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

[Raven]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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."

I admire you Pelathais! You take what I think and write it so well. Good job!!!
Raven

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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."

Revise. And then revise again.

I know I'm a little slow on the uptake. Dan, this thread has put the pieces together for me and you know I believe along PAJC lines.

The original intent of forming the UPC was to join two groups who take two different paths to get to the same end and then dump one group of brethren in preference to another because of their path later on down the road. This, in my mind, is much more of a changing of the fundamental purpose of the org in regard to not contending for their view to the disunity of the body than the TV resolution. It's betrayal. TV isn't forbidden in the Aof like the UC's would have us believe but STRONGLY DISAPPROVED of. The TV resolution was not a betrayal.

What goes around comes around. We reap what we sow.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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."

Radical or insane? It's like a spouse who enters a marriage thinking that because the Word says "the two shall become one flesh" it means the other spouse will become "like" them. Certainly, when a man and wife enter the covenant of marriage they are one in purpose and commitment... but will never be one in throughts, beliefs, hobbies, likes, dislikes, etc.

Marriages fail when a domineering spouse will not deny themselves, won't accept their spouse as they are and expect the other to conform to their every whim.

Who is naive enough to enter such a union w/ the condition that they would have to abandon their core beliefs while the other doesn't budge?

As my good friend Mizpeh has stated ... it's betrayal.

I can't believe, for a moment, our predecessors believed unity was uniformity ... they in many ways were smarter than us, RRF

[mizpeh]

It was betrayal but the TV resolution which some UC are touting as a betrayal pales in comparison.

[Nahum]

The TV resolution is not a betrayal.

Further, the men who are whining about the passage of resolution four are causing disunity. They are speaking against our manual. They are tearing down an established position of the organization.
Mizpeh, I said it yesterday. Live by the sword, die by the same.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

The TV resolution is not a betrayal.

Further, the men who are whining about the passage of resolution four are causing disunity. They are speaking against are manual. They are tearing down an established position of the organization.
Mizpeh, I said it yesterday. Live by the sword, die by the same.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

[BrotherEastman]

Does it mean that I'm no longer a conservative because I don't agree with the conservatives about wanting to leave the org.?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Does it mean that I'm no longer a conservative because I don't agree with the conservatives about wanting to leave the org.?

You are uncharismatic conservative.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

The TV resolution is not a betrayal.

Further, the men who are whining about the passage of resolution four are causing disunity. They are speaking against our manual. They are tearing down an established position of the organization.
Mizpeh, I said it yesterday. Live by the sword, die by the same.

Say, were the ones already advertsing on TV prior to it's passage also causing disunity?

[rrford]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Does it mean that I'm no longer a conservative because I don't agree with the conservatives about wanting to leave the org.?

I sure hope not or we are both in trouble.