UPC Resolution to Remove TV from Manual

[deacon blues]

From two separate sources connected to WEC and the General Board I've been told that last week's GB meetings produced a resolution for this year's General Conference to remove all references to TV from the manual. For some time there has been a committee researching the subject and the relevance of the wording of the manual in regard to television ownership among ministers. David Bernard realized that modern technology had made the wording of the manual irrelevant and obsolete.

The word I received was 75% of the Board members were in favor of it. This is a giant shift in policy. It has been a wedge issue for years between conservative and moderate/liberals. The WPF exists today because of the 2007 decision to allow TV advertising at the GC in Tampa. Should the GC pass this resolution, this could push more conservatives out of the door.

To the man on the street this debate is a no brainer. To ban the traditional TV from preacher's homes while phones, computers, notebooks and other devices can access almost all of the same content of television is nonsensical. A majority of UPC churches have members who own TVs. Many preachers have TVs and have been making the choice to lie on their affirmation statements they are required to sign every other year. Many preachers have left because they could no longer sign it dishonestly. 30% of new applications for ministerial licenses in the UPC had the statement about TV ownership struck through, which automatically canceled the applications validity.

With the numbers in the UPC declining, in numbers of churches, numbers of veteran ministers and numbers of young men applying for license, the UPC cant afford to turn away 30% of new applicants. I believe that with the short term losses of conservatives leaving it's ranks the long term benefits will outweigh the losses.

Then there's the dress code and hair issues...

[StillStanding]

Interesting! The argument that "its the way that we've always done it" begins to crack when technology makes their reasoning obsolete. The reason TV was banned back in the 50s was to keep worldliness out of the home. The argument is laughable when computers and smart phones are allowed.

Maybe, just maybe, this will pass and the focus will be on godly choices of what is allowed to be seen on TV.

[Evenuntodeath]

Makes sense to me.

However, i dont see them getting rid of the skirts and long hair restriction anytime soon. They could do away with the no jewelry and makeup rules.

[ILG]

They will do away with most restrictions pertaining to the male, but not the female. My opinion.

[Evenuntodeath]

They will do away with most restrictions pertaining to the male, but not the female. My opinion.

:thumbsup You already know.

[KeptByTheWord]

They will do away with most restrictions pertaining to the male, but not the female. My opinion.

:thumbsup You already know.

Yes... I've often heard it said... you can't tell what a man believes until you see his wife....

[RandyWayne]

Yes... I've often heard it said... you can't tell what a man believes until you see his wife....

:slaphappy

[Timmy]

Great Frying Flounders!

[deacon blues]

"Apostolic Identity" = your wife looks 1890s

The original Apostles were identified that they had "been with Jesus." They weren't recognized as Christians because they're wives and daughters looked a certain way.

[AreYouReady?]

Thank you deacon.

[Evenuntodeath]

"Apostolic Identity" = your wife looks 1890s

The original Apostles were identified that they had "been with Jesus." They weren't recognized as Christians because they're wives and daughters looked a certain way.

To be honest, deacon, im sure early christians looked slightly different than pagan romans. After all, there were certain pagan practices which were expressed in manner of dress. But the extreme measures UPCI takes in enforcing dress codes and the amount of emphasis placed on dress is really preposturous.

[StillStanding]

Yes... I've often heard it said... you can't tell what a man believes until you see his wife....

I think the only outward Apostolic Identity for men in today's American culture is:
1: No shorts in public
2. No facial hair
3. How holy their wife looks

In other words, you would have a difficult time picking them out of a line-up.

The ladies, on the other hand, can be spotted a mile away!

It's all silliness to me!

[Carpenter]

I think the only outward Apostolic Identity for men in today's American culture is:
1: No shorts in public
2. No facial hair
3. How holy their wife looks

In other words, you would have a difficult time picking them out of a line-up.

The ladies, on the other hand, can be spotted a mile away!

It's all silliness to me!

#3...You fell into your own traditional pile of leaves there...holy doesn't have a look, the UPC culture only thinks it does. :D

[Cindy]

#3...You fell into your own traditional pile of leaves there...holy doesn't have a look, the UPC culture only thinks it does. :D

Uh oh :heeheehee

[Carpenter]

Some of you may have failed to realize that the UPC has become dominated by the strong feminine influence...nothing can be more pagan than that.

With the exception of those receiving salary, tithes, and financial benefit, men are getting tired of it. :blah:blah:blah

[KeptByTheWord]

"Apostolic Identity" = your wife looks 1890s

The original Apostles were identified that they had "been with Jesus." They weren't recognized as Christians because they're wives and daughters looked a certain way.

Thank you deacon.

:highfive WHERE is that thank you button when you need it? :heeheehee

[KeptByTheWord]

I think the only outward Apostolic Identity for men in today's American culture is:
1: No shorts in public
2. No facial hair
3. How holy their wife looks

In other words, you would have a difficult time picking them out of a line-up.

The ladies, on the other hand, can be spotted a mile away!

It's all silliness to me!

:nod

[FlamingZword]

[QUOTE=deacon blues;1233119]With the numbers in the UPC declining, in numbers of churches, numbers of veteran ministers and numbers of young men applying for license, the UPC cant afford to turn away 30% of new applicants. I believe that with the short term losses of conservatives leaving it's ranks the long term benefits will outweigh the losses.QUOTE]

They are in decline?

Do not worry, before the UPCI came into existance, there was a church of God, and if the UPCI should ever cease to exist, the Church of God is always alive and moving on to ever greater increase.

God is not into retreat, he keeps on moving forward, he is probably about to bring revival through a new movement.

Waves of revival keep on coming, from unexpected places, from unexpected persons and in unexpected ways.

[Evenuntodeath]

[QUOTE=deacon blues;1233119]With the numbers in the UPC declining, in numbers of churches, numbers of veteran ministers and numbers of young men applying for license, the UPC cant afford to turn away 30% of new applicants. I believe that with the short term losses of conservatives leaving it's ranks the long term benefits will outweigh the losses.QUOTE]

They are in decline?
.

Other denominations are in decline, charismatic/pentecostal numbers are increasing. So ive heard.

[Dordrecht]

Listen, guys, I threw the TV out of my house about 6 or 7 years ago.
The reason? We found ourselves daily flipping through
the channels in order to find something to watch,
before we knew it it was 11:00 pm and time
to go to bed....wasting the whole evening....flipping through garbage.

After our TV was gone family life was greatly restored, we'r reading, talking, playing games, etc. A big improvement of family life.

However,I don't think that a church organization should set the rules.
That's pure dictatorship, there's no reason to bombard people with
all these rules and regulations and attach these rules to a person's
condition for salvation. (And that's what they are doing, don't be fooled!)

[Michael Phelps]

Listen, guys, I threw the TV out of my house about 6 or 7 years ago.
The reason? We found ourselves daily flipping through
the channels in order to find something to watch,
before we knew it it was 11:00 pm and time
to go to bed....wasting the whole evening....flipping through garbage.

After our TV was gone family life was greatly restored, we'r reading, talking, playing games, etc. A big improvement of family life.

However,I don't think that a church organization should set the rules.
That's pure dictatorship, there's no reason to bombard people with
all these rules and regulations and attach these rules to a person's
condition for salvation. (And that's what they are doing, don't be fooled!)



Great post. You did it for all the right reasons.

[houston]

God is not into retreat, he keeps on moving forward, he is probably about to bring revival through a new movement.

Waves of revival keep on coming, from unexpected places, from unexpected persons and in unexpected ways.It is and will continue to emerge.

[RandyWayne]

Listen, guys, I threw the TV out of my house about 6 or 7 years ago.
The reason? We found ourselves daily flipping through
the channels in order to find something to watch,
before we knew it it was 11:00 pm and time
to go to bed....wasting the whole evening....flipping through garbage.

After our TV was gone family life was greatly restored, we'r reading, talking, playing games, etc. A big improvement of family life.

However,I don't think that a church organization should set the rules.
That's pure dictatorship, there's no reason to bombard people with
all these rules and regulations and attach these rules to a person's
condition for salvation. (And that's what they are doing, don't be fooled!)



So how are you getting your daily dose of wisdom from Phil and Uncle Si?

[rgcraig]

So how are you getting your daily dose of wisdom from Phil and Uncle Si?

Opps!

[PreacherME]

Makes sense to me.

However, i dont see them getting rid of the skirts and long hair restriction anytime soon. They could do away with the no jewelry and makeup rules.
Women were shown how to paint there faces for the fallen angels in the book of Enoch.

[CC1]

[QUOTE=deacon blues;1233119]

Do not worry, before the UPCI came into existance, there was a church of God,

There still is a "Church of God"! I visit the home city of the "Church of God of Cleveland, TN" every few months.

[Aquila]

The UPCI (or any other organization) isn't the Kingdom of God and should never be seen as anything more than a human organization designed to make money and control members.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Great Frying Flounders!

LOL!

[houston]

Well, now that they passed a resolution to allow killing, it suddenly becomes acceptable to watch killing on TV.

[CC1]

The UPCI (or any other organization) isn't the Kingdom of God and should never be seen as anything more than a human organization designed to make money and control members.

Your view is a cynical one that I reject. While I think there may be many misguided people I think the vast majority of them are sincere and dedicated. It is demeaning and untrue to say that the UPCI is designed to make money and control members.

The budget crisis the UPC HQ has been in for a few years now should dispel the notion that as an org. it is a money making machine. The control thing does happen but as a result of their sects view of the bible. Not because they just created an org. to control members.

[Dordrecht]

So how are you getting your daily dose of wisdom from Phil and Uncle Si?

Who are they?

Well.....I have an idea who Phil is.

He was already on when I threw the TV in the lake.

[LUKE2447]

The UPCI (or any other organization) isn't the Kingdom of God and should never be seen as anything more than a human organization designed to make money and control members

what you just said is pathetic.

[RandyWayne]

Who are they?

Well.....I have an idea who Phil is.

He was already on when I threw the TV in the lake.

No, not DR Phil. LOL

[Dordrecht]

No, not DR Phil. LOL

Sorry!

[Evenuntodeath]

Women were shown how to paint there faces for the fallen angels in the book of Enoch.

The book of Enoch, are you serious?:shifty You do know the book of enoch is: a) used in witchcraft and b) not even in the bible?

[LifeUncommon]

From two separate sources connected to WEC and the General Board I've been told that last week's GB meetings produced a resolution for this year's General Conference to remove all references to TV from the manual. For some time there has been a committee researching the subject and the relevance of the wording of the manual in regard to television ownership among ministers. David Bernard realized that modern technology had made the wording of the manual irrelevant and obsolete.

The word I received was 75% of the Board members were in favor of it. This is a giant shift in policy. It has been a wedge issue for years between conservative and moderate/liberals. The WPF exists today because of the 2007 decision to allow TV advertising at the GC in Tampa. Should the GC pass this resolution, this could push more conservatives out of the door.

To the man on the street this debate is a no brainer. To ban the traditional TV from preacher's homes while phones, computers, notebooks and other devices can access almost all of the same content of television is nonsensical. A majority of UPC churches have members who own TVs. Many preachers have TVs and have been making the choice to lie on their affirmation statements they are required to sign every other year. Many preachers have left because they could no longer sign it dishonestly. 30% of new applications for ministerial licenses in the UPC had the statement about TV ownership struck through, which automatically canceled the applications validity.

With the numbers in the UPC declining, in numbers of churches, numbers of veteran ministers and numbers of young men applying for license, the UPC cant afford to turn away 30% of new applicants. I believe that with the short term losses of conservatives leaving it's ranks the long term benefits will outweigh the losses.

Then there's the dress code and hair issues...


It's a start, but too little too late for a great many. Omitting ALL of the mainmase rules would open the floodgates and spark a great revival...but the question is whether the powers that be are willing to sacrifice pride and tradition in pursuit of revival.

[RandyWayne]

Sorry!

Phil
http://sicollegefootball.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/phil-robertson-p11.jpg

Uncle Si
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UEBTifiFq54/UOjPK0xrJoI/AAAAAAAAYtY/9eUkXmOG_6Q/s1600/draft_lens19335860module158212435photo_1333585774_ .jpg

[Dordrecht]

My biker buddies!??

[RandyWayne]

My biker buddies!??


It really is a good show. While not QUITE as family friendly as a 1960's era Disney nature film about an orphaned bear cub narrated by Burl Ives (in technicolor). . . . . It is close. :)

[ILG]

I think the only outward Apostolic Identity for men in today's American culture is:
1: No shorts in public
2. No facial hair
3. How holy their wife looks

In other words, you would have a difficult time picking them out of a line-up.

The ladies, on the other hand, can be spotted a mile away!

It's all silliness to me!

Except the shorts in public on men and facial hair is debatable. ;)

[ILG]

#3...You fell into your own traditional pile of leaves there...holy doesn't have a look, the UPC culture only thinks it does. :D

Hey! I haven't seen you for eons!

[AreYouReady?]

I just find it sad that they did not need the "membership" when they put people out or caused them to hide/lie over the tee-vee issue.

[Hoovie]

From two separate sources connected to WEC and the General Board I've been told that last week's GB meetings produced a resolution for this year's General Conference to remove all references to TV from the manual. For some time there has been a committee researching the subject and the relevance of the wording of the manual in regard to television ownership among ministers. David Bernard realized that modern technology had made the wording of the manual irrelevant and obsolete.

The word I received was 75% of the Board members were in favor of it. This is a giant shift in policy. It has been a wedge issue for years between conservative and moderate/liberals. The WPF exists today because of the 2007 decision to allow TV advertising at the GC in Tampa. Should the GC pass this resolution, this could push more conservatives out of the door.

To the man on the street this debate is a no brainer. To ban the traditional TV from preacher's homes while phones, computers, notebooks and other devices can access almost all of the same content of television is nonsensical. A majority of UPC churches have members who own TVs. Many preachers have TVs and have been making the choice to lie on their affirmation statements they are required to sign every other year. Many preachers have left because they could no longer sign it dishonestly. 30% of new applications for ministerial licenses in the UPC had the statement about TV ownership struck through, which automatically canceled the applications validity.

With the numbers in the UPC declining, in numbers of churches, numbers of veteran ministers and numbers of young men applying for license, the UPC cant afford to turn away 30% of new applicants. I believe that with the short term losses of conservatives leaving it's ranks the long term benefits will outweigh the losses.

Then there's the dress code and hair issues...

I have heard this as well.

I disagree with the premise in bold - don't think they are declining, in churches or ministers.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I just find it sad that they did not need the "membership" when they put people out or caused them to hide/lie over the tee-vee issue.

Maybe the mindset back then had nothing to do with membership, but everything to do with preserving their idea of holiness.

[AreYouReady?]

Maybe the mindset back then had nothing to do with membership, but everything to do with preserving their idea of holiness.

So what changed then? Let's just say...for discussion sake only, that their membership is declining because of the t.v. issue. Are they compromising their idea of holiness to bring up the membership? If it was so very wrong then, why is it ok now? The explanation seems to be in one word. "Obsolete". To that I say a big HMMMMMMMM.

I am just mildly curious though. I've been done with UPC and similar organizations for a long time. I only raise an eyebrow when I see the P.K.s doing the same thing without reprimand that their daddies and granddaddies sat other women down for.

And you know what? I don't feel bad for the P.Ks...just that I think it is hypocrisy for the pain and hurt that was heaped upon women of the prior generation, but love and acceptance when their children do the same.

That's all.

[KeptByTheWord]

The problem with the OP churches is that they have set standards based on current cultural events (starting back in the 1950s-1960s) ... instead of biblical principles.

IF they had taught and stood on biblical principles, which live forever, instead of trying to fine tune those biblical principles and turn them into man-made traditions (think Pharisees), they wouldn't have the problem they have today.

I believe with all my heart, more now than ever before, that personal holiness unto the Lord is absolutely necessary. But HOW that personal holiness is applied in my life can be much different than how it is applied in someone else's life. I am not to judge others for their convictions, nor judge others based on my OWN convictions... I am to produce the fruit of the spirit as the Holy Ghost works on me from the inside out.

When ANYONE... any person, preacher, or organization... begins to demand of others a set of holiness traditions based on their own convictions, they effectively take away the work of the Holy Ghost out of a person's life, and transfer that authority to a man.

That is Pharisaical - a condition Jesus spoke out against constantly.

However, when you begin to teach personal holiness as unto the Lord, teaching fruit of the spirit ... love, joy, peace... those kinds of things... and when you teach and then begin to allow the Holy Spirit to do its job in a believer's life... if they desire to truly allow Jesus to change their hearts, they WILL produce fruits of the spirit, and they WILL have personal holiness standards that will be evident for all to see.

When you start to put the cart ahead of the horse... as these OP organizations have done... and demand all these certain and varied standards that are a preacher or an organizational favorite... then you begin to limit the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life...

Since our family has stepped away from the traditional OP churches... our personal holiness standard has undergone deep inspection from the Holy Spirit. Now, we have personal holiness standards in our home that the Holy Ghost... the Spirit of Jesus living in us... and teaching us, and now... I want nothing in my life that would be in any way displeasing to the Lord!

I believe with all my heart that if biblical PRINCIPLES of personal holiness were taught, instead of man-made standards and laws... there would be a huge wave of revival with people throwing out their TVs (like Dord) and giving up things they never would've considered giving up before... because the work of the SPIRIT is more powerful than any law that man can come up with.

[AreYouReady?]

Well said KBTW.

[Cindy]

Amen

[Blubayou]

KBTW well said!

[Steve Epley]

Sad day.

[Michael Phelps]

Sad day.

How so? The potential of TV removal from the manual?

[Jay]

Sad day.

I agree.


As to the issue of the initial limitations of preaching against tech instead of principles, many principles were addressed when these messages were preached. I know this because I heard them referenced numerous times. Television and movies are wastes of time and money. They are a distraction from doing the work of God. They are filled with immodesty, violence, sexual immorality, and all forms of ungodliness. Those are the principles that I often heard preached, and I still believe them.

What changed? Not the principles of the Bible!

The only thing that has changed are the hearts of the men who lead. The manual itself made clear that the violaton of Christian principles was the key motivator that caused them to stand against television.

Many preachers have ceased to address the television itself, and instead preach against all forms of Hollywood style entertainment. For this reason, it becomes obvious what the true motives behind any changes actually are.

[ILG]

Sad day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMUGJZrR9Jg

[KWSS1976]

O just an FYI on TV the New Hells Kitchen is on...started last night get your cooking skills on...

[Michael Phelps]

I agree.


As to the issue of the initial limitations of preaching against tech instead of principles, many principles were addressed when these messages were preached. I know this because I heard them referenced numerous times. INTERNET are wastes of time and money. IT IS a distraction from doing the work of God. IT IS filled with immodesty, violence, sexual immorality, and all forms of ungodliness. Those are the principles that I often heard preached, and I still believe them.

What changed? Not the principles of the Bible!

The only thing that has changed are the hearts of the men who lead. The manual itself made clear that the violaton of Christian principles was the key motivator that caused them to stand against television.

Many preachers have ceased to address the television itself, and instead preach against all forms of Hollywood style entertainment. For this reason, it becomes obvious what the true motives behind any changes actually are.

Please see my edits in your diatribe, and I'd be interested to hear your justification........

[Jay]

Please see my edits in your diatribe, and I'd be interested to hear your justification........

If you were to say that all websites met your statements, then I would consider your argument. However, as the argument is more generic, it is rather unhelpful. Further, if that is your view of the internet, why are you violating your concience by surfing it and visiting unnecessary websites such as this. That is the consistent flaw with those who argue that the internet is worse than television, the are never actually interested in abstaining from either.

[Michael Phelps]

If you were to say that all websites met your statements, then I would consider your argument. However, as the argument is more generic, it is rather unhelpful. Further, if that is your view of the internet, why are you violating your concience by surfing it and visiting unnecessary websites such as this. That is the consistent flaw with those who argue that the internet is worse than television, the are never actually interested in abstaining from either.

Ok, this is confusing.....let me see if I can get it straight...

Are you saying that the internet has a mix of good and bad websites, and if you only surf the good ones, that's ok?

And, are you saying that AFF is an unnecessary website?

[KWSS1976]

The Internet and TV are the same you have to use filters and parental blocks in my opinion,you can go to a TV website and stream content on a PC the same content as on a TV..Glad they passed it. Makes no since to be able to have internet and PC's and smartphones,but not be able to watch TV...Hopefully other things will change in the future. Got to let the old landmarks go, theres a new generation coming up and its time for change...

[Aquila]

Your view is a cynical one that I reject. While I think there may be many misguided people I think the vast majority of them are sincere and dedicated. It is demeaning and untrue to say that the UPCI is designed to make money and control members.

The budget crisis the UPC HQ has been in for a few years now should dispel the notion that as an org. it is a money making machine. The control thing does happen but as a result of their sects view of the bible. Not because they just created an org. to control members.

I know it might sound cynical.

With the notion of "control" that can be viewed in both good ways and bad ways. First, it can be used to denote the reality that the measures of control protect from false doctrine and/or abuses. Control can also denote various forms of legalism. It can also serve to speak to politics and a specific coalition with a specific agenda maintaining control.

Control isn't always so bad. But it isn't always so good either.

As for the "money making"... let's face it. An organization with a vision like the UPCI needs to generate revenue. The budget crisis is more a symptom of not being able to balance income verses expenses. They have to drastically tighten their belts and let go of some things.

Of course, this is easy for me to say because... I'm a house churcher. I attend two different house churches in my area that are networked with over 20 others in a local network. Each house church is autonomous, we're only linked through common vision. Very little overhead for each house church. The larger campus that the network purchased costs, but each house church contributes to it as desired.

[Jay]

Ok, this is confusing.....let me see if I can get it straight...

Are you saying that the internet has a mix of good and bad websites, and if you only surf the good ones, that's ok?

And, are you saying that AFF is an unnecessary website?

I believe that the answer to the first question is a solid...yes.

For the second, I was using the word unnecessary in light of the fact that the majority of employers do not approve of their employees visiting websites that are not work related. If you truly flelt that strongly about the internet, you would feel that this website is a rather unproductive manner of spending your time.

[Michael Phelps]

I believe that the answer to the first question is a solid...yes.

For the second, I was using the word unnecessary in light of the fact that the majority of employers do not approve of their employees visiting websites that are not work related. If you truly flelt that strongly about the internet, you would feel that this website is a rather unproductive manner of spending your time.

So, let's go back and compare TV to the internet:

1. You say there are good websites and bad websites. Well, there are good channels and bad channels on TV. You have to control what you watch.

2. You say TV and movies are a waste of time and money. Well, the time you spend on the internet could also be keeping you from "doing the work of the Lord". And, I don't know about you, but the monthly charge for internet access is fairly pricey.

3. You say there is a flaw in my argument as it pertains to TV vs. Internet. I'm not sure what it is..........

[Aquila]

what you just said is pathetic.

Let me try to clarify and provide some balance. Rather it's for good or not... ANY organization's purpose is to further an established agenda, keep control to advance that agenda, and to generate the necessary revenues to advance that agenda. In my mind... it's a fact of life. Let's face it and not be so altruistic.

What I find interesting is that I've yet to read anything where anyone elaborated on the biggest point of my statement...

The UPCI (or any other organization) isn't the Kingdom of God...

The Kingdom of God was in full advancement and glory before any organization founded within the past 150 years or more... and will still be in full advancement after these organizations dissolve and retreat to the pages of history.

[PreacherME]

The book of Enoch, are you serious?:shifty You do know the book of enoch is: a) used in witchcraft and b) not even in the bible?

No, I didn't know it was used for witchcraft. But I do know it was canonized at one time until someone thought it was ridiculous to have sex with angels (as Genesis states). The Ethiopian Coptic church still has Enoch canonized. Just a thought.

[Aquila]

The book of Enoch, are you serious?:shifty You do know the book of enoch is: a) used in witchcraft and b) not even in the bible?

It's actually included in ancient Bibles such as the bible used by Ethiopian orthodoxy. Many scholars also point to several places in the NT where the book of Enoch is quoted. Some believe that it's inspired, others don't.

Witches also use the Bible, crosses, and even some Christian hymns and liturgies.

We shouldn't rush to judgment before truly investigating something.

[KeptByTheWord]

I agree.


As to the issue of the initial limitations of preaching against tech instead of principles, many principles were addressed when these messages were preached. I know this because I heard them referenced numerous times. Television and movies are wastes of time and money. They are a distraction from doing the work of God. They are filled with immodesty, violence, sexual immorality, and all forms of ungodliness. Those are the principles that I often heard preached, and I still believe them.

What changed? Not the principles of the Bible!

The only thing that has changed are the hearts of the men who lead. The manual itself made clear that the violaton of Christian principles was the key motivator that caused them to stand against television.

Many preachers have ceased to address the television itself, and instead preach against all forms of Hollywood style entertainment. For this reason, it becomes obvious what the true motives behind any changes actually are.

Jay, I know you are sincere, and I understand where you are coming from. We have a TV in our home, but it is used solely for the purpose of watching movies that have a generic rating. We don't have a channeled TV mainly because even though you can watch "good" shows on TV, you are also forced to watch the commercials which are usually promoting a product with s*xual overtones. I don't want that garbage in my home.

Yet, now it is almost impossible to live in this electronic, information age that we live in and not have the Internet. We have to use the Internet for our businesses. I would prefer not to have those things, but they are necessary.

When you spend time in the presence of the Lord, your heart cannot but help to be convicted of things that go against the very principles of the Word of God. There are many, many things that we don't do and don't allow in our home, and we don't have a preacher screaming at us telling us to shut the TV or Internet off. We have done it because the SPIRIT of Jesus has convicted our hearts against these things.

That being said, if the UPC/OP churches were to go back to teaching on the powerful work of the Holy Ghost in a believer's life, and teach them to listen to the convictions that the Spirit brings into their hearts... they wouldn't have to preach against TV or the internet or whatever ... because the spirit would be doing the convicting work in their lives.

That was my point, Jay. A point that these OP/UPC churches have completely ignored, in my opinion. More emphasis has been placed on defining and legalizing these principles, instead of just teaching believers to allow the spirit to convict and challenge their hearts.

Would you say that a preacher preaching against sin has more convicting power than the conviction of the Holy Ghost in a personal prayer meeting, in a prayer closet alone with God?

If that preacher were to emphasize and teach people to seek after and know the mind of the spirit... don't you think that the work of the Holy Ghost is much more powerful than the work of a man defining boundaries in a believer's life?

[Aquila]

The problem with the OP churches is that they have set standards based on current cultural events (starting back in the 1950s-1960s) ... instead of biblical principles.

IF they had taught and stood on biblical principles, which live forever, instead of trying to fine tune those biblical principles and turn them into man-made traditions (think Pharisees), they wouldn't have the problem they have today.

I believe with all my heart, more now than ever before, that personal holiness unto the Lord is absolutely necessary. But HOW that personal holiness is applied in my life can be much different than how it is applied in someone else's life. I am not to judge others for their convictions, nor judge others based on my OWN convictions... I am to produce the fruit of the spirit as the Holy Ghost works on me from the inside out.

When ANYONE... any person, preacher, or organization... begins to demand of others a set of holiness traditions based on their own convictions, they effectively take away the work of the Holy Ghost out of a person's life, and transfer that authority to a man.

That is Pharisaical - a condition Jesus spoke out against constantly.

However, when you begin to teach personal holiness as unto the Lord, teaching fruit of the spirit ... love, joy, peace... those kinds of things... and when you teach and then begin to allow the Holy Spirit to do its job in a believer's life... if they desire to truly allow Jesus to change their hearts, they WILL produce fruits of the spirit, and they WILL have personal holiness standards that will be evident for all to see.

When you start to put the cart ahead of the horse... as these OP organizations have done... and demand all these certain and varied standards that are a preacher or an organizational favorite... then you begin to limit the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life...

Since our family has stepped away from the traditional OP churches... our personal holiness standard has undergone deep inspection from the Holy Spirit. Now, we have personal holiness standards in our home that the Holy Ghost... the Spirit of Jesus living in us... and teaching us, and now... I want nothing in my life that would be in any way displeasing to the Lord!

I believe with all my heart that if biblical PRINCIPLES of personal holiness were taught, instead of man-made standards and laws... there would be a huge wave of revival with people throwing out their TVs (like Dord) and giving up things they never would've considered giving up before... because the work of the SPIRIT is more powerful than any law that man can come up with.

Excellent post.

I think we loose our focus sometimes.

We talk about "holiness" a lot. What is the definition of Christian "holiness"??? Most of the time it's defined by behaviors. I'm inclined to think otherwise. It's simply being more and more like Jesus and obeying His commandments. And Christ's commandments are very simple...

1.) Love God with all that you are.
2.) And demonstrate that love for God by loving others as yourself.

The rest is just circumstantial commentary.

[Aquila]

Sad day.

Only if one's joy was dependent upon the shifting sands of this world's man made systems.

The Kingdom of God hasn't changed a bit. C'mon in. ;)

[AreYouReady?]

Why is it a sad day Elder?

It is not forbidden to me by any man to watch television....and yet I do not watch it.

[KeptByTheWord]

Why is it a sad day Elder?

It is not forbidden to me by any man to watch television....and yet I do not watch it.

:highfive

[Aquila]

If you were to say that all websites met your statements, then I would consider your argument. However, as the argument is more generic, it is rather unhelpful. Further, if that is your view of the internet, why are you violating your concience by surfing it and visiting unnecessary websites such as this. That is the consistent flaw with those who argue that the internet is worse than television, the are never actually interested in abstaining from either.

I find it interesting that the internet is involved in more divorces than... television.

On the internet one can find XXX or extremely violent material freely at any time of the day or night with just the click of a mouse. Not so with network programming. Typically things of a "mature nature" are only on television after 10PM. Anything rated "R" can be found on "paid movie stations" after something like 8PM. You can't find XXX rated programing in most television programming... one can only watch these things strictly pay per view. That requires a code and affirmation of purchase.

If you don't think television is better than the internet some people could race to find XXX material. One person on the internet... the other on a television. I know where I'd put my money. lol

[Jay]

Kptw, I agree with most of what you are saying. This is why most preachers have started preaching against the viewing of such things. However, I recently heard an influenial 'Christian' speaker mention that he watched a program that contained lessons of a dubious moral character. I remain convinced that the elders were correct to institute the ban against movies, television, and Hollywood style productions. Television and movies are much worse than they were at the time of the ban. Why do we need to be revisiting this issue now?

Are we willing to settle for the slop that passes for mainstream 'christian' ntertainment? I have to be careful about which Christian authors I read any more.

[Aquila]

The Internet and TV are the same you have to use filters and parental blocks in my opinion,you can go to a TV website and stream content on a PC the same content as on a TV..Glad they passed it. Makes no since to be able to have internet and PC's and smartphones,but not be able to watch TV...Hopefully other things will change in the future. Got to let the old landmarks go, theres a new generation coming up and its time for change...

Any more... people can freely watch television over the internet. So... if you have access to the internet in your home... you have free access to television in your home. The box or technical medium isn't the issue... it's the programming.

So... the internet is like "Television Plus".

[Aquila]

I think that the postion of various human organizations put men in the position of "preaching against something" and now... well... they are made to look inconsistent. As with all failed human teaching... the minister risks losing creditability in the eyes of the congregation. I mean, many will ask, "Well pastor, did God speak to you on this or not???" I can see where this would be challenging for many preachers. And humbling to the whole. Perhaps that was God's intention? I don't know...

[FlamingZword]

So, let's go back and compare TV to the internet:

1. You say there are good websites and bad websites. Well, there are good channels and bad channels on TV. You have to control what you watch.

2. You say TV and movies are a waste of time and money. Well, the time you spend on the internet could also be keeping you from "doing the work of the Lord". And, I don't know about you, but the monthly charge for internet access is fairly pricey.

3. You say there is a flaw in my argument as it pertains to TV vs. Internet. I'm not sure what it is..........

Actually I find the Internet quite useful in "doing the work of the Lord", I go on to different forums and manage to give my doctrinal views.

With the Internet I actually have a voice, maybe not a big voice, but I actually get to speak my mind, of course the site owners sometimes delete my posts, but others are more open minded to the Oneness message.

Even those who censor or delete my posts, find out that there are other views besides the trinity.

Also on the Internet I have NetFlix, which gives me freedom to choose what I am going to watch, and when I want to watch it without having to watch commercials and on my own schedule.

I can watch good stuff or I can watch evil stuff, the choice is really up to me, if I do not like the movie or program it takes just one click to get rid of it.

On the TV you have watch what the TV stations decide and on their own schedule.

[Michael Phelps]

Actually I find the Internet quite useful in "doing the work of the Lord", I go on to different forums and manage to give my doctrinal views.

With the Internet I actually have a voice, maybe not a big voice, but I actually get to speak my mind, of course the site owners sometimes delete my posts, but others are more open minded to the Oneness message.

Even those who censor or delete my posts, find out that there are other views besides the trinity.

Also on the Internet I have NetFlix, which gives me freedom to choose what I am going to watch, and when I want to watch it without having to watch commercials and on my own schedule.

I can watch good stuff or I can watch evil stuff, the choice is really up to me, if I do not like the movie or program it takes just one click to get rid of it.

On the TV you have watch what the TV stations decide and on their own schedule.

Not so....have you heard of DVR?

That's what I do...I DVR the shows I want to watch, then I can watch them on my own schedule, plus can skip the commercials, and/or any other part of the program I don't want to watch.

[FlamingZword]

Kptw, I agree with most of what you are saying. This is why most preachers have started preaching against the viewing of such things. However, I recently heard an influenial 'Christian' speaker mention that he watched a program that contained lessons of a dubious moral character. I remain convinced that the elders were correct to institute the ban against movies, television, and Hollywood style productions. Television and movies are much worse than they were at the time of the ban. Why do we need to be revisiting this issue now?

Are we willing to settle for the slop that passes for mainstream 'christian' ntertainment? I have to be careful about which Christian authors I read any more.

I fully agree with you that most of what is on TV is just garbage, for years I went without TV and I do not feel I missed anything.

The problem I have with the UPCI stance on TV is that often they go to such extremes, that they made it a salvation issue.

For many of them if you watch TV, you go straight to Hell, you do not pass go, you do not collect 200 dollars.

So if you just pass by an electronics store, you have to close your eyes, for just one look at TV will send you to Hell. You better never go to Wal-mart, Sears or Target, you will see those jumbo TVs and just one look at them will send you straight to Hell.

[Michael Phelps]

I fully agree with you that most of what is on TV is just garbage, for years I went without TV and I do not feel I missed anything.

The problem I have with the UPCI stance on TV is that often they go to such extremes, that they made it a salvation issue.

For many of them if you watch TV, you go straight to Hell, you do not pass go, you do not collect 200 dollars.

So if you just pass by an electronics store, you have to close your eyes, for just one look at TV will send you to Hell. You better never go to Wal-mart, Sears or Target, you will see those jumbo TVs and just one look at them will send you straight to Hell.

:highfive

This, I agree with......

[Evenuntodeath]

No, I didn't know it was used for witchcraft. But I do know it was canonized at one time until someone thought it was ridiculous to have sex with angels (as Genesis states). The Ethiopian Coptic church still has Enoch canonized. Just a thought.

It's actually included in ancient Bibles such as the bible used by Ethiopian orthodoxy. Many scholars also point to several places in the NT where the book of Enoch is quoted. Some believe that it's inspired, others don't.

Witches also use the Bible, crosses, and even some Christian hymns and liturgies.

We shouldn't rush to judgment before truly investigating something.






@Aquila do not talk to me like im a child. There was a reason why the early church fathers and the..King James Bible..translators rejected the Book of Enoch as inpired by God. Try cross-referencing the Book of Enoch with the Word of God. In chapter 1:9 of the..Book of Enoch..says that an angel named Phanuel is "set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life" ... Salvation is found ONLY in Christ Jesus.


@Preacherme you quote makeup and jewelry references only because it lines up with the man made standards of UPC. Its hilarious how pentecostals continue to grasp straws to justify all their legalism. Did you also know the book of Enoch refers also to reading and writing as abominations/sins taught by angels???? Hmmm...maybe the UPC should also add that to their long list of standards too. :heeheehee

You totally disregard the fact that references in the book of enoch contradicts the word of God, and is clearly written differently than the rest of the bible.

[PreacherME]

[/B]




@Aquila do not talk to me like im a child. There was a reason why the early church fathers and the..King James Bible..translators rejected the..Book of Enoch..as inpired by God...Try cross-referencing the..Book of Enoch..with the Word of God ..In chapter 1:9 of the..Book of Enoch..says that an angel named Phanuel is "set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life" ... Salvation is found ONLY in Christ Jesus.


@Preacherme you quote makeup and jewelry references only because it lines up with the man made standards of UPC. Its hilarious how pentecostal continue to grasp straws to justify all their legalism. Did you also know the book of Enoch refers also to reading and writing as abominations/sins taught by angels???? Hmmm...maybe the UPC should also add that to their long list of standards too. :heeheehee

You totally disregard the fact that references in the book of enoch contradicts the word of God, is suspect because its clearly written differently than the rest of the bible.Evenuntodeath, listen as hard as I try I know from my heart that I cannot Preach from Enoch because of the controversy. This is one reason why I struggle with the idea of preaching certain standards and this most definitely includes makeup. I have a hard time preaching against standards because of my studies; however, I do believe that makeup has its origin in fallen angels and I cannot as easily dismiss what you call suspect even though I can't preach it.

I told you on another thread that I was mixed up because I have nothing concrete. And as far as writing goes Enoch got his written portion from God. Peace my friend.

[Aquila]

[/B]
@Aquila do not talk to me like im a child. There was a reason why the early church fathers and the..King James Bible..translators rejected the Book of Enoch as inpired by God. Try cross-referencing the Book of Enoch with the Word of God. In chapter 1:9 of the..Book of Enoch..says that an angel named Phanuel is "set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life" ... Salvation is found ONLY in Christ Jesus.

My apologies. No offence was intended.

There were supporters of the Book of Enoch among many early church fathers. Justin Martyr for example. However, as Jewish mysticism became rampant rabbinical authorities denounced it. And when that happened, the "established church" denounced it also.

As for the angel of Phanuel... most likely the original Book of Enoch was written before the time of Christ. Therefore, the notion of specific angelic spheres of influence would follow OT fashion. It is quite possible that the angel Phanuel (and the order of angels below him) were tasked with leading and revealing the truth of JEHOVAH in deeper ways among God's people. The ministry of angels is a very mysterious reality that is only hinted about in Scripture.

Please note, the Book of Enoch was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dates back to around 150 B.C.

You totally disregard the fact that references in the book of enoch contradicts the word of God, and is clearly written differently than the rest of the bible.

I'd have to propose that anything in the Book of Enoch that contradicts the Cannon might be modifications that depart from the original text.

There are quotes and thoughts from the Book of Enoch in the NT. Take into consideration that the Book of Enoch is estimated to have been first written around 150 B.C. Here's a link:

http://www.stargods.org/EnochQuoted.htm

But more importantly we have a massive theological issue on this subject WITHOUT the Book of Enoch. In the NT we read...

Jude 6
The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.

2 Peter 2:4
God spared not the angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.

Here's the question... Both Jude and Peter write to their readers presuppositionally on this single subject. They presuppose that their readers automatically understood the sin that these angels committed. Contextual considerations pointing to this is the fact that neither Jude nor Peter offer an explanation of the "angels that sinned". Since all revelation is founded upon the Word of God... I ask... Where dose the BIBLE explain who these angels were and what sin they committed???

Within that piece of information... Jude and Peter's statements simply hang out there in a limbo in which no one knows who these angels were or what grave sin they committed.

Then, we have another theological issue.

Satan isn't bound.
Demons aren't bound.

However, these angels are bound in chains of darkness, reserved unto judgment.

Now... Why would God allow the demons and Satan himself to roam free... and yet bind these angels? What sin was so great and threatening to mankind that God would bind these angels up until the day of judgment???

Can you provide an answer from Scripture???

When we consider these things... the only possibility is Genesis 6. And please note, I've demonstrated how this can be concluded WITHOUT the Book of Enoch.

[Praxeas]

Yes. Remove TV from the "guide"....replace it with an official "UPCI TV guide for Dummies...what to watch and not watch" by David Bernard :heeheehee

[Michael Phelps]

Yes. Remove TV from the "guide"....replace it with an official "UPCI TV guide for Dummies...what to watch and not watch" by David Bernard :heeheehee

:highfive

[Aquila]

Yes. Remove TV from the "guide"....replace it with an official "UPCI TV guide for Dummies...what to watch and not watch" by David Bernard :heeheehee

:heeheehee

[Ferd]

The TV thing has always perplexed me. It seems to me the UC view simply breeds immature christians who cannot think for themselves and either blindly follow or eventually reject sound doctrine when they wake up and recognize some preachers conviction being preached as doctrine.

Niether of those is a good thing. It just leads to either lost or shallow folk.

Why not teach Christian maturity and desernment and prayer life, and following the leading of the spirit? you dont have to name anything. but if you have a church well taught in those things, they will be forced by their own walk with God and His leading, to turn off bad programing, or get rid of TV on their own.

but this idea of a ban on the thing, just teaches people nothing and when they run into something else (internet) they have no self control because they are immature.

This kind of silliness is the root problem in all of Oneness Pentecost and it causes vastly too many good people to abandon sound doctrine. AFF is full of good folk who walked away from sound doctrine over nonsensical personal convictions being tought as doctrine.

[Scott Hutchinson]

If one has the internet,then how can one say to have a TV. is a sin ?
Porn is easy to find online,yet on a TV. one must have the channels that carry it to watch such.

[Aquila]

In reality... sin is in the heart.

A man can choose to sin even if all he owns is a mat to sleep on.

[Michael Phelps]

The TV thing has always perplexed me. It seems to me the UC view simply breeds immature christians who cannot think for themselves and either blindly follow or eventually reject sound doctrine when they wake up and recognize some preachers conviction being preached as doctrine.

Niether of those is a good thing. It just leads to either lost or shallow folk.

Why not teach Christian maturity and desernment and prayer life, and following the leading of the spirit? you dont have to name anything. but if you have a church well taught in those things, they will be forced by their own walk with God and His leading, to turn off bad programing, or get rid of TV on their own.

but this idea of a ban on the thing, just teaches people nothing and when they run into something else (internet) they have no self control because they are immature.

This kind of silliness is the root problem in all of Oneness Pentecost and it causes vastly too many good people to abandon sound doctrine. AFF is full of good folk who walked away from sound doctrine over nonsensical personal convictions being tought as doctrine.

Ferd, I'm not quite sure what is happening today, but I am finding that I'm agreeing with you!!!!!!! This should not be! Where's the drama in that????

[Scott Hutchinson]

Maybe someone could write a blues song about this and call it TV.blues or something.

[Michael Phelps]

Maybe someone could write a blues song about this and call it TV.blues or something.

Too late.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgdqEkaDcDM

[Ferd]

Ferd, I'm not quite sure what is happening today, but I am finding that I'm agreeing with you!!!!!!! This should not be! Where's the drama in that????

ha! you should listen to me more! you might get saved! LOLOLOL!!!

J/K

[Michael Phelps]

ha! you should listen to me more! you might get saved! LOLOLOL!!!

J/K

:highfive:smack:laffatu

[rgcraig]

ha! you should listen to me more! you might get saved! LOLOLOL!!!

J/K

Or maybe you're coming around to think like us moderate folks!

[Ferd]

Or maybe you're coming around to think like us moderate folks!

ha! I started off right in the middle and I havent moved an inch....

[Hoovie]

I am safe in the middle.... it takes the left and the right wing fluttering around to define where I am!

[rgcraig]

ha! I started off right in the middle and I havent moved an inch....

Yep, I know. :highfive

[Ferd]

Here is my history on TV.

I went to a church growing up that was moderate.

I remember quite vividly the preacher one day talking about television. THis was in the late 70s. He said, i know a lot of you have TVs and I am not going to ever make an issue of that. But I want to say some things on the subject. There are some good things and there are some things that just are not good.

If you are going to watch TV, you need to know there are some things that just are not good for your mind and heart and walk with God. Just because it is on, doesnt mean you should watch it.

He went futher and said he suggested that we not watch two shows, 3's Company and Sanford and Son. He gave solid reason, first 3C has men and women not married, but living together. (remember this was the 70's and not today) and Sanford and son had a charactor who was sacreligious.

It wasnt so much "dont watch these shows" as it was "this is the kind of thing you need to look for".

This has always been the guide my family has used. it was sound teaching and not some "touch not" stuff that leads to people incapable of making sound decisions.

[Hoovie]

Here is my history on TV...

Raised without it. Watched some shows since then - but never really had TV that was "hooked up".

I would miss the internet MUCH more than TV... I rarely find anything entertaining even when around TV for days on end.

[ILG]

Here is my history on TV.

I went to a church growing up that was moderate.

I remember quite vividly the preacher one day talking about television. THis was in the late 70s. He said, i know a lot of you have TVs and I am not going to ever make an issue of that. But I want to say some things on the subject. There are some good things and there are some things that just are not good.

If you are going to watch TV, you need to know there are some things that just are not good for your mind and heart and walk with God. Just because it is on, doesnt mean you should watch it.

He went futher and said he suggested that we not watch two shows, 3's Company and Sanford and Son. He gave solid reason, first 3C has men and women not married, but living together. (remember this was the 70's and not today) and Sanford and son had a charactor who was sacreligious.

It wasnt so much "dont watch these shows" as it was "this is the kind of thing you need to look for".

This has always been the guide my family has used. it was sound teaching and not some "touch not" stuff that leads to people incapable of making sound decisions.

Wow. I wish that had been the kind of teaching we had gotten.

We still don't have TV. I don't see a need or reason for one. My sister and her husband don't have one either and they are Buddhists. ;)

[ILG]

Here is my history on TV...

Raised without it. Watched some shows since then - but never really had TV that was "hooked up".

I would miss the internet MUCH more than TV... I rarely find anything entertaining even when around TV for days on end.

That's where we are. No "hooked up" TV. No point in it. We watch videos on a pretty regular basis. When we go to a hotel and watch TV, there are so many commercials, it can drive you nuts. What a waste of time! We are all internet nuts though.

[Hoovie]

That's where we are. No "hooked up" TV. No point in it. We watch videos on a pretty regular basis. When we go to a hotel and watch TV, there are so many commercials, it can drive you nuts. What a waste of time! We are all internet nuts though.


:thumbsup:thumbsup

[RandyWayne]

The TV thing has always perplexed me. It seems to me the UC view simply breeds immature christians who cannot think for themselves and either blindly follow or eventually reject sound doctrine when they wake up and recognize some preachers conviction being preached as doctrine.

Niether of those is a good thing. It just leads to either lost or shallow folk.

Why not teach Christian maturity and desernment and prayer life, and following the leading of the spirit? you dont have to name anything. but if you have a church well taught in those things, they will be forced by their own walk with God and His leading, to turn off bad programing, or get rid of TV on their own.

but this idea of a ban on the thing, just teaches people nothing and when they run into something else (internet) they have no self control because they are immature.

This kind of silliness is the root problem in all of Oneness Pentecost and it causes vastly too many good people to abandon sound doctrine. AFF is full of good folk who walked away from sound doctrine over nonsensical personal convictions being tought as doctrine.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Kinda reminds me of the Apostolic/UPCI version of gun control.

[Aquila]

but this idea of a ban on the thing, just teaches people nothing and when they run into something else (internet) they have no self control because they are immature.

Hey, I came from a church like that. And I'm not immature. You're just a big fat doodie head.










(jk) :lol

[LadyRev]

Some of you may have failed to realize that the UPC has become dominated by the strong feminine influence...nothing can be more pagan than that.

With the exception of those receiving salary, tithes, and financial benefit, men are getting tired of it. :blah:blah:blah

Same ole "blame the women" game. Some things NEVER change.

Why don't you talk about the wimpy males, in the UPC and out?

[LadyRev]

The UPCI (or any other organization) isn't the Kingdom of God and should never be seen as anything more than a human organization designed to make money and control members.

Ignorant post of the day award!

[Cindy]

Same ole "blame the women" game. Some things NEVER change.

Why don't you talk about the wimpy males, in the UPC and out?

:thumbsup

[Aquila]

Ignorant post of the day award!

Is the UPCI the Kingdom of God? Nope.

Must it raise revenues to stay in business? Yep.

Does it control members? Yes.

Now... consider something. By "control" we don't have to assume it is negative. Members are controlled in that they must affirm what an organization assumes to be true doctrine and practice.

In fact... the subject of this thread is about an area of control that the UPCI is loosening.

Hope you get my meaning.

[RandyWayne]

Same ole "blame the women" game. Some things NEVER change.

Why don't you talk about the wimpy males, in the UPC and out?

I do agree that we need less of these:
http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/bands/a/american_idol/noriega_danny/03042008/281x211.jpg


And more of these.
http://www.valmontfirearms.co.uk/ESW/Images/cowboy111.jpg

[Jack Shephard]

I think we have all heard for years something like "Our ladies are the prettiest ladies anywhere." It's true in some cases. There are some ladies in the UPC or similar orgs that care about their apperance. They workout, they eat well, they bathe, they do other things. I am not suggesting that other don't bathe but perhaps they need an updated fragrance. :)

Skirts, long hair, etc. those things may never change because they "have bible for that," but tv they really don't. If the UPC evolves back to a fellowship where there are 1-steppers & 3-steppers alike then there will be room for those that believe skirts & hair are essential and those that don't merging together. Ya know what I would like to see? I'd love to see sermons at UPC events, conferences be nothing about "rallying the troops" and be all about helping people, practical/biblical living. There is a Fellowship & conference in the Southeastern US called IAF, International Apostolic Fellowship. They are a group of many from varying Apostolic backgrounds that come together and worship God, preach, sing and all that. Not much is preached about the core doctrine all the time aside from the Holy Ghost and baptism in Jesus name. I know for a fact there are 1-steppers there.

Show me a fellowship not a organizational structure.

[RandyWayne]

I think we have all heard for years something like "Our ladies are the prettiest ladies anywhere." It's true in some cases. There are some ladies in the UPC or similar orgs that care about their apperance. They workout, they eat well, they bathe, they do other things. I am not suggesting that other don't bathe but perhaps they need an updated fragrance. :)



You may agree with this having lived here, but in my opinion the most beautiful women on average in any specific religion have to be the Mormons. We have so many Mormon families in our neighborhood with larger (4-6 kids) families and most of the wives look like they were never pregnant once in their lives.

[KeptByTheWord]

You may agree with this having lived here, but in my opinion the most beautiful women on average in any specific religion have to be the Mormons. We have so many Mormon families in our neighborhood with larger (4-6 kids) families and most of the wives look like they were never pregnant once in their lives.

Interesting. Any guesses as to why this might be? I've noticed the same thing.

[KeptByTheWord]

I do agree that we need less of these:
http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/bands/a/american_idol/noriega_danny/03042008/281x211.jpg


And more of these.
http://www.valmontfirearms.co.uk/ESW/Images/cowboy111.jpg

:thumbsup

[Jack Shephard]

You may agree with this having lived here, but in my opinion the most beautiful women on average in any specific religion have to be the Mormons. We have so many Mormon families in our neighborhood with larger (4-6 kids) families and most of the wives look like they were never pregnant once in their lives.

Without a doubt bro! I couldn't have said it better myself!

There a some in the OP church that are similar. You know what though. In one of the Mormon books, Doctrine and Covenants, it teaches & emplores them to take care of their bodies - they are the temple of God and all. It is due to these writings that many of the LDS men and women are in such good shape.

[Jack Shephard]

Interesting. Any guesses as to why this might be? I've noticed the same thing.

See my last post for your answer. :thumbsup

LOL

[ILG]

Maybe those Mormon women are afraid their husband is going to take Wive Number #2!!!

[returnman]

I agree.


As to the issue of the initial limitations of preaching against tech instead of principles, many principles were addressed when these messages were preached. I know this because I heard them referenced numerous times. Television and movies are wastes of time and money. They are a distraction from doing the work of God. They are filled with immodesty, violence, sexual immorality, and all forms of ungodliness. Those are the principles that I often heard preached, and I still believe them.

What changed? Not the principles of the Bible!

The only thing that has changed are the hearts of the men who lead. The manual itself made clear that the violaton of Christian principles was the key motivator that caused them to stand against television.

Many preachers have ceased to address the television itself, and instead preach against all forms of Hollywood style entertainment. For this reason, it becomes obvious what the true motives behind any changes actually are.

Good grief. I can think of a lot of areas u can violate biblical principles other then some out of control behavior with a tv remote. talk about sacred cows.

[houston]

You may agree with this having lived here, but in my opinion the most beautiful women on average in any specific religion have to be the Mormons. We have so many Mormon families in our neighborhood with larger (4-6 kids) families and most of the wives look like they were never pregnant once in their lives.

The most beautiful women that I have ever seen were at the outdoor mall in Salt Lake City.

[webe123]

I would miss the internet MUCH more than TV... I rarely find anything entertaining even when around TV for days on end.

Thank you for making my POINT! It is absolutely hypocritical to make TV an ISSUE and NOT THE INTERNET!

There are way more things on the internet that are much, much worse than television! (Things you will NEVER EVER find on TV.....are readily available on the internet!)

Sorry, but people that think like this ..... that think it is OK to have internet and not a TV... is basically having a double standard. If this drives them into another organization because they somehow think people are going to hell for owning or watching stuff on TV, then so be it! The UPCI already has enough judgemental people without adding to the problem.

I am in the UPCI, but I do NOT hide my TV when someone comes over. That is just plain stupid! Matter of fact I have two, one in the living room and one in my room.....right next to my computer monitor.

There are MANY, MANY UPCI Ministers that have had TV for years! It is way past time this resolution passed and people got off this issue!

I would respect some UPCI members and even the UPCI itself...IF they banned BOTH television and internet out of their lives.

But to say TV is bad but internet is OK is not only ignorant, but it insults the intelligence of it's members!

For those that say "TV was bad way back when...so it should be bad today".

I have a question for you, what do you think the "old- timers" would say if they saw some of the stuff that is available on the internet? I personally think they would have a heart attack. And I also think they would be way more prone to ban the internet than the TV!

To me, it is pure hypocracy! Anything that is on TV right now, you can watch on the internet. So what is the difference?

I actually think some people want to be different to be different, not because it has to do with biblical principals! If they feel like they have to leave the organization over this one issue just to make a point, then they can feel completly free to leave and go to some other organization that they will feel more comfortable in. One thing is for sure, I will not miss judgemental people like that!

[Hoovie]

Thank you for making my POINT! It is absolutely hypocritical to make TV an ISSUE and NOT THE INTERNET!

There are way more things on the internet that are much, much worse than television! (Things you will NEVER EVER find on TV.....are readily available on the internet!)

Sorry, but people that think like this ..... that think it is OK to have internet and not a TV... is basically having a double standard. If this drives them into another organization because they somehow think people are going to hell for owning or watching stuff on TV, then so be it! The UPCI already has enough judgemental people without adding to the problem.

I am in the UPCI, but I do NOT hide my TV when someone comes over. That is just plain stupid! Matter of fact I have two, one in the living room and one in my room.....right next to my computer monitor.

There are MANY, MANY UPCI Ministers that have had TV for years! It is way past time this resolution passed and people got off this issue!

I would respect some UPCI members and even the UPCI itself...IF they banned BOTH television and internet out of their lives.

But to say TV is bad but internet is OK is not only ignorant, but it insults the intelligence of it's members!

For those that say "TV was bad way back when...so it should be bad today".

I have a question for you, what do you think the "old- timers" would say if they saw some of the stuff that is available on the internet? I personally think they would have a heart attack. And I also think they would be way more prone to ban the internet than the TV!

To me, it is pure hypocracy! Anything that is on TV right now, you can watch on the internet. So what is the difference?

I actually think some people want to be different to be different, not because it has to do with biblical principals! If they feel like they have to leave the organization over this one issue just to make a point, then they can feel completly free to leave and go to some other organization that they will feel more comfortable in. One thing is for sure, I will not miss judgemental people like that!

It would be hypocrisy if said people behaved in the way you describe. I have not seen that hypocrisy much. Either they are able to use both responsibly and think the wording should be changed to reflect modern day technology. Or they reject prettying all shows and entertainment and use the Internet for quite limited research and email etc. Are there some ministers who watch debauchery on The internet then kick out their members for owning TV? I'm am sure that has happened but I don't know any.

Changing the language would really not change anything at all in terms watching habits There would be no mandate for churches to liberalize what they teach at all.

[Aquila]

I do agree that we need less of these:
http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/bands/a/american_idol/noriega_danny/03042008/281x211.jpg


And more of these.
http://www.valmontfirearms.co.uk/ESW/Images/cowboy111.jpg

:thumbsup

[trialedbyfire]

I know it might sound cynical.

With the notion of "control" that can be viewed in both good ways and bad ways. First, it can be used to denote the reality that the measures of control protect from false doctrine and/or abuses. Control can also denote various forms of legalism. It can also serve to speak to politics and a specific coalition with a specific agenda maintaining control.

Control isn't always so bad. But it isn't always so good either.

As for the "money making"... let's face it. An organization with a vision like the UPCI needs to generate revenue. The budget crisis is more a symptom of not being able to balance income verses expenses. They have to drastically tighten their belts and let go of some things.

Of course, this is easy for me to say because... I'm a house churcher. I attend two different house churches in my area that are networked with over 20 others in a local network. Each house church is autonomous, we're only linked through common vision. Very little overhead for each house church. The larger campus that the network purchased costs, but each house church contributes to it as desired.

Congratulations. I go to a church with 1,500 members in a large building in Maryland. We have bills to pay and lights to keep on, we also feed many homeless in DC, reach the lost through dozens of outreach programs daily, preach on the streets of DC, clothe hundreds of needy. I'm not knocking house churches or whatever, however it seems like you're acting as if traditional churches that are run on the tithes and offerings of it's people are worthless and don't effect change in their communities at all. And not mentioning the MASSIVE impact that churches and church organizations have on communities EVERY DAY in charitable donations alone when talking about them as "money making machines" is pretty intellectually dishonest.

[deacon blues]

Congratulations. I go to a church with 1,500 members in a large building in Maryland. We have bills to pay and lights to keep on, we also feed many homeless in DC, reach the lost through dozens of outreach programs daily, preach on the streets of DC, clothe hundreds of needy. I'm not knocking house churches or whatever, however it seems like you're acting as if traditional churches that are run on the tithes and offerings of it's people are worthless and don't effect change in their communities at all. And not mentioning the MASSIVE impact that churches and church organizations have on communities EVERY DAY in charitable donations alone when talking about them as "money making machines" is pretty intellectually dishonest.

You will find an aversion to tithing in the house church movement.

[deacon blues]

Well, I stand corrected. The original post is false. I misunderstood what I was told about the resolution. DKB communicated this week to clarify:


Communications technology continues to change so that the statements of principle in the
Articles of Faith and in the Constitution can best be applied more specifically
by explanations in a Position Paper.

Media Technology

Adopted by the General Board in 2012

Our elders took an important, principled, and correct stand against the evils of television in 1954 when they adopted the fourth paragraph on holiness in our Articles of Faith in response to the invention of television and other changes in society. It follows that we need to enunciate the principles upon which our elders acted and apply them in light of technological changes and more complex choices today. Specifically, traditional television is now merging with other technologies that we have accepted, such as computers, online media, satellite and cable deliveries, media players, smart phones, tablets, and game consoles. Moreover, some forms of video technology are obsolete but new forms have been invented and are continuing to be invented.

Therefore we must give appropriate guidance to a new generation of believers with regard to all use of communications technology in language that is understandable and meaningful to them so we can continue to uphold our position on holiness of life and holiness in the use of all communications technology. In view of the symbolic nature of media for our movement, we must be careful not to signal any compromise of belief or lifestyle.

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. Neither the Bible nor the United Pentecostal Church International teaches that salvation can be earned by good works, but both contend that holiness in behavior results from a transforming experience of the Holy Ghost, and is therefore incumbent upon each Christian. The church has an obligation to establish standards of conduct when necessary, but it refuses to make rules for every aspect of daily living. Each Christian is responsible to God to maintain holiness in his or her life, for God alone is the judge, but the church is also responsible to teach biblical standards of holiness. Holiness as a spiritual experience and a way of life is not an option for a Christian, but a biblical injunction. (See II Corinthians 7:1; Romans 12:1-2; John 17:14-16; I John 2:15-16; Ephesians 5:11.)

It is very evident that spirituality and holiness are deeply entwined together. The Scriptures teach that carnality is enmity toward God. The use of media must therefore be carefully considered so that we do not take the beautiful truths of God into areas that will contribute to the downfall of a child of God. The influence of sinful media programming is so grave and damaging to Christian living that conscience demands it be battled in a principled way. The biblical safeguard against rapid cultural or technological change is to build upon timeless principles. Scripture elegantly solves the proper management of media technology with a single verse: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes” (Psalm 101:3). A consistent and principled position on media programming does not constitute a threat to our core stand on issues of separation from the world, but only strengthens our position by casting in principle the manner in which we are already solving this issue in practice.

Second, the General Board voted to bring to the General Conference a resolution to change UPCI General Constitution, Article VII, Section 7, Paragraphs 31 and 32. The resolution will be finalized by the Legislative Committee of the General Board for approval by the Executive Board in May, after which it will be presented to the Resolutions Committee. I have also been told that others may be submitting one or more resolutions on this subject. Since the Resolutions Committee has discretion on the submission of all resolutions, including modification or combination of resolutions, it would be premature to discuss exact wording. Essentially, however, the proposed resolution would refer to all media instead of simply television and video, and it would strictly limit the use of all media technology to educational, religious, inspirational, and family content that is consistent with wholesome Christian principles. It would further prohibit the use of television or other media technology for the purpose of viewing worldly, carnal and unwholesome media. I would like to explain the intention of the General Board in this matter.
There is no proposal to change the Articles of Faith, which state that "we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes." The Articles of Faith govern the rest of the Manual as well as any other policies or resolutions.

As stated in the Position Paper, the General Board does not seek to change our stand for holiness but instead to apply the same principles to all media technology.

The resolution is not proposed because of a desire to change our position but because technology has rendered our present language inadequate and in some cases obsolete. For example, someone sent me a recent article by a secular journalist who does not own a television. She found that a wide variety of TV programming is available on the Internet, and much of it is free. Thus, if she chooses to watch a particular TV program or highlight, she does so on her laptop. My conclusion is that Christians should not have television sets in their homes, but it is possible to watch some programming on various other devices, and in such cases Christians should be consistent in all use of media. The same holiness principles should apply regardless of the mode of delivery.

There is a consensus that we cannot ignore this issue and that the ministerial constituency needs to deliberate and decide on the best course of action, instead of the General Board simply making a decision.The General Board was not unanimous in approving the specific resolution to be proposed (it had a two-thirds majority), but it was unanimous in adopting the Position Paper and in now sending it to the General Conference for a vote. In essence, the proposed resolution is an attempt to apply the principles of the Position Paper to the Constitution.

Any action that is currently contrary to our position of holiness will still be contrary to our position if the proposed resolution is passed.

No one should characterize this proposal as a first step toward changing our teaching on practical applications of scriptural holiness, such as modesty, jewelry, makeup, or hair. As clearly expressed in the General Board discussion, that is not the intention.

The UPCI has the most conservative position regarding television of all major Oneness Pentecostal organizations. This will remain true even if the current proposal is adopted.

For many of us, this issue has symbolic significance, but we should focus on the substance. People of my generation are "digital immigrants." We grew up without computers, cell phones, MP3 players, tablets, or the Internet. As United Pentecostals we grew up without television and movies. Our children or grandchildren, however, are "digital natives." They grew up in a media-saturated culture and learned to use the latest digital tools as they grew. Although they too were raised without television and with strict limitations on video, they have been exposed to a variety of audiovisual input every day from school, friends, the Internet, social media, and YouTube. What I call a monitor they call a television, and what I call a video or a DVD they call a movie, because that is how their peers speak. To me these words are both symbolic and substantive, so I am careful how I use both the words and the objects. They embrace the same principles of holiness, but the terms and technology are not as symbolic for them-just part of everyday culture. I don't say this to minimize the importance of our discussion but to appeal for thoughtful, prayerful deliberation. Let us listen carefully to one another to discern our true meaning and purpose. Ultimately, we realize this matter cannot be fully resolved by legislation but only by a godly conscience and a heart for God.

Finally, it is important to follow biblical principles in our discussion. How we decide could be as significant as exactly what we decide. If we are right in our stand but wrong in our spirit, then we are wrong. We need a healthy, mature process to ensure a positive example to younger ministers, the integrity of the outcome, and the credibility of our movement. We should discuss policy issues of this nature with respect for everyone, without threatening either apostolic identity or apostolic unity. A few may support a resolution like this in a misguided effort to compromise our identity, and a few may oppose one because of a legalistic understanding of holiness; but I believe the vast majority want to do what is right and what is best, regardless of how they ultimately vote. We should not impugn motives or character, revile, or sow discord. Human anger does not produce the righteousness God desires (James 1:20). We need heavenly wisdom-which is pure, peaceable (peace loving), gentle (considerate), easily entreated (willing to yield), full of mercy and good fruits, without any partiality or hypocrisy (James 3:17). As shown in Acts 15, there is a biblical process of ministers coming together in conference for careful, thorough, prayerful consideration. Let's not short-circuit this process by prejudging the outcome in personal conversations or on social media.
Our Fundamental Doctrine, the most important part of our Articles of Faith, instructs us to seek unity in this matter: "We shall endeavour 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." Let us pray that, after considering potentially strong differences of opinion, like the church in Acts 15 we can reach a consensus that seems "good to the Holy Ghost and to us."




Sorry. I didn't mean to mislead anyone. My bad.

[webe123]

I have not seen that hypocrisy much. Either they are able to use both responsibly and think the wording should be changed to reflect modern day technology.

Well just because YOU have not seen it does not mean I have! And thus my posting!

There are churches I can tell you of that call it the "idiot box" because they actually think of people who watch TV as idiots! it is saying "Only an idiot would watch TV".

You don't think THAT attitude is just a little judgemental? I call it as I see it HYPOCRITICAL. Nothing more to be said on that subject.

Or they reject prettying all shows and entertainment and use the Internet for quite limited research and email etc. Are there some ministers who watch debauchery on The internet then kick out their members for owning TV? I'm am sure that has happened but I don't know any. Again, just because you personally don't "know any" does not mean you can dismiss it, because the attitude does exsist.

Changing the language would really not change anything at all in terms watching habits There would be no mandate for churches to liberalize what they teach at all.

You are dead wrong on that one! If t6hey changed the language, it would help heal the divide that exsists between those who have a TV and use it responsibly and those acting like idiots and calling people names that have one.

Again, it would not hurt my feelings any at all if those people decided to move out of the UPCI! If it really troubles them that much, then they need to get out.

[Pressing-On]

Well, I stand corrected. The original post is false. I misunderstood what I was told about the resolution. DKB communicated this week to clarify:



Sorry. I didn't mean to mislead anyone. My bad.

:heeheehee

[webe123]

Well, I stand corrected. The original post is false. I misunderstood what I was told about the resolution. DKB communicated this week to clarify:



Sorry. I didn't mean to mislead anyone. My bad.

So what that basically states is: the FACT that they REALIZE TV can be had on other platforms...that it is NOT the 1950's anymore and that people have grown UP with technology, while elderly people did not!

I still think the TV thing is very devisive and some people use it as a whipping stick to beat others into submission, which I think is not only wrong, but against the principles of the bible!

And the reporter that does not have a TV also stated that she can watch anything she wants to...ON THE INTERNET! So it is not like she has given up TV completely.

Frankly, I think is a different generation, it IS more educated and thinks for itself more.

Frankly I still see the TV thing as a wrong way to do things and hope that language is taken out.

But the vote has not been taken YET...so it could go either way.

[BrotherEastman]

Just got an e-mail from the UPC headquarters, they are not changing their stand on television according to DKB. God bless.

[Hoovie]

Well just because YOU have not seen it does not mean I have! And thus my posting!

There are churches I can tell you of that call it the "idiot box" because they actually think of people who watch TV as idiots! it is saying "Only an idiot would watch TV".

You don't think THAT attitude is just a little judgemental? I call it as I see it HYPOCRITICAL. Nothing more to be said on that subject.

Again, just because you personally don't "know any" does not mean you can dismiss it, because the attitude does exsist.



You are dead wrong on that one! If t6hey changed the language, it would help heal the divide that exsists between those who have a TV and use it responsibly and those acting like idiots and calling people names that have one.

Again, it would not hurt my feelings any at all if those people decided to move out of the UPCI! If it really troubles them that much, then they need to get out.

Uh... I did not mention you. If I quoted you it was reference to the talking points - nothing more.

[Praxeas]

Well just because YOU have not seen it does not mean I have! And thus my posting!

There are churches I can tell you of that call it the "idiot box" because they actually think of people who watch TV as idiots! it is saying "Only an idiot would watch TV".

You don't think THAT attitude is just a little judgemental? I call it as I see it HYPOCRITICAL. Nothing more to be said on that subject.


I don't. Non UPCers refer to it as the idiot box. Not because you are an idiot if you watch it but because of the often dumbed down content found on it

It's also been called the boob tube. It's an American slang term not a UPC one

[Hoovie]

Well, I stand corrected. The original post is false. I misunderstood what I was told about the resolution. DKB communicated this week to clarify:



Sorry. I didn't mean to mislead anyone. My bad.

This is not different than I assumed it would be Deacon. I figured the language would be expanded to include other media.

It makes sense I suppose, and still leaves the ultimate responsibility to the parents to determine what is wholesome, and family content.

[Max Cosme]

Deacon no need to apologize. The misleading is Bernard's.

This last communication from the bishop is classic Bernardese.

Any subsequent amended Holiness article which removes the wording "television sets" is a big change from his elders intents who specifically targeted the device in people's homes.

It reads like his 2007 letters as South Texas Superintendent when the TV advertising amendement, ultimately passed

What this proposed resolution, in his own words, will say, is that they will come out against all unwholesome CONTENT on all forms of media.

He is interpreting the elder's original intent while saying it's not compromise. Read David Gray's once required ministerial book, Questions Pentecostal's as Ask, for an orginal merger member's view on owning a television in your home. As he was in favor for the Holiness change in 1954, as well.

This new resolution would sound like canned statement one could expect from Focus on the Family against inappropriate content. Very similar to the ALJC's.

It placates in some way all sides. Liberals and moderates will say we have these devices but monitor its content. The cons can feel their organization preaches against television. In reality, it does not.

HE IS A LAWYER, FIRST. A WORD MAGICIAN.

Of course such a resolution BY DEFAULT takes away the previous prohibition on not having the devices in their homes.

By making this historic change to the Holiness article - The first since 1954, he is being cautious, if not intentionally diplomatic and vague or duplicitious. It's a political game which will still cost him some more conservatives.


Ultimately, this proposed resolution will do as intended. It leaves it up to pastoral and individual discretion. And most importantly, by changing the Holiness article, those who sign the affirmation statement (affirming the holiness and Fundamental Doctrine only) -- ministers will be able to sign WITH INTEGRITY.

[Max Cosme]

Also, as a footnote. Bernard takes a swipe at the WPF.

He states in this last letter: The UPCI has the most conservative position regarding television of all major Oneness Pentecostal organizations. This will remain true even if the current proposal is adopted.

The WPF's TV statement? Not a major Oneness organization, obviously. As their statement would be more conservative and stricter, if this proposed UPCI resolution passes.

[MarcBee]

This last communication from the bishop is classic Bernardese....

What this proposed resolution, in his own words, will say, is that they will come out against all unwholesome CONTENT on all forms of media...



Ok, but can the above in any way circumvent the apparent meaning of this,
DKB: <<There is no proposal to change the Articles of Faith, which state that "we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes.">>
?

:o

[seekerman]

The truth is, most UPC folks have televisions and watch them. That's been going on for quite a long time now, ever since the 'monitor' days. (Remember when they were just 'monitors' and not televisions? :))

All the television issue is doing is making hypocrites out of guilt-laden Christians. Preach relationship with God instead and that'll do more to control things which shouldn't be in a person's life be it television, or anything else, including the internet. Within seconds after posting this, I could be watching the most perverted of porn if I so choose but because of relationship with God I'm not going to do that. I could go read anything I wanted, find a person to have an affair with, but because of relationship with God I'm not going to do that.

In my opinion, the UPC is keeping the television references simply because they do not wish to be viewed as becoming like the world. It's a pride issue with them, IMO. But it's making them, as well as those 'apostolic' WPF folks, look foolish when they attempt to ban television and keep the internet.

[Timmy]

The truth is, most UPC folks have televisions and watch them. ...

Great Frying Flounders!

[seekerman]

Great Frying Flounders!

Do NOT....I repeat do NOT let that info go any further. It's just for folks on AFF.

[Timmy]

Do NOT....I repeat do NOT let that info go any further. It's just for folks on AFF.

My lips are sealed! :lol

[MarcBee]

The truth is, most UPC folks have televisions and watch them. That's been going on for quite a long time now, ever since the 'monitor' days. (Remember when they were just 'monitors' and not televisions? :))

I well remember, but the interesting part for me is not what the regular folks do, but what the "official standards" are and how the leaders do sell their standards to the rank and file. When I was UPC (now named UPCI) the leaders made no bones about the organization being something THEY belonged to, not something the regular tithes payers were supposed to belong to. So in that sense, *I* was never officially UPC, rather my pastor was. Or maybe that's true of every denomination, don't know.

All the television issue is doing is making hypocrites out of guilt-laden Christians.

Additionally, just about any prescription for any behavior, whether in Bible or not, can easily make a hypocrite out of anyone. Nevertheless, the same "relationship" motives you describe for not wanting to watch porn is the same concept thousands of OPs observe in not having a TV. For me, it was pretty easy to not have a TV. It comported with my personality at the time, which I perhaps conveniently filed under "holiness," without thinking too hard about it.

:exercise:

[Hoovie]

Deacon no need to apologize. The misleading is Bernard's.

This last communication from the bishop is classic Bernardese.

Any subsequent amended Holiness article which removes the wording "television sets" is a big change from his elders intents who specifically targeted the device in people's homes.

It reads like his 2007 letters as South Texas Superintendent when the TV advertising amendement, ultimately passed

What this proposed resolution, in his own words, will say, is that they will come out against all unwholesome CONTENT on all forms of media.

He is interpreting the elder's original intent while saying it's not compromise. Read David Gray's once required ministerial book, Questions Pentecostal's as Ask, for an orginal merger member's view on owning a television in your home. As he was in favor for the Holiness change in 1954, as well.

This new resolution would sound like canned statement one could expect from Focus on the Family against inappropriate content. Very similar to the ALJC's.

It placates in some way all sides. Liberals and moderates will say we have these devices but monitor its content. The cons can feel their organization preaches against television. In reality, it does not.

HE IS A LAWYER, FIRST. A WORD MAGICIAN.

Of course such a resolution BY DEFAULT takes away the previous prohibition on not having the devices in their homes.

By making this historic change to the Holiness article - The first since 1954, he is being cautious, if not intentionally diplomatic and vague or duplicitious. It's a political game which will still cost him some more conservatives.


Ultimately, this proposed resolution will do as intended. It leaves it up to pastoral and individual discretion. And most importantly, by changing the Holiness article, those who sign the affirmation statement (affirming the holiness and Fundamental Doctrine only) -- ministers will be able to sign WITH INTEGRITY.

Max, it seems you judge Bernard's motives harshly. Why?

Do you agree with the proposed changes?

There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic... Making a needed change in wording while at the same time assuring those more conservative that the TV wording remains.