Ministerial Ethics, Dropping Out and TV: Did You Forget You Agreed to This?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Raven

"If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Something for all to ponder Dan. Especially for those who are adamant about abiding by the rules! Good eye there Dan.

Raven

Chalk this one up to my sister Darcie ... she spotted it first ... while we discussed churches and pastors withdrawing via telephone.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I don't think this one is "weird." The org is just saying that if you take the pastorate of a UPC affiliated church you must keep in mind that you took the pastorate of a UPC affiliated church. Otherwise you'd have guys coming into UPC churches and using their influence as pastor to rob the fellowship of churches.

The part Dan quoted didn't have the word, affilated, in it? Are you saying Dan took a section of the manual out of context!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The part Dan quoted didn't have the word, affilated, in it? Are you saying Dan took a section of the manual out of context!

Some churches that men assume a pastorate are affiliated ... while others are not ... it can get messy when the church is affiliated and the pastor turns in his license.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The part Dan quoted didn't have the word, affilated, in it? Are you saying Dan took a section of the manual out of context!

I dunno, the dude seems crazed and half mad... oh! Dan. Sorry Dan.

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by Ferd

See, now that there is funny. I dont care who you are, that there is funny!

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I would imagine ... it would be in the approach of the newly unlicensed pastor.

In whether or not he allows his flock to objectively consider disaffiliating ... or if it can be proven he used strong arm tactics to do so ...

The pastor may wind up staying w/ his church ... but can't a district board then move to place that pastor on the "DON'T FELLOWSHIP" list.

They need much LESS reason than this, the things one can be blacklisted for are very vague and broad. The system depends almost solely on the sound judgment of the board. (Which unfortunately for a church governing system to work broad discretion must be given to the leadership) For the most part the system works, but boards are made of humans which have egos. Mistakes are made, just as in any governmental system, but for the most part it works.

But your original premise is well founded, it is not addressing what the board can do, or what the law will allow, it is what constitutes honorable conduct among any who would withdraw.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I dunno, the dude seems crazed and half mad... oh! Dan. Sorry Dan.

I've seen him in worst states....he's been on the milder side recently.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

2007 Manual Page 159

Position Papers/Ministerial Code of Ethics

ends with...

"Having accepted a pastorate, I will not use my influence to alienate the church or any portion thereof from the fellowship or support of the United Pentecostal Church International. If my convictions change, I will be honorable enough to withdraw."

Your take on this is interesting to say the least. Notice that the statement is "If my convictions change," those who have/are decided/deciding to leave are doing so not because their convictions have changed, but rather because the organization has changed. JMO

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Your take on this is interesting to say the least. Notice that the statement is "If my convictions change," those who have/are decided/deciding to leave are doing so not because their convictions have changed, but rather because the organization has changed. JMO

But the org changes all the time. Resolution #4 was simply a repeal of an earlier resolution passed in the 1970's... and people left then too, not because their convictions had changed, but because the org did.

The AS in 1992 didn't seem to change anything at the time, at least not to me. But then as I became more aware of our history I saw that it did represent a change- a fundamental change.

We're still very young as a movement and we haven't developed enough to always exercise wisdom in our dealings with one another. Every time we try to straighten out a "small wrinkle" somewhere, it results in a significant enough of a change that we loose brethren over it. JMHO, too. I've appreciated your posts BTW, bishoph.

[bishoph]

Thank You! I feel the same towards you and most of the others here that are willing to address the issues rather than point fingers at each other.