*** [Exclusive] Resolution 3: The Bloodbath and Inquisition begins ****

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Anti-semitism is nothing new either, Elder ... but historically it has reared it's head in various "new ways" ...

Russia had it's pogroms.
Germany had it's Final Solution and Crystalnacht.

This Resolution is a new twist to an old practice ... it's now being abused as predicted.

Dan
Now you are just being silly.
As a matter of fact you are degrading the Holocaust with your comparison.
Take a deep breath, get back on your meds and start posting after they kick in again.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This official action would require a meeting and vote right? If a District Supt. invoked Resolution 3 but did not had the blessing of the board what recourses would a preacher "under question" have?

He's not "under question".
If I were placed "under question" frivolously my lawyer would be calling them on Monday morning for an explanation, a retraction and a formal written letter of apology.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Guy

Dan
Now you are just being silly.
As a matter of fact you are degrading the Holocaust with your comparison.
Take a deep breath, get back on your meds and start posting after they kick in again.

Really ... historically the spirit of disfellowshipping and divisiveness has reared it's ugly head in many ways ...

see the Spanish Inquistion, Protestant wars in Europe, Calvin executing Servetus, etc.

Sure some have been extreme in getting their point across ... but the attitude is the same.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Guy

Just read the resolution "under question by the District Board". The whole resolution is about an official action of the Board, not just the Sup't. However, if I were an evangelist and the Sup't said, "Bro. we have a problem with this guy and would appreciate it if....." I think I would listen and count the cost.

Yes one should give GREAT deference to a Sup, however isn't there a world of difference between I suggest, and you shall be "excommunicated"?

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Yes one should give GREAT deference to a Sup, however isn't there a world of difference between I suggest, and you shall be "excommunicated"?

absolutely

Guy,

Would you agree that this article, with or without the resolution, empowers the DB to go on witch hunts? The term "under question" is EXTREMELY vague and the DB could meet and say OK... we are going to put all men who go out over resolution 4 under question. This would then preclude a licensed minister from preaching for them or them preaching for a UPC pastor. The ambiguity of the article is, in my opinion, dangerous.

BTW, I have seen a particular district use the article/bylaw to shut men out and move them on down the road.

DS and DBs are subject to collusion and corruption like any other political body!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Guy

He's not "under question".
If I were placed "under question" frivolously my lawyer would be calling them on Monday morning for an explanation, a retraction and a formal written letter of apology.

Then you do see the potential of litigation abounding because of this blacklisting resolution being abused?.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Guy

absolutely

So you agree that even in case of "suggestion" to the contrary, said pastor should have been at liberty to have evangelist of choice unless evangelist had been officially found to be "in question" by the entire district board?

Originally Posted by philjones

Guy,

Would you agree that this article, with or without the resolution, empowers the DB to go on witch hunts? The term "under question" is EXTREMELY vague and the DB could meet and say OK... we are going to put all men who go out over resolution 4 under question. This would then preclude a licensed minister from preaching for them or them preaching for a UPC pastor. The ambiguity of the article is, in my opinion, dangerous.

BTW, I have seen a particular district use the article/bylaw to shut men out and move them on down the road.

DS and DBs are subject to collusion and corruption like any other political body!

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".
Hypothetically it is possible to commit adultry, be accused, have witnesses, charges be laid before the district, drop your card and stop any investigation dead in its tracks before being found guilty and dropped for immorality. That is the kind of situation this particular clause is designed for.
Could it be misused? Absolutely.
I stated what I would do if placed under question frivolously. I would deal with it and make them put up or shut up. If it had gone too far I would demand an apology be published in the local newspaper.

Originally Posted by Encryptus

So you agree that even in case of "suggestion" to the contrary, said pastor should have been at liberty to have evangelist of choice unless evangelist had been officially found to be "in question" by the entire district board?

The DB has no authority over that pastor - only the evangelist. The pastor could have whoever he wanted. The big question lies more with the evangelist.