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.
We agree on this point.
__________________ "Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:
And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel."
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?)
LOL! Not bad.
I think if you leave, you're the one doing the leaving. If the majority of the brethren vote yes to the resolution to allow TV advertising for the purpose of spreading the Gospel further and wider, and you decide you can't abide that and you leave, then they have not left you. You have left them. Your reason may be valid according to your own set of beliefs and conviction, but you are the one walking away and that's how they'll see it.
Many things have changed over the years in regard to how people live out their conviction and beliefs about holiness. I can understand the proverbial "this is the straw that breaks the camel's back" and someone saying finally -- "ENOUGH"!
I just can't see TV being "it" myself, because the fact is TV is a fact of life in most homes in the apostolic movement. It's already a fact of life. I can't see doomsday approaching because some apostolic preachers decide to use it as a medium to become hopefully more effective in sharing truth and the message of salvation.
Most won't of course.
I doubt it passes anyhow.
__________________ Smiles & Blessings.... ~Felicity Welsh~ (surname courtesy of Jim Yohe)
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?)
I still don't see where you would think that the fellowship left you if the measure is approved!
You are not required at all to change your stand on TV. You would still be welcomed to be as hard anti-TV as ever before.
Some pastor in another district may decide to advertise, but it won't effect you one way or another, because you can choose not to fellowship that pastor or pastors who do use TV to evangelize.
__________________ Words: For when an emoticon just isn't enough.
I think if you leave, you're the one doing the leaving. If the majority of the brethren vote yes to the resolution to allow TV advertising for the purpose of spreading the Gospel further and wider, and you decide you can't abide that and you leave, then they have not left you. You have left them. Your reason may be valid according to your own set of beliefs and conviction, but you are the one walking away and that's how they'll see it.
Many things have changed over the years in regard to how people live out their conviction and beliefs about holiness. I can understand the proverbial "this is the straw that breaks the camel's back" and someone saying finally -- "ENOUGH"!
I just can't see TV being "it" myself, because the fact is TV is a fact of life in most homes in the apostolic movement. It's already a fact of life. I can't see doomsday approaching because some apostolic preachers decide to use it as a medium to become hopefully more effective in sharing truth and the message of salvation.
Most won't of course.
I doubt it passes anyhow.
Here's my take, Felicity!
If the measure doesn't pass this year, it will certainly pass sometime in the future! Why split up an organization over something that will be a non-issue in the future?
__________________ Words: For when an emoticon just isn't enough.
I still don't see where you would think that the fellowship left you if the measure is approved!
You are not required at all to change your stand on TV. You would still be welcomed to be as hard anti-TV as ever before.
Some pastor in another district may decide to advertise, but it won't effect you one way or another, because you can choose not to fellowship that pastor or pastors who do use TV to evangelize.
To say that I won't be affected is simply not true. I live in a metropolitan area. The church down the street may choose to use television. Furthermore, I fully expect that Headquarters will be using it. I can imagine there will be commercials for the various departments (especially "Compassion Services" from the FMD). When I win a person to God and eventually deal with the television issue, how will they respond, knowing my neighboring fellow-UPC pastor uses it and/or my own organizational headquarters uses it? I simply cannot accept a statement that it "won't affect me at all."
Of course it will, IF I remain in the UPC. If, on the other hand, I win someone, preach against television, and they come to me with "the church down the road uses it" or "UPCI Headquarters uses it," I can calmly explain that, while there are similarities, I am NOT a member of the UPCI. There will be no "guilt by association."
__________________
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and
any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
Winston Churchill
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?)
Forgive me for being a big perplexed here, but are you claiming that you joined the UPCI because of their strong stance against television? If YES is the answer, you honestly feel that if they changed that stance for whatever reason (and there are legit ones out there), you'd feel that the UPCI left you hanging?
Help me out here.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
I still don't see where you would think that the fellowship left you if the measure is approved!
You are not required at all to change your stand on TV. You would still be welcomed to be as hard anti-TV as ever before.
Some pastor in another district may decide to advertise, but it won't effect you one way or another, because you can choose not to fellowship that pastor or pastors who do use TV to evangelize.
Good point.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
To say that I won't be affected is simply not true. I live in a metropolitan area. The church down the street may choose to use television. Furthermore, I fully expect that Headquarters will be using it. I can imagine there will be commercials for the various departments (especially "Compassion Services" from the FMD). When I win a person to God and eventually deal with the television issue, how will they respond, knowing my neighboring fellow-UPC pastor uses it and/or my own organizational headquarters uses it? I simply cannot accept a statement that it "won't affect me at all."
Of course it will, IF I remain in the UPC. If, on the other hand, I win someone, preach against television, and they come to me with "the church down the road uses it" or "UPCI Headquarters uses it," I can calmly explain that, while there are similarities, I am NOT a member of the UPCI. There will be no "guilt by association."
This is the problem with standards at all. For instance, some preach against any and all kinds of jewelry while others say wedding rings and watches are ok. Some preach against any and all kinds of pants on women and others say that culottes are ok.
Not to bring up standards in this discussion (because that's not what's discussed here), but the point is the same as you are stating above, yet those pastors remain with the UPC and have to deal with 'well, the church down the street does it' kinds of comments.
Know what I mean?
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
This is the problem with standards at all. For instance, some preach against any and all kinds of jewelry while others say wedding rings and watches are ok. Some preach against any and all kinds of pants on women and others say that culottes are ok.
Not to bring up standards in this discussion (because that's not what's discussed here), but the point is the same as you are stating above, yet those pastors remain with the UPC and have to deal with 'well, the church down the street does it' kinds of comments.
Know what I mean?
W H A T ?
Are You Saying That
Some Churches Actually Allow
R I N G S
And
C U L O T T E S ?
MY - MY - MY
Next They Will Probally Be
Watching Videos,
Allowing WIMMIN PREECHERS
AND
Be A Singin On The Walls !
JMHO
Bishop1
__________________
" ONE LORD - ONE FAITH - ONE BAPTISM
ONE CHURCH - ONE WIFE "
{ AND THAT, MY FRIEND, IS WHAT WE CALL ONENESS}Greasy Grace
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and
Linear Mode
