James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Debacle
 

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?

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

Can someone remind me what the 92 resolution said exactly?

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...ais/afirm1.jpg

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...ais/afirm2.jpg

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

And apparently Papa Kilgore embraces his son's direction.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

"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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

But VERY painful......

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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?

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

:thumbsup

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

:thumbsup

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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...on/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?

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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!!!!

Re: James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Deb
 

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.