Contract Question

[sjfc.contract]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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.

I can see your point and you are right, the appearance of the angry smiley face would lead one to assume that there was no other motive. In retrospect I should have not included a smiley.

Too assume what's in an others heart could also be appear to be judgmental.

Being that this is the first post to a site like this, it has proven to be a hugh eye opener and learning experience. Thank you for your feedback!

[sjfc.contract]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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)

Thank you!

[sjfc.contract]

Originally Posted by "GL"

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.

Thank you

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

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

I understand the need for a few "platform" standards...like "everyone wear khaki pants or skirts on Wednesdays", or "Please comb your hair and brush your teeth." "No flip-flops on Sunday morning." "If you're seated on the platform, your skirt needs to be below your knees."

Neatness and uniformity. Got it. No problem.

HOWEVER, I do feel GRIPEY about the idea that any salvational standard (or any standard that is viewed or purported to be salvational) would be reserved for those in leadership or those on the platform. IF they are salvational, then EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THEM!!!!!!!!!! And if they AREN'T salvational, don't tell ANYONE that they are.

In my opinion, some churches are keeping these "platform standards" as a means to remain in an organization by making sure those who are up front still look the part. I don't see how it could be any other reason, because if they really felt these issues were heaven-or-hell, they would be preaching it to the entire congregation. Or they don't care about the salvation of anyone except the leadership--that's rather ludicrous--I'm not choosing that one.

[CAD/JPY]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Just curious, in light of your view on this, what is your response to those who view these verses as a scriptural prohibition against jewelry for the New Testament age?:

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (1 Tim 2:9-10)

3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. (1 Pet 3:3-4)

And I'm not asking this to be argumentative at all, by the way. Just wanted to get an idea of what someone's answer would be to those who use these as anti-jewelry scriptures.
(This question is not just directed to Prax and AquietPlace, by the way. Anyone else who wants to chime in with their thoughts, feel free.)

I ask people to read it and understand what Paul is doing here. He is comparing the outward adornment of clothing to the inner beauty of a Christian's soul. He is specifically asking women to not get caught up in trying to dress very expensively and wear gold and fancy hairdos AND CONSIDER THAT THEIR BEAUTY.... rather, he is reminding them that it is the inner beauty that a Christian women displays that has great value to God.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by CAD/JPY

I ask people to read it and understand what Paul is doing here. He is comparing the outward adornment of clothing to the inner beauty of a Christian's soul. He is specifically asking women to not get caught up in trying to dress very expensively and wear gold and fancy hairdos AND CONSIDER THAT THEIR BEAUTY.... rather, he is reminding them that it is the inner beauty that a Christian women displays that has great value to God.

Ok.
I can see that applying more to the 1 Peter 3 passage (him making a comparison between inner and outer beauty); but in 1 Tim 2;9-10 Paul doesn't seem to be making such a comparison though.

I appreciate your input, however.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by CAD/JPY

I ask people to read it and understand what Paul is doing here. He is comparing the outward adornment of clothing to the inner beauty of a Christian's soul. He is specifically asking women to not get caught up in trying to dress very expensively and wear gold and fancy hairdos AND CONSIDER THAT THEIR BEAUTY.... rather, he is reminding them that it is the inner beauty that a Christian women displays that has great value to God.

It seems as if Paul is saying [(1 Tim 2:9-10) cp to 1Pet.3].exact opposite of what a lot of OPs teach. The EMPHASIS is NOT on jewelry, clothes, hair-but on what is on the inside, a meek and quiet spirit..."

[Margies3]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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)

I'm just curious which trinitarian denominations you are referring to here, Miss B? I've been an active part of the United Methodist Church for a good many years and now for the past 4 years an equally active part of the local Alliance Church and I have never heard of anyone having to sign any document in either denomination in order to be used on the platform or within the church. I'm not saying it's not possible. Just has not been my experience.

I think the closest we've ever come to a "platform standard" was when our pastor decided that the men who are on the platform should be required to wear a tie. But they don't have to sign anything. He just told them. His reasoning for it is not because it is Biblical and he doesn't try to pass it off that way. He just said that he is requiring that because we have some elderly people in our congregation who grew up in the days when men wore a full suit and tie to church all the time. Out of respect for their feelings, this is his compromise. He does not require the ful suit. But does ask for the tie.

[nnorth]

Wow! I go to the Church that this contract has originated from. It is disappointing to me, to see some of the reply's concerning PS. PS is Pastoring the Church in the way that he feels God is directing him to do.

I made a decision a year ago not to sign the agreement based solely on the fact hat that I didn't agree with the agreement in it's entirety. I could not honestly sign the contract.

I spoke to my Pastor and he was very understanding. I felt that I could not put him in the awkward situation of making exceptions and resigned my position as a musician.

I believe that it is a matter of the heart and that each member that signs the agreement must be sure that they can comply with the agreement 100% for the entire year.

My wife and I still attend the Church. Even though I really miss being involved I know that it's not right to be on a platform of a Church that I cannot back 100%

I have no idea who posted this message but I hope that they will take the high road and conduct themselves properly.

This is just my opinion.......

[Margies3]

Originally Posted by nnorth

Wow! I go to the Church that this contract has originated from. It is disappointing to me, to see some of the reply's concerning PS. PS is Pastoring the Church in the way that he feels God is directing him to do.

I made a decision a year ago not to sign the agreement based solely on the fact hat that I didn't agree with the agreement in it's entirety. I could not honestly sign the contract.

I spoke to my Pastor and he was very understanding. I felt that I could not put him in the awkward situation of making exceptions and resigned my position as a musician.

I believe that it is a matter of the heart and that each member that signs the agreement must be sure that they can comply with the agreement 100% for the entire year.

My wife and I still attend the Church. Even though I really miss being involved I know that it's not right to be on a platform of a Church that I cannot back 100%

I have no idea who posted this message but I hope that they will take the high road and conduct themselves properly.

This is just my opinion.......

It's really none of my business, but I am curious as to why you would continue to attend a church that you cannot back 100%??