Another SPLIT from the UPCI???

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by n david

Carefull, the leaf may extend the challenge to you too!

Nope, no more phone #s.

A little call for accountability seems to have thrown a wet blanket on a rather sensational story.

What I want to know is:

Who was the psalmist at this charismatic convocation?

Would we recognize the name of the organist?

Did Bill Clinton have any friends in attendance?

Did Oprah endorse this meeting?

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by moniker

This is old news.

The facts, as SoCali posted them, are true, with one exception.

I do not believe another organization is in the works.

Big names were there. Little names were there.

So, everything was true except the main point of the story?

[moniker]

I perceive Mr. Maple Leaf is upset that the details of this meeting may be posted.

However, I understand that Brother Tenney and Brother Rex Johnson did a fine job explaining that the meeting was simply to connect with, and strengthen, those like-minded brothers in attendance.

[moniker]

Mr. Maple Leaf, when one considers the news that the meeting was by invitation only, and those invitations were sent to men of a very liberal persuasion within the UPC, one is left with the impression that an agenda is being very carefully created, and hidden.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by moniker

I perceive Mr. Maple Leaf is upset that the details of this meeting may be posted.

However, I understand that Brother Tenney and Brother Rex Johnson did a fine job explaining that the meeting was simply to connect with, and strengthen, those like-minded brothers in attendance.

I can't imagine why I would care whether or not the details of the meeting are posted. I'm not a big name. Not even a little name. I'd have to get a makeover and a publicist even to make it to being a no-name.

You've already posted that the main thrust of the origonal post was in error.

What else about the meeting really matters?

[moniker]

This is the first time I've heard of an "invitation only" meeting of ministers within the UPC.

One would think that one would seek to create a broader sphere of influence than can be created by an invitation only meeting.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by moniker

Mr. Maple Leaf, when one considers the news that the meeting was by invitation only, and those invitations were sent to men of a very liberal persuasion within the UPC, one is left with the impression that an agenda is being very carefully created, and hidden.

Boy, they sure didn't do a very good job of hiding it, did they?

I am not UPC, live in the hinterlands of nowhere, and heard about it before it happened.

[moniker]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I can't imagine why I would care whether or not the details of the meeting are posted. I'm not a big name. Not even a little name. I'd have to get a makeover and a publicist even to make it to being a no-name.

You've already posted that the main thrust of the origonal post was in error.

What else about the meeting really matters?

The sheer volume of names involved in this "invitation only" meeting.

All liberal. Most, very educated.

The more important question is "why was this meeting necessary, and what events conspired to make it invitation only?"

[James Griffin]

The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.

The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI

[Justin]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

The meeting was one of fellowship and unity.

The spirit was the opposite of splitting, it was fellowship and how the next generation of preachers can reach the world with the Apostolic message from WITHIN the UPCI

But only for the liberal-minded Apostolics?