By Bernie L. Gillespie © August 26, 1996 All Rights Reserved

This is a letter which I wrote to a UPCI official concerning issues surrounding my leaving the UPCI. I have excluded any names or personal references because this letter was written originally in confidence. Since time has passed and these comments are not part of a present personal correspondence, I felt it was pertinent to share my responses with those who would profit from them. I believe these questions will help some to better understand my struggle in the steps I took in leaving the UPCI. For others it might help to see the typical concerns of the UPCI in such matters. Others might benefit from the study of an example of the process and debate concerning: personal ministerial ethics, obligation to a denomination vs. conviction of conscience, the assumptions latent in a given church polity, and the struggle of a minister in such a unique situation.

    But at the outset, I must say, that the distinctive options suggested for a person in a situation similar to mine (one who might go through a change from a full-fledged, loyal member of the UPCI to one who changes from the UPCI teaching and withdraws one’s license), does not neatly fit my personal experience. It would have all been much easier if I would have woke up one morning and God would have struck me, as Saul was, and totally changed my perspective in a moment. This did not happen. (Saul’s change did not take place suddenly either) What did happen was a slow, often more subtle than conspicuous, process in which certain pieces of my belief system were challenged and changed over time.

    At first, there were things that most ministers with whom I have talked have questioned. Some questions have to do with the polity of the UPCI, others the practices of certain ministers, and others particular doctrines or beliefs that are held throughout the UPCI, which seem a "stretch" as to their credibility, or are unfounded in Scripture. These "reservations" lie in the back of one’s mind. They change and grow and some things get worked out as one matures and learns from experience. Other questions go unanswered. One comes to accept that no matter where you are and who you work with there will be problems, disagreements, and unanswered questions. One simply comes to terms with the fact that life will always have its unanswered questions. Nothing is perfect.

    As time goes on, reflection takes place, issues crystallize, and one’s understanding of certain passages of Scripture matures or grows. One day you realize that what you were taught that a certain passage meant is not what it means at all. You see that the only real reason for that interpretation was to guard a particular position/s that one’s tradition or group have held as their core beliefs. You take note of that and you become increasingly aware that a certain form of hermeneutics is being used of which certain teachers and leaders may not even be aware themselves.

    Again, through the course of time, doing ministry, preaching, teaching, counseling, witnessing, etc. you see a pattern of approaching the Bible and various theological and practical areas is flawed. One has been a part of it. It was one’s own point of view before. But, in conscience and in knowledge it is clear that what is being espoused as the meaning of Scripture is not the obvious meaning. Then, one becomes sharply aware that some of these teachings and interpretations are part of the core beliefs of the group. One determines that he is simply one person and that one will operate in ministry with conscience before God on the local level without making any waves for others. One accepts that tolerance and latitude is a necessary part of all relationships. In my case, I did in fact preach about faith in a new way. I found myself speaking more clearly on the grace of God. I was teaching about Christian spirituality in a new way. But, these teachings did not transform the "inner sanctuary" of my belief system.

    Then certain issues become more pronounced. The group seeks to clarify that certain beliefs or practices are so vital that they will take measures to enforce them. For those who were not so focused on some of those issues it comes, not as a surprise, but as a concern. I watched to see how it will all turn out. But, when fellowship lines begin to be drawn and things begin to really heat up, I was forced to rethink my understanding. This process of rethinking is done at that point with all of the more mature practical experience and theological training which I did not have in past deliberations. I realized that there were certain parts of the holiness teaching that I was not preaching and teaching in my church. For one reason, I was speaking proactively about the great work God has and is doing. Secondly, I knew that those certain particular teachings were not binding according to Scripture and that I would be preaching and teaching something which God did not require. I knew that they were not based on either clear Scriptural imperatives nor in principle. I lived with the fact that there were many others continuing in name of tolerance and working things out on their local level. In talking with other ministers I did not see a uniformity in practice. Even for those who were out-spoken for the 1993 resolution. There was a variety of ways the holiness teaching was being applied. I understood this as part of the "real world" in which all of us have to work out the detail. I did not see this as hypocrisy (unless most leaders and ministers were hypocrites). I felt more comfortable with thinking that they were men like me trying to resolve some very difficult issues.

    After months and maybe years of sorting through issues, history, doctrines and Scripture new perspective developed. Because of much heart searching and prayer and asking God for understanding, I worked through some issues. The day did come, though I have no idea the place and time, that I knew that the UPCI had an incorrect understanding about the doctrine of sanctification. It was neither the particular definitions of holiness, nor the unique practices assigned as essential to these definitions of holiness, which were the primary problems. The UPCI with some other Christian groups was making the fatal theological mistake of including sanctification in salvation. There was a confounding of sanctification with justification, because justification was either not understood (probably the main reason) or had been misunderstood. These conclusions were obviously not in harmony with the holiness statement which we were to sign each year. I knew that 1996 would be the last year I would be a UPCI minister, unless something profound would happen. In order for me to follow my conscience and be consistent, I concluded after a long process, that I must withdraw from the UPCI.

    What I was not prepared for is what happened in January. Because of the great amount of prayer and study I devoted to the study of sanctification and the holiness movement, I was blind sided by God’s Word. Through studies of Romans and Galatians and a study of the subject of "the righteousness of God." I came to a greater appreciation of faith in Jesus Christ. The most significant thing in my life took place. I was stunned to realize that the error of the UPCI was not in the area of sanctification. IT WAS IN JUSTIFICATION.

    An intense study at the beginning of this year brought me to the most profound revolution of my faith that I have every known. I realized that we had not understood the meaning of justification by faith. I had been trusting, ever so subtly, in my own righteousness rather than in the righteousness that is by faith in Jesus Christ. The stunning blow was the conviction of God’s Word that I had done NOTHING in the matter of my salvation. I had only received it. I did not stand before God in my righteousness, but in His alone! By faith I am in Christ. He is my righteousness. Therefore, I am right with God though faith in Jesus Christ. Obviously, this overwhelming realization was reflected in my preaching and teaching. I did not believe that I could hold back this understanding from my congregation and be an honorable pastor. How could I or anyone else!? The effect on me, my family and my church have been revolutionary.

    It was during this time I realized that we had some important business of which to take care. I then proposed to the church that I could not retract my new found faith. I would give them the opportunity to go another way or retain me as their pastor. If they would retain me, then we would need to disaffiliate before I withdrew my license.

    Anyone can make text-book criticism of what I did along this journey. I have only done in my feeble way what I believe God has called me to do. I am deeply confident in my present understanding of the Gospel. I believe that I have served my congregation well in teaching them this truth. I believe that we have followed the due process of disaffiliation as well as we could in the light of the complex situation. We are seeking to return the funds for which we believe we are responsible. We are not disparaging anyone’s character or speaking slanderously of the UPCI. In these things we may not be perfect. But, we have attempted to be as honorable as we can in a difficult and unique situation. 

"I believe we had every right to expect that your ministry would reflect the beliefs and practices of the organization you represented. Was this an unreasonable expectation?"

    No. I believe it is a reasonable expectation. I have "reflected the beliefs and practices of the organization" for ten years. Until this Spring I have not shared my questions or doubts about the teaching of the UPCI with my church. It was not until January of this year that the clear meaning of the Gospel became irresistible. It was not until March that these understandings were expressed to my congregation, and that as a fulfillment of my call to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What you expected of me was what I was. [I will say that there is a sense in which I was not always sure what all the unarticulated expectations were]

"We must depend upon the honor of our ministers that they are truly fulfilling their duties."

    I have honored the UPCI with great personal deference and sacrifice. I do not believe I failed of this expectation until God opened my heart and showed to me that I had not correctly understood the Gospel. The matter is this. I came to Findlay as a UPCI minister to start and pastor a UPCI church. This I did. I have followed to the best of my ability and within the accepted views of the UPCI that which I believe was expected of me. God arrested my heart and revealed the Gospel to me as a UPCI minister. I struggled with it until I could not longer resist it. I then was impressed by Scripture and because of my calling as a minister of the Gospel, preached to my congregation this same truth. I did so because I have always believed that my priority of accountability is to God first, my family second, and my congregation third. My accountability to the UPCI comes after these. I did not think that I had to ask the UPCI if I could preach my conscience to my own congregation. I saw the "fulfilling of my duties" as more that those expected of me by the UPCI. I would consider disobedience to God and a gross neglect of my duty. Because I realize that no minister can speak in any way in disagreement with the fundamental doctrine, I knew that my responsibility to the UPCI was to leave. I shared this with my congregation and gave them the option of freely choosing what they want to do.

"If at any time a minister cannot fulfill this expectation then he has reached a critical juncture. What should he do?"

"One, he may continue to preach and teach things that he now no longer believes."

"Two, he may craft his ministry to reflect his new beliefs which may be contrary to the UPCI, and lead his congregation in a direction away from the organization."

"Third, he may remain silent about his inner concerns until he can no longer continue in good conscience. He can then resign as a pastor of a UPCI church and choose another group or organization that is more compatible with his new beliefs."

"Fourth, he may open up a dialogue with his peers and leaders to find ways to bring about needed changes in the organization."

    The irony is that I did all four of these. I cannot say I preached things I did not believe. There were areas of teaching for which I did not have Scriptural support that I did not teach or preach in my pulpit. I do not believe we have absolute Scriptural support for refraining from sporting events. I cannot say that Scripture teaches that a woman should never cut her hair. (My wife has never cut her hair once) I believe that long hair honors the Creation order of God. But to say that to nip the ends of hair is a sin just cannot be supported by Scripture. As a matter of the proper role of preaching I would not "preach" standards. We may teach them in discipleship, where we have clear biblical articulation to do so. But preaching is, for the most part, reserved for declaration, and that, what God has done for us in redemption.

    But there were things that I was being convinced were true which I held back from preaching. To continue to hold back from preaching what you know is true is nearly as bad as preaching things you know are not true. I did not speak out against particular standards or doctrinal beliefs of the UPCI. Neither did I intentionally try to shape or "craft" my ministry to reflect my new beliefs. I preached what I believed the Scriptures taught. If that is crafting one’s ministry, then God grant that we all "craft" our ministries around our beliefs. The "crafting" of my ministry was a by product of intentional submitting my heart and ministry to the teaching of the Bible.

    I do not believe that one can hold one’s beliefs about salvation in a separate compartment from others which pertain to pastoral care and ministry. I find it impossible to function with integrity and wholeness while maintaining a dichotomy in my convictions about God’s gift of salvation for the world. I think that it is extremely dangerous for a penned mind in this way while they continue to function in the role of pastoral healer. The pitfalls of such duplicity are apparent. The one who is divided cannot help those who need wholeness. Can one remain silent about the truths of the Gospel and not be guilty of withholding necessary truth from those to whom one is called? I do not believe that the third option was not possible in my case.

    As far as option four, I did make attempts to dialogue with various ministers for whom I have respect and confidence. I talked with people like [minister's name]. I talked with [minister's name] and [minister's name]. I have attempted to talk with people at our symposiums, both formally and informally. I quickly realized that my concerns were too dangerous territory for these people to truly address. That it itself alarmed me. Not because they might disagree with me. That is not a problem. It is that there is an intimidation which the group holds over its members, that one would not wish their doubts to be known because it might threaten their standing within the group.

    What forum exists for this type of dialogue. District or General Conference? I am sure that I would be given room to ask of my brethren that they entertain certain questions concerning the matters I have already mentioned. I think the obvious reaction would be, "Why are you among us if you have questions about those things." A resolution? (Would either be killed at the district or the national level) Oneness Symposium? (The agenda is set and modulated to only go so far with the questioning. At least they were for the two I attended) A gathering of ministers in a section? (That would never work) Several minister friends?(could be considered talking behind the back of leadership) Writing articles for the Herald of Ohio News? (Would never be printed) If I had spoken to the district board about my understanding of the Gospel, would they have allowed me to continue as a pastor of a UPCI church? I think I am safe in assuming no. Then on the basis of that, could I risk silence while holding "dialogue" with the presbyters, knowing that I could have the church taken from me, before I could preach to them what I believe to be the truth of God?

"Should a minister craft his ministry to reflect his new beliefs which may be contrary to the UPCI, and lead his congregation in a direction away from the organization?"

    Your question assumes that one comes to put the pieces of change together in a moment recognizing, and all the ramifications and implications of this change. One preaches on the subject of "Faith" realizing one has a new and more biblically consistent understanding. But, afterward, begins to realize that the implications of that new understanding leads to another logical and biblical point of truth. One speaks about the doctrine of grace or justification or sanctification and then realizes that it is more of departure from past beliefs than originally thought. Individuals in the congregation approach one and say they have been greatly benefited by the great insight they received. Others tell how the Scriptures have opened up in a new and wonderful way. Through prayer and study a process begins to emerge and one realizes that God has been at work opening a whole new understanding. Then one realizes the obligation to his congregation to explain what God is doing and what this whole pattern means to their faith, their salvation and their walk with God. At the same time it becomes more and more clear that one has departed from the original beliefs he held and which his church denomination hold. At this point one realizes that the church has gone through the process with him as a work of God’s Spirit. There is a genuine consensus which characterizes this work of God. Therefore it seems apparent that one has a duty to give one’s congregation a choice and at the same time to inform one’s denomination of this change and to discontinue his status as a minister. If it pertains to their salvation I believe the answer is "Yes!"

". . . I believe the second causes him to wrong his organization. It may be argued that the organization is wrong, oppressive, intractable, and so on, and so to break the rules in return is acceptable -- the old end/means argument. Nevertheless, the minister’s signature is still on file as supporting the organization. If his peers and leaders have no knowledge of his change in beliefs, is this not a breach of confidence with them? If the name of his church is in the directory as a UPCI affiliate, but the church is very different from the UPCI, is this right? I don’t think so."

    All of these comments have been addressed earlier. But the confidence was not broken intentionally. There was not intent to be hypocritical. As the changes became obvious and the differences were such that we did not represent the UPCI we did something about it. Once we all realized as a church that we were not consistent with the UPCI we took honest measures to resolve it.

"Whether or not a minister believes his new viewpoint is absolutely correct is not the issue. At issue is his right to persuade his UPCI congregation to follow his new beliefs."

    Did Jesus dishonor his group or religion by gathering grain on the Sabbath, eating with sinners, or driving out the money changers? Did Saul honor his organization by persecuting the church? Yes. Did Paul dishonor or wrong his former relationship and standing with the Pharisees and leaders of Israel by becoming a Christian and aiding their cause. Yes. Which was right in God’s sight. That is the real question. Was Peter wrong for preaching in the Temple when the official said that it was not ethical to use the Temple mount property to espouse dissenting views? Remember that the proper authorities which were over Peter commanded them not to proselyte the people on property controlled by them. But Peter still said, "Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19,20) Was Paul wrong when he refused to honor the demands of those from Jerusalem concerning the obligations on the Gentiles? Was Peter wrong for entering the "uncleation of the oral law? One could not miss the higher ethical issues involved in my case unless the interest of the UPCI are as compelling as God’s or that the concerns of the UPCI ARE THE GOD’S COMPELLING INTERESTS. In that case I believe one has crossed the line and confounded the authority of one’s group with the very will of God itself. Was not this the error of the authorities who slew Jesus and persecuted the apostles (I am not saying that I am being persecuted at all, but I am trying to make a point by an extreme illustration.)

    The center of our disagreement is that you assume that the church really belonged to the UPCI. That I as a minister was, in a manner of speaking, a pastor from the UPCI to see that the church honored the UPCI expectations of it. This is an episcopal polity which clashes with the claim that we are congregational bodies. I do not believe the congregation belonged to the UPCI. I believe that it was a voluntary association, in which our congregation had the freedom to maintain or change according to the dictates of our conscience under God.

"The central question is what will the minister do with his close, intimate and highly influential relationships with his people? In business contracts, employees are often required to sign a non-compete clause so they cannot take advantage of close relationships and friendships they form while working for a company by leaving the company and working for another or themselves."

    I do not understand how the sharing the truth is taking advantage of close, intimate and highly influential relationships. I do not see the teaching of Scripture to those under one’s pastoral care as a violation of a "business contract" with the UPCI. I can see this assumption being made only the basis that one considers loyalty to an ministerial organization as prior to their duty to one’s own pastorate. I know that both are involved. But this is an issue where the concern of each comes into conflict and one must choose. It is messy, but that is how some ethical issues are. If I am to choose, I will, and obviously have, chosen to be loyal in giving pastoral care and the ministry of the Word to my church first.

"So it is in the pastor/saint relationships. People in the church are sheep, and the chances are extremely high that they will be influenced by their shepherd to believe whatever he teaches. How would they have access to an opposing view?"

    My concern for my people is that they have had only one view point for over ten years. It has been that of the UPCI. I have held to expectations of the UPCI when people questioned or challenged those expectations. I have had only UPCI speakers visit my congregation. We have not been in fellowship with any other Christians but UPCI members. We have been exclusively UPCI. How is that restricting people to opposing views? To say that my congregation has heard me and not others in the UPCI is to assume that for ten years I have been subverting and undermining their faith in the UPCI. This is not true. They have had such a predominance of the UPCI viewpoint that it renders this question speculative. It is true that my convictions, feelings and viewpoint have been an influence. But, I can’t help but suspect that the point being made comes dangerously close to abuse if reversed. How about the responsibility of UPCI pastors to only allow their people to hear their viewpoint? Are they not making use of their close, intimate, relationships and their position of authority to persuade people to their convictions, practices, standards and doctrines. I think I am safe to say that between the way that I have conducted myself with my church compared to the methods used by many UPCI ministers, that it would be these UPCI ministers which come the closest to an abuse of their relationship through authoritarianism. In fact, it is this concern you have about my actions with my church which has been a constant criticism made by many denominational groups about the UPCI. They say the UPCI guards their people closely so that they may not have free opportunity to consider others Scriptural positions or practices. This is a very legitimate comment and one for which the UPCI has very weak and unbiblical answers.

"Should any organization be this powerful or have this kind of control? Shouldn’t we forego the control apparatus put in place by the organization and simply allow God and the Bible to rule? "

    I believe in mutual accountability among ministers, church leaders and congregations. I also believe that organizations can become too powerful and move beyond either their original intention or God’s purpose for them. I find that it is extremely difficult for organizations to either recognize this, or to bring about internal changes to correct it. In most cases in history, it has taken some very challenging events to shake up organization and Christian groups for them to become reflective, humble and willing to address matters for which they had little regard or much disdain originally. History is against organizations. It is not against the Church of Jesus Christ, nor is it against the Gospel. These have transcended the life-spans of many an institutions and organizations while continuing to grow and flourish despite all manner of conditions, cultures and threats to their existence.

"The third option is that a UPCI pastor may remain silent about his inner concerns until he can no longer continue in good conscience. He can then resign as a pastor of a UPCI Church and choose another group or organization that is more compatible with his new beliefs. To me, if a minister finds that he cannot or will not reconsider his decision to leave the UPCI, this is the most ethical choice he can make. It allows him time to process his ideas and views until he has arrived at a final conclusion. It shields the affections and attitudes of the congregation towards the UPCI so that they remain untouched by the conflict. It maintains the integrity of the minister’s relationship to his peers and leaders of the UPCI. It is an attitude that says "I will not hurt you, I will not take advantage of you in any way."

    The pastor is called to declare the truth to his congregation. If what God is leading the pastor to understand is the truth which God wants him to speak, how can he do that if he has already resigned? This also assumes that the church is not growing in the same direction by a consensus inspired by the leading of God’s Spirit. It may be that in many cases the rationale which I am holding would be simply an excuse to do what is unethical. On the other hand, you cannot say there will never be in any case a situation where God is leading a congregation to disagree with the UPCI. This assumption reveals an over confidence in the infallibility of the organization.

". . . is it right that the UPCI bear the brunt of the loss? Does the organization have no stake in this at all? To deny that is does is to get into a much larger question about the propriety of organizations, what their real purpose is, and, again, whether or not they should have this kind of control. A man’s decision must be a personal one. The results."

    I believe the larger question is what are the bounds of a human institution over the minds of God’s people and His will for their lives.

"If our purpose is to have a UPCI church in as many communities across the nation as possible, then whenever a man says that he no longer wants to pastor a UPCI church as such, how should we react? Should we say it doesn’t matter and that he can preach and teach whatever he wants regardless of whether it contradicts accepted church doctrine or not?"

    I have always thought that the goal of the UPCI is to be an instrument for the spreading of the Gospel. But, even your comments betray a subtle shift of thinking about the mission of the UPCI. I do believe that for many the purpose of the UPCI is to increase congregation and grow larger. No, I do not believe that a licensed minister can preach "whatever he wants." In our case, it was not "whatever I wanted." I believe with all my heart it was what God wanted. The contention arises over whether it was what the UPCI wanted and if I am to yield to their wishes and authority despite my conscience and obedience to Christ.

"If we have rules, we must also have a procedure to enforce them. If a minister seeks to be free from the rules, he steps out himself. He is not thrown out. This entire process may be characterized by its detractors in a very uncomplimentary way. They may portray it by calling it uncaring, property-oriented and oppressive and a host of other derogatory terms. On the other hand, supporters may describe it as responsible, exercising good stewardship, and will to contend for the integrity of the movement."

    I do not have any problems with an organization having rules and guidelines. All institutions have certain compelling interests which are in the domain of their responsibilities. But the ultimate question for me is when does a group recognize their rules are not necessarily God’s? And how can a group be corrected?

    Several assumptions are at work in this discussion which I think we have to address. First, there is an assumption that God cannot speak to individuals or Christians outside of the authority structure of the organization. Must Scripture be properly interpreted by the "magisterium" before it can be accepted as the Word of God? This is dangerously close to Roman Catholic teaching. Second, it is assumed that an organization such as the UPCI cannot be wrong (for the most part) and that anyone leaving them cannot in fact be doing so in direct obedience to God (because we have demonstrated through time and experience that the UPCI has interpreted the Scripture correctly in most [if not all] instances). This is close to identifying the UPCI as a ministerial affiliation with the authority of God or the derived authority of the Church.

    I believe that indeed many UPCI ministers and leaders have made the mental jump (consciously or unconsciously) that the UPCI is the Church. It would appear that by following this logic (that truth comes through the authority structure) the original mainline denomination were right to censure those early Pentecostals. And in fact the early Pentecostals were wrong for leaving their denominations and preaching their message in contradiction to the mother churches. It would also be wrong for members of denominational churches to leave their churches and join the UPCI. Again, history shows that most changes do not take place within the power structure or otherwise) but from without. To think that the UPCI is different than all other organizations in this case is evidence to a blind assumption of equating the UPCI with the true Church of Jesus Christ.

"The fourth choice is that he may open up a dialogue with his peers and leaders to find ways to bring about needed changes in the organization. Some do not think this is politically viable. They believe that as soon as they open their mouths, they become branded and avoided. There is much truth to this. . . At the same time, however, I have found that reasoned dialogue, properly supported with scripture, presented with a humble spirit and a conciliatory attitude always renders rewards. If people are convinced that a minister has goodwill towards the organization, they will not turn him off."

"Isn’t it being presumptuous to think that voicing dissent will probably be rejected so there is no use to even try?"

    In my experience of being involved in the UPCI I have observed that those having a difference with leadership (either on a local church, Bible school, etc. level or with district or national officials) or the majority opinion are questioned as to their personal character, morality or motivation first. This is primarily because one would dare to have a difference with accepted policy, practices or beliefs. Next, it is because of the way the person expressed their difference or just simply moved on because of irresolvable issues. They are then treated as though they were more than someone with a difference. They became the target of a variety of slanders, innuendo, aspersions and lampoons. I have been in meetings where fellow ministers were spoken about in such shocking ways that I have not gotten over it today. I have sat in saints meetings and heard pastors drill saints before all present. I have listened to ministers rail from their pulpits on those in the congregation or those in other groups with language not appropriate for polite company, let alone for mine I have witnessed in the UPCI. I don’t think I am being presumptuous about the general reaction I would receive. I can only go on the basis of my own personal experience. If that is any measuring stick, then I am sure I would be stifled and shoved out of the UPCI without much occasion to share what God has done for me. I guess I will see in the days to come if I right about the type of response will come from the UPCI over what God has done in my life.

    If you would, for a moment, consider the UPCI as an individual. And then pose a number of the same questions to it as an individual, you may see that the UPCI has operated in ways which may be considered unethical. Has the UPCI, by the way it has used its own position and calling to persuade people, crafted its ministry to persuade those in its close, intimate relationships to go the way of its own particular interest, rather than the compelling interests of God and His Word? This question is begging to be answered.