Let's Talk About Organizational Consistency, hmm?

[bishoph]

Bro. Griffin, good to see your input. I agree that the NCO may be a poor specimen for comparison, However I feel that the AWCF, and the IAF are fair comparisons. Both charge dues (even though they may be significantly less than WPF, due are dues) they both have division/departments/arms that mirror organizational structure, both have regional and national meetings, and both have headquarters.

All I am stating is that if we are going to deal with this fairly, IMO the UPCI must make membership in the AWCF and the IAF, and all other ministerial "fellowships/associations" off limits as well. While some here on AFF have repeatedly stated that the UPCI does in fact disallow for AWCF, IAF, and others, it is simply not true. In the beginning of the AWCF the UPCI took a very harsh stand against the AWCF, however over time they have relented, and today a good number of UPCI men are members of the AWCF, and even represent the UPCI on the board.

If any remember when the AWCF was starting, the UPCI in taking such a harsh stand, lost some ministers that would have never thought about leaving because they (the UPCI) made them make a choice, and they seem doomed to repeat themselves. BTW all of the WPF "haters" (I use that term very TIC) have no problem with UPCI members being members of the AWCF, so what is the difference? IMO it is a matter of personal perception because of a perceived injustice to a beloved entity.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

LEGALLY they are apples and oranges, as was stated-

WWPF has a bible school, magazine, missions plan, departments, a headquarters office space, dues, benefits, bible quizzing, youth camps, and alternative meetings to the UPCI.

The NCO does not have dues, Bible School, magazine, missions plan, HQ space, benefits (like insurance), Bible quizzing, youth camps, or alternative meetings.

Furthermore it does not have ANY layers of organizational hierarchy, nor even written Articles of Faith.

It does not even have 501 (c) (3) status.

It is a fellowship, primarily web based dedicated to sharing ideas and means to propagate the gospel. Nothing more nothing less.

Legally speaking comparing it to an organization such as WWPF is a total non sequitur!!!


James Griffin
Attorney at Law

Doh ... there goes that myth.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Ferd

i dont agree. if anything Dan pointed out that DB was a major proponent of the Infernal Document and is likely a major proponent of the move to block this dual membership movement.

that cuts both libs and cons out, making the UPCI more moderate.


....more to come on the NCO.

Maybe because of the new organization's affect in Texas?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

How can it not?

What will the total loss of ministers be after we calculate the ministers who left over the AS, and now this edict?

He is a major player in both issues.

Any numbers for those leaving will be fudged or covered over by, "we're growing and adding ministers and churches every day" type damage control.

Also, how do you really measure the numbers for those who leave by just not renewing their dues?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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?

From my impressions of 1992 and recollections of DB's involvement I would tend to agree with Rev. Buddy. I remember DB's pre-Conference article as being something that he seemed to have been asked to write. I've shared platforms with both DB and LW and believe me- they were never in lock step and seemed to be uncomfortable with each other. Just my impression.

At the 1992 Conference LW made an impassioned plea for the AS but it seemed to have been met with skepticism. DB was called upon only once (as I recall) to make some sort of explanation as parlimentarian. I don't remember him ever speaking in favor of the resolution.

The whole AS was going down until one man spoke. That one man made all the difference in the vote and has gone on record since expressing his profoundest regrets. He in fact apologized to the conference the following year.

The "inconsistencies" that AE seems to lament are a product of the haphazard whims of an org trying to legislate holiness. Whoever can move the crowd on one particular day will determine the way in which everyone else is supposed to live their lives. Then when time passes, many of the one-time crowd pleasers are ignored because the crowd has learned through hard experience that such whims are not the way to lead God's church.

[RevBuddy]

Dan...did you see how intelligent Pelathais is above...this guy has insight and depth!!!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by RevBuddy

Dan...did you see how intelligent Pelathais is above...this guy has insight and depth!!!

The Mighty Warrior is one of my cyber hero favorites!!!!

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Bro. Griffin, good to see your input. I agree that the NCO may be a poor specimen for comparison, However I feel that the AWCF, a fair comparison....

All I am stating is that if we are going to deal with this fairly, IMO the UPCI must make membership in the AWCF, and all other ministerial "fellowships/associations" off limits as well....

IMO it is a matter of personal perception because of a perceived injustice to a beloved entity.

It is a little bit more than perceived injustice to a beloved entity. Some of the recruiting techniques employed, whether sanctioned or not, were at best unethical.

Furthermore, the AWCF is inclusionary by its nature and includes over 180 affiliate organizations under its umbrella.

The WPF by contrast is exclusionary by nature and a major catalyst to its formation in present form was the passage of Res 4 by the UPCI in Tampa. Most importantly it was intended from its inception to provide an alternative to the UPCI, to deny that now would be somewhat disingenuous by the leadership.

However, other than the unfortunate recruiting tactics, and dissemination of misinformation in the formulative stages (something that could happen among the membership of anyone passionate about starting something new) I personally believe the WPF men to be men of integrity and would not presume to impinge their motives.

Which brings us back to the original premise of the thread; organizational consistency.

Ignoring the foundational intent of the various organizations, and looking at the matter dispassionately, Bishoph has a valid point: AWCF does also have HQ, organizational hierarchy, an official magazine, missions board, Bible Quizzing, Articles of Faith, are involved in licensing, regularly hold meetings and conferences etc. IF the UPCI were to enforce dual membership ban against the WPF and not in the AWCF it would indeed be hard to justify.