Ministerial Ethics, Dropping Out and TV: Did You Forget You Agreed to This?

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by ILG

The vote of the seventies only stregthened a stand of those who had a larger vote. Much like what just happened with TV advertising.

No, a stand was reversed, not strenthened like the vote in the 70's.

Far different kettle of fish.

[stmatthew]

Let me point one thing out in this thread.

IF the bylaws give room for disaffiliating a church, then it is obvious the intent of this portion of the Positional Papers is not meant to disallow Pastors from disaffiliating.

I think what is funny is that Daniel forgot to mention that at the top of this code of ethics, in parentheses is the words (Not laws to govern, but principles to guide). Kind of puts a damper on the intent of this thread, doesn't it???

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

No, a stand was reversed, not strenthened like the vote in the 70's.

Far different kettle of fish.

The stand was reversed in the '70's plain and simple!! Thge original stand was to tolerate both beliefs. This divisive stand turned the unifying stand up on it's head.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Let me point one thing out in this thread.

IF the bylaws give room for disaffiliating a church, then it is obvious the intent of this portion of the Positional Papers is not meant to disallow Pastors from disaffiliating.

I think what is funny is that Daniel forgot to mention that at the top of this code of ethics, in parentheses is the words (Not laws to govern, but principles to guide). Kind of puts a damper on the intent of this thread, doesn't it???

Now how in the world could he have forgotten to put that in there...?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Let me point one thing out in this thread.

IF the bylaws give room for disaffiliating a church, then it is obvious the intent of this portion of the bylaws is not meant to disallow Pastors from disaffiliating.

I think what is funny is that Daniel forgot to mention that at the top of this code of ethics, in parentheses is the words (Not laws to govern, but principles to guide). Kind of puts a damper on the intent of this thread, doesn't it???

Okay....but the conservatives have been criticizing liberals for years for doing just that (unaffiliating) accusing liberals of "stealing" churches and all sorts of ugly things. The point is not so much what the manual says but that the pot is calling the kettle black.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

First, a church can be informed but before the meeting ... a pastor has a window ... to exert influence as to alienate the church's decision ....

but that's not at the heart of the issue ....

To make this thread about the procedural issue of disaffiliation is to miss it entirely. We are speaking about the ethical commitment ministers and pastors made when they agreed to enter the fellowship.

They agreed not only to the AS and Fundamental doctrine ... but also to the teachings/positions of the fellowship, it's bylaws and guidelines.

Will those leaving or considering leaving act ethically as to the underlined portion below:

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"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."

Were the calls by some ministers to protest/boycott organizational divisions with their offerings unethical as stated in the fellowship's teaching/position for ministerial ethics?

Are those unhappy w/ the "change of direction" of the org and promoting alienation/division violating their commitments made when they applied for their license by not simply and honorably withdrawing?

Yes, tv is a conviction dear to some ... but weren't their commitments not to adversely influence or contend towards the disunity of the faith also convictions?

Have some poisoned their congregations w/ anti-org rhetoric from the pulpit? Is there strong-arming by some being used to influence departure?


These are just some of the ethical commitments made by those applying for license with the fellowship:
[This is a current application for a local license]



Isn't part of the teaching of the church this position paper on ethical and honorable departure?

Are those considering a concerted departure avoiding the breaking of the unity of the Spirit in the assemblies?

Have they refrained from speaking evil, critical and contentious words about anyone in their fellowship? What have they done to work towards peace and harmony? And have they been cooperating w/ all efforts of the organization?

bump

These guidelines seem to be part of the commitment made by those applying.

[Coonskinner]

Well, I'd like to stay around and play Whack-a-Mole a while longer, but darkness has fallen and the promise of sweet hound music beckons...

I think I'll go listen to the sweetest choir that never sang in church.

Have fun, all.

[ILG]

The original UPC tolerated both views on salvation. They also tolerated jewels and trimmed hair in some pockets without calling those folks heretics. Don't make me start quoting books.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Let me point one thing out in this thread.

IF the bylaws give room for disaffiliating a church, then it is obvious the intent of this portion of the Positional Papers is not meant to disallow Pastors from disaffiliating.

I think what is funny is that Daniel forgot to mention that at the top of this code of ethics, in parentheses is the words (Not laws to govern, but principles to guide). Kind of puts a damper on the intent of this thread, doesn't it???

Bump

I believe this discussion is closed, as the fact is that these are only guidelines and not laws to govern.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Bump

I believe this discussion is closed, as the fact is that these are only guidelines and not laws to govern.

Okay....but the conservatives have been criticizing liberals for years for doing just that (unaffiliating) accusing liberals of "stealing" churches and all sorts of ugly things. The point is not so much what the manual says but that the pot is calling the kettle black.