((((UPC FLASH)))))) Announcing the Next Possible General SUPT. Of the UPC!!!

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I agree that folks will have to choose one or the other ... however if this option is open even for a short while ... it will be interesting to see how this double-dipping dynamic will work and if it will have effects in elections.

True.

If I could have my way about it, I would like to see the double dipping option, as you call it, remain viable for as long as possible, and the new alliance could be a means of mobilizing voters to attend GC's and make their voices heard.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

True.

If I could have my way about it, I would like to see the double dipping option, as you call it, remain viable for as long as possible, and the new alliance could be a means of mobilizing voters to attend GC's and make their voices heard.

This could be nipped ....

If the UPCI chooses to eliminate this option on their end.

Either by placing some of the Tulsa group leadership under question w/ the cooperation of DS's and their boards ....

or

pressuring those w/ dual membership to "make up their" minds through other methods.


Those in leadership may explore these options so they can preserve their livelihoods.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This could be nipped ....

If the UPCI chooses to eliminate this option on their end.

Either by placing some of the Tulsa group leadership under question w/ the cooperation of DS's and their boards ....

or

pressuring those w/ dual membership to "make up their" minds through other methods.


Those in leadership may explore these options so they can preserve their livelihoods.

The absolute worst thing the UPC could do is put the Tulsa men under question.

If they did that, the indignation generated by such an act would send men running toward Tulsa in droves, and I would be leading the charge.

It would be nice, if in the aftermath of such a grievous self-inflicted wound, we could see cool heads prevail on both sides of the divide.

[ChicagoPastor]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

The absolute worst thing the UPC could do is put the Tulsa men under question.

If they did that, the indignation generated by such an act would send men running toward Tulsa in droves, and I would be leading the charge.

It would be nice, if in the aftermath of such a grievous self-inflicted wound, we could see cool heads prevail on both sides of the divide.

Coon,
please note: I am not accusing just giving a "what if" scenario

IF the Tulsa men started to make any kind of effort of calling and encouraging men to leave the UPC and join the Tulsa group, I think the UPC would have the right to put the Tulsa movement "under question"

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by ChicagoPastor

Coon,
please note: I am not accusing just giving a "what if" scenario

IF the Tulsa men started to make any kind of effort of calling and encouraging men to leave the UPC and join the Tulsa group, I think the UPC would have the right to put the Tulsa movement "under question"

On this we disagree.

Should the ALJC declare a UPC pastor out of bounds of fellowship if the pastor encourages an ALJC friend of his to join the UPC?

Organizations are not local churches with unscrupulous pastors trying to proselyte.

That parallel doesn't work.

I think a preacher ought to be free to join whatever organization he wants to join.

Why be so territorial and defensive and vindictive?

[ChicagoPastor]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

On this we disagree.

Should the ALJC declare a UPC pastor out of bounds of fellowship if the pastor encourages an ALJC friend of his to join the UPC?

Organizations are not local churches with unscrupulous pastors trying to proselyte.

That parallel doesn't work.

I think a preacher ought to be free to join whatever organization he wants to join.

Why be so territorial and defensive and vindictive?

Agreed, it's not like a local church, but the UPC has to protect it's best intrest. If there's an outside or inside influence encouraging ministers to leave and join another organization, it'll hurt the UPC financially and number wise.
For that matter they have a right to try to block whoever it is.

[PreacherV]

Originally Posted by ChicagoPastor

Agreed, it's not like a local church, but the UPC has to protect it's best intrest. If there's an outside or inside influence encouraging ministers to leave and join another organization, it'll hurt the UPC financially and number wise. For that matter they have a right to try to block whoever it is.

Yer not about right, you ARE right! For this very reason, I don't think the double-dippers will be tolerated for long. Every pastor knows that when a saint (or should I say attendee) becomes disgruntled/apathetic/rebellious, etc., the first place you will usually notice a change is in their giving.

On an organizational level, I gather that many cons are questioning how monies are being allocated by FMD and I assume other departments. I have recently received letters promoting an alternative method of giving to missionaries. The idea is to send your money to this independent distributor who will then send 100% of your offerings to the missionary of your choosing-- whether they be UPC, ALJC, or some other OP group--thus ensuring that the missionary is really getting the money. This is a blatant end run around the org's bureacracy, and of course I received this letter soon after GC.

The first thing the Tulsa group will do (if they indeed try to stay in the org and become some sort of lobbying group to turn the org back in their direction) is try to starve the UPC of cash.

I say if you want out, just get out, because the effect this tactic will have is the UPC will then cut off the detracting group and swing even further to the left. The U-cons place in the org will then be quickly filled by U-libs, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing, but it's probably no worse than the other. I'm just not a big fan of extremism on either end. Anyways, in my evermore increasingly humble opinion (haha), the Tulsa group needs to generate a huge, diehard following quickly or they will be nothing more than a
self-marginalized splinter group that the average Apostolic will never know existed 5 years from now.

[retsambeW]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

On this we disagree.

Should the ALJC declare a UPC pastor out of bounds of fellowship if the pastor encourages an ALJC friend of his to join the UPC?

Organizations are not local churches with unscrupulous pastors trying to proselyte.

That parallel doesn't work.

I think a preacher ought to be free to join whatever organization he wants to join.

Why be so territorial and defensive and vindictive?

Actually, for once, we disagree.

If a UPC pastor encourages a friend from another group to become UPC, he is simply promoting the UPC. If a UPC preacher that is leaving encourages others to leave with him, I call that division. A lot of folks look at it that way.

Of course, as you noted, and on this we do agree, the final choice belongs with the individual, and they have every right to exercise that choice without interference from others.

Originally Posted by retsambeW

Actually, for once, we disagree.

If a UPC pastor encourages a friend from another group to become UPC, he is simply promoting the UPC. If a UPC preacher that is leaving encourages others to leave with him, I call that division. A lot of folks look at it that way.

Of course, as you noted, and on this we do agree, the final choice belongs with the individual, and they have every right to exercise that choice without interference from others.

So.... Only the UPC has the right to encourage men to forsake their current environment for one that might better meet their needs and support their views?

Come on Webbie... you are not serious... are you?

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by retsambeW

Actually, for once, we disagree.

If a UPC pastor encourages a friend from another group to become UPC, he is simply promoting the UPC. If a UPC preacher that is leaving encourages others to leave with him, I call that division. A lot of folks look at it that way.

Of course, as you noted, and on this we do agree, the final choice belongs with the individual, and they have every right to exercise that choice without interference from others.

I agree with you that if someone leaves and makes an attempt to have others leave as well, it IS division. It becomes grey when the individual doing the talking criticizes the UPC or criticizes principals, the organization notwithstanding.

I think Tulsa is the one shot that many on the Booker/Morton/Wilson side of things have to actually encourage UPC ministers to re-consider their affilliation. I don't believe there will be another (global) opportunity.