Tulsa: A Description from a Coordinator of the Meeting

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by CC1

Here is my short take;

1. The WWPF was duplicitous and were indeed planning a new org as an alternative to the UPC despite their denials.

2. I still think it is the best thing that could have happened. The UPC did not have unity. Now the ultra cons can preach to each other about how long their sleeves have to be and the UPC can get on with the Great Commission. Hopefully slowly moving away from the man made legalism just as the ultra cons have predicted.

Very similar to AFF and it's break off forum, JustPreachers.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Furthermore,

When we start saying that the WPF is political and some start yelping, it reminds me of the saying...

When you throw a rock out into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one who got hit!

Pretty spot on!

Okay... that's it. I'm making a rule... no more use of the phrase "spot on."

Ever since the Obama Campaign Talking Points memo went out describing Tina Fey's impersonation as "Spot On!" last summer that phrase has been beat to death. Let it die. leave it alone.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Okay... that's it. I'm making a rule... no more use of the phrase "spot on."

Ever since the Obama Campaign Talking Points memo went out describing Tina Fey's impersonation as "Spot On!" last summer that phrase has been beat to death. Let it die. leave it alone.

I agree with you. You are spot on.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Bowas

I agree with you. You are spot on.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Okay... that's it. I'm making a rule... no more use of the phrase "spot on."

Ever since the Obama Campaign Talking Points memo went out describing Tina Fey's impersonation as "Spot On!" last summer that phrase has been beat to death. Let it die. leave it alone.

I am not aware of what you are referencing here but I will never, ever, ever, ever, use that term again! Honest injun!

[timlan2057]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Most of you folks do not go to UPC churches and most of the time is a UPC bashing forum so why the racket about the WPF?????

I recieved invites to UPC functions when I was in the AMF I never was offended. If I decided to go I went.

I happen to know several pastors who recieved this that are not UPC pastors.

I have NO desire to belong to the WPF but all this WPF thrashing is unseemingly.

Particularly while y'all applaud Global and other such groups who are also primarily made up of disgruntled ex-UPC men.

Global and such like are on the left and the WPF is on the right what is the difference?

Come on Brother Epley, you're an old debater and you know what you're doing with this post.

You're obscuring the point here.

The point is NOT which ideology someone is "bashing" - to use your term.

The point is this: the AMF was crystal clear in their motives (whether you agreed with them or not) when they gathered at Spell's church in Baton Rouge for their formation conference - they were looking to form a new organization or fellowship.

The issue with these guys was that they came off with one of the biggest con jobs ever pulled by a bunch of pentecostal preachers by pulling their self-righteous robes around them; claiming that carnal people were misjudging them; that they were just poor prosecuted, wounded souls who had no choice but to seek solace in each other's arms - but they were NOT forming a new organization - as illustrated in the post Ed pointed out when he resurrected this.

And of course they did the exact opposite. This was the biggest bait-and-switch ever pulled.

If somebody else had made your post Brother Epley, I'd say they were too ignorant to see the point.

But as I say - you're a sharp old cookie and an old debater.

YOU see the point ... you just don't want anyone else to see the point. ; )

[timlan2057]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

This post is sooooo funny in retrospect.

Ed, I have to agree with you.

Especially since it was posted with that condescending tone of "You're questioning the man of God ... all you poor carnal, dumb 'saints' who can't polish our boots."

And of course included in the "poor carnal saints" group are the "liberal" carnal preachers who just are not up to our level of spirituality.

Funny the follow-up on this has been virtually nil, eh?

[timlan2057]

Okay, as far as how much "politics were involved in this:

I don't think I'm so brilliant that my old posts are worth resurrecting - aw, who am I kidding? I'm resurrecting one anyway.

But here's what I posted when this WPF-or-whatever thing started and it's of course still relevant to the subject:

Now Steadfast, in your attempts to make these Tulsa brethren's motives appear as pure as the wind-driven snow, you gotta admit the kid might have a point here.

"Might"?

I KNOW he does.

Let's use a specific example of whether the Tulsa guys are motivated by the UPC drifting "leftward."

I guess "worldly sports" would be considered something these guys would be concerned with, eh?

I notice Rick Treece is one of the "council of 49."

He's a great guy, a fine minister and one of the not-so-many whose ministry is not just a pale reflection of daddy's. He carved out his own niche and is not just "prophecy preacher" Jr.

Marvin Treece was not my pastor. Murrell Ewing was. But Marvin Treece was probably the preacher I tried to emulate as far as study habits, qualifications and professional bearing.

One could sit in front of Marvin Treece and feel the same sense of "qualification" and "professionalism" that one feels in his doctor's or attorney's office.

That's not a common thing to me.

A significant number of "ole time" pentecostal preachers, I wouldn't want or trust to counsel me when to go use the bathroom, much less on weightier matters involving my career or family.

But my relationship with the Treeces goes back many years.

I've preached for them and they've preached for me.

Marvin and Rick never were big "organizational" men.

I don't mean that in a bad sense - but in the sense that Marvin might not go every night to Louisiana campmeeting because he was fatigued from preaching out. Like he told me one time: "I want to be home sometimes."

But I find it rather ludicrous that Rick Treece would be on the general board of a new organization predicated on being more "holy" and "conservative" than the present day UPC.

But anyway, back to "worldly sports."

My ex-brother-in-law has attended Apostolic Temple for many years.

And yes, we still have very friendly relations.

His sons are and were extremely good high school athletes ... almost borderline college-scholarship athletes. Baseball and basketball, primarily.

And yes, with all the "immodest clothing" and "worldly atmosphere" and all the tired old cliches "old time pentecost" throws at these things.

I checked with my son and daughter to be sure my facts were straight and they mentioned times when their cousins could not be at youth camp because of American Legion baseball schedules.

Now me personally?

I'M not calling "hypocrites." My children's cousins are fine young men and I'm glad they are examples of 21st century apostolic youth, ALONG with Kathleen Herles.

I guess the stone-throwers like this "Melody" would rather have them on a barstool than wearing a dress that shows a little shoulder or wearing basketball shorts.

I'm not condemning - I applaud Pastor Treece for not being some micro-manager pastor.

And yes, my ex-brother-in-law's family is involved and are one of the main families at Apostolic Temple - they are not just observers.

Pray tell, HOW would some of these neanderthals in the Tulsa crowd feel if they knew one of their oh-so-conservative general board members allows his youth to play worldly high school sports?

So what is happening?

This is a political shindig where these guys are tolerating in their buddies what they condemn in their political enemies.

That's the truth that this SPECIFIC example brings out.

I won't even TOUCH the TV thing.

But frankly, I don't blame Epley for laughing at some of the names on there who are so dead set against television while their churches are full of them.

I'll leave that alone.

But if any of you people trying to make plaster saints out of this Tulsa gang challenges me on this, I can and WILL name names.

But you people know the truth of that as much as I do.

So JrLa, for a young guy with a lot to learn, you hit the nail right on the head so don't let anyone try to tell you your youth betrays you here.

Tulsa is NOT about "convictions."

It's about POLITICS, pure and simple.

And some of you preachers and others can just wrestle with that all you want to.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Okay, as far as how much "politics were involved in this:

I don't think I'm so brilliant that my old posts are worth resurrecting - aw, who am I kidding? I'm resurrecting one anyway.

But here's what I posted when this WPF-or-whatever thing started and it's of course still relevant to the subject:

ALL organizations are political period. I am not anti-WPF that is their right.
However they need to call it what it is and that ii is certainly an organization maybe structured a little different but an organization just the same.

I have no desire to join but I wish them well. Their 'stand' on television is interesting to say the least? How can I be so anti-television advertizing and have a church full of television is the question?

I understand if that was the last straw but to make it a rallying cry seems hollow?

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

ALL organizations are political period. I am not anti-WPF that is their right.
However they need to call it what it is and that ii is certainly an organization maybe structured a little different but an organization just the same.

I have no desire to join but I wish them well. Their 'stand' on television is interesting to say the least? How can I be so anti-television advertizing and have a church full of television is the question?

I understand if that was the last straw but to make it a rallying cry seems hollow?

Bro Epley,

I believe your comments and support them wholeheartedly. It is all about politics.

As far as the question about TV being their rallying cry, they have to use something. But we cannot allow them to cloud the issue and cover their political hypocrisy with a cloak of legitimacy. It would be better if they just said, "We're not happy with the way it's being run and desire something different". Instead they must demonize the very thing that many of them came out of.