A "Forward" Glimpse Into The Future?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Is this true? I have never heard of such as a requirement for membership.

Create them as we go ....

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Is this true? I have never heard of such as a requirement for membership.

I would say that is probably because of 2 things.

1. The pastor does not have the backbone to preach what he has signed to preach.

2. If he did 3/4 of the congregation would leave.


But hey maybe churches need a little pruning in order to have revival.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

"Hi, come visit our church and when you get here the TV you are now watching this will have to be thrown out"

Some of these Evangelism arguments are so silly. The muslims don't advert on TV- they are the fastest growing religion. The TV issue was settled in 1950, and affirmed again in 1981.

I know of a large church that does NO outreach. They knocked thousands of doors in the beginning, 10 yrs ago, but now have enough continous contact that they still do not need TV to see growth.

Well praise the Lord and pass the beans!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

CCI the analysis is correct to an extent the AMC, the IAM Foundation for missions and now the Apostolic Compass are unitng conservatives in a way such as never before. But a new organization?????????? I seriously doubt that most have had organization up to their ears. There is no interest in it unless it would be a very few. Maybe we are returning to more of an Apostolic pattern as in the NT and leaving the trappings of organizational lives behind.

I was not thinking of an org. in the sense the UPC is but I can see something along the lines of the AMF.

Perhaps a ministerial org. that could license and ordain like minded ministers and have some sort of minimum ultra con standards codified everyone would agree to.

The org could also provide legal standing as a non profit, etc and group benefits.

I think there are a lot of ultra cons who don't neccessarily share the AMF folks disdain for structure and some centralized organization. I am talking about the folks whose only gripe with the UPC is it becoming more "liberal", not one of how it is organized.

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

"Hi, come visit our church and when you get here the TV you are now watching this will have to be thrown out"

Some of these Evangelism arguments are so silly. The muslims don't advert on TV- they are the fastest growing religion. The TV issue was settled in 1950, and affirmed again in 1981.

I know of a large church that does NO outreach. They knocked thousands of doors in the beginning, 10 yrs ago, but now have enough continous contact that they still do not need TV to see growth.

As was noted in the Forward by the pro-ad side, here in my neck of the desert the Mormons advertise all the time on television and they're the fastest growing around this state.

There are Mormon temples and "churches" all over the Phoenix metro and especially in the East Valley area. The ads they run are very generic and not for one specific assembly. They just emphasize family life and community and suggest the viewer visit a local Mormon assembly.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

How did this slip thru???? BTW, I thought you weren't posting any new threads this month????

The board would have collapsed if I had followed through on that statement. I had to post new threads because yours were so hot-July Baptist boring.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

The board would have collapsed if I had followed through on that statement. I had to post new threads because yours were so hot-July Baptist boring.

[CC1]

Many years ago the Pentecostals of Alexandria ran radio ads like that. They were excellent. They were inspirational to just about anybody and the only reference to the church was at the end the announcer said something like "brought to you by your friends, The Pentecostals of Alexandria".

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by SoCaliUPC

Okay....cool.

I am all for presenting both sides in the same publication and given equal weight. Dialogue and discussion can not come from one stand. What I would love to do is hear a panel....equal for and against.

However, back to the article....wonder why they were not allowed to put a name behind the article.

The main reason no names were used is because the articles were actually somewhat of a "conglomeration" of opinions and/or research put forth by the various members of the committee. Each side had a "recording secretary" who gathered information and assembled it into articles. Thus, no one person could be said to have been the author.

That's the way I understand it. My brother-in-law is actually on the committee, and that's the way he explained it to me.

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

This is a paragraph lifted from the special edition released two weeks ago. It was in the middle of the article titled "What effect will television ministry have on the Apostolic church"? It was presented by the tv resolution opponents.

"Adoption of such a resolution would divide our fellowship. While some proponents may feel adoption would have a positive effect, we must accept the fact that division would be inevitable. There might not be a mass exodus at first, but eventually alternatives would surface which would attract a substantial number of UPCI ministers."


Is this code for "hang on guys, we have an alternative in the oven"?

They might join other orgs like Epley's?