Month: February 2017 | Page 2 | Spiritual Abuse Blogs

United Pentecostal Church Manual Part 5

This is a continuation of the rules regarding licensed ministers in the United Pentecostal Church. (There are three levels: local, general and ordained.) This covers the very basic cost of holding license and does not include the expense of purchasing books and videos in order to obtain the initial license or to move up to the next level. Those costs greatly increased in 2017 by requiring videos and charging to watch. A former UPC minister friend of mine would sometimes joke that UPC stood for “U pay cash.”

In addition to the yearly national dues, United Pentecostal Church ministers also must abide by the financial requirements of the District in which they reside. Each District sets their own fees.

As an example, the 2014 edition of the Indiana District Manual stipulates that “Each minister in the District shall send 50% or more of his ministerial tithes to the District Secretary-Treasurer on a monthly or at least a quarterly basis.” If a minister does not receive tithes, then a “minimum fee of $35.00 per month shall be sent to the District Secretary by all ministers (except honorary members) who have no ministerial tithe, or whose 50% tithe is less than $35.00. This $35.00 fee is in addition to tithing to the local church.” On top of that, “Each minister …shall pay a sectional fee to his sectional secretary in the amount of $5.00 per month to be paid in advance on at least a quarterly basis.” In Indiana it would cost a minister a minimum of $480 per year to the District, causing their license to cost at least $854.00 per year if they hold a local license.

[2023 Edit: The above fees from Indiana have changed since this article was written. Since January 1, 2022, sectional dues remain the same at $60 per year. District dues are $50 per month for ministers up to age 30, $85 for those age 31 through 69 and $50 per month for ministers who are 70 years and up. It would cost a minister a minimum of $660 per year to the District, causing their license to cost at least $1,034.00 per year if they held a local license. For those having to pay $85 per month, it would cost a minister $1,080 per year to the District, for a total of $1,454 if they held a local license. Screenshot from 10-7-2023.]

[October 18, 2023 Edit: For another example, the fees for ministers in South Carolina are higher than Indiana, at least as of June 13, 2022. Local license is $80 per month, general is $90 and ordained is $100. It would cost a minister a minimum of $960.00 per year to the District, causing their license to cost at least $1,334.00 per year if they held a local license. For the ordained minister, it would cost $1,200.00 to the District, for a total of $1,598.00 per year. Screenshot from 10-18-23.]

For their financial investment, a licensed minister in the United Pentecostal Church receives a digital copy of the Manual and Directory every year and subscriptions to their two main publications, one being a minister’s only quarterly. The only item of any substance, but which most likely will never be used, is the life insurance policy which would provide very little to the minister’s family in a time of need. (They used to send actual paperback book copies of the Manual and Directory. Then they changed to sending them on a CD. Since 2016 they do not even do that, but want the minister to access it online, where they may download it, or pay for physical copies.)

Here is what was stated in 2014 under Article VII, Section 7 under Obligations and Rules:

8. Each minister holding a Local License is required to pay $374 annually into a budget fund, which will entitle said minister to a Manual, a Ministerial and Church Directory, a subscription to the Forward, a subscription to the Pentecostal Herald, and a ten-thousand-dollar group life insurance policy with double indemnity and dismemberment provisions as specified.
9. Each minister holding a General License is required to pay $386 annually into a budget fund, which will entitle said minister to a Manual, a Ministerial and Church Directory, a subscription to the Forward, a subscription to the Pentecostal Herald, and a ten-thousand-dollar group life insurance policy with double indemnity and dismemberment provisions as specified.
10. Each minister holding a Certificate of Ordination is required to pay $398 annually into a budget fund, which will entitle said minister to a Manual, a Ministerial and Church Directory, a subscription to the Forward, a subscription to the Pentecostal Herald, and a ten-thousand-dollar group life insurance policy with double indemnity and dismemberment provisions as specified.

In 2015, numbers 8-10 were condensed and changed and it now reads as follows in 2017:

8. Each minister is required to pay annual membership dues which will entitle the minister to a Manual, a Ministerial and Church Directory, a subscription to the minister’s [In 2018 the word minister’s is removed.] Forward, a subscription to the Pentecostal Herald [In 2018 Herald is changed to Life as they changed the name of the magazine.], and $10,000.00 given to stated recipient at his or her death from a benevolent fund or a group life insurance policy. Membership dues and processing fees are set by the General Conference and cannot be changed without a proper resolution being presented to and adopted by the Conference.

[Starting in the 2021 Manual, this is now found in the same article and section but is listed under “3. Dues (a). The wording has changed to: “Each credentialed UPCI minister is required to pay annual membership dues. They will receive access to a ministers website, a downloadable Manual, and Ministerial and Church Directory, subscriptions to the Forward and the Pentecostal Life, and $10,000.00 given to the minister’s stated recipient at his or her death from a benevolent fund or a group life insurance policy. Membership dues and processing fees are governed and adjusted by the General Conference and cannot be changed without a proper resolution being presented to and adopted by said Conference.” It appears the same through the 2023 Manual.]

How do the costs today compare with the past? Way back in 1952, it was only $6.00, $12.00 or $18.00 to hold license. In 1957, those fees were still the same. By 1965 or earlier, they had increased to $18.00, $24.00 or $30.00. In 1988 licenses cost $204.00, $216.00 or $228.00. In 1989 they increased to $220.00, $232.00 or $244.00 and stayed at that rate through at least 1991. By 2002 or prior, the cost was $291.60, $303.60 or $315.80. In 2003 they changed to $326.00, $338.00 or $350.00. In 2007 the fees increased to their present rate. Some have wondered if they will rise again, now that they relocated to a nicer and more expensive building. [2023 edit: It appears that the national fees have remained at $374, $386 & $398.]

How does this compare to some other Oneness Pentecostal groups? The ALJC, who have the same licensing levels, charge $384.00, $396.00 and $408.00. [2023 Edit: These are now $504, $516 and $528.] Like the UPCI, they also have District dues which vary. Licensing with the Worldwide Pentecostal Fellowship (started due to some ministers leaving the UPCI) is $720.00 per year. Though not comprised of only Oneness Pentecostals, the Global Network of Christian Ministries only charges $250.00 per year. A number of ministers who left the UPCI have held membership with them. [EDIT: Global is no longer in operation.]

In the next installment I will cover the initial costs to apply for licensing.

United Pentecostal Church Manual Part 6
United Pentecostal Church Manual Part 5
United Pentecostal Church Manual Part 4
United Pentecostal Church Manual Part 3
United Pentecostal Church Manual Part 2
United Pentecostal Church Manual Part 1

Baptism and Re-Baptism Part 2

Continued from Part 1

Up to this point in my questions, I leaned toward not being re-baptized. Then a few nights ago I came across something interesting that added some depth to my questions and stirred them again.

In Acts 16, Paul had Timothy circumcised. Not for salvation, not because he believed in circumcision, but so that he and Timothy could be more effective witnesses, so that the gospel could be furthered. They were going on a journey and would first teach in the synagogues to unbelieving Jews. Had Timothy gone along and not been circumcised, the Jews would have quite likely rejected Paul’s message. However, with Timothy circumcised, this wouldn’t be a problem, and Timothy could help not only teach the Jews but also reach the Greeks on the journey. (Later when Christian Jews wanted Titus circumcised for their own beliefs, Paul withstood them [Gal 2]).

There is something to this for me. Yes, the ones who’ve recommended re-baptism are already Christians. But there’s something else I haven’t put my finger on yet in regard to this, that keeps nibbling at the back of my mind. It would be a strong witness, a testimony, a symbolism of unity and of my beliefs, an act of commitment beyond words on my part, and to me that’s worth considering.

*****

Several months ago, I asked the pastor of the church I was attending, and was told that I’d already been baptized and that was enough. Then I started going to another church, and am told re-baptism would probably be a good idea.

(It seems to me that most of the churches in this area that I feel comfortable in, regardless of doctrine, want me to be re-baptized if they know I went to my former church and know anything about what the church teaches. The one that said I wouldn’t need to be re-baptized knew neither. The church I now attend would prefer that I be re-baptized if I want to be a member. And I think I do.)

Anyway, here is his response in part:

If you were baptized as a believer, following the commandment from Jesus to be baptized (scriptural baptism- baptism is an example of our faith not a requirement for it) then that was all that was needed.

I personally believe baptism is following the commandment of Jesus Christ, a public profession, not becoming a member. However, to be a voting member I believe that one should be baptized. If we are a Christian we will want to follow thru with what Jesus did.

…I don’t know if people know you from when you were at [my former church]. Some might. Therefore, I like what you said about considering being baptized as a testimony. Saying “I believe what the Bible teaches me, and because I do, I want to show the church that I am a believer.” This is what baptism is to me; It is the public profession that you are a Christian. I believe this is an outstanding idea.

I don’t think he’d necessarily require re-baptism, based on this. And yes, I’ve thought about running him through the mill on it, asking about membership without re-baptism, just to see what he would say. But that wouldn’t be a very nice thing to do, would it?

So I submitted the question to an online group called the Bereans. I was curious what their response might be. (They don’t often answer questions, supposedly, but I got an answer within 12 hours.) Here’s their response:

We don’t believe there is any Scripture forbidding a re-baptism in order to satisfy the requirements of the group you mention. On the other hand, we would also believe that your initial baptism was sufficient and that the re-baptism adds nothing that has not already been demonstrated.

Matthew 28:19 has the Lord Jesus giving the Great Commission to His disciples and specifically commanding them to baptize those who become converts. He was giving this task to believers. Further, those who believed were baptized (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 8:36-38; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 16:32-33; 19:1-5; 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, etc.). Matthew 28:19-20 specifically commands that the disciples are to be taught “all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” (Matthew 28:19). Jesus had just commanded them to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. Therefore we conclude that He desired them to be baptized.

Baptism does not save, yet we see converts throughout the book of Acts submitting to water baptism. Jesus Himself was baptized, stating “thus it becometh us to fufill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). According to 1 Peter 3:21, “baptism also doth also now save us…” This “saving” is not salvation, because the scripture continues by explaining that it is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh…” What does it then do?

Jesus was baptized by John just prior to beginning His public ministry. It was a point of separation between His former life and that which culminated in the Cross. 1 Peter 3:20-21 gives us the example of Noah. It explains that Noah’s very real experience has an application for us. Just as the judgement that fell on the world in the form of the deluge separated Noah from the wicked world that surrounded him, our baptism is a point of separation for us as well. It is “…the answer of a good conscience toward God…” (1 Peter 3:21).

Consequently, if it furnishes a “good conscience” we see no problem with you being re-baptized.

So I still have questions:

Would being re-baptized help further the gospel in any way?
Would it be meaningful to me personally? (if so, how?)
What are my reasons and motives? Would this be a reaction against the church I left, or a response to God?
Would it be a positive experience for me, or would I have doubts/would being re-baptized go against conscience?

To be continued…

Return to the Body of Christ?

Every so often I check Amazon to see if they have new material related to spiritual abuse for sale. I did so this week and became irritated when I saw the write up for the book, Spiritual Abuse in the Church, by Angela R. Williams.

This book was written to invite all who have left a church or an abusive Christian group to return to the body of Christ. Stop blaming God for what people did. You can then share the freedom experience with others through testimonies of forgiveness, grace, and love provided by the Savior; as you move forward in your walk with Christ.

Did you catch that? Leaving an unhealthy church does not mean we left the body of Christ. Since the Holy Spirit has placed believers into one body, leaving any church or religious group does not change our place in the body of Christ. We have been born from above and not by any church or group. One can never set foot inside a church building and still be in the body of Christ. While there are those who leave and are afraid that they are lost (due to the fear permeated teachings of their former churches), this has no bearing on whether or not they are in the body.

Second, not everyone who leaves blames God for what people did. Yes, some have difficulty separating the two, especially at first. However, not all who exit spiritually abusive churches go through this. I am one who did not. Those who do experience this need time to sort through their experience and the teachings. Telling them to just stop blaming God does not accomplish this.

I have to say I wasn’t surprised when I looked into the author of this book and discovered they are a pastor in a Pentecostal type church and believe in coverings (another church is their alleged covering). Too many of these churches place the blame on you when things happen (or don’t happen). Too many of these stress the thought that not attending their church services is “forsaking the assembling” of believers.

We don’t need books on spiritual abuse which pressure people to become involved in another church or equate their leaving an unhealthy one to leaving the body of Christ. People need time to start healing and recovering and sort through the myriad of issues involved. If they jump right into another church, before getting to a certain place in their recovery, they may find themselves in another unhealthy group.

There may be some helpful things in this book but I won’t be discovering them due to the paragraph quoted, which is from the back cover. It doesn’t cause me to be hopeful that it would be very helpful.

Baptism and Re-Baptism Part 1

This is probably going to end up being an ongoing debate between me, myself and I.

For a long time after I left my former church, I believed that baptism in Jesus’ name was right. Then I thought it was better. Then a Oneness Pentecostal argued with me about baptism in Jesus’ name, thinking I was Trinity. And I realized how wrong some of their arguments were. Reading back through some of my blogs tonight, I realized just how much my thinking had shifted even since then- in a good way.

Now, I’m considering getting re-baptized, and think I may keep notes of some of what I’m studying and some of what I’ve learned here.

OK, for starters, I’ve considered re-baptism for a number of reasons since leaving, some good and some not so good. One of the first reasons I considered was making a clean break from the Oneness movement. That was not a very good reason for me. For starters, baptism isn’t meant to be used as a way to take a stand against a group of believers. Also, a “clean break” is really not possible when you still live among the group you’re breaking from. They wouldn’t even know I’d gotten re-baptized–any “break” would only be in my own mind.

Separating myself from them eventually came in the form of wearing pants and short sleeves even when they might see me. Curiously, most of them have been more accepting of me since I changed the way I dressed. Even just tonight, riding my bike, one drove by, smiled, waved and called my name. No disgust–he actually looked happy for me! (Which makes me wonder how many of them truly believe what they’re living… but that’s another blog for another time.)

*****

Again, I considered it simply because there’s so much division caused as a result of the debate (of baptism in the name of Jesus). Yet getting re-baptized won’t stop the debate, and I’ve already shown whose side I’m on by where I attend church, how I live my life, and so forth. Yet it might be done for unity’s sake. That one I need to think about more.

****

Re-baptism can definitely be a public testimony and witness. But of what? If my testimony is “I’m not one of THEM,” indicating another group of believers, that’s not a good enough reason for me, personally. However, if my testimony is an answer of a good conscience toward God, a way to say, “yes, I truly believe,” then it might be right. Motive is the key in that case.

****

I also have to consider historically and Biblically if re-baptism is acceptable or right. I don’t find anything in the Bible that says people were re-baptized, except in the case of the disciples of John in Acts 19. My personal feeling is that these disciples, not “having heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” probably were not familiar with Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. They had been baptized to repentance but not baptized into the body of Christ, or as believers in Jesus. When they were re-baptized, it was to signify their belief in Jesus, whereas before it had not.

Historically, from what I can tell, believers were baptized once, except in the case of those who, like Anabaptists, were christened as children and re-baptized as adults due to a change in beliefs.

I find nothing for or against re-baptism either historically or Biblically. Research in these areas leaves me with no answers, and if anything possibly a few more questions. How do I fit into either of the groups in the paragraphs above, if I do? My beliefs have changed drastically even over the last few months. My understanding of Jesus and His sacrifice has expanded. But is that, in my case- since I believed in Jesus when I was first baptized- something I should be re-baptized to signify? I don’t think so, at least for me. Each person is different, though. If I’d ONLY been baptized once, in Jesus name, I think I’d feel much differently about my answer.

*****

By the same reasoning, I can conclude that it doesn’t matter if we believe baptism is salvational or not–the main thing is that we are believe and are baptized, not exactly what we believe about baptism.

These being the case, my baptism is as acceptable as anyone else’s. Also, to be re-baptized to join A church rather than THE body of Christ is a little beyond my means right now. That concept seems more than a little small-minded or limited in concept to me. And maybe even a bit divisive. It’s also slightly stuck-up, for lack of a better description. How could a church say, “Yes, you are a Christian, a Heaven-bound member of the body of Christ, but you would have to be re-baptized to be part of this local church?” (This church hasn’t said I’d HAVE to, but still…)

****

Regarding baptism as a means of becoming part of the body of Christ rather than a local church, though I didn’t understand it at the time, when I was baptized in Jesus’ name I was also (unwittingly) baptized into a set group of believers. And THAT group later said I wasn’t even a Christian until I’d been baptized their way. So the above is an almost laughable concern in some ways.

****

Apparently, no one is asking me this time to deny my first baptism. No one is driving me to join their church or telling me that there’s only one right way to be baptized. It would bother me if I were told that I had to deny my whole Christian walk up til this point, which is what happened after I was baptized in Jesus’ name. No, no one said that verbally, but it was indicated in many smaller ways. As far as the United Pentecostal Church was concerned, I started living for God after I got re-baptized in Jesus’ name and spoke in tongues. And that was NOT the case. I had to deny or ignore some wonderful things God had done earlier in my life to accept that. It wasn’t until I left the UPC that I finally understood how conflicted that had made me.

*****

I also consider what I’ve been taught through the years: that baptism was necessary for salvation, that getting re-baptized was completely wrong for any reason (due to a severe twisting of Heb 6:4-6), and, finally, that if I’d been baptized in Jesus name and then was re-baptized using the traditional Trinitarian formula I’d be hell-bound. I’ve wondered if I’d make myself sick or face residuals either before or after getting re-baptized because of these harsh teachings, and I’ve wondered if there were any truth in them. (I don’t think there is, but…) Would I make a public commitment and then not be able to follow through, end up explaining that I’d been taught these things and that they were giving me nightmares? Or are those things far enough behind me that getting re-baptized could be the joyous commitment that it’s supposed to be?

In other words, I think I believe a certain way, I say I believe a certain thing, but if faced with acting on the beliefs I claim, would I?

****

I’m also more than a little nervous about making a public commitment of any sort to church again. Even a good church that I really enjoy. Will I stick with it? Will I want to be there in a year? In three? Will they change after I join and become like others I’ve experienced?

To be continued….

When A Pastor Morally Fails

A pastor/minister morally fails. People are devastated, hurt, confused, angry, sad and their faith is shaken. The church is thrown into turmoil. This appears to be happening more frequently in our present time.

Are there signs we can watch for, that something is seriously wrong in the life of a minister? We continually see headlines of ministers and church leaders committing sex crimes as well as other criminal activity. They involve various groups across denominational boundaries.

For instance, it was reported that this is what Edwin Young, a Oneness Pentecostal minister, did for years and years. If similar things happened in a healthy church, the pastor’s wrong behavior would have been addressed when it happened or soon after. But at this church, it wasn’t. It was tolerated, allowed, and even thought to be proper conduct. Many ‘amened’ and cheered him on when he did these things. It isn’t proper behavior. It is far, far from how a minister is to act.

This is a huge problem in unhealthy churches and is often a gradual process. When it gets to this point, the people have been conditioned through previous teachings and incidents, to accept what is happening. The pastor is ‘the man of God.’ You don’t ‘touch God’s anointed.’ The pastor ‘watches for your soul and has to give account of you.’ The pastor knows more than you and what is best. If the pastor is wrong, all we can do is ‘pray about it and let God correct him.’ So when people have this type of mindset, it opens the door for abuse and other wrong actions.

Learn how a pastor is supposed to be. Go to your Bible and search this out. A main characteristic of a minister is they are not to be lords over people, but rather they are to have the heart of a servant. A servant doesn’t call the women in the church heifers. A servant doesn’t point people out in service and berate them and tear them to shreds. A servant doesn’t make up lies and call people who leave the church homosexuals or fornicators or drug addicts. This is NOT what a real minister does. This is NOT what one who is acting through love does.

It is no surprise to me when pastors such as the one referenced have fallen. Too often those who teach and do things without love as the motivating factor, have something in their life that they are hiding. It is interesting that when they are caught and exposed, they don’t want the same treatment they gave many others who did far less than themselves.