A Petition Movement to Save the Union

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I have a question.

If this passes, and television is accepted by the majority of the organization, do you think it would be wrong for a conservative UPC pastor to advocate a no tv policy in his church?

Advocate ..is that the same as impose and enforce?

I allready think the conservative pastor is wrong on some of the issues he advocates against, so th evote won't change anything.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Advocate ..is that the same as impose and enforce?

I allready think the conservative pastor is wrong on some of the issues he advocates against, so th evote won't change anything.

But do you think he has the right to preach such a standard in his church after the org accepts tv?

[SDG]

No problem... he can accept the direction of the org ... while keeping his personal convictions for his family and flock.

Aren't there some that teach you need to wear long sleeves ... even though the org allows short sleeves

[Nahum]

Just wanted to see where you all stood.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Just wanted to see where you all stood.

Do you think TV advertising has to "be defined"???

[SDG]

i.e . A standard??

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Do you think TV advertising has to "be defined"???

No.

The resolution was very clear. Advertising would have included anything that was "paid time" on television. That could have been 30 second spots, or 30 minute programs, or the ownership of a tv station.

It would have eliminated the original language that prohibited preaching and advertising. It would have lumped them together under an "evangelism" heading.

That is why AM said what he did at BOTT. It was nothing new. He was supporting resolution six in its original form.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

i.e . A standard??

You lost me there. Go on.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

No.

The resolution was very clear. Advertising would have included anything that was "paid time" on television. That could have been 30 second spots, or 30 minute programs, or the ownership of a tv station.

It would have eliminated the original language that prohibited preaching and advertising. It would have lumped them together under an "evangelism" heading.

That is why AM said what he did at BOTT. It was nothing new. He was supporting resolution six in its original form.

Should those that do advertise have to place a disclaimer that states something to the effect of ...

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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

You lost me there. Go on.

Never mind ... I think you provided the standards in the original resolution.