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

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by ILG

They are part of an organization which ministerial ethics calls for not alienating a church from the UPC in any fashion and not using their leadership for such purposes. This is the problem with the AS. It makes everything in the manual subject to dot and tittle negotiation. Seriously, I have no issue with unaffiliating a church. What I have an issue with is the accusations that the cons have made for years about lying and bad spirits and other nonsense and now in all liklihood doing the same things in the name of protecting the people. It is not a moot point. I think all the name calling about hypocrisy has got to go. But then the cons wouldn't be cons.

I'm going coon hunting, but will address this later.

In short, we sign the AS regarding the AoF.

We signed nothing promising to refrain from disaffiliating.

There is a definite integrity issue involved in signing a statement knowing you are violating it.

This thread attempted to make a direct comparison between that, and vioalting someones stretchy interpretation of a position paper--not the Articles of Faith.

They are not the same thing.

As for the position paper, that could not have been the intent of the writers, or it would be impossible to disaffiliate and remain a minister in good standing--if that were an ethical violation.

It clearly is not, though this thread attempted (unsuccessfully) to postulate that it is.

No soap, sorry.

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by ILG

They are part of an organization which ministerial ethics calls for not alienating a church from the UPC in any fashion and not using their leadership for such purposes. This is the problem with the AS. It makes everything in the manual subject to dot and tittle negotiation. Seriously, I have no issue with unaffiliating a church. What I have an issue with is the accusations that the cons have made for years about lying and bad spirits and other nonsense and now in all liklihood doing the same things in the name of protecting the people. It is not a moot point. I think all the name calling about hypocrisy has got to go. But then the cons wouldn't be cons.

This is the problem with not understanding the Affirmation Statement. It does NOT deman unquestioning loyalty to every jot and tittle of the manual, along with all position papers. Instead, it requires that you affirm you still believe, practice, preach, and teach the Articles of Faith (a separate portion from the manual itself), including the portion entitled, "Holiness." That's not quite the same as you are trying to make it out to be.

[Kansas Preacher]

I must have been posting when Coonskinner was posting. Sorry for the redundancy.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

The ban, whenever it was passed, wasmade in the direction of separation.

This vote went the other way--toward embracing what they consider a slide toward worldliness.

What we did in Tampa was reverse a position on one of our distinctives that we had agreed on as a corporate body.

That is something we had never done before. Herein lies the rub.

Thanks.

Would this be fair to say:

The vote of the corporate body in the 1970's went in a direction you agreed with. In 2007, the vote of the corporate body went in a direction you didn't agree with.

The votes in both cases I don't think the voting affected the way you preached or ministered.

I guess my point is, votes come and go - we agree and disagree with the outcomes. But except for the men who were forced out in the 1970's, no one was really affected directly by the votes.

The exception I guess would be those who were dissatisfied all along. Those who felt that the UPC had never done enough to combat "worldliness." Now this vote simply is a catalyst for them to do what they've been meaning to do all along. In which case, they weren't really affected by the vote either - just kind of prodded into action.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I'm going coon hunting, but will address this later.

In short, we sign the AS regarding the AoF.

We signed nothing promising to refrain from disaffiliating.

There is a definite integrity issue involved in signing a statement knowing you are violating it.

This thread attempted to make a direct comparison between that, and vioalting someones stretchy interpretation of a position paper--not the Articles of Faith.

They are not the same thing.

As for the position paper, that could not have been the intent of the writers, or it would be impossible to disaffiliate and remain a minister in good standing--if that were an ethical violation.

It clearly is not, though this thread attempted (unsuccessfully) to postulate that it is.

No soap, sorry.

I disagree CS. I know the arguments as well as you, I am sure. Don't forget that I was a conservative for 16 years.

[rrford]

Further, if the argument being postulated is to be accepted then I would expect some posters to be ripping on the liberal element of the UPC who do sign the AS and do not abide by the AoF. Otherwise your argument won't hold any real merit.

If you really think disaffiliating a church equals promoting non-fellowship then whatever do we do with those who have affiliated churches who do not support fellowship?

[rrford]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Thanks.

Would this be fair to say:

The vote of the corporate body in the 1970's went in a direction you agreed with. In 2007, the vote of the corporate body went in a direction you didn't agree with.

The votes in both cases I don't think the voting affected the way you preached or ministered.

I guess my point is, votes come and go - we agree and disagree with the outcomes. But except for the men who were forced out in the 1970's, no one was really affected directly by the votes.

The exception I guess would be those who were dissatisfied all along. Those who felt that the UPC had never done enough to combat "worldliness." Now this vote simply is a catalyst for them to do what they've been meaning to do all along. In which case, they weren't really affected by the vote either - just kind of prodded into action.

The vote of the 70's strengthened a stand already in effect; the one of 2007 weakened a stand already in existance.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

This is the problem with not understanding the Affirmation Statement. It does NOT deman unquestioning loyalty to every jot and tittle of the manual, along with all position papers. Instead, it requires that you affirm you still believe, practice, preach, and teach the Articles of Faith (a separate portion from the manual itself), including the portion entitled, "Holiness." That's not quite the same as you are trying to make it out to be.

I am fully aware that in signing the affirmation statement that you only have to believe the fundamental doctrine and holiness standards. In other words, you can believe that repentance is when forgiveness and pardon of sins occurs (which the articles of faith say) and be fine. But you can't believe that women can wear pants, which is NOWHERE in the articles or position papers. You can believe in the light doctrine and you can believe in bearing arms in war but you cannot believe that women can cut their hair. Sure, I get it.

[ILG]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by rrford

Further, if the argument being postulated is to be accepted then I would expect some posters to be ripping on the liberal element of the UPC who do sign the AS and do not abide by the AoF. Otherwise your argument won't hold any real merit.

Isn't that what has been happening ever since the AS arrived?

[Darcie]

Originally Posted by ILG

I am fully aware that in signing the affirmation statement that you only have to believe the fundamental doctrine and holiness standards. In other words, you can believe that repentance is when forgiveness and pardon of sins occurs (which the articles of faith say) and be fine. But you can't believe that women can wear pants, which is NOWHERE in the articles or position papers. You can believe in the light doctrine and you can believe in bearing arms in war but you cannot believe that women can cut their hair. Sure, I get it.

I like you!