A Petition Movement to Save the Union

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

It has shown to be true here that being left alone and moving on is not gonna happen.

If that were the case some would have not posted such hatred against what they left behind.

I am one who thinks they are dragging their feet on the issue in committee also. It does not take THIS long to get something in wording to the preachers. They can get the requests for $$ printed, get on the ball and move this along. I was disappointed we did not see something in writing when they did table this with a defined timeframe of when they were expecting to answer this.

If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org ... you cant expect the majority to be dictated to by the whims of a few radicals ... can you?

As for the org ... dragging it's feet ... of course it is ... many of these men have other responsibilities ... pastorships ... and speaking engagements ... furthermore ... as elected officials ... there may be some pandering ....

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Have you heard of them revoking the AS that so many have spoken against?

Not gonna happen either.

Are you saying not a single resolution has ever been changed or amended ... in an effort to improve it's efficacy ??? I think not.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Are you saying not a single resolution has ever been changed or amended ... in an effort to improve it's efficacy ??? I think not.

You are beginning to obfuscate the obvious here.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I'm not UPCI anymore, but I do care about it's future! Actually, believe it or not, I've been praying for the organization.

After reading CW's article, I'm calling on some brave leaders to come forward and spearhead a petition to be signed by as many licensed preachers as possible, to pledge to not leave the UPCI over the TV vote.

Maybe this would help identify the wolves on each side of the debate that are seeking to cause division. What better way to save the fellowship than to take away the wolve's ammunition of consenses.

Why would you want to keep someting from happening that might be the best thing that ever happened to the UPC?

If the ultra cons leave they will be happier and unified in what they believe is the right thing and perhaps the mods and libs left in the UPC will not be hindered from moving into the 21st century.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

You are beginning to obfuscate the obvious here.

BOOM ... what is the obvious ???... please elaborate .... also please state what's wrong with the wording ... I'm not grilling you ... at least not intentionally ....

I am curious having heard other UPCI ministers state that the wording of Res. 6 bothers them ....

I can't see how ... it in no way opens a door ... it does not allow pastors to have a TV ... and clearly states so ... it only allows a church or ministry the flexibility to advertise on TV.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by CC1

Why would you want to keep someting from happening that might be the best thing that ever happened to the UPC?

If the ultra cons leave they will be happier and unified in what they believe is the right thing and perhaps the mods and libs left in the UPC will not be hindered from moving into the 21st century.

Although I tend to believe this will be the reality ... Pianoman is an idealist ... what could be wrong with someone being a statesman and seeking unity?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

BOOM ... what is the obvious ???... please elaborate .... also please state what's wrong with the wording ... I'm not grilling you ... at least not intentionally ....

I am curious having heard other UPCI ministers state that the wording of Res. 6 bothers them ....

I can't see how ... it in no way opens a door ... it does not allow pastors to have a TV ... and clearly states so ... it only allows a church or ministry the flexibility to advertise on TV.

It does not define "advertising" for one thing. This then will be left up to some to have 5 min spots on the 2AM cable channel for free while others will have 1 hr weekly broadcasts of their services. This very thing has not opened the flood gate for some to start being on TV without it being permissive per the same restrictions now in place. I will have to research again how the original Article VII, Section 7, Paragraph 31 reads also.

I did review it back in August here, and again in September when the Pony Express finally broke through the siege. (I hate the slow means of mail from ST Louis). I will dare say those who have crossed the line will sign their AS and still break the intent of the ban on TV pass or fail.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org ... you cant expect the majority to be dictated to by the whims of a few radicals ... can you?

As for the org ... dragging it's feet ... of course it is ... many of these men have other responsibilities ... pastorships ... and speaking engagements ... furthermore ... as elected officials ... there may be some pandering ....

Friend,

I believe you have hit on the irritation that most conservatives feel. This has already come before the GB, and has been voted on and defeated. Meaning that the majority agree's with what the bylaws currently state. I for one believe the division is not coming from the Cons, but from those liberal UPC ministers that just will not take NO for an answer. They, in my opinion, are just trying to continue to cut away what is established little by little until they have what they want. If the resolution is voted on this year, and defeated again, I can assure you we will see another attempt within a few years time.

The sad fact is, some are just blatantly defying the bylaws, and doing what they want anyway. So much for ethics and integrity.

[stmatthew]

For Boom

General Constitution Article VII #31 (pg #42 in 1994 UPCI Ministers Manual) which states:


31. No minister having television in his or her home, shall be permitted to hold license or credentials with the United Pentecostal Church. Furthermore, No United Pentecostal Church minister shall be permitted to advertise or minister on television. This does not preclude unsolicited representatives of the news media covering functions.

[SDG]

It does not define "advertising" for one thing. This then will be left up to some to have 5 min spots on the 2AM cable channel for free while others will have 1 hr weekly broadcasts of their services. This very thing has not opened the flood gate for some to start being on TV without it being permissive per the same restrictions now in place.

BOOM,

Is advertising defined for other types of permitted media used by churches now?

Should the impact committee define, or set a standard for advertising [good grief, more standards]

... can this be solved by simply utilizing a disclaimer?

IF a minister chooses to advertise on TV ... then he only would need to include technical legal wording such as ...

"The opinions and views of this television broadcast are in not necessarily endorsed by, or those of, the United Pentecostal Church, International, or it's constituency.

But if they get into this business of disclaimers then it may have to applied to all local church advertising?

Where were the calls, from the right, for "organizational interference" regulating potentially embarrassing BILLBOARD advertising ......

when,during the movie debut of "The Passion of the Christ", a fellow minister, made remarks on a church sign directed towards the Jewish people that many Christians and non-christians, alike, deemed as INSENSITIVE????

At least, I know a was embarrassed for him. Yet, I didnt expect nor wanted the UPCI to interfere in the matter.

IF I recall correctly, their only organizational response to the BILLBOARD fiasco was to post a disclaimer on our UPCI site that his views did not necessarily reflect the views of the UPCI.

Why only set standards for advertising on TV and not other forms of media???

I suggest they look at all kinds of advertising a church does ... if they go this route, then.

*If not having standards on TV advertising is dangerous ... then does this not apply for all forms of advertising.

* What about inviting folks with a commercial on a worldly music station? *What if someone puts up a billboard at the baseball stadium - an Articles no-no???
* What if teens invite friends to church at SIX FLAGS - an articles no-no???

* or placing an internet banner inviting people to give their lives to JESUS on MTV.com or MYSPACE.COM ... or a church putting a full page ad in the VILLAGE VOICE?

* And what about the unsolicited and illegal Chrisitian spam our churches, and even orgs, are sending us announcing church events??