Contract Question

[Pastor Keith]

With my comments being in the affirmative with this kind of document, the best kind of accountability is personal relationships. Having to meet someone on weekly basis raises the bar on accountability. Having a document expecting that it won't produce a high level of hypocrisy is crazy thinking. I would to God that the church rediscover the power of small groups and discipleship.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by sjfc.contract

No word on the Internet, just be careful. Yes, the Church has a website and has plans to have services on the internet.

Interesting. It seems they still leave the door cracked open then. Their contract specifically says the person should not:

"intentionally use technology that allows me to engage in watching broadcast television or any form of Hollywood-produced entertainment (including movies rented through stores, internet, or mail order services)."

But just using a home computer (even to acces the church's website), a member would be intentionally using techology that allows them to engage in Hollywood movies, etc.

Broadcast tv is available on cnn.com and espn.com, etc.
Hollywood-produced entertainment is available on Youtube.com and Google Video, to name a few.

That part of the contract just seems a somewhat unworkable to me.

Just my 2 cents.
Anyway, God bless them. I'm sure they're being sincere with this, even thought I disagree with them on several points.

[sjfc.contract]

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

With my comments being in the affirmative with this kind of document, the best kind of accountability is personal relationships. Having to meet someone on weekly basis raises the bar on accountability. Having document expecting that it won't produce a high level of hypocrisy is crazy thinking. I would to God that the church rediscover the power of small groups and discipleship.

I would have to agree with you on your point of accountability and small groups. Please take note that I have met with my Pastor and this post was in no way to be disrespectful but purely out of curiosity if this is a standard practice. I didn't realize that it would be offensive to some.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by "GL"

JS and his family are wonderful people. Those insinuating that they are anything other than wonderful christians should be ashamed. I wish that sjfc.contract would have selected a username that would not have easily identified the church and pastor. Very poor form, IMO.

I don't agree. I think this is fair warning as to what kind of 'ministry style' you'll find at this church, and if I were sjfc.c I would run to another church.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by "GL"

JS and his family are wonderful people. Those insinuating that they are anything other than wonderful christians should be ashamed. I wish that sjfc.contract would have selected a username that would not have easily identified the church and pastor. Very poor form, IMO.

And to think that the UPCI bi-laws distinctly "disprove" of secret societies (masons, shriners, etc...).

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by sjfc.contract

Yes, a discussion has been held.

Just curious if this is a standard practice. As a leader you should not be ashamed of what you have your members/staff sign to be public. There is nothing to hide if there is something to hide then one might be upset.

Assumptions and hypothesis can be made why this was posted, the contract was posted to post a question of practice no other motive.

Just curiosity, no other motive?
I dunno bro/sis.
I see that with with your original post on this thread, you chose to add the "angry" smiley ().
Why would you choose to use an "angry smiley" if you were just asking out of innocent curiosity?

I'm sure you can understand that not everyone here will think your motives are as pure and innocent as you might like us to believe.

[MissBrattified]

We have a leadership agreement which we are given when we take on a responsibility, however, it's for our own information, and we take it home--we don't sign it and give it back.

Ours is much more generic than that.

I don't see anything wrong with it, really. It's just a commitment to abide by the teachings of the church. If you don't like what the church teaches, then why would you want to attend there, and more importantly, why would you want to be in the leadership of said church?

I think it is unethical to be in a position or leadership of authority in a church whose teachings you don't support. In other words, if you can't sign the agreement because of the specifics on the page, then you are not in support of what the church teaches. Therefore, you shouldn't be in leadership in the church. Unless you can talk to the pastor and discuss the items you disagree with, why, and reach another type of agreement.

I see nothing at all wrong with leadership agreements. There is no doubt that the Bible sets out special requirements of those in leadership. Now whether they are the same as what is on YOUR agreement--well, that is another matter. But in general, people in positions of authority, influence or leadership have a bigger responsibility to live what they preach. In this case, to also live what the church preaches/teaches.

[sjfc.contract]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

We have a leadership agreement which we are given when we take on a responsibility, however, it's for our own information, and we take it home--we don't sign it and give it back.

Ours is much more generic than that.

I don't see anything wrong with it, really. It's just a commitment to abide by the teachings of the church. If you don't like what the church teaches, then why would you want to attend there, and more importantly, why would you want to be in the leadership of said church?

I think it is unethical to be in a position or leadership of authority in a church whose teachings you don't support. In other words, if you can't sign the agreement because of the specifics on the page, then you are not in support of what the church teaches. Therefore, you shouldn't be in leadership in the church. Unless you can talk to the pastor and discuss the items you disagree with, why, and reach another type of agreement.

I see nothing at all wrong with leadership agreements. There is no doubt that the Bible sets out special requirements of those in leadership. Now whether they are the same as what is on YOUR agreement--well, that is another matter. But in general, people in positions of authority, influence or leadership have a bigger responsibility to live what they preach. In this case, to also live what the church preaches/teaches.

Good point, I am having to consider my leadership position in the Church as a result of this agreement. Thank you for your feedback.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by sjfc.contract

I would have to agree with you on your point of accountability and small groups. Please take note that I have met with my Pastor and this post was in no way to be disrespectful but purely out of curiosity if this is a standard practice. I didn't realize that it would be offensive to some.

Like TRFrance pointed out, I think it was the angry smiley you added to your post that made it look rather personal.

Bottom line, if you don't want to sign a piece of paper committing to abide by church teachings, then don't. But don't be angry if that also means you won't be in a position that you desire. This is a reasonable and common practice, and is not unique to UPC churches. In fact, I would say it may be MORE common in certain trinitarian denominations.

Obviously, again, the specifics will not be the same, but the idea behind it is certainly the same.

I still don't believe ANYone should be in leadership if they don't support the teachings of the church, both in word and deed. (in writing, too, if necessary)

["GL"]

Originally Posted by sjfc.contract

I would have to agree with you on your point of accountability and small groups. Please take note that I have met with my Pastor and this post was in no way to be disrespectful but purely out of curiosity if this is a standard practice. I didn't realize that it would be offensive to some.

IMO, the following (when taken within the context of your entire post) was disrespectful:

• posting with an angry smilie
  
• Choosing a username that would identify your church and thus, your pastor
  
• Leaving the initials of the pastor and senior pastor (bishop) within the text of the "contract"
  

I have no problem with the questions you asked, but a HUGE problem with the way it was asked. I'm guessing you didn't sign it, because the OP with your username violates the spirit of the agreement.