Bad Rumor

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 05:17:12 PST, our Brother wrote:

>I don't understand why this is considered a complex issue.  If I want to
>go downtown and enter a pornography shop I can.  If I want to go to the local bar I can.  If I want to go anywhere that would be a detriment to a
>Christian walk I am able to do so.  I choose not to because I want to
>live for the Lord!  If I wanted to visit a site on the Internet that is
>ungodly and immoral I can ... again I choose not to because I want to
>live for God.  There is a point that the UPC must realize that it cannot
>police the morals and intentions of the Saints of God.  They must live
>for God because they choose to and the Holy Ghost leads them .. not because a manual says they shouldn't do so.  If the availability of access to
>ungodly material on the Internet is a problem to an individual then they
>should stay off of it. If they begin to spend too much time on it;  if
>they begin to be addicted to it; then they should get off of it.

The subject of internet involvement by the church and by individual
saints has been raised and it appears that it will now be examined in
depth, so let me address this. What you read below is written from the
standpoint of a minister who has been led by God to spend many. many
hours over the last six years examining the potential of this medium. 

These are my personal opinions, born of experience, but I am sharing
them in these comments with you, and with UPCI officials.

-------
Answering our Brother:

The complexity is not over the issue of personally morality.  All
would agree with you that temperance is finally required in every
life.

As lifestyles change, and the society changes, it is incumbent upon
godly men and women to make policy decisions concerning how they would
interact with media.

I am glad, for example, that I do not ever remember a UPCI pastor
starting up a big television ministry, getting some flakey "new
revelations" and casting aspersions over the message we preach, and
the life we live, by his own BROADCASTED bad example.

I believe the decisions made years ago regarding the use of TV were
correct, for many reasons.

We have had ,on the internet for a number of years and before that in
other electronic media, several individuals who do very significant
damage to the reputation of Oneness people (Yes I know, God can take
care of it, but does God tie our shoes for us ?) Several ministers in
significant places told me that my practice of occasionally following
him with a disclaimer indicating that he is not associated with the
UPCI was a good practice. In fact, they did not know WHAT to do, or
whether there was much one could do. If we are extensively involved
with the internet, MANY people will claim that they are UPCI
affiliated, preaching all sorts of things.

Also, there is a man and perhaps others like him, who have in the past
made extensive slanderous charges against the UPCI, who has just
appeared recently on the net, but on the web and in IRC. Several years
ago he published a number of papers and distributed them across the
country, charging UPCI officials with all sorts of things. he was
wildly rebellious in his assertions, and sought to impose his
judgement where the administrative, judicial and spiritual channels of
communication did not allow. God did not bless his effort, and he ran
out of money to print the papers. He eventually lost his fellowship
credentials, and his means to spread his message. However, the
internet allows him to do so each month for the price of 3 meals at
MacDonalds, and reach the WORLD with this material. Encountering them
recently, it became clear that his spirit is the same if not worse
than before.

I have encountered these people an IRC setting and others like them in
a mail list setting, and I have done what I felt the Holy Ghost has
led me to do in public ally countering their slanders and claims.
However, I do NOT really know if I am doing anyone a service. I may
very will not be handling it in a manner that the UPCI would
appreciate. I try to do what is best, in conscience and in the Holy
Ghost, but I am not authorized to represent anyone or anything, except
the gospel. It is precisely because of a lack of policy and absence of
presence that this becomes a problem.

Suppose we did have a policy... There would still be loose cannons
like me who felt a need to "stand up for truth", but would come pretty
come to shedding blood, if not endangering any local efforts underway
to rebuild bridges with people like this. These things would have to
be handled. Could they be handled correctly? That is the subject of
discussion.

If these matters are handled right, it will be well, but as you can
see this IS complex. An extensive church presence on the net could
actually destroy several of the components of organizational power,
namely protection and identification. It might also harm the
fellowship aspect in the long run.

In another issue, here *I* am on the internet (and other ministers, of
course), interacting with saints who are being taught by other pastors
and whose souls are the responsibility and concern of others. You must
know by now, I am not a compromiser, and am sometimes less that
perfect in what I say. I could very likely be causing someone else a
serious problem. 

We are not talking about reading books here. We are talking about
interactive, live communication (especially on IRC). Can you imagine
Bro Davis' justified reaction if I was to pick up the phone and call
saints in his congregation at random and start talking spiritual
things with them?

What if it was a seminar type setting? Would the pastor be interested
in what seminar you were attending regularly, and who was teaching
there ? Anyone can become a teacher in this medium. There is no
appearance of authority, except what one brutally establishes by being
willing to establish it with the greatest patience and the most
credibility. This takes a LOT of time, but in the mean time, wolves
and radicals come and go. In the end, the 'teachers" have no
authorization. A fellowship card cannot be checked. Advise and counsel
is hard from all alike. It is as one man said a "Mars Hill", not the
most suitable environment for spiritual health, and certainly not
pastorable. 

Before endorsing fellowship activities through the net, the
organizations will certainly want to consider this last aspect again.
It is NOT pastorable. Cyberspace lacks substantial walls, or limits in
time and space. Last years comments can become alive in a moment. Out
of context quotations in the presence of the innocent are a daily
event. false identities are standard fare on the net. The net is great
for communicating truth, but it must have rejoiced over by the powers
of deception.

Let me return to the matter of dealing with Apostolics in personal
communication on the net. Today, most likely, today I could be charged
with considerable violations of ministerial ethics. Probably, I am not
because it is not reasonable at this time, as no policies exist. Most
people would probably consent that I have remained  balanced,
biblical, and ethical in the substance of the thongs I write. But that
is a fact that cannot be counted on. I or someone else tomorrow could
get right in the middle of business where the did not belong, and
cause great personal damage, all in the appearance of
irresponsibility. We MUST raise the consciousness of the NET such that
people understand that the communication that takes place there is
MORE personal than a phone call, and more likely to impart significant
communication.

I am aware of Apostolic people who have involved in sexual
"cyber-affairs" through the internet. That is, they established
suggestive and perhaps real sexual encounters, assuming the safety of
"only looking at a screen", whereas they were in fact entertaining
fantasies and spiritually touching the individual they were
communicating with. Once such encounter that I know of advanced to a
personal meeting in the individuals own home, and resulted in "actual"
adultery to the best of my knowledge. We do know that the adultery
actually occurred from the time that the imaginations began to develop
through the internet (Matt 5:28).

The point I am making is that these and other issues *will* be
considered. If they are considered half heartedly, and decisions fail
to address the above issues and others, such as confidentiality of
communication with foreign missionaries ...etc, the consequences will
have a great impact. 

It is my opinion that this arena is far more dangerous and far more
powerful than Television (which is fading from significance by the
way). We have not begun to imagine the technological impact that the
net will make upon the ordinary life in the next few years. These
things will make TV look like a toy, and yet we will not have policy
to deal with it, because we still do not consider the net to be as
REAL as the telephone. Things we would not allow in our home because
we could understand the monolithic TV as a negative, WILL be in "our"
homes with the net in short months. The parking lots of the CompuUSA
and other computer stores are flooded Saturdays and Sundays. They are
replacing the Home Improvement stores as places of weekend worship
here where we live. Bill Gates and others see the revolution and are
busy. I think that we had better too.

I use the net because I believe it is the only way into a LARGE,
perhaps a majority segment of the homes of the USA, and a means for me
to reach around the world. If you have the same desire and ideal, I
commend you. But this does not insubstantiate the considerations we
have briefly touched above.

As I said earlier, I would move to table an issue like that before
voting negatively for internet presence, but if forced at THIS time, I
would have to vote negatively for large scale involvement, knowing
that we do not at present have the savvy to move forward here.

Sincerely Yours, 


Rev. MW Bassett
Milford, CT