Moving "forward"?????

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

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

Amen Sister

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by Kutless

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.

The UPCI is SUPPOSED to be a ministerial fellowship. I know it isn't treated like such, by either headquarters or by most church members who attend UPC churches, but churches are supposed to be under the direction of their local pastor and not under the direction of headquarters, and the organization is supposed to cater to ministers and not to saints, because that's what is supposed to be. A ministerial fellowship.

As for platform standards, most pastors that I'm aware of don't tell people to either change their lifestyle or get out of the church. They might be encouraged to change (and if a pastor views certain standards as heaven/hell issues, wouldn't you expect him to encourage change?) but most pastors I know only demand compliance if a person desires to be elevated in terms of being used in the church.

Overall, I agree that there inconsistencies, and I agree that its frustrating for those who have fundamental disagreements with certain standards. But wherever you go pastors might expect or require different things of a person, and one isn't always going to agree. I just don't think that's exclusive to the UPC. That's my take on it, anyway.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

The UPCI is SUPPOSED to be a ministerial fellowship. I know it isn't treated like such, by either headquarters or by most church members who attend UPC churches, but churches are supposed to be under the direction of their local pastor and not under the direction of headquarters, and the organization is supposed to cater to ministers and not to saints, because that's what is supposed to be. A ministerial fellowship.

As for platform standards, most pastors that I'm aware of don't tell people to either change their lifestyle or get out of the church. They might be encouraged to change (and if a pastor views certain standards as heaven/hell issues, wouldn't you expect him to encourage change?) but most pastors I know only demand compliance if a person desires to be elevated in terms of being used in the church.

Overall, I agree that there inconsistencies, and I agree that its frustrating for those who have fundamental disagreements with certain standards. But wherever you go pastors might expect or require different things of a person, and one isn't always going to agree. I just don't think that's exclusive to the UPC. That's my take on it, anyway.

Ya know bishop (if you really are a bishop) I want to say I really appreciate your spirit. Maybe you shouldn't have given up your liscense. Your the kind of hypocrite I like

Just kidding. One again, platform/church function standards do not need to be in my yard mowing standards.

I don't agree with you that "IT" is not treated as such. Could you provide examples of how it is not?

Being elevated is the basis of my whole argument although I don't like that term. Lets say it like this:

(Pastor speak) I am the pastor in said orginization. There are men who have been put at the head of the UPCI/ministers. They require that I live a certain way and preach along certain lines. PP's statement about mandates being just preferences is bogus IMO. Now having said all that I, the Pastor, the due paying supporter, accept the recognition of the UPCI but refuse to stay in the bounds of the AF or some of the listed rules in the manual.

All the while I require you, Mr elevation seeker to obey my every word biblical or not.

That is hypocritical.

[bishopnl]

Ya know bishop (if you really are a bishop) I want to say I really appreciate your spirit. Maybe you shouldn't have given up your liscense. Your the kind of hypocrite I like

Thanks. But I actually never held a license. At one time I seriously considered getting one, but I moved and changed churches, and what I do has changed severely, so that for what I do now, a license wouldn't benefit me much.

Just kidding. One again, platform/church function standards do not need to be in my yard mowing standards.

I don't agree with you that "IT" is not treated as such. Could you provide examples of how it is not?

I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood your point. I thought you were comparing platform standards to the standards held for the local congregation.

My take on it is, if a pastor requires women in leadership not to wear pants, that's his perogative. I may not agree with how he chooses to apply biblical principles, but I respect his right to pastor the flock that he's been placed in in the way that he feels God leads him too. It's not quite the same as elected leadership in a minsterial fellowship, which just provides governance for a body of ministers and is not the pastor or spiritual guidance for said ministers.

And what a minister does within the bounds of the ministerial fellowship to which he belongs is between him, God, and the ministerial fellowship. If the stated position of the ministerial fellowship is that he can disagree with some of their guidelines (and unfortunately, I agree with PP that many of them are presented as guidelines rather than actual steadfast rules) and still retain membership, then that's b/w him and that ministerial fellowship. And if he chooses to pastor his church in the same way, that's b/w him, the church, and God.

For instance, he could say, "I would prefer that those in leadership not own televisions. It's not going to disqualify you from leadership, but its what I prefer." Or he could say, "If you want to be used in this church, you cannot own a television." In my opinion, and the opinion of others, the former is the position that the UPCI seems to have adopted when it comes to dealing with pastors who are unwilling to preach the manual straight down the line. Because their leadership has made it clear that affirmation statements with noted exceptions stated clearly on them will be accepted, the exceptions notwithstanding. So for that reason, I don't see a pastor who sets certain steadfast guidelines for his church, but doesn't follow the manual explicity (provided he notes that on his AS) as being hypocritical.

And again, that's not to say I agree with a lot of what we would probably agree is unbiblical tradition. But I also recognize that many pastors don't see these things as unbiblical, while they may recognize certain elements of the manual (such as ballgames) to be only the guidelines or preferences of an organization which they hold membership in.

Being the carnal movie lover I am, it reminds me of the original Pirates of the Carribbean movie, when Captain Barbossa says about the Pirate Code of the Brethren, "...and I'd say the Code is more like...guidelines, than actual rules."