The question is will the law abiders abide by their laws? Will they do the honorable thing?
ROFL... good answer!!
Actually, it is a conundrum. If I were in the shoes of the men who are leaving the organization.. I would feel exactly as I posted and would feel justified in continuing to pastor the church God called me to AND taking the necessary steps to make that possible. It would be my opinion that I am not in violation of the position paper or the code of ethics because my convictions have not changed. That is the qualifying statement. It does not say if the organization changes its convictions... it says because I have changed mine. I would not have.
On the other hand, I do know that many gave those who left in '92, over the AS, a hard time because they wanted to do the same thing. In fact, I remember some on here who felt a pastor who withdrew to go more liberal than the UPC was in violation. He, I am sure, used the same justification for his actions... the fly in the ointment is that his convictions DID change or he preached a lie for many years.
The difficulty in applying this to Res #4 is that the men being questioned DID NOT change.. their organization did.
I find it humorously ironic that the same men who slam those who disagree with small portions of the AOF, and yet sign the AS, are now defending men who are, in fact, lying.
Let's summarize, shall we?
1. They agreed that they would not disaffiliate their church because of personal views.
2. Some currently are doing the exact thing they promised they wouldn't.
I find that highly dishonorable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster
Another excellent point Daniel!
Who was it that said "live by the sword, die by the sword?"
Truly sad situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcie
OUCH!!!!
It also can be argued that those who still are licensed; and are influencing to alienate and not withdrawing honorably are going against the Affirmation Statement and Fundamental Doctrine which also reads
We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.
David Bernard recently wrote:
Scripture is our supreme authority, and the Fundamental Doctrine is based on Scripture. The first paragraph expresses the teaching of Acts 2:38, and the second paragraph quotes from Ephesians 4:3, 13.
I find it humorously ironic that the same men who slam those who disagree with small portions of the AOF, and yet sign the AS, are now defending men who are, in fact, lying.
Let's summarize, shall we?
1. They agreed that they would not disaffiliate their church because of personal views.
2. Some currently are doing the exact thing they promised they wouldn't.
I find that highly dishonorable.
PP, that is not what it says. It says because their convictions changed. Big difference between existing ongoing personal views and changing of convictions.
Actually, it is a conundrum. If I were in the shoes of the men who are leaving the organization.. I would feel exactly as I posted and would feel justified in continuing to pastor the church God called me to AND taking the necessary steps to make that possible. It would be my opinion that I am not in violation of the position paper or the code of ethics because my convictions have not changed. That is the qualifying statement. It does not say if the organization changes its convictions... it says because I have changed mine. I would not have.
On the other hand, I do know that many gave those who left in '92, over the AS, a hard time because they wanted to do the same thing. In fact, I remember some on here who felt a pastor who withdrew to go more liberal than the UPC was in violation. He, I am sure, used the same justification for his actions... the fly in the ointment is that his convictions DID change or he preached a lie for many years.
The difficulty in applying this to Res #4 is that the men being questioned DID NOT change.. their organization did.
It is indeed a conodrum. Realistically, one can't expect these men to ... as Pela said ... leave their "meal ticket" ... but to stay and go against the code of Ethics and AS is problematic .... are these not also affirmed convictions?
It can be argued they are in violation of the org's Code of Ethics, Affirmation Statement and Fundamental Doctrine unless they are honorable and withdraw.
PP, that is not what it says. It says because their convictions changed. Big difference between existing ongoing personal views and changing of convictions.
Do you somehow feel that the manual applies differently to those that are leaving because of res.4, than those who left because of the AS?
In BOTH cases the organization changed, not the brethren who left!
the newness of the overall worldview in a post-resolution passage season needs time to be sorted out by the affected persons.
It may well be that there are contradictions and/or inconsistencies that are being illuminated but I am extremely hesitant to proclaim that the proper remedy is withdrawal from organizational fellowship.
It may well be that an ethical matter is the fulcrum issue, but I can not help but thinking that this should be a season of thoughtful introspection before any public assertion of what is ethically just.
__________________
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath [James 1:19]
1. that it is in there.
2. that you found it.
3. that you have brought it up.
4. that there is nothing that those who cause strife and seek to not fellowship can say about it.
5. that many of those who attack the TV supporters for being hypocrits are in fact being hypocrits themselves!
Bravo Daniel! Bravo!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I find it humorously ironic that the same men who slam those who disagree with small portions of the AOF, and yet sign the AS, are now defending men who are, in fact, lying.
Let's summarize, shall we?
1. They agreed that they would not disaffiliate their church because of personal views.
2. Some currently are doing the exact thing they promised they wouldn't.
I find that highly dishonorable.
This may have been mentioned I am just trying to catch up with the thread. I am sure that some cons and libs alike that sign this thing never thought the organization would move from where it was. The cons probably never thought that the UPCI would say it is ok to be on Tv. They probably thought the UPCI would stay on that side of the fence forever. But they are nieve to think that an organization would not change. As the world changes we must adapt to that change in order to reach more people, IMO.
__________________
"If we don't learn to live together we're gonna die alone"
Jack Shephard.
1. that it is in there.
2. that you found it.
3. that you have brought it up.
4. that there is nothing that those who cause strife and seek to not fellowship can say about it.
5. that many of those who attack the TV supporters for being hypocrits are in fact being hypocrits themselves!
Bravo Daniel! Bravo!
BTW, Darcie spotted it first.
Except for PJ's diatribe .... there seems to be a HOLY HUSH.
Perhaps the disciples of Mount CAF, who are presently homeless, or the men of the cloth from Wordshare would like to chime in?
Linear Mode
