UPC Pastoral Prediction Thread

[SDG]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

For a "guy like me"? 330 plus posts and you think you know me?

Honestly, res 4 does not factor in my day to day life. I have no aspirations to be on tv, nor do we have the budget for even advertising at this time. But I would like to see those who want to be able to. I probably will advertise one day when we have the budget for it. Right now we're trying to grow a church and pay off a million dollar debt I inherited.

Anytime we can see change that I think is good for our movement, I'm for it. My biggest issue is letting men have the freedom to win their communities any way they see fit without outside interference.

Would you agree that this type of change would beget more change?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I think it will pass with very minimal fallout (less than five percent). No left/right wing splitting. etc.


As an alternative... a compromise may be reached - to allow advertising a professional (headquarters produced) ad to run with local churches adding their information.

This of course would only delay the soon coming open door policy to allow advertising and ministering on TV.

Maybe there should just be a "Don't ask... Don't tell" approach to TV advertising & ministering.

Those who are against won't see it because they don't have a TV... seems like it has a lot of potential to me.

[StillStanding]

There will not be a clear mandate either way the vote goes. Why not allow each district to separately determine their stance on the TV issue? This way conservative districts won't be bothered with their churches advertising on TV.

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

There will not be a clear mandate either way the vote goes. Why not allow each district to separately determine their stance on the TV issue? This way conservative districts won't be bothered with their churches advertising on TV.

be careful piano man , you are making sense, that is dangerous, the fact is that the ucs must save the libs from themselves and that one eyed devil, lol, dt

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

be careful piano man , you are making sense, that is dangerous, the fact is that the ucs must save the libs from themselves and that one eyed devil, lol, dt

After thinking about it, wouldn't it create another war between the states?

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

After thinking about it, wouldn't it create another war between the states?

that would be cool, especially since the ucs are always looking for another fight, lol, dt

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

There will not be a clear mandate either way the vote goes. Why not allow each district to separately determine their stance on the TV issue? This way conservative districts won't be bothered with their churches advertising on TV.

The problem is that there are very few districts if any that are clearly "liberal" or clearly "conservative".

Most are a combination of many perspectives. In particular I am thinking of some of the largest districts like Louisiana, Texas and the Western District.

Can you imagine the discord if a pastor wanting to utilize TV for outreach could not do so because his district voted not to when right next door his neighbor in the district over might be doing it.

I don't think making this a district issue is the answer.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

There will not be a clear mandate either way the vote goes. Why not allow each district to separately determine their stance on the TV issue? This way conservative districts won't be bothered with their churches advertising on TV.

The Oklahoma District already has a prohibition against the use of tv in its district manual...best I can tell it has been in there since the late 70's.

Here is a good question...even if the tv resolution passes...would a district resolution such as this trump the natuional one? Especially since the national stand would be to "allow" the use and not a direct command "to" use tv.

In other words, districts cannot pass bylaws that contradict the national manual....but a district saying, "we don't allow it here" would not be contradictory in that fashion. If the national manual said, "You must use Tv" and the distrct said, "No you don't"...that would be contradictory....

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by CC1

The problem is that there are very few districts if any that are clearly "liberal" or clearly "conservative".

Most are a combination of many perspectives. In particular I am thinking of some of the largest districts like Louisiana, Texas and the Western District.

Can you imagine the discord if a pastor wanting to utilize TV for outreach could not do so because his district voted not to when right next door his neighbor in the district over might be doing it.

I don't think making this a district issue is the answer.

As I stated before, the OK Dist has had their own TV prohibition for years...my guess is that when the KP/MH Tv thing happened in the 70's, OK said, "You let them do it nationally and we'll stop it locally." I can't imagine why they would have this one prohibition in their district constitution other than this..."

It is very interesting to note that the TV prohibition is the only "standard" listed other than the rules for youth camp...all of the other UPC issues are left to the national manual...except the use of TV to promote the Kingdom of God (as it is written)!

[Coonskinner]

T1,

That all took place under C.A. Nelson's watch.

Those were the days.