Tv Results In The Mail!

[Amos]

I have no plans to immediately leave, but here is how it will affect my relationship:

I will be watching closely for other signs of decay that will prompt my departure, and I will quit sending so much special offering money to HQ.

I'll wait until after the deadline and send my SFC to the district.

[Bishop1]

Originally Posted by Theresa

explain to me how a person is "doing a survey" if they dont respond....

what, you just mail in a blank form?

Y E P ,

They Just Do It Like They Do

The Television Question

On The Affiimation Statement -

THEY JUST LEAVE IT


" B L A N K " !



Bishop1


P.S.
{ I, for one, am NOT going to be leaving the UPCI }

[CC1]

The bottom line is that my prediction still stands and is even reinforced by the results of this survey.

I have always said the resolution will fail because enough mods and libs will vote no to preserve the facade of unity a little while longer.

So the drip, drip, drip, of a few libs and a few ultra cons leaving year after year will continue.

In cities like Houston over the last 20 years you have seen 3 major churches now in the lib camp leave (Grace Church Humble, Jabba The Hut's church in Spring, and the Breakfast Church of Champions).

In the end the UPC may have kept the facade of unity with the vast majority staying but the brain drain will continue.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

btw I seriously doubt we would lose 40% of the contituency. Its easier to say "I'm leaving" than actually doing it. A lot of guys know that if it APPEARS that many would leave, then they can manipulate the vote.

We would see some leave, but we would more likely see a resolution next year rescending the measure or altering it in some way or some other resolution as a reaction to this one.

I don't read anything about 40% leaving... They just see a negative impact from being lumped together with other TV people (like Hinn)

I guess one could argue they have some association with the darker side of Christian evangelism if they even have an internet site... or use printed material... or breathe oxygen... .

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Theresa

explain to me how a person is "doing a survey" if they dont respond....

what, you just mail in a blank form?

Theresa,

There were many questions on the survey. Some people may choose not to particpate in some of the questions but that does not mean they have not participated in answering others.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by CC1

The bottom line is that my prediction still stands and is even reinforced by the results of this survey.

I have always said the resolution will fail because enough mods and libs will vote no to preserve the facade of unity a little while longer.

So the drip, drip, drip, of a few libs and a few ultra cons leaving year after year will continue.

In cities like Houston over the last 20 years you have seen 3 major churches now in the lib camp leave (Grace Church Humble, Jabba The Hut's church in Spring, and the Breakfast Church of Champions).

In the end the UPC may have kept the facade of unity with the vast majority staying but the brain drain will continue.

I am thinking the reverse will happen this year. Cons will become more persuaded to vote yes to keep the unity.

Why?

1. The internet/TV inconsistency is becoming harder to ignore.

2. The question is rapidly not a TV question anymore. - Programs on demand for computers, ipods, phones.

3. It is harder to ignore the very real potential for evangelism.

4. I believe there will be very direct appeals made by people that define the UPC on the conference floor.

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

The question is worded in a vague way. Why not just ask, "Will you cease to be a member of the UPCI if Res 4 passes?" Instead of "will tv advertising affect your relationship with...." I think most people get that, but still there could be some thinking, well, I won't leave, but I won't go to Conference anymore, or something like that. It will affect a lot of people's relationship with the UPCI, but to what extent----QUIT BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AND JUST ASK THE QUESTION, "ARE YOU GONNA LEAVE OR NOT?

The reason the question was not worded as you suggest is because our General Superintendent demanded that it NOT be worded that way. The very day that the motion to send to committee was passed, KH told the General Board that the survey would NOT include a question asking how many would leave if it passed. He said that would provide a "club" for people to try to hold over the head of the UPC.

This is not hearsay. I was there. (For those who don't know, I used to be the District Superintendent of Kansas. I stepped down -- or, more literally, refused to allow my name to run at the end of my term -- in order to focus more of my time and attention on the church I pastor.)

A very close relative of mine served on the committee. He and I discussed this fact. I am not saying that I had any influence, but I reiterated to him that having SOME KIND of question regarding how this decision would affect the constituency HAD to be a part of the survey, or the entire point became meaningless. He agreed, and suggested the "will it affect your relationship with the organization" approach. Knowing that the direct question itself had been prohibited, I believe this was the best the committee could do.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I am thinking the reverse will happen this year. Cons will become more persuaded to vote yes to keep the unity.

Why?

1. The internet/TV inconsistency is becoming harder to ignore.

2. The question is rapidly not a TV question anymore. - Programs on demand for computers, ipods, phones.

3. It is harder to ignore the very real potential for evangelism.

4. I believe there will be very direct appeals made by people that define the UPC on the conference floor.

Have you been stealing Ferd's meds? If your number one point ever became a problem then the conservatives would just totally ban the internet like they have TV, not accept TV!!!!

I really expected the position of no internet that I heard from the pulpit at this years AMC conference in Nashville to be the default position of all cons and ultra cons so have been surprised at how many are on the internet.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

The reason the question was not worded as you suggest is because our General Superintendent demanded that it NOT be worded that way. The very day that the motion to send to committee was passed, KH told the General Board that the survey would NOT include a question asking how many would leave if it passed. He said that would provide a "club" for people to try to hold over the head of the UPC.

This is not hearsay. I was there. (For those who don't know, I used to be the District Superintendent of Kansas. I stepped down -- or, more literally, refused to allow my name to run at the end of my term -- in order to focus more of my time and attention on the church I pastor.)

A very close relative of mine served on the committee. He and I discussed this fact. I am not saying that I had any influence, but I reiterated to him that having SOME KIND of question regarding how this decision would affect the constituency HAD to be a part of the survey, or the entire point became meaningless. He agreed, and suggested the "will it affect your relationship with the organization" approach. Knowing that the direct question itself had been prohibited, I believe this was the best the committee could do.

I did not have the problem with the wording that the good deacon blue had. I thought it was direct enough without drawing a line in the sand.

[Straightline]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

btw I seriously doubt we would lose 40% of the contituency. Its easier to say "I'm leaving" than actually doing it. A lot of guys know that if it APPEARS that many would leave, then they can manipulate the vote.

We would see some leave, but we would more likely see a resolution next year rescending the measure or altering it in some way or some other resolution as a reaction to this one.

To keep the number in right perspective, it was 40% of those who returned the survey, not 40% of the constituency.

It is doubtful that all 935 will leave, but will all take some step backward in involvement. Financial involvement would probably be the most universal step backward for the 935, IMHO.

The pro-tv articles in The Forward could only compel 1175 to vote yes? Must not have been a strong argument.


There can be no deviation in a
Straightline