2010 UPCI Resolutions

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

???

UPC-itis

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Well, having my post called, "Slime" is crummy to me. At least I apologized and tried to further explain.

Hoovie, I don't wanna play the, "You're not a minister" card because it reeks of spiritual superiority and I don't see an "Us" and "Them" mentality between the ministry and the so-called, "Laity."

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.

Why do this Smith? Why blame anyone actually. You have stated you have never "spoken in tongues". Why is that not enough to excuse yourself? Perhaps you should thank the organization for helping you come to terms with your preexisting odds with the AOF?

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I didn't say they're the only one. In fact, I've stated here and I often say it to friends, that the UPC does NOT have a monopoly on legalism, politics, or in-fighting. I had a long conversation with Baron the other day in which I said, "The exclusivity outside the UPC is worse than the UPC."

I'm just telling how I feel about being rid of the burden of legalistic, organizational politics. I, personally, have felt the full force of it and it is completely devastating. I do not now, and will never again, belong to a denomination.

I can confirm he has told me this..more than a few times I do believe.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Why do this Smith? Why blame anyone actually. You have stated you have never "spoken in tongues". Why is that not enough to excuse yourself? Perhaps you should thank the organization for helping you come to terms with your preexisting odds with the AOF?

Oh, I'm thrilled now. It all worked out and I couldn't be happier. I think I've made that clear.

What does my never having spoken in tongues have to do with anything? See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The "Articles of Faith"???? I was in FULL COMPLIANCE with them. Go read them and see where there was to be no contention of the faith between those of a PCI leaning (salvation by grace, not the three steps) and those who saw it otherwise. Nowhere in the Article of Faith, or the ministerial applications or interviews was it ever demanded that I "Practice, preach and teach" certain extra-rules. Yet, I was eliminated because of my viewpoints!! It didn't have to be!! Yes, I'm thrilled to be where I am, but there was never a need to be tossed to the curb because I couldn't sign an oath that was in ADDITION to the Article of Faith.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Oh, I'm thrilled now. It all worked out and I couldn't be happier. I think I've made that clear.

What does my never having spoken in tongues have to do with anything? See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The "Articles of Faith"???? I was in FULL COMPLIANCE with them. Go read them and see where there was to be no contention of the faith between those of a PCI leaning (salvation by grace, not the three steps) and those who saw it otherwise. Nowhere in the Article of Faith, or the ministerial applications or interviews was it ever demanded that I "Practice, preach and teach" certain extra-rules. Yet, I was eliminated because of my viewpoints!! It didn't have to be!! Yes, I'm thrilled to be where I am, but there was never a need to be tossed to the curb because I couldn't sign an oath that was in ADDITION to the Article of Faith.

Quite honestly, I think it depends on how you read and interpret it (the affirmation statement). The same can be said about "three persons" - it depends a great deal whether the early church meaning in poured into the word/s.

Nevertheless, you are thrilled and could not be happier. Time to thank the UPCI and practice a bit of posthumous shockamoo!!

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Can I just say, with a certain amount of glee in my voice, that as of 1993, I don't give a blue hoot in hades about any of their resolutions. It's SO nice not to have to waste a single minute of my life worrying about this.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Well, having my post called, "Slime" is crummy to me. At least I apologized and tried to further explain.

Hoovie, I don't wanna play the, "You're not a minister" card because it reeks of spiritual superiority and I don't see an "Us" and "Them" mentality between the ministry and the so-called, "Laity."

That being said, if you had any idea HOW MUCH TIME gets poured into denominational politics, the resolutions, "who's in and who's out", who might get that church or this church, the tithing amounts of churches that are "open", the in-fighting that goes on over positioning, the conference wars that create months of politics......you'd understand my glee. I no longer have to invest any time into it and it's wonderful not to have to care about it.

And speaking of resolutions.....until you've had your entire life, your entire existence, your life ripped away from you, lived in poverty, had your reputation torn to shreds, because of one of those resolutions...it'll be hard for you to understand why I, and others, would be gleeful at not having to care about them anymore.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Why do this Smith? Why blame anyone actually. You have stated you have never "spoken in tongues". Why is that not enough to excuse yourself? Perhaps you should thank the organization for helping you come to terms with your preexisting odds with the AOF?

I find the above very interesting:

1) I have to conclude from the first and second quotes that you must be referring to the 1992 A.S. resolution.
2) You've never spoken in tongues ?
3) Speaking in tongues (whether you have/had PCI or PAJC leanings) seems to be one of the basic tenets of the UPC. How could one of the UPC resolutions have had THAT must impact on your life, if you had never even adhered to this part of their doctrine?

I'm just curious. Not being confrontational at all. (Have you and I had PM conversations before ?)

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Quite honestly, I think it depends on how you read and interpret it (the affirmation statement). The same can be said about "three persons" - it depends a great deal whether the early church meaning in poured into the word/s.

Nevertheless, you are thrilled and could not be happier. Time to thank the UPCI and practice a bit of posthumous shockamoo!!

No, no, no, Hoovie, it's not open to interpretation. That provision was included specifically for the two groups to merger in 1945. The PCI predominantly taught salvation by grace and the PAJC taught 3 steps. That line was written pointedly to the two different sides so that they could co-exist in peace and there would be no contention of the faith over the issue.

No interpretation on this one.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

No, no, no, Hoovie, it's not open to interpretation. That provision was included specifically for the two groups to merger in 1945. The PCI predominantly taught salvation by grace and the PAJC taught 3 steps. That line was written pointedly to the two different sides so that they could co-exist in peace and there would be no contention of the faith over the issue.

No interpretation on this one.

Not saying the AS isn't problematic or desirable - it's not. Still yet, it was something that was added to the existing line of "no contention" - it was not removed. Therefore one would need to take the AOF and the AS in it's entirety and wrestle with the meaning.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

I find the above very interesting:

[B]1) I have to conclude from the first and second quotes that you must be referring to the 1992 A.S. resolution.
2) You've never spoken in tongues ?
3) Speaking in tongues (whether you have/had PCI or PAJC leanings) seems to be one of the basic tenets of the UPC. How could one of the UPC resolutions have had THAT must impact on your life, if you had never even adhered to this part of their doctrine?

1) Yes, of course.

2) No, not as "The Spirit gave the utterance." I gave it my best shot, learned how, but finally had to admit it was something I'd never truly experienced.

3) Sure it seems to be one of the tenets of the UPC because those that insist on tongues have, over the years, squashed those who don't. I'd say the "Tongues-to-Cross" ratio in preaching content in the UPC was, at least, 20-1. To be fair, my departure wasn't over the tongues issue, but Hoovie brought up something I'd said. But, to be fair again, if I'd openly said in those days that I had never spoken in tongues, I could have never had a license which would have been in violation of the AOF provision written in 1945.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Not saying the AS isn't problematic or desirable - it's not. Still yet, it was something that was added to the existing line of "no contention" - it was not removed. Therefore one would need to take the AOF and the AS in it's entirety and wrestle with the meaning.

But my departure wasn't over tongues. I would not sign an oath that made me swear to "Practice, preach, and teach" certain rules, something that was never demanded in the AOF.