By J. Mark Jordan
Ohio District Superintendent
Since I have been an outspoken advocate of advertising on television, I feel compelled to voice my concerns over the impact it may have on the UPCI. Here, I have no argument to advance, no a, b, c, or 1, 2, 3 points in favor of advertising to make. Rather, I have deeply rooted sentiments to share, from my heart to yours. Whether you agree or disagree with the position I have espoused, please read the following paragraphs. I’ll spare you the oft-repeated litany of all the things the organization has meant to me, but the UPCI is my life. This is an attempt to put the matter into perspective and to let you know that I possess a profound love and appreciation for this fellowship. I hope I can change the minds of those who feel that, should we permit advertising on television, they must leave. All of us need to stay in the organization and continue working in harmony and peace. I pledge to do this. I ask you to do the same.
A wise man once said that there is a difference between simple and simplistic but the nuance is lost on most people. In the current controversy in the UPCI about advertising on television, a simple difference of opinion exists between brethren. The closer we look at the difference, the smaller it becomes. Some of us, however, not willing to let such a hard fought issue die an inconsequential death, seem intent on making it a watershed moment. It would be a sad day for the fellowship if the simplistic view wins out.
A great gulf lies between the UPCI and the rest of the Christian world. We stand united for the oneness position of the Godhead even though the balance of Christianity believes in a trinity. We passionately proclaim the new birth message as we find it in
Acts 2:38, though most people who claim Christianity today embrace something we call “easy believism.” Moreover, we insist that speaking in tongues provides the only biblical proof that one has received the Holy Ghost. We remain strongly committed to the holiness lifestyle as evidenced by modesty in dress, maintaining clear gender distinctions, and separation from the world. While we have always had people on the fringe, the bulk of our fellowship clusters around the middle ground of these convictions. Together, we have been able to keep our conservative profile despite the trends of general Christianity that continue to move in the opposite direction.
I submit to you that the strength to stand firm in our Apostolic doctrine and convictions has been supplied largely by our unity. Even if this seems to be overstating the case, of what possible benefit can disunity be? Do we stand a better chance of survival in a weakened position? Some have marveled that we have stayed together as an organization for sixty-two years since the merger in 1945. I certainly don’t deny that numerous informal factions, cliques and sub-groupings flourish among us, but, despite these strains on our unity, we have managed to lumber along with good success in our home and foreign missions, our publishing house, our youth programs, our ladies and men’s ministries and many other aspects of organized work. Thousands of people have invested millions of dollars and incalculable energy and passion into the great family we call the United Pentecostal Church, International. Any notion that it is all nothing, that it is dispensable, that we can do a better job of reaching the world through division rather than unity is fundamentally unsound. Any spirit that sees greater advantage in infighting and devouring one another than in working with one another is a dangerous spirit.
I hear the voices that spur us on to a cataclysmic break up. They predict that if this controversy goes against them, we will lose everything we’ve ever stood for. While I don’t want to sound contentious, the same voices that once accepted the will of the majority because it was the will of the majority, may now reject the will of the majority for personal and parochial reasons. Different motives drive these individuals. Some have spoken so loudly that they dare not back down. Some have succumbed to the influence of stronger personalities. Some have never had much regard for the organization. Some seek revenge for a supposed wrong and would delight to see those they dislike brought down. Some see opportunity for self advancement. Some philosophize that shake-ups are cathartic. Some, innocently and with integrity, feel compelled by their own conscience to withdraw.
It is to this last group that I make an appeal. I urge you to step back and take in the larger picture of the church of Jesus Christ as it is fulfilled in the UPCI. Are the brethren with whom you have shared in the propagation of the Apostolic message for sixty-two years suddenly so different that you must part company? Are the same fellow laborers with whom you have worshipped, sacrificed, served, worked, given and upheld for many years now worthy of nothing more than a footnote in your life? Are you willing to allow one decision out of thousands to reverse all of the cooperation, all of the support, all of the commitment you have pledged and fulfilled over the years? Will you now, for the sake of one change in policy, destroy the camaraderie you have enjoyed and that has enriched your life and ministry for so long?
If the UPCI should allow this controversy to polarize us into two factions, it would generate grief of greater magnitude than any of us may imagine. Organizationally, we would cause great harm to many ministries now in place, weakening existing ones and starting the duplicates from scratch. It would threaten joint ventures and shared ministries to the point that many may not survive. Socially, it would draw a dividing line down the middle of hundreds of families among both the ministry and the laity. Politically, it would sow a spirit of disunity among Apostolics across town, throughout the nation and around the world. Publicly, it would give our true enemies reason to rejoice. Doctrinally, it would put methodology on the same plane as theology. Strategically, it would put us years behind in a cause that is already lagging woefully behind.
I especially want to sound this note of caution to those contemplating withdrawal: Whatever issue causes you to sever your connection with the organization will become your defining issue. It will overshadow all other concerns in your ministry. I do not say this as a matter of speculation. I have observed this to be the case with many others who have gone down the same path. It will ignite the fire of future partnerships; it will become the focal point of your church and ministerial vision; it will form the shibboleth of all agreements and commitments; and, astonishingly, it will assume an equal or greater motivator for you than your original call to the ministry. Ultimately, the one issue you leave for will be the issue that causes you to shrivel and die. Even worse, it will be the one issue that your progeny will come to despise. No “one-issue” political party has ever survived over the long haul. The danger of this is so great that the Apostle Paul avowed that he would only preach Christ and him crucified.
Threaded Mode
