David Bernard Weighs In on General Board Decision

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

True, no Christian should decry holiness being taught. But we both know where that will lead and what the messages will sound like. Thank you, as well, counselor!

Et tu Brute? ROFLOL

[James Griffin]

Newman,

Always a pleasure to meet someone even more cynical than myself. LOL

However, the UPCI as a body has made tremendous progress as a whole on these issues over the past decade or so, as evidenced by the very existence of the WPF.

There is a shift afoot in the next generation of leaders to accentuate what they stand for as opposed to against.

As for the "NO" quote, surely you are not saying that holiness should not be emphasized in ANY form?

As for as "code words", I grew up around MW, AM, and others finally coming into positions of true influence, who truly understand holiness is NOT the same as dress code. And as a FORMER UPCI minister in the LA district, and having sat under some true Ultra-Cons I promise I understand the difference.

These moves will be good for the UPCI in the long run.

As will the new understanding that transformation is not the same as reformation through conformity.

[SDG]

Welcome to the David Bernard era, ladies and gentlemen.

He is defining the agenda for the next decade and quickly positioning himself as the next GS of the UPCI

The org will settle comfortably into a moderate agenda ... and DB will be it's poster boy.

He is articulate and .... dare say ... willing to confront all detractors on all sides.

It will be refreshing to see a GS that has some backbone and is willing to say what's on his mind.


This is proof, imo, that he was among those who pushed for this resolution.

On another note .... it has taken more than a decade to convince the org to allow Spanish ministries to be it's own division ... and the official position was that SEM had to be economically solvent until this ever happened. Interestingly, it still isn't but the org has decided that the fastest growing segment in the org now should have it's own division. I know they don't have the funding for this ... nor does SEM have a secret stash of money in their account ... since HMD kept it all ... but I find the timing of this decision to be politically expedient.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Newman,

Always a pleasure to meet someone even more cynical than myself. LOL

However, the UPCI as a body has made tremendous progress as a whole on these issues over the past decade or so, as evidenced by the very existence of the WPF.

There is a shift afoot in the next generation of leaders to accentuate what they stand for as opposed to against.

As for the "NO" quote, surely you are not saying that holiness should not be emphasized in ANY form?

As for as "code words", I grew up around MW, AM, and others finally coming into positions of true influence, who truly understand holiness is NOT the same as dress code. And as a FORMER UPCI minister in the LA district, and having sat under some true Ultra-Cons I promise I understand the difference.

These moves will be good for the UPCI in the long run.

As will the new understanding that transformation is not the same as reformation through conformity.

1. I love holiness. However, I do not believe "holiness" was the actual topic of David Bernard's third point in his letter given that he spoke of "maintaining our identity." That would suggest that he was speaking about a dress standard instead.

2. Surely, a male must realize that that his take on how things are changing may not be the same perspective as a woman who is impacted by standards very differently.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Newman

Sounds like a death march to me... First they lose the Conservatives and now they want to alienate the Liberals?

The UPC will not be stronger by trying to prove to the Conservatives that the UPC can keep a dress standard from 50 years ago. Competitive holiness isn't going to do anyone good. There are too many other choices out there now and too much internet access not to know it.

Instead, let the individual churches seek God about the matter. Let's teach about the fruit of the Spirit, loving our neighbors, and fleeing pornography, fornication and adultery.

Let's teach where the rubber meets the road in the 21st century fully realizing that technology is here to stay. We aren't in Kansas anymore.

Don't hold your breath.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Newman

Sounds like a death march to me... First they lose the Conservatives and now they want to alienate the Liberals?

The UPC will not be stronger by trying to prove to the Conservatives that the UPC can keep a dress standard from 50 years ago. Competitive holiness isn't going to do anyone good. There are too many other choices out there now and too much internet access not to know it.

Instead, let the individual churches seek God about the matter. Let's teach about the fruit of the Spirit, loving our neighbors, and fleeing pornography, fornication and adultery.

Let's teach where the rubber meets the road in the 21st century fully realizing that technology is here to stay. We aren't in Kansas anymore.

Newwoman,

This is exactly what I predicted. I posted that if the TV resolution passed the UPC would temporarily take a hard dive to the right and heavily emphasize standards to try and demonstrate (by overcompensation) that they still have "street cred" when it comes to old time "holiness" and "seperation".

Your post I quoted above hits the nail on the head about the consequences of this.

I don't think it will appease the conservatives who have been whining and griping about the UPC's "direction" for years now and it certainly won't be welcomed by progressive / liberal UPCers who looked on the passage of the TV resolution as just a step in the UPC moderating.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by CC1

Newwoman,

This is exactly what I predicted. I posted that if the TV resolution passed the UPC would temporarily take a hard dive to the right and heavily emphasize standards to try and demonstrate (by overcompensation) that they still have "street cred" when it comes to old time "holiness" and "seperation".

Your post I quoted above hits the nail on the head about the consequences of this.

I don't think it will appease the conservatives who have been whining and griping about the UPC's "direction" for years now and it certainly won't be welcomed by progressive / liberal UPCers who looked on the passage of the TV resolution as just a step in the UPC moderating.

There were signs of this w/ KH's message at conference ... which could've come out of one the Godair's sermon notes.

[A_PoMo]

Newman is right.

The liberals are going to be sick to their stomach when they read this. Many of them that I know were thrilled at the way Youth Congress went last year and disheartened at the reaction all the control freaks had to how it went. This will only serve as another punch in the gut for the "progressives". I talked to one this morning on the phone who had planned to turn in his card by this summer when his father retired from his UPC position but had decided to maybe hang awhile due to what he thinks are positive developments in the last few months. This will gut him. Jones can add one more to his list. Actually DB can too since the guy is in his district. Ironic.

I wonder why they would actively discourage people from joining another Apostolic group? Why would you do that? If people want to go don't talk them out of it. Let 'em go, wish 'em well. Take the high road.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Jehoram]

I do think Newman's analysis is correct. There will be an exodus of moderates if they (the UPC leadership) start banging the separation drum incessantly.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

I do think Newman's analysis is correct. There will be an exodus of moderates if they (the UPC leadership) start banging the separation drum incessantly.

there have always been the bangers - any increased publication won't change anything regarding the individual churches.