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

[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.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by rrford

I sure hope not or we are both in trouble.

rrford, good to hear from you!

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

rrford, good to hear from you!

And you as well. I got bored and had a few minutes...

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by rrford

I sure hope not or we are both in trouble.

:sshhh

[Steve Epley]

Well this thread has me somewhat confused many on here have wanted the cons to leave and said so and now that it looks as if some are leaving they are fussing because they are leaving.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well this thread has me somewhat confused many on here have wanted the cons to leave and said so and now that it looks as if some are leaving they are fussing because they are leaving.

Good point.

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well this thread has me somewhat confused many on here have wanted the cons to leave and said so and now that it looks as if some are leaving they are fussing because they are leaving.

Sounds like what Dan wants is the con preachers to leave, but keep the churches so a liberal can take 'em and STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT!

Actually, Dan, you have a point--but I don't think it will apply in most cases. If you would consider that for years we were told to teach our people AGAINST the use of tv, and we had to agree to do so. Now, to expect churches who have had pastors that taught it with great conviction, and were WITH THE ORG on the matter, to remain with the UPC when the man they have known as pastor is leaving over his conviction, which MANY OF THEM SHARE...is asking the church forget all they have been taught, all they have known, and the man that they have loved as pastor. You can hardly blame that church for desiring to leave if they believe what he teaches, nor can you ask a man to suddenly reverse course on what he has taught as Bible simply because a manual nows says the opposite of what it once said. That is a ridiculous request.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Sounds like what Dan wants is the con preachers to leave, but keep the churches so a liberal can take 'em and STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT!

Actually, Dan, you have a point--but I don't think it will apply in most cases. If you would consider that for years we were told to teach our people AGAINST the use of tv, and we had to agree to do so. Now, to expect churches who have had pastors that taught it with great conviction, and were WITH THE ORG on the matter, to remain with the UPC when the man they have known as pastor is leaving over his conviction, which MANY OF THEM SHARE...is asking the church forget all they have been taught, all they have known, and the man that they have loved as pastor. You can hardly blame that church for desiring to leave if they believe what he teaches, nor can you ask a man to suddenly reverse course on what he has taught as Bible simply because a manual nows says the opposite of what it once said. That is a ridiculous request.

I understand what you are saying Brother, I also do not like the fact that the resolution passed, but for churches to bail now before they can reverse the resolution speaks poorly against anyone who feels like quitting. Quitters never win. Conservatives only lost by 80 votes, there were alot of conservatives that could've made the sacrifice to be there and vote, but they didn't. If the conservatives were optimistic enough, the resolution can be overturned.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well this thread has me somewhat confused many on here have wanted the cons to leave and said so and now that it looks as if some are leaving they are fussing because they are leaving.

I think "the fuss" is about how one goes about leaving. If someone goes to lengths to recruit or sow discord - then there's a problem. Also, if a preacher has taken on the pastorate of a UPC that was already affiliated the manual seems to indicate that pastor ought to step aside from that pulpit.

As was pointed out on another thread a moment ago- "all members of an affiliated church" are considered "members of the United Pentecostal Church." It should be noted that most of the language in this regard was introduced by the "conservative" wing of the UPC ("we whole heartedly disapprove of our people... and so forth).

Add to that the silly little dances that a couple of guys have been doing when they post their exaggerated accounts of what's going on and you can be sure the pot gets stirred.