View Full Version : A Petition Movement to Save the Union
StillStanding
03-25-2007, 12:42 PM
I'm not UPCI anymore, but I do care about it's future! Actually, believe it or not, I've been praying for the organization.
After reading CW's article, I'm calling on some brave leaders to come forward and spearhead a petition to be signed by as many licensed preachers as possible, to pledge to not leave the UPCI over the TV vote.
Maybe this would help identify the wolves on each side of the debate that are seeking to cause division. What better way to save the fellowship than to take away the wolve's ammunition of consenses.
Elihu
03-25-2007, 12:51 PM
I'm not UPCI anymore, but I do care about it's future! Actually, believe it or not, I've been praying for the organization.
After reading CW's article, I'm calling on some brave leaders to come forward and spearhead a petition to be signed by as many licensed preachers as possible, to pledge to not leave the UPCI over the TV vote.
Maybe this would help identify the wolves on each side of the debate that are seeking to cause division. What better way to save the fellowship than to take away the wolve's ammunition of consenses.
Wolves? Isn't that a little strong?
StillStanding
03-25-2007, 12:58 PM
Wolves? Isn't that a little strong?
They're certainly not sheep, or shepherds trying to "protect" the union. I'm open to a better word! :)
Wolves? Isn't that a little strong?
You used it yesterday to describe liberals, Sham.
I'm not UPCI anymore, but I do care about it's future! Actually, believe it or not, I've been praying for the organization.
After reading CW's article, I'm calling on some brave leaders to come forward and spearhead a petition to be signed by as many licensed preachers as possible, to pledge to not leave the UPCI over the TV vote.
Maybe this would help identify the wolves on each side of the debate that are seeking to cause division. What better way to save the fellowship than to take away the wolve's ammunition of consenses.
This is an EXCELLENT IDEA!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps a website could be established ... calling for this unity.
Elihu
03-25-2007, 01:03 PM
You used it yesterday to describe liberals, Sham.
And was told that kind of language was hate speech. Now the man that complained is using the very same lingo.
Go figure?:slaphappy
And was told that kind of language was hate speech. Now the man that complained is using the very same lingo.
Go figure?:slaphappy
Difference being ... he's an equal opportunity "hater"
Elihu
03-25-2007, 01:23 PM
The Unified United Pentecostal Church
The following domain is available, PianoMan ....
www.unityaboveall.com
StillStanding
03-25-2007, 02:44 PM
Difference being ... he's an equal opportunity "hater"
hahaha! I was going to answer the previous post and saw you already answered it. The difference is that I did not identify who the wolfes were. My "wolf" refers to ANYONE whether lib or con who is assertively trying to divide the organization. Shamgar1, did my words hit close to home? :happydance
The following domain is available, PianoMan ....
www.unityaboveall.com
When I clicked on that, I got the following message:
-------------------------
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.unityaboveall.com.
Check the address for typing errors such as
ww.example.com instead of
www.example.com
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
----------------------------
StillStanding
03-25-2007, 02:57 PM
When I clicked on that, I got the following message:
-------------------------
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.unityaboveall.com.
Check the address for typing errors such as
ww.example.com instead of
www.example.com
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
----------------------------
This all means that that address is available for purchase, if someone would like to use it!
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 03:21 PM
I'm not UPCI anymore, but I do care about it's future! Actually, believe it or not, I've been praying for the organization.
I still respect your opinion higher than others here.
After reading CW's article, I'm calling on some brave leaders to come forward and spearhead a petition to be signed by as many licensed preachers as possible, to pledge to not leave the UPCI over the TV vote.
Maybe this would help identify the wolves on each side of the debate that are seeking to cause division. What better way to save the fellowship than to take away the wolve's ammunition of consenses.
Who said they are leaving? this is a misconception. Some of them are determined to stay until forced out so they can make a change!
Shall we also start a pledge asking everyone to LEAVE if it does NOT pass.
I did not like the wording of Resolution #6 myself.
I still respect your opinion higher than others here.
Who said they are leaving? this is a misconception. Some of them are determined to stay until forced out so they can make a change!
Shall we also start a pledge asking everyone to LEAVE if it does NOT pass.
I did not like the wording of Resolution #6 myself.
BOOM ... I've heard this argument before about NOT LIKING THE WORDING from several others ... can you tell why? Second, wouldn't most anti-tv proponents say the same thing ... I don't like the wording?
I still respect your opinion higher than others here.
Who said they are leaving? this is a misconception. Some of them are determined to stay until forced out so they can make a change!
Shall we also start a pledge asking everyone to LEAVE if it does NOT pass.
I did not like the wording of Resolution #6 myself.
How would passage of resolution 6 force anyone not to hang on to their principles? I don't get it? Even if it passes .... a person could still keep their convictions and not participate in TV advertising . .. ANY other thought seems to illogical to me .
The petition Pianoman speaks of is one that seeks unity ... what could be wrong with it ... it does not make a foregone conclusion of what the vote will be ... but asks all men of God to accept the will of the ministry and move on.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 03:28 PM
BOOM ... I've heard this argument before about NOT LIKING THE WORDING from several others ... can you tell why? Second, wouldn't most anti-tv proponents say the same thing ... I don't like the wording?
Well I knew I could not go to Columbus, so I discarded mine and there are not any available DVD archives to show what it actually said, but I simply did not like the way it was versed.
Again, I cannot remember the wording, but I did not like it at all even after reading it five or six times through.
I don't know why the issue of anti-TV means anything about the ramifications of a resolution. We can vote a man in or out, a change in bylaws lives forever. They are worth wording correctly.
:winkgrin
Well I knew I could not go to Columbus, so I discarded mine and there are not any available DVD archives to show what it actually said, but I simply did not like the way it was versed.
Again, I cannot remember the wording, but I did not like it at all even after reading it five or six times through.
I don't know why the issue of anti-TV means anything about the ramifications of a resolution. We can vote a man in or out, a change in bylaws lives forever. They are worth wording correctly.
:winkgrin
Here is the wording:
http://respiracreative.com/Resolution.jpg
What part of it are you uncomfortable with? Who says it carries on forever ... no one is changing the resolution process .... it can be amended and/ or changed.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 03:32 PM
The petition Pianoman speaks of is one that seeks unity ... what could be wrong with it ... it does not make a foregone conclusion of what the vote will be ... but asks all men of God to accept the will of the ministry and move on.
It has shown to be true here that being left alone and moving on is not gonna happen.
If that were the case some would have not posted such hatred against what they left behind.
I am one who thinks they are dragging their feet on the issue in committee also. It does not take THIS long to get something in wording to the preachers. They can get the requests for $$ printed, get on the ball and move this along. I was disappointed we did not see something in writing when they did table this with a defined timeframe of when they were expecting to answer this.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 03:35 PM
What part of it are you uncomfortable with? Who says it carries on forever ... no one is changing the resolution process .... it can be amended and/ or changed.
Have you heard of them revoking the AS that so many have spoken against?
Not gonna happen either.
It has shown to be true here that being left alone and moving on is not gonna happen.
If that were the case some would have not posted such hatred against what they left behind.
I am one who thinks they are dragging their feet on the issue in committee also. It does not take THIS long to get something in wording to the preachers. They can get the requests for $$ printed, get on the ball and move this along. I was disappointed we did not see something in writing when they did table this with a defined timeframe of when they were expecting to answer this.
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org ... you cant expect the majority to be dictated to by the whims of a few radicals ... can you?
As for the org ... dragging it's feet ... of course it is ... many of these men have other responsibilities ... pastorships ... and speaking engagements ... furthermore ... as elected officials ... there may be some pandering ....
Have you heard of them revoking the AS that so many have spoken against?
Not gonna happen either.
Are you saying not a single resolution has ever been changed or amended ... in an effort to improve it's efficacy ??? I think not.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 03:53 PM
Are you saying not a single resolution has ever been changed or amended ... in an effort to improve it's efficacy ??? I think not.
You are beginning to obfuscate the obvious here.
:ignore
I'm not UPCI anymore, but I do care about it's future! Actually, believe it or not, I've been praying for the organization.
After reading CW's article, I'm calling on some brave leaders to come forward and spearhead a petition to be signed by as many licensed preachers as possible, to pledge to not leave the UPCI over the TV vote.
Maybe this would help identify the wolves on each side of the debate that are seeking to cause division. What better way to save the fellowship than to take away the wolve's ammunition of consenses.
Why would you want to keep someting from happening that might be the best thing that ever happened to the UPC?
If the ultra cons leave they will be happier and unified in what they believe is the right thing and perhaps the mods and libs left in the UPC will not be hindered from moving into the 21st century.
You are beginning to obfuscate the obvious here.
:ignore
BOOM ... what is the obvious ???... please elaborate .... also please state what's wrong with the wording ... I'm not grilling you ... at least not intentionally ....
I am curious having heard other UPCI ministers state that the wording of Res. 6 bothers them ....
I can't see how ... it in no way opens a door ... it does not allow pastors to have a TV ... and clearly states so ... it only allows a church or ministry the flexibility to advertise on TV.
Why would you want to keep someting from happening that might be the best thing that ever happened to the UPC?
If the ultra cons leave they will be happier and unified in what they believe is the right thing and perhaps the mods and libs left in the UPC will not be hindered from moving into the 21st century.
Although I tend to believe this will be the reality ... Pianoman is an idealist ... what could be wrong with someone being a statesman and seeking unity?
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 04:18 PM
BOOM ... what is the obvious ???... please elaborate .... also please state what's wrong with the wording ... I'm not grilling you ... at least not intentionally ....
I am curious having heard other UPCI ministers state that the wording of Res. 6 bothers them ....
I can't see how ... it in no way opens a door ... it does not allow pastors to have a TV ... and clearly states so ... it only allows a church or ministry the flexibility to advertise on TV.
It does not define "advertising" for one thing. This then will be left up to some to have 5 min spots on the 2AM cable channel for free while others will have 1 hr weekly broadcasts of their services. This very thing has not opened the flood gate for some to start being on TV without it being permissive per the same restrictions now in place. I will have to research again how the original Article VII, Section 7, Paragraph 31 reads also.
I did review it back in August here, and again in September when the Pony Express finally broke through the siege. (I hate the slow means of mail from ST Louis). I will dare say those who have crossed the line will sign their AS and still break the intent of the ban on TV pass or fail.
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 04:24 PM
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org ... you cant expect the majority to be dictated to by the whims of a few radicals ... can you?
As for the org ... dragging it's feet ... of course it is ... many of these men have other responsibilities ... pastorships ... and speaking engagements ... furthermore ... as elected officials ... there may be some pandering ....
Friend,
I believe you have hit on the irritation that most conservatives feel. This has already come before the GB, and has been voted on and defeated. Meaning that the majority agree's with what the bylaws currently state. I for one believe the division is not coming from the Cons, but from those liberal UPC ministers that just will not take NO for an answer. They, in my opinion, are just trying to continue to cut away what is established little by little until they have what they want. If the resolution is voted on this year, and defeated again, I can assure you we will see another attempt within a few years time.
The sad fact is, some are just blatantly defying the bylaws, and doing what they want anyway. So much for ethics and integrity.
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 04:29 PM
For Boom
General Constitution Article VII #31 (pg #42 in 1994 UPCI Ministers Manual) which states:
31. No minister having television in his or her home, shall be permitted to hold license or credentials with the United Pentecostal Church. Furthermore, No United Pentecostal Church minister shall be permitted to advertise or minister on television. This does not preclude unsolicited representatives of the news media covering functions.
It does not define "advertising" for one thing. This then will be left up to some to have 5 min spots on the 2AM cable channel for free while others will have 1 hr weekly broadcasts of their services. This very thing has not opened the flood gate for some to start being on TV without it being permissive per the same restrictions now in place.
BOOM,
Is advertising defined for other types of permitted media used by churches now?
Should the impact committee define, or set a standard for advertising [good grief, more standards]
... can this be solved by simply utilizing a disclaimer?
IF a minister chooses to advertise on TV ... then he only would need to include technical legal wording such as ...
"The opinions and views of this television broadcast are in not necessarily endorsed by, or those of, the United Pentecostal Church, International, or it's constituency.
But if they get into this business of disclaimers then it may have to applied to all local church advertising?
Where were the calls, from the right, for "organizational interference" regulating potentially embarrassing BILLBOARD advertising ......
when,during the movie debut of "The Passion of the Christ", a fellow minister, made remarks on a church sign directed towards the Jewish people that many Christians and non-christians, alike, deemed as INSENSITIVE????
At least, I know a was embarrassed for him. Yet, I didnt expect nor wanted the UPCI to interfere in the matter.
IF I recall correctly, their only organizational response to the BILLBOARD fiasco was to post a disclaimer on our UPCI site that his views did not necessarily reflect the views of the UPCI.
Why only set standards for advertising on TV and not other forms of media???
I suggest they look at all kinds of advertising a church does ... if they go this route, then.
*If not having standards on TV advertising is dangerous ... then does this not apply for all forms of advertising.
* What about inviting folks with a commercial on a worldly music station? *What if someone puts up a billboard at the baseball stadium - an Articles no-no???
* What if teens invite friends to church at SIX FLAGS - an articles no-no???
* or placing an internet banner inviting people to give their lives to JESUS on MTV.com or MYSPACE.COM ... or a church putting a full page ad in the VILLAGE VOICE?
* And what about the unsolicited and illegal Chrisitian spam our churches, and even orgs, are sending us announcing church events??
Friend,
I believe you have hit on the irritation that most conservatives feel. This has already come before the GB, and has been voted on and defeated. Meaning that the majority agree's with what the bylaws currently state. I for one believe the division is not coming from the Cons, but from those liberal UPC ministers that just will not take NO for an answer. They, in my opinion, are just trying to continue to cut away what is established little by little until they have what they want. If the resolution is voted on this year, and defeated again, I can assure you we will see another attempt within a few years time.
The sad fact is, some are just blatantly defying the bylaws, and doing what they want anyway. So much for ethics and integrity.
Sir,
Whether a resolution has been voted on in the past in any organization ... even in Congress ... it does not mean it died.
If the resolution committee resurrect sthis resolution has allowed it ... it's because the process is legitimate and within legality.
If someone does not like resolutions having a second or third life than examine the resolution process ... don't slam the rest of the body ... for voting on said resolution again ... as compromisers or anti-holiness
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 04:35 PM
Daniel, back to severe obfuscation here now.
If a group of ministers takes a DVD of a TV Show none of them would normally miss IF they have a home TV. They take that DVD and distribute it, and discuss the story line- They may as well go ahead and view it on TV.
Some some Einstein's among us have now done that very thing and have Hollywood piped into their homes.
And they sign the AS every other year as if they have never read the resolution.
For Boom
Resolution 6 would amend the latter part of this statement ... all within the legal structure ... sorry.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 04:37 PM
The question I have asked and never received an answer is-
IF the ALJC allows TV in the members homes, what is the largest sized ALJC church using for outreach? Are they on TV themselves?
Daniel, back to severe obfuscation here now.
If a group of ministers takes a DVD of a TV Show none of them would normally miss IF they have a home TV. They take that DVD and distribute it, and discuss the story line- They may as well go ahead and view it on TV.
Some some Einstein's among us have now done that very thing and have Hollywood piped into their homes.
And they sign the AS every other year as if they have never read the resolution.
If this is your position ... then why not state it from the get go .. you are worried about the floodgates being opened not the wording of said resolution ....
Did the org allow TV when it allowed video and monitors decades ago ... on paper no ... why would this be any different ??....
If your argument is it's leading to slippery slope then don't obfuscate with other arguments.
In the end, BOOM ... I think this has nothing to do with Holiness vs Evangelism ...
IMHO, its about money, control and influence ....:ignore :aaa
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 04:41 PM
Sir,
Whether a resolution has been voted on in the past in any organization ... even in Congress ... it does not mean it died.
If the resolution committee that allow to resurrect this resolution has allowed it ... it's because the process is legitimate and within legality.
If someone does not like resolutions having a second or third life than examine the resolution process ... don't slam the rest of the body ... for voting on said resolution again ... as compromisers or anti-holiness
Bro Dan,
Please read your post again, and understand why I posted what i did. Here is the part that I responded to....
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org
The TV issue has been voted on and defeated. From your post about, I have to gather that you thing that all those that want to rehash the tv issue again, and cannot accept the majority vote, have no business staying in the org.
Your words Bro, not mine.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 04:43 PM
Daniel, you have left the UPC,
I have to ask two important questions to understand your postings.
1- Do you have a TV now in your home?
2- Did you have a TV in your home when you were a UPCI licensed minister?
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 04:46 PM
The question I have asked and never received an answer is-
IF the ALJC allows TV in the members homes, what is the largest sized ALJC church using for outreach? Are they on TV themselves?
The two that I know of that are on tv are Bishop Billy McCool in Knoxville, TN and I think they run probably 300, and Bro Kenny Carpenter in Maryville, TN, and I think they are running about 400-450.
Bro Dan,
Please read your post again, and understand why I posted what i did. Here is the part that I responded to....
The TV issue has been voted on and defeated. From your post about, I have to gather that you thing that all those that want to rehash the tv issue again, and cannot accept the majority vote, have no business staying in the org.
Your words Bro, not mine.
I never said such a thing ... Matt ... just because there are laws and statutes in place does not mean we have to give up our principles, or ideas, or that there is no way to re-ignite a vote on it ....
Example: Abortion is the law of the land ... does it mean I agree with it ... No. Can I blow up abortion clinics to make my point ... no. Can I take my house and secede from the Union ... no ... but I can take political action for change ....
This is what has happened with the "dead" TV resolution ... to not allow this to be re-discussed or voted on again ... simply because it's been decided already is to have disdain for the democratic process in place.
Daniel, you have left the UPC,
I have to ask two important questions to understand your postings.
1- Do you have a TV now in your home?
2- Did you have a TV in your home when you were a UPCI licensed minister?
Yes and yes.
As did most ministers ....in my district ... including most district officials ....
Which now leads me to another point ... this issue is already a done deal .... let's get real about it ....
Most of the fellowship's saints have TVs and many of it's ministers do ... whether you think this is hypocritical or not ... even some national leaders do ...
Why not ... accept the realities and move on .... seriously ....
As for the semantics and legalese ... this is going to happen ... what will be interesting is how some will react.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 04:52 PM
The two that I know of that are on tv are Bishop Billy McCool in Knoxville, TN and I think they run probably 300, and Bro Kenny Carpenter in Maryville, TN, and I think they are running about 400-450.
Are they rebroadcasting on TV or are they set up like the lawyers and Auto Dealers hawking the church?
If TV A major part of the advertising/outreach?
Did they do this when smaller?
NW opened his new church and does no outreach now simply because of the size of his congregation.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 04:54 PM
Yes and yes.
As did most ministers ....in my district ... including most district officials ....
Which now leads me to another point ... this issue is already a done deal .... let's get real about it ....
Most of the fellowship has TVs and many ministers do ... whether you think this is hypocritical or not ... even some national leaders do ...
Why not ... accept the realities and move on .... seriously ....
As for the semantics and legalese ... this is going to happen ... what will be interesting is how some will react.
Maybe in a liberal area like you came from, it will happen. In other areas there were/are zero TV's in homes.
How could you then in good conscience sign that you believed the teachings you were in violation of?
Maybe in a liberal area like you came from, it will happen. In other areas there were/are zero TV's in homes.
How could you then in good conscience sign that you believed the teachings you were in violation of?
I didn't sign any AS ... I had my license less than two years ... one of my reasons for resigning was the reason you provided .... if you would like to read my resignation letter ... I'll forward it to you.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 05:02 PM
I didn't sign any AS ... I had my license less than two years ... one of my reasons for resigning was the reason you provided .... if you would like to read my resignation letter ... I'll forward it to you.
Ok, so since you felt you wanted a TV, you left, or due to having to sign the AS?
Not to put you on the spot, simply curious why you are so interested in something when you have no dog in the fight anymore.
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 05:08 PM
I never said such a thing ... Matt ... just because there are laws and statutes in place does not mean we have to give up our principles, or ideas, or that there is no way to re-ignite a vote on it ....
Example: Abortion is the law of the land ... does it mean I agree with it ... No. Can I blow up abortion clinics to make my point ... no. Can I take my house and secede from the Union ... no ... but I can take political action for change ....
This is what has happened with the "dead" TV resolution ... to not allow this to be re-discussed or voted on again ... simply because it's been decided already is to have disdain for the democratic process in place.
I stated nothing concerning the democratic process. I simply took what you stated and used it the opposite way you intended it to be used.
Now as far as you not saying it, I quoted your post Dan. I will quote it again, just in case you missed it.
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org
Now was not the will of the majority shown concerning tv when the tv resolution was voted on several years back and defeated??
Ok, so since you felt you wanted a TV, you left, or due to having to sign the AS?
Not to put you on the spot, simply curious why you are so interested in something when you have no dog in the fight anymore.
I'm interested in seeing non-bible based traditions be shed in THE CHURCH ... BOOM ...
For me, this was never about having a TV ... I always had one .... and could've remained in the org without repercussion ...
Evangelism was also an issue that led me to support Res. 6
And seeing that a small and fledgling minority would, like to dictate the terms for a majority who would like to re-examine this issue and others ... still bothers me. Should it? ... I don't know.
but you're right ....
I don't have a dog in the fight but I do have friends and family in the fellowship that want to see this change also ...
you can't be a part of something your whole life, more that 30 years, and act like it didn't happen ... BOOM.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-25-2007, 05:10 PM
Our BDFL will have to continue this reasoning.
I have to practice a song with MrsBoomm for church tonight and after church I am going to attempt again to crack into the Kubuntu Beta Upgrade I have halfway done.
Daniel, I have been in this for 29 years, and since 1993 have affirmed I will not have a TV in my home.
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 05:14 PM
Are they rebroadcasting on TV or are they set up like the lawyers and Auto Dealers hawking the church?
If TV A major part of the advertising/outreach?
Did they do this when smaller?
NW opened his new church and does no outreach now simply because of the size of his congregation.
They tape their actual services, and then edit and air them at other times. They are on regular tv, and not just public broadcast stations.
Having not attended either much more than a visit, I am not sure what they do to advertise. I do not think they do much advertising tv wise though. Just have the Church broadcast
Bro Carpenter was just going on tv when I was there. I visited because I was working in Knoxville during the week, and going home on weekends. His church was full then (close to 400), so I do not believe they have seen substantial growth from it.
I'm not UPCI anymore, but I do care about it's future! Actually, believe it or not, I've been praying for the organization.
After reading CW's article, I'm calling on some brave leaders to come forward and spearhead a petition to be signed by as many licensed preachers as possible, to pledge to not leave the UPCI over the TV vote.
Maybe this would help identify the wolves on each side of the debate that are seeking to cause division. What better way to save the fellowship than to take away the wolve's ammunition of consenses.
I personally think if there is a shake up. An issue like TV is nothing more than an issue allowing folks to disagree. The issue is not the TV debate. It is that many want to go in a different direction period. TV is an issues that will afford some the escape they have been waiting for....
I stated nothing concerning the democratic process. I simply took what you stated and used it the opposite way you intended it to be used.
Now as far as you not saying it, I quoted your post Dan. I will quote it again, just in case you missed it.
Now was not the will of the majority shown concerning tv when the tv resolution was voted on several years back and defeated??
Of course ... and was it brought back to the table through legal channels and a constitutional process ... YES .....
Did the Supreme court re-examine Plessy vs. Ferguson - segregation- separate but equal ... do institutions re-examine failed policies even whe it was voted on by the majority????
This was last voted when ???? Are we going say that the U.S. constitution is a static document ... that everything that has to stay the way it is because of guys over 200 years ago got it right???
There is a process for bring up resolutions again in the UPCI ... either the right can play by the rules it wants to champion or stifle a democratic process that's HAPPENING TODAY.
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 05:20 PM
Of course ... and was it brought back to the table through legal channels and a constitutional process ... YES .....
Did the Supreme court re-examine Plessy vs. Ferguson - segregation- separate but equal ... do institutions re-examine failed policies even whe it was voted on by the majority????
This was last voted when ???? Are we going say that the U.S. constitution is a static document ... that everything that has to stay the way it is because of guys over 200 years ago got it right???
There is a process for bring up resolutions again in the UPCI ... either the right can play by the rules it wants to champion or stifle a democratic process that's HAPPENING TODAY.
Please explain what you meant by this post then, as from my point of view, you are saying that if someone is not willing to accept the majority vote, they need to leave, and should never have joined.
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org
Please explain what you meant by this post then, as from my point of view, you are saying that if someone is not willing to accept the majority vote, they need to leave, and should never have joined.
This is what I said :
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an orgMatt I have never said you have to agree with the decision made. I can, not agree with something, and still accept the will of the greater body. This can be done for the sake of unity while not compromising your personal convictions
Abortion is the example I gave before ... it's extreme but it can be any type of legislation or policy.
If you can't accept the direction ... or re-direction of the fellowship, or institution, you are part of and champion ... and would rather subvert the process by causing division, accuse others of not being holy or true to your heritage, or hypocritical,
it's best you leave.
The rules allow for changes ... some will not accept that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
Of course ... and was it brought back to the table through legal channels and a constitutional process ... YES .....
Did the Supreme court re-examine Plessy vs. Ferguson - segregation- separate but equal ... do institutions re-examine failed policies even whe it was voted on by the majority????
This was last voted when ???? Are we going say that the U.S. constitution is a static document ... that everything that has to stay the way it is because of guys over 200 years ago got it right???
There is a process for bring up resolutions again in the UPCI ... either the right can play by the rules it wants to champion or stifle a democratic process that's HAPPENING TODAY.
Please explain what you meant by this post then, as from my point of view, you are saying that if someone is not willing to accept the majority vote, they need to leave, and should never have joined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org
__________________________________________________ _______________
First off from the top on down.
No one believes the UPCI will pass a TV resolution for TV.
At the end of the day they will appear from behind the 'Veil" and state the following.
The debate that was rendered on both sides of the isle was a hard fought debate.
Arguments from both sides were spoken.
After much consideration and prayer.
The UPCI will stay out of TV for the foreseeable future.
They will proclaim this as a standard of holiness and not selling out.
My thoughts:
The debate has taken on a personality of it's own over the years...
It will never pass....
The men in this immediate generation do not have vision...
They only see a cause....
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 05:33 PM
This is what I said :
Matt I have never said you have to agree with the decision made. I can, not agree with something, and still accept the will of the greater body. This can be done for the sake of unity while not compromising your personal convictions
Abortion is the example I gave before ... it's extreme but it can be any type of legislation or policy.
If you can't accept the direction ... or re-direction of the fellowship, or institution, you are part of and champion ... and would rather subvert the process by causing division, accuse others of not being holy or true to your heritage, or hypocritical,
it's best you leave.
The rules allow for changes ... some will not accept that.
Funny how the ones that are a part of the majority are being painted as the bad guys. Maybe the minority should move on, and stop causing the division because of their continual attempts to change what the majority want. I hear the ALJC allows tv. What doth hinder them?? Or would they rather cause division in the Majority?
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
Of course ... and was it brought back to the table through legal channels and a constitutional process ... YES .....
Did the Supreme court re-examine Plessy vs. Ferguson - segregation- separate but equal ... do institutions re-examine failed policies even whe it was voted on by the majority????
This was last voted when ???? Are we going say that the U.S. constitution is a static document ... that everything that has to stay the way it is because of guys over 200 years ago got it right???
There is a process for bring up resolutions again in the UPCI ... either the right can play by the rules it wants to champion or stifle a democratic process that's HAPPENING TODAY.
Please explain what you meant by this post then, as from my point of view, you are saying that if someone is not willing to accept the majority vote, they need to leave, and should never have joined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org
__________________________________________________ _______________
First off from the top on down.
No one believes the UPCI will pass a TV resolution for TV.
At the end of the day they will appear from behind the 'Veil" and state the following.
The debate that was rendered on both sides of the isle was a hard fought debate.
Arguments from both sides were spoken.
After much consideration and prayer.
The UPCI will stay out of TV for the foreseeable future.
They will proclaim this as a standard of holiness and not selling out.
My thoughts:
The debate has taken on a personality of it's own over the years...
It will never pass....
The men in this immediate generation do not have vision...
They only see a cause....
Please explain this "charge" that you have laid upon some of the most Godly men I know??
Funny how the ones that are a part of the majority are being painted as the bad guys. Maybe the minority should move on, and stop causing the division because of their continual attempts to change what the majority want. I hear the ALJC allows tv. What doth hinder them?? Or would they rather cause division in the Majority?
The vote will decide who is the minority ... now.
Please explain this "charge" that you have laid upon some of the most Godly men I know??
They are Godly. I do not refute that....
My comments speak to the machine not the individual personalities.
You may label it a "Charge".
The rest of the ecumenical body see's this as a concern...
I am stating the same debate has been waging since 1975.
Why has this debate been allowed to constantly be a reproach on the organization.
Put it to rest this time would they???
The leadership should have put this to bed 30 years ago?
Is that not reasonable?
Nathan Eckstadt
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 05:49 PM
They are Godly. I do not refute that....
My comments speak to the machine not the individual personalities.
You may label it a "Charge".
The rest of the ecumenical body see's this as a concern...
I am stating the same debate has been waging since 1975.
Why has this debate been allowed to constantly be a reproach on the organization.
Put it to rest this time would they???
The leadership should have put this to bed 30 years ago?
Is that not reasonable?
Nathan Eckstadt
According to Dan, it can never be "put to rest", because there is a democratic process that will keep it coming back up year after year until either all the cons leave the org, and let the libs have it, or the libs leave the org, and let the cons have it.
According to Dan, it can never be "put to rest", because there is a democratic process that will keep it coming back up year after year until either all the cons leave the org, and let the libs have it, or the libs leave the org, and let the cons have it.
I never said that Matt ...
but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...
whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...
You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.
This applies to any side.
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 06:09 PM
I never said that Matt ...
but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...
whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...
You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.
This applies to any side.
I did not say you said it. But you did RIGHTLY explain the legal proceedings of the UPCI, and that is why I stated that according to you, it will continue to come up until one side wins, and the other quits fighting.
I did not say you said it. But you did RIGHTLY explain the legal proceedings of the UPCI, and that is why I stated that according to you, it will continue to come up until one side wins, and the other quits fighting.
No one has to win or lose ... this one, brother Matthew ... Perhaps other issues might come up that are more urgent ...
but what gives ... if you allow a pastor/church/ministry the right to advertise using a media that is already about to merge with another accepted media.
TV is not being allowed ... just advertising.
You can allow another person this option without having to exercise it or tacitly endorse it yourself
Those are the facts ... as the resolution presently reads ...
sure there are other factors at work ... but those have a deeper history ... than just TV.
To some this is only about exercising control over the others ... this is true on various sides.
stmatthew
03-25-2007, 06:20 PM
No one has to win or lose ... this one, brother Matthew ... Perhaps other issues might come up that are more urgent ...
but what gives ... if you allow a pastor/church/ministry the right to advertise using a media that is already about to merge with another accepted media.
TV is not being allowed ... just advertising.
You can allow another person this option without having to exercise it or tacitly endorse it yourself
Those are the facts ... as the resolution presently reads ...
sure there are other factors at work ... both those have a deeper history ... than just TV.
To some this is only about exercising control over the others ... this is true on various sides.
Perception is all in the eye's of the one looking. For some it may look to be a control issue. For other, it is something else.
I could say that for some, this is only an attempt to get their foot in the door, so they can come back later and finish the job of completely opening the door to tv.
Perception is all in the eye's of the one looking. For some it may look to be a control issue. For other, it is something else.
I could say that for some, this is only an attempt to get their foot in the door, so they can come back later and finish the job of completely opening the door to tv.
Which of the men of God that you know are really pro-TV ... they are pro- allowing moderation of a media .... like other types of media that can be used for good or evil.
This is my biggest problem with this ... there are sanctified men of God on all sides of this issue throwing barbs at each other claiming they are more spiritual than the other .... that's pretty sickening to me ....
You can be holy with or without a TV ... You may not think it's best for you and your family ... or your flock.. but it is possible ... don't you agree?.
mizpeh
03-25-2007, 06:44 PM
You can be holy with or without a TV ... You may not think it's best for you and your family .. but it is possible ... don't you agree?.
Yes, I agree.
According to Dan, it can never be "put to rest", because there is a democratic process that will keep it coming back up year after year until either all the cons leave the org, and let the libs have it, or the libs leave the org, and let the cons have it.
I just wonder if we will be talking about this in 2015...
Nathan Eckstadt
...
You can be holy with or without a TV ... You may not think it's best for you and your family ... or your flock.. but it is possible ... don't you agree?.
Yes, I agree.
In my opinion, having a tv in my home is no different than having a computer in my home, having a radio in my home, or allowing a newspaper to be delivered to my home. In each case it is up to me to determine what I allow to occupy my mind and thoughts.
Nahum
03-25-2007, 07:55 PM
I have a question.
If this passes, and television is accepted by the majority of the organization, do you think it would be wrong for a conservative UPC pastor to advocate a no tv policy in his church?
I have a question.
If this passes, and television is accepted by the majority of the organization, do you think it would be wrong for a conservative UPC pastor to advocate a no tv policy in his church?
Why not? ... the resolution does not allow for TV's but for TV advertising.
Nahum
03-25-2007, 07:59 PM
What if the org accepts television ownership?
How would you feel about it then?
Would he be wrong to teach that tv is wrong, and that he doesn't want anyone in his church having them?
What if the org accepts television ownership?
How would you feel about it then?
Would he be wrong to teach that tv is wrong, and that he doesn't want anyone in his church having them?
No problem... he can accept the direction of the org ... while keeping his personal convictions for his family and flock.
freeatlast
03-25-2007, 08:02 PM
I have a question.
If this passes, and television is accepted by the majority of the organization, do you think it would be wrong for a conservative UPC pastor to advocate a no tv policy in his church?
Advocate ..is that the same as impose and enforce?
I allready think the conservative pastor is wrong on some of the issues he advocates against, so th evote won't change anything.
Nahum
03-25-2007, 08:11 PM
Advocate ..is that the same as impose and enforce?
I allready think the conservative pastor is wrong on some of the issues he advocates against, so th evote won't change anything.
But do you think he has the right to preach such a standard in his church after the org accepts tv?
No problem... he can accept the direction of the org ... while keeping his personal convictions for his family and flock.
Aren't there some that teach you need to wear long sleeves ... even though the org allows short sleeves
Nahum
03-25-2007, 08:13 PM
Just wanted to see where you all stood.
Just wanted to see where you all stood.
Do you think TV advertising has to "be defined"???
Nahum
03-25-2007, 08:18 PM
Do you think TV advertising has to "be defined"???
No.
The resolution was very clear. Advertising would have included anything that was "paid time" on television. That could have been 30 second spots, or 30 minute programs, or the ownership of a tv station.
It would have eliminated the original language that prohibited preaching and advertising. It would have lumped them together under an "evangelism" heading.
That is why AM said what he did at BOTT. It was nothing new. He was supporting resolution six in its original form.
Nahum
03-25-2007, 08:19 PM
i.e . A standard??
You lost me there. Go on.
No.
The resolution was very clear. Advertising would have included anything that was "paid time" on television. That could have been 30 second spots, or 30 minute programs, or the ownership of a tv station.
It would have eliminated the original language that prohibited preaching and advertising. It would have lumped them together under an "evangelism" heading.
That is why AM said what he did at BOTT. It was nothing new. He was supporting resolution six in its original form.
Should those that do advertise have to place a disclaimer that states something to the effect of ...
"The opinions and views of this television broadcast are in not necessarily endorsed by, or those of, the United Pentecostal Church, International, and/or it's constituency.
You lost me there. Go on.
Never mind ... I think you provided the standards in the original resolution.
freeatlast
03-25-2007, 08:23 PM
But do you think he has the right to preach such a standard in his church after the org accepts tv?
It's America PP freedom of speech and all. He has th eright to preah it the way he see's it.
I have the right to attend and worship in an atmosphere that is not.....
like that :igotit
Nahum
03-25-2007, 08:24 PM
Should those that do advertise have to place a disclaimer that states something to the effect of ...
"The opinions and views of this television broadcast are in not necessarily endorsed by, or those of, the United Pentecostal Church, International, and/or it's constituency.
Very, very few churches that advertise will actually have the name UPC in their church name. (my opinion)
On the other hand, when the org advertises, will it be required to state that this ad does not necessarily reflect the views of individual churches/affiliates?
I don't think that will happen.
You can kinda see where some folks have legitimate concerns, no?
Whole Hearted
03-25-2007, 08:26 PM
Friend,
I believe you have hit on the irritation that most conservatives feel. This has already come before the GB, and has been voted on and defeated. Meaning that the majority agree's with what the bylaws currently state. I for one believe the division is not coming from the Cons, but from those liberal UPC ministers that just will not take NO for an answer. They, in my opinion, are just trying to continue to cut away what is established little by little until they have what they want. If the resolution is voted on this year, and defeated again, I can assure you we will see another attempt within a few years time.
The sad fact is, some are just blatantly defying the bylaws, and doing what they want anyway. So much for ethics and integrity.:thumbsup
You can kinda see where some folks have legitimate concerns, no?
Of course ... if you place a disclaimer on this then it would have to place it on all types of ads ... radio, print, internet ....
but would that placate some of the conservatives ????
Aren't some concerned about be linked with some ministries/churches??
I never said that Matt ...
but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...
whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...
You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.
This applies to any side.
BUMP FOR THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS OF THE RESOLUTION PROCESS.
Nahum
03-25-2007, 08:31 PM
Of course ... if you place a disclaimer on this then it would have to places on all types of ads ... radio, print, internet ....
but would that placate some of the conservatives ????
Aren't some concerned about be linked with some ministries/churches??
We could never placate those that are truly upset to the point of leaving. There will always be an issue that bothers them. That is their nature. I am not trying to be a jerk here, it is just simple truth.
Their concern is that they will lose people to a more liberal church that advertises on tv. My question is how is that possible?
Their church members supposedly do not have television anyway.
Whole Hearted
03-25-2007, 08:36 PM
I have a question.
If this passes, and television is accepted by the majority of the organization, do you think it would be wrong for a conservative UPC pastor to advocate a no tv policy in his church?
That's what I wonder about.
Sherri
03-25-2007, 08:37 PM
That's what I wonder about.
I think a pastor should be able to enforce any standards that he feels like are from God in his own local church. Surely all the churches don't have to be "cookie cutter churches" on every issue.
But do you think he has the right to preach such a standard in his church after the org accepts tv?
The org accepts wedding rings and wrist watches (at least I think it does) and some pastors do not allow them.
freeatlast
03-25-2007, 08:38 PM
We could never placate those that are truly upset to the point of leaving. There will always be an issue that bothers them. That is their nature. I am not trying to be a jerk here, it is just simple truth.
Their concern is that they will lose people to a more liberal church that advertises on tv. My question is how is that possible?
Their church members supposedly do not have television anyway.
Does anybody have any idea how UPC homes are totally free from TV today.
You may be able to find out if you asked their kids. It might be hard to catch them at home as they are probablly over a the nieghbors watching t.... er I mean witnessing tro them. :igotit
I think a pastor should be able to enforce any standards that he feels like are from God in his own local church. Surely all the churches don't have to be "cookie cutter churches" on every issue.
Amen. Church sovereignty should be the order of the day.
Newman
03-25-2007, 08:48 PM
Why would you want to keep someting from happening that might be the best thing that ever happened to the UPC?
If the ultra cons leave they will be happier and unified in what they believe is the right thing and perhaps the mods and libs left in the UPC will not be hindered from moving into the 21st century.
CC1- I agree with you about this. I will still love and honor Ultra Cons and recognize that they may minster to, reach and keep different folks than the Moderates/Liberals.
But by the same token; Moderates/Liberals may be able to reach others that were put off by standards God didn't specificallly legislate.
Consider the Jewish/Gentile divide in Paul's day.
Furthermore, its looking like a broader gap to cross. I can't imagine my son marrying an Ultra Con and I am sure Ultra Cons couldn't even imagine allowing their daughter to date my son (And he is fine young man who loves God and walks right so far as I know).
So, maybe it is time to free each side to pursue God with the freedom of expression that each side wants. At least for my part; I will still love them as family. ;)
berkeley
03-25-2007, 08:54 PM
CC1- I agree with you about this. I will still love and honor Ultra Cons and recognize that they may minster to, reach and keep different folks than the Moderates/Liberals.
But by the same token; Moderates/Liberals may be able to reach others that were put off by standards God didn't specificallly legislate.
Consider the Jewish/Gentile divide in Paul's day.
Furthermore, its looking like a broader gap to cross. I can't imagine my son marrying an Ultra Con and I am sure Ultra Cons couldn't even imagine allowing their daughter to date my son (And he is fine young man who loves God and walks right so far as I know).
So, maybe it is time to free each side to pursue God with the freedom of expression that each side wants. At least for my part; I will still love them as family. ;)
I'm loooovin it!!
freeatlast
03-25-2007, 08:57 PM
CCI / Newman right on the money.
I can't see the UPC being effective as an org in the present state of upheavel.
Let the parties that are so oppsed go there separate ways
Do you think TV advertising has to "be defined"???
Such as my former home Church adverstising their coffee shop and book store?
rrford
03-25-2007, 10:20 PM
I never said that Matt ...
but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...
whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...
You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.
This applies to any side.
I totally agree that the process allows for Resolutions to continually be submitted. I agree that one can work to effect change if they so desire.
But, one cannot blatantly disregard the policy they are seeking to change and expect to be credited with integrity. For instance, you used Plessey Vs. Ferguson as an illustration. While it may be a good illustration and reference let us remember there are penalties enacted upon those who violate the tenet of the law whether they agree with it or not. One is expected to follow the law, work for change, and then, and only then, can one legally change their actions.
Hoovie
03-25-2007, 10:21 PM
CCI / Newman right on the money.
I can't see the UPC being effective as an org in the present state of upheavel.
Let the parties that are so oppsed go there separate ways
What bothers me the most is the intolerance on both sides. Seems they could co-exist without condemnation.
IMHO
What bothers me the most is the intolerance on both sides. Seems they could co-exist without condemnation.
IMHO
Shut up!:toofunny
rrford
03-25-2007, 10:24 PM
We could never placate those that are truly upset to the point of leaving. There will always be an issue that bothers them. That is their nature. I am not trying to be a jerk here, it is just simple truth.
Their concern is that they will lose people to a more liberal church that advertises on tv. My question is how is that possible?
Their church members supposedly do not have television anyway.
Does anybody have any idea how UPC homes are totally free from TV today.
You may be able to find out if you asked their kids. It might be hard to catch them at home as they are probablly over a the nieghbors watching t.... er I mean witnessing tro them. :igotit
Seems to me you answered your own question. If you believe the kids are at the neighbors watching TV then they evidently don't have their own at home. :slaphappy
Nahum
03-25-2007, 10:25 PM
For the record, that was Freeatlast's post, not mine.
What bothers me the most is the intolerance on both sides. Seems they could co-exist without condemnation.
IMHO
On a serious note there are at least two good reasons that does not work;
1. Cons / Ultra Cons - The very nature of their belief system makes them intolerant of others views. They have a very narrow and exclusive set of beliefs. To be "tolerant" of others in something like who you call "brother" and fellowship with is just not going to happen and I understand why. They would not be true to their beliefs if they were "tolerant".
2. Libs - While their tendancy to be inclusive would make it easier for them to tolerate the cons and ultra cons they tend to believe that the extra biblical legalism of the cons / ultra cons places an unreasonablle barrier between the Gospel and the world we are trying to reach.
Now a lot of UPC moderates can probably tolerate both but that doesn't solve the problem!
Hoovie
03-25-2007, 10:36 PM
On a serious note there are at least two good reasons that does not work;
1. Cons / Ultra Cons - The very nature of their belief system makes them intolerant of others views. They have a very narrow and exclusive set of beliefs. To be "tolerant" of others in something like who you call "brother" and fellowship with is just not going to happen and I understand why. They would not be true to their beliefs if they were "tolerant".
2. Libs - While their tendency to be inclusive would make it easier for them to tolerate the cons and ultra cons they tend to believe that the extra biblical legalism of the cons / ultra cons places an unreasonable barrier between the Gospel and the world we are trying to reach.
Now a lot of UPC moderates can probably tolerate both but that doesn't solve the problem!
The above is true, and that is why I find it so troubling. Separation will not solve unchristian attitudes toward fellow believers. But then we know that to be true from the AOG expelling Oneness believers a hundred years ago, right?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.