NEWSFLASH . . . UPC in Australia on Television!

[chaotic_resolve]

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?

[Nahum]

No comment.

[Trouvere]

I know that New Zealand broadcast Brother Stonekings rising from the dead
all over the place and the crowd to hear him speak was huge.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

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?

My understanding is that many of the "United Pentecostal Church" org.'s in foreign countries are completely independent legally from the UPCI in the United States.

For that reason I am surprised that they would even need permission from St. Louis to allow TV. I would have thought they would have their own articles of faith, manual, etc.

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

No comment.

Oh c'mon, PP. Just tell us, have you known about this? Am I bringing up old news that's already been discussed? *grin*

[Sherri]

There's supposedly a large UPC church in the Philippines that has been broadcasting their services for a while now. They never mention UPC on TV, and their church has a different name.

[SDG]

Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

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?

Well...........according to all the results we will get from going on TV.......I imagine the WHOLE COUNTRY has been won to the truth by now.......foot they are probably sending missionaries to the US right NOW to come and save us..........give me a break.......

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Well...........according to all the results we will get from going on TV.......I imagine the WHOLE COUNTRY has been won to the truth by now.......foot they are probably sending missionaries to the US right NOW to come and save us..........give me a break.......

How many people would need to get saved in order to justify going on tv? If heaven rejoices over ONE SOUL that repents, what would heaven's opinion be of the church on tv if a few dozen end up getting saved, or a few hundred or a few thousand?

No one says the whole country will get saved as a result. But y'all act like if there are even meager results from televangelism, somehow heaven would look askance at the method.

How about giving us a break---vote yes on Res. #4 and I promise we'll leave you alone. Promise not to even make you watch tv on the cruise ship!

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

Oh c'mon, PP. Just tell us, have you known about this? Am I bringing up old news that's already been discussed? *grin*

This was "breaking news" elsewhere today. I am surprised it made it here so fast.