Ministerial Ethics, Dropping Out and TV: Did You Forget You Agreed to This?

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well this thread has me somewhat confused many on here have wanted the cons to leave and said so and now that it looks as if some are leaving they are fussing because they are leaving.

Sounds like what Dan wants is the con preachers to leave, but keep the churches so a liberal can take 'em and STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT!

Actually, Dan, you have a point--but I don't think it will apply in most cases. If you would consider that for years we were told to teach our people AGAINST the use of tv, and we had to agree to do so. Now, to expect churches who have had pastors that taught it with great conviction, and were WITH THE ORG on the matter, to remain with the UPC when the man they have known as pastor is leaving over his conviction, which MANY OF THEM SHARE...is asking the church forget all they have been taught, all they have known, and the man that they have loved as pastor. You can hardly blame that church for desiring to leave if they believe what he teaches, nor can you ask a man to suddenly reverse course on what he has taught as Bible simply because a manual nows says the opposite of what it once said. That is a ridiculous request.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Sounds like what Dan wants is the con preachers to leave, but keep the churches so a liberal can take 'em and STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT!

Actually, Dan, you have a point--but I don't think it will apply in most cases. If you would consider that for years we were told to teach our people AGAINST the use of tv, and we had to agree to do so. Now, to expect churches who have had pastors that taught it with great conviction, and were WITH THE ORG on the matter, to remain with the UPC when the man they have known as pastor is leaving over his conviction, which MANY OF THEM SHARE...is asking the church forget all they have been taught, all they have known, and the man that they have loved as pastor. You can hardly blame that church for desiring to leave if they believe what he teaches, nor can you ask a man to suddenly reverse course on what he has taught as Bible simply because a manual nows says the opposite of what it once said. That is a ridiculous request.

I understand what you are saying Brother, I also do not like the fact that the resolution passed, but for churches to bail now before they can reverse the resolution speaks poorly against anyone who feels like quitting. Quitters never win. Conservatives only lost by 80 votes, there were alot of conservatives that could've made the sacrifice to be there and vote, but they didn't. If the conservatives were optimistic enough, the resolution can be overturned.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Questions:

Will ministers withdrawing abide by the code of ethics they ascribed to in the manual when they affirmed their membership with the fellowship?

Will they simply withdraw w/o using their influence to alienate their church which may be UPCI affiliated? Will they not use their influence to alienate the fellowship or support of the UPCI?

Have not their convictions changed in regards to abiding to the current bylaws of the UPCI ... and so the honorable thing is to withdraw without trying to bring others w/ them?

Will their integrity be questioned ???... do they not also fall under question ethically if they break this code of ethics? ... which can seemingly then be adjudicated under resolution 3?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

First, a church can be informed but before the meeting ... a pastor has a window ... to exert influence as to alienate the church's decision ....

but that's not at the heart of the issue ....

To make this thread about the procedural issue of disaffiliation is to miss it entirely. We are speaking about the ethical commitment ministers and pastors made when they agreed to enter the fellowship.

They agreed not only to the AS and Fundamental doctrine ... but also to the teachings/positions of the fellowship, it's bylaws and guidelines.

Will those leaving or considering leaving act ethically as to the underlined portion below:

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Were the calls by some ministers to protest/boycott organizational divisions with their offerings unethical as stated in the fellowship's teaching/position for ministerial ethics?

Are those unhappy w/ the "change of direction" of the org and promoting alienation/division violating their commitments made when they applied for their license by not simply and honorably withdrawing?

Yes, tv is a conviction dear to some ... but weren't their commitments not to adversely influence or contend towards the disunity of the faith also convictions?

Have some poisoned their congregations w/ anti-org rhetoric from the pulpit? Is there strong-arming by some being used to influence departure?


These are just some of the ethical commitments made by those applying for license with the fellowship:
[This is a current application for a local license]



Isn't part of the teaching of the church this position paper on ethical and honorable departure?

Are those considering a concerted departure avoiding the breaking of the unity of the Spirit in the assemblies?

Have they refrained from speaking evil, critical and contentious words about anyone in their fellowship? What have they done to work towards peace and harmony? And have they been cooperating w/ all efforts of the organization?

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What exactly are you bumping. (just for clarification)

I mean to bump this.

[SDG]

Can you feel it??? .... BUMP

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well this thread has me somewhat confused many on here have wanted the cons to leave and said so and now that it looks as if some are leaving they are fussing because they are leaving.

I think "the fuss" is about how one goes about leaving. If someone goes to lengths to recruit or sow discord - then there's a problem. Also, if a preacher has taken on the pastorate of a UPC that was already affiliated the manual seems to indicate that pastor ought to step aside from that pulpit.

As was pointed out on another thread a moment ago- "all members of an affiliated church" are considered "members of the United Pentecostal Church." It should be noted that most of the language in this regard was introduced by the "conservative" wing of the UPC ("we whole heartedly disapprove of our people... and so forth).

Add to that the silly little dances that a couple of guys have been doing when they post their exaggerated accounts of what's going on and you can be sure the pot gets stirred.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by rrford

And surely we would agree that 2 differing views of eternal salvation will never find unity? Are you really that naive? If so why not become a universalist in the name of unity? (And yes, I realize that was an extreme comment. )

I'm not in this fight, however universalism is not to be confused with unity!

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Exactly.

This is a feeble attempt at a "Gotcha!" that wouldn't fool my twelve year old.

Did you tree a coon? Rather your hounds?

[SDG]

Bump ... One more time.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Questions:

Will ministers withdrawing abide by the code of ethics they ascribed to in the manual when they affirmed their membership with the fellowship?

Will they simply withdraw w/o using their influence to alienate their church which may be UPCI affiliated? Will they not use their influence to alienate the fellowship or support of the UPCI?

Have not their convictions changed in regards to abiding to the current bylaws of the UPCI ... and so the honorable thing is to withdraw without trying to bring others w/ them?

Will their integrity be questioned ???... do they not also fall under question ethically if they break this code of ethics? ... which can seemingly then be adjudicated under resolution 3?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

First, a church can be informed but before the meeting ... a pastor has a window ... to exert influence as to alienate the church's decision ....

but that's not at the heart of the issue ....

To make this thread about the procedural issue of disaffiliation is to miss it entirely. We are speaking about the ethical commitment ministers and pastors made when they agreed to enter the fellowship.

They agreed not only to the AS and Fundamental doctrine ... but also to the teachings/positions of the fellowship, it's bylaws and guidelines.

Will those leaving or considering leaving act ethically as to the underlined portion below:

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Were the calls by some ministers to protest/boycott organizational divisions with their offerings unethical as stated in the fellowship's teaching/position for ministerial ethics?

Are those unhappy w/ the "change of direction" of the org and promoting alienation/division violating their commitments made when they applied for their license by not simply and honorably withdrawing?

Yes, tv is a conviction dear to some ... but weren't their commitments not to adversely influence or contend towards the disunity of the faith also convictions?

Have some poisoned their congregations w/ anti-org rhetoric from the pulpit? Is there strong-arming by some being used to influence departure?


These are just some of the ethical commitments made by those applying for license with the fellowship:
[This is a current application for a local license]



Isn't part of the teaching of the church this position paper on ethical and honorable departure?

Are those considering a concerted departure avoiding the breaking of the unity of the Spirit in the assemblies?

Have they refrained from speaking evil, critical and contentious words about anyone in their fellowship? What have they done to work towards peace and harmony? And have they been cooperating w/ all efforts of the organization?

How ethical is it that this group of still-licensed ministers is sending out invites to the Apostolic Summit and their new org .... using the ministerial directory as their mailing list?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

How ethical is it that this group of still-licensed ministers is sending out invites to the Apostolic Summit and their new org .... using the ministerial directory as their mailing list?

Oh yeah Dan, somebody is gonna answer this question. ......NOT!