Another Television Article

[Elihu]

By J. Mark Jordan
Ohio District Superintendent


Since I have been an outspoken advocate of advertising on television, I feel compelled to voice my concerns over the impact it may have on the UPCI. Here, I have no argument to advance, no a, b, c, or 1, 2, 3 points in favor of advertising to make. Rather, I have deeply rooted sentiments to share, from my heart to yours. Whether you agree or disagree with the position I have espoused, please read the following paragraphs. I’ll spare you the oft-repeated litany of all the things the organization has meant to me, but the UPCI is my life. This is an attempt to put the matter into perspective and to let you know that I possess a profound love and appreciation for this fellowship. I hope I can change the minds of those who feel that, should we permit advertising on television, they must leave. All of us need to stay in the organization and continue working in harmony and peace. I pledge to do this. I ask you to do the same.

A wise man once said that there is a difference between simple and simplistic but the nuance is lost on most people. In the current controversy in the UPCI about advertising on television, a simple difference of opinion exists between brethren. The closer we look at the difference, the smaller it becomes. Some of us, however, not willing to let such a hard fought issue die an inconsequential death, seem intent on making it a watershed moment. It would be a sad day for the fellowship if the simplistic view wins out.

A great gulf lies between the UPCI and the rest of the Christian world. We stand united for the oneness position of the Godhead even though the balance of Christianity believes in a trinity. We passionately proclaim the new birth message as we find it in Acts 2:38, though most people who claim Christianity today embrace something we call “easy believism.” Moreover, we insist that speaking in tongues provides the only biblical proof that one has received the Holy Ghost. We remain strongly committed to the holiness lifestyle as evidenced by modesty in dress, maintaining clear gender distinctions, and separation from the world. While we have always had people on the fringe, the bulk of our fellowship clusters around the middle ground of these convictions. Together, we have been able to keep our conservative profile despite the trends of general Christianity that continue to move in the opposite direction.

I submit to you that the strength to stand firm in our Apostolic doctrine and convictions has been supplied largely by our unity. Even if this seems to be overstating the case, of what possible benefit can disunity be? Do we stand a better chance of survival in a weakened position? Some have marveled that we have stayed together as an organization for sixty-two years since the merger in 1945. I certainly don’t deny that numerous informal factions, cliques and sub-groupings flourish among us, but, despite these strains on our unity, we have managed to lumber along with good success in our home and foreign missions, our publishing house, our youth programs, our ladies and men’s ministries and many other aspects of organized work. Thousands of people have invested millions of dollars and incalculable energy and passion into the great family we call the United Pentecostal Church, International. Any notion that it is all nothing, that it is dispensable, that we can do a better job of reaching the world through division rather than unity is fundamentally unsound. Any spirit that sees greater advantage in infighting and devouring one another than in working with one another is a dangerous spirit.

I hear the voices that spur us on to a cataclysmic break up. They predict that if this controversy goes against them, we will lose everything we’ve ever stood for. While I don’t want to sound contentious, the same voices that once accepted the will of the majority because it was the will of the majority, may now reject the will of the majority for personal and parochial reasons. Different motives drive these individuals. Some have spoken so loudly that they dare not back down. Some have succumbed to the influence of stronger personalities. Some have never had much regard for the organization. Some seek revenge for a supposed wrong and would delight to see those they dislike brought down. Some see opportunity for self advancement. Some philosophize that shake-ups are cathartic. Some, innocently and with integrity, feel compelled by their own conscience to withdraw.

It is to this last group that I make an appeal. I urge you to step back and take in the larger picture of the church of Jesus Christ as it is fulfilled in the UPCI. Are the brethren with whom you have shared in the propagation of the Apostolic message for sixty-two years suddenly so different that you must part company? Are the same fellow laborers with whom you have worshipped, sacrificed, served, worked, given and upheld for many years now worthy of nothing more than a footnote in your life? Are you willing to allow one decision out of thousands to reverse all of the cooperation, all of the support, all of the commitment you have pledged and fulfilled over the years? Will you now, for the sake of one change in policy, destroy the camaraderie you have enjoyed and that has enriched your life and ministry for so long?

If the UPCI should allow this controversy to polarize us into two factions, it would generate grief of greater magnitude than any of us may imagine. Organizationally, we would cause great harm to many ministries now in place, weakening existing ones and starting the duplicates from scratch. It would threaten joint ventures and shared ministries to the point that many may not survive. Socially, it would draw a dividing line down the middle of hundreds of families among both the ministry and the laity. Politically, it would sow a spirit of disunity among Apostolics across town, throughout the nation and around the world. Publicly, it would give our true enemies reason to rejoice. Doctrinally, it would put methodology on the same plane as theology. Strategically, it would put us years behind in a cause that is already lagging woefully behind.

I especially want to sound this note of caution to those contemplating withdrawal: Whatever issue causes you to sever your connection with the organization will become your defining issue. It will overshadow all other concerns in your ministry. I do not say this as a matter of speculation. I have observed this to be the case with many others who have gone down the same path. It will ignite the fire of future partnerships; it will become the focal point of your church and ministerial vision; it will form the shibboleth of all agreements and commitments; and, astonishingly, it will assume an equal or greater motivator for you than your original call to the ministry. Ultimately, the one issue you leave for will be the issue that causes you to shrivel and die. Even worse, it will be the one issue that your progeny will come to despise. No “one-issue” political party has ever survived over the long haul. The danger of this is so great that the Apostle Paul avowed that he would only preach Christ and him crucified.

[Elihu]

continued...,

A prominent minister on the east coast, one whom certainly would not be labeled as a liberal, has written a powerful paper urging us to stay together and continue to do what we have always done. He contends that permitting fellow ministers to advertise on television does not force change on any minister’s convictions or chosen methods. I agree. No other provision in the ministerial manual will change. No other requirement for ethical and moral ministerial conduct will be deleted. No doctrine, no article of faith, no standard of holiness—nothing else—will be affected by this provision. In other words, any decision to part company with the UPCI because of a possible methods change in Tampa will be made on the smallest basis imaginable. Yet, some are looking at this as a life or death proposition. In my heart, I do not believe that perception has any substance.

The technology wars in the UPCI, from the middle 1950’s into the twenty-first century, has caused us unrelenting turmoil. This latest crisis is only another battle in the larger conflict. However this battle gets resolved has no bearing on my commitment to my organization. If the vote goes against me, I’ve had my say and I’m happy with that. I will remain a part of the UPCI and will cooperate in harmony as I always have. If it goes the way I would like for it to go, I will not gloat. I will understand the chagrin and disappointment that will settle on the hearts of the opponents. My plea is that our commitment to unity would continue to outweigh our desire to contend for our viewpoints.

To those who see this as a watershed event, you are doing a disservice to us all. I ask you to cease and desist. Do not weaken us under the guise of strengthening us. Do not injure the body by insisting you are healing the body. It may turn out that the limb you amputate has suffered only a minor scratch and could easily have been nursed back to health. If you truly have convictions against advertising on television, don’t do it. Be true to your convictions. At the same time, don’t mischaracterize my motives should I choose to avail myself of this method. If I harm you by advertising, let me know. Deal with me on the basis of actual harm than on supposed harm. Propose some new legislation that will protect you if you feel you need further protection. The last thing I want to do is to hurt you. Approach this in the same way we have always dealt with problems between ministers and churches. More than anything, respect my passion to reach the lost by any means possible. We are brothers in the same cause, not enemies in separate or competing causes. Had I wanted to hurt you, I would have found dozens of ways before now to do it. Just let me be free to follow my own conscience, even as I think you should be free to follow yours.

Polarization divides and weakens. I plead with my fellow ministers to refuse to let it happen. Going into Tampa, the United Pentecostal Church, International is the best oneness Pentecostal organization I know about. Coming out of Tampa, I want us to be able to say the same thing. Let us redouble our efforts to reach the world, not divide our efforts to service lesser visions. TV advertising or no TV advertising, the lost we reach will thank us for staying united. God bless you.


[this article was written by J. Mark Jordan, Ohio District Superintendent]

[Nahum]

If the UPCI should allow this controversy to polarize us into two factions, it would generate grief of greater magnitude than any of us may imagine. Organizationally, we would cause great harm to many ministries now in place, weakening existing ones and starting the duplicates from scratch. It would threaten joint ventures and shared ministries to the point that many may not survive. Socially, it would draw a dividing line down the middle of hundreds of families among both the ministry and the laity. Politically, it would sow a spirit of disunity among Apostolics across town, throughout the nation and around the world. Publicly, it would give our true enemies reason to rejoice. Doctrinally, it would put methodology on the same plane as theology. Strategically, it would put us years behind in a cause that is already lagging woefully behind.

This paragraph is downright silly. This man, and his district brings forth a resolution, and then says the UPC should not allow it to polarize us?

He acts as if the UPC is some faceless boss who can act at will to stem the tide of human emotion and thought. Truth is, I am for the resolution, but this is a very poorly worded article. The intent is silly.

Of course we are polarized! It will take a lot of time, and much prayer, to move past this issue after October.

While I commend Bro Jordan on his well written and passionate plea, I must disagree with it in its essence.
His article is inferring that it is the conservatives who are going to cause the disunity. That is false.
It was the liberal mindset that introduced the idea in the first place. The conservatives (people of conviction) did not introduce this change.
Yes, this is the only change being suggested for now. Down the road that will change. There will be a flood of changes to vote upon. This is what concerns most of the conservatives in UPCI.
Advertising on tv is minor in comparison to all out being on tv with programming. That is what will be suggested next. It will just be a matter of time should Res 6 be voted in.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

This paragraph is downright silly. This man, and his district brings forth a resolution, and then says the UPC should not allow it to polarize us?

He acts as if the UPC is some faceless boss who can act at will to stem the tide of human emotion and thought. Truth is, I am for the resolution, but this is a very poorly worded article. The intent is silly.

Of course we are polarized! It will take a lot of time, and much prayer, to move past this issue after October.

This is well said!

[Whole Hearted]

This resolutions can do nothing but bring division.

[Felicity]

I totally hear and understand MJs heartbeat. I pray the wise among you in the UPCI will hear and understand also.

[Nahum]

Felicity, don't you think this is a little disingenuous?

He is pushing this resolution knowing full well some will leave. This type of appeal seems insincere to me. Again, I am for the resolution, but find the entire intent of this letter suspect.

[Nahum]

To those who see this as a watershed event, you are doing a disservice to us all. I ask you to cease and desist. Do not weaken us under the guise of strengthening us. Do not injure the body by insisting you are healing the body. It may turn out that the limb you amputate has suffered only a minor scratch and could easily have been nursed back to health. If you truly have convictions against advertising on television, don’t do it. Be true to your convictions. At the same time, don’t mischaracterize my motives should I choose to avail myself of this method. If I harm you by advertising, let me know. Deal with me on the basis of actual harm than on supposed harm. Propose some new legislation that will protect you if you feel you need further protection. The last thing I want to do is to hurt you. Approach this in the same way we have always dealt with problems between ministers and churches. More than anything, respect my passion to reach the lost by any means possible. We are brothers in the same cause, not enemies in separate or competing causes. Had I wanted to hurt you, I would have found dozens of ways before now to do it. Just let me be free to follow my own conscience, even as I think you should be free to follow yours.

Interpretation:

My needs outweigh current protocol. It's all about me, me, me. His tone is very superior and lecturing. He is telling the opposition they are wrong in a very condescending fashion.

[Nahum]

This is a watershed moment.! Hello!