Mooney Guns for "Secret" Meeting in Detroit?

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree with Bro. Mooney; the secretive meetings and gathering of people to discuss what "shall be done" about current issues is nonsense.

Let them line up in front of the general board and picket and expound and plead and publicly declare a preaching strike or whatEVER--but there is no need to be secretive unless you are trying to draw people away from the organization or work some mischief behind the backs of others.

MOST of the time, what is done in secret needs to be hidden for a reason. I certainly don't teach my children to be secretive or to conceal their thoughts, words and actions. So adults even moreso need to learn to be bold and express themselves forthrightly and honestly, without subterfuge.

I did NOT appreciate how the WPF handled their mess, and I don't appreciate anyone else who exercises dishonest tactics.

Now. That said. I have no idea what the secret meeting in Detroit was about, whether it had anything to do with the organization or not, and whether "secret" is the correct term for the event. "Exclusive" is not the same thing as "secret." But, it obviously wasn't public. I have to be a little suspicious of people who exclude anyone or any group who can offer dissension or an opposing viewpoint.

I hope the men who organized the meeting were prayerful and not divisive in any way. I hope they didn't negatively discuss their elders in any way. I hope they didn't deride or mock older men of God or their doctrines. I hope they were exceedingly respectful in their discussions or planning or whatever it was they were gathered to do. ...because to do otherwise would be to alienate God from the entire process, no matter what the core motive might be.

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

MissB,

Your principles are great, and I cannot stand hidden agendas.

I didn't like it with the WPF, and I don't like it with this group.

However, I think you're missing the way things really work.

Since when is it a crime to hold a private meeting?

Should we create a new bylaw to prohibit private assembly without prior consent from the UPCI? To me, this is about control. Some men want to control the flow of information within the org, and want access to private meetings in order to manage the conversations and agenda.

That is borg theology. That is anti-Bible. That is wrong.

You say that these guys should push an agenda publicly?

How?

They are already being railroaded, demonized and castigated before they speak one word publicly. Can you imagine what would happen if they spewed their entire agenda?

Listen carefully, Sis.

Any movement that supresses critical thinking, prohibits private assembly and squelches inspection is in grave danger of becoming monolithic, cultic and irrelevant.

Is there any way I can agree with both of these posts? I know... I know... a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Seriously, though...
An exclusive meeting with ONLY like-minded people is not, in my opinion, a very productive meeting. If you're just looking for a bunch of "Amen"'s and pats on the back, then that's exactly what you'll get. The scripture says that iron sharpens iron... there needs to be some grating against each other for that to happen, though.

If, on the other hand, the purpose was to write a manifesto for the purpose of presenting their disputes to a broader audience (read General Board) then that would be an exception to the statement above, in my opinion.

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm not UPCI, and have recently been railroaded and lied against by the political machinery of both UPCI and ALJC. But understanding how things work, and that the status quo for these orgs is to NOT hear debate or opposing views, I would understand the need to create a working group to form the manifesto and get all the ducks in row before presenting to the great and awesome powers that rule all of God's Kingdom. But out with it now... let's hear what you have to say... no more secrecy.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I would have to agree with GA on this one, TS.

Reason being - a collective meeting of folks from different churches, with different idiosyncracies is not the place to be preaching your gripes, as it were.

I would daresay that most of the people in that meeting had NO idea there was a secret meeting, and probably didn't even care.

In my humble opinion, a camp meeting is not the place to preach standards, personal convictions, or personal vendettas. It's a place to go for encouragement, uplifting, and general reinforcement of one's faith.

There's a WHOLE lot of Bible one can preach and be anointed, and the standards should be preached by individual pastors in their respective churches, and the railing against a group of men who are "going charismatic" should be reserved for the boardroom.

Again, in my humble opinion......

This is true. this is wisdom. Exactly right.

[n david]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Paul didn't "name names" when addressing the Judaizers (oh he did on occassion), but more often, it's better to address the situation, then to sniper out names. I think you would be on this forum posting how awful that would be if that had happened.

Then it's not an "Intentional Confrontation" ... more like "Intentional Innuendo."

IF true ... I'd be upset with PM labeling TFT, RJ and others from the meeting as false prophets - regardless if done by name or innuendo. I'd have more respect if done by name, however, instead of hiding behind innuendo.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by Kim Komando

The denigration of these men continues by their peers, in my opinion.
They insist to call a meeting, by invite only, (which is common place) "secret". Using scripture to malign it and cast aspersions to equate the word "secret" with darkness, lies, false doctrine, and inspired by the devil, etc.

Now the tact as we read from Rev. Phillips, and somewhat from PM, is to claim the this group did not achieve successes in their ministry on their own merits but on the coattails of their daddys.

Truth be told, many of these men who attended are first generation Pentecostals. Many of them started as home missionaries or have started their works from the ground up. While a handful, of course, have inherited churches from their family, just like many throughout the UPC.

The charge that they have stolen churches from their fathers to destroy them is an egregious one. I can think of one pastor that these "defenders of the faith" may be targeting with this type of rhetoric but the broad brushing is insincere, inaccurate and inflammatory.

What's the deal with calling his peers "cool, brilliant boys"?

You are right on!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

MissB,

Your principles are great, and I cannot stand hidden agendas.

I didn't like it with the WPF, and I don't like it with this group.

However, I think you're missing the way things really work.

Since when is it a crime to hold a private meeting?

Should we create a new bylaw to prohibit private assembly without prior consent from the UPCI? To me, this is about control. Some men want to control the flow of information within the org, and want access to private meetings in order to manage the conversations and agenda.

That's a valid concern.

That is borg theology. That is anti-Bible. That is wrong.

Is that Star Wars talk?

You say that these guys should push an agenda publicly?

How?

They are already being railroaded, demonized and castigated before they speak one word publicly. Can you imagine what would happen if they spewed their entire agenda?

Listen carefully, Sis.

Any movement that supresses critical thinking, prohibits private assembly and squelches inspection is in grave danger of becoming monolithic, cultic and irrelevant.

I agree completely with your last point completely. *sigh*

I understand that it's a quandary. And I'm not saying the meeting was bad just because it was secret. I just hope things were carefully monitored, because it can very quickly leave discussion of issues and become discussion of personalities, ergo, slander and backbiting.

Most of the time things are secret for a reason, and it seems to me that most of the time that reason isn't a noble one. However, there have been times when people have been oppressed or mistreated when being secretive was necessary, and I can understand that. And I KNOW there is reprisal against young ministers who speak their mind and consequently find themselves without a pulpit.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by Kim Komando

Papabear,

By slamming your own peers online on a public forum as being thieves, "cool brilliant boys", and alluding to them being motivated with an "evil, dark, deceptive, spirit of compromise" -

How do you reconcile this with your signature on the Affirmation Statement that you believe and embrace that you will "not contend for the different views to the disunity of the body.”

Do you stand by the Fundamental Doctrine's unity statement and your own affirmation? Is this not a matter of integrity for all sides?

Can anybody say, "hypocritical"?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

That's a valid concern.



Is that Star Wars talk?



I agree completely with your last point completely. *sigh*

I understand that it's a quandary. And I'm not saying the meeting was bad just because it was secret. I just hope things were carefully monitored, because it can very quickly leave discussion of issues and become discussion of personalities, ergo, slander and backbiting.

Most of the time things are secret for a reason, and it seems to me that most of the time that reason isn't a noble one. However, there have been times when people have been oppressed or mistreated when being secretive was necessary, and I can understand that. And I KNOW there is reprisal against young ministers who speak their mind and consequently find themselves without a pulpit.

Knowing some that were involved I feel very assured that it was carefully thought out and in good ethics.

Looks like the slander and backbiting is happening on the outside toward those that attended.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Knowing some that were involved I feel very assured that it was carefully thought out and in good ethics.

Looks like the slander and backbiting is happening on the outside toward those that attended.

Oh, without a doubt!!!! I know that does and will continue to take place.

[Scott Hutchinson]

None of my business,why is it,when like minded people meet that belong to a org. there is a fear some are pulling out of the org. ? Or others say they are being unethical ?

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I don't believe the meeting was a secret to Bro. Haney.

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Knowing some that were involved I feel very assured that it was carefully thought out and in good ethics.

Looks like the slander and backbiting is happening on the outside toward those that attended.

RG, you do know what you're talkin' about.