District Puts WPF on Notice

[scotty]

Originally Posted by CC1

For some the sleeves and skirts might be debatable but they believe that long uncut hair on women is an absolute. That is how they believe the scripture reads so in their paradigm God is not going to go against his word and condone something different.

Who is "they"?

Who are you talking to?

Who's paradigm?

My UPC church has one with facial hair that runs the sound booth.

We have a lady that wears a little foundation and color, and some hair color who sits on the platform and signs for our deaf members.

I am afraid to judge, but the credibility of some that I read on here is waning. Seems I see just as many on here saying these things are not true of UPC as there are saying UPC is guilty of them.

Are both right?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Not all Democrats are queers, lesbians, baby killers, anti-christians, etc. But we associated democrats with the radical aspects of the parties. The radical aspect of the upci is still in control. The "Apostolic Identity" as defined by upci is unscriptural. A broad brush is acceptable to use when over 90% of one's group has those thoughts.

So where does the 90% come from,

Got a break down of that figure ?

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by scotty

Who is "they"?

Who are you talking to?

Who's paradigm?

My UPC church has one with facial hair that runs the sound booth.

We have a lady that wears a little foundation and color, and some hair color who sits on the platform and signs for our deaf members.

I am afraid to judge, but the credibility of some that I read on here is waning. Seems I see just as many on here saying these things are not true of UPC as there are saying UPC is guilty of them.

Are both right?

I have refrained from commenting on this matter but feel I should perhaps offer a perspective from one who was very much a part of the UPC both through evangelizing for almost 9 years full time to pastoring for 8 more....

Your perspective seems to show that you have not widely travelled the UPC...because if you had you'd surely know that the issue of "standard emphasis" varies widely from district to district--and sometimes even from section to section in a district.

The church you describe attending would find it hard pressed to be used on any level in some districts...truly, a man being used with facial hair and a lady on the platform with dyed hair and make-up would constitute an issue of little or no fellowship...you would also find these topics being mentioned AT EVERY district event including youth camps, men's and ladies retreats, and camp meeting....I know this because I lived it. Even at sectional youth rallies remarks were made that were obviously critical of certain ways of operating youth ministry....and you know they are talking about you when you are the only church that is doing it that way...

Ultimately...our church was removed from the section meeting schedule all together--without my knowledge beforehand and although we had the biggest facilities to accommodate the meeting--while still both affiliated with the UPC and pastored by a UPC ordained minister....

At my last district men's meeting a local UPC peer went on a standard rampage--basically describing our church--with the heading, "I want to preach to the preachers for a moment". I was the only preacher in the room that his words applied to, and the men from our church were the only men not standing in rabid "amening"....

Would this be the case in some of the districts I preached in? Absolutely not. My church would have been considered moderate conservative (at the time) in those districts...

Would this have been the case in some of the other districts I used to preach in? Absolutely yes---my church would have been considered "backslide" in those...and would have been a target for pulpit "standards" preaching...

Sorry for the long explanation...but two more things: The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of UPC churches that DON'T constantly harp on the standard issues... but it still remains that in some parts of the country you are not considered "preaching" until you've covered the "apostolic identity" standards...

Second thing: I have been told that when we made the decision to move away from the dress and stuff issues, the amount of "standards" preaching rose in the area--especially in churches that I used to preach in or was "known" in...pastors started harping on things from the pulpit that they hadn't harped on in years...There were family members in my church that received phone calls after said pastors called special "Holiness meetings" to reinforce what they practiced--and even called me by name as being in error...

In closing--I am trying to say that how much these things are mentioned depends on the area--and on the particular circumstance--surrounding the churches in question. And I can attest to the fact that there are UPC churches in my area that harp on it constantly and will "disfellowship" other UPC (and non-upc) churches and people who do not practice it to the letter--to the point of actually dividing families for the sake of their definition of holiness...while at the same time there are some who don't...so, "Yes"...both can be right...(FMPOV)...

[scotty]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

I have refrained from commenting on this matter but feel I should perhaps offer a perspective from one who was very much a part of the UPC both through evangelizing for almost 9 years full time to pastoring for 8 more....

Your perspective seems to show that you have not widely travelled the UPC...because if you had you'd surely know that the issue of "standard emphasis" varies widely from district to district--and sometimes even from section to section in a district.

Arkansas district and North Louisiana to be exact. You made my point, they do very, so why paint the whole org. as being bad. Why the hate is my question I guess. BTW. Been UPC for about 27 years now, not a preacher ( but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night)

The church you describe attending would find it hard pressed to be used on any level in some districts...truly, a man being used with facial hair and a lady on the platform with dyed hair and make-up would constitute an issue of little or no fellowship...you would also find these topics being mentioned AT EVERY district event including youth camps, men's and ladies retreats, and camp meeting....I know this because I lived it. Even at sectional youth rallies remarks were made that were obviously critical of certain ways of operating youth ministry....and you know they are talking about you when you are the only church that is doing it that way...

Hate that for you.

Ultimately...our church was removed from the section meeting schedule all together--without my knowledge beforehand and although we had the biggest facilities to accommodate the meeting--while still both affiliated with the UPC and pastored by a UPC ordained minister....

Ignorant isn't it?

At my last district men's meeting a local UPC peer went on a standard rampage--basically describing our church--with the heading, "I want to preach to the preachers for a moment". I was the only preacher in the room that his words applied to, and the men from our church were the only men not standing in rabid "amening"....

Would this be the case in some of the districts I preached in? Absolutely not. My church would have been considered moderate conservative (at the time) in those districts...

This is what has really changed.

Would this have been the case in some of the other districts I used to preach in? Absolutely yes---my church would have been considered "backslide" in those...and would have been a target for pulpit "standards" preaching...

Sorry for the long explanation...but two more things: The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of UPC churches that DON'T constantly harp on the standard issues... but it still remains that in some parts of the country you are not considered "preaching" until you've covered the "apostolic identity" standards...

Hate that too, but you know, they can come around to the rest of us or they can go WPF

Second thing: I have been told that when we made the decision to move away from the dress and stuff issues, the amount of "standards" preaching rose in the area--especially in churches that I used to preach in or was "known" in...pastors started harping on things from the pulpit that they hadn't harped on in years...There were family members in my church that received phone calls after said pastors called special "Holiness meetings" to reinforce what they practiced--and even called me by name as being in error...

This is sad, good for you for keeping the spirit

In closing--I am trying to say that how much these things are mentioned depends on the area--and on the particular circumstance--surrounding the churches in question. And I can attest to the fact that there are UPC churches in my area that harp on it constantly and will "disfellowship" other UPC (and non-upc) churches and people who do not practice it to the letter--to the point of actually dividing families for the sake of their definition of holiness...while at the same time there are some who don't...so, "Yes"...both can be right...(FMPOV)...

I have to admit that there a few around us that are standards preachers, here is the thing though (not saying its like this everywhere) they are barely making it. Little churches that have more pews than people, and there preacher could preach the walls down and no one else in the district would pay a whole lot of attention.

I know we can both be right, it was said in sarcasm..

[CC1]

Originally Posted by scotty

Who is "they"?

Who are you talking to?

Who's paradigm?

My UPC church has one with facial hair that runs the sound booth.

We have a lady that wears a little foundation and color, and some hair color who sits on the platform and signs for our deaf members.

I am afraid to judge, but the credibility of some that I read on here is waning. Seems I see just as many on here saying these things are not true of UPC as there are saying UPC is guilty of them.

Are both right?

You do read English I trust? If you will read again my post you quoted it had nothing to do with facial hair on men or makeup on women.

I simply was responding to TV1's post about everybody accepting everybody to say that while some "standards" are debatable in some peoples minds others are not as they believe they are a biblical directive. Specifically I listed women cutting their hair.

I was not criticizing anybody in this post just making an observation that a Pentecostal who believes the Bible clearly teaches against a woman cutting her hair is NEVER going to accept it.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by CC1

You do read English I trust?
Hey, sarcasm!!! Thought that was my department.

If you will read again my post you quoted it had nothing to do with facial hair on men or makeup on women.

I simply was responding to TV1's post about everybody accepting everybody to say that while some "standards" are debatable in some peoples minds others are not as they believe they are a biblical directive. Specifically I listed women cutting their hair.

I was not criticizing anybody in this post just making an observation that a Pentecostal who believes the Bible clearly teaches against a woman cutting her hair is NEVER going to accept it.

For the most part your right on this,

there are exceptions though, my favorite exception to list is ME

I was as you say for about the first 15 years of my UPC life, however I have accepted that it is not all inclusive.

You know what a lot of people on here are really gonna hate?!?!

It was a UPC church that changed my understanding.

Thats why I say, before ones on here continue trying to shoot the "mothership" down for going the wrong way, they might take a minute to make sure it is still going that way.

Just a thought

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by scotty

I have to admit that there a few around us that are standards preachers, here is the thing though (not saying its like this everywhere) they are barely making it. Little churches that have more pews than people, and there preacher could preach the walls down and no one else in the district would pay a whole lot of attention.

I know we can both be right, it was said in sarcasm..

I don't think it is hate...I think it is opposing opinions and negative perceptions. Let me preface my further remarks by saying that as for me I do not hate the UPC..nor do I hate the district which I was once a pastor in. So if you read any hate speech in my posts you are reading way too much into them.

As far as how this discussion has gone I'd say, "Hate?" No. "Negative experience that creates a negative perception?" IMO...yes. If all you know is a very conservative UPC district/section that always harped on standards, then you'd naturally have a perception that the whole org is that way... If all you know is a very tolerant (or liberal) district/section that preached a whole lot of grace and never really touched the dress and hair issues, then you'd have a perception that the whole org is like that...

If the UPC you experienced was mean to you--whether in a local church or in a district/section--because you didn't adhere to the doctrines, then you'd leave believing that the whole org is mean...

To be quite honest, I know several who were treated very harshly by the UPC representatives (both officials and pastors) in their lives over standards...and it taints the whole movement in their eyes...and as long as these dress and hair issues are put out front in district and national events, nothing can change that perception.

But on the same token, I know of people who were mistreated in a dentist's chair, and they will not go to a dentist to this day....they think all dentist are bad...and we both know that this is not the case either.

To be honest again, I was in the UPC for the first 36 years of my life, I had good and bad happen to me at the hands of the UPC representatives in my life. I do not have a jaded perception of the org as a whole because the good balances the bad...therefore I know, I was mistreated by some...but I was loved by others...so the whole org isn't bad after all...just some of its representatives in my life...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

To be honest again, I was in the UPC for the first 36 years of my life, I had good and bad happen to me at the hands of the UPC representatives in my life. I do not have a jaded perception of the org as a whole because the good balances the bad...therefore I know, I was mistreated by some...but I was loved by others...so the whole org isn't bad after all...just some of its representatives in my life...

T1,
I always know when you post you will keep a good attitude about everything. I respect you for that!!!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by CC1

For some the sleeves and skirts might be debatable but they believe that long uncut hair on women is an absolute. That is how they believe the scripture reads so in their paradigm God is not going to go against his word and condone something different.

CC1,
This is very true. There are people I know that cut their hair and are still uncomfortable about doing that. It's a hard passage.

I believe that I Cor 11 is going over some cultural issues, but the principles taught are still something we can grasp.

In the same chapter the Corinthian church is being corrected on how they have been conducting themselves during the Lord's supper. It seems they have taken some practices from the pagans. A cultural issue, yet the principle is "do this in remembrance of me".

Same with the hair, "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither, was the man created for the woman; but the woman of the man" is the principle.