Hello Blaylock, I made no reference to ministers who stayed in the UPC. I know God can still work in a United Pentecostal Church. I have friends and minister friends whom I believe to be "right with God" in the UPC.
I don't think my head is in the sand. I percieve you and I are very different in what we've been taught. I have no problem with people belonging to the upc.. I just do not care for the direction they seem to be heading. The most important thing I have is my soul and I will be very careful what I fellowship. Forgive me if I came across harsh or judgemental, that was not my intent. God bless.
TR
Are you saying that the men left in the UPCI are not true men of God? Please tell me this isn't true, for if this is what you are saying then you are in a boat load of trouble in life.
Many churches have used TV as a mode of evangelism and are not Charismatic even before the res #4 vote. I would recommend taking your head out from the sand.
And if this is how you feel about the UPCI and want to lump everyone in this category let me tell you friend then even the Amish wouldn't want to fellowship with you.
Herein lies the problem! Unless you are referring to non-UPCI pastors/churches (I don't think you are) that were using TV prior to the passing of res #4, those pastors/churches which did so were in direct violation of the "manual" they were in covenant to uphold. They could have left and followed their heart in being on TV, that would have been fine. Or they could have worked to change the rule, but when they chose to stay and openly violate the rules, that is blatant rebellion.
With all due respect I think those who have lambasted the WPF men, yet applaud those who openly rebel and violate the very covenant they entered into of their own free will (no one made them join the UPCI) are the ones with their head in the sand. Overlook rebellion..........denigrate those who stand on their convictions.......No Thanks!
Herein lies the problem! Unless you are referring to non-UPCI pastors/churches (I don't think you are) that were using TV prior to the passing of res #4, those pastors/churches which did so were in direct violation of the "manual" they were in covenant to uphold. They could have left and followed their heart in being on TV, that would have been fine. Or they could have worked to change the rule, but when they chose to stay and openly violate the rules, that is blatant rebellion.
With all due respect I think those who have lambasted the WPF men, yet applaud those who openly rebel and violate the very covenant they entered into of their own free will (no one made them join the UPCI) are the ones with their head in the sand. Overlook rebellion..........denigrate those who stand on their convictions.......No Thanks!
Bishop I have gained some respect for you due to your posts and at the very least your consistency. My issue has never really been with their convictions even though I do feel them to be somewhat cloudy due to the stance on the internet and other technology. My problem was with the lack of ethics that led to many people (including immediate family members of mine) who expressed no desire to be included and had no prior relationship with the founders (except their UPC connection), receiving the information as a result of using the UPCI mailing list. Once again if anyone did that in anybody's individual church to establish a "more preferred" church they would certainly be crying foul.
Furthermore, I have been involved with and around many sizable UPC churches in large media markets with the means to advertise on TV and I have never seen it done, so I don't believe it is happening anywhere near the extent you are intimating. If there are a few who have (and I'll grant you that if even without you citing specifics because I've already had my coffee today ...I don't believe you can parallel that to the actions that were central to the birth of an organization by all of the founders and facilitators of said organization.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Hi Br. Stewart, I in no way have all the answers, no one does. Technology is out pacing us. To me TV equals hollywood, and its all about making money. To me internet does not equal hollywood. I see internet as a tool. I was on-line for a couple years in the 90's, but I saw the confusion it caused and I didn't want to be a stumbling block for anyone, so I did not have internet for over 8 years. My wife and I recently decided to get on-line with some business opportunities were trying to make work. Internet is not going away, and I feel somewhat a responsibilty to my children, to try to learn, and teach them the right way to educate and be educated via the tools we have available to us. As I said I don't have all the answers. Niether do you, or anyone else on this subject. Internet should have blocks and you should be accountable for everything you do on-line. I do understand internet has the capabilty to be much worse then tv. But to me tv (hollywood) is always wrong and internet is not always wrong. Clear as mud huh??
Your UPC?
Bro I'm not asking for "all the answers". I do realize that there are some things that are outside of the realm of human comprehension. I'm not talking about explaining the fact that God has no beginning. I feel that this is a simple logical question. Why is TV bad and the internet embraced?
I had a very wise instructor at CLC warn us about teaching the principles and not against the technology. The principle would be to set no evil thing before thine eyes period, no matter where it is (magazine, TV, internet, theater, book, etc.) The problem with teaching against the technology is that as the technology progresses, your message becomes obsolete and indefensible. You would basically have to make a committment to shun all technology (hence my Amish statement earlier) in order to be consistent. And you would probably need to go retroactively back to the earlier hard-line stance againt the radio. As to the "hollywood" argument, the thousands of communication and entertainment companies that make money due to television also make money via the internet, radio, telephone service, and through their subsidiary holdings probably profit everytime you go to the grocery store. So TV does not equal Hollywood and Hollywood is nowhere near limited to TV. Truth be told, some Hollywodd fat cat may have made a few dollars off the Branson convention (sorry couldn't resist .
And yes I am UPC. I can sense the sincerity in your posts and in your posts and I hope you can in mine.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Bishop I have gained some respect for you due to your posts and at the very least your consistency. My issue has never really been with their convictions even though I do feel them to be somewhat cloudy due to the stance on the internet and other technology. My problem was with the lack of ethics that led to many people (including immediate family members of mine) who expressed no desire to be included and had no prior relationship with the founders (except their UPC connection), receiving the information as a result of using the UPCI mailing list. Once again if anyone did that in anybody's individual church to establish a "more preferred" church they would certainly be crying foul.
Furthermore, I have been involved with and around many sizable UPC churches in large media markets with the means to advertise on TV and I have never seen it done, so I don't believe it is happening anywhere near the extent you are intimating. If there are a few who have (and I'll grant you that if even without you citing specifics because I've already had my coffee today ...I don't believe you can parallel that to the actions that were central to the birth of an organization by all of the founders and facilitators of said organization.
Thank you for your comments! I have appreciated the spirit in which you have posted, and even though we may not agree on every issue, I do enjoy your input.
I understand your concern about the manner in which the WPF's announcement was broadcast. I am not sure there would have been any good way for them to get the word out (I think their method and motive would have been questioned no matter what) however, I am willing to agree that there may have been a better way.
I have never said that there was widespread TV broadcasting or advertising going on, I simply responded to Blaylock's assertion that "Many churches have used TV as a mode of evangelism and are not Charismatic even before the res #4 vote." I will stand by my sentiment that anyone who did did this was in violation of their covenant with the organization and was being rebellious, dishonest, and lacked integrity. In fact I feel this same way about those that sign the affirmation statement every year and own/watch a TV. They would never accept that kind of blatant disregard from their own members/leaders.
I have often stated, that while I disagree with those who left over the AS back in the 90's, I have great respect for them. At least they were honest and possessed integrity. They refused to sign in agreement for something they could not in clear conscience agree to, and they did not operate outside the manuel in disrespect and rebellion, they simply followed their convictions and left.
I do know that one of the leading men on the committee task to examine the issue leading up to Tampa, when asked why we should change the "law" or rule after all of these years, made the statement, that so many are operating outside of the law/rule that we need to change the law/rule so that they will no longer be violators. (This was quoted to me by the man who asked the question in the meeting, and since I cannot "quote" the answer verbatim I have simply repeated the info.)That is an extremely dangerous ideology. That mindset will lead to the erosion and eventual departure from the truth. IMHO
Thank you for your comments! I have appreciated the spirit in which you have posted, and even though we may not agree on every issue, I do enjoy your input.
I understand your concern about the manner in which the WPF's announcement was broadcast. I am not sure there would have been any good way for them to get the word out (I think their method and motive would have been questioned no matter what) however, I am willing to agree that there may have been a better way.
I have never said that there was widespread TV broadcasting or advertising going on, I simply responded to Blaylock's assertion that "Many churches have used TV as a mode of evangelism and are not Charismatic even before the res #4 vote." I will stand by my sentiment that anyone who did did this was in violation of their covenant with the organization and was being rebellious, dishonest, and lacked integrity. In fact I feel this same way about those that sign the affirmation statement every year and own/watch a TV. They would never accept that kind of blatant disregard from their own members/leaders.
I do know that one of the leading men on the committee task to examine the issue leading up to Tampa, when asked why we should change the "law" or rule after all of these years, made the statement, that so many are operating outside of the law/rule that we need to change the law/rule so that they will no longer be violators. (This was quoted to me by the man who asked the question in the meeting, and since I cannot "quote the answer verbatim I have simply repeated the info.)That is an extremely dangerous ideology. That mindset will lead to the erosion and eventual departure from the truth. IMHO
That one line is I believe sums up the concern that I have about some of what I perceived in some of the actions leading up to Tulsa. I'm not saying that these men are that way, but those actions can very easily be seen that way. These are men that I have heard about my entire life and it was distressing to watch some of the things unfold.
The argument as to "how to get the word out" could be used by everyone leaving a local assembly to start a church in the area. Get the word out by evangelizing and reaching the lost. Not proselytizing and dissemenating info to everyone on the mailing list of an organization.
When it comes to disobeying rules that you have sworn to uphold, I do believe that there are provisions against using the mailing list in this way in the first place. Plus it is very harmful to the kingdom.
As to what your friend heard, I have never heard that as a leading factor in the decision to allow advertising on television. Remember that this was not a vote to install a TV in everyones house. The most consistent commentary I heard was about the inconsistency of a stance that embraces the internet and other very similar technologies that are far more advanced than the typical TV set, while shunning TV advertisements.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Bro I'm not asking for "all the answers". I do realize that there are some things that are outside of the realm of human comprehension. I'm not talking about explaining the fact that God has no beginning. I feel that this is a simple logical question. Why is TV bad and the internet embraced?
I had a very wise instructor at CLC warn us about teaching the principles and not against the technology. The principle would be to set no evil thing before thine eyes period, no matter where it is (magazine, TV, internet, theater, book, etc.) The problem with teaching against the technology is that as the technology progresses, your message becomes obsolete and indefensible. You would basically have to make a committment to shun all technology (hence my Amish statement earlier) in order to be consistent. And you would probably need to go retroactively back to the earlier hard-line stance againt the radio. As to the "hollywood" argument, the thousands of communication and entertainment companies that make money due to television also make money via the internet, radio, telephone service, and through their subsidiary holdings probably profit everytime you go to the grocery store. So TV does not equal Hollywood and Hollywood is nowhere near limited to TV. Truth be told, some Hollywodd fat cat may have made a few dollars off the Branson convention (sorry couldn't resist .
And yes I am UPC. I can sense the sincerity in your posts and in your posts and I hope you can in mine.
TV has been taught against, consistently for well over 40 years. Internet has been around less then 20 years and I've never heard anyone preach totally 100%... against the internet. I do not believe the AMF (ACI) saints have it much less then any other group. The amish won't drive a car or van.. but someone can drive them around in one. If I was to say internet was altogether wrong then get info in any way from the world wide web.. to me..its the same thing as the amish riding in a motor vehicle. It does seem strange the amish cant drive a van but can ride in one. That being said..I have to say I admire the amish for their stand. People (we) have to draw lines somewhere and sometimes the lines seem silly or hypocritical. People who dont believe nothing and have no convictions basically cannot be hypocrits. (sorry i cant spell well). Tv is where a lot of us have drawn the line. As I stated before..my kids are growing up in this fast paced world. And I need to be able to intelligently instruct them. When my kids grow up..they will no nothing of tv.. we dont allow dvd's. But they will know how to safely navigate the www. for education and business purposes. I understand the confusion with the tv/internet comparisons. The bad on tv far outweighs any good. tv is for what?? Your brand of upc was different then mine, obviously. Your bringing up that going to grocery store somehow makes us supporters of hollywood?? I percieve you have no problem with hollywood in your home or anywhere for that matter. I'm not stating this things to make you mad. I personally believe that no Christians have tv's. My Pastor tells me that that is not true and God has people on paths and that we are not to judge. I submit to my Pastor and try to just work on my own nasty self. We are all only going to be saved by the Grace of God. All I know is ultra conservative pentecost. My Pastor and Bishop, Paul and Alfred Deeds.Verbal Bean (tapes). Jonathan Alvear.Edwin Young. DC Moody.LE Westberg. Danny Perdew.Keith Hood.Ed Crider.Phil White. Gary Howard. Robert Davis.Ron Garrett. Meads. Lambeths. Cavaness.Nathan Dudley. Johnny King. Larry Booker. Johnny Godair.Crawford Coon. Nathaniel Wilson. Vaughn Morton.These preachers have shaped me into who I am today. What these men preach.. though I know there is even differences among them. These are the men who taught me against worldliness, and television is nothing else if not worldly. I got a little off track on this post.. forgive me.. i'm tired and have had a long day. God had to reach way down to a horrible cess pool to save me. And I owe him all my mind, heart and strength. I will always be ready to fight for the right. The trick is having the right attitude. I'm not too good at conveying my thoughts on paper (typing). I do believe your sincere and I appreciate your attitude. Talk to you soon.
TR
...These preachers have shaped me into who I am today. What these men preach.. though I know there is even differences among them. These are the men who taught me against worldliness...God had to reach way down to a horrible cess pool to save me. And I owe him all my mind, heart and strength. I will always be ready to fight for the right. The trick is having the right attitude. I'm not too good at conveying my thoughts on paper (typing). I do believe your sincere and I appreciate your attitude. Talk to you soon.
TR
Brother Rutledge...I just need to ask if God was the one who reached down into the cesspool to save you, why then do you need these men to teach you against worldliness...or anyone else for that matter?
You are saying then that worldliness is subjective because if a man doesn't teach on this or that different from his counterpart of the same faith, then what he does not preach against is NOT considered worldly. What stability, continuity or unity does the church have if we are to rely on men...pastor or not to tell us what is worldly?? What happens when we encounter something we need to make our own decision about in a vaccum away from the man telling us what is worldly and what is holy?
When can we get to the point where we have a relationship with Jesus and men called of God actually lead us instead of simply feeling they need to tell us what to and what not to do all the time?
The ministry has put upon themselves their own leaden mantle that they cannot sustain.
This picture is on their website from the Branson meeting, not sure what’s going on but my guess is they are about to get booted for those red dresses.
Oooooooh...we're a happy people yes we are
we're a happy people yes we are
been baptized in Jesus Name,
spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came,
we're a happy people yes we are...
Re: Have You Been to WWPF Lately?
...I don't believe you can parallel that to the actions that were central to the birth of an organization by all of the founders and facilitators of said organization.
I will always be ready to fight for the right. The trick is having the right attitude. I'm not too good at conveying my thoughts on paper (typing). I do believe your sincere and I appreciate your attitude. Talk to you soon.
Linear Mode
