Considering that many, dare I say most, Apostolics have TV in their homes, exactly how did it separate us, and in what way were we seen differently than the ALJC folks?
HO,
The distinctive was this: we refuse to go on tv with our people, our worship, and our message, because we believe the medium to be unworthy and ineffective.
The distinctive was this: we refuse to go on tv with our people, our worship, and our message, because we believe the medium to be unworthy and ineffective.
I'm having problems understanding where the identification part comes in, that's all. I don't understand how not going on TV identified us as a separate people, especially when we consider that the same was done with radio at one time.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
The distinctive was this: we refuse to go on tv with our people, our worship, and our message, because we believe the medium to be unworthy and ineffective.
How can a medium be "unworthy"? To me this is the entire problem with the ultra con view.
You guys try to humanize technology. Television is nothing more than a means of communication like books, radio, billboards, telephone, etc.
If your gripe is that the majority of the programming is not good then lay that blame at the feet of Christians as they have conceded the medium to the "prince of the air" for the most part.
I find no logic in considering technology evil or "unworthy". It is a conduit and putting the Gospel message in that conduit for some to see and hear that may not any other way is good.
I'm having problems understanding where the identification part comes in, that's all. I don't understand how not going on TV identified us as a separate people, especially when we consider that the same was done with radio at one time.
It was one thing that set us apart, not THE thing.
We were probably the only Pentecostal organization, trinity or oneness, that took that kind of stand.
It was a reflection of our rejection of Hollywood.
(I am finding it very sad to have to speak of this in past tense)
How can a medium be "unworthy"? To me this is the entire problem with the ultra con view.
You guys try to humanize technology. Television is nothing more than a means of communication like books, radio, billboards, telephone, etc.
If your gripe is that the majority of the programming is not good then lay that blame at the feet of Christians as they have conceded the medium to the "prince of the air" for the most part.
I find no logic in considering technology evil or "unworthy". It is a conduit and putting the Gospel message in that conduit for some to see and hear that may not any other way is good.
The content on the medium is expressly controlled by a group of the most ungodly people you could dredge up anywhere--producers.
The content on the medium is expressly controlled by a group of the most ungodly people you could dredge up anywhere--producers.
I guess I just think it makes sense to take 30-60 minutes and redeem it for the Lord. At least people would be getting a bit of God instead of the regular filth.
It was one thing that set us apart, not THE thing.
We were probably the only Pentecostal organization, trinity or oneness, that took that kind of stand.
It was a reflection of our rejection of Hollywood.
(I am finding it very sad to have to speak of this in past tense)
I hear you and can understand where you are coming from, but I find it hard to believe that it's something one considers that sets us apart, especially since 'monitors' have been allowed in pastor and preacher homes for years now, and in order to watch anything, one would have to be in the video store.
That stand made sense when I was a kid, but it hasn't been the case since....oh, at least the last 15 years, from where I am from anyway.
And the separation you speak of existed only among the different Apostolic orgs, because the 'sinner folk' really don't have a clue in that regard. And perhaps that's what you meant anyway.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
I hear you and can understand where you are coming from, but I find it hard to believe that it's something one considers that sets us apart, especially since 'monitors' have been allowed in pastor and preacher homes for years now, and in order to watch anything, one would have to be in the video store.
That stand made sense when I was a kid, but it hasn't been the case since....oh, at least the last 15 years, from where I am from anyway.
And the separation you speak of existed only among the different Apostolic orgs, because the 'sinner folk' really don't have a clue in that regard. And perhaps that's what you meant anyway.
HO,
You keep missing the point.
I know very well that tv's have been in peoples' homes for years.
But we did not minister on television. That is what changed.
We were probably the only tongue talking group of any size that observed this line of separation.
CS, you didn't address the radio issue I brought up. We once taught against it, but have been preaching on it for years now. It's now thought of as no big deal, even though years ago it was seen in the same light that TV is (or was) now.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
CS, you didn't address the radio issue I brought up. We once taught against it, but have been preaching on it for years now. It's now thought of as no big deal, even though years ago it was seen in the same light that TV is (or was) now.
We never took an official stance as a movement against radio like we did tv.
that is the difference.
There were some men who preached against it, but it was never a collective agreement endorsed and ratified by the body of voting ministers.
Linear Mode
