Exiting for non payment is the only way to leave the UPCI....
You my friend ought ought to educate yourself if you are gonna offer opinions....
Non payment allows a man to go with no district board action and he leaves with no questions upon him....
Let's see how you spin that.....
His leaving an writing ony shows he is a man of conviction and lives by them even if he leaves 45 years of membership.....
No matter how he left....
This bunch will find a way to ridicule....
The same bunch that rejoices when liberals leave for their reasons....
Now tell the truth, rks....
It's not the "only" way to leave the UPCI....
I'm educated enough to know it's not the only way to leave the UPCI....
(By the way....I was right and educated enough about the Jewish Revival and the minister who lied about it. Seems I remember getting a pretty harsh reaction from you when I made the statement. Due respect, you're as wrong with this statement now as you were back then.)
His leaving shows nothing about conviction....
It merely shows he's leaving because he can't get along with those he disagrees with....
He has conviction....
Wow....
Is conviction that rare among ministers now....
That we must point out and applaud certain ones who extol their own virtues....
Conviction....
So did many of the ones who left in '92....
But they were never applauded....
They were never given the status of "men of conviction" or "men of integrity"....
No matter how positive the thread....
The same certain bunch would find something to criticize....
BOSM, that AFF....
Charismatics....
Liberals....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad
I don't see anything wrong with letting your card lapse either- I don't even think the UPC objects to it especially in light of it being so close to the time.
also, many of the ones who left in "93 did the same
Regardless of what side does it, I still think it's a cheap and easy way to go. And I still have anyone to disagree that the record would show the UPC as dropping the minister, rather than the minister leaving the UPC - as it should show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
Yes, they never miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot at someone like VM.
If "they" equals me, then you should note I'm not taking a "cheap shot at ... VM." I have from the beginning disagreed with anyone who would leave by way of not paying their dues.
I disagreed with your former DS, KP, when he first stated he was leaving and mentioned that as a possible means of exit.
I have nothing against a person who wants to leave. By all means, leave if you want to. My disagreement is in the way they're leaving . . . not with the individuals.
I know that probably disappoints you and rks, but it's the method - not the man - I'm against.
Yes, they never miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot at someone like VM.
He doesn't derserve ay shots, cheap or otherwise. He is leaving because of his convictions and in an honorable and Christian fashion. How can anyone do anything but applaud that. But, you're right, some will. And may have, didn't have time to read the whole thread, read the letter and jumped to the end......
Coonskinner and those seeing things with their glasses half full have not made comment on what has been said by those who would disagree with VM but who have made positive comments.
I think ANY time a minister comes out and puts his intentions in writing it demonstrates a tremendous amount of courage.
I admire VM for doing this, I admire Brother Bernard for keeping the TX ministers informed of his intent. I also admire ministers not caught in the wave of emotion and to be sooooo concerned about losing or being kicked outside a circle of friends.
In fact, I think those pastors with churches of 200 or less are the ones who are going to suffer the most if they choose to leave, or if the organization is one they cannot depend on for ancilary resources or if they lose those friends close to them if they remain/leave. Now, isn't this the MAJORITY of pastors in the UPC who will feel the after-effects if I am correct?
I can think of one man right now, well known, good preacher, known as a hardliner, pastors a church of 200...if he leaves with his dear friends it will impact him and his reputation somewhat, if he stays it will have a similar effect. He is in a hard spot I would imagine as are many others.
Regardless of what side does it, I still think it's a cheap and easy way to go. And I still have anyone to disagree that the record would show the UPC as dropping the minister, rather than the minister leaving the UPC - as it should show.
I have nothing against a person who wants to leave. By all means, leave if you want to. My disagreement is in the way they're leaving . . . not with the individuals.
I know that probably disappoints you and rks, but it's the method - not the man - I'm against.
The question I have for those that may feel as you do, is simply this: Will you also support the UPCI actions, when they put said pastors (those that officially resign rather than let their dues run out) "under question" and prohibit UPCI ministers from fellow-shipping them? As I have talked to the majority of pastors who have made the very tough decision to leave, this is the greatest reservation they have.
Incidentally, the attitude of those who are celebrating the departure of these men is very sad to me. Those that are leaving are not denigrating the brethren who are remaining in the UPCI, whom they have fellow-shipped with for years, they are not high five-ing their buddies and saying we're sure glad to be gone, now we can have revival etc. While they may feel that the corporate body of the UPCI has gone in a direction they are not prepared to go, they still consider the brethren their friends, and do not want to sever those relationships.
There may be a few loose cannons who try to divide families and friends because they refuse to "leave the UPCI," but I assure you that is not the norm. Yet it seems those who rejoice are willing to trample over years of labor, sweat, tears, ministry, prayers, and friendships by flippantly saying good riddance. IMO this attitude is far from Christ like.
The question I have for those that may feel as you do, is simply this: Will you also support the UPCI actions, when they put said pastors (those that officially resign rather than let their dues run out) "under question" and prohibit UPCI ministers from fellow-shipping them? As I have talked to the majority of pastors who have made the very tough decision to leave, this is the greatest reservation they have.
My question is why would the UPCI put them "under question" for leaving the organization? Has this actually happened? As of yet, I've only heard about people fearing it could happen, not that it's actually happened.
If this were the case and the UPCI did something like this, it would most likely be from local district boards. In any case, to answer your question - no, I don't believe these men should be placed under question. If they feel they must leave because of the passage of Res 4, then so be it. Let them go.
This is what I don't understand. You're saying the UPCI would place a minister with the character of VM or Kansas Preacher under question . . . yet it allows the Jewish Revival perp to continue to serve as a district presbyter with no sanction for his lies. And there are other shady ministers allowed to do their deeds without being under question . . . yet VM by virtue of leaving the organization would be put under question and kept from fellowshipping with the UPCI?
I'm sorry, but I have trouble believing that would happen.
Hopefully lessons were learned from the AMF situation of many years ago.........In other words they have been known to do it in the past, and I have heard some things that are supposedly happening now with missionaries (I do not have verification so I can only say supposedly) that would lead me to believe it is possible again.
I sincerely hope they would not attempt it with men of integrity like VM, but part of me would not be surprised.
It is rejoicing time here cause another one of them hard line ultra cons is gone......
You know, watching the back and forth here is kind of puzzling I haven't seen anyone "rejoicing" over VM leaving the UPC fellowship. I haven't seen any "cheap shots" at the man either.
rks is the only one "rejoicing" as his dancing smilie seems to indicate. But what does he rejoice over? A discussion of VM's letter?
All due respect rks, it seems that you've jumped on this issue simply to say negative things about "here." I don't know you personally (obviously) so all I can really address is what you post. But "here" on an Internet discussion board is such a fluid landscape that your complaints appear to exist without a context.
A letter was posted, and people looked at it and commented. If a watermark on the paper itself had come through on the scanned image, no doubt someone would have an opinion about the watermark. Wondering about how big of a deal this was, I asked about the letter's distribution- but no answer has yet been offered.
The fact that only "nits" could apparently be "picked" from the letter itself tells me that none of the posters had anything negative to say about the writer himself. Perhaps I missed something, but I read thread.
I'm left to conclude that you have some very negative feelings about "here." If that's the case, give it a moment and "here" will soon be over "there" as the wheels of time and of the Internet inexorably grind all of our collective discontent into dust. There's probably a thread already set up to discuss that thought as well.
Linear Mode
