UPC - "Apostolic" Wesleyan Holiness Standards - Page 26

ThePastorsCoach · #**251** 03-27-2007, 12:18 AM

And I only wear SKINS to church - Gator - Croc or Lizard

rrford · #**252** 03-27-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

This is turning out too funny - we all think something different than what the poster is actually thinking! LOL

RRFORD - You know - If they help you with finances to build a church and then you disaffiliate - you have to pay the money back and yes - sadly - they did ask for it. But I wanted out so bad that at that point - it did not matter - I paid it gladly and it made us all happy!

And I would think one would think it only ethical to pay the money back. JMHO. (BTW, I did not realize that was the case for you.)

And if I am correct, it is not the disaffiliating that does this. It is leaving before one's status as a Home Missionary is up. could be wrong on that but I don't think so.

rrford · #**253** 03-27-2007, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

rrford?

Are there liberal and conservative suits?

Reckon so. Not sure how you tell them apart. (Unless the liberal suits only come to the bicep and knee.)

MissBrattified · #**254** 03-27-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

And I would think one would think it only ethical to pay the money back. JMHO. (BTW, I did not realize that was the case for you.)

And if I am correct, it is not the disaffiliating that does this. It is leaving before one's status as a Home Missionary is up. could be wrong on that but I don't think so.

I think that's a rather important difference....

rrford · #**255** 03-27-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think that's a rather important difference....

Indeed it is. I have never heard of a District asking for a return of money solely because a church disaffiliated. I can well understand them asking for a HM church to return funds that were invested into a building if the church chooses to leave the organization.

#**256** 03-27-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

You know, I have heard that often. Funny thing is, from my personal experience, everyone I was around at the time felt it was all about getting rid of the "liberals."

That was my impression as well.
On reflection though, those who did not hold the water/spirit view were often lumped in as liberals regardless of their position on standards.

Rhoni · #**257** 03-27-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Indeed it is. I have never heard of a District asking for a return of money solely because a church disaffiliated. I can well understand them asking for a HM church to return funds that were invested into a building if the church chooses to leave the organization.

Yes, You have to pay back money to the District if you received any, especially from the Home Missions department, if you want to disaffiliate. And should.

Blessings, Rhoni

SDG · #**258** 03-27-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy

That was my impression as well.
On reflection though, those who did not hold the water/spirit view were often lumped in as liberals regardless of their position on standards.

Personally Guy

The AS/Westburg resolution was primarily written to reaffirm the Fundamental Doctrine ... standards found in the AOF were thrown in for good measure ...

IMO, the spin after the 1992 conference was this was just about standards ... and most of the constituency bought it ... I know that's what we thought in NY.... everyone thought, my Dad included, it was just about TV.

Yet, a deeper look at the roles of the personalities involved may indicate this was about PCI vs. PAJC. I think I'll post some of TF's interviews just for FUN.

#**259** 03-27-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Indeed it is. I have never heard of a District asking for a return of money solely because a church disaffiliated. I can well understand them asking for a HM church to return funds that were invested into a building if the church chooses to leave the organization.

Money given under SFC/CFC grants is actually given as a loan with a lien granted in most cases. Money that is donated to SFC/CFC as the case may be is counted towards a reduction of the amount owed.
SFC/CFC funds for the purchase of property are not free grants, there are strings attached. I'm not sure of the policy regarding CFC funds for Home Missionaries personal support.

SDG · #**260** 03-27-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy

Money given under SFC/CFC grants is actually given as a loan with a lien granted in most cases. Money that is donated to SFC/CFC as the case may be is counted towards a reduction of the amount owed.
SFC/CFC funds for the purchase of property are not free grants, there are strings attached. I'm not sure of the policy regarding CFC funds for Home Missionaries personal support.

How does it work w/ Metro Missionaries?