*** Newsflash: D Bernard Speaks Out on TV Debate and Upcoming GC***

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

True. However, many conservatives and moderates, like myself, have not stated it was an AoF thing, but, rather, that the end results very well could lead to a change of, or ignoring of, the AoF.

Bro. Bernard is a very wise leader, and I think his addressing of this, at this time, and in this way, shows that. I am glad to know that, whatever the outcome, we will still have men of his caliber amongst us.

Brett, I believe Bernard is providing a "middle ground", a "center." Quite fascinating to see the new middle defined as "advertising is okay, but not ministry."

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

I can, because he is dead on. We cannot, today, possibly foresee every possible twist and turn ahead. We as a movement have GOT to begin to preach, teach, and live from principle, not particular hot button issues. If we do not, it will destroy us as a movement.

But Brett, the rest of us get body slammed for saying the same thing. Why is it right just because Bernard now says it?

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Brett, I believe Bernard is providing a "middle ground", a "center." Quite fascinating to see the new middle defined as "advertising is okay, but not ministry."

You could be right. I think the new middle, though, is that the UPCI should advertise as a function of HQ, and not from local churches.

I personally could accept that. I could also accept ministry from our best speakers, with programming as a function of HQ, and not the local church.

By "accept," I mean that if I were at GC, I could vote for that myself.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

You could be right. I think the new middle, though, is that the UPCI should advertise as a function of HQ, and not from local churches.

I personally could accept that. I could also accept ministry from our best speakers, with programming as a function of HQ, and not the local church.

By "accept," I mean that if I were at GC, I could vote for that myself.

Why?

Our media dept. struggles to be relevant with internet and radio. Why should a guy in an office far away choose how our churches are marketed? BTW, that is not meant as a slam.

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

You could be right. I think the new middle, though, is that the UPCI should advertise as a function of HQ, and not from local churches.

I personally could accept that. I could also accept ministry from our best speakers, with programming as a function of HQ, and not the local church.

By "accept," I mean that if I were at GC, I could vote for that myself.

I would also prefer to see this. However, I am a true conservative and believe in state rights. This works the same with the church. Socialism is never right, not even in the church.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Why?

Our media dept. struggles to be relevant with internet and radio. Why should a guy in an office far away choose how our churches are marketed? BTW, that is not meant as a slam.

I agree. I find it fascinating that some think commercials devised by HQ are the answer and advertising should be limited to that. It makes no sense to me.

To implement something like that is the ultimate in control. It is essentially saying that local churches are not smart enough, creative enough, etc to handle their own advertising.

This would be like saying churches can only use tracts produced by WAF.

[pelathais]

We are being forced to enunciate scriptural principles more clearly and rely upon them more heavily, because no rules are adequate to cover all contingencies and developments.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I can't believe he wrote those words!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not sure I follow your "I can't believe..." I suspect you may be using hyperbole and irony with that statement.

In any event, Bernard's right. Backing up a bit and taking the whole sentence and not just the part that is bolded: he is articulating a very good point. We are increasingly "being forced" to use scripture to support our teachings. Each time we fail to back something up with the Word of God we loose credibility.

By enunciating "scriptural principles more clearly and rely[ing] upon them more heavily" we are leaning upon a more certain foundation than the "rules" that we invent for transitory "contingencies and developments."

And, I like the way he says, "but we should not question the integrity, loyalty, holiness, or Apostolic identity of those who state an opinion on this ministerial rule." Too many of our debates get caught up in a lot of name calling and groundless accusations. Kudos to D.B. on this article.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm not sure I follow your "I can't believe..." I suspect you may be using hyperbole and irony with that statement.

In any event, Bernard's right. Backing up a bit and taking the whole sentence and not just the part that is bolded: he is articulating a very good point. We are increasingly "being forced" to use scripture to support our teachings. Each time we fail to back something up with the Word of God we loose credibility.

Your assessment is fairly accurate pelathais.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by CC1

I agree. I find it fascinating that some think commercials devised by HQ are the answer and advertising should be limited to that. It makes no sense to me.

To implement something like that is the ultimate in control. It is essentially saying that local churches are not smart enough, creative enough, etc to handle their own advertising.

This would be like saying churches can only use tracts produced by WAF.

While I agree with you CC1, I also think I understand why some who would have reservations allowing all TV programing may agree to something offically produced from HQ. TBN and MOST charismatic TV programing is yucky. I would favor some restrictions and HQ oversight to nip any "seed faith" or "health/wealth" teaching in the bud.

[Steve Epley]

Well I for one am not shocked.