WWPF General Council Question

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Thinking

It puzzles me that a member of the UPCI who has chosen to join the WPF (presumably because of dissatisfaction with the UPCI) would want to remain a part of the UPCI. Anyone have ideas about this?

Originally Posted by CC1

Here are some possibilities;

1. They want to have their cake and eat it to.

2. They wanted to chart a "preferred Apostolic future" while hanging around to grip and complain about the un-preferred future in the UPC.

3. Cold Feet - Once they found out they could not join the WWPF and still be a disgruntled UPCer boycotting UPC functions and griping about everything under the son they got cold feet and decided that perhaps the UPC isn't all that bad after all. (For all of his angst over the TV resolution I can't see T. L. Craft throwing away a lifetime in the UPC over it)

CC1, I enjoy reading your posts and respect your input, even when I disagree with you viewpoint. I know many people feel very passionately about this particular issue, and probably will for many years to come. However, I think we must be very careful in painting the intentions of good men with a broad brush of being embittered, malcontents with a less than ethical agenda.

There may indeed be men who want their cake and eat it too. There may be men who wish to hang around and gripe and preach their UPCI doomsday message. And there may be those that have developed "cold feet." Just as within the framework of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, PCAF, PAofJC, AWCF, NCO, CIA, FBI, etc. who may be less than honorable in their intentions. However, in each of these aforementioned organizations/fellowships, for every unethical, discontented, embittered minister, there are scores of good well meaning men of integrity.

With the recent UPCI ruling, (which is somewhat ambiguous, as each district has the right to enforce it or ignore it. Another topic for another time) Many of these men find themselves in a situation they did not foresee. Many of them love the UPCI, and or the men who they have worked with for many years. They however, feel as though the organization has forced them into smaller circles of fellowship as it (the org) becomes more liberal. (I don't think anyone who is honest will argue that the UPCI has not become more liberal than they were 25 years ago.)

These men, however, have much invested in missions, youth, and many other areas that the UPCI has experienced some measure of success. Why should they forced to choose between UPCI brethren or WPF brethren? I assure you that many of those you feel may have gotten "cold feet" will make a decision that they nor the UPCI wants them to make if forced to. (This is IMO why some districts have refused to enforce the ruling, because they realize these men are good men and they don't want them to have to choose.)

[CC1]

Originally Posted by bishoph

CC1, I enjoy reading your posts and respect your input, even when I disagree with you viewpoint. I know many people feel very passionately about this particular issue, and probably will for many years to come. However, I think we must be very careful in painting the intentions of good men with a broad brush of being embittered, malcontents with a less than ethical agenda.

There may indeed be men who want their cake and eat it too. There may be men who wish to hang around and gripe and preach their UPCI doomsday message. And there may be those that have developed "cold feet." Just as within the framework of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, PCAF, PAofJC, AWCF, NCO, CIA, FBI, etc. who may be less than honorable in their intentions. However, in each of these aforementioned organizations/fellowships, for every unethical, discontented, embittered minister, there are scores of good well meaning men of integrity.

With the recent UPCI ruling, (which is somewhat ambiguous, as each district has the right to enforce it or ignore it. Another topic for another time) Many of these men find themselves in a situation they did not foresee. Many of them love the UPCI, and or the men who they have worked with for many years. They however, feel as though the organization has forced them into smaller circles of fellowship as it (the org) becomes more liberal. (I don't think anyone who is honest will argue that the UPCI has not become more liberal than they were 25 years ago.)

These men, however, have much invested in missions, youth, and many other areas that the UPCI has experienced some measure of success. Why should they forced to choose between UPCI brethren or WPF brethren? I assure you that many of those you feel may have gotten "cold feet" will make a decision that they nor the UPCI wants them to make if forced to. (This is IMO why some districts have refused to enforce the ruling, because they realize these men are good men and they don't want them to have to choose.)

I agree with your post responding to mine. However I think it would have been a very unhealthy situation for men who feel so strongly that the UPC is not the "preferred" Apostolic future that they carved out another fellowship
to have tried to chart that preferred future while still trying to remain members of the "unpreferred" Apostolic future.

A man cannot serve two masters and despite the best of intentions these two org.'s have very different perspectives. I have a hard time believing someone who would find the WWPF attractive would be anything but unhappy and disgruntled in the UPC and probably would not be a supportive member.

The UPC has had enough disunity the last few years with these ultra cons boycotting official meetings to hold their own and griping about everything under the sun. They should just make the break for their preferred future despite any emotional or historical attachments.

[NW Pastor]

Originally Posted by CC1

I agree with your post responding to mine. However I think it would have been a very unhealthy situation for men who feel so strongly that the UPC is not the "preferred" Apostolic future that they carved out another fellowship
to have tried to chart that preferred future while still trying to remain members of the "unpreferred" Apostolic future.

A man cannot serve two masters and despite the best of intentions these two org.'s have very different perspectives. I have a hard time believing someone who would find the WWPF attractive would be anything but unhappy and disgruntled in the UPC and probably would not be a supportive member.

The UPC has had enough disunity the last few years with these ultra cons boycotting official meetings to hold their own and griping about everything under the sun. They should just make the break for their preferred future despite any emotional or historical attachments.

Amen, brother!

Like our dearly beloved brother, the late Louis L'amour, once said, "Ridin' the fence can give a man a mighty sore crotch."

Preach it, brother Louis!

[StillStanding]

There are good men on both sides of the fence. While there is safety on either side, when you strattle the fence, you put yourself in harm's way. Not only from the fence itself, but from the grenades tossed over the fence.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by bishoph

CC1, I enjoy reading your posts and respect your input, even when I disagree with you viewpoint. I know many people feel very passionately about this particular issue, and probably will for many years to come. However, I think we must be very careful in painting the intentions of good men with a broad brush of being embittered, malcontents with a less than ethical agenda.

There may indeed be men who want their cake and eat it too. There may be men who wish to hang around and gripe and preach their UPCI doomsday message. And there may be those that have developed "cold feet." Just as within the framework of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, PCAF, PAofJC, AWCF, NCO, CIA, FBI, etc. who may be less than honorable in their intentions. However, in each of these aforementioned organizations/fellowships, for every unethical, discontented, embittered minister, there are scores of good well meaning men of integrity.

With the recent UPCI ruling, (which is somewhat ambiguous, as each district has the right to enforce it or ignore it. Another topic for another time) Many of these men find themselves in a situation they did not foresee. Many of them love the UPCI, and or the men who they have worked with for many years. They however, feel as though the organization has forced them into smaller circles of fellowship as it (the org) becomes more liberal. (I don't think anyone who is honest will argue that the UPCI has not become more liberal than they were 25 years ago.)

These men, however, have much invested in missions, youth, and many other areas that the UPCI has experienced some measure of success. Why should they forced to choose between UPCI brethren or WPF brethren? I assure you that many of those you feel may have gotten "cold feet" will make a decision that they nor the UPCI wants them to make if forced to. (This is IMO why some districts have refused to enforce the ruling, because they realize these men are good men and they don't want them to have to choose.)

As a point of clarification I think your statement is incorrect. Each District has the latitude to decide WHEN they will enforce the ruling not IF they will enforce it. My understanding is that by the end of this year each District will have to enforce it. The latitude was given for those who had paid dues for the year in either organization. But ultimately no District will be permitted to allow dual membership.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by rrford

As a point of clarification I think your statement is incorrect. Each District has the latitude to decide WHEN they will enforce the ruling not IF they will enforce it. My understanding is that by the end of this year each District will have to enforce it. The latitude was given for those who had paid dues for the year in either organization. But ultimately no District will be permitted to allow dual membership.

It is interesting that they will make each district enforce this, but will not make each district enforce the use of tv in license ministers homes.

[Thinking]

"It is interesting that they will make each district enforce this, but will not make each district enforce the use of tv in license ministers homes." St. Matthew

To what ruling do you refer? When did the UPC pass any regulation that would "enforce the use of tv in license(d) ministers homes?

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Thinking

"It is interesting that they will make each district enforce this, but will not make each district enforce the use of tv in license ministers homes." St. Matthew

To what ruling do you refer? When did the UPC pass any regulation that would "enforce the use of tv in license(d) ministers homes?

He is referring to enforcing the bylaws of the UPCI which forbids licensed ministers to own a "TV."

[George]

Originally Posted by CC1

I agree with your post responding to mine. However I think it would have been a very unhealthy situation for men who feel so strongly that the UPC is not the "preferred" Apostolic future that they carved out another fellowship
to have tried to chart that preferred future while still trying to remain members of the "unpreferred" Apostolic future.

A man cannot serve two masters and despite the best of intentions these two org.'s have very different perspectives. I have a hard time believing someone who would find the WWPF attractive would be anything but unhappy and disgruntled in the UPC and probably would not be a supportive member.

The UPC has had enough disunity the last few years with these ultra cons boycotting official meetings to hold their own and griping about everything under the sun. They should just make the break for their preferred future despite any emotional or historical attachments.

Now this sounds like someone speaking with sense.
I nominate you for president.

[U376977]

Help me understand this thread, PLEASE. I am a complete outsider to UPCI and attend a non demon oneness church so I really do not know what is going on. From reading this thread it appears that the UPCI is forcing all their ministers to not have a TV? And some people have left and formed their own group because of it? I thought the no TV rule was a UPCI by-law for years already?