Tulsa Report Day 2

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Maple Leaf said what I was going to say.

This statement seemed especially poignant:

"A few of you seem to enjoy dissecting fictional hearts!"

If there was half as much real discernment in our movement in real life as there is virtual discernment on the internet, the devil would have a bad day.

Yes, and that folksy little adage works both ways.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Yes, and that folksy little adage works both ways.

That's what I like about PP, you never know where he will land, nor from what direction he cometh!

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

RevBuddy,

Your points generally have some merit. I've no problem with legitimate points. I have a problem with personal attacks.

And, as for my font, I've been around here a LONG time in these forums. My font has always been just as it is now.

I kind of like it. It makes it easier to see if someone is replying to a post.

As to you points? I can see how some think it's that way but, in all honesty, I just don't see it that way. I think that, at least with 95% of the people who are going to find their fellowship with the Tulsa crew, they just got tired of seeing issues that were valuable to them diminished further and further.

That was, before I was called a liar, my original point; I think that some are just tired of seeing the things they value compromised in front of their people. The television aspect was, in my gut honest opinion, just the 'final straw' that broke the camels back for most of them.

Steadfast, at the risk of banning I am going to address this again.

You were the one (back in October) who assured us that a new org wasn't in the works. When many, many posters affirmed otherwise - you body-slammed them and said their opinion was akin to wild speculation (paraphrase).

So Friend, I have some respect for you, but your credibility has taken a hit here.

Could it be that your bias clouded your judgement?

Again, I was banned over that whole conversation (a first for me), but I still feel just as strongly as I did back then that these men fully intended to do what they are doing now.

How else can you explain Kevin Prince as the only anti-tv speaker on the floor of GC this year.

LB was silent.
JG was silent.
NW was silent.

If this issue was so important, why the silence?

The answer is clear.

They already had a plan.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Just a few points to put the ball back in your court here.

* I didn't see where anybody questioned me about a gay shacking up situation... and, thus, didn't reply to it.

Your post was questioned here and here - and questioned rather gently, I think, given the inflamatory nature of your accusations.

Originally Posted by Steadfast

* You seem to think that I smeared the UPC... how? I have NEVER, in all my years of forum posting, taken a shot at the UPC for anything.

You said:

Friends... I can attest to the fact that some issues are almost pushing some of these brethren into these actions. Let me tell you how I see it from my perspective.

"These brethren" are the men forming a new org. and leaving the UPC. You opened your post with this statement, thus setting the context for the "issues" that you go on to describe. That context is the UPC and "issues" that are "almost pushing" men out.

This is the context that you created for your post. It is a context very narrowly aimed at the United Pentecostal Church.

Originally Posted by Steadfast

* Think skinned? No, just somewhat offended that you would come on a forum and say, "That stuff Steadfast said happened? DIDN'T HAPPEN!" That, by implication, is saying that I lied.

Well, here is progress. We've gone from me "calling you a liar" to an implication. But what about other motives that you may have had in saying what you did. It is most likely that deceit never entered your heart. However, when you saw (the "Tulsa 6") having their motives questioned you sought for some sort of defense for these men. That defense was the accusations you made in your post which was aimed directly at the UPC.

Originally Posted by Steadfast

You seem a little 'thin skinned' that I didn't look up your profile to address you (there are some incredibly brilliant women who post on here, by the way) but you seem to imply your a man.

"Hey, folks... Pelathais implies he's a man. HE'S NOT!!! Total fabrication! Didn't happen!" Yep, just what I thought. You would think I called you a liar, too.

Your confusion reigns here.

Originally Posted by Steadfast

But, as you say, I'll accept that 'no blood; no foul' defense. However, I would like for you to find that ONE single, solitary instance when I EVER 'smeared' the UPC... on AFF, NFCF, WS or CAF. That search should take you quite a while so I'll go on and finish life while I wait.

I said "No harm; no foul." If we were contesting to the blood then I would be truly concerned. And, I said that in your defense. And the "one solitary instance" is posted above. I did not need to search for it because it is what we've been talking about all along.

You sought to justify the actions of the WPF men by bringing up the "shacking up without backsliding" anecdote and social drinking. You brought these "issues" up in the context of men being "almost pushed" out of the UPC.

When called on it, you responded by clarifying that it was a heterosexual "shacking up" with the "young men" (but the 'men' remains plural thus giving the inference of homosexual activity). You also now appear to say that this was not a discussion of the UPC?

The ball is back in your court.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

If I were utilize the wholesale 'anything that pulls away isn't submissive' reasoning then I would venture to say that Paul wouldn't have made that break from Christian killer to New Testament writer. He broke away from the religous system he no longer could walk in agreement with.

What about others who have walked away from religious systems they could no longer agree with? Was Martin Luther lacking 'submission' to the Roman Catholic Church a bad thing?

While NOBODY believes in spiritual submission than I do I also realize that there are times that the Bible actually CONDONES certain parting of ways. Remember that whole "can two walk together except they agree" and the "house divided against itself" stuff?

I'm sorry... I'm submitted to the extreme to the spiritual authroities in my world. However, my submission is to a REAL Pastor and Elders who aren't afraid to tell me the truth. While I may respect them to the uttermost... I've never feigned a lot of deep spiritual submission to a system of elected officials who don't even know my name. To do so would eliminate the 'autonomy' of the local Church.

The United Pentecostal Church is a great organization. The greatest on the face of the Earth when it comes to promoting this precious truth. I guess that is what confuses me the most... if some of you weren't ripping on the Tulsa crew you would be ripping on the UPC. How is it now that we have so many fierce 'protectors'?

The clear conscience that I have today is a result of the fact that I'm not against EITHER group. In fact, while some of you are seeing me as a 'protector' of the Tulsa crowd, the truth is that I'm protectecting the right of both to do what they feel is right!

Bro. Steadfast,

I am convinced that you are sincere and that your heart is pure in this regard.

But, it never ceases to amaze me how it is that men justify what they do. It seems that men are able to justify almost anything.

I might point out that while Paul was a Pharisee that he had not received the heavenly vision nor had he been obdient to call on the house of Simon the Tanner who instructed him to arise and be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord.

Had there been an issue so great as this among the Tulsaites, certainly I would not only commend them but I would also be among them too.

The great strides toward the light that the reformers took which caused them to be cast out of their ranks as in the case of John Wesley and others. They were not willing to be rebellious.

It is impossible for me to see the need of so great devastation brought on by their actions over such a small, almost insignificant thing, none of which needed to affect them in the least way.

But, I remember the scriptures when they speak of every man's ways are justified in their own eyes. Yet, none of their ways are justified from my point of view since this will have the needless effect of inflicting great damage on the cause of God, world-wide.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Steadfast, at the risk of banning I am going to address this again.

You were the one (back in October) who assured us that a new org wasn't in the works. When many, many posters affirmed otherwise - you body-slammed them and said their opinion was akin to wild speculation (paraphrase).

So Friend, I have some respect for you, but your credibility has taken a hit here.

Could it be that your bias clouded your judgement?

Again, I was banned over that whole conversation (a first for me), but I still feel just as strongly as I did back then that these men fully intended to do what they are doing now.

How else can you explain Kevin Prince as the only anti-tv speaker on the floor of GC this year.

LB was silent.
JG was silent.
NW was silent.

If this issue was so important, why the silence?

The answer is clear.

They already had a plan.

It does sound like you already know the answer. Of course it depends on how one defines "fully intended" right?

[Nahum]

Amazing that even with a huge body of undeniable evidence that affirms that the WWPF solicited current UPC ministers, we still are hearing what men of "integrity" these men are.


Tell me, what happens if a young lay minister (licensed with the UPC) joins the WWPF aginst his pastor's wishes?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Ironically, I never implied it was a man at all... OR that it was UPC. Even so, I appreciate you bringing some clarification to it.

P.S.: The story is, unfortunately, very true.

A UPC Pastor is using a young woman on his platform with the full knowledge that she is "shacking up with young men"? Is that the case?

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Steadfast, at the risk of banning I am going to address this again.

You were the one (back in October) who assured us that a new org wasn't in the works. When many, many posters affirmed otherwise - you body-slammed them and said their opinion was akin to wild speculation (paraphrase).

So Friend, I have some respect for you, but your credibility has taken a hit here.

Could it be that your bias clouded your judgement?

Again, I was banned over that whole conversation (a first for me), but I still feel just as strongly as I did back then that these men fully intended to do what they are doing now.

How else can you explain Kevin Prince as the only anti-tv speaker on the floor of GC this year.

LB was silent.
JG was silent.
NW was silent.

If this issue was so important, why the silence?

The answer is clear.

They already had a plan.

PP, I can only speak those things which I 'see and hear' and what I was told -from the coordinator himself - is that it wouldn't be an 'organization' as such was EXACTLY what I was told by the individual. His precise words, beyond that, were that "What we're doing is NOTHING that will mandate turning in your license with the UPC. We're forming a network of fellowship between conservative minded men."

I'm not so sure that they are defining it as an organization, a network or a fellowship.

As for Bro. Prince being the speaker against the resolution? It was he who was the representative of the anti-TV advertising crowd and, as such, the one designated to speak and asked for from the floor.

Outside of that there wasn't much conversation on either side and a quick call for the question. That no more means this was a premeditated genesis of a new organization than the fact that you didn't speak FOR it was a premeditated act by yourself to start an organization of your own.

And, as for my credibility? I make myself of no reputation and my life is before enough people that it's an open book. For what it's worth, I think enough people on AFF know me and respect me that I'm not in any danger of being excommunicated anytime soon.



No, PP, if my unwillingness to devour either side of this equation is wrong then, well, I'm guilty as sin. If, however, I'm right in not devouring my brothers... well... it would appear a lot of others are in serious trouble.

For the record, I'll take my chances right where I am.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Amazing that even with a huge body of undeniable evidence that affirms that the WWPF solicited current UPC ministers, we still are hearing what men of "integrity" these men are.


Tell me, what happens if a young lay minister (licensed with the UPC) joins the WWPF aginst his pastor's wishes?

Certainly, by some logic it could not be a case of rebellion or non submissivness. There comes a time (God only knows when) that what some might call rebellion is no longer rebellion but just plain following the will of God and that what they formerly taught to be authority ordained of God...is NO LONGER authority ordained of God.

I'm fully persuaded that the whole bunch are a cow pen full of rebels. God knows how to separate them. Ask Korah.