David Bernard Weighs In on General Board Decision

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Personally don't think its meant to do anything more than appease the conservative faction either still within the UPCI and/or those with dual membership which will be faced with a choice.

By stating such an affirmative action they hope to negate the charge made by the WPF (and THEIR sole excuse for formation), namely the UPCI is "soft" on holiness. Fortunately, there was absolutely NO mention of standards. No Christian should oppose true holiness being taught.

:-)

DING DING DING!!!!

We have a winner!

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Newman

...... 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.

Sounds like Newman is advocating that "we must implement practical ways to teach biblical holiness."

It also seems to agree in principle with what Bernard was saying since the quote came from his letter.

:-)

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

DING DING DING!!!!

We have a winner!

It is with great humility I accept the official POTD award. The Ronzie.

[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.

[Praxeas]

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.

They didn't lose the conservatives. Some cons chose to leave as did some liberals. It's always been that way

[Newman]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Sounds like Newman is advocating that "we must implement practical ways to teach biblical holiness."

It also seems to agree in principle with what Bernard was saying since the quote came from his letter.

:-)

Not quite! "Holiness and separation" are well-known code words related to Apostolic dress standards; particularly pertaining to the ladies. Although I concede that on occasion, "holiness" is also interpretted as having something to do with not playing team sports depending on rather one is in a hunting area of the country or not and athletically inclined or not.

My initial post was intended to point out the futility and further loss of members that will occur if the UPC mounts a new campain to preserve dress standards from 50 years ago.

There are much more relevant issues right now. We don't need more of the same publications that have been sanctioned by PPH for the last 25 years.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Newman is right.


....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.

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Quote from David Bernard letter:

..... Holding such dual ministerial membership could lead to conflicts of interests, since ministers could vote on parallel offices in two different organizations, would be subject to two different Articles of Faith, would be subject to two different procedures for ministerial discipline, and so on. Moreover, some confusion has already been created on the foreign missions field because of WPF leaders contacting and visiting national UPC ministers.


Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

David K. Bernard, Superintendent

South Texas District

.

[ManOfWord]

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.

Once again, I agree counselor.......as usual, the UPC is too little too late. About 50 yrs too late.

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Personally don't think its meant to do anything more than appease the conservative faction either still within the UPCI and/or those with dual membership which will be faced with a choice.

By stating such an affirmative action they hope to negate the charge made by the WPF (and THEIR sole excuse for formation), namely the UPCI is "soft" on holiness. Fortunately, there was absolutely NO mention of standards. No Christian should oppose true holiness being taught.

:-)

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!

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Newman

Not quite! "Holiness and separation" are well-known code words related to Apostolic dress standards; particularly pertaining to the ladies. Although I concede that on occasion, "holiness" is also interpretted as having something to do with not playing team sports depending on rather one is in a hunting area of the country or not and athletically inclined or not.

My initial post was intended to point out the futility and further loss of members that will occur if the UPC mounts a new campain to preserve dress standards from 50 years ago.

There are much more relevant issues right now. We don't need more of the same publications that have been sanctioned by PPH for the last 25 years.

Who is we????? Are you UPC ???

If not then how exactly is this going to effect you?

[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.