Moving "forward"?????

[bishopnl]

Sorry...go back and read the rest of my post...lol...I accidentally hit the post button a tad too quick.

[bishopnl]

My point is that we can say its hypocritical for a pastor to not own a TV and yet watch 24 on DVD, or to sign the affirmation statement and yet go to a baseball game, but if they don't believe TV is a sin, or they're adding a recognized and accepted disclaimer on their affirmation, why should I be the one cast stones?

Should they have to get out of the organization if they vary on a few of the stated positions of headquarters? Obviously the organization doesn't think so (per the accepted disclaimers) so why should we care?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Kutless

no offense PP but here is another pet answer.

I agree. My buddy said in a message last week that if you think that the church didn't have any problems they arrived as soon as you walk in. I understand thatno one is perfect. The whole point to this is the ministers that submit a disclaimer should also provide that for there saints. And maybe they do.

And also the thing that you and I disagree on and that is if you don't line up with LB you are a hypocrite.......

The affirmation for saints is a challenge in that not all saints have been afforded the teachings others have. I could overwhelm a new person by even bringing them here on this Forum. Others are perfectly fine with the discussion. If everyone took exception to everything they simply did not understand, there would never be ability to teach others. I am not in favor of a membership declaratin for church members.

Ministers on the other hand have shown they have basic requirements and have some reading/study requirements fulfilled.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

My point is that we can say its hypocritical for a pastor to not own a TV and yet watch 24 on DVD, or to sign the affirmation statement and yet go to a baseball game, but if they don't believe TV is a sin, or they're adding a recognized and accepted disclaimer on their affirmation, why should I be the one cast stones?

Should they have to get out of the organization if they vary on a few of the stated positions of headquarters? Obviously the organization doesn't think so (per the accepted disclaimers) so why should we care?

And my point is that as someone who is pursuing ministry that doesn't find sin in some of the NON_BIBLICAL requirements...they should be afforded the same.

Obey them that have the rule over you....does that only apply to saints????

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Kutless

what is 150 curtain of natural barrier?

100-150 miles to nearest cities and twisted windy roads that are a nightmare. The nearest church is nearly 2 hrs away.

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by Kutless

And my point is that as someone who is pursuing ministry that doesn't find sin in some of the NON_BIBLICAL requirements...they should be afforded the same.

Obey them that have the rule over you....does that only apply to saints????

It's not that I'm disagreeing with you...but if a pastor is buying 24 or going to ball games, I doubt that he is making rules for his saints that prohibit them from going to ballgames or watching TV shows. If your point is that pastors who enforce rules that they themselves don't follow are being hypocritical, then fine. I agree with you. I certaintly don't think that's a majority, or even a large minority of ministers in the UPC, however.

If your point is that a pastor who goes to ballgames but preaches, say, women are not to wear pants is being hypocritical, then sorry, I don't agree. As long as the position of the UPC is to continue to license and approve affirmations of pastors who don't agree with every rule in the manual, pastors will continue to decide whether or not they are going to preach something that, as has been stated, is "preferred" by the organization, and just because they enforce some things in their local congregations but not others, I don't think that makes them a hypocrite.

Whether or not I agree with the position that women should not wear pants, I don't see it as hypocritical if a pastor believes that but doesn't believe their should be prohibitions against television, and makes that a rule in order to be used in his local congregation. Pastor's have the responsibility and right to pastor their local congregations as they feel God leads them. So I guess my point is that pastor's shouldn't be required to accept "disclaimers" just because HQ does. After all, as I said, there is a difference b/w a church and a ministerial fellowship.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me, but that's kind of how I see it.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

100-150 miles to nearest cities and twisted windy roads that are a nightmare. The nearest church is nearly 2 hrs away.

My goodness BOOM! I must say that now there are going to be times that I will be jealous of you.

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

100-150 miles to nearest cities and twisted windy roads that are a nightmare. The nearest church is nearly 2 hrs away.

Where do you live, in the Andes?

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

It's not that I'm disagreeing with you...but if a pastor is buying 24 or going to ball games, I doubt that he is making rules for his saints that prohibit them from going to ballgames or watching TV shows. If your point is that pastors who enforce rules that they themselves don't follow are being hypocritical, then fine. I agree with you. I certaintly don't think that's a majority, or even a large minority of ministers in the UPC, however.

If your point is that a pastor who goes to ballgames but preaches, say, women are not to wear pants is being hypocritical, then sorry, I don't agree. As long as the position of the UPC is to continue to license and approve affirmations of pastors who don't agree with every rule in the manual, pastors will continue to decide whether or not they are going to preach something that, as has been stated, is "preferred" by the organization, and just because they enforce some things in their local congregations but not others, I don't think that makes them a hypocrite.

Whether or not I agree with the position that women should not wear pants, I don't see it as hypocritical if a pastor believes that but doesn't believe their should be prohibitions against television, and makes that a rule in order to be used in his local congregation. Pastor's have the responsibility and right to pastor their local congregations as they feel God leads them. So I guess my point is that pastor's shouldn't be required to accept "disclaimers" just because HQ does. After all, as I said, there is a difference b/w a church and a ministerial fellowship.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me, but that's kind of how I see it.

If by difference b/t church and Ministerial fellowship you are refering to the UPCI in general than I agree with you. In my narrow experience by taking a look at other org's (problems included) it is very obvious that the UPCI is about the ministers as opposed to the saints. Are there exceptions? Yes. Are there many? I doubt it. Especially when there are no biblical proofs. Part of my family is involved in a different denom. while I work for a totally different one. In both while they lack truth there operation depends very much so on the "church" as in members.

I guess I can agree with you partially on the matter of watching 24 while still preaching against pants. (Which I do not think is a sin!) But while I agree that a pastor has a right to his platform standard outside of that its my business and for me and God to work out. And in that same vein, as long as there are massive polar opoposites across the board stay prepared for church hopping, disgruntled saints, and pastors who dismiss themselves from the fellowship.

God does not author confusion.

[Sister Alvear]

I always say. "live what you preach and preach what you live..."