Can someone please tell me...?!

[josh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Son, I dont know who sold you these bag of goods or where you get off implying that Sam is a liar ... but for just a brief moment, my Kansasian hermano, take a seat.

1. Sam and Elder Epley are the resident historians up in here. From time to time Bishop 1 makes guest featured appearances.
It's my understanding that Sam's Apostolic library would put most big bawlers to shame. He's a walking encyclopedia.

2. Are you sure about Westberg not intending the AS to be about the New Birth ....

Let's disregard the multitude of witnesses that attest to this in Fudge's book.

Men, from this site, of integrity and experience have said quite the opposite.

A guy you may know ... called Coonskinner has stated that Westberg himself attested to the fact that the AS was about the New Birth ...

Here are some of his quotes:






Reformed Dave, whose father is an Apostolic icon, just the other day admitted that Price did quite a bit of, in his words, "arm-twisting".

.... and everyone, their mother, and he himself, knows that the honorable Bishop Kilgore mis-spoke on the floor at Salt Lake City ....

so either your facts are PATENTLY FALSE ... or these men are also LIARS.

I don't get off on nothing, nor am I a Kansasian. I still stand by the opinion that Sam is wrong on his perspective of the affirmation statement. I knew Bro Westberg as well as anyone on this forum...having shared the same roof many nights and being connected via his long-time friendship with my dad as well.

First I feel that Sam was wrong in portraying the passing of the affirmation statement as he did. I was there, so even though my opinion is decidedly subjective it is at least first-hand.

I also feel that I knew the battles Bro Westberg was fighting very well. He was not fighting a battle with "PCI" men. His fight was with men that were walking away from stances they had once held. I know that for a fact....from conversations and sermons in and around the birthing of the affirmation statement.

This included both principles of lifestyle and doctrine. He was very much concerned with preachers having televisions. He was concerned with the fellowshiping of trinitarians also. Sure, that included those who were "soft" on the new birth. However, you've got to understand that in the world of Pentecost he moved and lived in PCI influence was a non-entity.

You can believe me or not, but the PCI doctrine was simply not seen as a great threat at the time...at least not in our areas.

Was that motive lumped in during the process?? Perhaps...but I wasn't privy to that. I just know the motivating battles that lead to the initial seed idea...and PCI doctrine wasn't it.

Now, to clarify, this is my opinion based on my relationship with Bro Westberg. I might be, and have been, wrong. I did not intend to totally eliminate the notion that these men were not worried about the new birth. I very specifically spoke in the context of Barb's concern over whitewashing the PCI past of the UPC.

Until Fudge's book came out, PCI was a forgotten notion in the ranks of mainstream UPC. Actually, so was PAJC. Softness on the new birth has always been a concern.

I hope I clarified what I was trying to clarify about the affirmation statement.

[Bishop1]

# 1 -
1950 California UPCI Campmeeting
Featuring The Preaching of Bishop Howard A Goss
{ with Hat in hand }
and the Teaching of S G Norris
{ without his Suit Coat }
along
with the California 1950 District Board


# 2 -
" My 1950 Studebaker Champion "
{ 3 Speed with Hill Holder and Overdrive }

[SDG]

The AS secondary intent was holiness ... although the official rhetoric coming out of HQ was that the 1992 conference was mainly about it ...

Urshan's letter gave that impression to most of us not in the loop ... My dad died thinking that the AS and the 1992 conference was about TV and standards ...

anyone who was there and even prior to ... in the private GB meetings attests to the fact that the main issue was the New Birth ...

Our Elders know this Josh ... men like Elder Strange and others can testify to this ...

No one can't deny standards did not play a role but it was not the thrust.

I think our Elders did not get into the matter w/ us as not to confuse us with the complexities and shades that exist in describing the difference and similarities between the PCI and PAJC positions ... so they told us it was a 'black and white" issue ... keeping our heritage ... standards ... holiness ... etc.

And yes ... the PCI was dying a slow death ... and perhaps not viewed as a major threat ... but the AS was framed to provide the final blow. Sign or leave.

[josh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The AS secondary intent was holiness ... although the official rhetoric coming out of HQ was that the 1992 conference was mainly about it ...

Urshan's letter gave that impression to most of us not in the loop ... My dad died thinking that the AS and the 1992 conference was about TV and standards ...

anyone who was there and even prior to ... in the private GB meetings attests to the fact that main issue was the New Birth ...

Our Elders know this Josh ... men like Elder Strange and others can testify to this ...

No one can't deny standards did not play a role but it was not the thrust.

I think our Elders did not get into the matter w/ us as not to confuse us with the complexities and shades that exist in describing the PCI and PAJC positions ... so they told us it was a 'black and white" issue ... keeping our heritage ... standards ... holiness ... etc.

And yes ... the PCI was dying a slow death ... and perhaps not viewed as a major threat ... but the AS was framed to provide the final blow. Sign or leave.

You know, Dan, I have no facts to refute what you say here. Like I said, I wasn't privy to the inner workings...although I could very easily have found out.

I just know what the worries of Bro Westberg were. I felt, and still feel, that his angst wasn't over the PCI.

In the aftermath his focus wasn't on the PCI men who stepped out over the Affirmation statement either. It was over those who signed and kept on doing the things he felt was bringing the UPC down.

My dad has been preaching and pastoring 58 years. He is still UPC. My grandfather and Bro S. L. Wise drove to the merger meetings together. I know my Bible Belt UPC history....but I can't speak for other areas of the country. My dad knew all the PCI men of Mississippi and surrounding areas. One of his closest friends taught at PBI in Tupelo, home of many PCI men.

The PCI influence was a worry in their minds many decades ago. However, I can tell you I grew up never hearing one thing or one worry about the PCI. The men my dad fellowshiped (same as Bro Westberg) considered that battle won long ago.

Their main concerns over new birth softness stemmed from the "tearing down" of walls between the UPC and other "Pentecostals" or "charismatics".

Again, I speak mainly from the circle where Bro Westberg was operating and collecting his thoughts and worries. And...I speak mainly from my opinion. Since the PCI wasn't on our radar at that time I didn't ask him specifically whether that was on his mind. It just wasn't ever discussed.

Anyway...I didn't mean to cast aspersions on Sam. I just wanted to clarify where I thought he was wrong.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by josh

You know, Dan, I have no facts to refute what you say here. Like I said, I wasn't privy to the inner workings...although I could very easily have found out.

I just know what the worries of Bro Westberg were. I felt, and still feel, that his angst wasn't over the PCI.

In the aftermath his focus wasn't on the PCI men who stepped out over the Affirmation statement either. It was over those who signed and kept on doing the things he felt was bringing the UPC down.

My dad has been preaching and pastoring 58 years. He is still UPC. My grandfather and Bro S. L. Wise drove to the merger meetings together. I know my Bible Belt UPC history....but I can't speak for other areas of the country. My dad knew all the PCI men of Mississippi and surrounding areas. One of his closest friends taught at PBI in Tupelo, home of many PCI men.

The PCI influence was a worry in their minds many decades ago. However, I can tell you I grew up never hearing one thing or one worry about the PCI. The men my dad fellowshiped (same as Bro Westberg) considered that battle won long ago.

Their main concerns over new birth softness stemmed from the "tearing down" of walls between the UPC and other "Pentecostals" or "charismatics".

Again, I speak mainly from the circle where Bro Westberg was operating and collecting his thoughts and worries. And...I speak mainly from my opinion. Since the PCI wasn't on our radar at that time I didn't ask him specifically whether that was on his mind. It just wasn't ever discussed.

Anyway...I didn't mean to cast aspersions on Sam. I just wanted to clarify where I thought he was wrong.

I can partially accept that his angst about the future of the fellowship weighed on his mind ... perhaps even during the Salt Lake Conference as he envisioned an org that would be more uniform .... yet his short-sightedness did not allow him to see that the institution of an AS would be the beginning of the end ... and would create new dividing lines that would polarize the fellowship even further.

[josh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I can partially accept that his angst about the future of the fellowship weighed on his mind ... perhaps even during the Salt Lake Conference as he envisioned an org that would be more uniform .... yet his short-sightedness did not allow him to see that the institution of an AS would be the beginning of the end ... and would create new dividing lines that would polarize the fellowship even further.

Well, I can only speak for his...since I didn't talk to the others.

However, I disagree that the AS "caused" the dividing lines. I think it mainly highlighted them and might have speeded them along.

These men saw the beginning of the end coming for a good while. Their efforts were to stave off the disintegrating. You and I might disagree as to whether they were right to try, but I think we can agree that they saw reality.

The AS didn't create the deep divides. It certainly might have hastened the clash, though.

Dan, Josh,

My recollections from that '92 business meetings is that there were those there had varied agendas that would be nicely accomodated by the passage of the document from hell. I listened to the debate very carefully though I do not recall it all.

There were those there that could see the drift from our traditional holiness standards there were rightfully alarmed by the the worldliness threat that seem to be creeping in. Certainly, I applaude these good men's desire to hold back the rising tide of worldly influences, albeit misguided in thinking that they could employ carnal weapons to do only what the power of the Holy Ghost can do alone.

As I recall, there was no discussion on the floor that the resolution must be passed for the sake of the 3 step position. That discussion took place before the meeting was called to order. I stood with a few friends in the Word Aflame lobby browing among books, to talk of the upcoming business meeting. It was obvious that their interest in the document from hell was in defense of the NB position. While I applaude their pure desire to see that the pure gospel is preached, they also forget that it is not by might, nor yet by power, but BY MY SPIRIT, saith the Lord. When foolish men try to do what only the Spirit of the Lord can do, they are leaning on a broken reed of Egypt that will surely pierce through their hand. Today, the pain of that piercing is deeply felt. If men would only learn not to lean upon their own understanding (Egyptian) but in all thier ways acknowledge the Lord, they would surely be rightly led in righteousness. There is a big difference in the rod of God that has all power and authority compared to the broken reed of Egypt that can only bring pain, discomfort and unrest.

How foolish little men are who try to do God a service by the carnal implements in their hands. God is offended, iniquity grows as a black mold inside the walls, and the church languishes with impotence while souls are lost to eternity.

I'm tempted to tell of a long conversation that I had with a now deceased, universally revered Apostolic stateman before the meeting, though he was too sick to attend. I believe the conversation with him was divinely orchestrated as a confirmation to me concerning the burden and misgivings that I had felt.

Anyway, each had their own agendas, some of which was indeed the NB issue though I do not have anyway of knowing if the framers of the resolution specifically had the NB issue in mind. However, it would be hard for any reasonable person to conclude that were so clueless. Surely, there had to be some talk by which that end would be the result. Surely they were not deaf, dumb and blind right up to the time of the debate. Surely some of their friends would have called their attention what the end effect would be. Nobody is that numbskulled.

[Rhoni]

Bro. Strange,

Very few realized the impact the decision would have, and most people, ministers or otherwise, are followers of those who have agendas. For all the followers in the world...just remember - YOU alone are accountable for your actions/behaviors and if you choose to follow then you embrace that which you are following. We all must be careful that we follow Christ and His kingdom agendas, and not men's self-kingdom agendas.

Blessings, Rhoni

[josh]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Dan, Josh,

My recollections from that '92 business meetings is that there were those there had varied agendas that would be nicely accomodated by the passage of the document from hell. I listened to the debate very carefully though I do not recall it all.

There were those there that could see the drift from our traditional holiness standards there were rightfully alarmed by the the worldliness threat that seem to be creeping in. Certainly, I applaude these good men's desire to hold back the rising tide of worldly influences, albeit misguided in thinking that they could employ carnal weapons to do only what the power of the Holy Ghost can do alone.

As I recall, there was no discussion on the floor that the resolution must be passed for the sake of the 3 step position. That discussion took place before the meeting was called to order. I stood with a few friends in the Word Aflame lobby browing among books, to talk of the upcoming business meeting. It was obvious that their interest in the document from hell was in defense of the NB position. While I applaude their pure desire to see that the pure gospel is preached, they also forget that it is not by might, nor yet by power, but BY MY SPIRIT, saith the Lord. When foolish men try to do what only the Spirit of the Lord can do, they are leaning on a broken reed of Egypt that will surely pierce through their hand. Today, the pain of that piercing is deeply felt. If men would only learn not to lean upon their own understanding (Egyptian) but in all thier ways acknowledge the Lord, they would surely be rightly led in righteousness. There is a big difference in the rod of God that has all power and authority compared to the broken reed of Egypt that can only bring pain, discomfort and unrest.

How foolish little men are who try to do God a service by the carnal implements in their hands. God is offended, iniquity grows as a black mold inside the walls, and the church languishes with impotence while souls are lost to eternity.

I'm tempted to tell of a long conversation that I had with a now deceased, universally revered Apostolic stateman before the meeting, though he was too sick to attend. I believe the conversation with him was divinely orchestrated as a confirmation to me concerning the burden and misgivings that I had felt.

Anyway, each had their own agendas, some of which was indeed the NB issue though I do not have anyway of knowing if the framers of the resolution specifically had the NB issue in mind. However, it would be hard for any reasonable person to conclude that were so clueless. Surely, there had to be some talk by which that end would be the result. Surely they were not deaf, dumb and blind right up to the time of the debate. Surely some of their friends would have called their attention what the end effect would be. Nobody is that numbskulled.

Bro Strange, I am not sure who the "little" men were you had in mind, so I won't take offense. I also saw your heartbeat over the LA camp and greatly respect you for speaking your heart.

I will say that I heard two of the framers speak their mind, and I can perceive no purer motives than these two expressed. Paul Price spoke to a group of us preachers shortly before the resolution came out...it was in the formation stages evidently.

Many of us were young ministers. He passionately implored us to stop working to change the organization he had poured so much of his soul into. His focus was entirely upon the open statements many young men had made about being dissatisfied with the UPC, with its restrictions, etc. He carried us through some of his history in it, the men who molded him, the men who led it....then he spoke of rising to the battle to defend it.

He never alluded to any past battles, to any regret over a merger, or even specifically to the New Birth.

Ditto for all conversations with Bro Westberg.

I think you gave Dan and others an accurate assessment of how others came in with various ideas in mind, but I pretty much followed the thinking of the two men mentioned above...as well as my dad.

I felt that the document would be non-effective. I think before it got started good, Bro Westberg did, too. However, if we say that said document was a foolish leaning on the flesh then we must also render the same judgment on the entire articles of faith. They are all documents of man's attempt to legislate the parameters of a fellowship.

I, for one, am glad that the document came. I don't think it helped with anything the framers originally intended. However, I do think it helped some of us see the fruitlessness of spending our passion and effort trying to affect something we can't affect. In reality it just became something handy to blame for the splintering that would have happened anyway.

For me, what I learned caused me to refocus my energies on the ties I can affect and upon the work of the Kingdom of God in areas I can actually be useful.

I realize some of your angst about the A.S. is probably from your pastor's feelings. I don't know everything about how he felt, but I don't think he was duped into speaking as some say. I think he was just as concerned about some things as others were. Then, in hindsight, he regretted that the A.S. was causing many to leave. From the outside of his mind and thoughts, I see him as making a voluntary and sincere effort, and then realizing he wished he hadn't. We all do that all the time, and most of the time it wasn't sinister motives by anyone that got us into it.

[josh]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Bro. Strange,

Very few realized the impact the decision would have, and most people, ministers or otherwise, are followers of those who have agendas. For all the followers in the world...just remember - YOU alone are accountable for your actions/behaviors and if you choose to follow then you embrace that which you are following. We all must be careful that we follow Christ and His kingdom agendas, and not men's self-kingdom agendas.

Blessings, Rhoni

Rhoni, the A.S. was born of pure motive...no agenda at all. They added nothing to the Articles of Faith at all. It was an attempt to compel and generate the same loyalty to these beliefs in a young generation that the older generation had. After all, this newer generation was taking over a movement built on these Articles....what could be sinister about that????

That it was a fruitless effort is now evident....but it was not born of an "agenda."