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 for the RJ's in the UPC - even if it means returning to the old paths and changing the tolerance level and language to what it once was.
Amen!!
I have been saying this for the longest...where is the spirit of the merger?!
It is each individual's personal responsibility to keep our own spirit and heart right!
We are accountable to God for ourselves, not anyone else! Whether it be good or evil.
We can't say, "Well the organization (whichever it might be) said we have to do this or
do that. They told me this is the right way. They, they, they...... Would our Judge per-
haps say, But what about the Word and the Spirit I sent you. To lead and guide you.
I came to you and you would not allow ME to lead you. Now depart, I never knew you.
You would not allow me close enough to hear My Voice. The noise of all the other voices
drowned out My Voice. I asked you to "Be still and know", but you would not! You did not
hear my Voice. You are not Mine! My sheep hear My Voice and they do follow Me. No
one can take Mine out of The Father's Hand. I and Father are ONE. In John 17, I prayed
for you along with my disciples I taught on earth. But just as the city (Jerusalem) where
I chose to put My Name, you would not. How I longed for you, but you would not.
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.
The Affirmation Statement was endorsed and retained by a majority vote of the General Conference, and not just by "a few neanderthals."
You may view it as a joke, but I can assure you that the congregations it split and the minister's it disfellowshipped don't.
GraceAmazing said it earlier: "It's a matter of integrity."
I'm surprised, given your vintage, that you view the matter of a signature and a man's word so flippantly.
It's hardly a "blue law" that nobody pays any attention to; if you fail to sign it, you lose your credentials, and potentially your livelihood.
Location: just north of the celtics red sox and patriots go baby!
Posts: 730
Re: Another SPLIT from the UPCI???
for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo
for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo
Huh? He was GS in '93
What are you talking about that he wouldn't have allowed to have passed? The AS or the advertising on TV?
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.
Hey, did you see me wave at you on my way by, on the slippery slope?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
