A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Video Restrictions and the UPC: Time for a Policy Change?

I live in Illinois, and my fair state is not a stranger to out-dated city, county and state ordinances.

Recently, I came across an online posting which stated that it is illegal to spit on a sidewalk in the city of Ottawa, Illinois. At first glance, I was amused that someone would actually take the time to craft such an ordinance, especially considering all of the problems we face in this crazy world. But, after considering it further, I guess I can see the point. After all, nobody wants a walk down a city sidewalk turning into a loogie-dodging gauntlet.

So, maybe somebody with a Joan of Arcish missional fervor took it upon themselves to punish all loogie spitters? “Good for them”, I say.

Trouble is, I don’t think they considered all of the implications of the ordinance.

What if an unsuspecting Ottawaian, while walking upon a city sidewalk, yawns, only to have a big, fat, hairy gnat fly straight into his mouth? What is he to do, spit or swallow?

Now, I recognize that the man could very calmly and rationally step off of the sidewalk before he spits, but, let’s get real, the possibility of him knowing the law and caring enough to comply with it are remote. Especially when one considers the poor guy has a big, hairy gnat in his mouth!

I’m sure the guy who crafted the original ordinance didn’t think about big, fat, hairy gnat-swallowing incidents. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps his intentions were just as good as his foresight was bad?

But, in the end, it is left up to the local police to decide whether or not to enforce an archaic, poorly-crafted city ordinance. Law enforcement will have to decide if the guy really swallowed a gnat or not. And, truth be told, it really doesn’t matter if the guy did swallow a gnat, the law doesn’t allow him to spit on a sidewalk without penalty.

So, what to do? I don’t know how often the good people of Ottawa are compelled to spit upon city sidewalks but, if they do spit, law enforcement will be forced to respond in one of two ways.

First, they could enforce the law. They could issue a citation which would probably lead to a fine and a really, really angry citizen. When the citizen protests the officer could point out, over and over, that “it’s in my manual.” He could overlook the fact that it’s just as gross to spit one inch from the sidewalk as it is to spit ON the sidewalk, even though the law does not address each situation equally. He could completely ignore the fact that the ordinance does not consider all situations, and is therefore, poorly crafted and unnecessary.

Or, the officer could ignore what his city manual says. That’s not a very good idea either. Why? Because laws mean something, and it is not the duty of law enforcement to interpret laws. What if he chose to ignore a theft, a rape or a murder? What if two separate policemen enforce the law in different ways? No, ignoring the ordinance leads to confusion, and the idea that laws are meant to be ignored. Not a good message.

And so we are left with the reality that the only real solution is to change the law. And this should not be a problem considering that government exists to protect citizens, not hurt them. City government must decide whether the ordinance is worth enforcing. It must decide whether the circumstances which birthed the ordinance still exist. Caution must be exercised, so as not to appear duplicitous.

I think we would do well to remember that gag reflexes are perfectly biologically normal, and that some things are just not worth swallowing, no matter what the penalty may be for rejecting them. When faced with the choice of gagging on a gnat or finding oneself on the wrong side of outdated ordinances, most will choose to spit.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

VIDEO (RESTRICTIONS)

Adopted by the General Conference in 1983

Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church International has taken a positive stand against television as an instrument of Satan to defile the church with worldliness through the viewing of movies and other programs which are contrary to holiness and separation unto the Lord, and

Inasmuch as this stand has proven to be ordained of God in contributing in great measure to the safeguarding of the purity of the constituency of the United Pentecostal Church International, [and]

Whereas many other movements which have not taken this position have sadly degenerated in their holiness standards and no longer live separated lives, and

Inasmuch as motion pictures are utilized by the world as the medium by which the basest and most corrupt passions and activities of men are portrayed on the screen, and the United Pentecostal Church International has traditionally opposed said movie films produced for the entertainment of the ungodly world and have permitted the use of this medium among God's people only in such areas as taking pictures of families and friends and the viewing of educational, religious, or inspirational films, and

Inasmuch as video has now come on the scene and is being used to bring in, preserve, and show television programs, movie films, and other impure and ungodly scenes which the United Pentecostal Church International has consistently opposed for many years, and if unrestricted use is permitted, it [video] will jeopardize and destroy the holiness standards of separation from the world which the United Pentecostal Church International [has] consistently upheld for many years relative to television and motion pictures, and

Inasmuch as there are video cassettes offered to the public free at libraries, and [since for a nominal cost video cassettes] are available at rental agencies and video stores consisting of every kind of film including those X-rated, which are the most corrupt, debased, depraved "imagination" of men's hearts which are on evil continually; [and since] video games of all kind are likewise available; [and since] most video sets are equipped with receivers which can show and tape the television channels,

Be it therefore resolved that the use of video be strictly limited to those areas in which motion picture cameras and projectors are traditionally permitted to be used; namely, in taking of pictures of families, friends, and church activities, and the viewing of educational, religious, or inspirational films which are consistent with wholesome Christian principles.

Be it further resolved that we restate our strong opposition to the viewing of all worldly motion pictures and video films as are being shown commercially in theatres and on television for entertainment purposes for the ungodly masses, and the use of them in any form for God's people.

Be it further resolved that all video receivers be so altered as to be
unable to receive television channels.

Be it further resolved that none of our ministers use video in any way except as herein provided.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

I want to go on record and say that this thread was not created to bash the UPC, or any position of the UPC. This thread was posted to discuss the idea that the intent of this particular position paper has been perverted by many, many well-intentioned men and women of God.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Gag and spit?

What colorful word pictures.

Revelation does also use the word emesis which is a hospital item in regards to what God's reaction will be to the luke warm end times church.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Anglin!!!!

Good to see you back!

I thought you had gotten mad at me putting your name on that new org and quit AFF for time and eternity!

Glad to see you again!






"GAG and SPIT"



Stupid bug!

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Needless to say, in my circle, nobody is living by this. I mean nobody.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

This position paper needs updated.

I love the references to "video cassettes." lol. :ursofunny

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Add to this the new "position" that it's okay to advertise on TV, but not own one, and you come away feeling very, very confused.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

It's okay to watch "24", American Idol and Lost online, but it's wrong to watch it on a TV?

It's okay to buy the full season of those shows, but not okay to watch them on TV?

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Definetly got a gag reflex going here Ed...after reading your initial post.

We (the org) is about one extension cord away from being Amish.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

If a man's heart is "only evil continually," what is the purpose of this resolution? There's really no need for a "video" (U-Matic, Betamax or VHS) when one has a continual screed of evil perversion going on in one's head "continually." Just play that "tape" and imagine the carnage and lust.

But I guess that's what the writers and supporters of the resolution were doing.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

I want to be clear here. I am not defending "ungodly" media. I think the authors had good intentions.

But this position is being ignored, in a big way, by the overwhelming majority of men in our movement.

Either enforce this position, or change it.

That's all I'm asking for.

Are we against content, or a box?

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Duplicity is maddening.

Brother, I forgot who you said was forcing you to stay in the UPC. I hear what you're saying and agree with you, but man, sometimes it's best to just make your own resolution to move on to bigger, better things. Is the continuous grappling with the clothesline, make-up, and tv cord really that productive for the things of God?

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

An organization would soon cease to exist if everyone who had a disagreement with some issue bailed. Any time you have an organization, you're going to have issues that have to be discussed. Things will need to be tweaked. Resolutions made, move to the left, move to the right. It's all part of having an organization.

And if something needs tweaked, someone has to bring the issue up.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Should we serve Jesus or an org?

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

I didn't know that was the ultimatum. As a member of an organization (which consists of individuals), all opinions count, because these individuals shape the organization.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

It's possible to serve Jesus and still be part of an organization.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

Not an ultimatum, but certainly an option. To borrow a phrase from the world; you dance with the girl you brung. You have to decide if you bring her to the next dance.

Re: A Closer Look at the UPC's Position on Media
 

To an extent, but at some point, one or the other will have to take a backseat.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the desire to have an inpact on the shape and direction of your org and I don't wish to undermine that. Just some questions that come to my mind.