so let me try to get the criteria for the comparative consideration this thread is proposing:
some are looking to the GS of a member-minister fellowship organization to stand on the front of the boat (bow?) and chart the course of the faithful 'rowers' behind him.
To expect that role for the GS, one would have to move from fellowship with a member-minister organization to a denomination.
IMO, a cooperative among independant agents is the overarching character of a member-minister fellowship. Why do we long for (or place our hopes in) something other than what we have chosen to continue to be a part of?
We either are denominal or we are not.
I believe Nathanial Urshan did not assert his views as any form of central governance, and certainly not as requirements for continued fellowship. The premise was established before him and he provided a point of continuity with "them that are without". His stature was as statesman; his family name was viewed as among the pioneers of "searching the spirit for life choices established in relationship with God"
Haney will do and is doing a very similar role within a set of organizational behaviors established within a framework of a member-minister fellowship.
If we want to raise up/anoint a king, or some very, very, special man, it will be paid for by what we give up in our individual calling and election in Christ.
If you want central vision commanding the forward advancement of the troops, join a denomination, engage the political machine, pay your dues and wait for your big chance.
__________________
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath [James 1:19]
You raise some good points, but I don't think there is any way to fairly compare Urshan and Haney, and more than you can compare Sammy Sosa to The Babe.
It's a different game.
Nathaniel Urshan was definitely a man with charisma and clout, a leader with a personality as big as a Mack truck.
He had a degree of influence that I doubt we will ever see replicated in a General Superintendent.
Some of this is because of the change in our society, and some of it is because we had a man like him for so long.
Leadership seems to run in cycles. People usually want something different than what they have had.
One of the big problems I see is exactly what you named--lack of clear direction and definition.
This isn't altogether Brother Haney's fault, either.
I have to say that CS hit the nail on the head on this! there is such a difference between the generation of Pentecostals that Bro.Haney is trying to lead and the group as it was led by Bro.Urshan. I would say that today the Babyboomers make up a great majority of the church and their mindset is so much different from the previous generation.I do believe Bro.Haney is doing a great job so far,change is not always easy but it is sometimes necessary.
I have to say that CS hit the nail on the head on this! there is such a difference between the generation of Pentecostals that Bro.Haney is trying to lead and the group as it was led by Bro.Urshan. I would say that today the Babyboomers make up a great majority of the church and their mindset is so much different from the previous generation.I do believe Bro.Haney is doing a great job so far,change is not always easy but it is sometimes necessary.
I have to say that CS hit the nail on the head on this! there is such a difference between the generation of Pentecostals that Bro.Haney is trying to lead and the group as it was led by Bro.Urshan. I would say that today the Babyboomers make up a great majority of the church and their mindset is so much different from the previous generation.I do believe Bro.Haney is doing a great job so far,change is not always easy but it is sometimes necessary.
And Change takes TIME.... you can't expect to see results immediatly...
I was thinking after reading several posts and threads and I don't believe there has been a discussion on the differences between the two GSs of our generation. Brother Urshan held the scepter during some of the most difinitive times of the UPC, while Brother Haney is still trying to define his administration and legacy.
I am wondering what does/did Urshan have that Haney does not and vice versa.
I know for a fact that during the Urshan administration, the UPC had definition and objectivity, perhaps fueled by the 1992 AS, but nevertheless, I think after he passed from the scene, that is when the lines of the UPC became very fuzzy.
...and I am only sitting watching and listening for things from the peanut gallery.
I think a definition here goes beyond a comparison between the two men, I believe it carries the weight of the state of the organization as well.
Urshan to me had presence. He spoke at my Father's funeral in 1978.
He also was connected to the beginnings by his Father Andrew Urshan.
Haney just had a big church at the time of his election...
He should've defined the agenda ... on TV years ago ... great leader take the flak and lead. They don't leave it to chance and surveys. He had his chance to lead in this debate and has been very quiet.
If their is a split one might attribute it to passivity.
There will be no split. A splinter maybe, but not a split.
Both of these men are great men of God who deserve our respect. They however, are two different men, with two different personalities and no doubt different ideas and visions.
I think it is silly to compare their successes and failures. Times were a lot different when Bro. Urshan served then they are now. And I doubt that Bro. Haney will serve the length of time that Bro. Urshan served.
However, in future years I am confident that I will be able to look back and honor and respect both men for their great contributions to the kingdom of God. I will choose to respect them for their successes, as opposed to criticizing them for any failure as I would want the same mercy and kindness shown to me.
__________________ Never burn the bridge of mercy... You never know when you will need it to cross.
Doctrine makes a wonderful servant but a horrible master!
Linear Mode
