I live in metropolitan Kansas City -- split between Missouri and Kansas. What Missouri allows will be seen by people in eastern Kansas.
Then there is always that last resort trump card one can play (hypothetically of couse - not real cards) relocation - to Guyana.
__________________ "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
I am neither "bright," NOR a District Superintendent (although I used to be the latter). So long as the District manual does not directly violate the General Constitution, there is no problem. Since the General Constitution would not mandate the usage of television, I cannot see where the OK bylaws would have to be amended.
That's just my opinion, and I'm certainly not a "scholar" on these matters. (I only served as DS for three years, and District Secretary for two years before that.)
Thanks for popping this over to the other thread.
It would seem that this would be a better avenue for conservative districts to take rather than everyone pile out....
There will not be a clear mandate either way the vote goes. Why not allow each district to separately determine their stance on the TV issue? This way conservative districts won't be bothered with their churches advertising on TV.
Why not? I'll tell ya why not! Because it's a slippery slope! First thing you know, they'll let districts decide whether jewelery (for instance) will take you to hell or not. Not only that, some districts might leave it up to the churches to decide things! After that, some churches may leave it up to individual believers to decide! Imagine. Letting me (for instance) decide whether I can wear shorts (for instance)!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Why not? I'll tell ya why not! Because it's a slippery slope! First thing you know, they'll let districts decide whether jewelery (for instance) will take you to hell or not. Not only that, some districts might leave it up to the churches to decide things! After that, some churches may leave it up to individual believers to decide! Imagine. Letting me (for instance) decide whether I can wear shorts (for instance)!
I am a firm believer in the slippery slope arguement. If I was an ultra con I would also be dead set against allowing advertising or ministering on TV.
Anything that takes the church into the 20th century (yes I know this is the 21st) endangers the "seperation" doctrine that is carried out to an extreme in old time OP.
Just as they were right about allowing television...er..monitors in churches and homes to view church services and home movies. Almost immediately that was extended to include viewing movies and tv shows on video that were deemed "appropriate".
That meant the pastoral / org. control over something by a total "ban" had been breached. Now they would actually have to teach spiritual maturity and decison making based on morals, common sense, leading of the Holy Ghost, and biblical principles rather than just a laundry list of "don'ts".
Linear Mode
