How can a New Organization be born out of Chaos?
 

Tulsa Meeting...January...a Group of unlike minded men coming together to decide or create a New Organization of Independants...

Interesting in itself...

What will be the breaking factor... who will lead... who will decide what standards are okay or not okay....

Some of the Big "Guns" currently use Video (moving pictures for you UC's)

I'll predict it will start with a Bang and go out with a scream (folks yelling at each other)


It's easy to schedule, conduct, and conceive, but if it's not born in Love it will die in bitterness...

Most religious organizations are started as a reaction over some common complaint.

I have to admit that as much of a Son of the South as I am, that had the Confederacy won the war, eventually you would have had further splits and secessions until you had the "Grand Duchy of Alabama", "The Kingdom of Louisiana" and "The Sovereign State of Mississippi."

Now Wilson and Godair are fairly much mainliners whom I think have a bit of ambition here and are taking advantage of an opportunity.

However, they will be attempting to lead guys who will divide over sleeve length or the length of mole hair.

I am not ready to write Tulsa off with a guffaw just yet.

The "common complaint" may keep them together for awhile.

But eventually the "my way or the highway" attitude that most all these guys have toward their own little local kingdoms will further division.

When will that happen in a big way?

Could be sooner.

Could be later.

I honestly don't know.

The scuttlebut is that the Tulsa meeting is not about a new organization. It is about forming an alliance of like-minded men that is both social and political.

Could this be the beginning of a political party system within the organization?

I'm assuming you mean this "alliance" would remain in the UPC.

Interesting thought.

And frankly, might not be a bad idea.

The "political party" system, I mean.

It would force people to refine their rhetoric. Too often folks have gotten away with amibiguities in their theology. Forcing the different sides to think about what they say would be a huge step forward.

I think the polarization is deep enough to support a true political party system. The benefit would be that men would be required to openly declare where they stand on every issue imaginable in order to snare support.

That would be grand IMO.

Well, it's been political for years and attempts to deny that are laughable.

Mayber overt politics would be a better way to go. Eliminates the effluvium of hypocrisy at least.

Do You mean People would be held accountable for their words and would have to defend them or admit error?

But who would then mediate?

Hey maybe they could hold debates just like old times only with themselves.