TV and the UPC: The Debate’s All Wrong

weekly fodder for the flock...

Join our e-mail list!

Just type your e-mail address below and press submit.

TV and the UPC: The Debate’s All Wrong

By Kent d Curry

April 30, 2007

The battle for position in the UPC’s Great TV Debate has begun in earnest. After last year’s resolution to allow advertising on television was delayed for one year, with the promise of in-depth research being released in a future issue of The Forward, the UPC’s ministerial magazine, the issue died down. That is no longer the case.

About a month ago, a booklet of anti-TV essays was sent to every UPC (United Pentecostal Church) minister from some concerned ministers. Now the TV research issue of The Forward is in the mail.

Whether you’re a minister or not, this issue directly affects you—both in the future direction of your individual church and the public perception of your beliefs. However, there has to be room for a more nuanced debate than the mostly “all or nothing” stands currently being proclaimed.

Maybe the best place to start is with the terms used by each side. They’re wrong and need to be altered.

What We Aren’t

At the UPCI’s General Conference 2006 in Columbus, buttons were being distributed that stated, “I’m a Concerned Conservative Pentecostal.”

Frankly, to society, we’re all conservative, because “conservative” and “liberal” are political terms. No matter how you vote, anyone who lives their Apostolic beliefs is a conservative on most political and social issues in today’s United States. Understandably, we have appropriated these terms to define Apostolics within our movement, usually in regards to holiness issues. But inaccurate labels can produce unsound arguments. If we recalibrate the terminology for greater accuracy, we can re-approach this issue in a fresh way, instead of from entrenched positions.

Accurate Terms = Superior Discussion

The Apostolic movement currently fits within three broad camps. Yes, there could be endless sub-groups delineated, but I’ve chosen three because it seems to represent those involved with the last great television debate (at General Conference 2004 in Salt Lake City); there were those who were against ministering on television in any form, those who were for it, and a squishy middle, where more than one person told me, ‘I was for it, but I didn’t feel like it was worth splitting the organization over, so I voted against it.’

There’s also an advantage to crafting three terms, in that while two labels can create instant, unthinking antagonism, three can encourage cooperation and understanding for the good of all. More than three can lead to chaos, factionalism, and political deal-making for the sake of victory alone.

Finally, it’s important these new titles not carry a negative connotation. For instance, if one group is called, “Progressive” that automatically implies another group is “Regressive.” That helps no one. I tried to find titles (with input from others) where those within that group would be just as happy to use them as those outside it. These terms and definitions are not perfect, but they’re more accurate than the polarizing “conservative” and “liberal.” Perhaps their addition to our vocabulary might spur a discussion on who we are and what’s most important in the 21^st century.

Behold We Are . . . *

Traditionalists—This group of Apostolic ministers believe the UPCI’s Articles of Faith are largely unimpeachable, that if a minister voluntarily agreed to join the organization then they should have enough integrity to leave it if they won’t abide by them (unless changed by legal means). They are the least likely to adapt to the surrounding cultural changes, seeing as the Acts 2:38 revival message is unchanged after all these years. Contrary to their stereotype, this group is not age specific, though it’s often associated with the elder generation.

Reluctant Progressives—This group understands that the culture around us has shifted dramatically in the last dozen years. They realize our evangelism methods (not our message) must adjust to these changes to remain effective (which may or may not include television advertising). Their specific challenge is that they’re reluctant to make these adjustments because it will uproot personal habits in which they’ve grown comfortable, and create friction among our movement. Frankly, many realize they will have to spend an enormous amount of energy to redirect their congregations and themselves into a shifting future. They believe all change should be in small, measurable steps and are more likely to agree with the Traditionalists by reinforcing the status quo on most issues.

Initiators—This group initiates change and thereby creates conflict with that change. They embrace the present (which others call “the future”) and its many possibilities, though they don’t always explore the consequences before the initiation begins. Sometimes this creates success, while other times it creates problems. Most agree with our biblical doctrine/standards, but are howling over what they consider our outdated methods to reach society with the Acts 2:38 message. They skew younger than the other two groups and most often frame the debate in a “local church making a necessary decision” rather than it being an organization-level issue. As a rule, initiators are primarily thinking micro, while the other two are more macro.

I don’t know the percentages of each group. Suffice it to say that they’re all well-represented within the UPC.

Questions for Each Group

If you accept that these new terms work, then I have questions for everyone:

Traditionalists

How will the medium of TV adversely affect the message it carries? Will TV corrupt advertising?
If the UPC’s motto is “The Whole Gospel to the Whole World,” doesn’t television advertising (from a technological standpoint) provide one of the most literal ways to reach the whole world? And if it does, and we still don’t use it, how can our organization suggest that that we are doing our best to reach our society?
Isn’t it possible that the UPC is preventing new ministers from joining because they see this issue as “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”? With the low numbers of young ministers within the organization, isn’t this a legitimate concern?
Many of those ministers who disagreed with the UPC’s last binding “No TV” vote (in 1975 at Fort Worth, TX) stayed in the organization despite their disagreement. Will you show the same respect for unity within the organization if the vote now goes against your stand?

Reluctant Progressives

When television and the internet become more fully integrated, how will the UPCI deal with this technological reality if something like TV advertising is not adopted now?
Do you foresee a time when TV and/or TV advertising will be adopted? Will the passing of time smooth your adoption of TV? How much time will be needed for this to happen?
What will motivate you to leap forward at the right opportunity, thereby shaking up the status quo?
What has either of the other two groups done to help or hinder you in adopting their (and your) position?

Initiators

Television is a cool medium averse to hot emotions (i.e. preaching). Televangelism has an awful reputation. How would Apostolics on TV change that?
If technology is the necessary future of ministry for all of us, what are you now doing on the internet (and other media) to reach souls?
If TV advertising is a good opportunity to spread the gospel, what’s your public plan to help those in the organization who are at least marginally open to the idea to embrace this opportunity?
What evidence would you offer that advertising or preaching on TV would yield positive results? What is the cost-benefit ratio?

Answers from honest hearts will go a long way toward furthering this discussion. The best part is, if we allow ourselves to be challenged enough to rethink our positions, everyone wins.

The Power of Three

Two entrenched positions rarely allows for creativity. The fresh formation of three can accelerate it. Why not get representatives from each group to discuss fascinating offshoots of the media issue? For instance:

How about commissioning someone like Irwin Baxter to try ministering on television for a set time (two years?) then return with his results and recommendations? (He’s uniquely qualified because he’s hosted a thriving radio ministry for many years, has received national media attention, and it’s my understanding he has a standing offer of free air time.)
Shouldn’t our national and regional conferences be including sessions on leveraging all media opportunities for ministry? Wouldn’t that make for thoughtful public discussions, instead of private dialogue, on the merits or demerits of television?
Can’t there be a national plan in place on some type of district approval process necessary before anyone is allowed to create television programming/preach on TV?
Assuming passage of the resolution, couldn’t we create a uniform advertising campaign, like the Mormons did, for everyone to advertise the same message?
Is there anything wrong with allowing television advertising, but stopping there?

These ideas aren’t highlighted because they’re unique and fabulous, but rather brainstormed to promote further creativity. We lose innovation when argument trumps conversation.

Now It’s Your Turn

There are many who believe that television is just a public face for deeper issues between the various camps within the UPC. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s not the point of this assessment. Far better to refocus on the issue at hand in an organization-wide exchange, utilizing more accurate terms, so that everyone can approach it through fresh eyes.

After all, if even the apostles disagreed on the best people and methods available for reaching the lost in their time, there’s no reason to believe we will be any different. However, if we can reach a powerful, amicable position as a wonderfully diverse, but conversing movement, we will be better positioned to turn our world upside down for Him.

-------

Kent Curry is an executive editor at ninetyandnine.com.

* Writer’s Note: These are general overviews and not a minute breakdown of all their beliefs and values.

** I would like to thank all of those who offered input while I formed this thesis, with a special salute to three friends who line-edited this article for greater clarity when they weren’t questioning my suppositions.