Resolution 3 Massacre Begins in South Texas Dist.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Sure. But timing is everything. Technically, at the point of the invitation COC was not under question. Procedure had to be followed and it was. End of story.

Hmmm ... interesting ...

I also find it interesting that a church can be under question.

[SDG]

If we think every preacher in the fellowship including those in positions of power get the all clear from District boards for every venue they preach at ... then that's fantasy.

Procedure .......buwahabuwahaha!!!

This rule like many is arbitrarily and inequitably enforced ...

NAU preached everywhere during his day ... often not informing local boards he was even in town.

This rule is only enforced when someone is called out on it and the board is influenced to take action.

Some rules are good theoretically and in principle but insipid and even wicked in their implementation and scope.

Again how is one to know who is blacklisted?

This situation ... in STD is about personal grudges, territorialism and disgruntled preachers who can't hold on to their saints because of their man-made yokes.

[rgcraig]

I can't wrap my head around why they really care where anyone speaks?

Aren't we suppose to reach ALL the WORLD?

Sure looks silly to an outsider.

[Brad Murphy]

Depending on what the hot topic of the moment is, sometimes it is just a fellowship of ministers... and sometimes it is a full-blown organization with churches, etc. (like it actually says in the manual)

[Jack Shephard]

I have read most all this thread. I have not seen why Bro. Fender was added. Why would this be? I know he was at GC when the votes went down but does he regularly preach at UPC churches? I do know he is really good friends with Roland Baker in Pontiac, MI.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I can't wrap my head around why they really care where anyone speaks?

Aren't we suppose to reach ALL the WORLD?

Sure looks silly to an outsider.

To be honest, one would have to be a pastor to see a certain side of this issue. When a man has been unethical, immoral, etc. and leaves the fellowship of the UPCI or no longer embraces the same doctrinal stances, then some if it can make perfect sense.

Perhaps this illustration would help: Let's say that you are pastoring and you have an assistant. Said assistant, very talented and well-liked, decides he no longer believes the same message you preach and therefore relocates. After a period of time he comes to town and is ministering at a church another friend of yours pastors, who believes as you do. Are you seriously going to tell me you wouldn't be concerned? That it would not affect you at all?

Again, I am not saying the broad brush approach is correct, but there are indeed instances where such an action is a good thing.

Would some of you be for convicted felons having the right to own firearms? (I know, I knowl Someone is going to say "Apples and Oranges." But is it, really when we consider only the principle involved?)

[Rico]

Originally Posted by rrford

To be honest, one would have to be a pastor to see a certain side of this issue. When a man has been unethical, immoral, etc. and leaves the fellowship of the UPCI or no longer embraces the same doctrinal stances, then some if it can make perfect sense.

Perhaps this illustration would help: Let's say that you are pastoring and you have an assistant. Said assistant, very talented and well-liked, decides he no longer believes the same message you preach and therefore relocates. After a period of time he comes to town and is ministering at a church another friend of yours pastors, who believes as you do. Are you seriously going to tell me you wouldn't be concerned? That it would not affect you at all?

Again, I am not saying the broad brush approach is correct, but there are indeed instances where such an action is a good thing.

Would some of you be for convicted felons having the right to own firearms? (I know, I knowl Someone is going to say "Apples and Oranges." But is it, really when we consider only the principle involved?)

Seems to me the right course of action would be to call the pastor friend and share the concerns with him. That pastor should then make up his own mind about letting the fella preach.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

To be honest, one would have to be a pastor to see a certain side of this issue. When a man has been unethical, immoral, etc. and leaves the fellowship of the UPCI or no longer embraces the same doctrinal stances, then some if it can make perfect sense.

Perhaps this illustration would help: Let's say that you are pastoring and you have an assistant. Said assistant, very talented and well-liked, decides he no longer believes the same message you preach and therefore relocates. After a period of time he comes to town and is ministering at a church another friend of yours pastors, who believes as you do. Are you seriously going to tell me you wouldn't be concerned? That it would not affect you at all?

Again, I am not saying the broad brush approach is correct, but there are indeed instances where such an action is a good thing.

Would some of you be for convicted felons having the right to own firearms? (I know, I knowl Someone is going to say "Apples and Oranges." But is it, really when we consider only the principle involved?)

Weak arguments, IMO ... this is only a concern for the weak-minded and insecure ...

if you have truth ... and have instructed your people in the Word ... who cares whose preaching down the street ...

The problem here is that many OP ministers are possessive and want to tell people where they can go ... and not go ...

A church should have two doors ... one to enter ... the other to leave ...

It is in freedom of choice that love is bred, fostered and flourishes...

Who gives a flying fajita other than a pastor with a bunker mentality and who can't win and disciple new souls if some discontented saint chooses to part ways.

Of course losing tithe payers might be the real issue.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by rrford

To be honest, one would have to be a pastor to see a certain side of this issue. When a man has been unethical, immoral, etc. and leaves the fellowship of the UPCI or no longer embraces the same doctrinal stances, then some if it can make perfect sense.

Perhaps this illustration would help: Let's say that you are pastoring and you have an assistant. Said assistant, very talented and well-liked, decides he no longer believes the same message you preach and therefore relocates. After a period of time he comes to town and is ministering at a church another friend of yours pastors, who believes as you do. Are you seriously going to tell me you wouldn't be concerned? That it would not affect you at all?

Again, I am not saying the broad brush approach is correct, but there are indeed instances where such an action is a good thing.

Would some of you be for convicted felons having the right to own firearms? (I know, I knowl Someone is going to say "Apples and Oranges." But is it, really when we consider only the principle involved?)

I would not be concerned. I have a friend that did this. Left the UPCI and started a chuch locally and it didn't really work out and now is back. Never under question. He is not back at the same church in the UPC but at another out here.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Weak arguments, IMO ... this is only a concern for the weak-minded and insecure ...

if you have truth ... and have instructed your people in the Word ... who cares whose preaching down the street ...

The problem here is that many OP ministers are possessive and want to tell people where they can go ... and not go ...

A church should have two doors ... one to enter ... the other to leave ...

It is in freedom of choice that love is bred, fostered and flourishes...

Who gives a flying fajita other than a pastor with a bunker mentality and who can't win souls if someone chooses to part ways.

I don't disagree with your points but am afraid you are not seeing mine. Ethics never hurt anyone and let's remember the law is really for the lawless.