our MM would be "too divisive" to use for the youth convention and withdrew their invitation.

This was after a summer youth camp where our guy was doing music and a controversy concerning his wife's hair being cut. An "anonymous tipster" called the youth president and told him about it. 5 minutes before service the youth president tells my guy he can't do the music.

Okay. I understand the rules. And if they were applied consistently and fairly I could agree to disagree with the rules but feel like at least they are equitable about their application. But this sint the case.

I knew for a fact that this son-in-law routinely goes to organized and professional sporting events. I know this pastor goes to professional sporting events. I know they watch TV, I know they purchase and watch DVD sets of TV shows that I won't watch because of content. They have a family night where they get together with their adult children and spouses and watch these shows, and they're giddy about it. They just LOVE their shows.

But come campmeeting time, who's choir is singing on the platform? Who's sitting on the platform receiving the offering? Who is helping to run the youth camps and is camp director? You guessed it. When my District Supt met me for lunch one day, he asked me why we weren't as involved as we used to be. I told him the stories. He admitted that the manual was applied inconsistently.

The real problem is that the guys with the big churches, or the right connections, friends, family, the guys who command a lot of money and send in large sums to support the ministries of the organization get a pass on all the ways they violate the manual. Blue collar preachers with smaller congregations, or people without the names, or the political influence are held to a higher standard.

There are preachers who are very high office holders that go to the sporting events, watch every kind of DVD movie out there, TV shows, some own televisions or watch it on the internet, they break as many rules as anyone. But they are safe because of the system they are a part of protects them from scrutiny. As long as the women's standards (holy magic hair, dresses, make up, jewels) and any other outward appearance standards are maintained (beards, shorts, etc---keeping up appearances), you can get a pass on these other things.

I signed my last AS in 2009. As I drove away from the post office I asked God to forgive me for my dishonesty. I vowed to Him I would never sign another one.

I remember Bro Kilgore standing up at a GC, it might have been in Columbus when there was a resolution to remove the AS. He made the statement that the AS made too many liars out of too many people and requested we vote to remove the AS from our fellowship. It wasn't enough to convince the constituency to remove it. Unfortunate.

What an interesting story. So true on many levels. I'm curious though deacon if this also compelled you to examine the acts 2:38 plan of salvation and the oneness of God? It seems that when people see descrepanies in standards, that an alarm code goes up to examine everything that was once deemed Biblically correct. I did but I was able to come to terms on the beliefs and my conscience and stay. I'm glad I did.

[Sam]

... I haven't always been this way, perhaps you were so this is coming from a different perspective of one who had almost decided to leave, but was led to stay.

Could you tell us what "led" you to stay?

[Sam]

I too was in that meeting in '92.

It was the first business meeting that I attended since E.E. McNatt of Memphis made a big stink in a business meeting in Little Rock in 1957. It was so ugly that I had purposed to never attend another UPCI business meeting. ...

what was that mess in 1957? if you can go into it without derailing this thread?

[onefaith2]

Could you tell us what "led" you to stay?

Study of reaffirming what the scriptures say and why the apostolic church teaches what they do ( I explored the spirit of the doctrine rather than the letter) and the Lord in prayer and provocation of His Spirit.

[Sam]

...By actively urging preachers to lie by signing something they were not going to uphold this was a terrible chip in the wall of ethics. You keep chipping and eventually there will be no wall.

But wasn't that what the January 18,1993 NAU letter promoted?

[Pressing-On]

Study of reaffirming what the scriptures say and why the apostolic church teaches what they do ( I explored the spirit of the doctrine rather than the letter) and the Lord in prayer and provocation of His Spirit.

Amen! :thumbsup

[deacon blues]

One Faith,

I never embraced the standards of the UPC as a matter of salvation. My pastor was a Dist Supt. Growing up I always believed we maintained them for the sake of unity and for the fact that our pastor was a leader and we needed to set an example. Being a male, most of the standards didn't impact my daily life much anyway. My parents didn't enforce them at home in a "do it or go to hell" manner. Again it was about thinking of the sensibilities of others. I was pretty straightline A238 for most of my ministry, but always had some measure of doubt over the years. I was never comfortable believing we were the only ones going to heaven. I would see scriptures that contradicted the theology but would dismiss them because I viewed everything with UPCI colored glasses. About 2001 the Lord began to really deal with me about salvation. I slowly began to shift away from "speak in tongues so you can go to heaven" to "confess your sins", "believe on the Lord Jesus", "call upon the name of the Lord", "repent". I prwach the grace of God more than ever. I preach the finished work of the cross more than ever. I preach trusting the Lord, placing faith in His salvation more than ever. It has been eye opening, liberating and peace giving.

I believe that many people in the UPC are a part of the Body of Christ. Many of them will be in heaven. I just can't be a part of that system anymore. I wouldn't be honest if I remained.

[Sam]

...I believe that many people in the UPC are a part of the Body of Christ. Many of them will be in heaven. I just can't be a part of that system anymore. I wouldn't be honest if I remained.

AMEN
:thumbsup

[onefaith2]

One Faith,

I never embraced the standards of the UPC as a matter of salvation. My pastor was a Dist Supt. Growing up I always believed we maintained them for the sake of unity and for the fact that our pastor was a leader and we needed to set an example. Being a male, most of the standards didn't impact my daily life much anyway. My parents didn't enforce them at home in a "do it or go to hell" manner. Again it was about thinking of the sensibilities of others. I was pretty straightline A238 for most of my ministry, but always had some measure of doubt over the years. I was never comfortable believing we were the only ones going to heaven. I would see scriptures that contradicted the theology but would dismiss them because I viewed everything with UPCI colored glasses. About 2001 the Lord began to really deal with me about salvation. I slowly began to shift away from "speak in tongues so you can go to heaven" to "confess your sins", "believe on the Lord Jesus", "call upon the name of the Lord", "repent". I prwach the grace of God more than ever. I preach the finished work of the cross more than ever. I preach trusting the Lord, placing faith in His salvation more than ever. It has been eye opening, liberating and peace giving.

I believe that many people in the UPC are a part of the Body of Christ. Many of them will be in heaven. I just can't be a part of that system anymore. I wouldn't be honest if I remained.

I understand what you are saying. You must know that I preach these things also and have found peace to do so while embracing Acts 2:38. The only way I did it was to search out the spirit of the doctrine that we teach (being the full standard plan of salvation) rather than the letter and the judgements thereof. Some places you couldn't fit well with what I'm describing because every service is condemning all other denominations and the letter is the only thing there. But there is a truth involved with acts 2:38 and that spirit of truth prevails in my heart, while I embrace all that you said for that is the gospel of peace. If apostolics don't place their faith in Christ for their salvation and His continual work in them, all the works they do are for nought because you then depend on yourself and not the drawing of the Lord Himself.

I appreciate your honesty but I wish many more found the road that I have because there really is a blessing here where many of the old landmarks need not to be overturned, for the sake of conscience or personal resolve.

[Apprehended]

what was that mess in 1957? if you can go into it without derailing this thread?

As I recall, a television station had proposed to bring in their t.v. cameras and televise the G.C. night services free of charge. That proposal was rejected by some, others wanted to allow it since it was free. I don't rightly recall which side of the fence that E. E. McNatt, a prominent Memphis Pastor was on, since as a kid, it didn't matter to me one way or the other. I only remember the stink that Pastor McNatt made over the issue.

I recall later discussing this big issue with Dottie Rambo during one of her concerts later that same year. She was appalled that the UPC let, what she thought was a great opportunity, be lost...especially since every night of the conference would have been televised for free.

That's really all I can recall. At the time the issue was not important to me but the ugly spirit between certain ones deeply impressed me in a negative way. Now that I settled into a conservative conviction against the world and all forms of worldliness, I am happy that the UPC took a stand against t.v. even then.

It was during that same business session that I recall Brother Stanley Chambers, (I believe it was) told of buying a television back in the late 1940s or early 50s. He said that one day while watching that thing he felt conviction against it grip his heart. Behind his house there was a downward sloping hill. He took the television to the brow of the slope and tossed it down the hill and watched it roll away out of his life once and for all. That particularly impressed me and I have never forgotten it. GOD BLESS THE MEMORY OF ELDER CHAMBERS AND HIS GODLY CONVICTIONS.

[onefaith2]

As I recall, a television station had proposed to bring in their t.v. cameras and televise the G.C. night services free of charge. That proposal was rejected by some, others wanted to allow it since it was free. I don't rightly recall which side of the fence that E. E. McNatt, a prominent Memphis Pastor was on, since as a kid, it didn't matter to me one way or the other. I only remember the stink that Pastor McNatt made over the issue.

I recall later discussing this big issue with Dottie Rambo during one of her concerts later that same year. She was appalled that the UPC let, what she thought was a great opportunity, be lost...especially since every night of the conference would have been televised for free.

That's really all I can recall. At the time the issue was not important to me but the ugly spirit between certain ones deeply impressed me in a negative way. Now that I settled into a conservative conviction against the world and all forms of worldliness, I am happy that the UPC took a stand against t.v. even then.

It was during that same business session that I recall Brother Stanley Chambers, (I believe it was) told of buying a television back in the late 1940s or early 50s. He said that one day while watching that thing he felt conviction against it grip his heart. Behind his house there was a downward sloping hill. He took the television to the brow of the slope and tossed it down the hill and watched it roll away out of his life once and for all. That particularly impressed me and I have never forgotten it. GOD BLESS THE MEMORY OF ELDER CHAMBERS AND HIS GODLY CONVICTIONS.

God Bless this man also. ANyone that listens to God. However we must all understand that not everyone receives this same conviction and governs it in different ways. While we need to applaud those who stand for abstinence to anything that can remotely cause sin, we also must encourage those who don't see it that way to regulate it by the help of the Holy Ghost.

[POWERUP]

Are you talking about Mark Copeland? I think thats his name and I've preached there years ago.

Thats him........... Has a great church..... A lot of my dads family goes there.

They just got into thier new church. Dad said it was a whopping 6 Mill....

go online and check it out.......:thumbsup

[onefaith2]

Thats him........... Has a great church..... A lot of my dads family goes there.

They just got into thier new church. Dad said it was a whopping 6 Mill....

go online and check it out.......:thumbsup

6 million? sheesh thats more than FPC in jackson. Yes that was an awesome church when I was there.

[POWERUP]

6 million? sheesh thats more than FPC in jackson. Yes that was an awesome church when I was there.



Trust me.......... You can't imangine........ You would have to see it to
believe it!!!

I don't think Woodlawn or FPC in Jackson can touch it.........

[onefaith2]

Trust me.......... You can't imangine........ You would have to see it to
believe it!!!

I don't think Woodlawn or FPC in Jackson can touch it.........

how many people go there?

Outside of preaching there, I went to one of their trophies of Hell depictations.

[POWERUP]

how many people go there?

Outside of preaching there, I went to one of their trophies of Hell depictations.

My Dad said they have around 400 last time he was there....... New church
seats between 1100 -1200........

They have a awesome music Ministry!!!!! Second to None......

Last time i was there was for my uncles funeral........ lot of my family just
stared at me........

You know............ Like we feel so sorry for him....... you gotta love it..lol

[canam]

As I recall, a television station had proposed to bring in their t.v. cameras and televise the G.C. night services free of charge. That proposal was rejected by some, others wanted to allow it since it was free. I don't rightly recall which side of the fence that E. E. McNatt, a prominent Memphis Pastor was on, since as a kid, it didn't matter to me one way or the other. I only remember the stink that Pastor McNatt made over the issue.

I recall later discussing this big issue with Dottie Rambo during one of her concerts later that same year. She was appalled that the UPC let, what she thought was a great opportunity, be lost...especially since every night of the conference would have been televised for free.

That's really all I can recall. At the time the issue was not important to me but the ugly spirit between certain ones deeply impressed me in a negative way. Now that I settled into a conservative conviction against the world and all forms of worldliness, I am happy that the UPC took a stand against t.v. even then.

It was during that same business session that I recall Brother Stanley Chambers, (I believe it was) told of buying a television back in the late 1940s or early 50s. He said that one day while watching that thing he felt conviction against it grip his heart. Behind his house there was a downward sloping hill. He took the television to the brow of the slope and tossed it down the hill and watched it roll away out of his life once and for all. That particularly impressed me and I have never forgotten it. GOD BLESS THE MEMORY OF ELDER CHAMBERS AND HIS GODLY CONVICTIONS.

Speaking of Bro Chambers get a copy of his sermon that he preached in Atlantic City(1968) after he was voted in as GS "Will the UPC repeat history" and the answer is yes ,it already did.

[ReformedDave]

Speaking of Bro Chambers get a copy of his sermon that he preached in Atlantic City(1968) after he was voted in as GS "Will the UPC repeat history" and the answer is yes ,it already did.

Prophetic.....in an unintended way.

[onefaith2]

My Dad said they have around 400 last time he was there....... New church
seats between 1100 -1200........

They have a awesome music Ministry!!!!! Second to None......

Last time i was there was for my uncles funeral........ lot of my family just
stared at me........

You know............ Like we feel so sorry for him....... you gotta love it..lol

They are being true to their beliefs. Its not their fault. Have you just dropped the standard or acts 2:38 as a whole? Just to understand their frame of reference

[aegsm76]

Here's a thought.
Would it have been better for the UPC to have taken a hard line in enforcing the AS after it was passed?
You would then have probably had two organizations, one nationally focused and conservative and one locally focused and moderate.
They both would have probably been stronger and larger than the UPC is today.
Thoughts?

[POWERUP]

They are being true to their beliefs. Its not their fault. Have you just dropped the standard or acts 2:38 as a whole? Just to understand their frame of reference

Well........... Lets see..........standards..........yes......Acts 2:38... No...

However, you know it always has to be a however. Do I believe Acts 2:38
is the only way to be saved? No! I haven't thrown the baby out with the
water, so to speak, but I still believe it like always.

Im just not going to condemm if you for not speaking in tongues.....

Thats it in a nut shell......... Appreciate your spirit Bro.:thumbsup

[onefaith2]

Well........... Lets see..........standards..........yes......Acts 2:38... No...

However, you know it always has to be a however. Do I believe Acts 2:38
is the only way to be saved? No! I haven't thrown the baby out with the
water, so to speak, but I still believe it like always.

Im just not going to condemm if you for not speaking in tongues.....

Thats it in a nut shell......... Appreciate your spirit Bro.:thumbsup

Me either, thats God's decision, not mine and I see at least one in scripture that made it. Do I believe everyone should have the Holy Ghost. An emphatic Yes!

Thanks :)

[POWERUP]

Me either, thats God's decision, not mine and I see at least one in scripture that made it. Do I believe everyone should have the Holy Ghost. An emphatic Yes!

Thanks :)

Do you remember the Watkins from Morton, Ms. ? He pastored there for
right at 35 yrs......... His son is the pastor now......

Anyway, that was my Grandfather........ He served on the district board
for yrs.

That is until he got tired of all the politics!!!!!!!!!!!!

A great man of God, and my best friend............:thumbsup

[Apprehended]

Speaking of Bro Chambers get a copy of his sermon that he preached in Atlantic City(1968) after he was voted in as GS "Will the UPC repeat history" and the answer is yes ,it already did.

Thank you. I think that I might still have a copy of it. In fact, I was there when he preached it back in the 1970s. It became his hallmark message by which he is most remembered.

[Apprehended]

Here's a thought.
Would it have been better for the UPC to have taken a hard line in enforcing the AS after it was passed?
You would then have probably had two organizations, one nationally focused and conservative and one locally focused and moderate.
They both would have probably been stronger and larger than the UPC is today.
Thoughts?

Just the opposite would have had that affect.

The UPC should have taken a more liberal position that a seclusive spirit would have been allowed to prevail while at the same time giving each District under leaders such as Paul Price all the liberty to take as staunch conservative position as they deemed good for their district.

In other words, a Pentecostal denomination should take a strong stand on what is the right doctrine in regards to salvation while leaving matters of opinionated holiness considerations to districts. Styles and fashions that are not spelled out in scripture and all other extraneous matters in regard to holiness that are not specifically spelled out in scripture should be left to the discretion of the districts.

[onefaith2]

Do you remember the Watkins from Morton, Ms. ? He pastored there for
right at 35 yrs......... His son is the pastor now......

Anyway, that was my Grandfather........ He served on the district board
for yrs.

That is until he got tired of all the politics!!!!!!!!!!!!

A great man of God, and my best friend............:thumbsup

Yes where is he now?

[POWERUP]

Yes where is he now?

Sorry to tell you, but he went onto to his reward in May of 2007.

He had a beautiful service........

[Chateau d'If]

I sometimes believe we may have overestimated the numeric impact of the Westberg resolution.

[onefaith2]

Sorry to tell you, but he went onto to his reward in May of 2007.

He had a beautiful service........

Thanks for telling me and I'm sorry to hear that. We've lost a lot of good men of God in recent years. He would be one of them.

[pelathais]

I sometimes believe we may have overestimated the numeric impact of the Westberg resolution.

I think that the "numeric impact" is difficult to gauge.

The Westberg Resolution affected the climate and culture of the UPC quite negatively. While it may be difficult to identify very large numbers of ministers and churches who left specifically because of that resolution, it's pretty easy to count up some rather large numbers of people who left over time because of the climate and culture of the UPC.

People leave in droves all of the time, not just ministers. We work really hard and build up some numbers temporarily in places, then BAM! We try and get everyone to buckle under the Westberg style "rules" and "standards" and we've got a tiny little church again.

Our movement certainly has a problem with its bowel movements, in LW's way of putting it.

[POWERUP]

Thanks for telling me and I'm sorry to hear that. We've lost a lot of good men of God in recent years. He would be one of them.

Did you ever preach for him? He was truly a great man. While I was speaking
at his service, I spoke of one of his greatest character traits was that he could disagree with you, and still not offend you.Most folks just cant seem to do that............

A couple of months before he passed we talked about some stuff...You
know what I mean...I was a associate pastor there for over 15 yrs.. so
I felt like we needed to talk about some of the Stuff I had been taught.

We had a great time discussing some of the issues. He didnt completly agree, but we had
a good time talking about the way it's always been.

The one thing about PaPa was that he was Consistent!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another trait that we lack in alot.....

[rgcraig]

I like the word debacle

[Jermyn Davidson]

I sometimes believe we may have overestimated the numeric impact of the Westberg resolution.

Not everything can be measured simply by the numbers.

[houston]

That's wot she said.

[rgcraig]

That's wot she said.

:spit

[notofworks]

pelathais, could you tell more of what James Kilgore said that swayed you, your pastor, and others? I know you mentioned the 99% thing, but was there more than that statement that was moving to the point it changed a lot of minds?

[Elizabeth]

pelathais, could you tell more of what James Kilgore said that swayed you, your pastor, and others? I know you mentioned the 99% thing, but was there more than that statement that was moving to the point it changed a lot of minds?

Good question!

[pelathais]

pelathais, could you tell more of what James Kilgore said that swayed you, your pastor, and others? I know you mentioned the 99% thing, but was there more than that statement that was moving to the point it changed a lot of minds?

It was more of a "group think" thing. Human beings can in fact be herded and manipulated. If a couple dozen people had suddenly jumped up and shouted "fire" and ran screaming for the exit, they would have been followed by hundreds of others. We're all "sheeple" in some sense.

Nothing was said that made me rationally change my mind. I was leery of what LW and PP had both said (LW was a distant family relation of mine). While PP enjoyed some measure of respect, the whole "California Thing" with all of the nasty divisiveness out there just made me uneasy about the whole thing.

My pastor stood because JK had spoken for the resolution. I was sort of sucked and pulled up by some sort of anti-gravitational vortex thing as soon as he started to rise.

DR and the brothers who came into the meeting shouting, "Question!" obviously knew how our particular herd acts. All it would take was the voice of someone like JK or JW speaking in favor of the resolution and it would pass. I know now that is why they were so insistent that a vote be taken immediately. The fellowship had already been debating and discussing the thing for almost 2 years.

[FaithPreacher]

I think the Westberg resolution was demoniacally inspired. In fact a lot of the political maneuvering that takes place in ecclesiastical circles gains its' inspiration from below. All it takes to work is some ignorant bumpkin coming along and being the instrument the devil can use.

[ReformedDave]

"Demonically inspired"? like the Scriptures are "God inspired" or do you mean just a bad mistake?

[ReformedDave]

Hard for me to see Paul Price as a "bumpkin".

[aegsm76]

I think the Westberg resolution was demoniacally inspired. In fact a lot of the political maneuvering that takes place in ecclesiastical circles gains its' inspiration from below. All it takes to work is some ignorant bumpkin coming along and being the instrument the devil can use.

I think the non-enforcement of the resolution was a mistake.
If the resolution had been enforced, as intended, it would have either led to:
1. A repeal in the following years
or
2. An exodus of the moderate/liberals to start their own org.

[Elizabeth]

Hard for me to see Paul Price as a "bumpkin".

I can't either...

[Sister Alvear]

I think highly of Brother Price.

[jfrog]

I think the non-enforcement of the resolution was a mistake.
If the resolution had been enforced, as intended, it would have either led to:
1. A repeal in the following years
or
2. An exodus of the moderate/liberals to start their own org.

:thumbsup That would be my opinion as well. It takes a push to motivate a change. Ever see some of the old crazy laws currently on the books? Do you know why they are still there? Because they weren't enforced and so nothing pushed people into changing them.

[FaithPreacher]

Hard for me to see Paul Price as a "bumpkin".

Paul Price was not the author of the Westberg resolution.

[ReformedDave]

Paul Price was not the author of the Westberg resolution.

But he had a hand in it's development.....along with someone else I know.

[Charnock]

I think the Westberg resolution was demoniacally inspired. In fact a lot of the political maneuvering that takes place in ecclesiastical circles gains its' inspiration from below. All it takes to work is some ignorant bumpkin coming along and being the instrument the devil can use.

Many people will say your post is over the top.

I won't.

It's 100% correct.

[crakjak]

I think the Westberg resolution was demoniacally inspired. In fact a lot of the political maneuvering that takes place in ecclesiastical circles gains its' inspiration from below. All it takes to work is some ignorant bumpkin coming along and being the instrument the devil can use.

While I seriously disagree with the Westburg resolution, your post is well over the top.
What of the leadership of the GB that allowed it to become law, that is where the real responsibility to prevent such a faulty resolution to be codified.

[Sam]

While I seriously disagree with the Westburg resolution, your post is well over the top.
What of the leadership of the GB that allowed it to become law, that is where the real responsibility to prevent such a faulty resolution to be codified.

what leadership?

[crakjak]

what leadership?

Exactly my point, Sammy!!!

[pelathais]

I think the Westberg resolution was demoniacally inspired. In fact a lot of the political maneuvering that takes place in ecclesiastical circles gains its' inspiration from below. All it takes to work is some ignorant bumpkin coming along and being the instrument the devil can use.

No "bumpkins" really needed. Just an organization like the UPC where the angriest voices got to control the whole movement. The "bumpkins" were those of us who allowed it to happen.

[pelathais]

Paul Price was not the author of the Westberg resolution.

Hence the term "Westberg Resolution?" However, Paul Price did write the "Whereas..." preamble portion of it.

[pelathais]

Many people will say your post is over the top.

I won't.

It's 100% correct.

I don't think it's necessary to resort to "demon inspired" notions when the simplest explanation: "carnal men" - is sufficient to explain its origins.

But there was definitely some kind of "spirit" that gripped the key players at the time when the thing finally came up for discussion.