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

[Michael Phelps]

I posted this on Caston's thread, but I'll repost it here, since it seems apropos:

Having a license or not having a license, even having one and then turning it in has nothing to do with keeping the unity of the faith.

Sometimes you have a change in direction in your life, such as I did a couple of years ago, and staying in the man-made organization that you joined just isn't the proper thing to do anymore.

Remember, God is a God of constant change and growth.........Elijah was fed by ravens while sipping from one of the only streams of water in the land at the time..........but, there was a time when the stream dried up, and the birds stopped delivering food, and it was time for a change. If he would have been stubborn, and stayed because that's the way "things always have been", not only would he have died, but he never would have met the widow who baked him a cake, and purchased sustenance for herself and her family. So, sometimes refusal to change doesn't bring blessing, it brings demise.

The difference is - is this a God driven change, or am I just sulking because things didn't go my way?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I posted this on Caston's thread, but I'll repost it here, since it seems apropos:

Having a license or not having a license, even having one and then turning it in has nothing to do with keeping the unity of the faith.

Sometimes you have a change in direction in your life, such as I did a couple of years ago, and staying in the man-made organization that you joined just isn't the proper thing to do anymore.

Remember, God is a God of constant change and growth.........Elijah was fed by ravens while sipping from one of the only streams of water in the land at the time..........but, there was a time when the stream dried up, and the birds stopped delivering food, and it was time for a change. If he would have been stubborn, and stayed because that's the way "things always have been", not only would he have died, but he never would have met the widow who baked him a cake, and purchased sustenance for herself and her family. So, sometimes refusal to change doesn't bring blessing, it brings demise.

The difference is - is this a God driven change, or am I just sulking because things didn't go my way?

It does when the shoe is on the other foot. As you have said over thier on Caston's thread, it is a matter of crying because one cannot have his way, as what this thread is for.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I posted this on Caston's thread, but I'll repost it here, since it seems apropos:

Having a license or not having a license, even having one and then turning it in has nothing to do with keeping the unity of the faith.

Sometimes you have a change in direction in your life, such as I did a couple of years ago, and staying in the man-made organization that you joined just isn't the proper thing to do anymore.

Remember, God is a God of constant change and growth.........Elijah was fed by ravens while sipping from one of the only streams of water in the land at the time..........but, there was a time when the stream dried up, and the birds stopped delivering food, and it was time for a change. If he would have been stubborn, and stayed because that's the way "things always have been", not only would he have died, but he never would have met the widow who baked him a cake, and purchased sustenance for herself and her family. So, sometimes refusal to change doesn't bring blessing, it brings demise.

The difference is - is this a God driven change, or am I just sulking because things didn't go my way?

Excellent thoughts, Michael Phelps!

[SDG]

Bumperooski.

[SDG]

David Bernard thinks this is an ethical breach ....

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...newpost&t=9856

[Felicity]

It's time to repent and turn back to the first things and first love. The blessing and favour of God is not going to rest on pride, arrogance and preoccupation with self.

[meBNme]

See, what some of you are missing, (but was still pointed out) is that they are NOT violating anything if it was the organization that changed, and not the pastors convictions.

Also, If they do withdraw is there anything wrong with other pastors who feel the same way, to talk amongst themselves and discuss "where to go from here"? If you have say, 10 pastors who have decided to simply withdraw, (as agreed to by signing) and then without asking others to withdraw, without telling their churches they can no longer associate with the UPC, but they simply withdraw their membership with the org and then form an organization of their own, How is that a violation?

You are assuming (at least) two things here.

1 - That it was the pastor who changed his convictions.
(when in reality, they remained the same, it was the org that changed)

2 - That by withdrawing, they are actively trying to pull others out and alienate their churches from the fellowship of the org.
(when in reality, they are simply withdrawing, and then forming an org amongst themselves.)

Now sure, there are exceptions to most every rule, so I'm sure there will be some who actively try to influence others. But just because someone withdraws, and has a meeting amongst other men who are also withdrawing does not in any way mean they are violating their agreement. Especially considering the fact that it was the ORG that changed, not the pastor!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by meBNme

See, what some of you are missing, (but was still pointed out) is that they are NOT violating anything if it was the organization that changed, and not the pastors convictions.

Also, If they do withdraw is there anything wrong with other pastors who feel the same way, to talk amongst themselves and discuss "where to go from here"? If you have say, 10 pastors who have decided to simply withdraw, (as agreed to by signing) and then without asking others to withdraw, without telling their churches they can no longer associate with the UPC, but they simply withdraw their membership with the org and then form an organization of their own, How is that a violation?

You are assuming (at least) two things here.

1 - That it was the pastor who changed his convictions.
(when in reality, they remained the same, it was the org that changed)

2 - That by withdrawing, they are actively trying to pull others out and alienate their churches from the fellowship of the org.
(when in reality, they are simply withdrawing, and then forming an org amongst themselves.)

Now sure, there are exceptions to most every rule, so I'm sure there will be some who actively try to influence others. But just because someone withdraws, and has a meeting amongst other men who are also withdrawing does not in any way mean they are violating their agreement. Especially considering the fact that it was the ORG that changed, not the pastor!

What of those that have not withdrawn ... as some are waiting for the dues to expire ... while still actively recruiting???

There are many reports of active recruiting ... I just got one yesterday.

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

How ethical is it that this group of still-licensed ministers is sending out invites to the Apostolic Summit and their new org .... using the ministerial directory as their mailing list?

So they can no longer contact their friends just because they are in the directory?

First you think its wrong for them to disasociate themselves with the org, then you think its wrong when they attempt to associate with members of the org.

As Scooby says.... AROOOO???

[SDG]

Originally Posted by meBNme

So they can no longer contact their friends just because they are in the directory?

First you think its wrong for them to disasociate themselves with the org, then you think its wrong when they attempt to associate with members of the org.

As Scooby says.... AROOOO???

I have no issue w/ anyone leaving ... I've left ...

Leave/withdraw honorably ...

Call whomever you please ....

but you're advocating recruiting???