Ministerial Ethics, Dropping Out and TV: Did You Forget You Agreed to This?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Spin. And then spin again.

Revise. And then revise again.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Revise. And then revise again.

Hey, I noticed you do that quite well. Thanks for intermingling it with the spin. It adds spice and variety. Watch out for those low flying helicopters.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Hey, I noticed you do that quite well. Thanks for intermingling it with the spin. It adds spice and variety. Watch out for those low flying helicopters.

Going to Tulsa in January?

[rrford]

BTW, Dan it really is not revision when one attaches the "IMO" to a post. I know it takes the fun of spinning out of your arguments but it really facilitates discussion to read the posts succinctly you are replying to.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Going to Tulsa in January?

Honestly, probably not. (Does that surprise you?)

[rrford]

Wait, let me rephrase that. I am scheduled to preach in Tulsa in January. But I am not planning on attending the meeting.

[SDG]

Fordie, thank you for voting against the TV ad amendment limiting the length of ads ...

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Fordie, thank you for voting against the TV ad amendment limiting the length of ads ...

Thanks for assuming. Spin, spin, spin.

[SDG]

Bump ... watch the road, Fordie. Move over, I'm driving. Let's take this baby for a spin.

Next stop .... IRREFUTABLE LANE.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Questions:

Will ministers withdrawing abide by the code of ethics they ascribed to in the manual when they affirmed their membership with the fellowship?

Will they simply withdraw w/o using their influence to alienate their church which may be UPCI affiliated? Will they not use their influence to alienate the fellowship or support of the UPCI?

Have not their convictions changed in regards to abiding to the current bylaws of the UPCI ... and so the honorable thing is to withdraw without trying to bring others w/ them?

Will their integrity be questioned ???... do they not also fall under question ethically if they break this code of ethics? ... which can seemingly then be adjudicated under resolution 3?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

First, a church can be informed but before the meeting ... a pastor has a window ... to exert influence as to alienate the church's decision ....

but that's not at the heart of the issue ....

To make this thread about the procedural issue of disaffiliation is to miss it entirely. We are speaking about the ethical commitment ministers and pastors made when they agreed to enter the fellowship.

They agreed not only to the AS and Fundamental doctrine ... but also to the teachings/positions of the fellowship, it's bylaws and guidelines.

Will those leaving or considering leaving act ethically as to the underlined portion below:

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Were the calls by some ministers to protest/boycott organizational divisions with their offerings unethical as stated in the fellowship's teaching/position for ministerial ethics?

Are those unhappy w/ the "change of direction" of the org and promoting alienation/division violating their commitments made when they applied for their license by not simply and honorably withdrawing?

Yes, tv is a conviction dear to some ... but weren't their commitments not to adversely influence or contend towards the disunity of the faith also convictions?

Have some poisoned their congregations w/ anti-org rhetoric from the pulpit? Is there strong-arming by some being used to influence departure?


These are just some of the ethical commitments made by those applying for license with the fellowship:
[This is a current application for a local license]



Isn't part of the teaching of the church this position paper on ethical and honorable departure?

Are those considering a concerted departure avoiding the breaking of the unity of the Spirit in the assemblies?

Have they refrained from speaking evil, critical and contentious words about anyone in their fellowship? What have they done to work towards peace and harmony? And have they been cooperating w/ all efforts of the organization?

Originally Posted by rrford

Thanks for assuming. Spin, spin, spin.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by rrford

And surely we would agree that 2 differing views of eternal salvation will never find unity? Are you really that naive? If so why not become a universalist in the name of unity? (And yes, I realize that was an extreme comment. )

The Fundamental Doctrine was naive? Perhaps rrford can help me here. But is this why the "conservatives" have always seemed to be against the UPC fellowship? Because they never really agreed with the merger?

How can they do this without blushing? Is it because they had been feigning (faking) the fellowship all along? My brothers were dishonest when they said we were "brethren?"

Sure the Manual has instructions for disaffiliating a church; but is that how you've read the Manual all along- looking for loopholes and ways to get around the principles you signed your name to? And that one was a pretty desperate attempt.

This is why I cannot agree with the label many have put upon themselves: "conservatives." They have always been about changing the Manual, adding resolutions and restrictions. They have consistently sought to undermine the leadership of the UPC (just attend any of their soirees and listen). Destabilizing the foundations of an institution is not "conservative." It's "radical."