Why You Should Vote IN FAVOR of Resolution 4

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Most of the bluster is about control and self justification. From my experience it seems as though some "conservatives" have a compulsion to stand up at conferences and to write letters to justify their own salvation.

It's as though they feel they must declare themselves to be holier than the rest of the assembly in order to seal their place in the Kingdom of God. Meanwhile behind closed doors or at private parties they tell obscene jokes and gossip and backbite like school girls.

For their own good, for the real salvation of their own souls, we must do all that we can to help these "conservatives" to see that they can have no place in the Kingdom of God without Jesus justifying them and accounting them holy. Otherwise, all of their bluster, speeches, letters and articles are just filthy rags.

I appreciate your suggestions here, but I consider myself conservative. I am personally not in favor of the TV thing, don't have one and haven't had one since I've been in church. I don't think that everyone who is anti-TV is self righteous or self-justifying. I just don't understand the "I'm going to pull out if TV passes" mentality. As I said before, there are ALREADY things that UPC does and allows that conservative men have been against for years. But the Con's have held their stance in spite of what the UPC does. Why can't they do the same here? i.e. keep their anti TV stance, vote, and then whatever happens just keep preaching what they believe in their own churches? Again, I am boggled by the mentality.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I appreciate your suggestions here, but I consider myself conservative. I am personally not in favor of the TV thing, don't have one and haven't had one since I've been in church. I don't think that everyone who is anti-TV is self righteous or self-justifying. I just don't understand the "I'm going to pull out if TV passes" mentality. As I said before, there are ALREADY things that UPC does and allows that conservative men have been against for years. But the Con's have held their stance in spite of what the UPC does. Why can't they do the same here? i.e. keep their anti TV stance, vote, and then whatever happens just keep preaching what they believe in their own churches? Again, I am boggled by the mentality.

BobbyD, the sentiments that you express here are those of a true conservative. You don't want to unnecessarily meddle in other people's affairs and you seem to take a minimalist approach to legislation. That's real conservatism.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Same applies to the internet of course.

Oh, yeah . . .

Push versus pull media . . .

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

True Christians are highly judgmental?

True Christians discern that the broader effect of the overall product that is television programming produces undesirable character traits in children, and lowers the self-esteem of adults by focusing on perfecting the flesh and fulfilling the desires of the flesh. When they watch a lot of television, children quarrel and fight more, become dissatisfied and materialistic, and are less likely to read or play creatively.

In addition, their view of society is warped by the agenda held by the writers and producers of television. (See David Kupelian's book about it) Male authority figures are almost always portrayed as buffoons, females are fit, pretty and witty. Gays are portrayed as happy, well-adjusted, clever, successful, and usually having the answer.

I disabled my television in 2000. If you watch children play for 10 or 15 minutes, you can easily spot the ones who live in a house where the TV is constantly on. It most certainly influences children, and it's a rare adult indeed that cannot be influenced as well.

By broadcasting services, a church implicitly endorses the medium in general, not just the 3 channels that seldom broadcast things inappropriate but including the 297 channels of societal 'collateral damage.'

Christians should pray for discernment about what things are good for them and what things are bad. They should pray for discernment about what things help them to keep their minds focused on God, and what things cause them to think negatively, or to think that their face, their body, or their car is no longer good enough.

People without the Holy Ghost can discern the effects of television programming. Or they can just observe them, or even *gasp* read the research and studies!

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I appreciate your suggestions here, but I consider myself conservative. I am personally not in favor of the TV thing, don't have one and haven't had one since I've been in church. I don't think that everyone who is anti-TV is self righteous or self-justifying. I just don't understand the "I'm going to pull out if TV passes" mentality. As I said before, there are ALREADY things that UPC does and allows that conservative men have been against for years. But the Con's have held their stance in spite of what the UPC does. Why can't they do the same here? i.e. keep their anti TV stance, vote, and then whatever happens just keep preaching what they believe in their own churches? Again, I am boggled by the mentality.

The militant anti-TV crowd views acceptance of TV to be a litmus of gullibility, discernment, and maybe even spiritual depth. There's no question it can quickly become a time waster, and in some cases people feel addicted to it.

People who feel that TV programming negatively influences the development of character in their children are innately going to prefer to fellowship with like-minded believers. They don't want their children exposed to people who glorify TV, yet are considered brothers.

I can understand the viewpoint, even if I'm not quite fully there myself. Yet.

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I appreciate your suggestions here, but I consider myself conservative. I am personally not in favor of the TV thing, don't have one and haven't had one since I've been in church. I don't think that everyone who is anti-TV is self righteous or self-justifying. I just don't understand the "I'm going to pull out if TV passes" mentality. As I said before, there are ALREADY things that UPC does and allows that conservative men have been against for years. But the Con's have held their stance in spite of what the UPC does. Why can't they do the same here? i.e. keep their anti TV stance, vote, and then whatever happens just keep preaching what they believe in their own churches? Again, I am boggled by the mentality.

There are a couple of things that influence "the mentality" of "pulling out if TV passes," even though "there are ALREADY things that UPC does and allows that conservative men have been against for years." One is simply the old "straw that breaks the camel's back" concept. While you are correct that conservatives oppose MANY things allowed by what appears to be the majority of UPC ministers, there comes a time in which a line must be drawn and individual says, "enough is enough." If there is not SOME line, then gradualism will cause us to accept ANYTHING that comes down the pike.

The second factor is based upon personal experience. I was a relatively new convert when this issue was first discussed (and dismissed by a majority of the brethren). I had just been to a youth camp at which one of the major proponents of TV usage had been the speaker. I came back with an overwhelming sense of admiration and appreciation for his preaching. Then, I received from a backslider informing me that he had just seen the preacher in question on television. I did everything but call him a liar. When the conversation was over, I called my pastor who confirmed the story. I was literally distraught. (I was only 14 years at the time.) I sat down and wrote the man a letter. (He did not respond, however. He chose to ask his secretary to write a response instead.)

Had the UPC decided to allow the use of television in the 1970's, I would NOT have sought to be licensed with them. I joined this organization understanding that it was opposed to the use of television. If they change that stand, then they cease to be the same in substance as they were when I was licensed in 1982.

These are some of the reasons that I will allow my license to lapse if the resolution passes. It is not about being "judgmental" or "holier-than-thou." It is not about "taking my toys and going home" because "I didn't get my way." It is merely a matter of principle for me. I will not go out with a bad attitude. I will not spend my time railing on the organization. I will just sadly walk away, feeling that the UPC has left me, not vice-versa.

I hope that helps to clarify the stand of a number of men, including myself.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by KP

I will just sadly walk away, feeling that the UPC has left me, not vice-versa.

Sorry, and with respect, that just doesn't compute. How have they left you?

Turn it around. If you changed a decision or a demand that you made 20 years ago and someone leaves your church or chooses to walk away from your leadership then that means you've left them?

It doesn't quite make sense really.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

There are a couple of things that influence "the mentality" of "pulling out if TV passes," even though "there are ALREADY things that UPC does and allows that conservative men have been against for years." One is simply the old "straw that breaks the camel's back" concept. While you are correct that conservatives oppose MANY things allowed by what appears to be the majority of UPC ministers, there comes a time in which a line must be drawn and individual says, "enough is enough." If there is not SOME line, then gradualism will cause us to accept ANYTHING that comes down the pike.

The second factor is based upon personal experience. I was a relatively new convert when this issue was first discussed (and dismissed by a majority of the brethren). I had just been to a youth camp at which one of the major proponents of TV usage had been the speaker. I came back with an overwhelming sense of admiration and appreciation for his preaching. Then, I received from a backslider informing me that he had just seen the preacher in question on television. I did everything but call him a liar. When the conversation was over, I called my pastor who confirmed the story. I was literally distraught. (I was only 14 years at the time.) I sat down and wrote the man a letter. (He did not respond, however. He chose to ask his secretary to write a response instead.)

Had the UPC decided to allow the use of television in the 1970's, I would NOT have sought to be licensed with them. I joined this organization understanding that it was opposed to the use of television. If they change that stand, then they cease to be the same in substance as they were when I was licensed in 1982.

These are some of the reasons that I will allow my license to lapse if the resolution passes. It is not about being "judgmental" or "holier-than-thou." It is not about "taking my toys and going home" because "I didn't get my way." It is merely a matter of principle for me. I will not go out with a bad attitude. I will not spend my time railing on the organization. I will just sadly walk away, feeling that the UPC has left me, not vice-versa.

I hope that helps to clarify the stand of a number of men, including myself.

Will you still fellowship men who may disagree with the tv thing, but choose not to exit the organization at present?

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Sorry, and with respect, that just doesn't compute. How have they left you?

Turn it around. If you changed a decision or a demand that you made 20 years ago and someone leaves your church or chooses to walk away from your leadership then that means you've left them?

It doesn't quite make sense really.

Felicity, that one sentence by itself may not make sense, but taken in light of the fact that I JOINED the UPCI with that one issue being a strong factor, then it makes perfect sense to me.

If someone joined my church based on the fact that I was opposed to television (not this alone, but in examining other apostolic churches in the area, mine was among the few which held this stand), and then I changed my stand, then, yes, I would say they could intimate that I had left them.

(How's THAT for a run-on sentence?)

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by Amos

Will you still fellowship men who may disagree with the tv thing, but choose not to exit the organization at present?

Whether or not a person is in the UPC has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I fellowship them -- nor will it EVER have a bearing on my decision. If I get out, I will not criticize -- let alone disfellowship -- those who remain in.