HMD, Coon & DKB recognize past failures

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

"Daughter works" have unfortunately been synonymous with possessive, controlling, power-hunger "mama churches." Most daughter churches I know of lived in the shadows of the "mama church" and always carried that stigma and complex.

I'm not exactly sure if it was a daughter work. I think it was but I can't remember for sure. But back when I was in church our youth pastor left to start another church. It was in a different town, about 45 minutes away.

There isn't much fellowship between the 2 churches, they are both upci though and both believe pretty much the same way as far as i can tell. It was only for a small time that it seemed it may have negatively impacted the original church.

Of course we were all highly discouraged if not entirely forbidden from going up there to even visit the church for the longest time.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

"Daughter works" have unfortunately been synonymous with possessive, controlling, power-hunger "mama churches." Most daughter churches I know of lived in the shadows of the "mama church" and always carried that stigma and complex.

This is what I've seen.....and daughter works forced to pay tithes to the mama church while still trying to pay all the Daughter Work bills. With a mama like that, who needs to be protected from the lions?

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Still wearing that which pertaineth to the man.

Don't get me wrong here...I do not endorse in any way the apostolics intrepretation of Dt 22:5

It is in no way refering to a women wearing a pair of pants in our culture.

I'm just saying IF you really believe it forbids wearing slacks by women then HOW can they think it's OK to to wear if coverd by a dress??

There are churches that preach against pajamas, culottes, and any other bifurcated garment, whether anyone sees it or recognizes it as such or not.

Originally Posted by jfrog

That which pertains to a man is pants without a skirt on over them. That which pertains to a woman is a skirt with or without pants on under them. It's easy enough to explain it this way. It doesn't have to be about believing it forbids slacks on a woman, but instead it can be that it forbids a woman from only wearing slacks with no skirt on over them.

It's the silhouette. Just look at the 'international symbols" on the bathroom doors. They explain everything. So if the silhouette shows a skirt, it's still ok. At least in one mode of thought.



As far as churches dissolving after starting as home missions, have they even begun to consider the number of churches that stay under UPC as long as they are receiving home missions funding, bragging amongst each other how they are outwitting the fools at HQ, and then pulling out when the funding stops? I've witnessed that first hand, and could give names, phone numbers, and addresses.

[ILG]

The HM funding we got was that one month, you may get $57.00, the next 2 months, nothing, the next month after that, a check for $75.00, one for $28.00 etc. etc.

Nothing reliable or to actually help you out much.

BUT!!!! We were told constantly to give to EVERY program, so they could know we were "cooperating"....yes, the word was "cooperating" NOT participating.

Finally, we realzed no one was "cooperating" with us. But it took a long time to wake up, unfortunately.

[missourimary]

Hmm... maybe the church I knew best had a connection... they got enough to make staying in worthwhile.

[canam]

Or you could do like the WPF pastors daughter when they went skiing at a youth outing, wear the dress so long it covers the high top boots and the ski pants ! BTW Dan, i thought Carlton Coon was WPF.

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by ILG

The HM funding we got was that one month, you may get $57.00, the next 2 months, nothing, the next month after that, a check for $75.00, one for $28.00 etc. etc.

Nothing reliable or to actually help you out much.

BUT!!!! We were told constantly to give to EVERY program, so they could know we were "cooperating"....yes, the word was "cooperating" NOT participating.

Finally, we realzed no one was "cooperating" with us. But it took a long time to wake up, unfortunately.

Consider what is asked of a young minister in the UPC.

First, when he feels a call to preach, he is told to attend an unaccredited UPC Bible College. He is asked to pay thousands of dollars (around 20k) to earn a theological or ministerial degree which is as worthless as the paper it's printed on.

As time progresses, and he attempts to earn a living while fulfilling his calling, he finds that 1) very few ministers are full time and, 2) secular employers have no desire to hire a worker with an unaccredited theological or ministerial degree.

This creates frustration, and a feeling of betrayal.

Later, as he becomes increasingly uncomfortable in his home church, and wants to branch out on his own, 1) his pastor will tell him that it is not God's will, 2) his pastor will give him a bit more string but still maintain control, 3) he will branch out on his own with absolutely no financial support.

In all of these situations he is asked to foot the bill entirely. He receives little to no support. All while he becomes increasingly aware of theological inconsistencies within the movement he serves.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Consider what is asked of a young minister in the UPC.

First, when he feels a call to preach, he is told to attend an unaccredited UPC Bible College. He is asked to pay thousands of dollars (around 20k) to earn a theological or ministerial degree which is as worthless as the paper it's printed on.

As time progresses, and he attempts to earn a living while fulfilling his calling, he finds that 1) very few ministers are full time and, 2) secular employers have no desire to hire a worker with an unaccredited theological or ministerial degree.

This creates frustration, and a feeling of betrayal.

Later, as he becomes increasingly uncomfortable in his home church, and wants to branch out on his own, 1) his pastor will tell him that it is not God's will, 2) his pastor will give him a bit more string but still maintain control, 3) he will branch out on his own with absolutely no financial support.

In all of these situations he is asked to foot the bill entirely. He receives little to no support. All while he becomes increasingly aware of theological inconsistencies within the movement he serves.

Unadulterated truth in this post.

Charnock, did you get to watch the video? Any other thoughts on their conversation?

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by DAII

Unadulterated truth in this post.

Charnock, did you get to watch the video? Any other thoughts on their conversation?

I have a lot of "thoughts," but it may not be good to share them.

The word "Titanic" comes to mind.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Charnock

I have a lot of "thoughts," but it may not be good to share them.

The word "Titanic" comes to mind.

So you think the ship is sinking? What makes you say that?