One Less Anti-TV vote? WD Presybter leaves UPC?

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

These type of **Newsflash** postings have been a part of our group from the beginning. Nearly all need to be taken with a grain of salt and all need to be questioned. I believe Prax did question the validity of the event.

The event is a true account having been told for a long time on another board.

As far as you questioning intelligence....well.

I never questioned intelligence. I said it was clear that Praxeas was intelligent. I meant it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by HappyPastor2

I do think that the term is a slam - based on the context in which you (not soley you) continually use it. It seems humerous to some that someone who has spent many years in an organization, gave to it, invested heavily in it and has loved it now feels compelled to leave it - not because he has changed - but because the stance of the organization is changing. What you seem to call ultra conservative was once the norm across much of our country in the UPCI. I know of one presbyter that some people consider to be ultra conservative that is one of the most balanced people that I know.

That is fine and dandy, but you are assuming that I used the term as a slur.

While the articles of faith have not changed substantially in recent years the attitude of some of our constituency toward what is written there is mere contempt and the enforcement of the articles in line with our written general constitution is almost never pursued by those elected to do so.

Has nothing to do with me nor what I posted

The man of whom you write (if I am correct) has given much over many years to see many souls saved and many churches started. I know of one pastor for whom he recently bought, renovated and furnished a church building. It is a shame to lose someone like that.

I never speculated on the man in this mannor. I simply posted a question and noted because he is a UC this would mean one less vote.

Maybe you would think me ultra conservative. I think the use of television in Apostolic Pentecostal homes is the recipe for disaster in our movement. Generally, those who have it do not even see how utterly worldly they have become. Many of those behind resolution #6 last year are merely trying to justify where they are already at in their compromise. I think that the use many of the video games that I've seen UPC kids and young people involved in as an extreme compromise, I don't wear short-sleeve shirts, I wear only white shirts when preaching, I still believe it is wrong for a Christian woman to cut her hair and fpr a Christian man not to cut his. However, I also despise when preachers preach standards with a bittery acid-like spirit.

Again, that is beside the point...totally irrelevant to what I posted and asked, nor do I care what your position is nor, if I considered you an UC would that be a slur. It would be a disgnation much like the terms liberal, conservative, moderate, neo-con, centrist, leftist etc etc are

I've read enough to know how the term ultra-con is used in a way to demean, rather than praise. While some men ought to be blamed for rabid preaching (which is not holiness), most of those I've seen harangued on AFF are good men and not deserving of the venom spewed here.

I've read some good things that you've written, but I've seen you tend more toward the ranting about people or groups of people painted with a broad brush. You are clearly a bright person. Not many Apostolics would even know who Praxeas was. It is clear that you study the Word, but it would be nice to see you use your talents toward building people up, rather than tearing them down.

I ask again, where did I tear this person down? I did not

I am not trying to judge or condemn; I certainly don't mean it that way. I have friends that are more conservative than me in some respects and others that are more liberal than be in many respects, but we are all still friends. I believe in truth, holiness and UNITY. I do not believe however that we can sacrifice truth (including holiness) for unity - nor can we sacrifice unity for truth. We need both. I don't think that trying to openly label people as liberal, conservative or ultra conservative is beneficial. It only seems to serve to divide the body. Our Articles of Faith in the UPCI have been the core of belief that we decided we could AGREE upon - and we must agree if we are to walk together (Amos 3:3).

You have made some assumptions about me based on what I did not say....

I never speculated once at all about not needing both. In fact I find it bothersome that this or any person, liberal or "UC" should leave over any issue and not rather keep unity 100%. Yet you seem to imply that is exactly what I have said or intended to say.

All I did was ask about it and point out it would mean one less vote on the TV issue against.....That does not make sense ot me anymore than preachers leaving because we don't allow TV when they could very well add their voice of influence and vote

The continual assault of the Articles of Faith and General Constitution of our organization by elements that would like to substantially change the direction of the UPCI with regard to television and other issues is tending to the disunity of the body. That it has gone on with such unchecked fervency to the point where it makes good men wish to walk away from all that they've held dear in the organization is a sad day.

Which is why I find it odd that anyone would leave rather than try to strengthen and edify the UPC...you accused me of attacking and not edifying...you got all that out of me asking about this man and speculating that it would mean one less vote on an important UPC issue? Wow

But then, I would suspect that your opinion will differ from mine. Avieu.

Once again you make assumptions and treat them as fact. You started out that way and here you continue it.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The resolution does NOT seek to promote or approve it. It seeks to "de-legalize" using it for outreach

You'd be wrong there. The exact reason this resolution (and the one before it) was passed was to promote and approve it. The way that both resolutions were written (changing the wording to delete portions of text in a way that made the purpose of the resolution ambiguous unless you went to the Manual to read the deleted portion carefully) was clearly purposely deceptive. Many ministers who were against the use of television for advertising or ministry did not see anything wrong with the resolution until Brother Walters sent out a letter asking them to look more carefully at the craftily-worded resolution.

Fortunately, resolution 1 passed last year that makes it required that deleted text be shown in strike-through character text format. That will make it harder to practice the deception.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

And surely, knowing where you are from, you don't think this is already happening?

Of course it is! I hear on a regular basis how 'ridiculous' it is to take a stand against television.

There is already those who walk in a sham of superiority that look down on us poor peons that still advise our Churches about the unwholesom apsects of television.

Wholehearted, you and I both know they don't need a 'resolution' to do that.

I know I certainly have not needed no stinkin resolution to do that!!!!

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

He will be a Liberal within 2 years...

That would be great news

I've been this same way for 31 years and there will be no change.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I predict the survey will come back with a decidedly conservative tilt. Then the anti-tv guys will guilt everyone who is for the res into submission because after all, the survey clearly showed the "will of the body."

My previous pastor was the lead over the team of reasearchers looking into the tv thing. I ask him if there are any really, really cons on the board for it and he said yes, but he did not give any firm answer on what will happen. He say that he believes that it will most likely pass, but it doesn't then it would be by a slim margin.

If I am not mistaken when they voted last year on it and it was put to the committee that committee reasearches it and then brings the info to the board. I am not sure if they revote, or if the committee makes the final choice. I do not know for sure, but I think that they do not revote if it was put to a committee I think the committee chooses, but I could be wrong.

[vrblackwell]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I was raised up in a ALJC church in Knoxville, Tn. The church there has had tv ministry for about 20 yrs or more. It accually started with a radio broadcast then went to tv. Now the fact of the matter is that tv is the cheapest, quickest way to get into homes. Our broadcast cost I think 400 a month and that is combining the tv and radio. Over the years the cost has increased. But the main thing is that there are about 35 families that have joined the church over the years because of the Tv broadcast.

I am not saying 35 people. Families. Some of the people that have come in have felt the call of God and started ministies. One man and his wife does a church at a truck stop for truckers. 35 families not to mention the people that those 35 have won. That church there runs close to 900-1000 people. Most of which might not have been there if were not for the Tv broadcast. There have been down points though. We were told not to come to several UPC organized events such as choir singing at JCm and others. Now there are no walls there, because we have proved it can be done and stay true the truth!

The bottom line is that no one can ever, ever, ever convince me tv does not work. It might not fly in your area too well, because of time slots or whatever. But it works. My father and I produced the program for a long time and I can tell you it is not too hard to do with the right equipment you can have a great program.

Can I post this on another foum?

[vrblackwell]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

My previous pastor was the lead over the team of reasearchers looking into the tv thing. I ask him if there are any really, really cons on the board for it and he said yes, but he did not give any firm answer on what will happen. He say that he believes that it will most likely pass, but it doesn't then it would be by a slim margin.

If I am not mistaken when they voted last year on it and it was put to the committee that committee reasearches it and then brings the info to the board. I am not sure if they revote, or if the committee makes the final choice. I do not know for sure, but I think that they do not revote if it was put to a committee I think the committee chooses, but I could be wrong.

When the resolution was sent to a committee it was killed. There is no more res. 6. The committee does not make the decision. There must be another resolution put in.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by vrblackwell

Can I post this on another foum?

Yeah you can repost it. As long as it is not reedited to make it different LOL. Yeah I have no problems with it. Did you like the post?

[warrior81680]

Originally Posted by CC1

You do realize that this logic works both ways. The anti TV people use unity as a weapon againist the folks who want to use it in fulfilling the great comission.

This was not a major issue until the pro TV folks brought it up. Now we have to listen to the fact that those of us who are against TV are against unity and evangelism.

Puhleeeeze...