|
]Questions for each group[/B]
If you accept that these new terms work, then I have questions for everyone:
Traditionalists
How will the medium of TV adversely affect the message it carries? Will TV corrupt advertising?
If the UPC’s motto is “The Whole Gospel to the Whole World,” doesn’t television advertising (from a technological standpoint) provide one of the most literal ways to reach the whole world? And if it does, and we still don’t use it, how can our organization suggest that that we are doing our best to reach our society?
Isn’t it possible that the UPC is preventing new ministers from joining because they see this issue as “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”? With the low numbers of young ministers within the organization, isn’t this a legitimate concern?
Many of those ministers who disagreed with the UPC’s last binding “No TV” vote (in 1975 at Fort Worth, TX) stayed in the organization despite their disagreement. Will you show the same respect for unity within the organization if the vote now goes against your stand?
Reluctant Progressives
When television and the internet become more fully integrated, how will the UPCI deal with this technological reality if something like TV advertising is not adopted now?
Do you foresee a time when TV and/or TV advertising will be adopted? Will the passing of time smooth your adoption of TV? How much time will be needed for this to happen?
What will motivate you to leap forward at the right opportunity, thereby shaking up the status quo?
What has either of the other two groups done to help or hinder you in adopting their (and your) position?
Initiators
Television is a cool medium averse to hot emotions (i.e. preaching). Televangelism has an awful reputation. How would Apostolics on TV change that?
If technology is the necessary future of ministry for all of us, what are you now doing on the internet (and other media) to reach souls?
If TV advertising is a good opportunity to spread the gospel, what’s your public plan to help those in the organization who are at least marginally open to the idea to embrace this opportunity?
What evidence would you offer that advertising or preaching on TV would yield positive results? What is the cost-benefit ratio?
Answers from honest hearts will go a long way toward furthering this discussion. The best part is, if we allow ourselves to be challenged enough to rethink our positions, everyone wins.
The Power of Three
Two entrenched positions rarely allows for creativity. The fresh formation of three can accelerate it. Why not get representatives from each group to discuss fascinating offshoots of the media issue? For instance:
How about commissioning someone like Irwin Baxter to try ministering on television for a set time (two years?) then return with his results and recommendations? (He’s uniquely qualified because he’s hosted a thriving radio ministry for many years, has received national media attention, and it’s my understanding he has a standing offer of free air time.)
Shouldn’t our national and regional conferences be including sessions on leveraging all media opportunities for ministry? Wouldn’t that make for thoughtful public discussions, instead of private dialogue, on the merits or demerits of television?
Can’t there be a national plan in place on some type of district approval process necessary before anyone is allowed to create television programming/preach on TV?
Assuming passage of the resolution, couldn’t we create a uniform advertising campaign, like the Mormons did, for everyone to advertise the same message?
Is there anything wrong with allowing television advertising, but stopping there?
These ideas aren’t highlighted because they’re unique and fabulous, but rather brainstormed to promote further creativity. We lose innovation when argument trumps conversation.
Now It’s Your Turn
There are many who believe that television is just a public face for deeper issues between the various camps within the UPC. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s not the point of this assessment. Far better to refocus on the issue at hand in an organization-wide exchange, utilizing more accurate terms, so that everyone can approach it through fresh eyes.
After all, if even the apostles disagreed on the best people and methods available for reaching the lost in their time, there’s no reason to believe we will be any different. However, if we can reach a powerful, amicable position as a wonderfully diverse, but conversing movement, we will be better positioned to turn our world upside down for Him.
© 2007, ninetyandnine.com
-------
Kent Curry is an executive editor at ninetyandnine.com. DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text | Full Headers
|
Threaded Mode
