Tulsa Report Day 2

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by George

Yet, as you very well know, they are a large enough group to sway votes at gen. conf. but they didn't stay in the fight. They could have controlled the direction.

This is a guess at best.

Because we have held these men in such high esteem, it is beyond our finite minds to believe they have been less than ethical.

urf.

Nearly everyone of the executive committee lost district or regional positions by very narrow margins. This leads the general population to believe they desire position so much they will form their own organization to guarantee their status.

Why shouldn't it lead some notable portion of the population to believe that they just lost their last chance to influence things toward their desired outcome?

We are once again back at square one struggling to believe it could possibly be eogs as the driving force. Even so, there isn't anything wrong with desiring position.....unless you lose your ethics in so doing.

Chase it back a little further along the motive tree, and ask if all of these guys were seeking position just to upgrade their seating assignment at the district banquet, or if they were seeking position in hopes of accomplishing some sort of goal.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Let me help you out here, Pelathais. You made it VERY clear that I was a liar in your post. (Hence, by doing that you actually became the personification of what you wrongly accused me of). How you said it isn't as important to me as the fact you did seek to say I was a liar.

You obviously are incabable of saying, "I didn't realize you hadn't seen the questions of someone being gay in this whole process."

You STILL won't admit that I've NEVER slammed the UPC... not remotely or by implication even one time. I said that some of these men feel pushed out. That's a fact. I then went on to describe how I find myself in my own dilemma of having fellowship. That has nothing to do with UPC as my world is much bigger than the UPC.

YOU are the one who tried to connect them all together with your own strange reasoning. I won't take the blame for that. Actually, nothing in your post remotely justified the conclusions you came to.

I tell you what, Pelathais... call me whatever you want to call me. I'm more than glad to let my reputation stand on it's own merit.

Do I enjoy being all but called a liar? No. But, then again, I'm now convinced that you don't have the integrity to say, "Yes, I made a mistake and impugned the character of someone without real cause."

For that reason, I'll let you deal with the opinions of those who find your lack of integrity less than palatable because, frankly, I have no desire to dialogue with anybody who lacks in the simple ability to say, "I shouldn't have fired a shot where it wasnt' merited."

If defamation of another's character is the best tool you have to flex your critical tongue muscles then have at it... surely you can do that without my assistance.

You seem to want to keep playing the victim card here. Why can't you say, "You know, the way I strung those anecdotes together about shacking up and social drinking being allowed in UPC churches could have been seen as a slam against the UPC?"

You have now taken it so far as to say that I "lack integrity." You have attacked the entire fellowship with your accusations. I have said that your accusations are exaggerated. Then you fold up into a little ball of self pity and attack me for defending the card you carry in your wallet (or keep in your sock drawer, or whatever).

I did not "impugn" your character. You simply over reached in trying to defend the WPF men. That is my perspective. Unfortunately, the real victim was the UPC which you persist in saying allows "shacking up" and "social drinking." I think that's wrong.

But if I am mistaken, show me the cases where "shacking up without backsliding" and "social drinking" is being tolerated within the UPC. I would willingly join you in evangelizing these folks.

I'm not naive. I know there are instances of terrible trangression among us. I resigned my position because of what I perceived to have been tolerance for adultery. I resigned and kept my mouth shut about it. But years later I found out that my silence had actually hurt my DS and put him in a bad situation. I should have gone to him and trusted him, but I honestly failed in keeping that trust. The reason was I thought that I was "supposed" to just keep silent.

But when you tar the fellowship with the "shacking up" and "social drinking" I feel that I should rise and challenge you on that. I certainly don't know the details about every situation everywhere, but I feel that after 30 years I do know the UPC a little bit. There are isolated instances of these types of "issues." They are isolated. The way to keep them from becoming a part of our culture is to speak out against it.

But to justify men splitting the fellowship by indicting the fellowship with "shacking up" and "social drinking" is going too far. If this belief reveals a "lack of integrity" to you then I will wear that badge with honor. My reputation is solid with good men despite years of false accusation.

Unless it came to "blood" I don't think I could be hurt any worse than I aleady know how to heal from. And that includes a little loss of blood along the way.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Understood.

I agree with you on the tv thing, and logic would say that the men who demand honesty regarding tv and the affirmation statement would demand it from the Tulsa group as well.

I have never condemned them to Hell, but I think there actions - and the deception involved - will leave a lasting mark on all of us for some time to come.

I could levy a charge of them being unethical, but I am hearing 2 differing stories from both sides. One side impinges the other, and the other side says they did it not. Who do I believe since I do not have any evidence one way or the other? Its all supposition at this point.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

I HATE the liberal/conserative label.........I remember at one time in my life God even blessed us to help put on a meeting that was considered on the conserative side - but even there I would find men who would ask - ........ What are you doing here?........as in I was way to liberal to be there........

Then a few weeks later I visited a different conference and was ask ........ What are you doing here?........as in Dude you are WAYYYY to conserative to be here......

This really bothered me and so I took it to the Lord in prayer...........while I was traveling home from the second conference (and some may not believe this part) I felt the power of God come into the car and so I ask Him.........God what am I to do.........These guys think I am a liberal.....these others think I am too conserative........then I ask, God Where Am I?????????

I felt the power of God and then I felt a voice speak to me.......and HE said........Just stay in the shadow of the cross.......

Being the IAM that I am I argued.......but what about those on the left who feel I am one way and those on the right who feel I am another........what about them.........Then the answer came......If I am in the shadow of the Cross then those on the left are on the left of the cross and those on the right are on the right and neither one is in the shadow of the Cross........

So from that day on.......I will never try to impress you with how Holy or Liberal I am........I just want to do His will, be saved, and see my family saved and there be a church built in Longview Texas for the Glory of the Kingdom of God.........

And my friend other than that.......... NOTHING else matters............

Amen!

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I could levy a charge of them being unethical, but I am hearing 2 differing stories from both sides. One side impinges the other, and the other side says they did it not. Who do I believe since I do not have any evidence one way or the other? Its all supposition at this point.

Did you mean "impinge" or "impugn", Matt?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Did you mean "impinge" or "impugn", Matt?

Whichever one is supposed to go there. I had trouble with that one.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Did you mean "impinge" or "impugn", Matt?

To encroach; trespass:

To attack as false or questionable; challenge in argument:


Hey... they both fit

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I could levy a charge of them being unethical, but I am hearing 2 differing stories from both sides. One side impinges the other, and the other side says they did it not. Who do I believe since I do not have any evidence one way or the other? Its all supposition at this point.

G'night Bro!

Appreciate you!

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Whichever one is supposed to go there. I had trouble with that one.

LOL! Funny!

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

G'night Bro!

Appreciate you!

and I you.