I find it humorously ironic that the same men who slam those who disagree with small portions of the AOF, and yet sign the AS, are now defending men who are, in fact, lying.
Let's summarize, shall we?
1. They agreed that they would not disaffiliate their church because of personal views.
2. Some currently are doing the exact thing they promised they wouldn't.
CS, are there not official stands in the position papers against Divine Flesh and Preterism ... can they not be used against those who don't volutarily give up their license by District officials if they will not "tow the line"?
1. that it is in there.
2. that you found it.
3. that you have brought it up.
4. that there is nothing that those who cause strife and seek to not fellowship can say about it.
5. that many of those who attack the TV supporters for being hypocrits are in fact being hypocrits themselves!
Bravo Daniel! Bravo!
Exactly, I find it hard to believe that Dan came up with this.
You are talking about doctrinal matters there, Daniel.
There is no provision for filing charges against a man for disaffiliating a church; that would be ridiculous, since we have a procedure in place to do it.
The sovereignty of the local church is an important concept in the Apostolic movement.
For the record, I know of a UPCI church where the board voted to affiliate when it was started as a home missions church, BUT the signed paperwork was never sent in. The new current pastor has taken advantage of this loophole and the church is now no longer UPCI!
Then the new cuurent pastor is wrong, if we were to abide by the manuel. I'm sorry that this happened.
I doubt there has been much said on AFF that would justify a lawsuit.
There has been violations of ethics however.
Ex. DK letter to the district was probably not intended to go public.
His statement about the condition of the "would be ministers" could be construed as borderline, suggesting that most had already pulled away financially and fellowship-wise. There is a nest or two stirred, I bet.
It seems the discussion has turned to the subject of affiliation but in fact the reading here
"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."
Speaks of fellowship not affiliation. Any pastor that doesnt fellowship other UPCI churches has caused an ethical breach. That is a problem.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
You are talking about doctrinal matters there, Daniel.
There is no provision for filing charges against a man for disaffiliating a church; that would be ridiculous, since we have a procedure in place to do it.
The sovereignty of the local church is an important concept in the Apostolic movement.
We are talking about an official position in regards to ethics ... CS ... not procedure or doctrine ... agreed.
Procedure aside ... ministers agree when entering the org to act ethically according to the org's guidelines ...
As part of the org's code of ethics is .... Honorable men will not exert influence to alienate their church ... or other portions of the fellowship or support of the UPCI
Do you agree or disagree w/ this official position of ethical behavior among the fellowship you belong to?
The sovereignty of the local church is an important concept in the Apostolic movement.
I wholeheartedly agree w /this statement ... and that is why the present structure falls short of this, IMO... from top to bottom and throughout the manual a Vatican type structure prevails ...
Linear Mode
