As he did last year prior to GC, Supt.. David Bernard has addressed the ministers of the South Texas District about his views on the TV debate.
DISCUSSION OF ADVERTISING ON TELEVISION
By David K. Bernard, 9/19/07
As you know, a resolution has been presented to the 2007 General Conference to allow advertising on television. My purpose in writing is to provide information and to help us think together about this subject in a balanced, reasoned way while avoiding demagoguery, antagonism, and divisiveness.
Background. Some historical and theological background is helpful in discussing this matter. Here is the relevant timeline:
• 1945: Formation of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI).
• 1954: As television became prevalent in American society, the UPCI amended its Articles of Faith to add a statement disapproving of TV ownership because of the many evils that it portrays. (See 2007 UPCI Manual, p. 35.)
• 1955: The UPCI amended the ministerial “Obligations and Rules” in its Constitution to specify that ministers cannot own televisions. (See Manual, p. 53, par. 31.)
• 1975: The UPCI added a statement to its Constitution recommending that ministers not advertise or minister on TV.
• 1977: By amendment to the Constitution, the ministerial rule against advertising or ministering on TV was made mandatory. (See Manual, p. 53, par. 31.)
• 1977: The General Board further explained the UPCI’s disapproval of television in a position paper on holiness. (See Manual, p. 165. For a detailed discussion, including scriptural principles and information from social research, see my books In Search of Holiness, 1981, 2nd ed. 2006, and Practical Holiness: A Second Look, 1985.)
• 1986: The UPCI added a ministerial rule to its Constitution to regulate the use of video. (See Manual, pp. 53-54, par. 32.)
• 1988: In view of the continuing development of entertainment and media technology, the UPCI adopted a position paper on technology. (See Manual, p. 172.) The paper recognizes that as technology changes, the UPCI must respond. It states, in part:
Since worldliness is often communicated throughout society by the media, the United Pentecostal Church International has expressed its concern that Christians may be influenced by the media to compromise biblical holiness. It has officially dealt with technology in three ways: (1) allowed its use without voicing caution or disapproval (telephone, automobile, microwave, central heating, printing press, photography, computer, etc.); (2) accepted its use with warning and restrictions (radio, video); and (3) rejected its use as being unsuitable for Christians or for their homes (movie theater, television).
The United Pentecostal Church International recognizes that technology is not evil in itself, but it feels that it must reject any use of technology that favorably displays a lifestyle of worldliness and ungodliness. Moreover, since technology continues to accelerate in our times, the United Pentecostal Church International and Christians must evaluate each new use of technology, especially media technology, in the light of biblical holiness.
The United Pentecostal Church International accepts only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as its guides to determine the correct standards of conduct in this world, and it recognizes the responsibility to apply biblical principles in a changing world.
In 2006, the General Conference considered a resolution to allow advertising on television. The resolution was referred to a committee composed equally of proponents and opponents, which presented its findings in the Forward. A new resolution has been presented for this year to allow the use of “television for advertising.” However, it would also delete the current statement that no minister can “advertise or minister” on TV. If the desire is to allow advertising only, the resolution would need to be amended to make clear that ministry on TV is still prohibited.
Guiding Principles. Here are some guidelines and considerations to help us approach this subject in a principled way.
1. Motives. We must not be motivated by spiritual compromise, legalism, or politics, and we should not presume that other ministers have wrong motives. Scripture tells us not to judge another believer’s heart. Robert’s Rules of Order instructs us not to attack motives but to discuss the merits of the issue.
2. Ministerial Rule. This resolution does not advocate a change of the Articles of Faith or our position on holiness. It is a proposal to change a ministerial rule adopted 30 years ago. We may disapprove of the resolution or express strong reservations about it, but we should not question the integrity, loyalty, holiness, or Apostolic identity of those who state an opinion on this ministerial rule.
3. Symbolism. We must maintain our holiness lifestyle, and therefore we should carefully consider and discuss any possible negative impact of the resolution. It would be a mistake, however, to make the resolution a symbol of larger issues, such as our holiness identity. There are strong advocates and practitioners of holiness on both sides. There are legitimate concerns and arguments on both sides. I don’t propose to discuss them, as they were adequately covered in the Forward. As a practical matter, if we do make this issue highly symbolic, then the vote could indeed cause great division as people act or react based on the symbolism they perceive. If we refuse to make this vote symbolic, then we can limit the damage that could otherwise be caused, and either way the decision goes, we can deal with it simply as a ministerial rule.
4. Fundamental Doctrine. In our deliberations, we must remain committed to the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI, which states:
The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.
Scripture is our supreme authority, and our Fundamental Doctrine is based on Scripture. The first paragraph expresses the teaching of
Acts 2:38, and the second paragraph quotes from
Ephesians 4:3, 13. As an organization, we have agreed to unite and cooperate on the basis of our Articles of Faith and especially our Fundamental Doctrine. Our Fundamental Doctrine takes precedence over any ministerial rule.
Thus, any change to a ministerial rule must still conform to the Fundamental Doctrine. Any debate over such a change and any reaction to a proposed or actual change must still be in harmony with the Fundamental Doctrine.
Among other things, this means we must have a strong commitment to unity despite our differences, as stated in the second paragraph of the Fundamental Doctrine. It is inconsistent with our Fundamental Doctrine to threaten to leave the UPCI if the rule is not changed or if it is changed. If we want to maintain our Apostolic identity and if we want to promote Apostolic revival based on our identity, we must have greater loyalty to our Fundamental Doctrine than to a present or proposed ministerial rule.
The early church “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,” and as a result, “the Lord added daily to the church such as should be saved” (
Acts 2:42, 47). We must emphasis both doctrine and unity, without sacrificing either. This is the path to genuine revival and growth.
Linear Mode
