Television Issue!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Also, this line from that position paper is quite revealing: "Be it further resolved that we restate our strong opposition to the viewing of all worldly motion pictures and video films as are being shown commercially in theatres and on television for entertainment purposes for the ungodly masses, and the use of them in any form for God's people."

So why don't they say we ban people that come to UPC and UPC led churches from being members of those churches if they don't abide by the above rule? Well, they don't say that because they don't have the authority to say it. So what does it mean for UPC and UPC led churches for the UPC to STRONGLY OPPOSE church members from having a TV? Can ministers belong to the UPC and not oppose TV? The affirmation statement made that impossible or should have. So while a local minister may not make no TV a requirement for church membership he should still strongly oppose his members having a TV. If he doesn't, then upon learning that their pastor should be strongly opposed to TV for church members and isn't, then his church members should ask him about this apparent hypocrisy so that he might resolve it by either removing from the org or by beginning to strongly oppose TV for them. So if you are a member of a UPC church under such a pastor that isn't strongly opposed to TV for you then I think it is your duty (now that you have learned he should be opposed to TV) to ask him the hard questions about TV and his membership to the UPC.

So, why don't all you UPCers ask your pastors why he isn't strongly opposed to you having a TV or watching movies when he signed a paper saying he would be strongly opposed to them so that he could get membership to an org that says they oppose God's people (that's you) watching movies and videos for entertainment purposes? Why don't you ask him that?

[DoubtingThomas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Actually there is a little more to your bolded phrase that I want to add. It actually says, "We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."

So I say that if you really believe in Jesus then you will want to spiritually progress and since not having a TV is in the interest of spiritual progress (at least if you can believe the org) then if you really believe in Jesus you won't keep a TV. So the way I see it is, either a UPCer can fall in line and not have a TV or they can try to explain how they can trust the UPC in matters of spiritual progress when you can't trust them about TV's.

Can we not also embolden the last phrase, also? These matters of disapproval: television, modesty, uncut hair, mixed bathing, sports, makeup seemed to have relevance to being "rapture ready" for the soon coming of the Lord to the 1954 body - did it not?

Would it not behoove ministers who are the intended audience of the manual and the technical members of the UPCI to embrace, teach, and preach these matters while remaining integral to the Articles of Faith - the grounds for their ministerial fellowship?

Or perhaps this new tact of revisionism is the way to go? If the framers carefully chose to omit such things as the New Birth and carefully framed and the Fundamental Doctrine to fit a diverse group regarding salvation - maybe they allowed the standards of holiness to be added to the Holiness article nine years after the merger to pass intentionally using what some deem as ambiguous language like "we disapprove" and "we admonish"? Never intending for it to be dicta for all in the fellowship?

However, does this fit with the subsequent position papers of the organization or its literature or its implementation of these standards?

What does this revisionist approach, offered by UPT and Praxeas, look like if it's adapted by the organization? How would it sit with most of the ministers in the fellowship?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So, why don't all you UPCers ask your pastors why he isn't strongly opposed to you having a TV or watching movies when he signed a paper saying he would be strongly opposed to them so that he could get membership to an org that says they oppose God's people (that's you) watching movies and videos for entertainment purposes? Why don't you ask him that?

That is a good point.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So, why don't all you UPCers ask your pastors why he isn't strongly opposed to you having a TV or watching movies when he signed a paper saying he would be strongly opposed to them so that he could get membership to an org that says they oppose God's people (that's you) watching movies and videos for entertainment purposes? Why don't you ask him that?

The UPC pastors I know are not nearly as legalistic as the code-thumpers in this tread.

Who cares what someone found in an obscure code that hasn't been enforced in 35 years?

A current drivers license only allows the licensee to operate within the legal limits of the law. Yet I don't expect anyone to surrender their license or their citizenship because they broke the speed limit.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The UPC pastors I know are not nearly as legalistic as the code-thumpers in this tread.

Who cares what someone found in an obscure code that hasn't been enforced in 35 years?

A current drivers license only allows the licensee to operate within the legal limits of the law. Yet I don't expect anyone to surrender their license or their citizenship because they broke the speed limit.

The obscure code isn't the problem. If that was all I might buy that it is old and outdated. But, the problem is the Affirmation Statement. So, why did we even bring up that old and obscure code? Because there were some here arguing that the Affirmation statement didn't mean pastors should teach no TV's to their congregations. They argued that the language "strongly discourage" only meant it was an opinion and so had no real bearing on church members. Well, the old and obscure code was brought forth as evidence that the no TV clause in the affirmation statement was actually intended to apply to members through the teaching of the local pastor which he agreed to do in the affirmation statement and not by org dictation. It still doesn't have to be a requirement for church membership... but it still should be taught to church membership according to the affirmation statement.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The UPC pastors I know are not nearly as legalistic as the code-thumpers in this tread.

Who cares what someone found in an obscure code that hasn't been enforced in 35 years?

A current drivers license only allows the licensee to operate within the legal limits of the law. Yet I don't expect anyone to surrender their license or their citizenship because they broke the speed limit.

There's no way around it. It's dishonest to sign a paper saying you will do such and such knowing you not.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

There's no way around it. It's dishonest to sign a paper saying you will do such and such knowing you not.

Yep. It would also be dishonest to keep a drivers liscense if you were supposed to surrender it after realizing you had sped. But luckily the state typically only applies fines for speeding and so we get to keep our liscenses.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The UPC pastors I know are not nearly as legalistic as the code-thumpers in this tread.

Who cares what someone found in an obscure code that hasn't been enforced in 35 years?

A current drivers license only allows the licensee to operate within the legal limits of the law. Yet I don't expect anyone to surrender their license or their citizenship because they broke the speed limit.

If you are saying they are not legalistic for refusing to preach against TV then they shouldn't be UPC pastors.

In fact it really amazes me that their membership would actually put up with that and that is the problem I have with the members of a UPC or UPC led church... it's not so much that they have TV's... I mean their pastor don't even preach against them... but it's that after knowing they have a UPC pastor who should preach against TV's but doesn't they don't ever ask him about it.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

There's no way around it. It's dishonest to sign a paper saying you will do such and such knowing you not.

I am sure some might view it that way.

Likewise another could make a case it's dishonest to take citizenship and swear to obey all the laws of the land knowing they will break some.

I would argue it's the spirit and intent of the law that is most important.

[DoubtingThomas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If you are saying they are not legalistic for refusing to preach against TV then they shouldn't be UPC pastors.

Maybe some have chosen to pick and choose which of the disapproved activities are "obscure"? Maybe modesty or makeup or uncut hair will become obscure one day? Perhaps situational ethics is the best way to approach the integrity issue brought about by signing the Affirmation Statement bi-annually?