Have you seen the latest article from ninety& NIne on the UPC TV Debate ????? Check This Out and leave your opinion - Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TV and the UPC: The Debate’s All Wrong
By Kent d Curry
April 30, 2007
The battle for position in the UPC’s Great TV Debate has begun in earnest. After last year’s resolution to allow advertising on television was delayed for one year, with the promise of in-depth research being released in a future issue of The Forward, the UPC’s ministerial magazine, the issue died down. That is no longer the case.
About a month ago, a booklet of anti-TV essays was sent to every UPC (United Pentecostal Church) minister from some concerned ministers. Now the TV research issue of The Forward is in the mail.
Whether you’re a minister or not, this issue directly affects you—both in the future direction of your individual church and the public perception of your beliefs. However, there has to be room for a more nuanced debate than the mostly “all or nothing” stands currently being proclaimed.
Maybe the best place to start is with the terms used by each side. They’re wrong and need to be altered.
What We Aren’t
At the UPCI’s General Conference 2006 in Columbus, buttons were being distributed that stated, “I’m a Concerned Conservative Pentecostal.”
Frankly, to society, we’re all conservative, because “conservative” and “liberal” are political terms. No matter how you vote, anyone who lives their Apostolic beliefs is a conservative on most political and social issues in today’s United States. Understandably, we have appropriated these terms to define Apostolics within our movement, usually in regards to holiness issues. But inaccurate labels can produce unsound arguments. If we recalibrate the terminology for greater accuracy, we can re-approach this issue in a fresh way, instead of from entrenched positions.
Accurate Terms = Superior Discussion
The Apostolic movement currently fits within three broad camps. Yes, there could be endless sub-groups delineated, but I’ve chosen three because it seems to represent those involved with the last great television debate (at General Conference 2004 in Salt Lake City); there were those who were against ministering on television in any form, those who were for it, and a squishy middle, where more than one person told me, ‘I was for it, but I didn’t feel like it was worth splitting the organization over, so I voted against it.’
There’s also an advantage to crafting three terms, in that while two labels can create instant, unthinking antagonism, three can encourage cooperation and understanding for the good of all. More than three can lead to chaos, factionalism, and political deal-making for the sake of victory alone.
Finally, it’s important these new titles not carry a negative connotation. For instance, if one group is called, “Progressive” that automatically implies another group is “Regressive.” That helps no one. I tried to find titles (with input from others) where those within that group would be just as happy to use them as those outside it. These terms and definitions are not perfect, but they’re more accurate than the polarizing “conservative” and “liberal.” Perhaps their addition to our vocabulary might spur a discussion on who we are and what’s most important in the 21st century.
Behold We Are . . . *
Traditionalists—This group of Apostolic ministers believe the UPCI’s Articles of Faith are largely unimpeachable, that if a minister voluntarily agreed to join the organization then they should have enough integrity to leave it if they won’t abide by them (unless changed by legal means). They are the least likely to adapt to the surrounding cultural changes, seeing as the
Acts 2:38 revival message is unchanged after all these years. Contrary to their stereotype, this group is not age specific, though it’s often associated with the elder generation.
Reluctant Progressives—This group understands that the culture around us has shifted dramatically in the last dozen years. They realize our evangelism methods (not our message) must adjust to these changes to remain effective (which may or may not include television advertising). Their specific challenge is that they’re reluctant to make these adjustments because it will uproot personal habits in which they’ve grown comfortable, and create friction among our movement. Frankly, many realize they will have to spend an enormous amount of energy to redirect their congregations and themselves into a shifting future. They believe all change should be in small, measurable steps and are more likely to agree with the Traditionalists by reinforcing the status quo on most issues.
Initiators—This group initiates change and thereby creates conflict with that change. They embrace the present (which others call “the future”) and its many possibilities, though they don’t always explore the consequences before the initiation begins. Sometimes this creates success, while other times it creates problems. Most agree with our biblical doctrine/standards, but are howling over what they consider our outdated methods to reach society with the
Acts 2:38 message. They skew younger than the other two groups and most often frame the debate in a “local church making a necessary decision” rather than it being an organization-level issue. As a rule, initiators are primarily thinking micro, while the other two are more macro.
I don’t know the percentages of each group. Suffice it to say that they’re all well-represented within the UPC.
Someone please tell Kent he isn't as smart as people credit him for being!
Linear Mode
