The Eulogy Begins

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

I think the reason people can't see eye to eye here is the liberals feel like they have straightened a picture on the wall, while the conservatives feel like someone just demolished a whole wall... it is hard for either side to comprehend the other.

Excellent analogy!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Well, I find it disturbing if it were true that most of what Thad reports are just stuff made up in his mind as if this forum were "The Inquirer" and that he would be allowed to spread lies as a form of personal entertainment when many things he shares could be damaging in one form or another...I hope Thad can clarify this.

J-Roc you have it all down, and brother you know the deal. The way some of those reports sound you think our churches were on the same level as "The Hills Have Eyes" or the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre."

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Brother Jones,

I have recieved so many personal threats for voicing simple opinions (that now the majority of men in the org have embraced).
Don't tell me there aren't men who are spiteful and devoid of any sense of tolerance and brotherhood.

I have experienced it firsthand Sir.

Elder,

they do exist... on both sides of most issues.

Some liberals are not tolerant of conservatives any more than some conservatives are not tolerant of liberals.

I just want that to be brought out as we go forward so this is not a thread that makes every conservative out to be an intolerant ogre and every mod/lib out to be the all embracing saint! It just ain't so!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by philjones

Elder,

they do exist... on both sides of most issues.

Some liberals are not tolerant of conservatives any more than some conservatives are not tolerant of liberals.

I just want that to be brought out as we go forward so this is not a thread that makes every conservative out to be an intolerant ogre and every mod/lib out to be the all embracing saint! It just ain't so!

Ain't that the truth.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Rome forced a one way of thinking upon all churches, or else. The codified it, but it in creeds and said unless you think this way, you can not be in the church. You MUST think this way, believe this way and be this way to be part of our group. It is law. It is codified therefore if our forefathers believed it, it must be true and if so then it must be true for us. To think outside of that box is to be a heretic. The RCC was and is unchangeable. Rather as a solution people left her. But they fell to the same mistakes in thinking in codifying law and even in adhering to previous codified laws making belief in things like the Trinity mandatory.

When we were part of the AOG it was held by all that there would be no codification of any view other than what the bible specifically says. Because this allowed others to introduce Jesus name baptism and Oneness of the godhead, the Trinitarians in the AOG, who were the majority, felt THEIR "heritage" was being threatened and never for a moment would they dare entertain the idea that perhaps their heritage was wrong in some areas.

And what did the AOG do to us forward thinkers who dared to go against the traditional thinking and heritage of us Pentecostals? They marginalized us and forced us to leave. Their new creed insisted God is a Trinity for all of us. It attempted to think for us, just like Rome did.

This new resolution only allows those that want to, to be able to use TV to advertise. It does not force anyone to approve of TV usage for themselves or their congregations.

Our heritage being the UPC sounds messed up to me. It always did. Putting that much emotional attachment into an organization of men seems counter to biblical Christianity. Should not our heritage be the word of God?

Great post!

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by philjones

Elder,

they do exist... on both sides of most issues.

Some liberals are not tolerant of conservatives any more than some conservatives are not tolerant of liberals.

I just want that to be brought out as we go forward so this is not a thread that makes every conservative out to be an intolerant ogre and every mod/lib out to be the all embracing saint! It just ain't so!

Yea, verily.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

But they were already doing it....these act as though it is a new thing that a preacher can't preach for them who is under question....like this resolution gives some sort of new pulpit control..

When it comes to District boards putting a guy out "under question or conduct unbecoming"...and then policing the pulpit of the local church...nothing new happens now!

They have been the arbiters in these situations for decades...only without a clear definition of what the terms listed in the manual actually mean...but those terms and this authority to refuse certain preachers from preaching at certain churches...is still the same.

Once again we all know it's not new ... but it the resolution was amended w/ a specific purpose, T1.

Originally Posted by triumphant1

But they were already doing it....these act as though it is a new thing that a preacher can't preach for them who is under question....like this resolution gives some sort of new pulpit control..

When it comes to District boards putting a guy out "under question or conduct unbecoming"...and then policing the pulpit of the local church...nothing new happens now!

They have been the arbiters in these situations for decades...only without a clear definition of what the terms listed in the manual actually mean...but those terms and this authority to refuse certain preachers from preaching at certain churches...is still the same.

The clearer definitions were necessary to create an assembly line for excommunications ... prior the ambiguity and vagueness slowed down to process ... guys would appeal ... have others advocate ... debate, etc.

This was designed to sharpen the tool for cons to pressure boards to take swift and decisive actions against undesirables post-TV resolution defeat.

The complaint has always been enforcement ... and this would have enabled the Inquisition.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by philjones

Elder,

they do exist... on both sides of most issues.

Some liberals are not tolerant of conservatives any more than some conservatives are not tolerant of liberals.

I just want that to be brought out as we go forward so this is not a thread that makes every conservative out to be an intolerant ogre and every mod/lib out to be the all embracing saint! It just ain't so!

I totally agree.

I'll tell you a story that proves your point.

I have a cousin who is part of a fledgling org of about 300 churches and 500 ministers. He knows, as do many others, that I had been unhappy with my current situation.

My discontent had nothing to do with the UPC, it was borne from the animosity spewed toward from a small minority of men within the org.
When I have used phrases like "It's time to escape the borg", or "the spirit of abortion" I was addressing that minority of men who made things so strained.

Anyway, I have been exploring all options - that is no secret.

My cousin contacted his superintendent. The superintendent wanted to meet me, with the purpose of bringing me on board in an official leadership capacity with the org.

We talked. I found his ideology was too liberal for me. He was too tolerant of things I considered false doctrine. Long story short - I turned it down.

Well, I continue to be pressured to leave where I am at. I mean doctrinally.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!

So, Brother Jones, I agree. I have been privy to control issues on both sides of the aisle. The thing is, this past week is remarkable because it's the first time I have seen the conservative side lose on any control issue.


I am not gloating, but I will admit to being relieved.

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I'll step up to the plate for Elder PJ.Me and him do talk on the phone and he is one of the most compassionate people I have talked to.
His heartbeat for the lost and backslidders, is truly filled with compassion.

Bro. Scott,

Thanks for stepping up to the plate for me. Your kindness is appreciated even though I don't deserve it. I was wrong in some of what I said.. I sometimes just say things that would be better left unsaid. That is why I always cover my crow with strawberry jam before I send him out... I may end up having to eat him.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Once again we all know it's not new ... but it the resolution was amended w/ a specific purpose, T1.



The clearer definitions were necessary to create an assembly line for excommunications ... prior the ambiguity and vagueness slowed down to process ... guys would appeal ... have others advocate ... debate, etc.

This was designed as sharpening the tool for cons to pressure boards to take swift and decisive actions against undesirables post-TV resolution defeat.

The complaint has always been enforcement ... and this would have enabled the Inquisition.

I don't see how the clearer definition can give them any more power in inquisition than they used against me...LOL...so I guess I just have a hard time seeing the issue here...

Maybe there is one...I don't know...

Maybe they will have more power to go after someone....I don't see how...

I think that many UPC preachers didn't know about this particular policy and that's what has them upset...I know I have family who didn't really know that the District can keep someone from preaching for them under this policy...

So to me, it has just shed new light on an old policy...and now there are preachers who are saying, "What?"....