As if you didn’t know this - we have had a debate lately on this page, and several articles, regarding the right and/or wrong aspects of TV evangelism. Please note that views written about on ninetyandnine.com are not necessarily the views of those on the staff. Although many times we have been labeled liberal for daring to print a contrary thought, this zine is not a direct reflection of our own personal beliefs, but an open forum where Apostolic others can express their own viewpoints on daily Christian living. Through that exchange of ideas we can all learn and grow closer to Christ. It’s such a simple idea that we’re often amazed so few do it. In the meantime, thank you for sharing your thoughts through letters and articles!

Finally, I know this is the internet, but don’t stop reading the long letters just because they’re long. They make some fascinating points that deserve to be weighed in your mind, as it will strengthen your walk with God.

To the people debating over the use of TBN in Apostolic ministry, did you know there are other networks out there? For instances, we have a local station PAX, that local churches (most Apostolic) can broadcast on. Also, on a broader scale, there is The Word Network. Just so they know there are a lot of other options out there. Or...we could all just get together and start our own!J

M. Dodge, Ohio

A letter writer responded to the Tommey Tenney issue in last week’s letters.  While discussing whether or not the UPC should be evangelizing through the medium of TV, the writer spoke of the PAW’s decision to evangelize on TV, saying, “It didn't take long before the whole organization began to let down their holiness standards, and chaos followed right after. Upheavals in leadership took place, with many of the old school leaders leaving the organization, as well as newer converts.”  I am not here to comment on the decision of the PAW, but rather on the logic of this argument.  It is fallacious on two grounds.  First, it falls prey to the simple-cause fallacy, indicating that the fall in holiness standards is directly the result of the decision to evangelize on TV.  There is no such thing as simple causation.  There are always multiple causes, interrelated to one another.  What caused the drop in holiness standards and the exodus of ministers was most assuredly due to more than the organization’s decision to evangelize on TV.

This blends into the next fallacy: the slippery slope.  The writer would have us believe that when a movement begins to evangelize on TV they will inevitably begin their journey down a slippery slope to the end, that they will drop their holiness standards and lose their ministers, as though there is some logical and/or necessary connection between the two.  Such is not the case.  If ministering on television causes one to lose their convictions on modesty and other holiness issues, it only demonstrates that those who once embraced them were never really persuaded of them to begin with, because there is no logical connection of TV evangelism with holiness issues such as modesty.  People who drop holiness standards after evangelizing on TV do so because those standards were never in their heart to begin with.  The issue is the heart, not the method of evangelism.

As far as whether or not the UPC should evangelize through TV, I agree with another letter writer that TV is the largest medium available to mankind, and that the church should be using it to reach the lost and dying world.  There is no other medium available to us that is better suited to reach the large numbers of people that we have been commanded to reach.  To not use TV as a medium for the Gospel if we have the means to do so, and thereby severely limiting the number of people that will ever hear the true Gospel, is to make a conscious choice to be half-hearted in our attempt to fulfill the Great Commission.  How shall they hear without a preacher?  TV is the only place that many people will ever hear someone preach the truth.

Yet another letter writer voiced her concern that we are sending mixed messages if we exhort people not to own TVs, and yet we preach the Gospel through TV.  I understand her point, but what are we more worried about—the lost, or our personal convictions?  I personally believe that TV is not a good influence in the life of a Christian, and it is best to be avoided.  But while it is best to avoid TV, there is nothing sinful about TV itself, and thus nothing sinful about evangelizing the lost through that medium.  Are we so worried that some Christians may turn on the TV to watch a football game in the name of “my pastor is on TV” that we are willing to allow multitudes of people to never hear the Gospel who could do so if we broadcast our message on TV?  We are measuring the salvation of multitudes against personal convictions.  There is no comparison, and to say that we should expand our evangelistic efforts through the most effective medium of TV because some Christians may buy a TV, or be emboldened to watch a TV, is in my opinion a horrible comparison to make.  How far off are our priorities?  I would much rather have saved people watching TV than I would see millions of people never reached with the Gospel because of our personal convictions on TV.

And in all reality, whether or not we broadcast on TV is almost an irrelevant issue now with the advent of the Internet.  Certain churches in the UPC broadcast services on the Internet, a place in which you can get hardcore pornography with the click of a button.  We do not object to using this medium, and yet it will reach far less people than will TV, and TV has far less evil on it than does the Internet.  We need to be consistent on the matter if nothing else.  Either it’s evil to broadcast our message through video media or it is not.  Sure, some saints may buy a TV, or begin to watch TV using the excuse that they are doing so in order to see UPC preachers on TV, but that is a lame excuse being used by someone who simply wants to have a TV.

As a Christian, I do not have to watch the broadcast simply because the UPC is broadcasting it.  Besides, the broadcasts are intended primarily for the sinners, not the saints.  If the saints want to watch as well, that is their choice, but at least the multitudes of lost souls would be hearing the truth that they would not have heard otherwise.  Sometimes I get the feeling that some Christians would rather limit heaven to 50 people who did not watch TV rather than see 100 people in heaven, 50 of whom watched TV.  The possible risk involved of saints buying TVs in the name of “my church is on TV” is nothing compared to the definite reality that the vast majority of the world is going to hell because they have never heard the truth.  No carnal Christian should get in the way of the church choosing the most effective methods to fulfill the Great Commission.

Jason Dulle, California

I am saddened to read the many articles that Jim Yohe has been writing to the youth of the Apostolic/Pentecostal movement.  As a minister in the Indiana District of the UPCI, I will not lower myself to the type of negativity that has been portrayed on this web site in regards to the UPCI and it's heritage.  I will, however, quote the UPCI manual and make my point.

Article I. Purpose pg. 31 UPCI Manual, 2002:

“...and to produce and maintain a clean ministry and fellowship.”

When a minister of a denomination speaks out against other ministers within the same denomination, bashes the heritage that many forefathers have died for, and attempts to use a youthful web site as his platform to change a denomination from the inside out, one can only wonder what kind of “clean ministry and fellowship” is being portrayed.

I for one have news for ministers that feel the UPCI is out of date.  There are many young ministers just as I who will carry the torch and continue on where the likes of N.A. Urshan left off.  We do not feel the need to join with the likes of Parsley, Crouch, and Hinn just to make the Charismatic side happy, nor I do not feel the need to lower our standards or change our doctrine.  We will be standing for what the Bible stands for long after the naysayers have left.

I support what Brother N.A. Urshan done and I support what Brother Haney will do.  If I ever find myself at a point in which I can no longer agree with what the UPCI stands for, I will have the respect to remove myself from the ranks.  I would hope that ministers who feel the need to be openly critical of their own denomination have the same respect and move on.

There is an affirmation that UPCI ministers must sign at general conference.  I feel that if you are going to sign it, at least own up to it.  Do not sign it and be hypocritical.

Name Withheld By Request, Indiana

Dear Brother Stuart Kent,

Regarding your article “TV or Not TV: An Intellectual, not Spiritual Question”, I applaud you.

Beverly Dye, Oklahoma

After reading the article by Stuart Kent I would like to say: I have been independent Jesus Name for over 25 years now.  I still have many friends in the UPCI.  My observations of these friends (that don't have television in their homes) will use many other forms of entertainment to pass the time.  I've seen them read novels by the hour, play video games by the hour, and the biggest thing these days is the online computer.  Any of these things will use up your time and some are as ungodly as anything on television.

As far as the Jim and Tammy Faye scenario, in my opinion pastors in the UPCI or any other organization that are receiving in the tens of thousands of dollars a month as a salary are already in the Jim and Tammy Faye mode.  If these pastors can't govern themselves to life a modest lifestyle and use excess money to get the gospel out there,  then they have a serious “heart” problem.

Brenda J Sowers, Washington

I am writing this letter to get a subject off my chest that has been a thorn in my side for years. What I would like to do is make a list of excuses offenders use to offend others.  This list includes those used by people who claim to be Christian and those who don’t.

Let’s see, lets start with:

1) I’m in a bad mood.  (Get over it! or Just keep your mouth shut.)
2) I don’t feel good.  (Most likely you’ll live.)
3) I’m tired. (Keep your mouth shut and go to bed earlier tonight.)
4) I have PMS. (Mostly women use this one. Get over it!)
5) I had a bad childhood.  I was abused. (So have a lot of others, but remember that no matter how bad you have had it, someone else has lived through something far worse. So, get over it!)
6) I’m angry at a friend, relative or co-worker. (So they treated you bad, so you just want to pass it around?)
7) I just don’t like you. (Hey, I’m sure somewhere in the world there is someone that wouldn’t be too crazy about you either, but how would you want them to treat you?)
8) I have been in an abusive relationship. (The past is behind you. Get over it!)

These are just some of the many excuses offenders use for saying hurtful things to others.  A scripture Christians use when they have offended someone is, “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.” (Psalms 119:165)  But, you will never hear the offender quote, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18: 6)

I have not found any scripture that pronounces judgment on the offended but woe unto the offender.  The truth of the matter is that there are no excuses for being hurtful to anyone at anytime.

Flint Campbell, Arizona

ninetyandnine.com

© 2003, ninetyandnine.com

---------