High-level Upci Official Weighs In On Res. #4 Aftermath

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The good news is only 13 or so will be going to Tulsa.

Gotta love it!

[Pastor G]

Originally Posted by The Dean

I'm suspecting his Uncle Crawford (I think he's an uncle) probably doesn't share his feelings about that. He's one of the sponsors of Tulsa.

Crawford says he has accepted the fact that people are advertising on TV because UPC people all around him have been doing it before it passed and he hasn't said a word... He implied he really didn't have a problem with it, but he had a problem with the org. saying it was ok... go figure...

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

No, they are living their convictions, and cannot be a part of an org that has steered away from those convictions.

Its much the same as me not being able, because of convictions sake, to work in a place that directly manufactures, distributes, or sells cigarettes or alcohol.

Matt, usually have such respect for your posts, but comparing advertising a church on TV to reach the lost to manufacturing cigarettes????

Not to mention "steered away from convictions" LOL

It was only 1977 when the ban against owning TVs was put in effect, was there a mass exodus from those who disagreed?

This is control, it is elitism, it is hurt feelings about no longer calling the shots and imposing their will. It is a resurfacing of the spirit of 1992, only this time they are leaving instead of chasing others off.

No one is making them advertise, there has been no change in official stance about pastors or saints owning TVs. Not mentioning the oft repeated fact that those who oppose TV do not feel the same about the internet and in a few years the technologies will be virtually indistinguishable!

They are determined to be the neo-Amish. Not saying they are not good people with good intentions, but trying to reach the lost by using TV commercials being grounds to break fellowship, but having a web site is not???

And this is a demonstration of moral superiority???

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I do not think it is a matter of simply not "tolerating" others. It is an issue of integrity and principle. It is asking someone that believes something is wrong to continue in an organization that now accepts it, and approves it.

I am a part of several organizations that allow members to chain smoke and drink beer and have no official stance against wife beating...

You are right, if one sees himself as being overly defiled from without, by another's advertising techniques he probably should withdraw...

[SDG]

bump

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pastor G

Crawford says he has accepted the fact that people are advertising on TV because UPC people all around him have been doing it before it passed and he hasn't said a word... He implied he really didn't have a problem with it, but he had a problem with the org. saying it was ok... go figure...

That just doesn't make sense.

[Pastor G]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

That just doesn't make sense.

Tell me about it!!! I guess I shouldn't have been, but I was shocked to read that in his letter...

[PreacherV]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

A pretty good letter I think.

It occurs to me that the central issue is tolerance of beliefs.

If one is against TV advertising that is one thing, but if one cannot tolerate others with a bit of a different perspective, well, he limits himself in fellowship and will likely find other issues, in other groups, to narrow his path even more.

The UPC needs a baptism of tolerance and humility IMHO.

I agree! By the way, I noticed CC mentioned that the passage of Resolution #4 reverted the manual back to language that existed prior to 1976. I find it interesting that it took the org 31 years (1945-1976) to prohibit TV advertising and 31 years to repeal the ban (1976-2007). I frequently get the impression from some brethren that the UPCI Manual is somehow sacred or infallible and that any changes made to it would be the same as excising Acts 2:38 from holy writ. The truth, IMHO, is that there have always been differences in approach, standards, etc. in the oneness movement. It took 31 years for the UCs to seize control, and then for the next 31 years, while the balance of power was on their side, they used legislation as a means to force any dissenters into compliance. Now the balance of power has shifted the other way. But by gathering up their marbles and going home the ultra-cons make themselves the losers, because in so doing they ensure that this shift of power will be the last.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Matt, usually have such respect for your posts, but comparing advertising a church on TV to reach the lost to manufacturing cigarettes????

Not to mention "steered away from convictions" LOL

It was only 1977 when the ban against owning TVs was put in effect, was there a mass exodus from those who disagreed?

This is control, it is elitism, it is hurt feelings about no longer calling the shots and imposing their will. It is a resurfacing of the spirit of 1992, only this time they are leaving instead of chasing others off.

No one is making them advertise, there has been no change in official stance about pastors or saints owning TVs. Not mentioning the oft repeated fact that those who oppose TV do not feel the same about the internet and in a few years the technologies will be virtually indistinguishable!

They are determined to be the neo-Amish. Not saying they are not good people with good intentions, but trying to reach the lost by using TV commercials being grounds to break fellowship, but having a web site is not???

And this is a demonstration of moral superiority???

Sorry to disappoint you .



unless you have had the conviction, I am sure that you will not understand their view, and thus place a wrong motive on their actions. If it was control, then I would say they would try to stay and overthrow the resolution. No, it is not a control issue, but an issue of an org that is continuing to move to a more liberal stand. The conservatives no longer feel that they can be a part of something that is moving that way. I hope every conservative leaves the org, as it is the best thing that can happen for both sides.

I do wonder if the 70's ban caused a lot of men to get rid of their tv's in the 70's, or if it was already being preached as worldly by the majority.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by PreacherV

I agree! By the way, I noticed CC mentioned that the passage of Resolution #4 reverted the manual back to language that existed prior to 1976. I find it interesting that it took the org 31 years (1945-1976) to prohibit TV advertising and 31 years to repeal the ban (1976-2007). I frequently get the impression from some brethren that the UPCI Manual is somehow sacred or infallible and that any changes made to it would be the same as excising Acts 2:38 from holy writ. The truth, IMHO, is that there have always been differences in approach, standards, etc. in the oneness movement. It took 31 years for the UCs to seize control, and then for the next 31 years, while the balance of power was on their side, they used legislation as a means to force any dissenters into compliance. Now the balance of power has shifted the other way. But by gathering up their marbles and going home the ultra-cons make themselves the losers, because in so doing they ensure that this shift of power will be the last.

TV was first rejected in 1950.

Read your dog earred copy again and see Section VII, Section 7, Paragraph 31 is there.