Re: Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, h
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
The UPCI blocks dual membership with the ALJC and when the AWCF came along, there was a block of dual membership with that organizaiton. The same happened with the AMF (though, none of those men WANTED dual membership)
NCO has none of the organizational trappings that ALJC/AWCF/AMF/WWPF.
WWPF has couched themselves as a fellowship and not an organizaiton. but their structure is certainly more "organized" than a simple fellowship.
NCO is little more than a loose fellowship that from what I have seen, really isnt even that... nor has it produced any kind of ground swell that would think it will become one.
WWPF has a bible school, magiznine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benifits, bible quizing, youth camps, and alternitive meetings to the UPCI.
these are vastly different organizational structures. One which has nor impact on the UPCI (NCO) the other that clearly has a direct impact on the UPCI (WWPF)
Re: Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, h
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter Ego
Interesting thought.
I think DB has to be a part of this new move to slice and dice.
Especially since he has already written about it in great detail.
Apparently he finds the issue large enough to capture his attention, and to share his thoughts with others.
When I consider this, I'm not sure if his is just attempting moderation, or if he is overstepping. His political manueverings are divisive - at the least.
I certainly oppose the Infernal Document, but I fully understand the action taken here. Not only do I understand it but I applaud it!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Re: Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, h
First, I think you guys are giving way too much credit to DB. I really only see him in an ancilliary role, and that primarily with his own district.
I also agree with Ferd. There are major difference between WPF, ALJC, etc. and the NCO and other "loose" felowships. WPF clearly has all the trappings of an "organization" while the NCO has almost none.
As to the AS, it's days may well be numbered, but not because of a serious ground swell of opposition, but under the rationalization of "cost cutting, etc." I opposed the AS because I thought it divisive from both ends of the spectrum, and a needless affront and insult to brethren who were polar opposites. In the last 20 years, it seems we, as an organization, have been dead-set on driving as many ministers away with our constant manipulation of the manual. As a result, we have lost valuable and anointed ministers from all sectors of our fellowship.
I'm not so concerned as to our exact spiritual and political direction, but rather am somewhat pleased that we may (I said, may) have gotten over our "holiness by legislation" tendencies...
Re: Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, h
Also, one other consideration...an organization's response to an internal "uprising" cannot be based on the number of ministers who will be lost. That is a serious concern, but from a leadership view, it cannot be the deciding factor. The organization's response must be to do what is right, in light of God's Word and in light of the overriding best interests of its constituency and churches.
In this case, to do nothing is an option, and may have well been the correct response early on. But, the time for that option to have been selected is well past. The best strategy in going forward is to be consistent...and whether you like the strategy or not, leadership is being consistent.
Re: Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, h
The UPC rarely enforces:
1. The no tv issue with ministers.
2. The no organized sports policy.
3. The orgs dress codes.
It never addresses
1. Trinitarians speaking at major conferences.
2. Dual membership in the NCO.
3. Dual membership in local ministerial alliances.
But it will now force out WPFers?
To which I say....
huh?
You see this as negative...I see it as a positive...I personally don't want national or district officials down meddling in the affairs of autonomous churches and their pastors.
When this occurred in the past (AMF), the organization reacted essentially the same.
Re: Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, h
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevBuddy
First, I think you guys are giving way too much credit to DB. I really only see him in an ancilliary role, and that primarily with his own district..
Elder, DB"s role with the 92 GC and passage of the AS is well-known ... His paper on "Affirming our Fundamental Doctrine and Holiness" and esentially gave a voice to the Westburg Resolution and defended it's passage and implementation...
He also was the first of the nationally known leaders to say that dual membership was not acceptable under the bylaws in his January 21, 2008 letter to his district.
Are we to believe he did not hold this position ... and probably advocated this position at the GB meeting?
Re: Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, h
No, you misunderstand my point...maybe you "misremembered!" Too much credit is given to him on the current issue - WPF - not what he did in 1992. I agree with you on his participation in the AS issue. But, I don't believe he has been as influential or as visible on the current controversy...
As to the issue about whether a minister can hold two fellowship cards, this is a non issue. The manual is clear on the matter. There was very little drama or uncertainty as to what conclusion the GB would come to...does that make better sense???
Linear Mode
