Author: Lois | Page 25 | Spiritual Abuse Blogs

Religious Cuckoldry

The following is a guest essay that goes along with my previous writing on Spiritual Abuse & Emasculated Men but is much more in depth. It is written by Dr. Michael Warstler.

Spiritual abuse is a phenomenon that most certainly occurs in a diverse range of religious organizations; from small to large and from organized to independent. However, while spiritual abuse might have specific elements, there is no formal method for measuring the significance of the experience. Recently, I read a post asking about thoughts on whether women experienced more abuse than men. In early 2017 I had similar questions and sought to answer them through conducting a formal study to satisfy the dissertation requirements of my Doctorate. Since it is rather difficult to quantify experienced spiritual abuse, a survey was adopted to measure the perceptions of one’s experiences in the frame of group psychological abuse. The survey provided 31 questions that fed into six primary elements of a group psychological abuse taxonomy. Options for each question were in Likert style format ranging from “zero” or “none” to “four” and “continually.”

While all elements of group psychosocial abuse were experienced to some degree, the element that rose to the top in perceived severity was the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority. Female participants experienced the component of the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority at a 76.69 percentage rank; whereas, male participants experienced the same component at a much lower 35.78 percentage rank. This admission does not denote that men did not experience the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority; it means, rather, that while they perceived it to a lesser degree, it still occurred. It is of interest that of the 68 men who participated in this study, 51 annotated that they were in leadership or had been in leadership. Being that groups who impose a single and extraordinary authority are often highly narcissistic, it was assumed that the results of male leader participants would be on the low end. Why would anyone in a leadership position with a faith tradition that is being studied admit that they were perpetrators of such abuse?

What I am trying to point out is that whether women perceived their experiences to be more severe than men, the fact is that both men and women experienced abuses – they are just experienced in different ways. The element of the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority is certainly of interest to me in how it applies to male followers. It seems that much of the abuse men experience with this element is that of deep psychological and emotional strain. The psychological and emotional strain that I would like to focus on here is that of infantilization and emasculation of men – elements that ultimately destabilize the home and weaken marital bonds.

One of the primary elements used to implement a single and extraordinary authority in religious traditions such as Oneness Pentecostalism is that of headship. Headship entails that God is ultimately the head of authority, and below that falls a pastor. Next in the line of spiritual authority is the husband, then wife, and lastly children. While I am not here to argue the biblical implications and precedents of headship, I am interested in why it is practiced and what the potential consequences are. Here I believe it is important that I discuss what might occur if a husband is not in the church (i.e. was never in attendance or a member), is “non-participant” while in attendance, or is “backslidden” (i.e. a former member who no longer attends church or believes). In these scenarios, a husband is typically deemed as outside the line of spiritual authority and not in a position of headship over his wife and children.

It is common in these situations that a pastor takes the place of headship over a woman when the husband does not “fulfill” his role. This also applies to many adult single women or divorced women within the congregation. But when a woman is still married, her unsuspecting non-believing husband might be in for a shock when he discovers that most of his wife’s basic and major life choices must be discussed with her pastor first. Every detail from taking a camping trip to major purchases will now be brought to the pastor for approval. This essentially removes the husband from his position in his own home – Thus, why I have labeled this essay as religious cuckoldry. This is a position that a man might find himself in when the pastor of his wife’s church replaces him. Two anonymous comments below detail similar experiences:

“Apparently, the pastor told my wife that if I don’t come around, and fall in line with all that he teaches. ‘She shouldn’t stay with me.’ The same man who married us suggests that, for the sake of her soul, she should probably leave me.”

“This is when the man is reduced to bringing home the bacon, paying the bills, and supplying non-emotional or non-spiritual needs. Anything else is perceived as an effort to try and convince or change the doctrine/beliefs of the wife, which in turn leads to accusations of the husband trying to break up the family.”

Men who find themselves in these situations ultimately either seek divorce or end up living with the situation despite the deep emotional and psychological pain experienced. In my own experience as a former Oneness/Apostolic Pentecostal divorce was essentially forbidden. In addition, my now ex-wife was a former Jehovah’s Witness and her organization duly forbid divorce. On one side I was being fed that I was to be a leader of my home and in a place of headship, and from another side the elders of my wife’s religion were replacing me – it was a lose-lose situation that ultimately took a major toll on our marriage for several years.

Legalistic religious beliefs ultimately lead to infantilization, and in groups led by an absolute authority, the emasculation in men. This requires that a grown man rescind his ability to make choices about his own life and family and give them to another man. To be “saved” one must fully submit to their pastor (to be under the headship and in alignment with God). While it should be understood that no two organizations are alike and that these experiences may be perceived on a wide spectrum, submitting to another man in a destructive organization quite literally strips a man of his own essence. This leads me to the discussion of a deeper nature found in such groups – the essence of man.

Legalism leads to an immature spirituality – one that is based on the constant attention of outward appearance and expression. One could easily witness similar phenomena in remote tribes – individuals within these groups can be often observed acting in a more “primitive” fashion than what we are used to (i.e. much like Pentecostalism, these groups can be witnessed practicing glossolalia, ecstatic dancing, etc.). In addition, religious groups that place their primary focus on the more primal urges (expression, appearance, and emotionalism) are just as often sexually repressed – and being sexually repressed, they become sexually obsessed. Since psychological control is also achieved at the physiological and physical level, it makes sense that sexual repression becomes a strong tool for coercion and control.

It is here that I believe we should discuss and accept that, physiologically, we are deeply tied to our primal roots on a subconscious level. For example, (and slightly off topic) some studies indicate that the menstrual cycle of women who interact in groups sync with the “alpha female” (a phenomenon formally referred to as “socially mediated synchrony”, as discussed by University of Oxford anthropologist Alexandra Alvergne). It might also be assumed that men are physiologically affected by being domineered by another man (some refer to this as alpha and beta males, but most research points to these as being concepts rather than scientific fact). Of course we do not enjoy discussing these topics, because it reminds us that “love” is more likely than not a chemical reaction in the brain and that we are ultimately controlled by our primal urges (we would rather continue to believe in soulmates and romance). However, it is not my intention to dehumanize us, but to simply consider why we do what we do.

The concept of the rebellious “alpha male” could almost be seen in any spiritual leadership manual. I can see it now, “Men have a strong difficulty submitting themselves to another male.” It is my assumption that primal groups act in such a way as to strengthen group survival (often referred to as herd immunity/strength). It makes sense that in order for a group to survive (however, unhealthy it may be) singular leadership is desired. Too many “alpha” or “strong willed” leaders and the group could easily split. This oftentimes entails in the destructive organization that the leader be the only one to express “apex” characteristics such as wealth, intelligence, etc. This factor also leads up to a husband never measuring up or being good enough (even if they are a member of the faith tradition).

When, then, is it okay to display “apex” traits or to enjoy wealth and intelligence? It seems from my observation that it is only acceptable to do so if one is close to the leader of the organization. In this sense, these individuals are referred to as “colluders” (those who obey in order to reap social benefits); as opposed to “conformers” (those who obey out of fear). I have heard this described to me as being a pastor’s “henchmen” or “muscle” – however, it is probably easier to describe this as the pastor’s “inner circle.” Men within the inner circle can oftentimes be seen enjoying the benefits of their social status. In the inner circle one can also get around some of the legalistic rules without scrutiny. However, I have also witnessed successful men outside of the inner circle be publicly scrutinized for the same actions. In these groups it is often expected that all members give as much of their time, energy, and money that they can to the organization. However, it always seems that the more toxic the group, the more the pastor seems to have while his followers continue to sacrifice.

The following are simple observations:
– “Strong willed” males will not deal well with being treated in such a manner so they will push back aggressively and ultimately leave “backslide.”
– It seems that the more rigorous and fundamental the group, the more young males leave as soon as they are at an age where they are legal to make their own choices.
– Fathers who are not in the church typically try to pull their sons out through secular activities such as sports (organized sports are highly frowned upon in Oneness Pentecostalism and by the Jehovah’s Witnesses).
– If one backslides (leaves the church), I have witnessed them being shammed as “homosexual” or “effeminate.” I believe the emasculation of men is at play here as well.
– Some men that experience repressed masculinity manifest destructive behaviors and increased control behind the closed doors of their home – leading to the perpetuation of spiritual and psychological abuse from the husband/father to his wife and children.
– The more primal and emotional a group operates the more primal and emotional their responses will be to those who “backslide” or those who raise inquiry of their practices.

In closing, it is agreed that we often don’t enjoy hearing about these topics because consciously we do not like to align ourselves with the primal side of our nature. In this sense the conscious battles the subconscious. Because our primal nature is oftentimes crude, not wanting to accept it, we repress it. I also realize that it might be difficult to have one’s experiences of group psychological abuse relegated in the simplified terms of primal nature – however, at the root of a primal group, this is what occurs. What I am asking my readers to do is ask the “tougher” questions. Perhaps some healing and consolation can be found when we view our experiences in the frame of a much larger subconscious system. In doing so, we do not deny our humanity when discussing our original nature; we simply learn more about ourselves.

**These observations are not simply my own, but are collected from 1,000’s of individuals who have written me over the past few years.**

**The above essay, while complex, is not intended to be an in-depth analysis of a topic – nor is it intended to pass judgement or express preferences – for like any topic, several books could be written to discuss them. My purpose here is to simply develop theories and generate provocative, if not heretical thought. As noted by the great essayist Montaigne: “All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.”**

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Spiritual Abuse & Emasculated Men

A topic that often comes up in our support groups is how women are usually hit harder than men in spiritually abusive churches and groups. It often is mentioned in conjunction with ‘holiness standards‘ and submission. The subject arose once more a couple days ago and in reflecting, I was reminded of some things that married men have shared through the years, a topic that can be difficult for them to discuss. There are men who feel emasculated by the teachings of these churches and how the pastor basically takes their place as the husband. It has been asked, “How many women are having an emotional affair with the pastor and church because their husband can’t quite measure up?”

It seems to happen more often when the man isn’t part of the church or once was but left, or he attends but doesn’t fall in line with all the teachings. However, it also strikes men who are fully immersed in the group. As one shared, “The implied message was that it is more important to be dedicated to the church than it is to your husband. …I didn’t know that the pastor was also married to my wife…strange. Or that he was one of the heads mentioned in the scripture.”

This mindset places tremendous strain and pressure on a marriage and works to emasculate the husband, depriving him of his role and causing him to feel replaced, almost unwanted at times, and less than a man. In situations where there are children, sometimes the wife, and even other family members in the church, will say negative things to the children about their father that can cause relationship problems between them. It can bring untold conflicting feelings, angst and even fear that their dad will burn in hell, a terrifying thought for a child. The women appear to be blinded to the damage they cause as they believe they are following the will of God.

A person asked, “What is it that makes the man (or wife) think he ‘can’t measure up’? …How can a woman put the pastor higher than the man that brings home the bacon, pays the bills and cares for the family? How is it the man that never mowed the lawn, never paid one household bill (probably does not even hold a job) is the man that is superior?” This thought of any pastor being superior to others does not fit in with how the body of Christ is described in 1 Corinthians 12.

One man responded, “This is what the man is reduced to bringing home the bacon, paying the bills, and supplying non-emotional or spiritual needs. Anything else is perceived as an effort to try and convince or change the doctrine/beliefs of the wife, which in turn leads to accusations of the husband trying to break up the family. Unfortunately the woman in many cases makes the statement, ‘when I see you praying, and fasting, (until I see you are worthy) then I will submit to your authority or consider you the priest of our home.’ This obviously is not consistent with scripture.”

In these unhealthy churches, the pastor is usually considered superior to others in the church and this plays into the emasculation of the other men. In fact, some pastors flat out tell people to imitate them in prayer, worship, dress, etc. In addition some claim that one cannot be saved without them. “The only way you’re ever going to get to Christ is to follow a man of God. The only way that you’re ever going to make it in the rapture is to follow a man of God. Amen! You can’t make it without a pastor.” (Quote is from the linked to video.)

So how does the man (pastor) appear superior to the husband? “When he is one who holds dedication, loyalty, and commitment overhead with hell fire and damnation, he certainly can [appear superior]. Conversely, because of the impression he gives of having a pipeline directly to the throne, and with statements and perceptions that no one can or should be more spiritual than the pastor, sure, that husband will never and can never measure up.” Imagine how this makes the man feel and what it does to him and how it insidiously works to destroy the marriage. If that man eventually gives up and walks away, it is entirely blamed on him for not measuring up.

Some seemingly fight a losing battle in attempting to regain their rightful place in the family. As long as the spouse places the pastor and church above her husband, there will be problems in the marriage and sometimes it cannot be overcome. Unfortunately, pastors have told wives to divorce. “Apparently, the pastor told my wife that if I don’t come around, and fall in line with all that he teaches, she shouldn’t stay with me. The same man who married us, suggests that, for the sake of her soul, she should probably leave me.” Such counsel goes against the admonition of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.

A woman shared some observations, “I have seen this kind of stuff going on. Women who think their husbands have no merit in the kingdom of God just because they aren’t like other women’s husbands. They usually have no respect for them and undermine their authority in the home. The children are taught that their father does not know anything. They are pretty confused… The wife runs to the pastor or other spiritual men, counseling with them. She constantly compares her husband with other men….why can’t he be like them?

“…I think if we were not taught erroneously to begin with…that the pastor is like the Pope and only he can hear from God for us…then many of us would have better marriages and better relationships with God. I have never spoken with men to get their viewpoint of what they think of their wives running off to the pastor every time they turn around. I think some of them are conditioned to think it’s OK.”

Another woman told of an event. “Last year at summer camp all the women were invited to lunch with the pastor and were also shown his bedroom with the comment ‘see how clean and tidy he is, not like your slobby husbands.’ Well, for those women with slobby husbands I’m pretty sure they did get mind problems the next time their husband left his clothes on the floor, remembering that nice tidy pastor’s room (which had been cleaned beforehand by a few of the women anyway). We were continually reminded of how our husbands didn’t measure up but if you dared to come out with it yourself you were a Jezebel bitch. So it was a no win situation for everybody.”

This is a very serious problem in unhealthy churches. While there are people who sincerely believe they are doing God’s will by placing church and pastor above their spouse, they fail to realize how their actions are ripping their family apart, harming their children and causing excruciatingly deep hurt to their spouse. Is this not spiritual adultery as one man observed? Take to heart what he shared. “This is so true. Not only putting the pastor in the place of God, but putting the pastor or church above the place of your husband. The hierarchy that God designed and that Paul outlined is pretty much cast into the fire by the UPC, there is no church, or pastor between God, the Man, and his Wife. It is so wrong for the pastor to demand a devotion to him, his doctrine, his perspective, and his general way of doing things. Sometimes I don’t think they do this openly or even purposely but they use various controlling techniques to demand devotion in general.

“It is so funny how most every UPC church has a name, but we don’t refer to them that way, instead we say, ‘I used to belong to Bro. Smith’s church, or I visited Bro. Jones’ church, or my sister belongs to Bro. Johnson’s church.’

“I would covet an opportunity to talk to a pastor’s wife to see how she felt about or even realizes that her husband has the devotion and attention of the women in their church above and stronger than the devotion to their husbands. How many people have the courage to call it religious and maybe spiritual adultery?”

Read Religious Cuckoldry by Dr. Michael Warstler, an essay on this same topic.

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 3

This is a continuation from Part 2. Thoughts are based off the article, Are Apostolics Pharisees? written by Gary R. Trzcinski, which appeared in the September 1996 Pentecostal Herald (now called Pentecostal Life, the official magazine of the United Pentecostal Church) which addressed the issue of whether Apostolics (Oneness Pentecostals) were Pharisees. The author gave 29 points as to why they were not.

Below is an excerpt:

Pharisees never criticized Jesus or His disciples for their physical appearance (hair, modesty, ornamentation). We do not find one verse of Scripture where they ever condemned Jesus and His followers for the way they looked. Many Pharisees were waiting to find one flaw in Jesus so that they could discredit Him and His teachings. If there would have been something wrong, the Pharisees would have found it. But they found nothing. Why? Because there was nothing to find, nothing to criticize.

The Pharisees were somewhat holy looking on the outside but extremely unholy in their hearts. However, Jesus was holy both inside and out. He was the perfect man. “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

Why is it that the Pharisees didn’t criticize their appearance? This argument actually works against what the author has stated about being different from ‘the world.’ If Jesus and the disciples looked distinctly different from ‘the world,’ as the UPC teaches we in North America must do today, then would they not have pointed this out? It is somewhat misleading to state they were looking for one flaw as they pointed out several in Jesus and his disciples. They took note that Jesus ate and spent time with sinners, they reprimanded them for eating with unwashed hands and said Jesus was gluttonous and a winebibber…so would they not have made note of any appearance which stood out from those around them? Could it be that Jesus and his followers appeared like ‘the world’? Or are we to believe there was a difference in the definition of ‘the world’ some 2000 years ago?

By mentioning “hair, modesty, ornamentation” the author appears to want readers to link this to standards taught in the UPCI, as if they were being followed by Jesus and his disciples. Yet not once do we read that Jesus taught against jewelry, make-up, cutting hair and so forth. He was silent on such issues that the UPCI feels are extremely important. Similarly, Jesus did not teach or follow the rules which the Pharisees added to the law.

“The Pharisees were somewhat holy looking on the outside but extremely unholy in their hearts.” Actually, they weren’t just somewhat…Jesus said that they made clean the outside of the cup and platter. Anyone can make themselves look good to others in this manner. Consider that the heart of the Pharisee wasn’t really toward God and Jesus pronounced them dead on the inside, yet they were able to present to others the image of a sparkling clean and holy exterior, one they thought would cause people to be envious and look up to them.

Pharisees only cleansed the outward appearance but neglected the sinful human heart. They were righteous on the outside but evil on the inside. They were hypocrites (Matthew 23:25-28); but we abhor hypocrisy. Apostolics seek to clean not only the outward appearance but also the heart, mind, and human spirit. Jesus asserted: “Cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also” (Matthew 23:26). A cleansing of the inside will eventually lead to a cleansing of the outside.

The vast majority of our preaching and efforts center on the redemption of the soul. And yet we would be hypocrites if we willfully neglected those passages of Scripture pertaining to cleansing the outward appearance (1 Corinthians 11:4-16; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-4). We follow the admonition of Paul to abstain from all appearance of evil so that we would be sanctified wholly- spirit, soul, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:22-23).

If the inside is clean, then it cannot help but show outwardly–and not simply in our appearance, but more importantly in our actions. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. This is part of the problem in performance oriented churches- they cause people to believe that they must work to make themselves holy and acceptable to God. Don’t cut your hair or wear jewelry and make-up, be sure dresses and skirts fall below the knees, watch your sleeve length and maybe you will be pleasing to God and accepted. Yet the book of Galatians makes it extremely clear that our righteousness will never come from our own works, but it is by faith in Jesus that we are made righteous in the sight of God. If the law was only to act as a guardian until Jesus came, why would we now need any other set of laws to ‘protect’ us or act as a fence to keep us safe? Think about it. Written laws do not change the person. The Old Testament law did not make the people righteous by obeying it as they were not changed on the inside. No list of rules is going to change us either, no matter how good the intentions.

The author claims that Apostolics “abhor hypocrisy” and yet most of us who have been part of them have seen it in multiple ways. There were the ministers that taught against television and owned one themselves or would otherwise have ways to watch it. They teach women’s hair is to be uncut yet some women hide their trimmed hair by wearing it up. They teach against jewelry but wear similar ornamentation in their hair or on their shoes. In some of their churches men are taught they must be clean shaven but the rule can be temporarily bypassed for those who participate in a Christmas or Easter play. How many times have you heard a minister proclaim how people can shout at a sporting event (some are against attending these) and then compare that to how one is to act in a church service? What about the sermons which state smoking is defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit and yet they ignore where the Bible actually speaks against gluttony? These are just a few of the ways in which hypocrisy has been seen in their midst.

I will close with the thoughts of a friend:

You know, as I think about this, it’s not so much the grace thing, as is the need to have something that can be seen. It’s easier to trust in that which can be seen, it is easier to maintain control over what can be seen. When one is seen doing all that is required, then the pastor can rest assured that he has control over that person. When the standards are broken, then the pastor knows for sure that that person needs reprimanding, and many are quite willing to join in on the flogging! I’ve seen this first hand in my former church, especially with the young people.

It’s harder to let go of the reins and let the spirit have his way. Those in control feel that they must be enforcing something or some kind of rule, etc. I think it comes down to more of a trust issue for many in UPC, afraid to trust in that which can’t be seen, unless there is evidence through obedience.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 1

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 2

This is a continuation from Part 1. Thoughts are based off the article, Are Apostolics Pharisees? written by Gary R. Trzcinski, which appeared in the September 1996 Pentecostal Herald (now called Pentecostal Life, the official magazine of the United Pentecostal Church) which addressed the issue of whether Apostolics (Oneness Pentecostals) were Pharisees. The author gave 29 points as to why they were not.

Below is a quote from the article:

Pharisees placed their own man-made traditions above the commandments of God (Matthew 15:2-9). Some traditions may occasionally serve a good purpose but may also at times interfere with the plan of God (Matthew 15:1-2). Other traditions are evil because they are worldly: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). Still other traditions are good because they are biblical: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Apostolics have truly endeavored to teach and practice those traditions found in the Word of God. Critics may disagree with us concerning our understanding of modesty, for example, and call it human tradition, but Apostolics are making a sincere effort to practice modesty in spite of the world’s traditions.

Our critics, on the other hand, often look no different than the world. Maybe they have chosen to ignore the scriptural principles of modest dress. Or maybe their definition of modesty is not much different from the world’s definition. Evidently, they have ignorantly or willingly chosen to follow the worldly traditions of fallen humanity.

It would have been better for him to use the word modest or immodest as compared to worldly or the world. This thinking about ‘the world’ has been carried to extremes. People use many things which are of ‘the world’ such as houses, cars, toothbrushes, banks, electricity, and so forth—so are we to refrain from *everything* worldly? This is what they try to teach concerning dress and a few other things, but they are inconsistent with its application.

With all the varying cultures, it would be pretty impossible to dress in a manner in which everyone would give 100% approval. For instance, while the UPC women may wear long dresses or skirts, they wear various bright colors. To an Amish woman, this would be improper. How the Amish woman dresses would be immodest to a woman in a strict Islamic group.

It is interesting to note that the missionaries of the UPCI are told not to attempt to change the culture of the countries to which they are sent. (In fact, I have heard that the UPC in other countries is different than here in North America in that they don’t have all the same prohibitions.) Yet in North America where the organization is headquartered, they attempt to do the opposite by teaching things contrary to our culture. While pants are culturally acceptable for women to wear, they teach women are not to wear them.

“Apostolics have truly endeavored to teach and practice those traditions found in the Word of God. Critics may disagree with us concerning our understanding of modesty, for example, and call it human tradition, but Apostolics are making a sincere effort to practice modesty in spite of the world’s traditions.” All Christians should be modest. But where the UPC goes wrong is they attempt to define for everyone what is and is not considered modest and then claim these things are biblical. Worse yet, their own ministers and churches cannot agree on what is modest or acceptable.

Visit one of their churches and they teach that sleeves must be to the wrist, while another will teach somewhere else on the arm. While one church will proclaim that a woman cutting her hair could put her in jeopardy of hell, another does not. One church teaches men are to be clean shaven and the next allows facial hair. One church teaches you may wear a wedding ring and the one in the next town forbids it. They try to wiggle around these inconsistencies by claiming each pastor has the authority to set the standards in their church as they see fit. Yet if what they teach is truly “those traditions found in the Word of God,” then why would there be all these differences between their churches? Claiming these outward standards are based on traditions found in the Bible is incorrect. We find no Scriptures giving specifics on sleeve length, no prohibition against jewelry or make-up, or pants on women, etc., yet we are to believe that all they teach is spelled out in the Bible.

“Our critics, on the other hand, often look no different than the world. Maybe they have chosen to ignore the scriptural principles of modest dress.” Note the assumption made by the author. If you don’t see it as they do, then you’ve chosen to ignore what the Bible clearly teaches and of course you must be dressing immodestly. Then those who disagree are linked to ‘the world.’ I will point out again that their men often look no different than men in ‘the world.’ Where in Scripture is it taught that in dress Christians must look different from those around us? I don’t see any mention where Jesus or the disciples dressed any differently from the other people. Nor do we read something like, “And the people of Galatia immediately knew they were Christians because they dressed in a much different manner than the people who did not know Christ.” If there were such a difference in how Jesus dressed, Judas wouldn’t have needed to point him out as he did when he betrayed him, but would have explained how they would recognize him by the difference in his attire.

“Or maybe their definition of modesty is not much different from the world’s definition. Evidently, they have ignorantly or willingly chosen to follow the worldly traditions of fallen humanity.” Here is yet another negative assumption. It is interesting how it must be one or the other and not that some may simply view the issue differently than they do.

The Handbook of Life in Bible Times by J.A. Thompson states, “For all their piety, they placed great burdens of religious obligation on the ordinary people. They had lost the spirit of the law and turned devotion into a system. God became to them almost a machine, bound to bless the person who carried out the right rituals at the right time. Jesus’ concept of God, however, was of a loving Father who cared for people and provided for their needs, and who asked to be loved and obeyed from the heart and not simply to be recognized by outward and often empty ritual.” The name Pharisees implies ‘the separated ones.’ They wanted to be noticed when they prayed and wanted the best seats in the synagogue and at banquets. They made sure to look somewhat different (by broadening their phylacteries and lengthening their tassels) so they would stand out and be noticed. Jesus taught against them and told the people to beware of their teachings. He said they placed heavy burdens upon people. They defined God’s laws, when God did not state those things, such as dictating what constituted work on the Sabbath and what didn’t. Don’t these things sound like what the United Pentecostal Church has done?

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 3

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 1

I was reading an article which appeared in the September 1996 Pentecostal Herald (now called Pentecostal Life, the official magazine of the United Pentecostal Church) which addressed the issue of whether Apostolics (Oneness Pentecostals) were Pharisees. The author gave 29 points as to why they were not, the majority of which do not relate to anything I have ever seen applied to them in regard with being Pharisaical. For instance, he mentions the Pharisees were outraged that Jesus healed on the Sabbath–and of course, Apostolics wouldn’t do likewise. (Yet if some stayed home on a church night, there are Apostolics who would become enraged.)

The article was entitled Are Apostolics Pharisees? and was written by Gary R. Trzcinski, an ordained minister in the UPCI. How would you respond to the following?

Pharisees dressed for the approval of their culture. The scribes (probably including many Pharisees) arrogantly walked through the markets in their long-flowing, extravagant robes (Luke 20:46). The other Jews were impressed by the Pharisees’ status and power exemplified in the clothes they wore. Apostolics in modern Western cultures, on the other hand, are often criticized and harassed for their modest-length apparel and gender-distinctive clothing. It would be much easier to surrender to the sensual trends of the world, but we have chosen rather to submit to the Word of God (Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 47:1-3; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-5). The Pharisees dressed for the approval of their culture; Apostolics dress for the approval of God.

While some may believe this, is it what we see? Do we see people in the UPC dressing this way in order to avoid the wrath of others within their church? Do we see them dressing this way in order to keep their position in the church or to not be viewed as backslid or in rebellion? How many there change their dress because of what others thought or because they didn’t want to take the chance that their salvation may rest upon their keeping these dress codes? If all this is taking place, how then is it dressing for the approval of God?

What he fails to note is that many Apostolics dress for the approval of their pastor and/or other church members. Some dress that way because they have been taught that to do otherwise will cause them to be lost. [While many will claim they do not teach standards as matters of salvation, the manner in which some teach them shows otherwise. One Apostolic recently demonstrated this when he wrote in a discussion board, “Holiness standards will not save you by themselves, but you will be lost without them.”] Others dress that way, not because they believe it is what God wants of them, but do so because they feel they must obey the pastor. Some do it simply to fit in with other church members. And there are others who follow these rules because they must in order to participate in certain church activities, like sing in the choir or teach Sunday School. To believe that all Apostolics follow these teachings “for the approval of God” is to be blind to all the other reasons.

“Apostolics in modern Western cultures, on the other hand, are often criticized and harassed for their modest-length apparel and gender-distinctive clothing.” I think that more so, people on the outside view some of their apparel as strange, old-fashioned, out of place and at times even immodest or dangerous. (Think climbing up ladders in a dress or skirt or swimming in jean skirts.) I don’t believe the average person goes around harassing them. In fact, their men don’t stand out from many in society. It’s the women that get hit the most with these outward teachings.

While some think people will be attracted by how the women stand out, it sometimes repels people. I am reminded of an incident that happened to a friend after they had left their Apostolic church. She was in a store one evening when she witnessed a woman from her former church verbally ripping into a clerk for doing what her manager said instead of doing what she demanded. After she left, my friend went up to the clerk hoping to say something that would let her know that it was OK and that she would stand up for her if need be. The clerk looked my friend up and down- she was still dressing like she had in her Apostolic church, just as the rude woman was- and she drew back with such pain and fear on her face.

Through the years I have also heard instances where Apostolics have treated wait staff at restaurants very poorly and were stingy with tips, sometimes not leaving anything or leaving a tract. I witnessed this myself with some members of my former UPCI church. Sometimes Apostolics will come in a large group to eat after a service, but not long before a restaurant is going to close. While they would recognize them coming by their clothing, employees would cringe when they saw them, knowing what was to come.

Of course these examples do not apply to every Apostolic. I personally have no problem with anyone who wishes to dress the way the UPC teaches; go right ahead. But don’t force it on others, don’t judge or look down on those who do not dress likewise, don’t teach these as biblical mandates, and don’t attach anyone’s salvation to following them. That is when these beliefs become problematic and abusive.

The person who wrote this article ignored the reason for the most criticism they receive. That is because of what I just shared about not teaching them as biblical mandates or forcing them on others, etc. In this manner, they are like the Pharisees. The Pharisees had additional rules and regulations for what God had set up. These were often placed on an equal or even higher level than the Scriptures. When you say things like “you will be lost without following these,” you are adding to what the Bible teaches and following in the footsteps of the Pharisees.

“It would be much easier to surrender to the sensual trends of the world, but we have chosen rather to submit to the Word of God (Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 47:1-3; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-5).”

I won’t address each of the verses presented as none of them teach their prohibitions. Note how when it comes to things of ‘the world’ they can pick and choose. TV was a big no-no, but grab that computer and go into cyberspace. The same reasoning they used to ban TV can be used for the Internet and computers–and even to a greater extent. When ministers were not permitted to own a television set, some did anyway, hiding it in their home and yet teaching against it in services.

They aren’t supposed to be going to Hollywood produced movies, but many watch them on their phone or YouTube or rent the DVD. They aren’t supposed to be like the world and yet some will dress in expensive designer clothing (or worse yet, counterfeit items), use Coach handbags and wear alligator shoes. Some women wear things in their hair that would be condemned to wear as jewelry on their clothing or body.

There have been ministers which taught vehemently against certain things but when it came to their children, the rules changed. There have been women who have cut their hair, yet wear it up to conceal that fact. In this manner, they are once again like the Pharisees, guilty of hypocrisy.

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 2
The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 3

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.