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

[rrford]

Originally Posted by ILG

Is that why people like Truly Blessed left because he basically felt pushed out?? Because everyone had supposedly come into the "unity of the faith"?? Is that why hoards leave every year? You can't vote an organization into unity of faith.

"Hoards"???? Oh my word. Have you ever received bad information ro else you have incorrect definitions.

Further, TB left for different reasons than those "hordes" of recent years. Apples and oranges.

[Bowas]

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?

You are ethically and contractually correct.
I have no plans to enter into this debate other than this post,(maybe a couple of more ) but all the rationalizing and justifing that has been put forth, is still technically against the manual.
Those that disagree with the direction, should pack up there bags and move across the street and continue their ministry.
I remember when the "liberals" did it, is was wrong. Now the "conservatives" are doing it, and suddenly it is right.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I think some have lived in their past hurts for so long that they have robbed themselves of their present and future. Paul stated that he FORGOT those things which were behind him, so that he could embrace his destiny. You will never find your future as long as you are living in the past.

Someone take this microphone before I preach!

Are you telling me to get lost??

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Hey, imagine that. Wonder why you couldn't find those when defending lib friends of yours who were violating them also?

Now the "YOU DO IT TOO" ARGUMENT from the RULE OF LAW crowd???

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Remember our little conversation about the "tyranny of the majority"?

When the two sides entered this compact they sought unity ... not uniformity.

And surely we would agree that 2 differing views of eternal salvation will never find unity? Are you really that naive? If so why not become a universalist in the name of unity? (And yes, I realize that was an extreme comment. )

[BrotherEastman]

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?

Hey, I checked "yes" on all those questions and I'm conservative. What gives? I do not think this issue is about liberals, moderates, or conservatives. It's about whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Come on folks, if we are willing to be united for something we agree about, but change our minds when something isn't going quite our way, what does that say about our consistency? This resolution thing makes me wanna vomit. If the conservatives jump ship now, then there will be no chance to overturn this resolution at all within the next few years. There is a possibility, that even the libs or moderates may change thier minds realizing that this was not a good idea. (however slim that may be)

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Bowas

You are ethically and contractually correct.
I have no plans to enter into this debate other than this post,(maybe a couple of more ) but all the rationalizing and justifing that has been put forth, is still technically against the manual.
Those that disagree with the direction, should pack up there bags and move across the street and continue their ministry.
I remember when the "liberals" did it, is was wrong. Now the "conservatives" are doing it, and suddenly it is right.

Consistency ... thou art a jewel ... said by a light PAJCer who though Trinitarians were saved.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by rrford

"Hoards"???? Oh my woird. Have you ever received bad information ro else you have incorrect definitions.

Further, TB left for different reasons than those "hordes" of recent years. Apples and oranges.

I forgot how illogical it can be to debate these issues. I have said my peace. Bottom line is that you can't hold libs and cons to two different sets of rules......disaffiliation is evil for libs but okay for cons.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Now the "YOU DO IT TOO" ARGUMENT from the RULE OF LAW crowd???

Point A: I am not RULE OF LAW. (But I don't expect you to accept that as you seem to be challenged in the arera of correct perceptions.)

Point B: Seems like you played the card first. And to paraphrase Darcie, you seem to now be agreeing that the libs did it first.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by rrford

And surely we would agree that 2 differing views of eternal salvation will never find unity? Are you really that naive? If so why not become a universalist in the name of unity? (And yes, I realize that was an extreme comment. )

Are you calling the founding fathers who wrote the statement naive?? This was their vision.