Tulsa Report Day 2

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

I HATE the liberal/conserative label.........I remember at one time in my life God even blessed us to help put on a meeting that was considered on the conserative side - but even there I would find men who would ask - ........ What are you doing here?........as in I was way to liberal to be there........

Then a few weeks later I visited a different conference and was ask ........ What are you doing here?........as in Dude you are WAYYYY to conserative to be here......

This really bothered me and so I took it to the Lord in prayer...........while I was traveling home from the second conference (and some may not believe this part) I felt the power of God come into the car and so I ask Him.........God what am I to do.........These guys think I am a liberal.....these others think I am too conserative........then I ask, God Where Am I?????????

I felt the power of God and then I felt a voice speak to me.......and HE said........Just stay in the shadow of the cross.......

Being the IAM that I am I argued.......but what about those on the left who feel I am one way and those on the right who feel I am another........what about them.........Then the answer came......If I am in the shadow of the Cross then those on the left are on the left of the cross and those on the right are on the right and neither one is in the shadow of the Cross........

So from that day on.......I will never try to impress you with how Holy or Liberal I am........I just want to do His will, be saved, and see my family saved and there be a church built in Longview Texas for the Glory of the Kingdom of God.........

And my friend other than that.......... NOTHING else matters............

Amen!

Originally Posted by Ferd

I really shouldnt but it here.... but....


Steadfast, my only issue with this line is, these same issues have been "the issues" since 1945.

the UPCI has had men going to meetings and seeing liberals in the camp from day one.

more than once, some group of men have left the UPCI because it was too liberal, yet the UPCI seems to still be filled with men who range from one side the other.

how come these guys just now got their gut full? i just dont get that.

Bro. Ferd,

There have been issues all along. I'll give you that. However, as one that has travelled extensively throughout our fellowship I have to tell you that there has been a HUGE paradigm shift in some Pentecostal Churches over the last 10 years or so. That has become more 'in your face' over the last several years and now it's almost unbelievable that some still call themselves Pentecostal.

I remember back 15 to 20 years ago that when you saw really short skirts, much makeup or extensive jewelry it was generally relegated to two or three Churches who just didn't make an issue of 'standards' and, perhaps, a handfull of new converts. I think it was accepted that some Churches were 'worldly' and they were the exception.

Now, however, there are some environments that I go to that makes you wonder how they went from the epitome of looking Apostolic to... well... what they have become. At the risk of this becoming a 'standards' thread I think the general attitude has now gone from accepting that 'they are the worldly minority' to realizing that certain environments are moving completely away from the distinctives that set us apart.

This brings me to another point. I'm guessing that you'll see MANY more people making the 'Tulsa' move from certain districts than from others. It will be predicated on some who are in districts that say, "I just can't keep supporting the direction they are going" while in other districts there won't be many who leave because, bottom line, they don't see the trend of moving away from those Pentecostal distinctives.

I can tell you, without a doubt, that if I were in certain districts that I've preached meetings in I would have been the first one in Tulsa. Thankfully, in my area the majority (NOT ALL) of our Churches pretty much still value those distinctives of separation.

NOW, as to the bigger question: Why is television advertising the straw that broke the camels back? I have to be honest... I'm just not sure. But I can tell you that after being licensed for 27 years that television has always been a 'hot button' topic. I'm granting the liberty to those who say they hate the dangers of Hollywood to believe them. I preach against it as well and, as far as I know, don't have one television in my Church. However, I personally think that within the organization there is another factor that plays into the equation.

Mark Hanby was THE preacher of his day. He was looked up to and revered by most everyone. When he tried to push television in years ago and was denied... he bailed out. I could be 1,000 miles off base but I've always thought that there was a little resentment over the fact that a 'star' among us left for a television program.

His program eventually failed and he seems to have made his share of miserable mistakes. Even so, I think that the movement, pretty much as a whole, was offended by the whole issue 'I'm a 'star' and I'm pushing television' - combined with the fact that he bailed out - that for years when television is mentioned it immediately found deep emotional opposition.

Again, I may be 1,000 miles off base with my suppositions but, at least I'm honest enough to say it is only a supposition.

[RevBuddy]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Bro. Ferd,

There have been issues all along. I'll give you that. However, as one that has travelled extensively throughout our fellowship I have to tell you that there has been a HUGE paradigm shift in some Pentecostal Churches over the last 10 years or so. That has become more 'in your face' over the last several years and now it's almost unbelievable that some still call themselves Pentecostal.

I remember back 15 to 20 years ago that when you saw really short skirts, much makeup or extensive jewelry it was generally relegated to two or three Churches who just didn't make an issue of 'standards' and, perhaps, a handfull of new converts. I think it was accepted that some Churches were 'worldly' and they were the exception.

Now, however, there are some environments that I go to that makes you wonder how they went from the epitome of looking Apostolic to... well... what they have become. At the risk of this becoming a 'standards' thread I think the general attitude has now gone from accepting that 'they are the worldly minority' to realizing that certain environments are moving completely away from the distinctives that set us apart.

This brings me to another point. I'm guessing that you'll see MANY more people making the 'Tulsa' move from certain districts than from others. It will be predicated on some who are in districts that say, "I just can't keep supporting the direction they are going" while in other districts there won't be many who leave because, bottom line, they don't see the trend of moving away from those Pentecostal distinctives.

I can tell you, without a doubt, that if I were in certain districts that I've preached meetings in I would have been the first one in Tulsa. Thankfully, in my area the majority (NOT ALL) of our Churches pretty much still value those distinctives of separation.

NOW, as to the bigger question: Why is television advertising the straw that broke the camels back? I have to be honest... I'm just not sure. But I can tell you that after being licensed for 27 years that television has always been a 'hot button' topic. I'm granting the liberty to those who say they hate the dangers of Hollywood to believe them. I preach against it as well and, as far as I know, don't have one television in my Church. However, I personally think that within the organization there is another factor that plays into the equation.

Mark Hanby was THE preacher of his day. He was looked up to and revered by most everyone. When he tried to push television in years ago and was denied... he bailed out. I could be 1,000 miles off base but I've always thought that there was a little resentment over the fact that a 'star' among us left for a television program.

His program eventually failed and he seems to have made his share of miserable mistakes. Even so, I think that the movement, pretty much as a whole, was offended by the whole issue 'I'm a 'star' and I'm pushing television' - combined with the fact that he bailed out - that for years when television is mentioned it immediately found deep emotional opposition.

Again, I may be 1,000 miles off base with my suppositions but, at least I'm honest enough to say it is only a supposition.

Steadfast...is the above your only Gospel? I agree with you about a steady erosion of traditional holiness standards. And, in a measure, that is also disturbing to me. However, this perceived erosion has caused me to examine my PERSONAL convictions to ensure I am not simply following traditionism.

For some time now, I have decided to teach and preach - now don't be shocked - what is IN the Bible. Not what I WANT or WISH was IN the Bible! So, I minister to individuals and churches from His Word. I teach specifics and principles, but I do not teach against things that are not in the Word. Neither do I subtract from His Word - preaching His Word without fear or favorj - I keep a clean conscience by staying within His Word and Statutes.

Does any of this make sense?

[jrLA]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Bro. Ferd,

There have been issues all along. I'll give you that. However, as one that has travelled extensively throughout our fellowship I have to tell you that there has been a HUGE paradigm shift in some Pentecostal Churches over the last 10 years or so. That has become more 'in your face' over the last several years and now it's almost unbelievable that some still call themselves Pentecostal.

I remember back 15 to 20 years ago that when you saw really short skirts, much makeup or extensive jewelry it was generally relegated to two or three Churches who just didn't make an issue of 'standards' and, perhaps, a handfull of new converts. I think it was accepted that some Churches were 'worldly' and they were the exception.

Now, however, there are some environments that I go to that makes you wonder how they went from the epitome of looking Apostolic to... well... what they have become. At the risk of this becoming a 'standards' thread I think the general attitude has now gone from accepting that 'they are the worldly minority' to realizing that certain environments are moving completely away from the distinctives that set us apart.

This brings me to another point. I'm guessing that you'll see MANY more people making the 'Tulsa' move from certain districts than from others. It will be predicated on some who are in districts that say, "I just can't keep supporting the direction they are going" while in other districts there won't be many who leave because, bottom line, they don't see the trend of moving away from those Pentecostal distinctives.

I can tell you, without a doubt, that if I were in certain districts that I've preached meetings in I would have been the first one in Tulsa. Thankfully, in my area the majority (NOT ALL) of our Churches pretty much still value those distinctives of separation.

NOW, as to the bigger question: Why is television advertising the straw that broke the camels back? I have to be honest... I'm just not sure. But I can tell you that after being licensed for 27 years that television has always been a 'hot button' topic. I'm granting the liberty to those who say they hate the dangers of Hollywood to believe them. I preach against it as well and, as far as I know, don't have one television in my Church. However, I personally think that within the organization there is another factor that plays into the equation.

Mark Hanby was THE preacher of his day. He was looked up to and revered by most everyone. When he tried to push television in years ago and was denied... he bailed out. I could be 1,000 miles off base but I've always thought that there was a little resentment over the fact that a 'star' among us left for a television program.

His program eventually failed and he seems to have made his share of miserable mistakes. Even so, I think that the movement, pretty much as a whole, was offended by the whole issue 'I'm a 'star' and I'm pushing television' - combined with the fact that he bailed out - that for years when television is mentioned it immediately found deep emotional opposition.

Again, I may be 1,000 miles off base with my suppositions but, at least I'm honest enough to say it is only a supposition.

Really! I am not being sarcastic in the least. But this is not an easy thing to achieve in today's Pentecost.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Bro. Ferd,

There have been issues all along. I'll give you that. However, as one that has travelled extensively throughout our fellowship I have to tell you that there has been a HUGE paradigm shift in some Pentecostal Churches over the last 10 years or so. That has become more 'in your face' over the last several years and now it's almost unbelievable that some still call themselves Pentecostal.

I remember back 15 to 20 years ago that when you saw really short skirts, much makeup or extensive jewelry it was generally relegated to two or three Churches who just didn't make an issue of 'standards' and, perhaps, a handfull of new converts. I think it was accepted that some Churches were 'worldly' and they were the exception.

.

You came to Christ Church Nashville and didn't even call me???!!!!!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Bro. Ferd,

There have been issues all along. I'll give you that. However, as one that has travelled extensively throughout our fellowship I have to tell you that there has been a HUGE paradigm shift in some Pentecostal Churches over the last 10 years or so. That has become more 'in your face' over the last several years and now it's almost unbelievable that some still call themselves Pentecostal.

I remember back 15 to 20 years ago that when you saw really short skirts, much makeup or extensive jewelry it was generally relegated to two or three Churches who just didn't make an issue of 'standards' and, perhaps, a handfull of new converts. I think it was accepted that some Churches were 'worldly' and they were the exception.

Now, however, there are some environments that I go to that makes you wonder how they went from the epitome of looking Apostolic to... well... what they have become. At the risk of this becoming a 'standards' thread I think the general attitude has now gone from accepting that 'they are the worldly minority' to realizing that certain environments are moving completely away from the distinctives that set us apart.

This brings me to another point. I'm guessing that you'll see MANY more people making the 'Tulsa' move from certain districts than from others. It will be predicated on some who are in districts that say, "I just can't keep supporting the direction they are going" while in other districts there won't be many who leave because, bottom line, they don't see the trend of moving away from those Pentecostal distinctives.

I can tell you, without a doubt, that if I were in certain districts that I've preached meetings in I would have been the first one in Tulsa. Thankfully, in my area the majority (NOT ALL) of our Churches pretty much still value those distinctives of separation.

NOW, as to the bigger question: Why is television advertising the straw that broke the camels back? I have to be honest... I'm just not sure. But I can tell you that after being licensed for 27 years that television has always been a 'hot button' topic. I'm granting the liberty to those who say they hate the dangers of Hollywood to believe them. I preach against it as well and, as far as I know, don't have one television in my Church. However, I personally think that within the organization there is another factor that plays into the equation.

Mark Hanby was THE preacher of his day. He was looked up to and revered by most everyone. When he tried to push television in years ago and was denied... he bailed out. I could be 1,000 miles off base but I've always thought that there was a little resentment over the fact that a 'star' among us left for a television program.

His program eventually failed and he seems to have made his share of miserable mistakes. Even so, I think that the movement, pretty much as a whole, was offended by the whole issue 'I'm a 'star' and I'm pushing television' - combined with the fact that he bailed out - that for years when television is mentioned it immediately found deep emotional opposition.

Again, I may be 1,000 miles off base with my suppositions but, at least I'm honest enough to say it is only a supposition.

Steady, I understand the desire to lift a higher standard and also know TV has been a Hot Topic - especially in some districts.

Pardon me if this has been asked before, but please answer me these questions.

1. These who are inclined to withdraw fellowship over TV viewing, do they watch television clips on the internet?

2. If they don't watch TBN, FOX, ABC or CNN online, do they watch anything on You Tube that had previously been aired on TV? Where is the line of demarkation?

3. We are told that phone/commuter/television will continue to merge, both in hardware and services.

How will these brethren handle this?

How will they police the violators and is it really possible to have true enforcement?


Just to be clear -With very little exception, I am NOT a TV watcher. I am very interested in your answers, because it appears to be conundrum for not only the UPCI but for ALL who have/had a stance against television.


Thank You in advance, Steve Hoover

[George]

Now, however, there are some environments that I go to that makes you wonder how they went from the epitome of looking Apostolic to... well... what they have become. At the risk of this becoming a 'standards' thread I think the general attitude has now gone from accepting that 'they are the worldly minority' to realizing that certain environments are moving completely away from the distinctives that set us apart.

This brings me to another point. I'm guessing that you'll see MANY more people making the 'Tulsa' move from certain districts than from others. It will be predicated on some who are in districts that say, "I just can't keep supporting the direction they are going" while in other districts there won't be many who leave because, bottom line, they don't see the trend of moving away from those Pentecostal distinctives.

Steadfast - It could be argued standards are not the big issue either. California is largely affected by WPF and you would have to agree even the "liberal" churches of California still look conservative by comparision to some other districts.

Originally Posted by George

Steadfast - It could be argued standards are not the big issue either. California is largely affected by WPF and you would have to agree even the "liberal" churches of California still look conservative by comparision to some other districts.

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you for the most part. I think the reall issue has MUCH more to do with the direction they feel others are heading than it does with any particular standards.

As to California as compared to some of the other districts? You are exactly right.

[AmazingGrace]

Well I have nothing to add to this thread since I said I wasnt gonna post no more bout Tulsa... so all I can say is... I know what IAINTs problem is......... He wants to be just like Steadfast!!! LOLOLOL

[TrmptPraise]

Originally Posted by AmazingGrace

Well I have nothing to add to this thread since I said I wasnt gonna post no more bout Tulsa... so all I can say is... I know what IAINTs problem is......... He wants to be just like Steadfast!!! LOLOLOL

Nice to see you, AG.