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.