Is This an Attempt to Control Your Pulpit?

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by tbpew

I really appreciate this area of topical discussion. IMO, it provides a bright light to shine within the understanding of member-ministers who fellowship a ministerial alliance concerning what so many "non-members" ponder in the local assemblies.

I submit for consideration that the angst produced by these types of disconnects is the same stirring that is among many of the anointed members of God's body that are participants in local assemblies. A perception that a few are legislating (codifying) to maintain uniformity and agreement as the basis for good standing in fellowship.

So member-minister folks, the next time you think anointed saints of God are just out to preacher-bash...consider you own thoughts and responses to topics like this thread.

good point, amen, dt

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by tbpew

I really appreciate this area of topical discussion. IMO, it provides a bright light to shine within the understanding of member-ministers who fellowship a ministerial alliance concerning what so many "non-members" ponder in the local assemblies.

I submit for consideration that the angst produced by these types of disconnects is the same stirring that is among many of the anointed members of God's body that are participants in local assemblies. A perception that a few are legislating (codifying) to maintain uniformity and agreement as the basis for good standing in fellowship.

So member-minister folks, the next time you think anointed saints of God are just out to preacher-bash...consider you own thoughts and responses to topics like this thread.

Good points.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

my friends i just read this entire thread, and i have to say that all of you who say that this is a problem will be turned out on your ears, real soon, if you havent allready, cant turn me out, turned in my card 15 years ago, still glad i did, dt

Was it because of Doctrine, or differerence?

Do you have ability to preach still in UPC pulpits?

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Was it because of Doctrine, or differerence?

Do you have ability to preach still in UPC pulpits?

not doctrine still believe the bible and the gospel as always, i went thru a divorce, not my fault and i was basically turned out, so i left, no help, no love, no compassion just misplaced blame, i have preached in many upc churches since then, kind of funny huh, no investigation just rumors, not like the lord at all, imo, dt:sshhh

Wow, I am supposed to be preaching a revival in Oklahoma post GC... do you think my aunt and uncle are in danger of being put out after having pastored the same church for 52 years this month?

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I will address the two comments in bold.

First, isn't that the entire purpose of organization? For like-minded individuals to band together for a common purpose? The difference now is where once we had a loose fellowship within the org, and fellowshipped many independents, now we are TOLD who we can and cannot fellowship. That smacks of imperialism.

It all depends on the type or style of organization that you want. If the purpose is PRO-fellowship, I would say that is a GODLY and very humble attitude to have within the body of Christ. BUT, when it becomes the purpose of exclusivity and DIS-fellowship, it becomes a wicked organization.

Organization and fellowship should never be for the purpose of weeding out the bad apples among us or the less desirable bretheren. Since that is the case in denominationalism, there has been a very poor job of weeding. The bad apples yet remain. Organization should be for the purpose of FELLOWSHIP and advancing the work of God, worldwide.

Fellowship itself, is of the SPIRIT and not of the flesh. There are Men of God in the UPC that I treasure their fellowship so much that if they were to call on me for time of fellowship whether it be in the spirit or the natural, I would almost feel like Adam walking with God in the cool of the day. On the other hand, there are preachers that I avoid as though they were carrying a T.B. virus and would avoid them like the plague, refusing to breathe the same air.

But who draws the lines among us? An organization? No. You and I draw those lines regardless of fellowship credentials. Fellowship is of the spirit and not of the flesh.

You are absolutely correct on the second point. There is no denying it. Those who choose to build their own kingdom to the detriment of the Lord's kingdom are gonna pay for it in the end. God is not gonna share His glory with anyone.

Thanks... We are singing from the same song book.

However, I MIGHT be correct on the first point too.

Originally Posted by tbpew

It is quite a marvelous thing to observe and consider.

PP indicated this idea earlier in the thread and my consideration does seem to find agreement with his musings:
"...UPC is moving further into strict denominationalism"

It fascinates me how the base things of the human condition are so inclined toward establishing rule by few over many. Natural governments that are vital to the BELOW realm are dragged into the newness of life that is in the Kingdom of God, the body of his Christ. God makes residence in the heart's of individuals, and yet there is still a determined subset of folks who are given over to a great force; man's desire to assert governance/rule over others.



IMO, the end will be identical to the 'former' and it will be subject to all the rivalries, contentions, and strife that has occassion within the carnal mind.

Whether the denomination of the rule is by persons in offices or by "binding contracts" within the alliance, it will displace the individual's liberty and accountability in the Spirit with a governance by men.

This attempt to "codify agreement" is a wonderful move away from a ministerial fellowship and a notable step towards a backdoor denominal structure (men don't rule over other men...the bylaws/manual/AS does).

I do not fault naturally-minded folks for wanting a homogenous group for their children and family to be associated with, but let's NOT proclaim that this group is authored and crafted by God's hand. Let's just be open and upfront with our establishing premise; it is a group of folks governed by men for some specific purpose shared by the participants.

The word CLUB sounds rude or crass to some folks when applied to our assemblies where God is the supposed common denominator...but why can't we just say these are God-themed CLUBS run by men?

As usual, your remarks are more central and lucid to the discussion. You always express depth of thought and consideration, using well balanced language, unlike me who gets a little radical with passion sometimes.

Rule by the few over the many according to Scofield is "Nicholatianism." It is both a doctrine and deed that Jesus said to two of the churches of Asia that he hated. Since Jesus hated it, I am not particularly fond of it myself. At least the church that left their first love also hated it. The church at Pergamos loved the doctrine and the Name which was commendable but they were filled with Balaamite prophets holding to both the doctrine and deed of the Nicolantanes. Question: Is the doctrine and deeds of the Nicolantanes synonamous with that of money hungry, coveteous Balaamites?

As you marveled above, there is indeed that gravitational pull of the few to govern over the many. Brute natural force of the fallen nature of man will continue to gravitate downward as opposed to the gentle dove-like spirit of gentleness that rule and reign in the hearts of the truly kingdom-minded men who, in the name of unity and gentleness defer to and honor their bretheren above themselves. Hence the downward trudge from the mountain toward Sodom, returning to the land of their orign.

To the extent that governance of the Spirit is relinguished to the governance of Brute force, self exaltation will be the order, of which infectious spirit shall continue to be emulatated by the young idealist preacher for future geneations.

What is the answer? There is none. There is none except a turn toward God and reinstal him as the ONLY soverign in our INDIVIDUAL hearts, regardless of boundaries of eccesiastical government whose greatest ambition is to sit upon God's holy hill and claim for themselves a realm that even angels fear. Like will be attracted to like regardless of natural fellowship boundaries. Anything less than that is artifical and ANTI-CHRIST.

[OP_Carl]

This thread certainly is an eye-opener for those of us without connections to district boards.

I can't help but wonder what percentage of the people pointing out the negative aspects of the system are presently outside of the UPC for one reason or another.

I don't mean anything by this, but rather, that is just how my mind works. Just about everything is a sales pitch, so I look for the angle, I look for the bias.

And I'm certainly not defending the types of behavior that has been described as portrayed by district boards. I am just observing that all I get from this thread are second- and third-hand accounts, from only one side of a dispute. No proof or evidence.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

This thread certainly is an eye-opener for those of us without connections to district boards.

I can't help but wonder what percentage of the people pointing out the negative aspects of the system are presently outside of the UPC for one reason or another.

I don't mean anything by this, but rather, that is just how my mind works. Just about everything is a sales pitch, so I look for the angle, I look for the bias.

And I'm certainly not defending the types of behavior that has been described as portrayed by district boards. I am just observing that all I get from this thread are second- and third-hand accounts, from only one side of a dispute. No proof or evidence.

Carl,
I read this thread as having its central talking points come from a proposed ammendment to content in the UPC manual involving specific instruction as to how members should fellowship other members.

Since being born of the spirit, all I have ever known is the UPC member-minister fellowship.

If this topical focus is the actual text of an ammendment being submitted for a vote at GC, what proof or evidence are you needing?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

This thread certainly is an eye-opener for those of us without connections to district boards.

I can't help but wonder what percentage of the people pointing out the negative aspects of the system are presently outside of the UPC for one reason or another.

I don't mean anything by this, but rather, that is just how my mind works. Just about everything is a sales pitch, so I look for the angle, I look for the bias.

And I'm certainly not defending the types of behavior that has been described as portrayed by district boards. I am just observing that all I get from this thread are second- and third-hand accounts, from only one side of a dispute. No proof or evidence.

I am currently inside the UPC.

The story I related toward the beginning of this thread is true. I really was asked to cancel two different meetings. I understood the reasoning, and complied so that there would be no animosity. But looking back I can't help but disagree with the mindset that dared even ask me to withdraw from those meetings.

My DS was only reacting in the hopes of maintaining "unity". Thus "unity" is normally held in place by Pentecostal duct tape and staples. It is a false unity. The general attitude is "comply with my wishes or you threaten unity".