Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
The struggle that you run into a lot of times, is how to implement the NT into the 21 century society. Obviously in North America, any preacher is pretty much free to choose who, what or if he/she is to have any "rule" over them. As StMatt pointed out, in the case of the UPC, a particular preacher is free to sign on or bail out at any point in their ministry. If you sign on then you are making the choice to participate under the governance of the UPC. If that gets old, bail out.
Where I personally have had problems with the UPC's approach to things, is when the agreement is changed (as with the AS) without an open and free flow of information. Another point is when local districts or even local presbyters are not in line with the national governance.
Given those two concerns, I would have to say that, the burden and yoke of the UPC is otherwise "easy" and "light" in most places. The point being, that if any one has a problem with the UPC (or any other org for that matter) try and work things out- if you don't get anywhere then bail out. This is not Sadaam's Iraq that we're dealing with here.
|
Good post. And I agree... my initial response is to the outrage that some have expressed with regards to pastors holding funds from the WEC out of protest for "goings-on" at the national level. It seems the protest of the pastorates has far exceeded any level experienced heretofor. Someone suggested that WEC had authority over pastors, and that the pastors are "wrong" for objecting to national level decisions. I wholeheartedly disagreed. I suggest that it is not the local pastors who disagree with the decisions of national leadership who we should implicate in their protest, it is the national leaders who have made decisions and set a course for the organization that is not sympathetic to the concerns of the pastoral constituency of the organization who should be implicated.
Threaded Mode
