The UPC Rev.'s Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Not

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

[B]I have lived in and been around UPC leadership in 4 states.
Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Oklahoma.
I have not known one pastor who had a "tv" in their house.
I know some pastors whose children play organized athletics, (which is also in the manual).
Now, I never really made it a point to ask about tv, but it usually tends to come out after a while.
Due to what "I do" and personal contacts, I also have some contact with the national leadership of the UPC and WPF.
I do not know of any there that have a "tv" either.

Probably depends where you live, but I can attest that the circle I ran with, I know the ministers did not own a television either.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by DAII

Does the WPF require letters of transfer ?

Yes.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Yes.

Interesting ... I was under the impression the WPF was into local church sovereignty .... is this in their bylaws?

Their stance on ministerial restoration?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by DAII

Interesting ... I was under the impression the WPF was into local church sovereignty .... is this in their bylaws?

Their stance on ministerial restoration?

From what I understand, this is not something even relevant to their bylaws, since, as you stated, the local church autonomy is what's in view. However, the predominant social more/expectation, would include letters of transfer. If I can find something in writing on this, I'll post.

To your other points, this may help:

The WPF makes no guarantees in regards to the integrity of any leaders of any such ministries, or to the integrity of the practices of any such ministries, financial, moral, or any other criterion which may used to judge such a ministry.

# In the event that questions or violations concerning a member’s life or doctrine be brought to the attention of the Executive Council, the Council shall, in turn, contact that member’s Accountability Group. The Accountability Group shall then investigate the situation.

1. The Executive Chairman shall work with the Accountability Group to establish the date and location of the investigation.
2. If one or more members of the Accountability Group cannot attend the investigation, the Executive Chairman shall appoint a member or members of the EC or GC to be a part of the investigation.
3. The Accountability Group shall report to the Executive Council in writing. The EC will make the final decision, based on the written report on said member’s continuing membership, or any other disciplinary action they may deem to be necessary.

# If actions taken by the member’s Accountability Group and the Executive Council are considered unsatisfactory by either the member in question or the individual(s) making the accusation, the following actions shall then be taken:

1. A committee shall be formed from the General Council to investigate the situation and or allegations.
2. They shall report to the Executive Council with recommendation to either accept or reject the Accountability Group’s original findings.
3. The Executive Council shall decide upon the further acceptance of the member in question within the fellowship or as to what actions should be taken.
4. This decision shall be final and no further appeal process is available.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Socialite

From what I understand, this is not something even relevant to their bylaws, since, as you stated, the local church autonomy is what's in view. However, the predominant social more/expectation, would include letters of transfer. If I can find something in writing on this, I'll post.

To your other points, this may help:

hmmm ... am I to think that as described a fallen minister may be retained on a case by case basis?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by DAII

hmmm ... am I to think that as described a fallen minister may be retained on a case by case basis?

The EC will make the final decision. So it's absolutely "case by case."

[Dagwood]

Friends I know who are either direct blood-relation to the pastor or mere members of the congregation, quite often, post on Facebook what show they're watching. Whether at home or not, TV is TV no matter where one goes. Times have changed in recent years, which is why I'm glad some are finding a balance in their faith, and that not everything one watches is bad or that much of a distraction.

I've moved on from the small box thinking since there are far greater issues to try and work out among myself and people who are lost than trying to preach to the "choir" about what they should and should not watch on TV, let alone even have one. It was a learning experience, nevertheless, to live without any form of media for 7 years. But it's also been an eye-opening experience since then to see just how choked up in tradition and man's laws I was.

[Answered13]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How do you know anyone didn't have a tv in their home? Did you visit their home?

They could have just hid it. We hid our in a closet when anyone from church came. My mom would say "Oh no honey, sis. such and such is here hide the TV. LOL!!!

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The EC will make the final decision. So it's absolutely "case by case."

Wow!

[Sam]

Three thoughts on the "rules" of the UPC Manual

1. Most folks realize they are irrelevant and out of date and just ignore them.

2. They are only used selectively to prosecute people for political reasons.

3. If you are the "right" person like TFT, you can flaunt them and nothing is done about it.