Also, as a footnote. Bernard takes a swipe at the WPF.
He states in this last letter: The UPCI has the most conservative position regarding television of all major Oneness Pentecostal organizations. This will remain true even if the current proposal is adopted.
The WPF's TV statement? Not a major Oneness organization, obviously. As their statement would be more conservative and stricter, if this proposed UPCI resolution passes.
This last communication from the bishop is classic Bernardese....
What this proposed resolution, in his own words, will say, is that they will come out against all unwholesome CONTENT on all forms of media...
Ok, but can the above in any way circumvent the apparent meaning of this,
DKB: <<There is no proposal to change the Articles of Faith, which state that "we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes.">>
?
The truth is, most UPC folks have televisions and watch them. That's been going on for quite a long time now, ever since the 'monitor' days. (Remember when they were just 'monitors' and not televisions? )
All the television issue is doing is making hypocrites out of guilt-laden Christians. Preach relationship with God instead and that'll do more to control things which shouldn't be in a person's life be it television, or anything else, including the internet. Within seconds after posting this, I could be watching the most perverted of porn if I so choose but because of relationship with God I'm not going to do that. I could go read anything I wanted, find a person to have an affair with, but because of relationship with God I'm not going to do that.
In my opinion, the UPC is keeping the television references simply because they do not wish to be viewed as becoming like the world. It's a pride issue with them, IMO. But it's making them, as well as those 'apostolic' WPF folks, look foolish when they attempt to ban television and keep the internet.
The truth is, most UPC folks have televisions and watch them. That's been going on for quite a long time now, ever since the 'monitor' days. (Remember when they were just 'monitors' and not televisions? )
I well remember, but the interesting part for me is not what the regular folks do, but what the "official standards" are and how the leaders do sell their standards to the rank and file. When I was UPC (now named UPCI) the leaders made no bones about the organization being something THEY belonged to, not something the regular tithes payers were supposed to belong to. So in that sense, *I* was never officially UPC, rather my pastor was. Or maybe that's true of every denomination, don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerman
All the television issue is doing is making hypocrites out of guilt-laden Christians.
Additionally, just about any prescription for any behavior, whether in Bible or not, can easily make a hypocrite out of anyone. Nevertheless, the same "relationship" motives you describe for not wanting to watch porn is the same concept thousands of OPs observe in not having a TV. For me, it was pretty easy to not have a TV. It comported with my personality at the time, which I perhaps conveniently filed under "holiness," without thinking too hard about it.
Deacon no need to apologize. The misleading is Bernard's.
This last communication from the bishop is classic Bernardese.
Any subsequent amended Holiness article which removes the wording "television sets" is a big change from his elders intents who specifically targeted the device in people's homes.
It reads like his 2007 letters as South Texas Superintendent when the TV advertising amendement, ultimately passed
What this proposed resolution, in his own words, will say, is that they will come out against all unwholesome CONTENT on all forms of media.
He is interpreting the elder's original intent while saying it's not compromise. Read David Gray's once required ministerial book, Questions Pentecostal's as Ask, for an orginal merger member's view on owning a television in your home. As he was in favor for the Holiness change in 1954, as well.
This new resolution would sound like canned statement one could expect from Focus on the Family against inappropriate content. Very similar to the ALJC's.
It placates in some way all sides. Liberals and moderates will say we have these devices but monitor its content. The cons can feel their organization preaches against television. In reality, it does not.
HE IS A LAWYER, FIRST. A WORD MAGICIAN.
Of course such a resolution BY DEFAULT takes away the previous prohibition on not having the devices in their homes.
By making this historic change to the Holiness article - The first since 1954, he is being cautious, if not intentionally diplomatic and vague or duplicitious. It's a political game which will still cost him some more conservatives.
Ultimately, this proposed resolution will do as intended. It leaves it up to pastoral and individual discretion. And most importantly, by changing the Holiness article, those who sign the affirmation statement (affirming the holiness and Fundamental Doctrine only) -- ministers will be able to sign WITH INTEGRITY.
Max, it seems you judge Bernard's motives harshly. Why?
Do you agree with the proposed changes?
There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic... Making a needed change in wording while at the same time assuring those more conservative that the TV wording remains.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
)
Linear Mode
