I see Lois also has brought up the looming doctrinal and ecclesiatical issue that this case brings before the UPCI, when it comes to the definition of fornication and reasons for divorce:
"As pointed out earlier, the UPC ministerial Manual gives their official definition of immoral conduct to include "adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, and/or any other sexual acts determined by the District Board to be perverted or immoral." It would appear that the official stand of the organization is basically that immoral conduct is some form of sexual act.
Let's review the acts listed by Pastor Fogarty, that in his eyes constitute biblical fornication:
- homosexuality
- lesbianism
- lust
- exhibitionism
- pornography
- child abuse
- harlotry
- bestiality
- prostitution
- solicitation of sex
- and so forth
The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the United Pentecostal Church as an organization is in agreement. Besides the organization as a whole, would any UPC District Board across the country agree that the incident at the swimming pool was in fact exhibitionism and that this is an example of the biblical definition of fornication and thus grounds for divorce and remarriage?
This case has great significance in the organization because if this definition stands, similar statements concerning other church members, or former members as is the case here, could be made by their licensed ministers in other churches and/or it used as a reason for additional divorce or remarriage.
If it stands, will a licensed minister be able to divorce or remarry based on their spouse accidentally being seen in a bathing suit at a pool when another man suddenly arrives?
This isn't just a local licensed minister giving this definition. It is someone who holds numerous offices within the UPC, including high level positions."
---------------------
Lois, I would add that the indifference shown by the District Supt. on the matter which came before him via letter .... and in my own experience - my dad served on the Metro District board - the District board of Georgia no doubt met either formally or informally about this ...
Their
indifference to address this definition given by the General Secretary of the Georgia board which is at the VERY CORE OF THIS MATTER ... can only be interpreted as tacit approval of his definition ...
Yes, the UPCI manual defines these as sexual acts but also allows a district board to determine other acts that are perverse or immoral
By choosing to not censure or address this matter in a public manner, or with Ms. Driver, one must believe that their apathy is tacit stamp of approval of a board member's definition of fornication.
Georgia Board, is exhibitionism and/or other forms of immodesty ... FORNICATION?
Is there a difference between immodesty (commonly viewed as wearing pants, or skirt above the knee) and exhibitionism?
How much skin qualifies for exhibitionism? What settings?
Is this grounds for divorce?
Has Pastor Fogarty been corrected in defining fornication seemingly contrary to how it is defined by the manual and scripturally ... and for condoning divorce on the grounds he gave?
This is a matter of precedence.
Threaded Mode
