A Petition Movement to Save the Union
 

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?

They're certainly not sheep, or shepherds trying to "protect" the union. I'm open to a better word! :)

You used it yesterday to describe liberals, Sham.

This is an EXCELLENT IDEA!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps a website could be established ... calling for this unity.

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"

The Unified United Pentecostal Church

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

Have you heard of them revoking the AS that so many have spoken against?

Not gonna happen either.

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 ....

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

For Boom

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??

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

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.

Resolution 6 would amend the latter part of this statement ... all within the legal structure ... sorry.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.