District Puts WPF on Notice

[A_PoMo]

Not to totally change the subject, but I don't get the whole platform standard idea. You either believe it or you don't. Why would you go half way?

[CC1]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Not to totally change the subject, but I don't get the whole platform standard idea. You either believe it or you don't. Why would you go half way?

I find these new type UPC churches fascinating. Like you I am at a bit of a loss to understand why "leadership" roles in the church are held to one "standard" while saints who are not going to have a "platform" ministry, teach, etc are accepted without adhering to it.

I guess it is a step in the right direction and possibly an "interim" step by some pastors who don't really hold to the corporate legalism anymore but don't really know what to do about it as they don't want something many saints Christian life has been built around to be pulled out from under them. This could be a slow method of change.

I am othres stance is that they are just being open to the Holy Spirit bringing regular saints to a better understanding of why they need to adopt the dress code / "standard" required of people on the platform and in ministry. That they are not excluding people based on voluntarily adopting the legalism but just not putting them in positions of leadership.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by CC1

I find these new type UPC churches fascinating. Like you I am at a bit of a loss to understand why "leadership" roles in the church are held to one "standard" while saints who are not going to have a "platform" ministry, teach, etc are accepted without adhering to it.

I guess it is a step in the right direction and possibly an "interim" step by some pastors who don't really hold to the corporate legalism anymore but don't really know what to do about it as they don't want something many saints Christian life has been built around to be pulled out from under them. This could be a slow method of change.

I am othres stance is that they are just being open to the Holy Spirit bringing regular saints to a better understanding of why they need to adopt the dress code / "standard" required of people on the platform and in ministry. That they are not excluding people based on voluntarily adopting the legalism but just not putting them in positions of leadership.

It's not just the UPCI...I first encountered this is the COOLJC a few years ago.

I didn't understand then and I don't now...

[Hoovie]

I totally understand it. It is Biblical to have high standards for those in leadership.

Standards of behavior, and dress are common for leadership in most groups.

For example, last year the Southern Baptist Convention issued a statement forbiding teaching and practice of "speaking in tongues" for leadership. Naturally, there are many within the Baptist org. that speak in tongues - and no one will root them out.

Dress code is also not reserved for Apostolic leadership. Many require formal suits and tie and some even demand a clerical collar and other litergical vestments.

Many things can be prefered without them automatically being salvific or essential.

IMO... this is all good.

[tv1a]

I read a similar diatribe by Phil Jones. I'll repeat to you what I posted in response to his ignorant. By the way he coward his way out of the discussion when I posted irrefutable facts. I would be ever so humble if I was only a small part of the reason he doesn't post much around aff because his attacks against me were personal, and unwarranted.

Now to respond to your bovine excrement. I biblically distinguish between conservativism and legalism. Legalism has infiltrated conservatism so deeply no one can hear the cry of real conservatives... Legalists put more emphasis on subjective matters and expect everyone else to think the same way. Legalism is a rules based religion based on finding loopholes. Conservatives are consistent in principle.

I have on more than one occassion defended conservatives against unwarranted attacks. Unfortunately many of those unwarranted attacks came at the hands of legalists, those the conservative would consider brother in arms. There are those who frequent this forum who can attest to that fact.

Before you get your fruit of the looms all bunched up about my so called attack against standards, I suggest you find the thread I started which states my core principles. If you want to keep your misconception of my views after reading the first few posts where I mention my core principles, than you are worse off than I thought. Just to let you know there has not one legalist, nor one conservative who had any issue with my core principles. Some have commented to me I was more conservative than they thought. Not a bad compliment for a guy who doesn't get his thrills off labels.

Your problems is common among people with legalistic leanings. There is an inability to distinguish between discussing personal convictions with a discussion of unbiblical mandates.

I'm all for Biblical boundaries. The idea that the corporate apostolic identity is wrapped around unbiblical standards should be cause for alarm.

If one wants to talk about circular argument, why not discuss how internet is okay, yet television is the tool of Satan. Legalism if full of circular logic. I give too much credit to legalism by using the word logic in the same sentence.

I have no problem with conservatism because I understand conservatism. I get along great with conservatives, liberals and moderates, oh my. (tribute to wizzard of oz). Legalism however is destructive and has no place in the Body of Christ. Legalism is a cancer that obviously when left unchecked ends up as bad as witchcraft (Galatians 3:1). The body of Christ should treat legalism the same way it treats a group of wiccans.

Again I invite you to do some research. My core beleifs are out there. I'll make the same challenge to you as I did to Phil Jones and others, find one flaw in those principles. So far just like the self righteouss individuals who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery, every one of them had to drops their rocks and go back into their little caves.

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Who's being persecuted? Who said anything about personal convictions?

TV, your efforts to destroy conservative beliefs are nothing new, you have a daily diatribe decrying the very essence of standards that are believed by a church yet you become holier than thou when people don't buy your circular argument. You are as transparent as glass to those who have credibility and ethics. No matter how you spin it you are against any kind of boundary preached over a pulpit. In fact, you display a persecution complex very well. You try to minimize standards as a way of dress or state of uncut hair. If you think this is all that a standard intails, you are quite ignorant. But I don't think you believe that. It's just easier to discount convictions here. Of course, it's easy to preach to the choir in the middle of the mob.

I don't expect you to change what you believe, just don't expose the two sides of your mouth so blatantly, it ruins your credibility.

[tv1a]

A good reason to get rid of those hideous choir robes...

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Not to totally change the subject, but I don't get the whole platform standard idea. You either believe it or you don't. Why would you go half way?

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I'm all for Biblical boundaries. The idea that the corporate apostolic identity is wrapped around unbiblical standards should be cause for alarm.

If one wants to talk about circular argument, why not discuss how internet is okay, yet television is the tool of Satan. Legalism if full of circular logic. I give too much credit to legalism by using the word logic in the same sentence.

I have no problem with conservatism because I understand conservatism. I get along great with conservatives, liberals and moderates, oh my. (tribute to wizard of oz). Legalism however is destructive and has no place in the Body of Christ. Legalism is a cancer that obviously when left unchecked ends up as bad as witchcraft (Galatians 3:1). The body of Christ should treat legalism the same way it treats a group of wiccans.

Again I invite you to do some research. My core beleifs are out there. I'll make the same challenge to you as I did to Phil Jones and others, find one flaw in those principles. So far just like the self righteouss individuals who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery, every one of them had to drops their rocks and go back into their little caves.

Phenomenal Post! Right on target.

And for the record, let me state this upfront: I neither LOVE nor HATE UPC. I've been in it 10 years, and love some things about it, and hate other things. I have no generational loyalty or ANY loyalty for that matter to the "organization"... I am quite indifferent to it, actually. But I do love the APOSTOLIC message and Jesus Christ. And I do love my pastor, who is NOT a clothesline preacher.

I have been to several women's conferences, some of which were very POWERFUL. However, I have to admit, I walked out on Ruth Reider's Holiness Session at one conference, it was so sickening. (And yes, there always was at least one session at each conference telling us womenfolk how to dress if we are to be approved by "The Church" (UPC in their book) and to be approved by the other saints.) And yes, they covered the uncut hair doctrine and the no-pants-on-women thing. And yes, you are not fully approved nor accepted if you don't agree with their standards.

NOW... several posts back (I can't remember the poster), someone stated they were tired of being constantly criticized because they still ADHERED to the standards. Well I have to say, in my 10 years of UPC, I have been CONSTANTLY looked down on by many in the UPC because I did not "fall in" and obey "The Standards" ... so all I can say is, I KNOW HOW YOU FEEL, Buddy. Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Not to totally change the subject, but I don't get the whole platform standard idea. You either believe it or you don't. Why would you go half way?

I agree, if it is wrong on the platform it is wrong in the pew.

The only difference being maybe that those on the platform be a little dresser Than others. You know men in ties and dress shirts, ladies in hose kind of thing.


So if one is a church member they should also live godly and dress godly not just the platform staff.

Sinner are welcome anyway we can get them here.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Jekyll

This is not a bottom line. People have left "standards" because God has truly liberated them??? This reveals your tilted slant in a post masquerading as balanced. And you call for a stop to the broad brushing - hogwash.

This place sure has gotten smug in the past month or so. Better watch out, it might become the bitter exUPC version of GNC where the UPC is hypocritical if they do and hypocritical if they don't, and where anything more conserviative is, well, unspeakable heresy from the hot place. Whose backs are you going to get tired of slapping then?

Sorry, my friend, this post merely reveals your twisted slant that anyone who leaves standards is backslidden.

Simply not so.

I suppose if this place is so smug, maybe you should find another forum that is more conducive to your "broad brush" ideas that anyone who doesn't believe it the way you do is lost.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by tv1a

A good reason to get rid of those hideous choir robes...

Disagree...choir robes cause those in misic ministry to look the same, thus taking the congregation's attention away from who is wearing what, to what they are presenting in ministry.

II Chronicles 5:12 states in the KJV that the singers and musicians were "arrayed in white..." In other words, they were uniform...they all looked the same. JMHO