But you're right that not all equate standards with salvation but most do! I'm personally acquainted with many of them. They will bob and weave and obfuscate but when forced to answer they clearly attach salvation to standards.
Raven
It is definitely a tight rope to walk, and most fall over into the legalism pit. You can say - 'Around here, we're going to wear our sleeves at our elbows just because we think that's a good stopping point' - but in practical application, it soon becomes a matter of salvation in people's minds.
I dearly love my ultra-con friends, but almost every single one of them view standards as salvational.
The fact that he signs an affirmation statement to obtain his UPC license allows us the luxury of assuming that he preaches and practices what he pledges to preach and practice.
Doesn't it?
The AS is one of the biggest jokes or farces that the UPC ever swallowed.
When it was first issued @ 93 it came with a cover letter that kind of apologized for it and said, just sign it and send it back.
Many preachers cross stuff out and write stuff in, I'll uphold the manual..cross out manual and write in bible.
The AS are excepted and licences renewed as long as there is a check $$ included.
__________________
God has lavished his love upon me.
ML.......I would hope you are right.......Rex Johnson has always been a favorite of mine...........I know in the past he certainly did not approve of cutting hair and makeup. .......
You know there a lot preachers that decided they'd read the bible themselves,instead of parroting what their pastor or some camp evangelist preached.
Many of them could not find in the bible, what they had been told was in there.
Henceforth we now have many among us that have decided that if it is not clearly in scripture then clearly I should not teach that it is.
__________________
God has lavished his love upon me.
Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that?
Bro. Urshan wrote: "If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications."
You must have received a different letter than the one I have.
Wholehearted disapproval of cut hair and makeup doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.
\
This is part of the letter that Nathaniel A. Urshan sent out, dated January 18, 1993 concerning the resolution that now forced ministers to sign a statement, called the Minister's Affirmation.
The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.
Sounds to me that it's left to the pastor's discretion on how he wants to manage and run his church when it comes to standards.
One more thing concerning the Articles of Faith. A minister can sign the Affirmation Statement saying he believes and preaches what is set forth in the Articles of Faith and never have to preach against pants on women, jewelry or facial hair on men. These items are not in the AOF under Holiness, the AOF is only from page 29 to 37 in the manual. What most people don't realize is that the Articles of Faith is not the whole UPCI Manual, only a few pages.
This is part of the letter that Nathaniel A. Urshan sent out, dated January 18, 1993 concerning the resolution that now forced ministers to sign a statement, called the Minister's Affirmation.
The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.
Sounds to me that it's left to the pastor's discretion on how he wants to manage and run his church when it comes to standards.
Thanks for putting the conversation into perspective!
This is part of the letter that Nathaniel A. Urshan sent out, dated January 18, 1993 concerning the resolution that now forced ministers to sign a statement, called the Minister's Affirmation.
The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.
The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.
Sounds to me that it's left to the pastor's discretion on how he wants to manage and run his church when it comes to standards.
Did you read what you quoted?
If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement.
If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith,
For the interested reader, here is the actual and complete wording of the Affirmation Statement:
"I do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the Fundamental Doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set forth in said Articles of Faith, and I pledge to practice, preach and teach the same."
Where is the ambiguity in "I pledge to practice, preach and teach the same?"
Bro. Urshan's letter was written to calm the fears of a witch hunt, but it did not, nor did he have the power to, undo the force and requirement of the Affirmation Statement.
Bro. Urshan's comments dealt with peripheral issues, but did not contradict the plain statements of the Articles of Faith:
"We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in . . . women cutting their hair, make up, . . . any of our people having television sets in their homes."
How in the world can a pledge to "practice, preach and teach" not be seen as a commitment to require these practices in the local church? How can Articles of Faith that repeatedly refer to "our people" not be seen as having force in the local assembly?
Have we entered a world where words have no meaning and a signed pledge is a matter to snicker over?
What two sections of the Articles of Faith? There are 23 sections in the Articles of Faith. This Westberg resolution has been a mess since it was passed; no one set down and thought it out. Westberg and Urshan are now pasted on to glory and the UPC is left with a real mess. It was all political to start with. Again I can sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry.
What two sections of the Articles of Faith? There are 23 sections in the Articles of Faith. This Westberg resolution has been a mess since it was passed; no one set down and thought it out. Westberg and Urshan are now pasted on to glory and the UPC is left with a real mess. It was all political to start with. Again I can sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry.
You may be able to sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry, but you can't sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against cut hair, make up, and your people having televisions in thier homes. Not if words have meaning and your signature has value.
You may be able to sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry, but you can't sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against cut hair, make up, and your people having televisions in thier homes. Not if words have meaning and your signature has value.
...and your cover letter doesn't "work".
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
