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.
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 believe it was debated or bantered about why the meeting was conducted as "secret" or "exclusive" - that being the absolute circus that would ensue had these men gone to GC and try to bring this before the body of ministers - very little would have been done. It would have been a frenzy of arguments and debating and no agreement.
PapaBear - Some are just nursing hurt feelings for not being invited to the meeting. So they've created this aura about the meeting as though it was something it really was not.
Regardless of dirty laundry or not ... the campmeeting was not the place to air grievances against the men who were a part of the meeting, IF that was the case. And IF so ... does he really believe TFT to be a false prophet?
What does "Intentionally Confrontational" have to do with the Gospel of Christ? How many were baptized and filled with the HG after that message? More than likely, instead of building an atmosphere where people could receive the HG, it created confusion and anger.
Speaking of secret ... some complaining about these ministers having this meeting in secret; why don't they just come out and say what was said, etc...
IF PM was talking about the Detroit meeting and ministers from there being false prophets ... why doesn't he just name names? If he wants to be truly "Intentionally Confrontational" ... then by all means, do so ... name names instead of hiding behind innuendo.
Just a few points, I don't make a habit of posting on AFF.
PM is not without knowing what happened or what was said or who was there. He knows because he has spoken to those there and understands the tenor of some at this meeting.
1. There has been no released agenda, no released CD's, DVD's, ect. Why would you not record a meeting like this? Why the prolonged secrecy... and now that it is causing such issues, why not release it to set any feelings at ease?
2. The issue at hand is some are not denying Acts 2:38, but doubt it's neccessity.
3. All of them gathered are not beneficiaries of Nepotism... (I am not against it, I have three sons ) however when fathers pass churches to sons & inlaws who have a history of questionable character, ethics and/or doctrinal stability. It is a significant percentage... and then add that to men who pastor churches they are just one of dozens in the history of the church, a church whose history has been one of holiness and Apostolic doctrine... In both cases, these men should go prove the validity of the "NEW revelation" rather than using the platform .. foundation of another and take it away.
4. This either or approach to truth... my truth, your truth ... some truth is enough to qualify as truth is error.
5. PM was not airing dirty laundry.. he was stating clearly the direction and decision he has made. He was, "Intentionally Confrontational". He was contending for the faith once delivered. I believe our movement needs to come to grips with who we are, what we believe and recognize it. Those who are otherwise minded need to go join a Church for the Nations or some easy charismatic group and see the incredible church growth and revival they promise. They will be disappointed and find the cost was not worth the effort.... and the end product is bitterness and disappointment as demonstrated in many corners of used to be apostolic.
Bro. Scott, I have been predicting for the last few years that the UPC's next conflict will be over the salvation message. There are too many resources and folks aren't afraid to question anymore. There are pastors that cannot preach what they consider a lie anymore and they don't care if they lose everything.
I do agree that they won't see the success that they think. God will raise up a church in a way that man can't receive the glory.
I was a part of a UPC church that you are familiar with. I had to leave everything I had always known. My family, many friends, and my wife's family. It was the hardest thing I ever did. I can look back now and I know that at the time my motives weren't always pure but I knew that I couldn't lie to new converts anymore. I know that God is trying to do a work in the delta and he wouldn't stand for the games anymore. Yes, it was painful but looking back at where we were and where we are now we know that our decision was right.
Like you I loved the UPC and it's doctrine. I could explain the doctrine and water baptism as good as anyone but it left me wanting more and with so many questions. I finally had to be honest with myself. I am glad we left instead of taking the church away from those who needed the building. But now they have lost it too so we really didn't help them that much.
Why? Your own personal viewpoints--fine. But why collude with others first? Men need to stand on their own two feet, and if there are others who are like minded, why don't they stand up publicly with a backbone and support those who are already speaking out?
What is (was) being planned or "organized" that can't be done publicly? Why not open the doors to anyone?
I'm having a hard time, Miss B, understanding the moral wrong about like-minded men meeting together to have a discussion about the church. I think we are being over-board about this. I'm sure attendees have no problem being candid with Mooney. I can't imaginge TFT not able to stand on his own two feet.
I don't want to open it up again, but I have no problem with WPF brothers meeting and leaving -- as long as they've given their ideas a chance in healthy debate first.
Grace, I know what you're saying. However, often whenever I hear people talking about being upset because they really just wanted to be uplifted and encouraged and not feel railed at, it sometimes makes me think of 2 Tim:
3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
4: 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
I do not know you well enough to even begin to accuse you of this personally, and I do recognize that we must be careful in how we apply and preach the Word. However, at the end of the day, the Bible is very clear that it is to be used in ways that often include rebuke and chastisement. That goes against what we want sometimes, and certainly flies in the face of where the church is headed, but I just get nervous whenever I hear people getting upset because all they wanted was uplifting messages and did not want rebuke or correction.
Again, I' not accusing you in particular, this post just kind of touched on what I hear a lot these days.
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt! I just don't think that Bro. Mooney's personal feelings should play into a campmeeting that should be positive! And yes, not all God's word is meant for "feel good" thinking and feelings. The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword and it cuts us deep sometimes, as it should! I'm all for good preaching and if that means stepping on my toes, then fine. However, why get up and devote an entire message about something that most of those folks probably didn't even know about??? Why not get up and talk about the power of holiness living if that's what he feels? Why go into talking about snakes among us and how they need to cut their losses???
Just a question: Why can't they just leave it alone and let God sort it out? Just curious.
And again, I'll agree with PapaBear here, if you don't like what the UPC stands for, don't agree with what the UPC believes in and you don't want to live or abide by their standards of dress and doctrine, then find another place to fellowship!
__________________
"Just a sinner saved by grace!"
I guess one thing to consider is whether an exclusive meeting is best when only "like-minded" people are there. Is it possible that the best way to approach this is to have exclusive meetings that incorporate various views and people who can openly and earnestly discuss matters to be sure that what emerges is balanced?
I happen to agree with my brother who pastors a UPc church. He says that he doesn't think you will ever find any organization that matches your personal opinions down to the minutest detail. In light of that, given the option, I personally prefer an organization that would tend to pull me a little farther right than left.
I got plenty of things around me and in me that can try to pull me way, waay, waay left.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I believe it was debated or bantered about why the meeting was conducted as "secret" or "exclusive" - that being the absolute circus that would ensue had these men gone to GC and try to bring this before the body of ministers - very little would have been done. It would have been a frenzy of arguments and debating and no agreement.
PapaBear - Some are just nursing hurt feelings for not being invited to the meeting. So they've created this aura about the meeting as though it was something it really was not.
Regardless of dirty laundry or not ... the campmeeting was not the place to air grievances against the men who were a part of the meeting, IF that was the case. And IF so ... does he really believe TFT to be a false prophet?
What does "Intentionally Confrontational" have to do with the Gospel of Christ? How many were baptized and filled with the HG after that message? More than likely, instead of building an atmosphere where people could receive the HG, it created confusion and anger.
Speaking of secret ... some complaining about these ministers having this meeting in secret; why don't they just come out and say what was said, etc...
IF PM was talking about the Detroit meeting and ministers from there being false prophets ... why doesn't he just name names? If he wants to be truly "Intentionally Confrontational" ... then by all means, do so ... name names instead of hiding behind innuendo.
A few problems with this post. Speculation about PM's "hurt feelings" is speculation at best. This was not an "airing of grievances" but an entirely appropriate confrontation for those of who you ironically see no distinction between clergy and saints.
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.
Lastly, I wasn't at the service, but not all times of instruction are intended to be a place for people are receiving the Holy Ghost. And Campmeetings tend to be more for the exhortation of the church. Just because they didn't have a prayer line doesn't mean PM was wrong with addressing problems in the church -- and as a Superintendent and elder, he was well within bounds.
Do I agree with him? That's different. But his conduct was well within permissible bounds.
FYI WPF held meetings where people of different opinions were present, if I recall correctly. The forum in Houston is one example. There was much debate and disagreement, from even people like DKB that showed up.
The brothers have a right to meet to discuss absolutely anything they want --and can invite their friends, or as appropriate, hold a public meeting.
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt! I just don't think that Bro. Mooney's personal feelings should play into a campmeeting that should be positive! And yes, not all God's word is meant for "feel good" thinking and feelings. The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword and it cuts us deep sometimes, as it should! I'm all for good preaching and if that means stepping on my toes, then fine. However, why get up and devote an entire message about something that most of those folks probably didn't even know about??? Why not get up and talk about the power of holiness living if that's what he feels? Why go into talking about snakes among us and how they need to cut their losses???
Just a question: Why can't they just leave it alone and let God sort it out? Just curious.
And again, I'll agree with PapaBear here, if you don't like what the UPC stands for, don't agree with what the UPC believes in and you don't want to live or abide by their standards of dress and doctrine, then find another place to fellowship!
He's addressing what he is either informed about, or perceived to be, dissension. AG I don't see a problem here.
Regarding these other brothers leaving the UPC -- why should they? Why not contend for the UPC flag? This thing started with PAJC and PCI, with a diversity of ideas under some very basic and common ones. Why should they cut and run? There is a survey out there about what the UPCI's constituents believe, and I'd be anxious to see how that boils down. We may be surprised how many licensed minister see the church differently.
As I said, I don't really KNOW anything about the Detroit meeting. But, generally speaking, I think open communication is the right way to go.
Secret communication can become sinful VERY quickly, if attitudes, words, innuendo and shared information isn't kept carefully in check.
For that matter, if they need to have a meeting to discuss concerns, why not invite Bro. Haney and other officials to the meeting so they can hear all the concerns first hand? (Maybe they did--I have no idea.)
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Linear Mode
