The preface of the UPC (dated March 11, 2007) states:

We are asking each church leadership to prayerfully consider ratifying this plan after discussing it with their members. For ratification, send an email to Unity@chnts.net. Beginning April 3rd, we will publish a continually updating list of churches that affirm this Plan for United Cooperation.

Ratify is defined as:

to confirm by expressing consent, approval, or formal sanction: to ratify a constitutional amendment.

According to Roget’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus, synonyms include the words approve, certify, license, uphold, validate, and sign.

The only difference between signing the Declaration of Independence and signing the UPC is that the Declaration of Independence had the signatures attached to the bottom of the hand-written document. In our internet age, our signees were listed on DisciplesToday website. Really, what is the difference between this and this?

Forgive me for breaking decorum, but the “no place to sign” phrase is not cute. It is not funny. It is not accurate. It is not true. Stop saying it. I’m an English Major and I understand the principles of effective propaganda and its use in the political arena. The first principle is, “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” The first time someone said, “no place to sign” it was witty. There are no blanks to fill in on the UPC and no notes that say, “please sign here”. These things are absent from the Declaration of Independence, too. Each successive time the phrase “no place to sign” has been repeated, however, it is propaganda. The second principle is that maintaining the lie requires the powers that be “to use all of its powers to repress dissent…” At this point, not only does it appear that criticism of the UPC is unwelcome, but not choosing to ratify is also unwelcome. Dissent is not disloyalty. Kip has this problem, and now we, the descendants of his teaching, are dealing with the same issues.

Gordon Ferguson said a couple years ago that the UPC would be temporary and that it would not be very important in the long run. I was beginning to believe him as nothing had really happened. Sure, I didn’t like trips all over the US to convince others to ratify, but little appeared to have come of those trips or of the UPC itself. Now, a month ahead of the next ILC, two committee members have written about it. One committee member is planning trips to discuss the UPC with the leadership of at least one church that did not ratify. Why all this plotting and scheming? Some astroturfing, but there’s no indication of the reasons behind it. One thing is clear, though, the UPC is not viewed as temporary, at least by the current committee.

It’s a shame that the voices of others that said a creed would lead us to political bickering were not heeded. We are now using the weapons of this world to deal with spiritual matters. Instead of the Spirit to unify us in the bond of peace, we are making flights and personal visits and campaigning on all the official channels. We have sound bites and stock answers to questions and smooth sounding articles dripping with gooey sweetness. We will reap what we have sown with all of this. The sooner we actually deal with issues and consider other alternatives, the sooner we can soften the damage we have already done. It may be too late.

It’s more of a shame that non-ratifying churches continue to receive pressure to ratify. It is well past time to leave well-enough alone. It is stated in the Q and A that non-ratifying churches are still our brothers and sisters in the Lord. We, as a denomination, need to start acting like it. Some just do not believe in 100% of the beliefs and practices stated. Deal with it. I understand that this makes the delegate system unworkable, but that is something that should be discussed.

I guess we will all find out in October.