Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
They are part of an organization which ministerial ethics calls for not alienating a church from the UPC in any fashion and not using their leadership for such purposes. This is the problem with the AS. It makes everything in the manual subject to dot and tittle negotiation. Seriously, I have no issue with unaffiliating a church. What I have an issue with is the accusations that the cons have made for years about lying and bad spirits and other nonsense and now in all liklihood doing the same things in the name of protecting the people. It is not a moot point. I think all the name calling about hypocrisy has got to go. But then the cons wouldn't be cons.
|
I'm going coon hunting, but will address this later.
In short, we sign the AS regarding the AoF.
We signed nothing promising to refrain from disaffiliating.
There is a definite integrity issue involved in signing a statement knowing you are violating it.
This thread attempted to make a direct comparison between that, and vioalting someones stretchy interpretation of a position paper--not the Articles of Faith.
They are not the same thing.
As for the position paper, that could not have been the intent of the writers, or it would be impossible to disaffiliate and remain a minister in good standing--if that were an ethical violation.
It clearly is not, though this thread attempted (unsuccessfully) to postulate that it is.
No soap, sorry.
Threaded Mode
