No Double Dipping? General Board votes against ..

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by erikwebster

One of the staff ministers in charge of outreach David Grigsby at Church of Champions and I are scheduled next Thursday to have dinner where we are going to swap ideas about outreach and retention. He is a great guy, referred me to a lighting/video contractor to help us in our upgrade. We talked about the NCO for a minute and he basically snorted and laughed when i flat out asked him if the NCO was a fellowship. He strongly denied it and said it was a networking group to connect pastors, nothing more. The NCO is a threat to no one, at this point its similar to the AWCF in that its primary mission is to bring apostolics together no matter the fellowship credentials. In fact the AWCF and NCO are partnering in events like the Outreach convention here in houston. It makes sense to have the networking groups network with each other?

Erik good to have an AWCF voice here. I have been privileged to speak with Bishop Smith a few times over the past couple years, and was even honored by having an article posted on AWCF website.

If I don't see you sooner, see you at Bridge 2008. There are some "suprises" planned that will blow you away!

:-)

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Pel I can see the possibility of a lawsuit, but it won't be over the evils of using TV to save the lost, it will be over real estate.

:-)

Most of the WWPF churches have already unaffiliated themselves, haven't they? An unaffiliated church doesn't really have any property entanglements with the org.

If there are Christmas For Christ churches who received UPCI funds and there was some sort of contractual stipulation then those guys just need to step up to the plate and show us all that this is really about "principles" and not some sort of grab for position.

If a pastor feels led by God or by his own deep convictions to join the WPF then he needs to resign his church if it has any sort financial agreement with the UPC.

What sort of scenarios do you see that would be litigated?

[WyoPastor]

Here's the resolution

General Board Ruling

February 26, 2008

Whereas there may be religious organizations or associations or fellowships formed that do not use the word ‘license’ or ‘ordination,’ yet for all intents and purposes have the same, or similar, function as those organizations who do use the word ‘license’ or ‘ordination,’ including the United Pentecostal Church International; and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UPCI Manual; the General Board hereby offers this interpretation of Article VII, Section 2, paragraph 6:

Any religious organization or association that offers the same or similar benefits of the UPCI, requires payment of dues, and subscribing to a set of Articles of Faith in order to be a member, shall be interpreted as satisfying the description ‘to hold license or ordination with’ in Article VII, Section 2, paragraph 6, even though those specific words may not be used by said organization or association.

The Board finds that the WPF is such an organization for the purposes of Article VII Section 2 paragraph 6. It is the ruling of the Board that in the spirit and intent of that paragraph, it is therefore not proper for a minister to hold membership in both the UPCI and the WPF. The Board reiterates that the implementation of this ruling is, as always, in the hands of the District Boards to determine the timing and other aspects of that implementation.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by WyoPastor

Here's the resolution

General Board Ruling

February 26, 2008

Whereas there may be religious organizations or associations or fellowships formed that do not use the word ‘license’ or ‘ordination,’ yet for all intents and purposes have the same, or similar, function as those organizations who do use the word ‘license’ or ‘ordination,’ including the United Pentecostal Church International; and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UPCI Manual; the General Board hereby offers this interpretation of Article VII, Section 2, paragraph 6:

Any religious organization or association that offers the same or similar benefits of the UPCI, requires payment of dues, and subscribing to a set of Articles of Faith in order to be a member, shall be interpreted as satisfying the description ‘to hold license or ordination with’ in Article VII, Section 2, paragraph 6, even though those specific words may not be used by said organization or association.

The Board finds that the WPF is such an organization for the purposes of Article VII Section 2 paragraph 6. It is the ruling of the Board that in the spirit and intent of that paragraph, it is therefore not proper for a minister to hold membership in both the UPCI and the WPF. The Board reiterates that the implementation of this ruling is, as always, in the hands of the District Boards to determine the timing and other aspects of that implementation.

Thanx for sharing this.

[SDG]

Under this resolution's qualification of what an org is ... a serious case can be made that the AWCF is an org.

[SDG]

The Board reiterates that the implementation of this ruling is, as always, in the hands of the District Boards to determine the timing and other aspects of that implementation.

Will the Western District take the lead?

[ChicagoPastor]

I think you're right Dan, about the AWCF...

THe NCO on the other hand, has NO departments, no membership dues, no articles of faith, SO.........they're ok!

[SDG]

I heard the UPC's long trusted legal team scrutinized over the WPF's Articles of Faith.

Under their advice and interpretaton of the UPC's manual ... the WPF is an org and that the UPC had every right to ask it's ministers to choose sides.

They gave a seven point argument why the formation and it's ongoing operations is in direct violation to the UPC bylaws in the manual.

They argued that the paragraph in the manual about licences is a mere technicality ... and that if anyone were to choose to take the UPC to court over this .... the believed the courts would throw the case out because the org's General Board has the right to interpret it's own manual, not an outside jurisdiction.

[bishoph]

One small technicality, it is my understanding (according to the manual) that the GB has every right to bring a resolution, however, the resolution has no binding power until the constituency has voted to approve said resolution. It is important to note however, that the UPCI has a history of enacting these types of resolutions without due process, and if unchallenged of course it will stand.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

One small technicality, it is my understanding (according to the manual) that the GB has every right to bring a resolution, however, the resolution has no binding power until the constituency has voted to approve said resolution. It is important to note however, that the UPCI has a history of enacting these types of resolutions without due process, and if unchallenged of course it will stand.

Whether it's done now or when it's appoved in October, BishopH ... what's the difference??? .... this thing would pass easily.

The fact is the line now is drawn, period.