I was speaking with a minister friend of mine about the television ad resolution, though mostly it was me ranting about UPC HQ's (and UC's) restricting the ability to put ads on tv instead of just allowing those who wanted to do it, to do it.
Won't rant again here . . . but for crying out loud, it's not like anyone's being forced to put ads on tv.
The way the UC's bellyache about the resolution, you'd think they were being hogtied and forced to do something they didn't want to do. NEWSFLASH UC's . . . you can continue to not advertise on tv even if this passes. The only thing that would change would be the freedom of choice!
Once again, UC's prove they want nothing to do with allowing freedom to choose. They want rules and regulations with no freedom to choose.
*grin* Back to the story . . .
So I'm talking with him and he drops a bombshell on me . . .
Am I the only one who didn't know that
the UPC HQ has allowed the Australian UPC to use television as a means for evangelism!??! :sshhh
Not sure where this minister got the information, but he insists it's legit and from a minister in Australia who's been on television.
According to him, the UPC in Australia is autonomous and created their own constitution and bylaws, with one exception . . . they must allow HQ in St. Louis to approve changes. And apparently the AUPC requested that they be allowed to use tv for evangelism . . . and HQ approved it!
So why is HQ not allowing it here in the states?!? What's with this inconsistancy of allowing one country to use television, but banning it in the states? I don't remember reading this in the pro-ad section of the Forward. Was it there? Has it been addressed? If not, why not? Shouldn't the ministers here in the states be aware that our brothers in Australia have been using television for a while now, and that they've had good success with it?
Anyone know about this? I trust my friend, but can this be verified by others?
Threaded Mode
