Can a District trump TV?

[revrandy]

I was told by a "source" there were plans to pull if said Resolution passed..

[pelathais]

Who plans to "pull" what? Pull The Closer from TNT's fall line up? You've got my blessings. Even tho I've never seen the show and don't get the staccato language and cultural references.

[tv1a]

I may disagree with their stance, but at least they are applying principle acrross the board on this one. No legalism on this issue.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I believe the Western Distrinct has taken an official stand against Video. This is why none of our official meetings are recorded on video or broadcast over the internet

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Sam

Also, aren't things like facial hair on men and women's hair length non issues in some countries as far as the UPC is concerned?

From what I understand they do. I know my friend that is from Burma, now a UPCI evangelist here in the states, goes to movies and he does not see it as wrong if a girl trims her hair. It is all in the mentality of it. Over in these other contries they are out to win the lost no matter what...and they do not let the dress code or other thing cloud their judgement. The fact is that it is all a part of what the culture is about. In Burma, from what I am told is, all about evangelism. They do not get caught up in the nonimportant things.

[Jack Shephard]

I know you have not claimed to be UPC, but with your comments......

Originally Posted by The Closer

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Wow T1 needs to have some protective gear on next time he is around you...You are much live your avatar counter part....by the way since you are sticking up for the UC outlook on TV how do you know the "Closer?" Just curious...

Originally Posted by The Closer

Most of the time I might agree with you, but when you are one who has made it so very clear that the district and organization is so far out of it, then you need to learn to leave it alone, and you sir are the one who needs to get a life.

Prax...grab your protective garb too......incoming......

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

From what I understand they do. I know my friend that is from Burma, now a UPCI evangelist here in the states, goes to movies and he does not see it as wrong if a girl trims her hair. It is all in the mentality of it. Over in these other contries they are out to win the lost no matter what...and they do not let the dress code or other thing cloud their judgement. The fact is that it is all a part of what the culture is about. In Burma, from what I am told is, all about evangelism. They do not get caught up in the nonimportant things.

I really do not mean any disrespect, but I read this and can only shake my head at the lack of ethics that is involved when a man holds credentials with an organization, and then dismisses their governing bylaws to please his own fleshly lust for entertainment.

I will never license with the UPCI, because while there are some great people in it, I do not want to be named with the ones that do these type of things.

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

I answered this on the other thread, but not until late tonight. (My internet has been down all day.)

Here's the answer I provided:

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

I am neither "bright," NOR a District Superintendent (although I used to be the latter). So long as the District manual does not directly violate the General Constitution, there is no problem. Since the General Constitution would not mandate the usage of television, I cannot see where the OK bylaws would have to be amended.

That's just my opinion, and I'm certainly not a "scholar" on these matters. (I only served as DS for three years, and District Secretary for two years before that.)

I hope that helps.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I really do not mean any disrespect, but I read this and can only shake my head at the lack of ethics that is involved when a man holds credentials with an organization, and then dismisses their governing bylaws to please his own fleshly lust for entertainment.

I will never license with the UPCI, because while there are some great people in it, I do not want to be named with the ones that do these type of things.

Well you see the truth that in these other countries the organizations are named U.P.C. Burma, etc.but are not the same UPC as here. They are affiliated with the UPC in the states because many of those works were started by UPC ministers from the states. However, they have their own rules, bylaws and etc. It is a weird thing, but apparently this is how it is in some areas of the world. Out of the states they recognize the "mainlanders" license and vicaversa. Though it is not the exact same bylaws. This is all from what I was told by my friend, which he father was at one time the GS of UPCI Burma.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Well you see the truth that in these other countries the organizations are named U.P.C. Burma, etc.but are not the same UPC as here. They are affiliated with the UPC in the states because many of those works were started by UPC ministers from the states. However, they have their own rules, bylaws and etc. It is a weird thing, but apparently this is how it is in some areas of the world. Out of the states they recognize the "mainlanders" license and vicaversa. Though it is not the exact same bylaws. This is all from what I was told by my friend, which he father was at one time the GS of UPCI Burma.

From my understanding, All missionaries that are send from the USA are under the governing constituency of the US UPC. The Foreign Missions Department is its own district, and they are a part of that district. So they are NOT outside of the bylaws of the constituency.

But you stated this man is no longer in missions anyway, but is evangelizing. So it really does not matter how the missions department is set up. He would have been transfered to a district other than the Missions department if he has left the missions field.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

From my understanding, All missionaries that are send from the USA are under the governing constituency of the US UPC. The Foreign Missions Department is its own district, and they are a part of that district. So they are NOT outside of the bylaws of the constituency.

But you stated this man is no longer in missions anyway, but is evangelizing. So it really does not matter how the missions department is set up. He would have been transfered to a district other than the Missions department if he has left the missions field.

The man in question is not (apparently) licensed by the U.S. UPC, nor the Foreign Missions Department, but by the UPC of Burma (Myanmar). Thus he is under their manual and jurisdiction. If they have no prohibitions concerning movies or whatever, then he has no compulsion in the matter either.

The missionary preaching in his hometown (that is, back in Myanmar), however, is probably licensed by the US UPC and so he must avoid movies in both Myanmar and the US. The Burmese ministers, however, follow whatever strictures that they place upon themselves.