Another SPLIT from the UPCI??? - Page 19

tv1a · #**181** 06-23-2009, 09:31 PM

Your point may be valid only if the abominable actions by the legalists over the course of the years suffocated the intentions of the merger. The affirmation statement pretty much leaves people with the assumption a dress code is salvational. If that isn't a pot of witches brew, I don't know what is.

A district superintendent said it best when he says the upci will lose its identity if they relax their dress code. He pretty much wrapped up the reason why they fight so hard for against reality.

I have a lot to learn about being a disciple of Christ if my identity is wrapped up in my wardrobe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxon

You don't have to belong to the UPCI to be saved........If you feel very strongly you cannot support the affirmation stmt then do yourself a favor and preserve your honesty and don't sign it.

Jaxon · #**182** 06-23-2009, 09:36 PM

You also have a lot to learn in the way you word things.........."abominable"....according to who????????

tv1a · #**183** 06-23-2009, 10:11 PM

Uh... God? His apostle, Paul. There's two.

Read what happened to another group of people with similar ideas a couple thousand years ago.

Quote:

The name Pharisee in its Hebrew form means separatists, or the separated ones. They were also known as chasidim, which means loyal to God, or loved of God - extremely ironic in view of the fact that by His time, they made themselves the most bitter, and deadly, opponents of Jesus Christ and His message.
The Pharisees perhaps meant to obey God, but eventually they became so devoted and extremist in very limited parts of The Law (plus all that they themselves added to it), that they became blind to The Messiah when He was in their very midst. They saw His miracles, they heard His Words, but instead of receiving it with joy, they did all that they could to stop Him - eventually to the point of getting Him killed because He truthfully claimed to be the Son of God.

Source: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/pharisee.htm

Food for thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxon

You also have a lot to learn in the way you word things.........."abominable"....according to who????????

tv1a · #**184** 06-23-2009, 10:12 PM

I'm through pretending like this stuff doesn't stink up the nostrils of God. There is only so much of the outhouse one can tolerate before splitting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxon

You also have a lot to learn in the way you word things.........."abominable"....according to who????????

mizpeh · #**185** 06-23-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I do not agree. When the fundamental doctrine has provision made for different views, how much more should we admonish "all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

There needs to be room the RJ's in the UPC - even if it means returning the the old paths and changing the tolerance level and language to what it once was.

Sam · #**186** 06-23-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Sam do women in tank tops lead worship at your church? Do you have a platform rule different than a recommended/suggested length for modesty?

Honest question.

We are not a UPC church nor is our pastor UPC.
The church is independent.
Our pastor was ordained through RHEMA where he went to Bible School.
He is also ordained in an organization called WME (Worldwide Missionary Evangelism). The website for that organization is
http://www.wmeinc.org/

I don't know of any "platform standard" for the singers, etc. I have never heard of it if there is, but I do not lead worship. I have taught midweek Bible Study in a Tee shirt, shorts, and sandals and it has been no problem. I don't remember ever seeing anyone in a tank top leading worship but I personally would have no problem with it. My pastor has facial hair and wears shorts but I don't ever remember seeing him preaching on Sunday morning in shorts. He ordinarily does not wear a tie when he preaches.

It is my personal opinion that it is none of my business how a brother or sister dresses. That is between the brother or sister and his or her Lord.

Sam · #**187** 06-23-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Yeah? That line didn't work so good for Bill Clinton.

Well, during and after the impeachment trial, his party stood with him and Al Gore called him one of the greatest presidents of our country. If he could run again, he probably would be voted in again.

Sam · #**188** 06-23-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

...
Have we entered a world where words have no meaning and a signed pledge is a matter to snicker over?

When it comes to the Affirmation Statement,
the answer to that question would be "yes"

The AS is viewed as
a joke,
a departure from reality,
out of touch,
the opinion of a few neanderthals,
a pain in the posterior but something to put up with and not take seriously,
something that has to be returned to HQ periodically with some sort of signature to maintain your license/credentials/union affiliation,
etc.

It's like the "blue laws" on our books.
They're still there but nobody pays any attention to them.

GraceAmazing · #**189** 06-23-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

Back to the basis of this thread I think it is interesting that "progressive" UPCers may be forming a support / fellowship group within the UPC.

The ironic thing is that in the case of AM for all of the talk of him being progressive or liberal I just don't see it in anything other than the use of television. He preaches against women cutting their hair, etc with the best of them.
Now RJ is definitely more progressive and his church reflects it.

This statement I would agree with. I don't think he's as progressive or liberal as one might believe...now that's JMO and we all know that opinions are sometimes dead wrong!

commonsense · #**190** 06-23-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Maple Leaf,
I am not UPC so I did not get the letter sent to me.
I have seen a copy of it and the way I remember the gist of it, that was the impression I got. In other words, Bro. Urshan was saying, "Just sign it and don't worry about it. We don't really care what you preach or teach. We just want your signature."
It has been a long time since I've seen the letter. I don't know if I have a copy of it any more, and if I do, I don't know where it's filed. And, I may have drawn some inference from it that someone else might not have.

That's the way I heard it too.
My husband no longer has UPCI Lic, but our DS basically stated it was ok to sign it based on the letter Bro Urshan sent with it.
It's been my observation that individual districts accept or reject the signatures.