Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 941468)

But I don't hate the UPC.

It's not one man involved in this situation. This complaint should have never gone to court. It had been brought to the pastor and then the district level before it was ever brought court. They had ample opportunity to address the matter and all of its issues but they did nothing. Dan's questions are valid. I can understand your comments since much of the bluster is coming from Dan, whom most of us see as having an agenda against the UPC, but Dan is making excellent points which you try to brush away with comments that don't address the real issues. It's not about one man, it's about the definition of fornication and remarriage. It's about how the UPC will respond to this matter.

There was a similar situation in Galatia back in the early days of the church. Some were going around saying Christians had to be circumcised and keepers of the law of Moses to be saved. The early church did the right thing. They sought God. They didn't let error continue. The Bible doesn't tell us that after they found the will of God that they discommunicated or set at nought those who were to be found in error, either.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 941477)

OK, you don't hate the UPCI, but Dan does.

Anyway, the United Pentecostal Church International is made up of a large group of members, and districts. No one can just broad brush these men and say they condone what they are being accused of in this thread. Does anyone have first hand knowledge of this situation? Is any of the men or women involved, part of this forum? Are they ready for comment? Or are we basing everything on hear say? Please forgive me, but don't these threads look more like lynch mobs at times?

:)

Originally Posted by missourimary (Post 941475)

I don't think that everything that's been discussed was necessary or even right. But the thread as a whole is needed. Perhaps instead of focusing on one situation, we should have asked the questions about a variety of situations we've seen or experienced in regard to church discipline, pastoral authority, divorce and remarriage, and the definition of fornication. There would still have been strong objections, but those are very relevant topics.

I don't hate the UPC either, BTW. I am frustrated with some things I've seen happen and some doctrines I've seen taught. It is sad that the event discussed here ever took place. Sad for the woman who was slandered; for the pastor who made a mistake, refused to admit it, and faced a jury because of it; sad for the new couple and the churches that are associated with the event because they will deal with the results of this. On the other hand, I do hope that the decision on this case will calm the voices of the more radical pulpits in the Oneness movement, and give everyone-Apostolic and non-Apostolic, pastors and saints-a reason to stop and think before they say something negative against someone else.

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 941480)

At times, the way things are presented looks like a lynch mob to me also. :spit

Though I don't like some of Dan's commentary, his questions are pertinent and should be addressed by the leadership in the UPC since the local and district leaders dropped the ball, imo.

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 941480)

The fact that this situation came to public court and the name, UPC, was brought out in relation to the minister involved, I would think the UPC as a whole should clarify that the beliefs of this one minister do not reflect those of the entire organization unless, of course, the UPC does define fornication in the same broad terms this minister did.

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 941480)

The accusations stem from the court case, court documents, the defendant's lawyer for the most part.

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 941416)

...
This is a matter of precedence.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 941483)

Do we have anyone here who fit the description of United Pentecostal Leadership who can answer Dan's questions? If not we are in no position to speak for the men who are in leadership of the United Pentecostal Church International. Wouldn't it be fair to say that they would be the best ones to answer those questions before we place them on the saddle and put the rope around their necks?



Call and ask them?



A court case in which we haven't attended, or are part of? So, we are just spectators who are hoping for the best to come out of it, or praying for the worst?

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 941486)

Brother Ben, You'll have to read the thread and click on the links and then make your own judgements.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 941485)

Since we don't really know what happened at "the pool incident" and probably never will, on a going forward basis, the only real question that arises is the propriety of remarriage in this and similar cases.

It has been reported that the gentleman seeking to remarry was NOT the one to file for divorce - in spite of the speculated "grounds" that have been offered. His ex clearly was looking for a lifestyle outside of the "Apostolic/Pentecostal" realm of standards and such. Thus, he is "a victim of divorce."

The UPCI Manual and the AoF on this matter have always been understood and interpreted as saying that the "victim of a divorce" can remarry - but "only in the Lord." There really has never been a need to "prove" that an actual act of "adultery" took place. It is enough that the man was served with papers and left standing out in the rain.

There has already been a ton of precedence for this. It's no big deal, in the long run. This one guy just sort of flubbed his handling of the thing and got zapped for a half a million dollars because he wanted to "prove" something that he didn't even need to prove.

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 941184)

With the record as it is ... granted Lois is not lying ... nor is this Angela's lawyer either ... also not knowing how long the Drivers were members at Rev. Fogarty's church ...

LET'S REVIEW:

- Mr. Driver, by all accounts, files for DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. His ex-wife does not want the divorce but as no-fault divorce works she must acquiesce.

- Mr. Driver, within a handful of months, falls in love with his pastor's daughter whose father teaches that the only reason for divorce and remarriage is sexual immorality - specifically adultery.

- The future FIL and pastor announces the romance involving his daughter with Mr. Driver by prefacing his announcement at the church by slandering Mrs. Driver for "spiritual fornication" yet not given a specific reason but rather an open-ended menu of types of fornication such as beastiality and child molestation.

- Mrs. Driver sues for slander. The pastor then argues in court that this was spiritual fornication because Mrs. Driver, years ago, according to his SIL, wore a "bikini". It now is being reported that this was a one piece suit in which Mrs. Driver was bathing with a mutual female friend and her husband showed up. Mrs. Driver then left the pool.

If this be true ...

and Pastor Fogarty cannot produce any thread of evidence secularly or spiritually of fornication and Mr. Driver's court documented reason for divorce is IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES ...

keeping to this theological paradigm one must conclude that Rev. Fogarty illegitimately married his daughter, by all intents and purposes, with a "married" man ... or at least according to the apostle Paul

a man who should have "stuck it out" or if separated ... NEVER MARRIED.

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED, IF WE GO BY THESE PARAMETERS :

Does the Executive Board of the UPCI, the Georgia District and First Pentecostal sanction polygamy and/or sexual immorality?

Will James Driver ever be licensed by the UPCI despite its policies?

Are we dealing with a situation in which a married couple had differences as to what it meant to be "in church" ... only to be cut off by her husband,her church family, pastor, et al.?

Does this now redine the UPCI's definition of fornication and/or reason for divorce to mean the wearing of immodest clothing?