*** [Exclusive] Resolution 3: The Bloodbath and Inquisition begins ****

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Great Thoughts Guy.

Glad someone takes time to think before they react. Sure, it SEEMS wrong the night before the crusade, but this was not the first time that Pastor had been requested NOT to use the evangelist I am sure.

Back to the spin crowd.

Really ... says who?

Guy,

Would you agree that this article, with or without the resolution, empowers the DB to go on witch hunts? The term "under question" is EXTREMELY vague and the DB could meet and say OK... we are going to put all men who go out over resolution 4 under question. This would then preclude a licensed minister from preaching for them or them preaching for a UPC pastor. The ambiguity of the article is, in my opinion, dangerous.

BTW, I have seen a particular district use the article/bylaw to shut men out and move them on down the road.

DS and DBs are subject to collusion and corruption like any other political body!

Originally Posted by philjones

Guy,

Would you agree that this article, with or without the resolution, empowers the DB to go on witch hunts? The term "under question" is EXTREMELY vague and the DB could meet and say OK... we are going to put all men who go out over resolution 4 under question. This would then preclude a licensed minister from preaching for them or them preaching for a UPC pastor. The ambiguity of the article is, in my opinion, dangerous.

BTW, I have seen a particular district use the article/bylaw to shut men out and move them on down the road.

DS and DBs are subject to collusion and corruption like any other political body!

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".
Hypothetically it is possible to commit adultry, be accused, have witnesses, charges be laid before the district, drop your card and stop any investigation dead in its tracks before being found guilty and dropped for immorality. That is the kind of situation this particular clause is designed for.
Could it be misused? Absolutely.
I stated what I would do if placed under question frivolously. I would deal with it and make them put up or shut up. If it had gone too far I would demand an apology be published in the local newspaper.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Guy

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".
Hypothetically it is possible to commit adultry, be accused, have witnesses, charges be laid before the district, drop your card and stop any investigation dead in its tracks before being found guilty and dropped for immorality. That is the kind of situation this particular clause is designed for.
Could it be misused? Absolutely.
I stated what I would do if placed under question frivolously. I would deal with it and make them put up or shut up. If it had gone too far I would demand an apology be published in the local newspaper.

So you are publically stating that teaching/preaching theology does not constitute "conduct" under this clause???

Originally Posted by Encryptus

So you are publically stating that teaching/preaching theology does not constitute "conduct" under this clause???

In my opinion. However that and a couple of bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks.

[Stephanas]

Originally Posted by Guy

In my opinion. However that and a couple of bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks.

(a) The term "under question" shall be taken to mean a formal decision by a District Board reflecting a concern that conduct in flagrant violation of the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International has occurred.

It's not much of a stretch to think that failure to preach and uphold the traditional standards could be viewed as "conduct in flagrant violation of the Manual."

Originally Posted by Guy

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".
Hypothetically it is possible to commit adultry, be accused, have witnesses, charges be laid before the district, drop your card and stop any investigation dead in its tracks before being found guilty and dropped for immorality. That is the kind of situation this particular clause is designed for.
Could it be misused? Absolutely.
I stated what I would do if placed under question frivolously. I would deal with it and make them put up or shut up. If it had gone too far I would demand an apology be published in the local newspaper.

It (the rule of law covered in res. #3) is too ambiguous and is rife with the potential for legal action. I know of a poster on this forum who left by lapsing his credentials. His former district board, post withdrawal for non payment of dues, voted to put him under question and then caused several scheduled meetings to be canceled. Others in his circle of fellowship got the same treatment. This rule flies in the face of the autonomous local assembly! It is a control tactic and a tool for division and destruction of brotherhood!

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Guy

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".

Originally Posted by Encryptus

So you are publically stating that teaching/preaching theology does not constitute "conduct" under this clause???

Why the silence?

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Why the silence?

Encryptus,

The fact is that the resolution was to clarify that there is a DIFFERENCE between conduct unbecoming a minister and simply being under the umbrella of question. There are two very specific categories with one clearly defined and the other defined by ambiguity.

[delta soundman]

You are all right that this is about control. But really its not the DS's fault. He is in the middle of something that he thinks he has all the information on but he doesn't know the half of it.