*** [Exclusive] Resolution 3: The Bloodbath and Inquisition begins ****

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by AGAPE

Ferd....we are NOT hearing the whole story...I am sure....

If somebody would just give me the names I could get a clear answer...

Honestly friend, I am not speaking about this situation in particular. I am speaking in general terms.

i hope I have the good sense not to go to a place where I should not, but at the same time, if given very little reason, or in a situation where I have a freind that I might be preaching for, I promise you, I dont push very easily.

What if we were dealing with a situation where an evangelist were going to preach for some conservitive independant chruch that had gotten cross ways with the local UPCI pastor? Then the DS of the UPCI calls this independant pastor who has done nothing more than preach a strong standard and tells him he is "under question"?

Having said that, I can tell you that there are churches that a UPCI man should not preach. I know of a church where the current pastor should NOT be under question but any friend of mine that said he was preaching there would get a good chewing on because of the church, not the pastor.

[delta soundman]

Ferd, do you remember the situation I was involved in back a couple of months ago? You know, threatening to be sued and all that. No doubt the same people are involved in this problem.

[AGAPE]

Ferd,
I agree with the principle...
I agree that R3 was probable worse than R4.
Should this tactics be used? NO WAY.
BUT,
let's not attack JS...

[delta soundman]

Originally Posted by AGAPE

Ferd,
I agree with the principle...
I agree that R3 was probable worse than R4.
Should this tactics be used? NO WAY.
BUT,
let's not attack JS...

Refer to prior posts were it concerns my thoughts of JS. He is getting bad info. First full year in and people are taking advantage of him.

[AGAPE]

Originally Posted by delta soundman

Refer to prior posts were it concerns my thoughts of JS. He is getting bad info. First full year in and people are taking advantage of him.

he MAY not be in long....

wonder what HE thinks about TULSA??

[Felicity]

This whole deal with not being able to preach for others who don't hold UPC license (except of course unless you're trying to convert them) and not being able to preach for someone who is ex-UPC or have them preach for you if you are licensed with the UPC has always been bit of an issue. Exceptions are made and leeway is given both ways depending on the circumstances and situation.

I don't see where there's anything all that new with Res. 3. I guess I agree with Guy.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Felicity

This whole deal with not being able to preach for others who don't hold UPC license (except of course unless you're trying to convert them) and not being able to preach for someone who is ex-UPC or have them preach for you if you are licensed with the UPC has always been bit of an issue. Exceptions are made both ways depending on the circumstances and situation.

I don't see where there's anything all that new with Res. 3. I guess I agree with Guy.

I know for a fact they have been doing this for 40yrs. Nothing new here.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I know for a fact they have been doing this for 40yrs. Nothing new here.

Being from the Oklahoma district, I can assure you that this is true. That said, I am concerned because of them reemphasizing this matter and making a very clear distinction between "conduct unbecoming a minister" and "under question". This distinction almost makes a new category that is very vague and ambiguous and an aggressive District Board, regardless their lean or position, could use this to put men under question for not liking the way they part their hair.

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by philjones

Being from the Oklahoma district, I can assure you that this is true. That said, I am concerned because of them reemphasizing this matter and making a very clear distinction between "conduct unbecoming a minister" and "under question". This distinction almost makes a new category that is very vague and ambiguous and an aggressive District Board, regardless their lean or position, could use this to put men under question for not liking the way they part their hair.

I believe that the reason for the reemphasise is that they ae trying to scare men into not leaving the UPC. They want to make men think that if they leave that they will be cut off, that they can no longer preacher for those still in or have those still in to preach for them.

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

I believe that the reason for the reemphasise is that they ae trying to scare men into not leaving the UPC. They want to make men think that if they leave that they will be cut off, that they can no longer preacher for those still in or have those still in to preach for them.

Wholehearted,

My interpretation is that it is more than a scare tactic. It is a real possibility!