New Resolution: All local ministers right to vote

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Straightline

It has little to do with young ministers versus old ministers.
The change is in giving part-time and no-time ministers an equal voice with those in full-time ministry. Full-time ministry has more vested in the org., and is more greatly affected by decisions made on a national level than the others. A Pastors vote respresents a whole congregation, whereas the local licensed minister that only preaches on occassion only represents himself.
This will probably pass, and will do more to disintegrate the cohesion of the UPCI than just about any other resolution.

If you must read between the lines,
do so in a
Straightline

Sir, I am well aware of the intent of this resolution and fully agree that any minister who is an active constituent should have the right to vote especially on affairs affecting the entire organization.

I am simply stating an opinion of what the secondary consequences would be in empowering and enfranchising the entire constituency ... especially a group of young ministers who had little voice before ...

Considering that most often a pastor and his assistant get to vote in business meetings ... this would allow a demographic that CW has expressed concerns about ... this of course might be off-set by older ministers who are also allowed to vote if this resolution passes.

It's political commentary ... BUT AGREE THAT IT WILL BRING A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA

[SDG]

Straighline ... I can see your argument of full time vs. part-time ministry has some merit ...

but you seem to equate amount of time one spends preaching as the only factor ...

Many credentialed ministers may not be pastoring or be associate pastors but are giving their local churches all or a lot of their time.

Furthermore, one pays dues based on the kind of license one holds ... theoretically a minister could have a General license and not pastor ... while another has a General license but does but also holds a secular job ... yet both are dedicating vast amounts of time in the ministry ... but theoretically one can vote and the other cannot.

If one can vote and the other can't ... perhaps a new due structure should be considered

Furthermore ... the business of the UPCI affects all ministers as do it's by-laws and leaders.

Also to say that a local minister only represents himself with no regard to his/her local church and organization seems pretentious and more of the exlusivistic rhetoric that hurts the culture.

[Straightline]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Straighline ... I can see your argment of full time vs. part-time ministry has some merit ...

but you seem to equate amount of time one spends preaching as the only factor ...

Many credentialed ministers may not be pastoring or be associate pastors but are giving their local churches all or a lot of their time.

Furthermore one pays dues based on the kind of license one holds ... theoretically a minister could have a General license and not pastor ... while another has a General license but does but also holds a secular job ... yet both are dedicating vast amounts of time in the ministry ... but theoretically one can vote and the other cannot.

If one can vote and the other can't ... perhaps a new due structure should be considered

Furthermore ... the business of the UPCI affects all ministers as do it's by-laws and leaders.

Also to say that a local minister only represents himself with no regard to his/her local church and organization seems pretentious and more of the exlusivistic rhetoric that hurts the culture

Dan - As you know, a "Full-time" minister is one who derives his livelihood from the ministry, a "Part-time" minister is one who suppliments his ministerial income with secular work, the "no-time" minister has no income from ministry, etc. The phraseology has little to do with the amount of hours spent.
This you of course already knew.... are you just trying to get my post count up?

The most progressive direction
follows a
Straightline

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Straightline

It has little to do with young ministers versus old ministers.
The change is in giving part-time and no-time ministers an equal voice with those in full-time ministry. Full-time ministry has more vested in the org., and is more greatly affected by decisions made on a national level than the others. A Pastors vote respresents a whole congregation, whereas the local licensed minister that only preaches on occassion only represents himself.
This will probably pass, and will do more to disintegrate the cohesion of the UPCI than just about any other resolution.

If you must read between the lines,
do so in a
Straightline

Hey, Straighline, how are you, my friend? Good to see you!

In response to your post, I couldn't disagree more. What about the Home Missions pastor who is working a full-time job, and taking no money from his small congregation? By your definition, if I understand correctly, he is a "no-time" minister. But, nothing could be further from the truth, and in my opinion, he has just as much, if not more, invested into the org.

What about the man who chooses to work a full-time job to assist another pastor who's congregation is only large enough to support one full time minister?

Maybe I misunderstood you, and if I did, please forgive me.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Straightline

Dan - As you know, a "Full-time" minister is one who derives his livelihood from the ministry, a "Part-time" minister is one who suppliments his ministerial income with secular work, the "no-time" minister has no income from ministry, etc. The phraseology has little to do with the amount of hours spent.
This you of course already knew.... are you just trying to get my post count up?

The most progressive direction
follows a
Straightline

Deriving your livelihood from your local church does not equate whether or not your claim that:

Full-time ministry has more vested in the org.

They may have more vested economically in their local church and, of course, their livelihood would be affected if said church is affiliated ...

Yet because most churches are not ... and not all pastors are economically full-time ... and other credentialed ministers may be just vested in the organization ... I don't get your conclusion.

Also ... a minister may be salaried and could be less active in ministry than a volunteer licensed minister who is putting into the church and the organization with his time, dues and every ounce of energy he/she has ...

Somehow you have created tiers in the ministry based on source of income ... not ministry time or levels of experience ... seems a bit disturbing to me ...

expecting a minister not to have a voice when he is expending his whole life serving his local church and subsequently the org .... because he's not salaried full-time or part-time seems twisted and yet both pay the same ministerial dues and are expected to participate in org fund-raising efforts.

Is this only about revenue streams?

And again ... preaching is only one aspect of ministry.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Deriving your livelihood from your local church does not equate whether or not your claim that:



They may have more vested economically in their local church and, of course, their livelihood would be affected if said church is affiliated ...

Yet because most churches are not ... and not all pastors are economically full-time ... and other credentialed ministers may be just vested in the organization ... I don't get your conclusion.

Also ... a minister may be salaried and could be less active in ministry than a volunteer licensed minister who is putting into the church and the organization with his time, dues and every ounce of energy he/she has ...

Somehow you have created tiers in the ministry based on source of income ... not ministry time or levels of experience ... seems a bit disturbing to me ...

expecting a minister not to have a voice when he is expending his whole life serving his local church and subsequently the org .... because he's not salaried full-time or part-time seems twisted and yet both pay the same ministerial dues and are expected to participate in org fund-raising efforts.

Is this only about revenue streams?

And again ... preaching is only one aspect of ministry.

Good points, Dan. Youth pastors and others invest much time in the work of the ministry, not to mention evangelists. What kind of havoc with a vote for all licensed ministers reek.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Sam

Question, and I'm not trying to hijack this thread:
Do your dues come out of your tithes
or
are dues in addition to tithes and offerings?

Interesting that you should ask. I pay my dues out of pocket, although my previous pastor allowed me to pay it from the tithes because I was part of the ministry of that particular church. Why do you ask?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Sam

I am not licensed/ordained by the UPC and do not attend a UPC church so this will not affect me, but I'm curious. What are the resolutions that will be voted on this year? How many are there?

There are four resolutions being voted on as far as I can tell; however, I do not have the time to post them. The only one that really gives me any interest at this time is the one we are discussing concerning the voting constincuency. I would take more interest in the others if I were allowed to vote.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This seems to be only for votes at General Conference not in local district and sectional conferences ....

Am I missing something? If it's just in national elections and business it seems fair ...

I would disagree with the clause that does not allow for absentee voting ...

I think the local conferences would follow in step with the National Conference as far as voting constincuency. Why should I pay almost $600.00 a year and not be allowed to make a difference in the General and Sectional Conferences?

[Straightline]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Hey, Straighline, how are you, my friend? Good to see you!

In response to your post, I couldn't disagree more. What about the Home Missions pastor who is working a full-time job, and taking no money from his small congregation? By your definition, if I understand correctly, he is a "no-time" minister. But, nothing could be further from the truth, and in my opinion, he has just as much, if not more, invested into the org.

What about the man who chooses to work a full-time job to assist another pastor who's congregation is only large enough to support one full time minister?

Maybe I misunderstood you, and if I did, please forgive me.

MP - hello!

I spoke in context to the subject of this thread which is res. 4, which would change the qualifications. Which currently allows: Full-time ministry, All Pastors, full-time evangelists, full-time school administrators, All Full-time Missionaries, and certain elected officials. I was not trying to define, re-define or argue what "full-time" means; that is not the point of this thread.
This res. wants to make the vote of all ministers equal, though their voices are quite different: some represent congregations, some don't - some will have their livelihood affected by a group decision, some won't. It will be interesting to watch how it unfolds.....or unravels.

Bold or thin,
still a
Straightline