A "Forward" Glimpse Into The Future?

[Nahum]

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"?

[SoCaliUPC]

Who wrote the article?

[Nahum]

None of the writers were allowed to identify themselves.

[SoCaliUPC]

So this was just one of many articles...or the main article?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by SoCaliUPC

So this was just one of many articles...or the main article?

Each side was given ten pages. This was a very small snippet lifted from one article. There were several articles presented from each side.

[SoCaliUPC]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Each side was given ten pages. This was a very small snippet lifted from one article. There were several articles presented from each side.

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.

[Nahum]

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.

dunno

You could tell who wrote some of them though.

[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.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

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.

I admit my bias, but I was embarrased for the anti-resoultion camp.

Itwas all doomsday emotional rantings. The idea that they had to use a Charasmatic and an interview from years and years ago spoke volumes regarding how out of touch they really are.

[CC1]

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"?

In my opinion that statement is there for several reasons. First it is factually accurate. Second, and most important, this is a pretty blunt warning that they are going to leave if it passes. I am sure this is intended to once again draw the moderates to their side in the vote under the banner of maintaining unity.

I noticed they did not say alternatives "could" sufrace but rather that alternatives "would" surface. Again I belive this is an intentional message.