David Bernard Weighs In on General Board Decision

[Jehoram]

Also, DKB stated that we needed to do more than reaffirm our positions relating to holiness and separation.

Does not compute.

Are we being asked for an even stronger committment than our signatures on an affirmation statement?

How far can this go?

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Also, DKB stated that we needed to do more than reaffirm our positions relating to holiness and separation.

Does not compute.

Are we being asked for an even stronger committment than our signatures on an affirmation statement?

How far can this go?

How far can this go? Well, as far as reactions can take it. Far too little action and far too much reaction. Nothing has changed nor is it likely to.

The organization has gone into "protection" mode. If numbers go down, offerings go down. If offerings go down, income to the "vatican" goes down. If income to the "vatican" goes down, jobs will have to be cut......

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

How far can this go? Well, as far as reactions can take it. Far too little action and far too much reaction. Nothing has changed nor is it likely to.

The organization has gone into "protection" mode. If numbers go down, offerings go down. If offerings go down, income to the "vatican" goes down. If income to the "vatican" goes down, jobs will have to be cut......

Brother, that ship already sailed last fall.

The situation is, at best, stagnant currently.

[James Griffin]

So the consensus is it is IMPOSSIBLE for the UPCI to evolve?

Sorry I see too many signs that is happening already. And would once again point to the very existence of the WPF as further evidence than mainstream UPCI is moving more mainstream. Isn't that WPF's own contention and worldview ??

(Even if as MOW pointed out a few decades late)


What an absolutely delicious irony of fate that I would turn out to be the UPCI apologist on this thread!!!!!

Someone call Pastor Poster quick...

[Newman]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

So the consensus is it is IMPOSSIBLE for the UPCI to evolve?

Sorry I see too many signs that is happening already. And would once again point to the very existence of the WPF as further evidence than mainstream UPCI is moving more mainstream. Isn't that WPF's own contention and worldview ??

(Even if as MOW pointed out a few decades late)

Evolve? By retrenching to appease Cons who are leaving or have one foot out the door?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Newman

Evolve? By retrenching to appease Cons who are leaving or have one foot out the door?

With all due respect it is only "retrenching" IF you are correctly reading between the lines and applying a secret da Vinci code.

You may well be right. Personally I'm willing to take what the man says at face value for now.

I was a product of JCM, I changed.

Many of the ultra-cons of yesteryear are now moderates on this forum.

Bernard and many his age WANT to escape the old paradigms.

(And yes AE I am aware of DB's hardcore positions of two decades ago, but I also believe him a man of integrity and willing to evolve.)

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

With all due respect it is only "retrenching" IF you are correctly reading between the lines and applying a secret da Vinci code.

You may well be right. Personally I'm willing to take what the man says at face value for now.

I was a product of JCM, I changed.

Many of the ultra-cons of yesteryear are now moderates on this forum.

Bernard and many his age WANT to escape the old paradigms.

(And yes AE I am aware of DB's hardcore positions of two decades ago, but I also believe him a man of integrity and willing to evolve.)

I'm sure you are right.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

With all due respect it is only "retrenching" IF you are correctly reading between the lines and applying a secret da Vinci code.

You may well be right. Personally I'm willing to take what the man says at face value for now.

Di Vinci Code? Who on this thread doesn't believe he was talking about standards when he spoke of holiness and separation? I in fact am taking what he said at face value. He wrote of:

1. maintaining our identity as a holiness movement

2. upholding our positions in this area

3. as stated in the Articles of Faith.

Note he talks about the Articles of Faith and not the Word of God...


"The UPCI Position on Holiness and Separation from the World. The General Board had an extended discussion of the importance of maintaining our identity as a holiness movement and upholding our positions in this area as stated in the Articles of Faith. There was a consensus that we need to reaffirm these teachings, and the general superintendent will write a letter to our constituency to express our commitment to them. At the same time, the General Board concluded that it is not enough simply to reaffirm our position, but we must implement practical ways to teach biblical holiness. To accomplish this goal, various means will be employed, including publications, General Conference, Global Impact, and other methods. On a related note, the General Youth Division presented some exciting plans for Youth Congress in 2009 that will incorporate this goal in a positive way while avoiding some problems and concerns that have occurred in the past. The General Youth Division will also develop platform guidelines for Youth Congress and Bible Quizzing participants."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

With all due respect it is only "retrenching" IF you are correctly reading between the lines and applying a secret da Vinci code.

You may well be right. Personally I'm willing to take what the man says at face value for now.

I was a product of JCM, I changed.

Many of the ultra-cons of yesteryear are now moderates on this forum.

Bernard and many his age WANT to escape the old paradigms.

(And yes AE I am aware of DB's hardcore positions of two decades ago, but I also believe him a man of integrity and willing to evolve.)

It used to be UPCI "doctrine" that the doctrine of the Trinity was "invented at Nicea." To even suggest otherwise was heretical and a "compromise with 3 gods!"

Back about 16 or so years ago David Bernard published his books Oneness and Trinity A.D. 100 - 200; The Doctrine of God in Ancient Christian Writings and The Trinitarian Controversy of the Fourth Century, and he overturned our parochial view of this debate. Finally, it seemed to me, we could discuss the issue in an intelligent way.

There are still so many things that we cling to out of fear of "compromise." Our understanding of the source of some of the voices who cry "compromise" all the time has been greatly aided by Thomas Fudge's book. But there are a lot of voices in the UPC world itself that have been seeking a platform for years.

If we could get over our "invented at Nicea" nonsense and actually not be afraid to talk about the complexities within the Godhead, then I have some hope that we might continue to grow.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

So the consensus is it is IMPOSSIBLE for the UPCI to evolve?

Sorry I see too many signs that is happening already. And would once again point to the very existence of the WPF as further evidence than mainstream UPCI is moving more mainstream. Isn't that WPF's own contention and worldview ??

(Even if as MOW pointed out a few decades late)


What an absolutely delicious irony of fate that I would turn out to be the UPCI apologist on this thread!!!!!

Someone call Pastor Poster quick...

Old habits die hard.

It is hard for any of us to truly believe that the UPC could evolve in this manner.

It is true that the constituency itself is leaning a little leftward of late. But until some changes are made in writing we are still under the control of a group that has recently left the building.