As I mentioned earlier, the board asked that I write my objections to the UP for them to consider. Our new minister apparently advised a different church to do the same thing due to the division that it was causing. My stance that I do not want to be considered a member over this has caused hurt feelings all around, especially as I am respected here. This will be my last post on the UP, as far as I know.
I wrote:
As far as why I wish we hadn’t signed the UP, there’s a few basic reasons. Practically, it puts us in a difficult place when trying to do things regionally. Problems arise when we try to implement the regional representation parts of it. For example, there are 12 churches in the Heartland region. We formed it informally in 2003-2004 to help each other out. No leader, no administration, just the ministers of 12 churches on a conference call trying to coordinate events and meet needs. Seven churches have signed, but five have not. We cannot send a regional representative, but if we do, the other five have no say in who that person is. If they are given a say, then the UP is meaningless and we should get out from under it. It’s small, but it’s the kinds of things that split up the Restoration Movement in the first place. Even if the remaining five sign, other issues arise in other places, especially since Boston, San Francisco, and churches in Atlanta have not signed. In fact, just over half the churches in the US have signed, less than that in Canada and South America.
My big concern is that the UP presents a litmus test for historic doctrine and practices. By the very nature of a litmus test, this divides churches into ‘signing churches’ and ‘non-signing churches’. Much has been said about the necessity of signing the UP – the question and answer document states that this is necessary in order to find which churches hold to our historic doctrines and practices. Similar sentiments were echoed by Gordon Ferguson in his DisciplesToday article when he spoke of the need to find out which members for whom the elders were responsible. In both cases, members are being asked to sign a document to demonstrate their loyalty. Aspects of this are similar to the story of the Gileadites in Judges 12: 5-6. The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim. In order to prevent the survivors from escaping, the Gileadites came up with a way to determine who was a true Gileadite and who was not. When a survivor of Ephraim tried to cross, a Gileadite would ask the survivor to say ‘Shibboleth’. If the survivor did not pronounce the word correctly, they seized and killed him or her. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time (Judges 12:5-6). Although death is not the penalty in this case, the effect is the same: the UP attempts to determine “who is one of us” – effectively splitting us into two groups.
Thirdly, the UP requires 100% agreement in order to sign. The wording of the agreement itself is vague, but the Question and Answer document makes it clear. Question 12 asks whether or not a church should sign if they agree with most of the plan. The answer given was, “No”. Having this requirement does not allow for freedom in disputable matters as stated in Romans 14. Instead,certain practices are mandated by the agreement. For example, the UP states that an evangelist should be responsible to other evangelists in his region. I disagree, I believe that an evangelist should answer to the elders first, then to the members of the church. Encouragement and help from others, yes, but answer to them, oh no. As things are now, I can disagree with someone in another church and still strive to be brothers. Under the UP, I am now unable to believe as I do because the practice with which I disagree is now bound to me through the signing of the church.
I understand that we could sign it in order to show unity and just not implement certain sections of the UP, but Jesus said to let your yes be yes and your no be no. If I sign something, I am saying that I will fulfill my obligation. I didn’t sign my marriage license only to pick and choose which parts I will live up to and which parts I will disregard! This is not binding or sacred like a marriage agreement – we can back out at any time. It is, however, dishonest to sign on the one hand and reserve judgement on the other. The framers of the UP did not give us that option. I understand that some may do this in an effort to seek a middle ground, but the agreement requires 100% agreement and leaves no room for middle ground.
There are other minor issues, but that is it in a nutshell. However you wish to convey or not convey this email I leave to you. The whole enterprise has made me quite sad, but has not diminshed my love for anyone in the church, especially those that chose to sign the UP. I want to be in community with the people of this church. In this matter, I would prefer that my conscience would go away in matters like this.
Me – July 4th, 2006
I hope this is the end of it – the UP and my posting about it.